Do US 101 and CA 1 exist on the Golden Gate Bridge?

[Max Rockatansky]

A topic of conjecture I frequently hear come up in the California Roadgeek community is if US Route 101 and California State Route 1 exist on the Golden Gate Bridge.  The question of the Golden Gate Bridge often comes up given the structure is not part of any California Legislative Route definition given it is not a State owned facility.  In this blog we examine all the facts regarding Golden Gate Bridge such as; the Legislative Route Definitions of US Route 101-California State Route 1, what shows up in the Caltrans Postmile Tool on the Golden Gate Bridge, what the AASHTO has to say about the status of US Route 101 on the Golden Gate Bridge and what field signage suggests.  Pictured in the blog cover in the Golden Gate Bridge as it appeared shortly after completion in the May 1937 California Highways & Public Works.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/11/the-legislative-route-gaps-of-us-route.html

[ran4sh]

I wouldn't be surprised if there is a gap, considering that gaps are not uncommon in the legislative definitions of routes.

It should obviously be signed as those routes in the field regardless.

[Max Rockatansky]

I wouldn't be surprised if there is a gap, considering that gaps are not uncommon in the legislative definitions of routes.

It should obviously be signed as those routes in the field regardless.

Pertaining to 101 Caltrans does recognize it's existence on the Golden Gate Bridge by way of the Postmile Tool.  The AASHTO Route definition has the Golden Gate Bridge of US 101.  I think most of us would agree the AASHTO has the ultimately say over what constitutes a US Route segment.

[richardwm15]

The reason for the legislative gap is the Golden Gate Bridge is not maintained by CALTRANS; it's maintained by the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District (https://www.goldengate.org/). The district was formed by the state in 1923 to build and maintain the Golden Gate Bridge. According to the website, the mission statement is, "The mission of the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District (District) is to provide safe and reliable operation, maintenance and enhancement of the Golden Gate Bridge and to provide transportation services, as resources allow, for customers within the U.S. Highway 101 Golden Gate Corridor."

[Alps]

That's a state-specific issue, then, because NJDOT recognizes routes in any jurisdiction.

[Max Rockatansky]

That's a state-specific issue, then, because NJDOT recognizes routes in any jurisdiction.

Interestingly it was like this in California until 1964 when the State Routes and US Routes became the defacto Legislative Route definitions.  State Highways couldn't be maintained in incorporated cities in California until 1933 which meant a good chunk of the US Route system was under local maintenance.  There are plenty of examples of 1934 State Routes being signed on non State owned highways. 

[rschen7754]

Sorry for the reactivating of the post, but: The Caltrans postmile tool no longer does recognize the Golden Gate Bridge or exit 439 as part of US 101.

https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/safety-programs/documents/exit/202412-calnexus-us-101-a11y.pdf still does seem to consider it, however, though Calnexus does tend to add stuff like relinquishments to their numbers.

[roadman65]

It's AASHTO that makes the decision for US 101 to be or not to be on the Golden Gate Bridge.  Caltrans don't have jurisdiction there except not to post signs, which also doesn't mean either that a route is decommissioned.

[cahwyguy]

It's AASHTO that makes the decision for US 101 to be or not to be on the Golden Gate Bridge.  Caltrans don't have jurisdiction there except not to post signs, which also doesn't mean either that a route is decommissioned.

Yes and no. AASHTO makes the broad designation of what US 101 is. However, the state determines what the state routes are, and what the state maintains. The state definition of Route 101 has a discontinuity over the bridge. So, in terms of ownership and responsibility, the state maintains the approaches on either side, but the Golden Gate Bridge District owns the bridge itself. I make this clear on my page on US 101: https://www.cahighways.org/ROUTE101.html

[hotdogPi]

US routes don't have any requirements on who maintains it. It's part of US 101.

[kphoger]

It's AASHTO that makes the decision for US 101 to be or not to be on the Golden Gate Bridge.

Where I can I read the AASHTO definition of US-101 for myself?

[cahwyguy]

US routes don't have any requirements on who maintains it. It's part of US 101.

From the point of view of AASHTO, a cooperative organization, yes.
From the point of view of the state of California, it is not part of Route 101, as defined in the state highway code:

401. Route 101 is from:

(a) Route 5 near Seventh Street in Los Angeles to Route 1, Funston approach, and, subject to Section 72.1, the approach to the Golden Gate Bridge in the Presidio of San Francisco via Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, and Salinas.

(b) A point in Marin County opposite San Francisco to the Oregon state line via Crescent City.

(Amended by Stats. 1999, Ch. 559, Sec. 2. Effective January 1, 2000.)

Both are true.

In particular, there is no specific route signage on the bridge itself (just checked on GSV).

[cahwyguy]

It's AASHTO that makes the decision for US 101 to be or not to be on the Golden Gate Bridge.

Where I can I read the AASHTO definition of US-101 for myself?

AASHTO currently doesn't appear to have it easily online, although it looks like they once did. It is part of the 1991 Federal Aid Primary system. The National Highway System ARCGIS map shows it as part of US 101. Most likely, AASHTO does not define the route to be on the Golden Gate bridge in particular. It likely defines the route to be from Los Angeles to Tumwater Washington, and lets the state worry about the rest. Given the state defines US 101 to be on the approaches on both sides of the bridge, FHWA puts it on the bridge, even though technically that's under the control of a special district, vs. the state (esp. given that the state is part of the district).

And, note: It is the state(s) that submit the routes that make the decision on the location of the route. AASHTO only serves to approve the submitted definitions. See https://transportation.org/route/resources/

[Max Rockatansky]

Also, the 1937-era approval of AASHO for the realignment of US 101 in San Francisco onto the Golden Gate Bridge along with accompanying maps can be seen in Photos 18-20 in the blog I linked in the original post.

[kphoger]

Most likely, AASHTO ... defines the route to be from Los Angeles to Tumwater Washington, and lets the state worry about the rest ...

It is the state(s) that submit the routes that make the decision on the location of the route. AASHTO only serves to approve the submitted definitions.

These two assertions appear to be the most pertinent to the argument.

[roadman65]

US routes don't have any requirements on who maintains it. It's part of US 101.

But some states require they can only maintain the US route ( as well as their own designations) like CA and FL.  Both won't allow them to be on municipally maintained roads.  Then in Maryland that state allows the City of Baltimore to maintain US 1 and US 40 hence the poor signage there.  New Jersey lets Morris, Passaic, and Bergen Counties upkeep US 202. Etc.

[Max Rockatansky]

US routes don't have any requirements on who maintains it. It's part of US 101.

But some states require they can only maintain the US route ( as well as their own designations) like CA and FL.  Both won't allow them to be on municipally maintained roads.  Then in Maryland that state allows the City of Baltimore to maintain US 1 and US 40 hence the poor signage there.  New Jersey lets Morris, Passaic, and Bergen Counties upkeep US 202. Etc.

There isn't any hardened rule that Caltrans has be the only agency to maintain Sign Routes.  Historically local authorities posted Sign State Routes along corridors not owned by the Division of Highways (CA 21, 180, 49 and 33 all come to mind with segments).  Even now the California Transportation Commission still writes in provisions requiring local authorities to maintain Sign Route continuation signage as part of relinquishment agreements. 

[pderocco]

There isn't any hardened rule that Caltrans has be the only agency to maintain Sign Routes.  Historically local authorities posted Sign State Routes along corridors not owned by the Division of Highways (CA 21, 180, 49 and 33 all come to mind with segments).  Even now the California Transportation Commission still writes in provisions requiring local authorities to maintain Sign Route continuation signage as part of relinquishment agreements. 

When they relinquished CA-1 in southern Santa Monica, they did indeed replace the 1 shields along Lincoln Blvd with TO 1 NORTH or SOUTH signs, but they're big and ugly.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/qUdK9iTbFZZDKq7q9

Are there any places in California where the relinquishment agreement had the city just maintain regular unbannered shields? I wouldn't be surprised if there are places where they just left the old shields up without adding banners in defiance of the agreement.

[TheStranger]

Are there any places in California where the relinquishment agreement had the city just maintain regular unbannered shields? I wouldn't be surprised if there are places where they just left the old shields up without adding banners in defiance of the agreement.

I recall seeing Route 91 shields along Artesia Boulevard west of 110 about a decade ago.  Don't know if any are still present.

[NE2]

SR 47's surface portion has never (?) been state maintained, yet has (still?) signage.

[cahwyguy]

In a lot of these cases, the shields are leftovers from when the segments were part of a state route. The state didn't come back and take them down, but they aren't maintained either. I know that is the case for the shields on Route 91. Less sure about the Route 47 shields, because that depends on precisely where they are. I recall seeing one or two N of Route 103 and S of Route 405, but those could date back to the early 1980s when there was route shifting in the area.

[pderocco]

Now that I think of it, I recall seeing a very few shields on what was CA-19, without TO banners.

[Voyager]

Going Southbound, at least, there's signage up to the actual bridge itself. I'm pretty sure there's a reassurance shield for both on the bridge too, just haven't found it yet.

[DTComposer]

In a lot of these cases, the shields are leftovers from when the segments were part of a state route. The state didn't come back and take them down, but they aren't maintained either. I know that is the case for the shields on Route 91. Less sure about the Route 47 shields, because that depends on precisely where they are. I recall seeing one or two N of Route 103 and S of Route 405, but those could date back to the early 1980s when there was route shifting in the area.

For CA-91, if you look at Artesia Boulevard eastbound at Prospect Street, there was a faded shield in February 2019:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/FuqvXrr2unu853zUA
But by April 2019, there was a brand new shield, including direction banner:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/tqHiki7QPxm5BQmc9
So that went up 16 years after the relinquishment became official in the legislative definition. And if you zoom in, they appear to have the "Property State of California" box.

The CA-47 shields I remember went up in the early 2000s along Alameda Street - they were as far north as Carson Street (GSV confirms this), although I feel like there were some further north - around Santa Fe Street?

[cahwyguy]

In a lot of these cases, the shields are leftovers from when the segments were part of a state route. The state didn't come back and take them down, but they aren't maintained either. I know that is the case for the shields on Route 91. Less sure about the Route 47 shields, because that depends on precisely where they are. I recall seeing one or two N of Route 103 and S of Route 405, but those could date back to the early 1980s when there was route shifting in the area.

For CA-91, if you look at Artesia Boulevard eastbound at Prospect Street, there was a faded shield in February 2019:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/FuqvXrr2unu853zUA
But by April 2019, there was a brand new shield, including direction banner:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/tqHiki7QPxm5BQmc9
So that went up 16 years after the relinquishment became official in the legislative definition. And if you zoom in, they appear to have the "Property State of California" box.

The CA-47 shields I remember went up in the early 2000s along Alameda Street - they were as far north as Carson Street (GSV confirms this), although I feel like there were some further north - around Santa Fe Street?

I guess Caltrans is only consistent in their inconsistency.