usaca: California State Highways

[oscar]

(Obsolete and perhaps irrelevant) precedence came from the Mackenzie ice crossings in NWT. NT 3's has been replaced by the Deh Cho Bridge, but NT 8 still has two across the Peel and Mackenzie rivers.

The ice bridges were important to Tim, which meant you could drive across the rivers on NT 8 in the winter (even if by ferries most of the rest of the year).

I propose departing from Tim's rule, to allow team members discretion to not break up routes for short ferry crossings (as I think has already been done here and there in other US states, somehow slipping past Tim). That would not apply in Alaska, where the ferry trips linking AK 7 segments take at least two hours. It could be applied to YT 6, though I think combining its two segments would be more work than it's worth, considering that I'm the only user to have driven that route.

[Bickendan]

This could warrant its own discussion, but if not merging routes via short ferry crossings, it could be worth starting a ferry system then.
That would be notably AK 7 and the Marine Highway, the Washington SR ferries and 'SR 407', and US 10 across Lake Michigan, off the top of my head. Internationally, a case could be made for Dover-Calais...?

[yakra]

The ice bridges were important to Tim, which meant you could drive across the rivers on NT 8 in the winter (even if by ferries most of the rest of the year).

Hm. If I were starting that system from scratch, I might look into breaking such routes. Just commenting though; this has been a done deal AFAIC, and isn't worth revisiting.

As for ferries, my opinion is that we should stick with the guideline about breaking up routes with ferries, at least when drafting new systems.

(as I think has already been done here and there in other US states, somehow slipping past Tim)

All I'm aware of personally are CT148 and CT160, both of which predate the split-up-ferry-routes dictum, I believe.
Despite my previous comment, at the same time I've never been in a hurry to break these up. Looking at these now, both of their ferry segments are clinched by 2/3 of their travelers. I don't feel like breaking .list files. Still in no hurry.

Perhaps a "Break them for new routes, but OK to grandfather existing routes in" rule of thumb?

[oscar]

This could warrant its own discussion, but if not merging routes via short ferry crossings, it could be worth starting a ferry system then.
That would be notably AK 7 and the Marine Highway, the Washington SR ferries and 'SR 407', and US 10 across Lake Michigan, off the top of my head. Internationally, a case could be made for Dover-Calais...?

I'm very much interested in expanding into ferries, but there seems to be greater interest in first expanding into rail, and I'm OK with that priority.

In any case, I think a separate ferry system is more appropriate for longer routes such as on the Alaska Marine Highway system, than for the itty-bitty ferry routes on CA 84 and CA 220.

[michih]

I'm very much interested in expanding into ferries, but there seems to be greater interest in first expanding into rail, and I'm OK with that priority.
In any case, I think a separate ferry system is more appropriate for longer routes such as on the Alaska Marine Highway system, than for the itty-bitty ferry routes on CA 84 and CA 220.

Me too. I'm not interested in rail at all but in ferries! Short river ferries and longer sea crossings. However, I don't know how we should draft long routes...

Generally, I think (new) routes should ALWAYS be split if they are interrupted by ferries. No minimum lengths etc.

[si404]

There's no reason why expansion to ferries cannot happen now. If there's momentum behind it (there wasn't really for rail), then we might get it out of alpha!

[Bickendan]

Might as well -- they're a logical extension to highways. 
My only desire for rail is that I could offload the highways closest to train lines I've been on (NYC- Vermont; Budapest - pressure) from my .list.

[oscar]

Most relevant to the active usaib and usausb systems, but also affecting some usaca routes: I've noticed that some of the on-freeway business route signage I remember in northern California seems to have been removed. This may be a district-by-district thing, mainly in Caltrans districts 1 and 2, but maybe also part of district 3 (signage for I-5BL Woodland seems to still be there, at least on I-5 SB). The ones I have in mind are the I-5BLs in Red Bluff, Dunsmuir, Weed, and Yreka, and the US 101 business routes in Ukiah, Rio Dell, and McKinleyville, though there might be others with removed signage I didn't notice.

Some followup, now that I've left California -- I found signage for most of the I-/US business routes I thought might be decommissioned. So my concern about mass decommissioning of business routes in northern California proved unfounded.

The only possibly decommissioned routes left on my list are I-5BLWilliams (no BL signage at its junctions with I-5 and CA 20), US101BusUkiah (no signage on US 101, but didn't check its junction with CA 253), and also CA99BusModesto (no signage on CA 99, but still need to check other locations). I'm not pulling the trigger on any of these just yet, pending further review.

[yakra]

For business/bannered routes with questionable/spotty signage that are already in the system, my standards are pretty low for allowing them to soldier on until more info comes in. See US1BusWar, NE 2 Bus Grand Island, (or even the questionable truck routes in NY, PA, and elsewhere...)
Sounds as if your philosophy may be similar.

Makes me thankful for how TXDOT is well organized, and for the most part pretty consistent on signage , with their business routes.

[Bickendan]

Since the OR 39 thread in the update forum affects CA 161, I'll mention it here as well:
ODOT isn't clear where the border actually falls short of sending a survey crew out there. Until we have definitive border definition, I don't believe anything should be done with the end points for CA 139 and OR 39 (CA 161's end point is unaffected here), nor should OR CA161 (essentially the westbound lane of State Line Rd on the eastern segment) be nuked.

[yakra]

Yup. We can't definitively prove that it's broke.
...Yet?

[oscar]

Not changing CA161 just yet, but here are the major items in the update package for which I'll shortly submit a pull request.

Endpoint and other label fixes

CA 70 and CA 70 (Business): north endpoint now CA70(48B), with exit 48 split in two to reflect that the business route ends at the north half-diamond interchange rather than midway between the north and south half-diamonds.

CA 151: west endpoint moved south from CHA18_N to DamVisCen point at south edge of Shasta Dam visitor center parking lot, where I saw postmile 0.00; CHA18_S => CHA18

CA 162 (Covelo): FH7 => ShoCrkRd (no FH7 signage at CA 162 end; anyway, I prefer intersecting roads/boundaries over continuation road names/numbers, the former better defines where the CA route ends)

CA 168Bis (Bishop): west end truncated to SabCamp

CA 169 (Klamath Glen): east end renamed TerRifRd

CA 191: north end renamed PeaRd

Unsigned routes deleted

CA 222 (Ukiah, to closed state hospital converted to a monastery)

CA 244 (Auburn Blvd. connector in Sacramento)

CA 283 (concurrent with part of US101Bus Rio Dell, which itself hangs on by a thread with just one route marker)

CA 710 (short stub in Pasadena, which South Pasadena residents are aggressively trying to keep disconnected from I-710)

Route splits

CA 84 (Rio Vista): truncated at Ryer Island ferry crossing, with rest of route moved to new ca.ca084rye (Ryer Island)

CA 160: relinquished segment in Sacramento removed, with northern remaining segment now ca.ca160 (North Sacramento), and southern segment now ca.ca160rio (Rio Vista); much of relinquished segment will be covered by well-signed US 40 Historic (Sacramento) route

CA 193: now separate segments, western segment ca.ca193 (Lincoln) and eastern segment ca.ca193geo (Georgetown), with unsigned connection over I-80 and CA 49 removed

CA 220:  split at Ryer Island ferry crossing, with western segment now ca.ca220rye (Ryer Island) and eastern segment now ca.ca220 (Ryer)

@si404 -- new AmeRiv point at south end of CA 160 North Sacramento segment should be added, at least as hidden point, to US 40 Historic (Sacramento) file, to keep the two files synched.

[mapcat]

Unsigned routes deleted

CA 244 (Auburn Blvd. connector in Sacramento)

CA 710 (short stub in Pasadena, which South Pasadena residents are aggressively trying to keep disconnected from I-710)

Could these be considered for inclusion in usasf? Each is a freeway, and has been clinched by several users. Not sure about a name for 244, though.

[Bickendan]

Unsigned routes deleted

CA 244 (Auburn Blvd. connector in Sacramento)

CA 710 (short stub in Pasadena, which South Pasadena residents are aggressively trying to keep disconnected from I-710)

Could these be considered for inclusion in usasf? Each is a freeway, and has been clinched by several users. Not sure about a name for 244, though.

CA 259 too

[oscar]

Unsigned routes deleted

CA 244 (Auburn Blvd. connector in Sacramento)

CA 710 (short stub in Pasadena, which South Pasadena residents are aggressively trying to keep disconnected from I-710)

Could these be considered for inclusion in usasf? Each is a freeway, and has been clinched by several users. Not sure about a name for 244, though.

Not sure about whether CA 710 has a name either.

I'm not crazy about either one of these really short routes. The Westside Parkway west of Bakersfield (possible replacement for part of CA 58) would be a much better candidate.