WY: WY330 decommissioned

[Duke87]

It looks like WY330 was decommissioned: http://www.dot.state.wy.us/files/live/sites/wydot/files/shared/Administration/Transportation%20Commission/Meeting%20Minutes/2018/Minutes-Bus%20Mtg-Apr-19-2018.pdf
(page 9)

[the_spui_ninja]

Tis a shame, it was a nice route.

[oscar]

Worth a quick e-mail to WYDOT to confirm that the route itself is being decommissioned, rather than just associated unused real estate being given to the city. The Transportation Commission's resolution says that "portions of the ... right-of-way" for route 330 were no longer needed and could be relinquished, but what might be left out of those "portions"? (Maybe it's the entire ROW, but the TC said "portions" just for CYA, as lawyers are wont to do.) OTOH, I've driven the route. and it might've been in summer 2018, after the relinquishment was approved, with route signage still there.

I've seen at least one instance in California where Caltrans wanted to dump the entire route (and had legislative authorization to do so), and at first we thought that was what happened. But the city in question agreed only to take adjacent unused land, so that route remains on Caltrans' books and in the HB.

[the_spui_ninja]

What was described covers the whole route (it was only a mile long). I figure by now (it's been two years), Sheridan likely had some street projects and got rid of the old signs. From what I've seen, WY doesn't really do the whole signage on non-state maintained road like SD does. Plus, this is a spur route, so I don't think WYDOT would sign it even if it's off the books.

[oscar]

What was described covers the whole route (it was only a mile long).

What if the state only relinquished sidewalks or other adjacent property, but not the roadway itself? That'd be consistent with the "portions" language in the relinquishment resolution. Something like that happened in the California example I mentioned.

I still think it's worth an e-mail to WYDOT, to make sure we got this right.

[rickmastfan67]

the_spui_ninja, need to remove the 'wy.wy330' part in the updates.csv file. Otherwise, it goes to a broken link, as we always leave that part 'blank' when removing a decommissioned route.

[cl94]

What was described covers the whole route (it was only a mile long).

What if the state only relinquished sidewalks or other adjacent property, but not the roadway itself? That'd be consistent with the "portions" language in the relinquishment resolution. Something like that happened in the California example I mentioned.

I still think it's worth an e-mail to WYDOT, to make sure we got this right.

The language used is consistent with how WYDOT relinquishes entire routes, according to Corco.

[US 89]

Here's a street ownership map he found from the city: https://www.sheridanwy.gov/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=15922659

On that map, all of former WYO 330 is shown as a City of Sheridan road.

[the_spui_ninja]

Alrighty, I'll leave this open, and if it turns out to be a situation where the route is signed on a city street I can throw it back in easily (it was only two points). I'd say it's probably only a 3% chance of that, but once this is fully confirmed the thread can go.

[bejacob]

I was in Sheridan on 10/12/2019. I recall seeing at least 1 route sign just west of I-90BL (GMSV from Aug 2019) and an "end state maintenance" sign near the hospital. If the route was decommissioned, field signage had not caught up at the time of my visit. 

Suppose the route has been relinquished to the city, but signs were never removed. How should that be handled?

[oscar]

Suppose the route has been relinquished to the city, but signs were never removed. How should that be handled?

Ignore the signs as mere "remnant signage", and treat the relinquished route as decommissioned. Unless, as sometimes happens in California, there are strings attached to the relinquishment that might or might not justify treating it as non-decommissioned. I don't know if that ever applies in Wyoming.

[the_spui_ninja]

I was in Sheridan on 10/12/2019. I recall seeing at least 1 route sign just west of I-90BL (GMSV from Aug 2019) and an "end state maintenance" sign near the hospital. If the route was decommissioned, field signage had not caught up at the time of my visit. 

Was there still the sign heading east from the hospital? If I know anything about government, the signs won't go away until they repave the road (which probably won't be for a while).

Here's a street ownership map he found from the city: https://www.sheridanwy.gov/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=15922659

On that map, all of former WYO 330 is shown as a City of Sheridan road.

Interestingly, that has 331, 332, and 336 ending at or near city limits... not sure what to do about that.

UPDATE: GMSV has 332 matching the Sheridan map (and I remember the signage was sparse to nonexistent on the segment in question several years ago, which is a shame cause that's the only part I've traveled )

UPDATE OF THE UPDATE:
This and this have 331 matching the city map; there's no signage until Vale Ave and a very obvious pavement change there.
There is still signage on 336 that matches the HB.

[bejacob]

I was in Sheridan on 10/12/2019. I recall seeing at least 1 route sign just west of I-90BL (GMSV from Aug 2019) and an "end state maintenance" sign near the hospital. If the route was decommissioned, field signage had not caught up at the time of my visit. 

Was there still the sign heading east from the hospital? If I know anything about government, the signs won't go away until they repave the road (which probably won't be for a while).

Yes, at the corner of Kentucky Ave and 5th Ave. This sign from GMSV July 2018 was still there in Oct 2019.

Doesn't mean the route is still official. It is, or at least was last fall, still signed in the field.

I'll keep this in my .list file for now and deal with the error in my log file. If the decision eventually ends up with this route not going back into the HB, I'll make changes on a later update to my travels.

[cl94]

Suppose the route has been relinquished to the city, but signs were never removed. How should that be handled?

Ignore the signs as mere "remnant signage", and treat the relinquished route as decommissioned. Unless, as sometimes happens in California, there are strings attached to the relinquishment that might or might not justify treating it as non-decommissioned. I don't know if that ever applies in Wyoming.

This is indeed how it is handled elsewhere. It's not uncommon in NY for remnant signage to remain for a year or two after a route is officially decommissioned. Doesn't mean the route is still on the records. Hell, there are reference markers still out there for routes that haven't existed in 40 years!

[the_spui_ninja]

OK, so I'm waiting for final confirmation on 330, but in the meantime, I'm going to truncate 331 to Vale Ave. where the pavement change is as it seems that the portion in Sheridan city limits has always been city-maintained.
On 332, however, I found some signage north of 334 (either side of the Airport Road intersection) but the only thing further north than that is a TO WY 332 sign heading south on Big Horn Avenue just south of College Avenue (this was in 2012 tho). There is a pavement change a block north of the Airport Road intersection, but there's no "END STATE MAINTENANCE" sign or anything helpful like that. The 2017 maintenance book (here) has the route starting 0.56 miles south of the Main St/Coffeen Ave intersection, which would be between Burrows St and Nebraska St on Big Horn Ave... but there's no pavement change and that's nowhere near Sheridan city limits like it says in the log. My leaning right now is to truncate it to Arapahoe St, just north of the pavement change and where the painted double yellow line ends; thoughts?
336 will stay as-is.