I'm wondering why Exit 68 on CA 60 near Beaumont for Gilman Springs Rd has these blank spaces on these guide signs. Was Gilman Springs Rd originally planned to be signed a state route?
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images060/ca-060_eb_exit_068_01.jpg)
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images060/ca-060_eb_exit_068_04.jpg)
According to cahighways.org, Gilman Springs Road was once CA 79 as well as CA 177. It hasn't been a state highway since the 1960s.
The road eventually reaches CA-79, so maybe at one point CA-79 was going to be routed northwest of its current northern terminus?
Judging from a map, Gilman Springs Rd acts as a shortcut for those heading to San Jacinto & Hemet from Pomona, Riverside & Moreno Valley wishing to avoid Beaumont. If it was given a SH designation, it could be CA 279.
Isn't 3xx usually used for realigned highways? If it was formerly part of CA-79, then they might prefer CA-379.
Quote from: Quillz on April 22, 2011, 12:40:14 AM
Isn't 3xx usually used for realigned highways?
No.
Well, CA 330 was created when CA 30 (now 210) was rerouted south to I-10 onto CA 106 in 1972, and CA 371 was created out of an orphaned CA 71, because it was duplexed with CA 91, I-15 and CA 79.
San Diego was fun. Thanks for asking.
Let's keep the "fixing" to on-topic discussion please... --roadfro.
Quote from: roadfro on April 23, 2011, 03:58:32 AM
Let's keep the "fixing" to on-topic discussion please... --roadfro.
The topic is a single sign on a single road. I think the discussion has been over for many posts.
Removed excessive image quoting
In another thread I noticed that Gilman Springs Road was a State Numbered highway from this map.
Unknown Proposed Freeways In So Cal?
« on: April 20, 2011, 11:51:15 PM » Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was looking at my 1968 San Bernardino County Thomas Guide which has a LA metro area freeway map with proposed routes included. Some of theses routes I never heard of.
Looking at this map CA 22 was supposed to be extended western to the Harbor Freeway. Does anyone know why it never was finished?
Thomas Bros Map Circa 1968 Los Angeles Metro Freeway Map by bigmikelakers, on Flickr
On this map it has a proposed freeway for US 395 called the Adelanto Freeway. Has anyone heard of this before?
I also see a proposed mountain freeway north of Lake Gregory. I think its CA 138. Maybe its part of the Metro Bypass.
In Lucerne Valley, CA 247 is proposed as a freeway. Where was it planned to go? Twentynine Palms/Yucca Valley?
Thomas Bros Map Circa 1968 Los Angeles Metro Freeway Map
On the original topic...
i think it was a pre-1964 Route 79, then was 177 when 79 was given a more direct north-south routing, then removed from the state highway system. (177 was reused for the road from I-10 to Desert Center)
Quote from: TheStranger on May 04, 2011, 12:16:42 PM
(177 was reused for the road from I-10 to Desert Center)
that explains. I was trying to figure out just what kind of continuous routing could've connected the two 177s. apparently they were separated in space and time.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 04, 2011, 12:19:59 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on May 04, 2011, 12:16:42 PM
(177 was reused for the road from I-10 to Desert Center)
that explains. I was trying to figure out just what kind of continuous routing could've connected the two 177s. apparently they were separated in space and time.
Looking at Dan Faigin's site...
http://cahighways.org/177-184.html
Gilman Springs Road as 177 existed from 1964-1965 before being removed from the system. I guess this interchange might be the only evidence it was ever signed (though maybe these were Route 79 gantries that never received 177 signage before its removal? It's ambiguous from the evidence presented).
Current 177 to Desert Center has existed since 1972.
looks like those guide signs were, at one point, planned to have 177 shields?
had they had 177 shields from the start, greenout would have been required to cover them up, as the green shields were printed directly onto the porcelain, as opposed to being a separate panel like a white US shield.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 04, 2011, 04:09:07 PM
looks like those guide signs were, at one point, planned to have 177 shields?
had they had 177 shields from the start, greenout would have been required to cover them up, as the green shields were printed directly onto the porcelain, as opposed to being a separate panel like a white US shield.
What I'm wondering out loud: were these guide signs old enough that they might've had 79 shields at one point, or were they new enough that they were either slated to or did have 177 shields only (before the decomissioning)?