Author Topic: usaca: California State Highways  (Read 80515 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SSOWorld

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 205
  • Last Login:September 16, 2022, 10:05:34 pm
Re: usaca: California State Highways
« Reply #390 on: July 13, 2022, 08:42:42 pm »
What is keeping this from being live?
Completed:
* Systems: DC, WI
* by US State: AR: I&; AZ: I; DE: I; DC: I, US, DC; IL: I; IN: I*; IA: I, KS: I; MD: I, MA: I, MI: I; MN: I; MO: I*; NE: I; NJ, I; OH: I; RI: I; SD: I; WA: I; WV: I; WI: I,US,WI; (AR, IN pending expansions.)

*Previously completed

Offline IMGoph

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 39
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:September 23, 2022, 03:53:50 pm
Re: usaca: California State Highways
« Reply #391 on: July 15, 2022, 09:09:14 pm »
What is keeping this from being live?

I would love to know as well, and if any help is needed, I'd gladly volunteer.

Offline oscar

  • TM Collaborator
  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 10:43:21 pm
    • Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: usaca: California State Highways
« Reply #392 on: July 17, 2022, 09:04:57 pm »
Sorry for dropping out of sight for a few days -- I thought I'd be able to patch together an Internet connection where I was in western MA, no joy.

I'll get back to this later, right now I need to catch up on planning the rest of my short road trip.

Offline IMGoph

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 39
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:September 23, 2022, 03:53:50 pm
Re: usaca: California State Highways
« Reply #393 on: August 01, 2022, 09:30:58 am »
What is keeping this from being live?

I would love to know as well, and if any help is needed, I'd gladly volunteer.

I just wanted to raise this question up again. Does anyone know what is keeping California state highways from being moved out of preview?

Offline oscar

  • TM Collaborator
  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 10:43:21 pm
    • Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: usaca: California State Highways
« Reply #394 on: August 01, 2022, 12:07:06 pm »
^ The main rub is nailing down whether we need to break up routes that have been partially relinquished to local jurisdictions. We try to avoid that (especially for CA 1, to not break up that route into multiple pieces), but in some cases we couldn't. My approach to that differs from that in other similar jurisdictions like Florida, which also does route relinquishments but handles them differently from California.

On my to-do list is GMSV tour of routes (all in southern California) which I haven't recently field-checked, as well as updates on any new relinquishments authorized by the state legislature. Thankfully, the pace of new relinquishments seems to have slowed to a crawl.

Offline oscar

  • TM Collaborator
  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 10:43:21 pm
    • Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: usaca: California State Highways
« Reply #395 on: August 01, 2022, 10:19:01 pm »
The PQT is consistent with Caltrans' formal adoption of the Westside Parkway into the state highway system only to Coffee Rd., as well as the Stockdale Hwy. from I-5 to the Westside Parkway. But while the PQT shows the Stockdale Hwy. as part of route 58, March 2022 GMSV imagery shows no CA 58 signs on the Stockdale Hwy., or on I-5 at or north of the Stockdale junction. This might be that the existing Stockdale Hwy. is planned to be just a temporary CA 58 alignment, to be replaced someday with a new alignment between I-5 and the Westside Pkwy.

This might be changing, with signage on the Stockdale Hwy. west to I-5 (but not on I-5 itself). https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11312.msg2753668#msg2753668 Will need to follow up.

Very recent GMSV imagery confirms that CA 58 signage now continues on Stockdale Highway all the way to the I-5 junction, with one sign on westbound Stockdale stating that CA 58 follows I-5 north to the rest of CA 58.

I'll add the Stockdale Highway from I-5 to the Westside Pkwy. to CA 58's Westside Pkwy. segment. That won't connect to CA 58 east of CA 99 until next year at the earliest, so it's not yet time to completely reroute CA 58 to the Stockdale/Westside/future Centennial Corridor alignment.

Offline cl94

  • TM Collaborator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 184
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 11:50:49 pm
Re: usaca: California State Highways
« Reply #396 on: August 01, 2022, 10:45:29 pm »
Anything in particular that needs to be field checked?

Offline Duke87

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 693
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 02:06:34 pm
Re: usaca: California State Highways
« Reply #397 on: August 02, 2022, 12:28:48 am »
^ The main rub is nailing down whether we need to break up routes that have been partially relinquished to local jurisdictions

I vote no.

Mid-route relinquishments do come with legal mandates for the local jurisdiction to continue signing the route. Said jurisdictions aren't always good at complying with these mandates but... nonetheless, it's functionally no different than the existence of locally maintained sections of route in any other state. CA just has an oddball way of handling it administratively.

Offline oscar

  • TM Collaborator
  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 10:43:21 pm
    • Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: usaca: California State Highways
« Reply #398 on: August 02, 2022, 01:12:15 am »
Anything in particular that needs to be field checked?

I'd need to compile a list of the mid-route relinquishments in Los Angeles and Ventura counties, and maybe some adjacent counties, I haven't already field-checked in my recent travels covering most of the rest of California. (Whole-route and end-of-route relinquishments are easier, I'm presumptively treating them as decommissions/truncations). That means a review of the legislative route definitions in the state Streets and Highways Code (the California Highways website quotes the key provisions). Also, using Caltrans' Postmile Query Tool to help determine which relinquishments have been carried out (like CA 187, already removed from the HB), and which might never be carried out much as the legislature might want them to happen.

The California Highways site can help narrow what needs a GMSV review, but I know what to look for. Once that's done, the  GMSV review is tedious but easier to hand off.

Quebec does relinquishments too, but normally leaves locally-maintained segments in the provincial highway route system. That made my life easier when I finalized and activated canqc.


^ The main rub is nailing down whether we need to break up routes that have been partially relinquished to local jurisdictions

I vote no.

Mid-route relinquishments do come with legal mandates for the local jurisdiction to continue signing the route. Said jurisdictions aren't always good at complying with these mandates but... nonetheless, it's functionally no different than the existence of locally maintained sections of route in any other state. CA just has an oddball way of handling it administratively.

Except where Caltrans posts an END sign at one or both ends of the relinquishment, as with the End CA 160 sign assembly at Sacramento's southern city limit. Or where the local government not only fails to maintain route signage, but that makes it difficult for motorists to follow the (former) route winding through a maze of city streets (like CA 160 in downtown Sacramento -- though some of the former route there has excellent Historic US 40 signage -- or CA 79 in San Jacinto). Or where the state has non-standard continuation signage mandates, like in Hayward which had several surface routes passing through the city, but now looks to motorists like a big hole in the non-freeway part of the state highway system.

I don't know whether or not will be similar issues in the Los Angeles metro area, but I think I've addressed them in most of the rest of California.


Offline Markkos1992

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2573
  • Last Login:Today at 07:15:35 am
Re: usaca: California State Highways
« Reply #399 on: August 02, 2022, 01:11:25 pm »
Looks like we may be keeping CA 259 in the HB after all:  https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=25051.msg2759263#msg2759263

Offline oscar

  • TM Collaborator
  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 10:43:21 pm
    • Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: usaca: California State Highways
« Reply #400 on: August 08, 2022, 05:08:24 pm »
I'll add the Stockdale Highway from I-5 to the Westside Pkwy. to CA 58's Westside Pkwy. segment. That won't connect to CA 58 east of CA 99 until next year at the earliest, so it's not yet time to completely reroute CA 58 to the Stockdale/Westside/future Centennial Corridor alignment.

The above segment of the Stockdale Hwy is now in the HB as part of CA58Wes.

Offline SSOWorld

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 205
  • Last Login:September 16, 2022, 10:05:34 pm
Re: usaca: California State Highways
« Reply #401 on: August 23, 2022, 08:04:56 pm »
OK, usaca is now forever preview.

Let's draw a line here.  There is no point in waiting when almost all other systems continue changing
Completed:
* Systems: DC, WI
* by US State: AR: I&; AZ: I; DE: I; DC: I, US, DC; IL: I; IN: I*; IA: I, KS: I; MD: I, MA: I, MI: I; MN: I; MO: I*; NE: I; NJ, I; OH: I; RI: I; SD: I; WA: I; WV: I; WI: I,US,WI; (AR, IN pending expansions.)

*Previously completed

Offline mapcat

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1397
  • Last Login:September 22, 2022, 06:11:37 pm
Re: usaca: California State Highways
« Reply #402 on: August 23, 2022, 09:51:02 pm »
OK, usaca is now forever preview.

Let's draw a line here.  There is no point in waiting when almost all other systems continue changing

Let’s not. This is Oscar’s system and he is completely within his right to take as long as he wishes working with the schedule he has. Why are you in such a hurry?
Clinched:

Offline osu-lsu

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 11:04:56 pm
Re: usaca: California State Highways
« Reply #403 on: August 24, 2022, 12:35:36 am »
Lets not kid ourselves, there are 2 other state highway systems that Scott's question could be applied to as well.

Offline SSOWorld

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 205
  • Last Login:September 16, 2022, 10:05:34 pm
Re: usaca: California State Highways
« Reply #404 on: August 24, 2022, 05:57:11 am »
OK, usaca is now forever preview.

Let's draw a line here.  There is no point in waiting when almost all other systems continue changing

Let’s not. This is Oscar’s system and he is completely within his right to take as long as he wishes working with the schedule he has. Why are you in such a hurry?
Why are you NOT?  Who said I was? He's been putting every effort to get it ready as possible, I know that.  However, how much damage is done by changing routes now?
Completed:
* Systems: DC, WI
* by US State: AR: I&; AZ: I; DE: I; DC: I, US, DC; IL: I; IN: I*; IA: I, KS: I; MD: I, MA: I, MI: I; MN: I; MO: I*; NE: I; NJ, I; OH: I; RI: I; SD: I; WA: I; WV: I; WI: I,US,WI; (AR, IN pending expansions.)

*Previously completed