If I-210 is re-routed on CA 210, would a new 3di need to be created?

[emory]

As has been pointed out here before, CA 57 from I-10 to I-210/CA 210 is a part of the interstate highway system, federally defined as Interstate 210. If CA 210 becomes part of the system and I-210 is routed onto it, that leaves a segment of the system without a definition. Thankfully we have a handful of usable options: I-410, I-610 and I-810. However even if California is required to redefine unsigned I-210 after the move, they'll probably continue to sign it as CA 57 and the San Garbriel Valley ends up with its own I-305.

[jeffe]

Why did you only list even numbers for the first digit of the 3di options?  It could be argued that the segment in question would operate more as a spur than a bypass and thus would have an odd first digit.

A change of CA-57 to I-510 would be an option, given the historical changes of CA-7 to I-710 and CA-11 to I-110.

However, as you noted, it would likely just be signed as CA-57 even though it defined as an interstate.

[Bobby5280]

I would assume CA-57 would get an even number designation since its South end merges into I-5 (and the North end is at I-210).  I would probably use "I-810" as the designation to avoid any possible confusion between I-410/I-610 designations and existing I-405/I-605.

[Max Rockatansky]

Personally I think 57 is fine.  It's been that way long enough that people are used to it being the signed route number.  There too much satuaration with 3d Interstate numbers to begin with already in Southern California, we really don't need another.  I'm not saying drop it from the Interstate system, I just prefer it stay signed as is.

[oscar]

Is there a useful purpose to Interstate signage or designation for the freeway connector between I-10/CA 57 and I-/CA 210? AIUI, Caltrans' initial (and no longer pending) proposal to Interstate-ize CA 210 called for simply moving the I-210 designation to CA 210, without any new Interstate designation or number for the former I-210 segment. I agree with Max that it would be simpler to just sign that segment as CA 57, and leave it at that.

[The Ghostbuster]

I highly doubt the Interstate 210-turned-CA 57 route will be returned to the Interstate system. The freeway's existing CA 57 designation is the correct one, IMHO.

[NE2]

It's still part of the IHS, dude.

[The Ghostbuster]

I would have thought that segment would have been removed from the Interstate system upon being redesignated CA-57. In any event, that segment does not need a new Interstate designation.

[Alps]

I would have thought that segment would have been removed from the Interstate system upon being redesignated CA-57. In any event, that segment does not need a new Interstate designation.

I would be under the same assumption - depends on the Federal funding split for existing I-210 along CA 57 vs. proposed I-210 along CA 210. If the funding split would be the same, then I imagine a pure designation swap is in order. If CA 57 is funded at a higher rate, let's just pretend it's 90% instead of 50%, then I would imagine 57 stays on the system.

[sparker]

I highly doubt the Interstate 210-turned-CA 57 route will be returned to the Interstate system. The freeway's existing CA 57 designation is the correct one, IMHO.

It's still part of the IHS, dude.

I would have thought that segment would have been removed from the Interstate system upon being redesignated CA-57. In any event, that segment does not need a new Interstate designation.

I would be under the same assumption - depends on the Federal funding split for existing I-210 along CA 57 vs. proposed I-210 along CA 210. If the funding split would be the same, then I imagine a pure designation swap is in order. If CA 57 is funded at a higher rate, let's just pretend it's 90% instead of 50%, then I would imagine 57 stays on the system.

The solution, if it is ever decided to extend I-210 out to Redlands over now CA 210, is quite simple: just re-designate (legislatively if necessary) the chargeable portion of the original I-210 that is now signed as CA 57 as a completely new (to CA, at least) 10-family 3di (410, 810, etc.)-- but, as with I-595 in MD or I-296 in MI, don't sign it as such, leave it as CA 57. 

[emory]

The solution, if it is ever decided to extend I-210 out to Redlands over now CA 210, is quite simple: just re-designate (legislatively if necessary) the chargeable portion of the original I-210 that is now signed as CA 57 as a completely new (to CA, at least) 10-family 3di (410, 810, etc.)-- but, as with I-595 in MD or I-296 in MI, don't sign it as such, leave it as CA 57.

Hence why I cited I-305 in my original post. California signs it as US 50/Business I-80, that freeway of which is its own anomaly in Caltrans signage.

[vdeane]

Knowing CA, they would probably designate it as a second I-57.  Hey, if it works for I-74, I-87, and I-238...

[Max Rockatansky]

Knowing CA, they would probably designate it as a second I-57.  Hey, if it works for I-74, I-87, and I-238...

Actually you're probably right given the legislative history with 238 and now 57:

http://www.cahighways.org/057-064.html

[sparker]

Knowing CA, they would probably designate it as a second I-57.  Hey, if it works for I-74, I-87, and I-238...

Actually you're probably right given the legislative history with 238 and now 57:

http://www.cahighways.org/057-064.html

Please -- don't give Caltrans any stupid ideas; maybe they'll actually do something logical on their own (uhh...who am I kidding?).

I-238 was just a matter of bad timing; they commissioned that thing, along with the 2nd iteration of I-880, a few years before Mother Nature took care of the "480" designation on her own, which would have freed up the number for re-use.  And, as the "210" situation has demonstrated, Caltrans is in no hurry to designate any more Interstates; satisfying the Interstate chargeability issue would be the sole rationale for doing so in this instance.   

[andy3175]

Knowing CA, they would probably designate it as a second I-57.  Hey, if it works for I-74, I-87, and I-238...

Actually you're probably right given the legislative history with 238 and now 57:

http://www.cahighways.org/057-064.html

Please -- don't give Caltrans any stupid ideas; maybe they'll actually do something logical on their own (uhh...who am I kidding?).

I-238 was just a matter of bad timing; they commissioned that thing, along with the 2nd iteration of I-880, a few years before Mother Nature took care of the "480" designation on her own, which would have freed up the number for re-use.  And, as the "210" situation has demonstrated, Caltrans is in no hurry to designate any more Interstates; satisfying the Interstate chargeability issue would be the sole rationale for doing so in this instance.   

An extension of Interstate 15 and creation of Interstate 905 are not on the front burner. But improvements to SR 15 and SR 905 are (including revision of the SR15-94 interchange and SR905-125-11 interchange). Creating new Interstates does not appear to be of interest to Caltrans. Making roadway improvements is. I've spoken with the district director previously, and during that brief conversation, it was clear to me adding Interstate shields (despite I-15 and I-905 already approved by AASHTO in the 1980s) is not something District XI appears to be actively pursuing. Having said that, sporadic signage has appeared in the past decade for I-15, including one sign for I-15 on southbound I-5, a freeway entrance shield assembly off of University Avenue, a trailblazer near the intersection of Adams and 40th Street, and a reassurance route marker on northbound SR 15 past the I-805 interchange.

Having said that, both I-15 and I-905, along with SR 210 becoming I-210, are logical additions to the Interstate system. And SR 57 between I-10 and I-210 is already part of the Interstate system unless an action is taken to AASHTO and FHWA to decommission it. For the time being, SR 57 between I-10 and SR 210 is I-210 until action is taken to either remove SR 57 from the Interstate Highway System or renumber that leftover segment of I-210 to something else. I think that I-210 may still come to pass depending on whether SANBAG takes an interest in having a third interstate serve San Bernardino. With the recent improvements at the 210-215 interchange, I am not sure what other improvements are necessary to bring all of SR 210 up to Interstate standards. Finally, it is worth noting that there is a lone I-210 sign on westbound I-10 in Redlands (eastern terminus).

If all of SR 57 is to be added to the Interstate Highway System, I have always thought I-510 would be a great number since it connects I-5 and I-10 (and it has the potential, albeit very slight, to extend further south based on the legislative definition of SR 57 - as described on the terminated franchise agreement on http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/paffairs/about/toll/rt57.htm). Together with I-210, SR 57 is a potentially good alternative route to bypass downtown Los Angeles (other options include 605 and 405), so it may fit a role as an Interstate better than other LA-area freeways.

As for SR 58 ... let's get that segment upgraded to expressway first (such as Hinckley and Kramer) and see completion of the Centennial Corridor linking SR 99 to the Westside Parkway. Bringing that corridor to Interstate standards is appropriate due to the heavy truck traffic, and I believe that remains the goal of the local Caltrans district. Once we have a full freeway (probably in several decades), then an extension request for I-40 might be in order. I don't think exit numbers will be a big deal because the movement of SR 58 onto the Westside Parkway will alter the exit numbers anyway (or there will be a milepost equation somewhere since it appears the new route will contain fewer miles than the old). So we'll see what happens.

[sparker]

If all of SR 57 is to be added to the Interstate Highway System, I have always thought I-510 would be a great number since it connects I-5 and I-10 (and it has the potential, albeit very slight, to extend further south based on the legislative definition of SR 57 - as described on the terminated franchise agreement on http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/paffairs/about/toll/rt57.htm). Together with I-210, SR 57 is a potentially good alternative route to bypass downtown Los Angeles (other options include 605 and 405), so it may fit a role as an Interstate better than other LA-area freeways.

As for SR 58 ... let's get that segment upgraded to expressway first (such as Hinckley and Kramer) and see completion of the Centennial Corridor linking SR 99 to the Westside Parkway. Bringing that corridor to Interstate standards is appropriate due to the heavy truck traffic, and I believe that remains the goal of the local Caltrans district. Once we have a full freeway (probably in several decades), then an extension request for I-40 might be in order. I don't think exit numbers will be a big deal because the movement of SR 58 onto the Westside Parkway will alter the exit numbers anyway (or there will be a milepost equation somewhere since it appears the new route will contain fewer miles than the old). So we'll see what happens.

In full agreement about the utility of CA 57 as an intraregional 3di (510's just fine!).  It's too bad topology & development have made an actual eastern LA metro bypass unlikely.  And I definitely concur regarding CA 58 eventually becoming an Interstate -- but I don't see that happening until the 2030's or so (hell, I'll be in my 80's by then -- better start taking uber-supplements so I can live to not only see my avatar over Tehachapi Pass but drive it as well!).   

[Alex]

The CA 57 segment could remain as an unsigned branch of I-210. The concept of a branch route would not be new, as I-465 previously had the branch (later renumbered to I-865) west to I-65 in addition to the beltway alignment around Indianapolis.

[sparker]

The CA 57 segment could remain as an unsigned branch of I-210. The concept of a branch route would not be new, as I-465 previously had the branch (later renumbered to I-865) west to I-65 in addition to the beltway alignment around Indianapolis.

The only thing that could possibly prevent the CA 57-signed segment of original I-210 from being considered a "branch" might be the presence of  multiple interchanges along that segment; the I-465 "branch" that eventually became I-865 had no interchanges; it was more or less an elongated set of ramps to and from northward I-65 to the northwest corner of the I-465 beltway.  I suppose consideration as such would depend upon the set of definitions that FHWA uses to define various Interstate configurations; if I'm in fact worrying for nothing -- or if anyone can shed further light upon previous actions concerning like situations -- please feel free to chime in!

[emory]

The CA 57 segment could remain as an unsigned branch of I-210. The concept of a branch route would not be new, as I-465 previously had the branch (later renumbered to I-865) west to I-65 in addition to the beltway alignment around Indianapolis.

We did have something like that with the I-10 spur in Los Angeles, formerly designated I-110, but it was deleted from the IHS in the 60s. Now it's basically a glorified exit ramp. I don't see it ever coming back unless they made it more accessible to I-5.

[andy3175]

The CA 57 segment could remain as an unsigned branch of I-210. The concept of a branch route would not be new, as I-465 previously had the branch (later renumbered to I-865) west to I-65 in addition to the beltway alignment around Indianapolis.

Another example is I-270 at the Washington Beltway (I-495). Is the "spur" portion of I-270 a true Interstate Highway or is it considered to be something less, such as a state route or connecting route of some kind? SR 57 (between SR 210 and I-10) is not really a branch of I-210; it is the first segment of a major north-south freeway corridor that has a purpose beyond just connecting to I-10. So that may make this a little different from I-270 in Maryland or I-465/865.

[Alex]

The CA 57 segment could remain as an unsigned branch of I-210. The concept of a branch route would not be new, as I-465 previously had the branch (later renumbered to I-865) west to I-65 in addition to the beltway alignment around Indianapolis.

Another example is I-270 at the Washington Beltway (I-495). Is the "spur" portion of I-270 a true Interstate Highway or is it considered to be something less, such as a state route or connecting route of some kind? SR 57 (between SR 210 and I-10) is not really a branch of I-210; it is the first segment of a major north-south freeway corridor that has a purpose beyond just connecting to I-10. So that may make this a little different from I-270 in Maryland or I-465/865.

Recall also that I-295 in the Bronx, New York also had a spur branch incorporated into its mainline mileage, before I-695 was inventoried separately in the Interstate Route Log. Meant to include this in my I-465 comparison up thread.

[sparker]

The CA 57 segment could remain as an unsigned branch of I-210. The concept of a branch route would not be new, as I-465 previously had the branch (later renumbered to I-865) west to I-65 in addition to the beltway alignment around Indianapolis.

Another example is I-270 at the Washington Beltway (I-495). Is the "spur" portion of I-270 a true Interstate Highway or is it considered to be something less, such as a state route or connecting route of some kind? SR 57 (between SR 210 and I-10) is not really a branch of I-210; it is the first segment of a major north-south freeway corridor that has a purpose beyond just connecting to I-10. So that may make this a little different from I-270 in Maryland or I-465/865.

Recall also that I-295 in the Bronx, New York also had a spur branch incorporated into its mainline mileage, before I-695 was inventoried separately in the Interstate Route Log. Meant to include this in my I-465 comparison up thread.

Since some sort of action vis-a-vis FHWA will likely be required if & when an I-210 designation over CA 210 is sought, it's unlikely that any one methodology (new Interstate designation for the CA 57 segment, a "spur" of I-210 itself, or an outright recission of that segment from the Interstate system) will hold much sway over another.  I still think that the idea I forwarded several posts back -- a new x10 number, unsigned -- is as viable as any other suggested.  As there are 3 interchanges along CA 57, I don't see any precedent for a "spur" designation applicable here.  There are signed Interstates that are shorter (DC's I-695, NY's I-895, and even CA's I-380 as examples); presenting FHWA with a proposal (I like Andy's "I-510" idea -- but keeping it unsigned unless the whole of CA 57 receives an Interstate designation) that actually solves the chargeability issue is likely to be the one that would survive the process.

[Interstate 69 Fan]

I vote on I-210 on CA 57 be resigned as "To Interstate 210" Northbound, and "To Interstate 10" Southbound, and carry the "secret Spur Interstate 210" Designation, and CA 57 stays signed.

[coatimundi]

(I like Andy's "I-510" idea -- but keeping it unsigned unless the whole of CA 57 receives an Interstate designation) that actually solves the chargeability issue is likely to be the one that would survive the process.

I don't think SR 57 is up to modern interstate standards through Anaheim, north of the stadiums. The shoulder width seems to narrow. Then again, I don't know that is north of I-10 either.
Another 3di makes the most sense from a system standpoint: you have a long loop 3di and a route that offers a connection to it from its parent at a good midpoint. So that gets into even vs. odd. Is this like I-170 in St. Louis, or is it like I-275 in Knoxville? I think it's easy to look at it and say "that's a spur" but there's a case for it being a loop is you think about it.

[emory]

As there are 3 interchanges along CA 57, I don't see any precedent for a "spur" designation applicable here.  There are signed Interstates that are shorter (DC's I-695, NY's I-895, and even CA's I-380 as examples)

I commuted through Miami and drove to Tampa frequently while I lived in Florida and that state has three tiny interstates. Four if you count I-195. I-395 is 1.3 miles long, I-175 is slightly shorter, and I-375 is 1.2 miles long. The x75 interstates are remnants of a canceled freeway project across the bay, and I'm not sure as to the origin of I-395. I-195 is 4.4 miles long, and gives mainlanders access to the beach islands.

(I like Andy's "I-510" idea -- but keeping it unsigned unless the whole of CA 57 receives an Interstate designation) that actually solves the chargeability issue is likely to be the one that would survive the process.

I don't think SR 57 is up to modern interstate standards through Anaheim, north of the stadiums. The shoulder width seems to narrow. Then again, I don't know that is north of I-10 either.

That would be nice if all of the Orange Freeway became an interstate that linked both counties. It's the only north-south freeway in the region that isn't, and it's always a nice drive when I get the chance to use it.