This package of updates reflects three relinquishments of route segments to local control. Corresponding pull requests:
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/6040https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/6041CA 79, between I-8 south of Julian and I-10 in Beaumont, would be split in San Jacinto. The relinquished segment there is supposed to have continuation signage, to help travelers get through the city between the unrelinquished segments north and south of the city. But the signage is weak,
just one inconspicuous sign for southbound travelers and
a pair for northbound travelers. Those guide travelers through one turn CA 79 originally followed through the city. But there is no signage for two other turns within the city. I got lost when I tried to follow the original route several years ago.
One other user had a similar, more recent such experience. If the route had gone straight through the city, I would overlook the weak continuation signage (state law's continuation signage requirements for relinquished route segments are often ignored), but not for the San Jacinto situation.
The southern Julian CA 79 segment would end at Menlo Ave. south of downtown San Jacinto, which the southern San Jacinto city limit. The southern end of the northern Beaumont segment would be at an unsigned point on the Ramona Expressway, which used to be the northwestern San Jacinto city limit (the limit has since moved, but the relinquishment was not expanded accordingly).
There are plans for a future reroute of CA 79 west of San Jacinto, which would reconnect the two CA 79 segments.
BTW, the non-freeway parts of CA 79 within Temecula were also transferred to city maintenance. The segments northeast and southeast of I-15 within city limits have no turns and are easy to follow without continuation signage, and the implied concurrence with I-15 has signage in both directions pointing you to the rest of CA 79. So I don't think a Temecula split is needed.
The north end of CA 238's southern Fremont segment would be truncated about 1.5 miles. CA 238 used to be a continuous route within Hayward's city limits, north to the freeway stub south of the I-238/I-580 junction. When the state legislature authorized relinquishment of all non-freeway state highways within Hayward, it imposed a lax continuation signage requirement (only signs pointing to the rest of the state highway system, not the rest of the route). That was ignored, too. When I drove through Hayward on CA 92, CA 185, and CA 238, I found no route signage to navigate through the maze in downtown Hayward, seeming like Hayward was a big hole in the state highway system. That led me to spilt CA 238, as well as truncate CA 92 and CA 185, while usaca was still in preview. CA 160 in Sacramento was split for similar reasons.
When I did that, state maintenance of CA 238 ended at Industrial Parkway. Since then, Caltrans' online mapping (the
Postmile Query Tool) showed a new end of state maintenance. at Hayward's southern city limits.
The north end of CA 107 would be truncated by less than a mile. This is another relinquishment, to the city of Lawndale. The legislature didn't impose any continuation signage requirement, and I didn't see any such signage, though CA 107 is signed from I-405 where the route used to end. The new north end of the route is at Redondo Beach Blvd., which is Lawndale's southern city limit.
The legislature has also authorized relinquishment of the part of CA 107, as well as CA 1, within the city of Torrance. That city indicated interest taking its parts of both routes off Caltrans' hands. However, that hasn't happened yet.
