AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered at https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33904.0
Corrected several already and appreciate your patience as we work through the rest.

Author Topic: The Great Interstate 238 Debate  (Read 83083 times)

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4718
  • Last Login: Today at 01:32:02 AM
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #175 on: February 15, 2012, 07:33:00 PM »


What percent of the traffic from the E-W portion continues to the N-S portion and vice versa?  That is the first major route through the area, approximating US-40.  Someone must think it's substantial traffic or they wouldn't have bothered signing it as Capitol City Freeway.

I don't have traffic counts, though I do know the ramps DO back up regularly.  Having said that, the "Capitol City Freeway" name only exists as a remedy to the Business 80 confusion and I don't think is specific to the corridor's importance whatsoever.

In local usage, US 50 and the north-south Capital City Freeway/Business 80 are ALWAYS referred as separate routes.  I don't know if this was the case when all of that was I-80 but "Capital City" references in radio broadcasts generally never include the US 50 segment.

Quote from: kkt


Much of route 51 was built with interstate funds, and the quality of the road even though it's not quite modern interstate is better than you would expect from just a SR number.

Not true.

The only portion of Route 51 constructed as I-80 with Interstate funds was between US 50/Route 99 and E Street in the late 1950s and early 1960s.  North of there is the substandard 1940s-1950s US 99E freeway, primarily built pre-interstate and much in place by 1956.



Quote from: kkt
Like I said, all the options have disadvantages.  Traffic on 101 has increased a lot since 1947, and most of rebuilding it to interstate standards was already done by the early 1980s, I think it would have been worth applying again.  It still would, for that matter.

Except so much of 101 ISN'T up to Interstate standards between San Jose and Ventura, particularly in Prunedale.  

The only routes I can think of that California has applied for an Interstate sign since 880/238/710/110 & the 580 extension in the early 80s are future 15, 905, and 210, the latter of which was rejected twice by AASHTO in the late 90s as the segment east of Route 57 had yet to be completed.  I haven't heard anything about California reapplying for 210 lately.

There's little motivation to get Interstate funding or shields here (particularly when the example of TN 840 is considered - where Tennessee chose to keep it a state route in order to get the road built faster than if they had to deal with federal guidelines/paperwork), even when freeways are built to Interstate standard.  

You also mention (as I have) that number familiarity is important.  If the 48-year old 580 number has enough recognition that you feel it shouldn't be changed - I wasn't arguing it should be, so much as just noting the 580 corridor isn't particularly the most direct trajectory, as US 50 before that wasn't - then the 86-year old 101 number has even more recognition.

Quote from: kkt
That sounds like the tail wagging the dog.  Would the Feds really have said, "Yes, you have a good and needed project and we'd be happy to fund it, but there's no interstate number available so forget it?"  And, faced with losing a couple billion $ for the badly-needed Nimitz reconstruction, would California really have said "Keep your money, it's more important for CA-180 to keep its number?"  Don't both parties first decide what projects to do based on costs (financial, environmental, etc.) and benefits and then assign an appropriate number?

I was thinking more, the 880/80 situation in Sacramento (ca. 1979-1982) and the Nimitz/Century fast-tracking (1982-1984) seem to be entirely separate moments in which the latter benefitted from a number being available from the former.  Nothing intentional.

It IS telling CalTrans made a point of not renumbering 180 so that they could have it available for use in the Bay Area, instead coming up with the 580 extension and the awkward 238 Interstate status as responses.  (Now, in 1964, should they have responded otherwise?  They did renumber state routes 15 (to 7, future 710), 5 (to 35), 8 (to 88), and 10 (to 42) in response to the Interstates' arrival, so maybe 180 should have been in that batch of numbering changes as well.  Too late now.)

I think the documentation is on Kurumi.com, or at least somewhere else - in the discussions for what became 238 (and the 580 extension) the feds originally suggested 180 and CalTrans kept insisting that it not be used.

Quote from: kkt
No, it needs to be signed as interstate to appear as a good route for truckers, who have to take it rather than I-580 through Oakland.

If we're going to stay hypothetical, why not simply sign 238 and the north part of 880 as "TRUCK 580"?  I get that truck/alternate/etc. isn't common with Interstates, but it'd be valid there.  Isn't there a truck route for 278 in Queens?

Having said that, when the Nimitz/Cypress was 17 and 238 was a state route, while the MacArthur was US 50 and first I-5W, then I-580 and had its truck ban in place - it doesn't seem like the former needed the red/white/blue shield to be denoted as the truck route.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2012, 07:37:11 PM by TheStranger »
Logged
Chris Sampang

agentsteel53

  • invisible hand
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15374
  • long live button copy!

  • Age: 42
  • Location: San Diego, CA
  • Last Login: November 21, 2016, 09:58:39 AM
    • AARoads Shield Gallery
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #176 on: February 15, 2012, 08:57:02 PM »

business 580  :pan:
Logged
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

kkt

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7887
  • Location: Seattle, Washington
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 10:59:29 PM
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #177 on: February 20, 2012, 01:49:37 AM »

Is it just me, or were there several posts here from Feb. 16 that have vanished?  Was it a technical problem, or did a moderator think were were straying too much into fictional territory?
Logged

Alps

  • y u m
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15811
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 41
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 09:45:18 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #178 on: February 20, 2012, 08:10:52 PM »

This whole thread is fictional, but never migrated over there...

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.