Talk:California State Route 209/Archive 1

Archive 1

Why it was deleted from the state system

I see there was a question above about why this was deleted from the state system. The reason was that CalTrans decided around 2000 that it didn't want responsibility for maintaining state routes that were basically city streets. In San Diego that applied to SR-209 (Rosecrans St.) and SR-274 (Balboa Ave.), both of which were transferred to the city of San Diego, along with a cash payment for future maintenance. I know this from personal knowledge but I don't have a reference right now so can't add it to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

This sounds right, statewide. Unfortunately I haven't found anything yet though. --Rschen7754 23:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Question

"In 2000, SR 209 had an annual average daily traffic (AADT) of 2,600 at the southern end in Cabrillo National Monument, and 61,000 at the northern end at the I-5/I-8 junction, the latter of which was the highest AADT for the freeway.[3]" Should that read "highest AADT for the highway"? SR-209 was not a freeway. Or am I misinterpreting this? --MelanieN (talk) 23:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Shoot, that's a copy-paste error from my other articles, which are freeways. :P --Rschen7754 00:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I thought that might be the case. Anyone who has done as many road articles as you have, is entitled! I changed it to highway. --MelanieN (talk) 01:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Probable error

I think this sentence from the History section is in error, and possibly some of the other sentences as well:

The city assumed maintenance of the road on May 1, after it had been paved from Tide Street to Ocean Beach.

But the SR-209/Rosecrans/La Playa Trail route does not run to Ocean Beach and never did. I think there may be some confusion with a separate route that went out through Midway along the San Diego River to Ocean Beach. (Most likely the present day West Point Loma Blvd.) There may also be some errors in the railroad information; there was a railroad line built to Ocean Beach in 1909;[1] I think it's possible the references in this article to a 1909 railroad are actually talking about the OB railroad. I wish I could read the actual citations so I could sort out which ones refer to the Peninsula route and which refer to Ocean Beach.

I see that this is a Good Article so I'd like it to be accurate. Anyone have any insights here, or leads I could follow to sort this out? I'm actually inclined to delete that sentence and the whole rest of the paragraph. --MelanieN (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The railroad information was difficult to go through, and it's certainly possible that I made a mistake. I can send the articles on request if you wish. --Rschen7754 23:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

If you wouldn't mind, I'll see what I can make of them. Can you email them to me? --MelanieN (talk) 23:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow! What a treasure trove of documents! Good on you for finding them, Rschen, and good on you again for picking your way through them so accurately. You are right and I am wrong. The road to Ocean Beach in those days DID follow the Rosecrans Street route as far as Roseville, then up the hill and over the point to Ocean Beach. The railway did the same, although it took a different route over the point. The direct railway to OB wasn't built until the 1920s.

Part of my confusion was that the stories referred to the new Lytton-Rosecrans-Ocean Beach road as "the Point Loma boulevard", which it turns out was just a descriptive name, unrelated to either present day West Point Loma Boulevard or Point Loma Avenue. It was kind of hard to piece the route together, partly because Tide Street no longer exists and partly because the route up the hill wasn't clear. But one of the articles finally referred to the previously unnamed winding uphill road as "Canyon Road" - bingo! it must have been present day Cañon Street, part of SR-209. The 1909 railroad went over the point to OB by a more direct route, using Carlson Canyon (now Nimitz Blvd.)

So there is no correction needed; the information in the article is accurate. My apologies for thinking otherwise. I may add a few notes, for example a mention of A. G. Spalding, a historically important figure. He was the one who pushed through and partially funded the construction of the "Point Loma boulevard"; I suspect the reason he wanted it so badly (and chose the actual route) was because he was a big supporter and benefactor of the Lomaland community at what is now Point Loma Nazarene University; the new road provided good access to that community. Thanks again for the material, it will be useful in other Point Loma articles as well as this one. --MelanieN (talk) 16:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem. I chose not to take this to FA because I got the sense that stuff was missing - how the railroad ended is a bit fuzzy, and why it got decommissioned in the end. I searched in my databases when I had access, but couldn't find anything, and I no longer have access. --Rschen7754 10:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleted

This route has been deleted as of 2003, according to cahighways.org. --Geopgeop 13:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Will someone please explain to me why this page should not be redirected to Deleted state highways in California? Richard Hendricks (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • There is enough information for its own article. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Coming back here, the source cited in the article saying it was relinquished, "California State Legislature (2003). "An act...relating to transportation". State of California. 2003 chapter 525.", is not the correct source. It was AB 1419, introduced in 1999-2000, that authorized the relinquishment: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/99-00/bill/asm/ab_1401-1450/ab_1419_bill_20000919_chaptered.html --Geopgeop (talk) 06:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

It actually is the correct source. See chapter 525, section 35 of [2]: SEC. 35. Section 509 of the Streets and Highways Code is repealed. --Rschen7754 07:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:California State Route 209/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TCN7JM (talk · contribs) 10:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I can review this article later on today. TCN7JM 10:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

1. "which is formerly on land used for a naval training center" – Reading this the first time, I thought the church was physically relocated, as it claims to be formerly on the land. I'd assume this was just an odd typo, though, and that it means to say that the land was formerly used for a naval training center, right?

   Fixed. --Rschen7754 19:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

2. Any information at all on why SR 209 was deleted, or did some guy at Caltrans just suddenly wake up one day in 2003 and say, "Hey, guys. Let's delete a highway today."?

   Unfortunately not, a newspaper search turned up nothing. --Rschen7754 19:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

This is all for my review. I will leave this on hold. TCN7JM 10:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Alright, now that you've addressed my concerns, I am happy to pass this article. Nice work! TCN7JM 20:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)