usaca: California State Highways

[oscar]

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/4540 makes various changes discussed above, including CA 17 and CA 73, and removal of the eastern CA 146 segment. Also peer review changes to CA 73, CA 59, CA 98, CA 99, CA 140, and CA 186. CA 14 Truck (Newhall) deleted, per neroute2's suggestion, but it is now an alternate route name for the completely concurrent I-5 Truck (Newhall).

[SSOWorld]

How is CA 14 Truck Redundant?  It turns right when I-5 Truck turns left!

[yakra]

How is CA 14 Truck Redundant?  It turns right when I-5 Truck turns left!

Code: [Select]

I-5_S http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=34.323918&lon=-118.501303
SieHwy http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=34.333734&lon=-118.505236
CA14 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=34.335955&lon=-118.508025
I-5_N http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=34.337845&lon=-118.514521

[oscar]

How is CA 14 Truck Redundant?  It turns right when I-5 Truck turns left!

Code: [Select]

I-5_S http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=34.323918&lon=-118.501303
SieHwy http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=34.333734&lon=-118.505236
CA14 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=34.335955&lon=-118.508025
I-5_N http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=34.337845&lon=-118.514521

That's the routing we had for CA 14 Truck, which is exactly the same as we have for I-5 Truck. 

Truck traffic between CA 14 and I-5 follows the I-5 truck route, and its own set of ramps connecting it to CA 14. But those ramps don't constitute a separate route. Caltrans' logs identify the I-5 truck route as a route separate from I-5, route 5S following an old US 99 alignment bypassed by the I-5 mainline. There is no 14S, or other route 14 auxiliary route, in the logs.

There is CA 14U, which is signed as such (as well as part of Historic US 6) and has its own entry in the HB. But that's not a truck route, just an old CA 14 surface alignment through Santa Clarita. Caltrans would like to dump it on the city now that CA 14 bypasses the city on a newer freeway, but the city has been unusually balky about taking over maintenance, unlike what Los Angeles County did for the rest of old CA 14/Historic US 6 in the county.

[oscar]

I've made peer review and other updates to the long CA 4, just added to the HB.

The updates include relabels for several exits at the west end of the route, to conform to changes to the signed and officially assigned exit numbers. Those of you whose CA 4 list file entries include exits west of exit 3 should check whether what the HB now shows for your travels matches your actual travels.

[redheadtraveler]

Greetings,

Let me know if I can be of any help in finalizing California highways.  I worked at Caltrans for 20 years as a transportation planner writing transportation concept reports and creating the current Caltrans GIS highway layer.  I know the Caltrans postmile and statewide postmile systems well, as well as some highway history that may help in identifying old routing.

[Markkos1992]

Is CA 259 and 710 still unsigned?
710 I can reluctantly see omitting, but I still want 259.

Someone just posted on the AARoads Forum that there is a CA 259 shield now...

[oscar]

Let me know if I can be of any help in finalizing California highways.  I worked at Caltrans for 20 years as a transportation planner writing transportation concept reports and creating the current Caltrans GIS highway layer.  I know the Caltrans postmile and statewide postmile systems well, as well as some highway history that may help in identifying old routing.

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. I have some extensive comments from another forum member, which I'm working through and probably is the last step to making the usaca system "active". I found some of the transportation concept reports very helpful, including clarifying the route network in the Long Beach area (the state-owned replacement for the city-owned old Gerald Desmond Bridge really helps, too).

We're not covering old routings for state routes, except for some unusual CA 49 historic routes (explicitly signed as such, with "Historic" banners above green spade shields, and treated like similarly-signed business routes).

Is CA 259 and 710 still unsigned?
710 I can reluctantly see omitting, but I still want 259.

Someone just posted on the AARoads Forum that there is a CA 259 shield now...

I think omitting CA 259 is defensible, but I welcome any excuse for putting it back in the HB. It helps that it once was signed.

Let's see if that new signage turns out to be more permanent than the temporary construction-zone CA 114 route marker, which soon disappeared and along with it the CA 114 entry in the HB.

As for the CA 710 stub in Pasadena, local officials seem to want it demolished, rather than just left unsigned and disconnected from I-710.

[Markkos1992]

I think CA 259 could fit better in usasf.  I wonder if VA 146 would have ended up there if it had remained unsigned.

[oscar]

I think CA 259 could fit better in usasf.

Two issues:

-- CA 259 is only about a mile long.

-- AFAIK, it doesn't have a name.

[redheadtraveler]

It looks like the I-710 spur in Pasadena should still be included.  It is still included in the California Streets and Highways Code.  (Article 3, section 622)

"Route 710 is from Route 1 to Route 210 in Pasadena."

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=SHC&sectionNum=622.

[oscar]

^ Our standard practice for state routes is not to include unsigned routes, or disconnected route segments, even if they're state-maintained and legislatively-defined. That's why the Pasadena stub of route 710 is omitted. Ditto routes 222, 225, 244, and 259 (that last might change, as discussed above, in view of new signage), and some others. Unsigned Interstates, like I-305 in Sacramento, are OK per the webmaster for the predecessor site to TM (who decided that unsigned Interstates should be on the site, but not unsigned state routes).

Our treatment of unsigned routes is a subject of much discussion on this forum, and some heartburn such as with the saga of CA 259.

BTW, the legislative definition of route 710 extends (S&H Code section 622.1) south past route 1 to route 47. Our site includes route 710 south of route 1, initially to Ocean Blvd. in Long Beach and later (upon opening of the state-maintained replacement for the being-demolished Gerald Desmond Bridge) to CA 47 on Terminal Island.

[Bickendan]

I think CA 259 could fit better in usasf.

Two issues:

-- CA 259 is only about a mile long.

-- AFAIK, it doesn't have a name.

Surprised to see nothing on cahwys.org... Seemed to me that the 259's the northern(eastern)most reach of the San Bernadino Freeway, as the SBD swings north from the 10 onto the 215 through downtown SBD.
If it were included in usasf on the basis of being the SBD Freeway, doing the entire named route from the 101 out to the 210 would ensure the omitted 101-10 connector, but that's a bit extreme, both with the overlap over the 10 and 215, but also because it'd open up the can of worms of including the other named freeways.

[Markkos1992]

Seemed to me that the 259's the northern(eastern)most reach of the San Bernadino Freeway, as the SBD swings north from the 10 onto the 215 through downtown SBD.
If it were included in usasf on the basis of being the SBD Freeway, doing the entire named route from the 101 out to the 210 would ensure the omitted 101-10 connector, but that's a bit extreme, both with the overlap over the 10 and 215, but also because it'd open up the can of worms of including the other named freeways.

Yeah, and that could pressure me into adding connectors such as the Highland Park Bridge and PA Turnpike Cranberry Interchange in PA...

[oscar]

Surprised to see nothing on cahwys.org... Seemed to me that the 259's the northern(eastern)most reach of the San Bernadino Freeway, as the SBD swings north from the 10 onto the 215 through downtown SBD.

If it were included in usasf on the basis of being the SBD Freeway, doing the entire named route from the 101 out to the 210 would ensure the omitted 101-10 connector, but that's a bit extreme, both with the overlap over the 10 and 215, but also because it'd open up the can of worms of including the other named freeways.

cahighways.org is pretty thorough, and AFAIK it doesn't document the use of the San Bernardino Freeway name anywhere except on route 10 (including its short non-Interstate segment near downtown Los Angeles). It indicates that I-215 north of I-10 has only other names.

Even if I-215 were part of the SBD, where's the evidence that the minor CA 259 freeway is also part of the SBD?

Not in https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/research-innovation-system-information/documents/place-names/web-2019-named-freeways-final-a11y.pdf, which has the San Bernardino Freeway only on route 10, only other names on route 215, and none at all for route 259.

And there's still the issue of its short length, especially with concerns that the usasf system is not "select" enough and we should be more conservative about making additions to that system.

ISTM that CA 259 goes back into the HB as CA 259 in usaca, or not at all. At least we now have one current CA 259 sign reported in the field (even if perhaps a contractor "error") to work with.