AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Arroyo Seco Parkway and the early western terminus points of US 66  (Read 1195 times)

sparker

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 5634
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:50:56 AM
Re: Arroyo Seco Parkway and the early western terminus points of US 66
« Reply #50 on: June 12, 2019, 07:14:13 PM »

^^^^^^^^^
When it comes to the "former" Business Loop 80 freeway sequence in Sacramento, it seems that D3, at least with the E-W portion of the loop (the old "W-X" freeway plus the Pioneer Bridge and the West Sacramento portion), has reverted to the "one road/one number" criterion introduced back in '64.  Unfortunately, continuity (particularly NB) on CA 99 has suffered as a result.  The first ramp sign on NB 99 at the Oak Park interchange is fine; it indicates that CA 99 takes the exit; the following sign at the split of the E & W ramps omits any CA 99 directional information and solely references US 50.  To me, that is unacceptable; at least a "TO CA 99" shield should be appended to that second sign for WB 50.  Since a traveler needs to make two 90-degree turns plus some multiplexed/silent running to access the two separate CA 99 segments, the precise routing needs to be clarified; that being said, CA 99 trailblazer signage is better southbound than northbound. 
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8816
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 01:27:15 AM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: Arroyo Seco Parkway and the early western terminus points of US 66
« Reply #51 on: June 13, 2019, 12:23:32 AM »

I could be wrong but I don’t believe the Legislative Route Numbers ever had anything pre-renumbering in their legislative description that dictated what they would be signed as.  Daniel probably could elaborate more on what the legislative minutes used to say regarding the matter. 

You aren't wrong; up to 1964 the only numbers that were legislatively "vetted" (more like "sign here" for routes submitted by the Division) were LRN's.   SSR's were decided jointly by the various districts and/or HQ in Sacramento; the decision to number and what the number would be could be initiated at either level; as long as Sacramento signed off on the decision.  That's one of the reasons why so many Valley connecting routes went unsigned until '64; the district offices didn't think overall navigation could be helped by signing certain routes -- and they didn't want to spend any additional manpower to post and maintain signage than was absolutely necessary.  Of course AASHTO (and its single-A predecessor) had something to say regarding US highways -- but for SSR's, it was solely at the discretion of the Division of Highways.

Of course, since 1964 all state highways are legislatively designated (and relinquished!), regardless of shield type!

I'd be curious to see how something that plays in other states.  It seems to me that having the flexibility for a local Caltrans district to decide on what a route would be signed as would be much more useful in a post-1964 numbering environment. 

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3629
  • Last Login: Today at 02:54:21 AM
Re: Arroyo Seco Parkway and the early western terminus points of US 66
« Reply #52 on: June 13, 2019, 11:09:12 AM »

I could be wrong but I don’t believe the Legislative Route Numbers ever had anything pre-renumbering in their legislative description that dictated what they would be signed as.  Daniel probably could elaborate more on what the legislative minutes used to say regarding the matter. 

You aren't wrong; up to 1964 the only numbers that were legislatively "vetted" (more like "sign here" for routes submitted by the Division) were LRN's.   SSR's were decided jointly by the various districts and/or HQ in Sacramento; the decision to number and what the number would be could be initiated at either level; as long as Sacramento signed off on the decision.  That's one of the reasons why so many Valley connecting routes went unsigned until '64; the district offices didn't think overall navigation could be helped by signing certain routes -- and they didn't want to spend any additional manpower to post and maintain signage than was absolutely necessary.  Of course AASHTO (and its single-A predecessor) had something to say regarding US highways -- but for SSR's, it was solely at the discretion of the Division of Highways.

Of course, since 1964 all state highways are legislatively designated (and relinquished!), regardless of shield type!

I'd be curious to see how something that plays in other states.  It seems to me that having the flexibility for a local Caltrans district to decide on what a route would be signed as would be much more useful in a post-1964 numbering environment. 

To that extent, relinquishments seem to be a direct result of the "shield = state maintenance" concept - cities want to maintain roads to urban standards (more bike lanes, decorative lighting, etc.) that don't always jive with CalTrans state highway standards, and most often (i.e. Route 160 between Freeport and Alkali Flat going through downtown Sacramento) this results in full shield removal.

But in comparison, US 101 along Van Ness Avenue in San Francisco has had a couple of years of work to provide new Bus Rapid Transit lanes  and yet is definitively staying under state maintenance!

One example IMO where local routing decisions could potentially be better than the existing state-maintained/signed route is out in Woodland, where Route 113 uses the old Route 24/Alternate US 40 pathway towards Knights Landing, even though the parallel Yolo County Road 102 is newer, faster, and more direct.

Another thought is the 70/99 routings in the Feather River area: with 99 no longer being considered for bypasses of cities like Live Oak and Gridley, 70/149 has been the primary corridor for through traffic the last few years; logically that would all be one number from Natomas to Oroville rather than 3.

And then there's Richmond Parkway, locally acknowledged as the corridor for proposed Route 93, but not signed as such as it is not state maintained at this time - though currently kept up to a higher standard than say, another East Bay arterial in Route 185!  It is a key connector between I-80 and I-580.

I always liked the example of Massachussetts, where route numbering signage is specifically not indicative of state maintenance at all (I've seen it mentioned on the forums how sections within towns have END STATE MAINTENANCE and BEGIN STATE MAINTENANCE signs).
Logged
Chris Sampang

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8816
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 01:27:15 AM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: Arroyo Seco Parkway and the early western terminus points of US 66
« Reply #53 on: June 13, 2019, 11:55:56 AM »

^^^

In that regard that's what I find so fascinating about the early signed highway era in California.  It was clear that a signed route was going to be signed where it was needed and not as a trailblazer for indicating something the state was maintaining.  Pre-1933 that was certainly true of the US Routes in the big cities but ever afterward there was certain state highways that definitely had signs posted on County maintained highways. 

To that end I've heard the notion that signage doesn't matter much for navigation anymore.  While that might be somewhat true to a degree in a sprawling suburban expanse it definitely is not the case in the more rural parts of the state.  There are plenty of places just in the Sierras alone that can't be found out of the blue without proper signage and a GPS won't necessarily help either.

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3629
  • Last Login: Today at 02:54:21 AM
Re: Arroyo Seco Parkway and the early western terminus points of US 66
« Reply #54 on: June 13, 2019, 12:43:08 PM »

^^^

In that regard that's what I find so fascinating about the early signed highway era in California.  It was clear that a signed route was going to be signed where it was needed and not as a trailblazer for indicating something the state was maintaining.  Pre-1933 that was certainly true of the US Routes in the big cities but ever afterward there was certain state highways that definitely had signs posted on County maintained highways. 

The US 66 posts/thread itself highlights this to some degree - it seems like signing US and state sign routes in the 1934-1936 period along city streets and county roads was a precursor to that policy change where state maintenance could be applied to urban areas after 1935 or so; essentially a placeholder period for navigational purposes, certainly to get people used to the routes being there in the first place.

With mapmikey's note that US 48 may have never been signed, I am now wondering like if there was a time period where US routes were signed pre-1934.
To that end I've heard the notion that signage doesn't matter much for navigation anymore.  While that might be somewhat true to a degree in a sprawling suburban expanse it definitely is not the case in the more rural parts of the state.  There are plenty of places just in the Sierras alone that can't be found out of the blue without proper signage and a GPS won't necessarily help either.

I still recall how odd it was to see no trailblazers for 128 between Monticello and Winters ca. 2009 or on 18 between Palmdale area and US 395 back in 2011-2012.  Those seem like exactly the type of rural road that benefits a ton from trailblazers.

In the early days post-renumbering (1964-1976) - as seen in those San Diego videos from 1970 - signage was certainly priority beyond anything before seen, as noticed by the 395/163 concurrency and by (State Route) 15 being well-posted only a year into its existence in the city!
Logged
Chris Sampang

sparker

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 5634
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:50:56 AM
Re: Arroyo Seco Parkway and the early western terminus points of US 66
« Reply #55 on: June 13, 2019, 05:29:21 PM »

^^^^^^^^^
Some Caltrans districts are notoriously parsimonious with reassurance signage, particularly on relatively straight roads where there are few if any major intersecting arterials or other highways.  CA 18 is an unusual case; its western end at CA 138 is in L.A. County, maintained by D7, while the San Bernardino county line, part of D8, crosses 18 a couple of miles east of the terminus.  The route split is clearly marked, but once in SB County/D8, the signage simply isn't there -- but neither are there obvious opportunities for a route deviation from the straight alignment.  I will acknowledge that the CA 18/US 395 junction in west Victorville is sparsely (some would say poorly) marked, with a single crossing-route sign for each route's direction right before the intersection -- no advance warning or the "old standard" array showing that the route you were on continued forward while the intersecting route crossed.  D8 is one that's stingy with signage on surface facilities; their freeway signage, including trailblazers, seems to be consistent with what's found statewide.  And CA 128 between Monticello Dam and Winters is a straight-line facility as well; the last time I was there (there's a really nice farmers' market just west of Winters on the north side of the road) the only reassurance signs, besides the END 128 sign at the I-505 interchange, were at the old LRN 90 route through Winters itself; one per 128 direction).  West of Monticello Dam, there were a few along the more mountainous part of the route; the 121/128 junction was very clearly marked (128 shifts alignments at that point; WB 128>SB 121 is the "through" route (following the old LRN 6).   
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3629
  • Last Login: Today at 02:54:21 AM
Re: Arroyo Seco Parkway and the early western terminus points of US 66
« Reply #56 on: June 13, 2019, 06:11:43 PM »

This actually leads to a bit of a philosophical question:

What is a good interval for a route to be considered decently-signed?  Of course it can depend too on whether the route is rural or urban/suburban.

i.e. US 101 is well-marked with trailblazers between Marina Boulevard and Duboce Avenue, approximately one trailblazer every 2 blocks or so.  (I even did a walking photo tour of that surface street alignment along Van Ness and Lombard several years ago where I attempted to photograph every US 101 shield that was up at the time)  Route 1 is similarly well marked along 19th Avenue.  In both cases, there are no overhead signs or even medium-sized green signs to add additional information, so sometimes the trailblazers get lost in the clutter of urban route signage, nothing too bad.

Route 35 is pretty sparsely signed along the east-west Sloat segment now, though not as much as the examples of 18 and 128 in this thread.

Route 77 is shockingly well marked on its short freeway portion (the entirety of the route really) in Oakland even though it is not signed at all from any intersecting routes.

Route 82 between I-880 and San Francisco is decently signed, maybe like shields every mile or so give or take.

Route 262 along Mission Boulevard in Warm Springs was not signed or acknowledged in any form pre-2002, but since then has been mostly signed only in references from I-680 southbound (both at the exit and along the 680 carpool lane) - somewhat similar to 221's treatment in Napa.
Logged
Chris Sampang

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8816
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 01:27:15 AM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: Arroyo Seco Parkway and the early western terminus points of US 66
« Reply #57 on: June 13, 2019, 08:06:51 PM »

Route signage IMO ought to always include reassurance shields at the following intervals:

-  At the start/end of the route. 
-  At and after every Signed Highway junction. 
-  At every major junction along said Signed Highway
-  At every major attraction like a state park. 
-  At every control city sign on surface routes. 

There should always be a junction assembly from every connecting highway no matter what.  Personally I really think “end” placards have value so I would include those as well. 

sparker

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 5634
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:50:56 AM
Re: Arroyo Seco Parkway and the early western terminus points of US 66
« Reply #58 on: June 13, 2019, 08:32:21 PM »

Route signage IMO ought to always include reassurance shields at the following intervals:

-  At the start/end of the route. 
-  At and after every Signed Highway junction. 
-  At every major junction along said Signed Highway
-  At every major attraction like a state park. 
-  At every control city sign on surface routes. 

There should always be a junction assembly from every connecting highway no matter what.  Personally I really think “end” placards have value so I would include those as well. 

Absolutely agree with the above -- and that's essentially how the Division of Highways would sign the routes under their jurisdiction until they "morphed" into the multitasking Caltrans.   Considering the recent state of signage in general, it's difficult to reach any  conclusion other than signage has been pushed significantly down the priority list -- and they've now had 46 years to internalize that change.  Either the districts, which set specific signage policy within their jurisdictions, have had their budgets slashed to the point where they just can't afford to dispatch crews to put up surface-street/road signage or -- more ominously -- they've been ordered to de-emphasize the role of surface state highways (even rural ones) in the overall schemes as part of a broader push to discourage general/private automotive travel -- or even declining to enable such travel by providing navigational assistance for such.  Forgive me for detouring into what might be construed as "conspiracy theory"  :confused:  -- but as one who observed the blatantly anti-car Gianturco years, it's not at all hard to see such sentiments creeping back into the Caltrans HQ executive arena via consistent and/or regular political pressure if not necessarily at the district level.   And that would manifest itself, at least initially, as simple lack of initiative regarding consistent and useful signage.     
Logged

mrsman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2216
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: June 24, 2019, 11:13:44 PM
Re: Arroyo Seco Parkway and the early western terminus points of US 66
« Reply #59 on: June 14, 2019, 06:08:32 PM »

Route signage IMO ought to always include reassurance shields at the following intervals:

-  At the start/end of the route. 
-  At and after every Signed Highway junction. 
-  At every major junction along said Signed Highway
-  At every major attraction like a state park. 
-  At every control city sign on surface routes. 

There should always be a junction assembly from every connecting highway no matter what.  Personally I really think “end” placards have value so I would include those as well. 

Absolutely agree with the above -- and that's essentially how the Division of Highways would sign the routes under their jurisdiction until they "morphed" into the multitasking Caltrans.   Considering the recent state of signage in general, it's difficult to reach any  conclusion other than signage has been pushed significantly down the priority list -- and they've now had 46 years to internalize that change.  Either the districts, which set specific signage policy within their jurisdictions, have had their budgets slashed to the point where they just can't afford to dispatch crews to put up surface-street/road signage or -- more ominously -- they've been ordered to de-emphasize the role of surface state highways (even rural ones) in the overall schemes as part of a broader push to discourage general/private automotive travel -- or even declining to enable such travel by providing navigational assistance for such.  Forgive me for detouring into what might be construed as "conspiracy theory"  :confused:  -- but as one who observed the blatantly anti-car Gianturco years, it's not at all hard to see such sentiments creeping back into the Caltrans HQ executive arena via consistent and/or regular political pressure if not necessarily at the district level.   And that would manifest itself, at least initially, as simple lack of initiative regarding consistent and useful signage.     

I tend to at least partially agree with this consiparicy given California politics as of late.  Certainly in many cities, you have some very old signage of parking regulations and street names that have not been moved for decades, yet the state highway shields that once adorned those routes are now missing.  When a state highway is decomissioned, the state law often directs that the shields should be maintained for continuity purposes, and yet they are almost never there.  I think they must have been actively removed.  If they just left the signs alone, we would be in much better shape.

For reassurance signage purposes, I like Max's criteria.  Signage is also critical anytime the highway makes a significant bend.  I would also agree to a sign every mile in rural areas and every half-mile in urban areas.

IIRC, it seemed that surface level state highways had shields at every signalized intersection in urban and suburban areas.  Drive on Beach Blvd, and you definitely knew you were on CA-39.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 5634
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:50:56 AM
Re: Arroyo Seco Parkway and the early western terminus points of US 66
« Reply #60 on: June 14, 2019, 06:38:58 PM »

^^^^^^^^^
At least as of late 2012, there still was ample reassurance for CA 39 on Beach Blvd.  During the early-mid 2000's, there also was trailblazer signage for most crossing arterials as well -- including both instances of surface intersection with another state route: PCH/CA 1 at the south terminus of CA 39 and CA 72 at Whittier Blvd. in La Habra.  But by about 2010 many of those "crossing" trailblazers had vanished -- whether taken down by the local jurisdiction or simply removed because of age (some dated from the late '60's) isn't known in these quarters.  Of all the surface routes in SoCal -- other than PCH -- CA 39/Beach Blvd. is one of the most iconic, as the major route inland from "Surf City" -- and arguably the archetype for commercial strips anywhere!  Also one of the most regularly congested corridors in OC if not all of SoCal, particularly from I-405 south to the beach.   That was one freeway corridor that absolutely should not have been deleted back in '76; office "scuttlebutt" within Caltrans (as related by my cousin who still works there) seems to imply that singular action -- the deletion of the CA 39 freeway corridor from I-5 south to HB -- precipitated the breakaway of District 12 from District 7 a few years later -- OC wanted a bit more autonomy from the rest of greater L.A.   
Logged

 


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.