Relinquishing California State Routes & signing portions thereof

[emory]

Very interesting to read about the relinquishments along CA 74 and CA 79.  I believe it is a first, since all previous relinquishments have occurred within cities.  This one is along rural roads between cities such as Perris and Hemet.

Relinquishing to counties is still common if the segment of the state highway is in an unincorporated portion of said county. Another current example is Caltrans wants to relinquish all of Route 86 south of Fredricks Road near Route 78. The portions that aren't going to the cities of Brawley, Imperial and El Centro are going to Imperial County.

If they do that, the CA-86 designation should replace 111 south of Brawley. Otherwise, the most direct and most improved route from I-8 to Indio has three designations.

So you're suggesting Route 86 jumps onto the expressway with Route 78, and Route 111 terminates at the expressway? It would certainly be more direct between Indio and the border.

[mrsman]

Very interesting to read about the relinquishments along CA 74 and CA 79.  I believe it is a first, since all previous relinquishments have occurred within cities.  This one is along rural roads between cities such as Perris and Hemet.

Relinquishing to counties is still common if the segment of the state highway is in an unincorporated portion of said county. Another current example is Caltrans wants to relinquish all of Route 86 south of Fredricks Road near Route 78. The portions that aren't going to the cities of Brawley, Imperial and El Centro are going to Imperial County.

If they do that, the CA-86 designation should replace 111 south of Brawley. Otherwise, the most direct and most improved route from I-8 to Indio has three designations.

So you're suggesting Route 86 jumps onto the expressway with Route 78, and Route 111 terminates at the expressway? It would certainly be more direct between Indio and the border.

I started a thread with a very similar idea in Fictional Highways.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11063.0

[emory]

I started a thread with a very similar idea in Fictional Highways.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11063.0

It's an old post, but part of it has come true since! Route 111 between its junction with CA 86 and the Palm Springs city limit has been turned over to local maintenance. I imagine the remainder between Palm Springs and I-10 will go eventually as well.

[mrsman]

I started a thread with a very similar idea in Fictional Highways.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11063.0

It's an old post, but part of it has come true since! Route 111 between its junction with CA 86 and the Palm Springs city limit has been turned over to local maintenance. I imagine the remainder between Palm Springs and I-10 will go eventually as well.

That's interesting.  But it's odd because most of this stretch does not have a name and is only known as Highway 111.

[Occidental Tourist]

It's an old post, but part of it has come true since! Route 111 between its junction with CA 86 and the Palm Springs city limit has been turned over to local maintenance. I imagine the remainder between Palm Springs and I-10 will go eventually as well.

Maybe it's time to multiplex 111 and 86 at both ends of the Salton Sea.

[emory]

I started a thread with a very similar idea in Fictional Highways.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11063.0

It's an old post, but part of it has come true since! Route 111 between its junction with CA 86 and the Palm Springs city limit has been turned over to local maintenance. I imagine the remainder between Palm Springs and I-10 will go eventually as well.

That's interesting.  But it's odd because most of this stretch does not have a name and is only known as Highway 111.

San Diego County Route S21 is still partially named "Highway 101" and carries modified US 101 shields.

[emory]

More bills have gone through the senate permitting more relinquishments.

-CA 19 (Route 164) to the city of South El Monte https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB461
-CA 19 (Route 164) to Los Angeles County within the city of Pico Rivera http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/sen/sb_0451-0500/sb_461_cfa_20150416_160532_sen_comm.html
-CA 16 to Sacramento County via a combination of eastbound, westbound, and all lanes depending on the mileposts. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB652
-CA 203 to the city of Tehachapi and to Kern County, which comprise the entire route. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB633

[andy3175]

-CA 203 to the city of Tehachapi and to Kern County, which comprise the entire route. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB633

I think you mean CA 202, but yes, I'd heard something about a proposal to decommission that route. That would leave a portion of 202 as a part of Business CA 58 and the remainder left with local naming. Since Kern County does not have any signed pentagon routes (as far as I know), I doubt we'll see CR J202 or anything like that to replace it. There are no provisions in the bill as stated that would require either Tehachapi or Kern County to maintain signage for CA 202.

[andy3175]

-CA 19 (Route 164) to the city of South El Monte https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB461
-CA 19 (Route 164) to Los Angeles County within the city of Pico Rivera http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/sen/sb_0451-0500/sb_461_cfa_20150416_160532_sen_comm.html

In my opinion, both CA 19 and CA 164 both need to go away in their entirety. The complexity of following this route from jurisdiction to jurisdiction has become increasingly difficult to follow! CA 164 would have been much more useful had the "direct connection" between I-605 and SR 19 was built years ago. I'm guessing that proposal is all but dead, so now I'm thinking the rest of it ought to be left to its local naming (Lakewood Blvd and Rosemead Boulevard).

It is interesting to read the bill analysis):

1. Purpose.  According to the author, the goal of this bill is to  relinquish a 2.6-mile segment of SR 164, also known as Rosemead Boulevard, to the County of Los Angeles for the purpose of realizing a community-driven vision for a Complete Streets corridor project.  This corridor project fully accommodates safe and convenient travel for all users of the road, especially vulnerable roadway users such as people with disabilities, seniors, youth, pedestrians and cyclists. This project also aims to compliment the surrounding Whittier Narrows Recreational Area - the largest park in the region - by enhancing recreation opportunities and access to the park.

2. Relinquishments.  Each session, the Legislature passes and the governor signs numerous bills authorizing CTC to relinquish segments of the state highway system to local jurisdictions. Relinquishment transactions are generally preceded by a negotiation of terms and conditions between the local jurisdiction and Caltrans.  Once an agreement has been established, CTC typically approves the relinquishment and verifies its approval via a resolution.  That is the case with this bill; Caltrans has negotiated an agreement with Los Angeles County for this segment of SR 164, and this bill authorizes CTC to relinquish the road to the county. 

Of interest, the administration proposed budget trailer bill language this year intending to streamline the state's relinquishment process.  According to the governor's budget summary, a number of routes are still part of the state  highway system that no longer serve an interregional purpose, and instead serve primarily regional or local purposes. The proposed trailer bill language broadens and streamlines the state process for relinquishing these portions of the statewide system that primarily serve regional or local purposes. This could be a win-win proposal, with both locals and the state benefiting.  On one hand, shifting ownership of these segments, many of which run through a downtown area, will increase local flexibility to add stoplights and make better use of valuable real estate to support transit-oriented development.  Meanwhile, additional relinquishments reduce the state's long-term costs for ongoing maintenance and repair of the state system.  There is merit in a proposal streamlining the relinquishment process; however, it seems that such a proposal should be considered through the policy bill process and not as an add-on to the state's annual budget.

3. SR 164 history.  The Legislature originally designated SR 164 a state highway in 1963 as a roughly 10-mile segment of road from Route 605 near Pico Rivera to Route 210 near Pasadena. At some point this state highway became known as Rosemead Boulevard, and the Legislature has relinquished portions of it to local jurisdictions through a number of bills.  If this bill were to become law and the CTC relinquished the segment of SR 164 described in this bill, the remaining segments of the highway would amount to a 0.1-mile stub between SR 210 and Foothill Boulevard and a roughly two-mile segment between Temple City and South El Monte. This seems to be an excellent example of the need for a streamlined relinquishment system, as it is unclear why these small highway segments are of state importance and therefore the state's responsibility to operate and maintain.

Key points:

- A number of routes are still part of the state  highway system that no longer serve an interregional purpose, and instead serve primarily regional or local purposes. The proposed trailer bill language broadens and streamlines the state process for relinquishing these portions of the statewide system that primarily serve regional or local purposes.

- The remaining segments of SR 164 (not including the SR 19 portion)  highway would amount to a 0.1-mile stub between SR 210 and Foothill Boulevard (does anyone know why SR 164 extends north of SR 210 at all? Is this going back to when Foothill was US 66?) and a roughly two-mile segment between Temple City and South El Monte.

[emory]

-CA 203 to the city of Tehachapi and to Kern County, which comprise the entire route. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB633

I think you mean CA 202, but yes, I'd heard something about a proposal to decommission that route. That would leave a portion of 202 as a part of Business CA 58 and the remainder left with local naming. Since Kern County does not have any signed pentagon routes (as far as I know), I doubt we'll see CR J202 or anything like that to replace it. There are no provisions in the bill as stated that would require either Tehachapi or Kern County to maintain signage for CA 202.

Yeah 202. Thanks for correcting me there.

[emory]

-CA 19 (Route 164) to the city of South El Monte https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB461
-CA 19 (Route 164) to Los Angeles County within the city of Pico Rivera http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/sen/sb_0451-0500/sb_461_cfa_20150416_160532_sen_comm.html

In my opinion, both CA 19 and CA 164 both need to go away in their entirety. The complexity of following this route from jurisdiction to jurisdiction has become increasingly difficult to follow! CA 164 would have been much more useful had the "direct connection" between I-605 and SR 19 was built years ago. I'm guessing that proposal is all but dead, so now I'm thinking the rest of it ought to be left to its local naming (Lakewood Blvd and Rosemead Boulevard).

Under Route 19 in the SHC, it shows that the route is permitted relinquishment to Bellflower and Downey, which are the last two cities where it exists. At this point, is it simply a matter of how quickly the city can take over the road from Caltrans?

[emory]

Here's a rather lengthy assembly bill granting permission to relinquish CA 275 (aka the Tower Bridge), with conditions.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB95&search_keywords=relinquishment

73.1. The commission may relinquish State Route 275, the Tower Bridge, to one or more cities in which it is located, upon agreement of the city or cities to accept it and pursuant to those terms the commission finds to be in the best interest of the state. A relinquishment under this section shall become effective upon the first day of the next calendar or fiscal year, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of the commission's approval of the terms.

73.2. (a) State Route 275, the Tower Bridge, shall be deemed to be in a state of good repair for purposes of relinquishment pursuant to Section 73.1, provided that the bridge is not structurally deficient and is rated as satisfactory pursuant to the National Bridge Index.
(b) This section shall become inoperative on July 1, 2016, and, as of January 1, 2017, is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that becomes operative on or before January 1, 2017, deletes or extends the dates on which it becomes inoperative and is repealed.

[andy3175]

Here's a rather lengthy assembly bill granting permission to relinquish CA 275 (aka the Tower Bridge), with conditions.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB95&search_keywords=relinquishment

73.1. The commission may relinquish State Route 275, the Tower Bridge, to one or more cities in which it is located, upon agreement of the city or cities to accept it and pursuant to those terms the commission finds to be in the best interest of the state. A relinquishment under this section shall become effective upon the first day of the next calendar or fiscal year, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of the commission's approval of the terms.

73.2. (a) State Route 275, the Tower Bridge, shall be deemed to be in a state of good repair for purposes of relinquishment pursuant to Section 73.1, provided that the bridge is not structurally deficient and is rated as satisfactory pursuant to the National Bridge Index.
(b) This section shall become inoperative on July 1, 2016, and, as of January 1, 2017, is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that becomes operative on or before January 1, 2017, deletes or extends the dates on which it becomes inoperative and is repealed.

Yes, there's more to this story:  http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/transportation/back-seat-driver/article24926050.html

State to give Tower Bridge away?

June 18, 2015

Buried in the state budget this week is this item: The state appears willing to pay the cities of Sacramento and West Sacramento a total of up to $15 million to take the Tower Bridge off its hands.

Tower Bridge over the Sacramento River is technically a highway, or at least the road on the bridge is. It's State Route 275, the shortest in California. The bridge once served as the main entrance into the capital city. The state a decade ago relinquished the highway on both sides of the bridge to each city.

Caltrans now wants to relinquish the 80-year-old structure as well. The two cities have been interested, but reluctant because of the likely costs involved.

They'd have to shoulder annual operations and maintenance costs, including, for a while, the cost of a bridge tender in a control room in the rafters who lifts the road deck to allow tall ships through. The bridge's "bumpers,"  which protect it from errant boats and river debris, also may need rebuilding.

"It's not a free puppy,"  Jerry Way, Sacramento public works director, said last year when the discussions surfaced. "We don't want to take on a substantial financial burden for either city."

Caltrans has declined comment on its intentions. Sacramento officials say the state plans to do an assessment of the bridge's condition. Once that is done, the state and locals might talk seriously about terms for relinquishment.

The budget bill does not specify how the cities could spend any state funds. That's notable. The two cities have asked the state to chip in $10 million for another local project, a proposed $175 million streetcar line that would cross the Tower Bridge. It is possible that request can be wrapped into the bridge relinquishment negotiations.

The streetcar project is stalled at the moment. Downtown Sacramento voters earlier this month vetoed a proposed taxing district that would have helped finance the project. But city officials say they haven't given up on the streetcar concept — they just need to find other revenue. Ten million dollars from the state would be a start.

The cities don't actually need to own the bridge to build the streetcar over it. So, why would they consider taking the bridge off the state's hands? The answer may simply be: If you can grab a great piece of real estate without breaking the bank, do it. Sacramento's Way says, for one, "it's beautiful and iconic."

Owning the bridge would give the two cities, especially West Sacramento, more flexibility as they develop the Sacramento River waterfronts. The cities increasingly have been using the bridge, with state OK, as a public event space for things like professional bike races and an annual Farm to Fork dinner.

On one hand, taking the keys will lock the cities into annual expenses, forever. But they won't have to ask the state anymore, "Uh, can we borrow the bridge?"

Tony Bizjak: (916) 321-1059, tbizjak@sacbee.com, @TonyBizjak

[mrsman]

Related to the previous post, but a slightly off-topic question:

If a bridge were built over a river between two counties, which county would control the bridge?

You see, for bridges that cross state lines, sometimes the state line is defined as being on the waterline and sometimes it's defined as being in the middle of the river.  So for the bridges crossing the Hudson River, you have the Port Authority in charge of the crossing.  Port Authority is a bi-state compact under federal law between NY and NJ.

So if a bridge between Yolo and Sacramento counties were built, and it is not a state highway, which county would be in charge?  Who is now in charge of the I Street Bridge?  Would they need to set up a bi-county corporation that is akin to the Port Authority to mainitain the Tower Bridge?

[Big John]

^^ Bridges that cross jurisdictions usually and a contractional agreement where one of the agencies take ownership/maintenance of the bridge and costs are split between the 2 jurisdictions.  If there are multiple bridges in such situations between the 2 jurisdictions, they usually split ownership of them (such if there are 4 bridges like that, each would own 2 of them).

This is the way it is generally done with bridges crossing the Mississippi River along state lines.

[Rothman]

Reminds me of the bridges in NYSDOT Region's 6 that are shared between NYSDOT and the municipalities in which the bridges are.  Some of the splits are ridiculous (80 state / 20 town or other way around).  Gives everyone more headaches than they're worth.

[andy3175]

^^ Bridges that cross jurisdictions usually and a contractional agreement where one of the agencies take ownership/maintenance of the bridge and costs are split between the 2 jurisdictions.  If there are multiple bridges in such situations between the 2 jurisdictions, they usually split ownership of them (such if there are 4 bridges like that, each would own 2 of them).

This is the way it is generally done with bridges crossing the Mississippi River along state lines.

Usually, one of the parties to the agreement will assume responsibility for maintenance of the structure, or the parties will agree to form a joint exercise of powers authority that will in turn have that responsibility. Since most counties would be loathe to create a whole new structure, one of the parties would likely assume maintenance responsibility for the structure. In the case of Tower Bridge, I can see either city of Sacramento or city of West Sacramento having this role, so I guess we'll see where the negotiations go with respect to providing bridge and roadway maintenance.

[mrsman]

^^ Bridges that cross jurisdictions usually and a contractional agreement where one of the agencies take ownership/maintenance of the bridge and costs are split between the 2 jurisdictions.  If there are multiple bridges in such situations between the 2 jurisdictions, they usually split ownership of them (such if there are 4 bridges like that, each would own 2 of them).

This is the way it is generally done with bridges crossing the Mississippi River along state lines.

Usually, one of the parties to the agreement will assume responsibility for maintenance of the structure, or the parties will agree to form a joint exercise of powers authority that will in turn have that responsibility. Since most counties would be loathe to create a whole new structure, one of the parties would likely assume maintenance responsibility for the structure. In the case of Tower Bridge, I can see either city of Sacramento or city of West Sacramento having this role, so I guess we'll see where the negotiations go with respect to providing bridge and roadway maintenance.

We'll indeed see how the Tower Bridge saga plays out.  But IMO it doesn't make any sense for the cities to want the headache of maintaining this bridge.  I can understand control over Capitol Avenue / Capitol Mall so that the cities won't need state approval to implement bike lanes or change the speed limit, but the bridge itself is a mini-freeway that is best left in state hands.

In SoCal there is a segment of Sierra Highway that is designated SR 14U (unrelinquished).  Sierra Highway was the old routing of US 6 / SR 14 until the Antelope Valley Freeway was opened.  Sierra Highway is largely a city street in the control of the nearby cities and/or LA County, but one section is such a maintenance headache that Caltrans still maintains the section, despite the freeway.

[TheStranger]

^^ Bridges that cross jurisdictions usually and a contractional agreement where one of the agencies take ownership/maintenance of the bridge and costs are split between the 2 jurisdictions.  If there are multiple bridges in such situations between the 2 jurisdictions, they usually split ownership of them (such if there are 4 bridges like that, each would own 2 of them).

This is the way it is generally done with bridges crossing the Mississippi River along state lines.

Usually, one of the parties to the agreement will assume responsibility for maintenance of the structure, or the parties will agree to form a joint exercise of powers authority that will in turn have that responsibility. Since most counties would be loathe to create a whole new structure, one of the parties would likely assume maintenance responsibility for the structure. In the case of Tower Bridge, I can see either city of Sacramento or city of West Sacramento having this role, so I guess we'll see where the negotiations go with respect to providing bridge and roadway maintenance.

We'll indeed see how the Tower Bridge saga plays out.  But IMO it doesn't make any sense for the cities to want the headache of maintaining this bridge.  I can understand control over Capitol Avenue / Capitol Mall so that the cities won't need state approval to implement bike lanes or change the speed limit, but the bridge itself is a mini-freeway that is best left in state hands.

Not really - the mini-freeway segment that remains is now just Jefferson Boulevard only, with the rest of the former US 40/99W freeway having been converted to city street over the last 5-6 years.  The former West Capitol Avenue exit was removed ca. 2011 and part of West Capitol in fact has since been closed in order to direct traffic onto the former freeway (now the Tower Bridge Gateway surface route).

[sdmichael]

^^ Bridges that cross jurisdictions usually and a contractional agreement where one of the agencies take ownership/maintenance of the bridge and costs are split between the 2 jurisdictions.  If there are multiple bridges in such situations between the 2 jurisdictions, they usually split ownership of them (such if there are 4 bridges like that, each would own 2 of them).

This is the way it is generally done with bridges crossing the Mississippi River along state lines.

Usually, one of the parties to the agreement will assume responsibility for maintenance of the structure, or the parties will agree to form a joint exercise of powers authority that will in turn have that responsibility. Since most counties would be loathe to create a whole new structure, one of the parties would likely assume maintenance responsibility for the structure. In the case of Tower Bridge, I can see either city of Sacramento or city of West Sacramento having this role, so I guess we'll see where the negotiations go with respect to providing bridge and roadway maintenance.

We'll indeed see how the Tower Bridge saga plays out.  But IMO it doesn't make any sense for the cities to want the headache of maintaining this bridge.  I can understand control over Capitol Avenue / Capitol Mall so that the cities won't need state approval to implement bike lanes or change the speed limit, but the bridge itself is a mini-freeway that is best left in state hands.

In SoCal there is a segment of Sierra Highway that is designated SR 14U (unrelinquished).  Sierra Highway was the old routing of US 6 / SR 14 until the Antelope Valley Freeway was opened.  Sierra Highway is largely a city street in the control of the nearby cities and/or LA County, but one section is such a maintenance headache that Caltrans still maintains the section, despite the freeway.

That section of Sierra Highway is still a State highway because the County, not the City of Santa Clarita in this case, refuses to take it. It passes through a section of Plio-Pleistocene Saugus Formation which tends to crumble during heavy rains. That brings large amounts of rock and other debris onto the roadway along with some drainage issues. It really isn't any worse than many other sections of roadway under Los Angeles County control, but this one seems special for some reason. So, we now have a signed State 14U which runs from near Rainbow Glen Dr south to near San Fernando Road/Newhall Ave.

[emory]

^^ Bridges that cross jurisdictions usually and a contractional agreement where one of the agencies take ownership/maintenance of the bridge and costs are split between the 2 jurisdictions.  If there are multiple bridges in such situations between the 2 jurisdictions, they usually split ownership of them (such if there are 4 bridges like that, each would own 2 of them).

This is the way it is generally done with bridges crossing the Mississippi River along state lines.

Usually, one of the parties to the agreement will assume responsibility for maintenance of the structure, or the parties will agree to form a joint exercise of powers authority that will in turn have that responsibility. Since most counties would be loathe to create a whole new structure, one of the parties would likely assume maintenance responsibility for the structure. In the case of Tower Bridge, I can see either city of Sacramento or city of West Sacramento having this role, so I guess we'll see where the negotiations go with respect to providing bridge and roadway maintenance.

We'll indeed see how the Tower Bridge saga plays out.  But IMO it doesn't make any sense for the cities to want the headache of maintaining this bridge.  I can understand control over Capitol Avenue / Capitol Mall so that the cities won't need state approval to implement bike lanes or change the speed limit, but the bridge itself is a mini-freeway that is best left in state hands.

In SoCal there is a segment of Sierra Highway that is designated SR 14U (unrelinquished).  Sierra Highway was the old routing of US 6 / SR 14 until the Antelope Valley Freeway was opened.  Sierra Highway is largely a city street in the control of the nearby cities and/or LA County, but one section is such a maintenance headache that Caltrans still maintains the section, despite the freeway.

That section of Sierra Highway is still a State highway because the County, not the City of Santa Clarita in this case, refuses to take it. It passes through a section of Plio-Pleistocene Saugus Formation which tends to crumble during heavy rains. That brings large amounts of rock and other debris onto the roadway along with some drainage issues. It really isn't any worse than many other sections of roadway under Los Angeles County control, but this one seems special for some reason. So, we now have a signed State 14U which runs from near Rainbow Glen Dr south to near San Fernando Road/Newhall Ave.

And it's one of the most well signed state roads I've seen. Man.

[Quillz]

With all the potential relinquishments means that some numbers will be freed up for re-use. Wonder if any of them will ever actually be recycled. (Only one I know of at the moment is CA-11).

[TheStranger]

With all the potential relinquishments means that some numbers will be freed up for re-use. Wonder if any of them will ever actually be recycled. (Only one I know of at the moment is CA-11).

Route 7 was recycled for a new road south of Holtville (I honestly think this should be an extension of Route 115).

[djsekani]

I was gonna start a new thread about why continuation signage on California's non-freeway state routes was so abysmal, but I found this one instead. Seems no one really has any answers. Finding a standalone green spade anywhere that's not a freeway or expressway is like finding a unicorn these days.

It's also comical that 14U appears to be the most well-signed route in the entire state.

Seriously though, does anyone have any idea why the requirement to maintain continuation signage is apparently not enforced?

[Quillz]

I was gonna start a new thread about why continuation signage on California's non-freeway state routes was so abysmal, but I found this one instead. Seems no one really has any answers. Finding a standalone green spade anywhere that's not a freeway or expressway is like finding a unicorn these days.

It's also comical that 14U appears to be the most well-signed route in the entire state.

Seriously though, does anyone have any idea why the requirement to maintain continuation signage is apparently not enforced?

I guess it's just such a low-priority thing to enforce, it's rarely done. I mean, if you're Caltrans, you've got roads to pave, potholes to fix, etc. I guess they figure most people got GPS these days, so there's no need to force some town or city to maintain visible route signage.