AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them  (Read 23890 times)

sdmichael

Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
« Reply #75 on: September 24, 2016, 03:30:04 PM »

TL:DR - what is it you're looking for? Better signage? Contact Caltrans. Are you also calling those that disagree blatantly stupid or willfully ignorant? If so, that ends now. Blatant condescension is also inappropriate.
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3749
  • Last Login: November 21, 2019, 02:18:56 PM
Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
« Reply #76 on: September 24, 2016, 03:42:21 PM »

On that note, there's a funny situation up here in San Jose:  While CA 82 legally terminates at the I-880/The Alameda interchange near the Santa Clara city line, there is a lone "straggler " CA 82 shield southbound (actually, eastward) on The Alameda a few blocks east of Race Street -- well within the relinquished portion -- and it's not an old  shield -- it's a 3d shield with "82" centered within -- but it's the only one anywhere along the relinquished route (although the BGS's on CA 87 reference it on the San Carlos Ave. exits).  Given the lack of "end" signage at the 880/82 junction, this seems like the feeblest attempt yet to effect continuation signage over a former alignment. 

Route 82 is still signed off of Route 87 as well!  (Similarly, Route 91 is signed off of Interstate 405 AND shields remain on the route west of I-110, even though that is not officially a state highway anymore.  Still a pretty useful connector to Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach though)

I'm just of the mind that route signing really should exist for the navigational benefit of the public (so on the same page with you and Max for this)

So if a route becomes discontinuous, they shouldn't both have the same number.  Other states do have split routes like this but I've never seen this as rational - if a highway is signed for a certain number, the expectation should be that signage goes from Point A to Point B with no breaks.
Logged
Chris Sampang

myosh_tino

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2714
  • Silicon Valley Roadgeek

  • Age: 45
  • Location: Cupertino, CA
  • Last Login: October 30, 2019, 02:41:18 PM
    • Silicon Valley Roads @ Markyville.com
Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
« Reply #77 on: September 24, 2016, 05:44:03 PM »

On that note, there's a funny situation up here in San Jose:  While CA 82 legally terminates at the I-880/The Alameda interchange near the Santa Clara city line, there is a lone "straggler " CA 82 shield southbound (actually, eastward) on The Alameda a few blocks east of Race Street -- well within the relinquished portion -- and it's not an old  shield -- it's a 3d shield with "82" centered within -- but it's the only one anywhere along the relinquished route (although the BGS's on CA 87 reference it on the San Carlos Ave. exits).  Given the lack of "end" signage at the 880/82 junction, this seems like the feeblest attempt yet to effect continuation signage over a former alignment.

In this case, there shouldn't be any "continuation signage" because Route 82 ends at I-880.  Route 82 is not discontinuous because there is no southern continuation.
Logged
Quote from: golden eagle
If I owned a dam and decided to donate it to charity, would I be giving a dam? I'm sure that might be a first because no one really gives a dam.

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6109
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:45:09 AM
Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
« Reply #78 on: September 24, 2016, 09:30:46 PM »

TL:DR - what is it you're looking for? Better signage? Contact Caltrans. Are you also calling those that disagree blatantly stupid or willfully ignorant? If so, that ends now. Blatant condescension is also inappropriate.
Calm down!  I'm referring to public agencies that seem to be blissfully ignorant of the fact that routes are not being signed despite the legal obligation to do so.  I'm certainly not being condescending to any posters to this or any thread; my ire and disapproval, such as it is, is directed to those who are in a position to make a difference.  I'll always be open to other viewpoints -- and always hoping that my own are respected and not in & of themselves subject to condescending replies by others (which has not always been the case!).  Except for the frivolity that often appears in the fictional section, all posts and posters have value -- even the ones that counter one's own opinion or conclusions.  When I started posting earlier this year, it was with the assumption that a thick skin is needed to ward off the expected thrown brickbats; a couple of minor bruises later, no major damage has occurred -- I intend to be around for a while!     
Logged

Occidental Tourist

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 368
  • Last Login: October 29, 2019, 12:22:24 PM
Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
« Reply #79 on: September 24, 2016, 10:18:55 PM »

I agree with Sparker.  It's not disrespectful to expect local governments or state governments to perform the services they are allocated tax revenue to perform or for citizens to express consternation when they don't.  The express terms of relinquishment agreements include maintenance of signs for the motoring public. Maintenance of those signs is also codified.  If the local governments aren't fulfilling the terms of their relinquishment agreements, Caltrans should be seeking to enforce them.  On many routes, they are not.  Caltrans deserves the criticism they are getting in this thread for not holding those local governments to those agreements.

As for contacting Caltrans ourselves, I've contacted District 12 twice about signing issues, and have never gotten the courtesy of an acknowledgement or a response much less seeing the error fixed.  I've represented local government agencies for years, and I've come to learn that for many, responsiveness to the public is a low priority.  My experiences with the local Caltrans office is consistent with that.

On this board, a Caltrans employee contacted District 7 about major errors on a sign replacement contract last year and only got them to acknowledge and fix about a third of the issues identified.  If a Caltrans employee can only get a middling response, why would anyone here take the admonishment to contact Caltrans seriously?
Logged

sdmichael

Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
« Reply #80 on: September 24, 2016, 10:41:07 PM »

Here is the context:

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 23, 2016, 10:50:19 PM
Thank god someone else doesn't think the status quo is some sort of "absolute."  :-D

Quote from: Sparker
And we thank you for your support!  We "radical utilitarians" (not an oxymoron!) occasionally need to rail against the blatantly stupid and willfully ignorant!

None of which states who the "blatantly stupid and willfully ignorant" is directed toward. Sparkers posts, at times, have come off as rather condescending and "word of God", something I have not appreciated. He may have knowledge of things, but his knowledge is not the end-all-be-all of knowledge, nor is my own. If you wish to call out someone or something as "blatantly stupid and willfully ignorant", make sure you state who or what that is directed toward. From the context of the conversation previous, it seemed directed to not only myself but others posting, something which is NOT warranted nor tolerated.

The bulk of this "lack of signage" issue most likely also stems from a lack of knowledge by the agencies involved. That is why there are websites devoted to letting them know of maintenance issues. They, being the agencies involved, have quite a bit of infrastructure to maintain. They may not always be aware of their deficiencies. We, as the public, can help them by informing them directly, not complaining on some random Internet site which is not connected to them.

The government, and the agencies of the government, aren't some mythical being. They are made up of the same people as you and I. They also represent us and the agencies we speak of here are also quite willing to listen to us. Got a problem with the signage, let them know. I've had whole new signs posted as a result of e-mails to Caltrans. I may well be the one responsible for getting advanced signage for I-210 on I-5 at the SR-14 interchange. I have had two stop signs posted and other signage posted, simply from e-mails. Who am I? Just a member of the public. I have no "sway" other than that.

So no, don't tell me to "calm down".
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9722
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 09:32:04 AM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
« Reply #81 on: September 24, 2016, 10:50:11 PM »

I've been watching this thread pretty much all day to see where it goes.  Basically my conclusion is that things just went to hell over a whole bunch of misunderstandings.  For what it's worth...I'm going to bow out of this one while the getting is good since this is going somewhere I'm not interested in taking things.  I'll say this though, I didn't mean any offense by any opinions nor comments I may have posted here.  If something I said was taken out of context as somehow insulting that isn't what I intended.  So with that in mind....moving on the next thread, I think cahighwaysguy said it best when he said "we all share this hobby" on a recent thread of his.

andy3175

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1299
  • Location: San Diego, California, USA
  • Last Login: Today at 10:23:05 AM
    • AARoads
Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
« Reply #82 on: September 25, 2016, 12:13:27 AM »

I agree that there are misunderstandings as I read through this thread. My take, for what it's worth, is that there should be standards on signage related to signed state, county, and business routes regardless of the controlling jurisdiction. But I will now give a whole bunch of reasons why that is likely impractical and probably infeasible, even if I think that is a desirable outcome.

Since each jurisdiction (city, state, county) operates independently, it is difficult to achieve a level of consistency across all of them. So, I don't know how signage consistency can be achieved if there is no overarching entity that controls and regulates all of them on this matter.

County routes can be signed by the state, county, or city. Examples:

- CR S16 is signed from SR 76 in Pala on the mainline of SR 76. This is maintained by the state.
- CR S5 is signed in Rancho Bernardo by the city of San Diego and in Poway by the city of Poway. The county only maintains signage on its segment outside of city limits.
- CR S6 is signed in Escondido by the city of Escondido and in Valley Center by San Diego County. There are signs on Valley Parkway that announce where city maintenance ends and county maintenance begins, but the S signage is consistent all along this route.

Some California cities and counties have decided to stop maintaining signage for various signed routes for one of any number of reasons, such as obsolescence (Business 8 along El Cajon Blvd in San Diego and La Mesa is a route that has not been the "through" route to San Diego since construction of Interstate 8 in the 1960s and no longer serves as a reasonable alternative to the freeway), budget priorities (if a city or county is having difficulty making budget ends meet, it will stop performing certain maintenance tasks if there are no impacts on user safety; this might be why Tulare no longer signs or maintains any county route marker signage), stigma associated with the route (some designations may imply a lesser economic status for a given area or corridor that is to be redeveloped or given significant improvements, so in those cases, route markers may be removed, such as seen on segments of Business 205 in Tracy given streetscape improvements), and blissful ignorance and/or willful disregard for previously approved designations (in cases where a given route is no longer signed through a given jurisdiction, it may drop the route markers altogether especially if no one in a role of authority will tell them otherwise; for example, I challenge anyone to find SR 1 markers running through Dana Point other than the "alternate" route created by the elimination of a one-way couplet near downtown).

In my opinion, Caltrans is trying to prune back the system since its budget has been steadily losing funding (in large part due to the unchanged gas tax rate) and also because cities and counties want the urban routes back to make them friendlier for bicycles and pedestrians and public transit, which are noble goals that do not always comply with the state's mission for these roads (although the state is getting better). I can foresee a future where most street-level routes that pass through urban areas are given back to the various cities (and in some cases counties) through which those routes travel. Recent changes here in San Diego include removal of SR 209 and 274 (both legislatively decommissioned in 2001 and signage removed slowly over the span of 15 years, which 209 and 274 shields mostly gone within the last 3-4 years). I can see where additional relinquishments may include removal of SR 282, SR 75 through southern San Diego and Imperial Beach (and maybe Coronado), the remainder of SR 54 north of SR 94, and even SR 78 through Escondido (perhaps with the clause about keeping signage to direct through traffic).

Those are just my thoughts and certainly are not the way its going to be. I noted that some have been successful in contacting Caltrans and others have not. Given that I have not had much success, what is the best way to contact Caltrans? When I've contacted my local office (District 11) to report issues via email, I have received no response. The web link to the contact page is http://www.dot.ca.gov/contactus.html. Does email remain the best way, or is there a better way?
Logged
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

Quillz

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2513
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Last Login: July 24, 2019, 12:25:24 PM
Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
« Reply #83 on: September 25, 2016, 07:00:53 PM »

I've posted this ad nauseum by now, but I'll post it again: on paper, the only real issue I've ever had with the CA highway system is routes that terminate at arbitrary points like city limits, even more so if the route then begins again on the other side of the city limits (CA-90 comes to mind). The segment in between should still be signed as it were a state highway, even if it's only maintained locally. *If* this was done consistently, I'd have no issues with how things are now.

Navigation over legality, I say.
Logged
US Highways: 1 / 2 / 6 / 12 / 14 / 16 / 18 / 20 / 26 / 30 / 50 / 64 / 66 / 84 / 85 / 87 / 91 / 93 / 95 / 97 / 99 / 101 / 189 / 191 / 201 / 285 / 287 / 385 / 395
Interstate Highways: 5 / 10 / 15 / 17 / 25 / 40 / 45 / 70 / 80 / 84 / 89 / 90 / 93 / 95

silverback1065

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3023
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Indianapolis
  • Last Login: November 20, 2019, 06:30:36 PM
Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
« Reply #84 on: September 26, 2016, 10:46:29 AM »

I've posted this ad nauseum by now, but I'll post it again: on paper, the only real issue I've ever had with the CA highway system is routes that terminate at arbitrary points like city limits, even more so if the route then begins again on the other side of the city limits (CA-90 comes to mind). The segment in between should still be signed as it were a state highway, even if it's only maintained locally. *If* this was done consistently, I'd have no issues with how things are now.

Navigation over legality, I say.

you'd love indiana's highways. they're all kinds of fucked up around cities.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6109
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:45:09 AM
Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
« Reply #85 on: September 26, 2016, 08:55:02 PM »

None of which states who the "blatantly stupid and willfully ignorant" is directed toward. Sparkers posts, at times, have come off as rather condescending and "word of God", something I have not appreciated. He may have knowledge of things, but his knowledge is not the end-all-be-all of knowledge, nor is my own. If you wish to call out someone or something as "blatantly stupid and willfully ignorant", make sure you state who or what that is directed toward. From the context of the conversation previous, it seemed directed to not only myself but others posting, something which is NOT warranted nor tolerated.

So no, don't tell me to "calm down".
Sorry for any misunderstanding; I might have clarified the direction of my admittedly snarky statement -- I have never had, nor will have, the intention of vilifying or dismissing any other posters, particularly those who elucidate valid points.  And if any of you out there in the forum think my posts occasionally come off as "word of God", that is not by intent -- beyond the fact that my background is in public policy analysis, and this is the type of writing used in research and/or position papers, of which I've written and submitted untold numbers, many to the agencies cited in various threads, and many to public and/or private entities seeking to have their particular projects placed on an agenda somewhere (and most of which are confidential!).  So if I drone on, crossing all the T's and dotting all the I's as necessary, please bear with me -- it's "what I do"! 

Having dealt with public agencies over the past three decades or so, I certainly understand their occasional lapses of attention -- particularly when they get so much input from so many sources -- that they find it hard to address every issue that comes before them, resulting in many things for which they have ultimate responsibility falling through the cracks.  Like everyone in the public sector, they have to prioritize -- that's a given!  But it seems that if an agency consistently "falls down" in regards to a particular issue,  as Caltrans seems to do with signage these days (even on extant state facilities), and acknowledgement of such seems not to be forthcoming, then forums such as this, albeit not an official conduit, can serve as a collection point for examples and instances, so those posters in a localized position to lodge complaints or observations can not only cite examples particularly pertinent to them, but also bolster their arguments by citing examples in other locations where similar discrepancies are found. 

I'm basically a "glass-half-full" kind of guy -- if, in my analysis,  something can be done to improve a situation, I'd rather voice that viewpoint rather than take a more negative or cynical approach.  That's not going to change.
Logged

coatimundi

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 788
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Marina, CA
  • Last Login: May 12, 2017, 12:42:29 AM
Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
« Reply #86 on: September 27, 2016, 06:34:42 PM »

Off-topic, but I should say that I personally appreciate any unsolicited information. Whether or not I am personally aware or unaware of what's being written is irrelevant in a public forum setting, because someone else may not know it. If you've ever seen the stats for boards like these - and maybe this one is very different - there are a lot of lurkers out there. A lot of people just like to read. And nothing in here is reserved for the well-informed in terms of any subject matter, from my perspective. As long as the topics stay on the subject of roads, any level of specificity or generality is, IMHO, totally acceptable. I think even a question like "What routes does Interstate 5 intersect in California?" is completely legitimate, even if it just brings a link to the Wikipedia page that shows the information.
I should also add that this idea that one should not be complaining about something in lieu of contacting a responsible agency is, I think, a bit ridiculous. I mean, it's just a discussion topic. I appreciate coming in here and seeing content. If everyone contacted Caltrans about what irks them or confuses them, then there would be very little content, I would think.

I say, Sparker, please keep it up. I enjoy your posts, and I don't think I'm alone on that. Just a bit of positivity.
Logged

sdmichael

Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
« Reply #87 on: September 27, 2016, 07:10:28 PM »

Those are just my thoughts and certainly are not the way its going to be. I noted that some have been successful in contacting Caltrans and others have not. Given that I have not had much success, what is the best way to contact Caltrans? When I've contacted my local office (District 11) to report issues via email, I have received no response. The web link to the contact page is http://www.dot.ca.gov/contactus.html. Does email remain the best way, or is there a better way?

This is a page I posted on my site a while back to assist others in contacting various local agencies -

http://socalregion.com/highways/socal-highway-resources/

If it is a city you need to contact - here is a list of all the incorporated cities and counties in Southern California -

http://socalregion.com/civic-information/

While it focuses on Southern California (the focus of my site), it does have contacts for Caltrans, a statewide agency. Through those links I have been able to get signage reposted (such as Grand Army of the Republic Highway signs that went missing), potholes filled, new signs added, signs modified, stop signs added, striping corrected, curbing painted, parking spots added/removed, traffic signals adjusted, brush cleared, streets cleaned, and much more. All it takes is an e-mail. One of my most recent projects is to get the signage on SB State 163 modified at I-8 where there is a sign stating "South 163 Left Lanes". I'm working to make it "Left 2 Lanes" instead, similar to a sign further south, to better assist motorists through that interchange. I may well have been the one to have advanced signage added for I-210 on I-5 where the 5 NB to 14 NB ramp goes over the 5. You'd be amazed what you can accomplish.

Personally, I'd rather be getting things done than complaining about how "bad" it is on a site that can do nothing about it. Contacting the proper agency can get things done. Sometimes being persistent is necessary, sometimes it is a simple as one e-mail. It is also far easier and better than trying to come up with some extra system to satisfy ... whatever that idea was. If signage is lacking due to a relinquishment, it really doesn't serve the public nor the agencies involved to repost signs for a route that no longer exists. I'd rather see my tax dollars go toward something that does exist.

So, if there is missing signage, contact the proper agency and get it fixed. It is really that simple.
Logged

Occidental Tourist

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 368
  • Last Login: October 29, 2019, 12:22:24 PM
Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
« Reply #88 on: September 28, 2016, 01:51:59 AM »

So, if there is missing signage, contact the proper agency and get it fixed. It is really that simple.

Except, as I and many others have attested, we've tried and it doesn't work.  So repeating a platitude in response to others describing actual experiences that have been futile tends to be polarizing at best and dismissive at worst.  Although I rarely like to engage in criticisms of other posters, I've found this remark of yours and past remarks on this subject to be increasingly intemperate.

Plus, there's also a greater philosophical question being ignored: We who have the interest and the knowledge to post observations on this board about the obligations of state and local governments to provide helpful signage to the motoring public are statistically insignificant in terms of the total citizenry who relies upon or benefits from well-designed and implemented highway signage.  Isn't there something fundamentally wrong if the system has degraded to a point where it requires a self-selected and unusually interested few just to get government to perform a basic public task?
Logged

sdmichael

Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
« Reply #89 on: September 28, 2016, 02:55:42 AM »

How is it then, if it is so difficult, have I been able to do what I've done with simple e-mails and forms? You can just throw your hands up and say it doesn't work, or you can try again (or harder). I don't expect ANY agency to have constant knowledge of all their signs or infrastructure. Some agencies are easier to deal with than others.

How is it a "self-selected and unusually interested few"? All of the sites I have linked to are public knowledge and easy to access. Some agencies have even taken to creating phone apps, such as San Diego. Los Angeles has a very good site with a map describing the status of all their requests. Caltrans has responded to most of my requests with a good amount of success at that. I've managed to get TWO stop signs installed just through two e-mails/forms in the city of San Diego. I'm not special, just a member of the public. I didn't have to go through anything special for them. I've had two signs replaced in the past week as well.

I'm not, however, going to give in to the fatalist or cynical attitude that the agencies are just simply unwilling and difficult to deal with. The system hasn't degraded. It is even easier than before to contact these agencies to get something fixed. These agencies are willing to help, it is their job to do so. I've dealt with quite a few people in those agencies and all have been quite helpful. So yeah, I will keep repeating that it is possible to get results and to go through the proper channels to get those results instead of complaining about how "bad" it is. It is that simple.

Caltrans Report a Maintenance Problem http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/maint/msrsubmit/ - Use to get potholes filled, signs replaced, etc
Caltrans Report a Traffic or Work Zone Problem  http://www.dot.ca.gov/paffairs/pioform.html - Use to get signs installed, striping changed, etc.

I've had great success with both those sites. Both are sites I have linked on my website in order to help the general public.
Logged

andy3175

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1299
  • Location: San Diego, California, USA
  • Last Login: Today at 10:23:05 AM
    • AARoads
Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
« Reply #90 on: September 29, 2016, 12:02:58 AM »

Caltrans Report a Maintenance Problem http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/maint/msrsubmit/ - Use to get potholes filled, signs replaced, etc
Caltrans Report a Traffic or Work Zone Problem  http://www.dot.ca.gov/paffairs/pioform.html - Use to get signs installed, striping changed, etc.

I've had no problem with the local jurisdictions and municipalities, just Caltrans. I will try these two links. I have a couple of suggestions I plan to send their way. We'll see if I can get traction similar to that sdmichael got.
Logged
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

Occidental Tourist

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 368
  • Last Login: October 29, 2019, 12:22:24 PM
Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
« Reply #91 on: September 29, 2016, 06:43:21 PM »

I'm not going to belabor the point any longer of arguing with you over the ease or lack thereof of getting Caltrans to respond to complaints about signing issues.  I (and others) will say my experiences affirm they are non-responsive, and you will continue to counter with your experience that they are very responsive.  Short of each side repeatedly calling the other a liar, we won't convince you any more than you will convince us.  It's a shame though, because I have admired you for your SCV roadpage since I began visiting it in the late 90's, and I am extremely surprised with how confrontational and dismissive you've been with other posters on this particular topic, even in other threads (e.g., the 210, 14, 5 interchange thread).  Because we're not going to convince each other, unfortunately I'll leave this argument with the trite but applicable "agree to disagree."

How is it a "self-selected and unusually interested few"? All of the sites I have linked to are public knowledge and easy to access. Some agencies have even taken to creating phone apps, such as San Diego. Los Angeles has a very good site with a map describing the status of all their requests.

To clarify, most of the motoring public has no clue about the intricacies of signing requirements.  Many are completely unaware of the errors that are present, and do not have the interest that the hobbyists of this board do with either informing the responsible agencies or seeing those errors corrected.  With regard to the topic of this thread, I imagine the closest that most people come to being aware that many relinquished portions of highways are not being signed by local jurisdictions is the rare and random moment when signage for a highway disappears and the motorist thinks "where did that highway go?"  But in those rare instances, I can't imagine any motorist other than a hobbyist being motivated enough to then contact Caltrans or the local jurisdiction to complain about the missing signage.  That was the "self-selected and unusually interested few" to which I was referring.  Only roadgeeks have the background to understand that there's signage missing that should be reported.  The rest of the motoring public is going to be unaware and otherwise occupied to fulfill any reporting role.

Thus, I don't think it's realistic to believe that the vast majority of the public that uses California's highways are going to use any public agency reporting link to report what they might not even know are problems, e.g., I don't expect someone traveling from La Habra to Pico Rivera who encounters missing signage on a portions SR-72 to be inclined to or take the time to report that condition to either the local jurisdiction or Caltrans.  And thus I don’t believe it’s a reliable or appropriate public policy for our baseline approach to ensuring proper signage or maintenance will be “well, the public will report it if there’s a problem.”  Agencies should have the resources budgeted to do spot checks of these matters.  How much does it cost to have a Caltrans employee drive once a year down a designated highway and note the areas where local jurisdictions aren’t maintaining signage as they should under relinquishment agreements?  In my mind, it shouldn’t be prohibitively expensive, and as I’ve watched services in this state degrade over thirty years in other areas, I’d like to try to hold the state government agency that’s responsible for maintaining roads to at least a minimal standard of preemptively ensuring basic signage required under law and contract is present on those roadways.
                        
Adopting a philosophy of “squeaky wheel gets the grease” for infrastructure maintenance is a somewhat nihilistic view of what government should to provide to its citizens.  I have yet to succumb to it, but I'm getting there.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2016, 06:11:42 PM by Occidental Tourist »
Logged

djsekani

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 154
  • Location: Southern California
  • Last Login: November 07, 2019, 11:56:22 PM
Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
« Reply #92 on: September 29, 2016, 06:47:22 PM »

How is it then, if it is so difficult, have I been able to do what I've done with simple e-mails and forms? You can just throw your hands up and say it doesn't work, or you can try again (or harder). I don't expect ANY agency to have constant knowledge of all their signs or infrastructure. Some agencies are easier to deal with than others.

How is it a "self-selected and unusually interested few"? All of the sites I have linked to are public knowledge and easy to access. Some agencies have even taken to creating phone apps, such as San Diego. Los Angeles has a very good site with a map describing the status of all their requests. Caltrans has responded to most of my requests with a good amount of success at that. I've managed to get TWO stop signs installed just through two e-mails/forms in the city of San Diego. I'm not special, just a member of the public. I didn't have to go through anything special for them. I've had two signs replaced in the past week as well.

I'm not, however, going to give in to the fatalist or cynical attitude that the agencies are just simply unwilling and difficult to deal with. The system hasn't degraded. It is even easier than before to contact these agencies to get something fixed. These agencies are willing to help, it is their job to do so. I've dealt with quite a few people in those agencies and all have been quite helpful. So yeah, I will keep repeating that it is possible to get results and to go through the proper channels to get those results instead of complaining about how "bad" it is. It is that simple.

Caltrans Report a Maintenance Problem http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/maint/msrsubmit/ - Use to get potholes filled, signs replaced, etc
Caltrans Report a Traffic or Work Zone Problem  http://www.dot.ca.gov/paffairs/pioform.html - Use to get signs installed, striping changed, etc.

I've had great success with both those sites. Both are sites I have linked on my website in order to help the general public.

It could also be that District 11 is more responsive (or better funded) than some of the other ones. I tried to contact Caltrans in District 8 a few years ago about a broken traffic signal and got bounced through so many different people that I just gave up.
Logged

sdmichael

Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
« Reply #93 on: September 29, 2016, 10:41:59 PM »

I'm not going to belabor the point any longer of arguing with you over the ease or lack thereof of getting Caltrans to respond to complaints about signing issues.  I (and others) will say my experiences affirm they are non-responsive, and you will continue to counter with your experience that they are very responsive.  Short of each side repeatedly calling the other a liar, we won't convince you any more than you will convince us.  It's a shame though, because I have admired you for your SCV roadpage since I began visiting it in the late 90's, and I am extremely surprised with how confrontational and dismissive you've been with other posters on this particular topic, even in other threads (e.g., the 210, 14, 5 interchange thread).  Because we're not going to convince each other, unfortunately I'll leave this argument with the trite but applicable "agree to disagree."

I really thank you for being one-sided in this. In regards to the other thread, I also felt someone was being dismissive and confrontational about what they presented (sparker in particular) despite a lack of facts and understanding of the total picture, at least in how I felt. I vocalized my thoughts in this forum topic, to which I got a response. But please, place the blame all on me. Must be my problem, not an issue others have contributed to. I actually did research into the history and design of the interchange, not just coming up with suppositions and/or "how it needs to be". I even have the actual plans for the interchange, both pre-quake and post-quake. I also presented the proper medium to send ideas for proposed improvements to the interchange.

Must be me that is the problem here, telling people the proper place to go to help improve things for the rest of us. Must be me that is the problem trying to help the general public, as I have sought for more than 20 years. Guess all that was just me being dismissive and confrontational.

Calling each side a "liar"? I present my contributions and positive communications with these agencies and I'm the problem? Really? I call BS, pure and simple.

Maybe I'll just go back to no longer contributing to this forum as it would seem it is unneeded. You, and many others, are set in their ways about what is right and don't need my help. I just will not stand for the attitude that things are bad, government agencies suck and should do all my bidding, and don't listen to complaints. It simply isn't true and is BS. You say you can't get things done, I say you're wrong, and again, must be my problem.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2016, 11:29:24 PM by sdmichael »
Logged

myosh_tino

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2714
  • Silicon Valley Roadgeek

  • Age: 45
  • Location: Cupertino, CA
  • Last Login: October 30, 2019, 02:41:18 PM
    • Silicon Valley Roads @ Markyville.com
Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
« Reply #94 on: September 30, 2016, 03:31:47 AM »

On a related note regarding the responsiveness (or lack there of) at Caltrans, the advance exit sign for First Street in San Jose on south I-880 has had an incorrect exit number since the sign was installed in 2013 (GMSV: https://goo.gl/maps/fnekTEqMMM62).  This leads to me to believe one of two things…

Caltrans knows but hasn't done anything which goes to show the priority level of exit numbering.

*OR*

The general public doesn't give a flying flip about exit numbers on guide signs to the point that no one has bothered to notify Caltrans of the error.

I would tend to lean towards the latter.  It's my belief that us locals could care less whether an exit is numbered or not as we navigate primarily by road name or route number.  When new signs were installed on US 101 in Millbrae, an interchange sequence sign misspelled "Millbrae" by reversing the "a" and "e".  Complaints poured in to local TV and newspapers who, of course, relayed the error on to Caltrans.  Needless to say, the sign was fixed just a few days later.  Compare that response to the erroneous exit number sign I mentioned above. Three years later and it still hasn't been fixed.
Logged
Quote from: golden eagle
If I owned a dam and decided to donate it to charity, would I be giving a dam? I'm sure that might be a first because no one really gives a dam.

roadfro

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3829
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Reno, NV
  • Last Login: Today at 10:09:49 AM
Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
« Reply #95 on: September 30, 2016, 10:34:23 AM »

The 'back and forth' about the viewpoints and responses of other commenters in this thread has gone on long enough (it's bordering on insulting remarks aimed at other members, which is not allowed per the forum guidelines). Please move on.
Logged
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

coatimundi

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 788
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Marina, CA
  • Last Login: May 12, 2017, 12:42:29 AM
Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
« Reply #96 on: September 30, 2016, 12:23:59 PM »

Compare that response to the erroneous exit number sign I mentioned above. Three years later and it still hasn't been fixed.

This is a good point, and I think this gets down to the root of it.
Before you said it here, I was going to mention that the roads columns in newspapers are typically very effective at getting things done, because the agency's PIO (or whoever responds) knows that they need to answer the question. That's sometimes the best way to approach it, though it does have to meet that particular paper's standards of level of interest, and I would guess that an erroneous exit number may not make the cut. As for why a spelling error trumps an erroneous exit number, I would guess that either not enough people noticed the exit number, while people just generally love to feel smart by pointing out grammatical and spelling errors, especially when it's produced by a government agency.

Locally, I know that Bay Area drivers do not use exit numbers. However, visitors often do, because mapping programs do. But are visitors actually going to contact an appropriate agency or a local newspaper? Probably not. They may complain to their hotel or local hosts, but I would guess that they would mostly be written off as just not knowing the area.

BTW, regarding Bay Area exit numbers, I would love to see a pic posted of a really terrible sign that they have up on 580 eastbound just after the San Rafael bridge. At Marina Bay Parkway, the "10A" has been pasted onto the "EXIT" sign at the ramp, crammed in on a skinny, small font. I didn't have time to get a pic of it earlier this month, and GSV hasn't been updated enough for the change, but if anyone is in that area...
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6109
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:45:09 AM
Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
« Reply #97 on: September 30, 2016, 02:55:17 PM »

I have a basic "rule of thumb" in regards to signage on relinquished routes:  if they connect two or more unrelinquished sections of a particular state highway (e.g., CA 1 in Los Angeles County) then signage over the relinquished sections should, in accordance with legal requirements, be maintained -- hopefully by the jurisdiction maintaining the relinquished facility, but as a 2nd resort, Caltrans (maybe Caltrans can deploy the signs and let the local governmental body actually clean them off once in a while!). 

"Useless" relinquishments (such as CA 2 west of I-405) need not be signed as state highways at all; they aren't really needed for local or interregional navigation.  Also, a route that has little use due to the proximity of nearby freeways (e.g., CA 19/Rosemead/Lakewood Blvd.) need not be signed; its utility as a through state route was overtaken long ago by the flanking I-710 and I-605.  The only portion that even remotely serves as an independent route is the portion north of Whittier Narrows, which is actually/legally designated as CA 164.  IMO, if any signage was to be retained on the old "19" route, this section would be appropriate -  as CA 164 from CA 60 north to I-210.  But Rosemead Blvd. works as a local arterial sans numerical signage, so it is fully functional either way.

And a note to sdmichael:  Don't leave the forum!  Despite our differences of opinion, your contributions have been valuable and worthwhile.  Stick around -- I look forward to your future input -- and possibly occasionally arguing with you -- in a civil manner, of course. 
Logged

Occidental Tourist

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 368
  • Last Login: October 29, 2019, 12:22:24 PM
Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
« Reply #98 on: September 30, 2016, 06:41:11 PM »

I have a basic "rule of thumb" in regards to signage on relinquished routes:  if they connect two or more unrelinquished sections of a particular state highway (e.g., CA 1 in Los Angeles County) then signage over the relinquished sections should, in accordance with legal requirements, be maintained
"Useless" relinquishments (such as CA 2 west of I-405) need not be signed as state highways at all;

I agree about jettisoning most of the urban highway designations and not signing those except for the important interregional routes.  I remember when CalNEXUS was being implemented in the mid-2000's, I contacted District 7 to ask why SR-91 was starting with Exit 5 if the portion east of the 110 had been officially relinquished and removed from the highway system.  And some of us raised this issue again last year when the sign replacement contract for the 405 included SR 91 exit signage for Artesia.

I'm on the fence about 39. 
Logged

andy3175

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1299
  • Location: San Diego, California, USA
  • Last Login: Today at 10:23:05 AM
    • AARoads
Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
« Reply #99 on: October 01, 2016, 10:52:24 PM »

And a note to sdmichael:  Don't leave the forum!  Despite our differences of opinion, your contributions have been valuable and worthwhile.  Stick around -- I look forward to your future input -- and possibly occasionally arguing with you -- in a civil manner, of course. 

Second that... for the both of you! I have appreciated input from both sdmichael and sparker on the forum and would hate either to leave. And that doesn't even credit the rest of you who have participated in this thread and other west coast road discussions. Thank you!
Logged
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.