Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MarkF]

... 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).

Drove through there today, there is what appears to be a real CA 1 marker on northbound PCH in front of the the Starbucks just south of Street of the Ruby Lantern.

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4662341,-117.7034623,3a,60y,330.93h,89.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sj7Bs-SXTtIDEHIlh5kza6w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[emory]

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.

I'd like to see the I-110 exit sign for CA 91 modified in the future to only indicate the route as going East. Right now it still says EAST / WEST even though the western stub is now a glorified exit ramp to Artesia Blvd and Vermont Ave.

[coatimundi]

I'd like to see the I-110 exit sign for CA 91 modified in the future to only indicate the route as going East. Right now it still says EAST / WEST even though the western stub is now a glorified exit ramp to Artesia Blvd and Vermont Ave.

That little stub is officially 91 though. It just ends almost right away at Vermont Avenue.
I would think it would cause more confusion to remove the 91 from the west-heading ramp signs. It's just been there for so long that it might throw people off.

[NE2]

SR 168 was never legislatively defined as a state highway across the Sierras...but the 1934 creation of sign routes included a piece there. (Note that not all sign routes were state-maintained at this time.)
SR 180 had a similar extension from Kings Canyon east to Independence.

SR 96 also had a gap, but by 1938 the west end was moved to Willow Creek. The gap is now SR 169, still incomplete.

[Occidental Tourist]

I'd like to see the I-110 exit sign for CA 91 modified in the future to only indicate the route as going East. Right now it still says EAST / WEST even though the western stub is now a glorified exit ramp to Artesia Blvd and Vermont Ave.

I agree.  There's also the issue of signage on the 91 west itself.  All it says is "End Freeway."  No indication that SR-91 is ending, that you're being dumped onto Artesia Blvd, or that Vermont is the next interchange/intersection.

[TheStranger]

I agree.  There's also the issue of signage on the 91 west itself.  All it says is "End Freeway."  No indication that SR-91 is ending, that you're being dumped onto Artesia Blvd, or that Vermont is the next interchange/intersection.

Thinking out loud:

Would some sort of signage encouraging drivers going to Redondo Beach to use 110 to 405 (instead of staying on Artesia westbound/decommissioned 91) be a good idea?  (Kinda like in Oakland where the old 980-to-880 signage at the Macarthur Maze was up while the Cypress freeway realignment/reconstruction was occurring, designed to discourage through traffic from using the surface Mandela Parkway/old Route 17/old Cypress Street).
 
Though last time I was on Artesia Boulevard west of 110 (2014?) there was a surprising amount of 91 shields remaining heading out towards Route 1 - more signage for 91 on the boulevard than there was at the time for Route 18 between Palmdale and US 395!

[Max Rockatansky]

SR 168 was never legislatively defined as a state highway across the Sierras...but the 1934 creation of sign routes included a piece there. (Note that not all sign routes were state-maintained at this time.)
SR 180 had a similar extension from Kings Canyon east to Independence.

SR 96 also had a gap, but by 1938 the west end was moved to Willow Creek. The gap is now SR 169, still incomplete.

I'm sure that's not the most accurate map ever, but it sure makes it look like 168 was a state highway to Florence Lake given that weird curvature matches Kaiser Pass Road.

[coatimundi]

I'd like to see the I-110 exit sign for CA 91 modified in the future to only indicate the route as going East. Right now it still says EAST / WEST even though the western stub is now a glorified exit ramp to Artesia Blvd and Vermont Ave.

I agree.  There's also the issue of signage on the 91 west itself.  All it says is "End Freeway."  No indication that SR-91 is ending, that you're being dumped onto Artesia Blvd, or that Vermont is the next interchange/intersection.

I love those "End" signs and wish that California was more consistent in their deployment. It's always surprising to see one.

[Occidental Tourist]

Thinking out loud:

Would some sort of signage encouraging drivers going to Redondo Beach to use 110 to 405 (instead of staying on Artesia westbound/decommissioned 91) be a good idea?  (Kinda like in Oakland where the old 980-to-880 signage at the Macarthur Maze was up while the Cypress freeway realignment/reconstruction was occurring, designed to discourage through traffic from using the surface Mandela Parkway/old Route 17/old Cypress Street).

I'd say so.  Before 91 was decommisioned west of the 110, I thought they should have rerouted it along the 110 and 405 to Artesia because back then that was a faster route than taking Artesia between the 405 and 110.  It's debatable whether it's still faster with today's traffic, but arguably out-of-town motorists trying to get to the beach would be more comfortable sitting in traffic on the 405 than on Artesia in Gardena.

[sparker]

Thinking out loud:

Would some sort of signage encouraging drivers going to Redondo Beach to use 110 to 405 (instead of staying on Artesia westbound/decommissioned 91) be a good idea?  (Kinda like in Oakland where the old 980-to-880 signage at the Macarthur Maze was up while the Cypress freeway realignment/reconstruction was occurring, designed to discourage through traffic from using the surface Mandela Parkway/old Route 17/old Cypress Street).

I'd say so.  Before 91 was decommisioned west of the 110, I thought they should have rerouted it along the 110 and 405 to Artesia because back then that was a faster route than taking Artesia between the 405 and 110.  It's debatable whether it's still faster with today's traffic, but arguably out-of-town motorists trying to get to the beach would be more comfortable sitting in traffic on the 405 than on Artesia in Gardena.

Caltrans' disdain for multiplexed routes -- particularly one that would require multiple transfer points such as from its own WB alignment to south 110 and then north 405, complete with appropriate signage -- would make such an arrangement unlikely.  Compounding this would be the fact that any singularly-signed western continuation of CA 91 would be along the Artesia Blvd. surface facility -- which is now relinquished.  Slim chances prior to relinquishment; not a chance today.

[ACSCmapcollector]

The 185 signage actually fits with the post-relinquishment route definition for the Hayward segment.

So I don't know that I was totally clear on where that signage is, but it's on the traffic signal at D Street on the southbound-only Mission Boulevard. So there is no 185 south of there. Even when there was, it was for another block. I guess it could be referring to the loop you can take to reach 185 north, but it seems like it'd be more appropriate to sign 238 if you're going to sogn a route there.

But, yeah, the relinquishments were absolutely related to the Hayward Loop. Maybe Caltrans said, "No, that's stupid and we are not going to be a part of it."

I would like to see that ridicoulous Interstate 238 sign removed between I-880 and I-580/CA 238 in the eastern San Francisco Bay area.


MOD NOTE: Removed double quote. —Roadfro.

[coatimundi]

I would like to see that ridicoulous Interstate 238 sign removed between I-880 and I-580/CA 238 in the eastern San Francisco Bay area.

But it is Interstate 238. Why would you remove a sign for a route that exists, especially an interstate?

[djsekani]

I'd like to see the I-110 exit sign for CA 91 modified in the future to only indicate the route as going East. Right now it still says EAST / WEST even though the western stub is now a glorified exit ramp to Artesia Blvd and Vermont Ave.

I agree.  There's also the issue of signage on the 91 west itself.  All it says is "End Freeway."  No indication that SR-91 is ending, that you're being dumped onto Artesia Blvd, or that Vermont is the next interchange/intersection.

Relinquished or not there are still signs all the way down to PCH for CA-91.

[oscar]

I would like to see that ridicoulous Interstate 238 sign removed between I-880 and I-580/CA 238 in the eastern San Francisco Bay area.

But it is Interstate 238. Why would you remove a sign for a route that exists, especially an interstate?

If the issue is that I-238 exists, search Fictional Highways for multiple proposals (some more comic than others) to renumber that freeway. If CA 238 were to be completely relinquished, that would remove one excuse for retaining the I-238 number.

[coatimundi]

Thinking out loud:

Would some sort of signage encouraging drivers going to Redondo Beach to use 110 to 405 (instead of staying on Artesia westbound/decommissioned 91) be a good idea?  (Kinda like in Oakland where the old 980-to-880 signage at the Macarthur Maze was up while the Cypress freeway realignment/reconstruction was occurring, designed to discourage through traffic from using the surface Mandela Parkway/old Route 17/old Cypress Street).

I'd say so.  Before 91 was decommisioned west of the 110, I thought they should have rerouted it along the 110 and 405 to Artesia because back then that was a faster route than taking Artesia between the 405 and 110.  It's debatable whether it's still faster with today's traffic, but arguably out-of-town motorists trying to get to the beach would be more comfortable sitting in traffic on the 405 than on Artesia in Gardena.

So, driving 405 today, I never realized that 91 was signed on the Artesia Boulevard signs, both BGS and sequential. The sequential at least said "West" on it, so as not to confuse people with the Artesia Freeway.
But am I stupid or does 91 not even exist there?

[emory]

Thinking out loud:

Would some sort of signage encouraging drivers going to Redondo Beach to use 110 to 405 (instead of staying on Artesia westbound/decommissioned 91) be a good idea?  (Kinda like in Oakland where the old 980-to-880 signage at the Macarthur Maze was up while the Cypress freeway realignment/reconstruction was occurring, designed to discourage through traffic from using the surface Mandela Parkway/old Route 17/old Cypress Street).

I'd say so.  Before 91 was decommisioned west of the 110, I thought they should have rerouted it along the 110 and 405 to Artesia because back then that was a faster route than taking Artesia between the 405 and 110.  It's debatable whether it's still faster with today's traffic, but arguably out-of-town motorists trying to get to the beach would be more comfortable sitting in traffic on the 405 than on Artesia in Gardena.

So, driving 405 today, I never realized that 91 was signed on the Artesia Boulevard signs, both BGS and sequential. The sequential at least said "West" on it, so as not to confuse people with the Artesia Freeway.
But am I stupid or does 91 not even exist there?

91 no longer exists on Artesia Blvd.

[mrsman]

Thinking out loud:

Would some sort of signage encouraging drivers going to Redondo Beach to use 110 to 405 (instead of staying on Artesia westbound/decommissioned 91) be a good idea?  (Kinda like in Oakland where the old 980-to-880 signage at the Macarthur Maze was up while the Cypress freeway realignment/reconstruction was occurring, designed to discourage through traffic from using the surface Mandela Parkway/old Route 17/old Cypress Street).

I'd say so.  Before 91 was decommisioned west of the 110, I thought they should have rerouted it along the 110 and 405 to Artesia because back then that was a faster route than taking Artesia between the 405 and 110.  It's debatable whether it's still faster with today's traffic, but arguably out-of-town motorists trying to get to the beach would be more comfortable sitting in traffic on the 405 than on Artesia in Gardena.

So, driving 405 today, I never realized that 91 was signed on the Artesia Boulevard signs, both BGS and sequential. The sequential at least said "West" on it, so as not to confuse people with the Artesia Freeway.
But am I stupid or does 91 not even exist there?

91 no longer exists on Artesia Blvd.

Technically true, but based on the existing BGS, this is somewhat confusing:

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8726477,-118.2710787,3a,75y,280.68h,81.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smyMzli71X3LpIERCnbROgA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656


There should be no more signs of 91 on BGS west of the 110.  The signs should indicate "Artesia Blvd" without referencing a highway number.  Also, the control city for I-110 south to 405 should be "San Pedro/Santa Monica", not just "San Pedro".  This will encourage traffic heading to 405 north and the upper beach cities from using the 405 and staying off the local streets.

[coatimundi]

There should be no more signs of 91 on BGS west of the 110.  The signs should indicate "Artesia Blvd" without referencing a highway number.  Also, the control city for I-110 south to 405 should be "San Pedro/Santa Monica", not just "San Pedro".  This will encourage traffic heading to 405 north and the upper beach cities from using the 405 and staying off the local streets.

Well, this is the BGS I was referring to. There's absolutely no reason for it to be there. But there are several others if you keep going.
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8669248,-118.3338901,3a,75y,306.66h,87.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1segc-x16TqarhyxbtY1zM6g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Meanwhile, the southbound side has this as well, and it's much more confusing, as the "Artesia" coupled with the route number (what the freeway is usually called) reinforces that it will lead drivers to the freeway.
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.872916,-118.3425228,3a,75y,156.41h,80.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srUmiCt_GPS-PWtdBCLT42A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I suppose Santa Monica on the initial BGS for the ramp to 110 on 91 westbound would make sense since the 405 is also signed there.

[pderocco]

Someone mentioned CA-169 along the Klamath River, which exists in two separate pieces. But there is another split road in that part of the state, which is CA-162. It goes from US-101 in Longvale to Indian Dick Rd in Sherburns, and then becomes the dirt Forest Route 7 over Mendocino Pass, after which CA-162 returns from Rd 307 NW of Elk Creek across the Central Valley ending just E of Lake Oroville.

[pderocco]

SR 168 was never legislatively defined as a state highway across the Sierras...but the 1934 creation of sign routes included a piece there. (Note that not all sign routes were state-maintained at this time.)
SR 180 had a similar extension from Kings Canyon east to Independence.

That's the first map I've ever seen that actually showed a proposed connections for 168.

However, the official state maps showed the proposed 190 for years. http://www.davidrumsey.com has those from 1926 to 1970, and 190 appears in 1934, going over Horseshoe Meadow Rd into Lone Pine, so I wonder if it was ever signed as such. The routing was changed to Olancha in 1960, which didn't involve any 10000+ foot passes, and then to an even lower pass near Haiwee in 1966.

Also check out this fragment of a SoCal Auto Club map: http://www.historicalroadmaps.com/CaliforniaPage/DeathValleyPage/ (the one on the right). It shows Onion Valley Rd out of Independance as CA-180. I wonder if it was actually signed.

[Max Rockatansky]

SR 168 was never legislatively defined as a state highway across the Sierras...but the 1934 creation of sign routes included a piece there. (Note that not all sign routes were state-maintained at this time.)
SR 180 had a similar extension from Kings Canyon east to Independence.

That's the first map I've ever seen that actually showed a proposed connections for 168.

However, the official state maps showed the proposed 190 for years. http://www.davidrumsey.com has those from 1926 to 1970, and 190 appears in 1934, going over Horseshoe Meadow Rd into Lone Pine, so I wonder if it was ever signed as such. The routing was changed to Olancha in 1960, which didn't involve any 10000+ foot passes, and then to an even lower pass near Haiwee in 1966.

Also check out this fragment of a SoCal Auto Club map: http://www.historicalroadmaps.com/CaliforniaPage/DeathValleyPage/ (the one on the right). It shows Onion Valley Rd out of Independance as CA-180. I wonder if it was actually signed.

With the 190 stuff I think you are referring to the 1938 State Highway Map here:

http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239588~5511892:Road-Map-of-the-State-of-California?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=69&trs=86

Interestingly 180 is shown as being routed over Panoche Road whereas later maps show it only as a proposed extension of the route.  I'm fairly certain it was the "CA 245 and other weird state highways" thread where 180 was discussed more in length....I know that I touched on it on "Max's Roads."  Another fun 180 fact for you; it used to run on Dunlap Road east of Fresno which you can see in the above map.  That meant that CA 65 ended at Dunlap while 180 continued up north at General Grant Grove from here:

http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh630/MadMaxRockatansky73/IMG_8056_zpscdzwtyzv.jpg

So essentially from Dunlap Road north to modern CA 180 has carried four state highway numbers; CA 180, CA 65, CA 69, and CA 245...it has to be high on the list of one of the most recycled pieces of road state maintained roadways. 

Speaking of CA 168, I did a lot of research on the road a couple months back which included Tollhouse Road, north shore Huntington Lake Road conjecture, and even even Kaiser Pass Road.  You can find all of it on Reply #49 here:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18621.25

CA 190 should have ended up taking M107, M50, M99, Sherman Pass Road, and J41 once they got built up then paved.  The problem with that happening is that the Forest Service built those roads and it would require a long multiplex from Nine Mile Canyon/J41 to gap the route...which is close to impossible to do in a post 1964 renumbering and California Division of Highways world.  I'm pretty sure Quillz and I talked about maybe trying to contact someone in the Forest Service about changing the routes above to FR190.  J41 isn't signed in the field...I'm not sure if it ever was but that would involve contacting Tulare and Inyo County about a CR190.  I might actually send the Forest Service something today given that I'm up already and kind of bored..

[NE2]

Also: http://archive.org/stream/califvol4546orniahighwa6667calirich#page/n77/mode/2up

Unfortunately there's no detailed map of the route between Quaking Aspen and Haiwee Pass. You'd have to go through CHC records from fall 1965.

[Quillz]

I'm curious if any sort of detailed map would exist at all. My understanding is the CA-190 crossing through the Sierra was more or less just a line on paper and nothing more. The traversable segment today is realistically the only thing that would ever become a CA-190 segment. I stated before the last time I drove through that portion of the Sierra, around October or so, the roadway was in pretty good condition. Except around Kennedy Meadows, where its narrow and the striping was poor. But otherwise, especially around Sherman Pass, there is a very good quality road (but obviously wouldn't be usable in the winter).

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm curious if any sort of detailed map would exist at all. My understanding is the CA-190 crossing through the Sierra was more or less just a line on paper and nothing more. The traversable segment today is realistically the only thing that would ever become a CA-190 segment. I stated before the last time I drove through that portion of the Sierra, around October or so, the roadway was in pretty good condition. Except around Kennedy Meadows, where its narrow and the striping was poor. But otherwise, especially around Sherman Pass, there is a very good quality road (but obviously wouldn't be usable in the winter).

Funny how the Tulare County maintained portions are in rough shape but not so much for the Forest Service and Inyo County.  I'm fairly certain the portion near Kennedy Meadows you are talking about is east out to the Inyo County Line.  Sherman Pass Road is in fantastic shape sans some really old signage that is probably original to the route.  Nine Mile Canyon Road on the Inyo side is the only one lane portion and it is very brief but well maintained.  Interesting to see a map with even the detail above in NE2's post for Olancha Pass regardless.  I find it odd how much effort Tulare County made in improving all those Mountain Routes like M50, M56, M99, and M107 when it really wasn't necessary aside from maybe when Johnsondale when in it's timber cutting prime.

[cahwyguy]

I'm curious if any sort of detailed map would exist at all.

Phrase your question differently. I'm sure that somewhere in the history library at Caltrans, where they keep the records on each route, there are maps. That's a very different question from whether non-employees could get to the map (and more to the point, whether it would make a difference). There are many fanciful ideas for routes, both within Caltrans and out on these forums. Most don't have a realistic chance of being either constructed or constructable.