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

[mrsman]

I hope that whatever happens behind the scenes on the route logs does not affect the current signing.  This north-south segment makes sense as CA 57 and it will make CA 57 like the other major freeways that goes all the way to the 210.  (I don't care about the secret designation that may be necessary to comply with federal law.)

I do think that there should be an effort to add a control city for northbound 57.  For most of its routing, the northbound control is Pomona until CA 57 merges into CA 60.  North of there, there is no major city that 57 reaches, but perhaps listing Glendora or San Dimas would be better than leaving this blank.

I also recommend signing Pasadena as an additional control city on north 57 from I-10 WB and CA-71 NB.  This road was of course singed to Pasadena when it was singed as I-210 and remains the best way to reach Pasadena from the Pomona area.  There is no need to sign Pasadena from I-10 EB because this routing involves significant backtracking.

[ATLRedSoxFan]

With all the meddling CALTrans has done with I-210, does it EVEN connect with I-10 anymore? With maps, it's hard to tell anymore.

[Bickendan]

With all the meddling CALTrans has done with I-210, does it EVEN connect with I-10 anymore? With maps, it's hard to tell anymore.

Yes -- both via CA 210 in Redlands and via CA 57 if the official FHWA designation is still I-210 because that portion of CA 57 is still Chargeable Interstate Mileage.

[coatimundi]

Something that occurred to me yesterday regarding this: what happened to the interstate mileage that was gained from the decommissioning of I-480 in SF? Not a lot there, but was that just not chargeable?

[Occidental Tourist]

Something that occurred to me yesterday regarding this: what happened to the interstate mileage that was gained from the decommissioning of I-480 in SF? Not a lot there, but was that just not chargeable?

It was withdrawn as chargeable interstate in 1965.  Dan Faigin's website is super helpful on this.

[Quillz]

I'm in favor of just keeping it signed as CA-57.

[Bickendan]

Hmm, stray thought, and I haven't been by Dan Faigin's site to research this, but when I-210 signage swapped to CA 57, did that portion become part of the Orange Freeway, has it always been part of the Orange Freeway (ie, CA 30 being part of the Foothill Freeway), or is this portion still officially a part of the Foothill?

[Henry]

Personally, I think I-210 should be rerouted on the extension to San Bernardino, and the little piece reverting completely to CA 57. Or, if they insist on a new 3di, I could see I-310, I-510, I-810 or I-910 being implemented here, though seeing how Caltrans is run nowadays, I'd be totally surprised if that ever happened.

[cahwyguy]

Hmm, stray thought, and I haven't been by Dan Faigin's site to research this, but when I-210 signage swapped to CA 57, did that portion become part of the Orange Freeway, has it always been part of the Orange Freeway (ie, CA 30 being part of the Foothill Freeway), or is this portion still officially a part of the Foothill?

I don't think the names make that much of a difference. I think they only corrected the numbers in the legislative definition; naming is only at the concurrent resolution level.

[mrsman]

Hmm, stray thought, and I haven't been by Dan Faigin's site to research this, but when I-210 signage swapped to CA 57, did that portion become part of the Orange Freeway, has it always been part of the Orange Freeway (ie, CA 30 being part of the Foothill Freeway), or is this portion still officially a part of the Foothill?

I don't think the names make that much of a difference. I think they only corrected the numbers in the legislative definition; naming is only at the concurrent resolution level.

True.  The names had much more meaning in the old days than they do today.  The current Caltrans policy is to remove reference to the names as much as possible in the name of reducing sign clutter. 

As far as the convention along the Foothill Freeway, when I was growing up in the 1980's, the Foothill Freeway was signed along I-210 and the 30 freeway up until its terminus at Foothill Blvd in La Verne.  The I-210 N/S was unnamed.  This was corroborated on signs along the freeway as well as most maps of the era. 

Is the new extended part of CA 57 (between I-10 and I-210) now a part of the Orange Freeway?  I don't think so.  Caltrans no longer names freeways.

[cahwyguy]

True.  The names had much more meaning in the old days than they do today.  The current Caltrans policy is to remove reference to the names as much as possible in the name of reducing sign clutter. 
[...]
Is the new extended part of CA 57 (between I-10 and I-210) now a part of the Orange Freeway?  I don't think so.  Caltrans no longer names freeways.

I don't believe Caltrans has ever named freeways; with one or two exceptions, the names are not defined in the state highway code. If they did, it was pre-1963 (and I should correct my page, because I'm not even sure of that). Here's what I have on my naming page:
In District 7 (Los Angeles), highways were originally named based on their ultimate designation. In District 4, they were often named after people, but some acquired names through local usage. To address this, in 1962, Senate Concurrent Resolution 8 requested a study and report regarding the naming of freeways, highways, and expressways. The report made recommendations and suggested criteria for naming highways and freeways in the State Highway system. In response to the report, the legislature in 1963 (SCR 12) placed a moratorium on assigning further highway names until there was more study. In 1967, subsequent legislation directed Caltrans to update and expand the report. Caltrans did, and recommended the following:

• Freeway naming should be vested in a single authority: the Highway Commission.
• Naming should be provided on the basis of motorists' needs.
• Geographical or historical names are most suitable.
• Terminal or destination names are not suitable.
• Memorial names should be avoided.
• A single name shall apply to the entire length of a route between logical points.
• Names should be limited to a maximum of twelve letters not including the word "Freeway"

Of course, the legislature being the legislature ignored the recommendation. Since then, there have been numerous naming bills. Currently, highways get named either through general usage or through legislative action. The latter typcially occurs when a legislator introduces a resolution naming a piece of freeway after someone. Since such a resolution would have to be approved by the Senate Transportation Committee, that body's policy on naming is generally followed. The criteria are as follows:

• Any person being so recognized must have provided extraordinary public service or contributed to the public good.
• Any signage be installed without cost to the public.
• The author and coauthors of the joint resolution must reside within the area of the structure being dedicated.
• The dedication must reflect community consensus and have no local opposition.
• There is no requirement that the person being honored be deceased. Sponsors of the highway dedication must raise the funds for at least two roadside signs, one in each traffic direction. According to Caltrans, the total cost for two signs ranges from $800 to $1,200, depending on the length of the name inscribed on them.

For years, California had no guidelines for naming highways. During the 2009-2010 legislative session, the state Senate and Assembly transportation committees adopted the following policies:

• The person being honored should "have provided extraordinary public service or some exemplary contribution to the public good and have a connection" to the community in which the highway or structure is located.
• The legislator proposing the naming, or a co-author, must represent the district in which the highway or structure is situated.
• The designation "must reflect a community consensus and be without local opposition."
• The proposed naming must not replace a prior naming unless there's overwhelming support for the name change.
• A person being honored with a naming must be deceased, "except in the instance of elected officials, in which case they must be out of office."
• The stretch of highway being named must be longer than 5 miles.

Of course, those aren't being followed either. In the last updates, I had segments that were perhaps a tenth of a mile long. And talk about naming confusion!?! Most of the current names aren't used. To see how many names there are, just look at http://www.cahighways.org/names.html
Daniel

[mrsman]

Very informative and interesting Daniel.  Thank you for your research.

It seems that in the early days 1940's, 1950's, 1960's the most common naming scheme for existing and planned freeways in the LA area is by the name of a major parallel street:  Olympic Parkway, Ramona Parkway, Sepulveda Freeway, Allessandro Parkway, etc.

Then, at some point in the 1960's and 1970's the naming convention changed to a destination that the freeway reaches:  Santa Monica Fwy, San Bernardino Fwy, San Diego Fwy, Glendale Fwy.  Some of these names may be head-scratchers.  For instance the 60 is the Pomona Fwy, even though it only skirts the southern end of Pomona while the I-10 goes through its heart.

Now, of course, the trend is to remove most of these names from the big green signs with the hope that they will fall out of common usage in favor of the highway numbers.


There is an old map from ACSC that tended to popularize many nicknames that were used by the traffic reporters.  Here is a link to it from E-bay.  (I'm not selling or buying.)

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1982-Los-Angeles-metro-freewy-system-map-AAA-oil-gas-California/401224778334?_trksid=p2047675.c100011.m1850&_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIC.MBE%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D38530%26meid%3D64b5117e91a741258f92cf3ef6d41794%26pid%3D100011%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D12%26sd%3D222301926793

According to this map, neither the 30 freeway stub between Glendora and La Verne nor the N/S section of the 210 in San Dimas were named.

What is also interesting is that many very common names were never official but just nicknames that everyone sort of knew.  East L.A. Interchange, Sepulveda Pass, Orange Crush Interchange, San Bernardino Split, Kellogg Hill.  This ACSC map labelled all of these nicknames.

Of course, the trend of naming certain small sections of road after people who died or injured in a vehicle crash was done by act of the legislature, but most people would not be aware of these names and they are not in common usage.

[Quillz]

San Diego Freeway was always a terrible name. Good riddance.

[Bickendan]

San Diego Freeway was always a terrible name. Good riddance.

In which sense?
Since it's both the length of I-405 and I-5 south of the El Toro Y down to San Diego, naming I-405 as the San Diego has some logic to present non-stop through travelers from the Central Valley to San Diego with a bypass around Los Angeles.

[NE2]

What is also interesting is that many very common names were never official but just nicknames that everyone sort of knew.  East L.A. Interchange, Sepulveda Pass, Orange Crush Interchange, San Bernardino Split, Kellogg Hill.  This ACSC map labelled all of these nicknames.

http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Alibraryarchives.metro.net%2FDPGTL%2FCaliforniahighways+%22east+los+angeles+interchange%22
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Alibraryarchives.metro.net%2FDPGTL%2FCaliforniahighways+%22sepulveda+pass%22
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Alibraryarchives.metro.net%2FDPGTL%2FCaliforniahighways+%22kellogg+hill%22
Orange Crush is obviously an unofficial nickname; San Bernardino Split gets very few matches on the Goog on any site.

[Mapmikey]

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.

Both legs of the I-270 tie-in to I-495 are in the system...they originally had separate designations:


Photo from late 1960s

[vdeane]

True.  The names had much more meaning in the old days than they do today.  The current Caltrans policy is to remove reference to the names as much as possible in the name of reducing sign clutter. 

Never would have thought I would ever read a sentence containing both "CalTrans" and "reducing sign clutter".  IMO they could accomplish that a lot more effectively if they would stop insisting that every BGS in the entire state be the exact same size.

Now, of course, the trend is to remove most of these names from the big green signs with the hope that they will fall out of common usage in favor of the highway numbers.

They should ask New York City how well that worked.  Or Boston.

[Bickendan]

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.

Both legs of the I-270 tie-in to I-495 are in the system...they originally had separate designations:


Photo from late 1960s

I was reading the 70S as 705 and was doing a double take, wondering when the hell I-270 was in Tacoma or I-705 in Maryland

True.  The names had much more meaning in the old days than they do today.  The current Caltrans policy is to remove reference to the names as much as possible in the name of reducing sign clutter. 

Never would have thought I would ever read a sentence containing both "CalTrans" and "reducing sign clutter".  IMO they could accomplish that a lot more effectively if they would stop insisting that every BGS in the entire state be the exact same size.

Honestly, the uniform BGS heights is something I find aesthetically pleasing, even if it does make message loading a bit cramped.

[coatimundi]

Something that occurred to me yesterday regarding this: what happened to the interstate mileage that was gained from the decommissioning of I-480 in SF? Not a lot there, but was that just not chargeable?

It was withdrawn as chargeable interstate in 1965.  Dan Faigin's website is super helpful on this.

So it went to 105. And that's kind of where my question was going: pulling I-210 from that northern end of 57 would free up mileage that essentially has no where to go (unless Norwalk changes its mind and lets 105 be completed). Or would it just go to the new I-210 east of there?

[NE2]

(unless Norwalk changes its mind and lets 105 be completed)

Why do you think 105 was supposed to continue east? The legislative definition always ended at 605.

[coatimundi]

(unless Norwalk changes its mind and lets 105 be completed)

Why do you think 105 was supposed to continue east? The legislative definition always ended at 605.

Everything I've read about its history has indicated that the original intent of the road was to connect it to its parent route.
From AARoads:

Although the freeway was originally intended to connect to Interstate 5 and possibly continue east toward Orange County and California 91, it was truncated at Interstate 605.

[NE2]

From the 1968 state statutes:

405. Route 105 is from Route 1 west of Inglewood to Route 605.

There was a plan for a SR 42 freeway east of I-605, but in 1965 it was shifted north and renumbered as part of SR 90.

[andy3175]

(unless Norwalk changes its mind and lets 105 be completed)

Why do you think 105 was supposed to continue east? The legislative definition always ended at 605.

Everything I've read about its history has indicated that the original intent of the road was to connect it to its parent route.
From AARoads:

Although the freeway was originally intended to connect to Interstate 5 and possibly continue east toward Orange County and California 91, it was truncated at Interstate 605.

This is an interesting question, one that we'd struggled with a bit when preparing the Interstate 105 webpage years ago. We had written that page at a point in time where we had not yet begun to list citations on AARoads. While we've tried to do a better job at this in recent years, there are plenty of legacy pages that do not have complete citations. The 105 pages (see http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-105_ca.html and https://www.aaroads.com/california/i-105_ca.html) are older, and we haven't made time to go back to add citations.

Our information on this extension goes back to the late 1990s when we met with Casey Cooper of gbcnet.com, who had followed the I-105 proceedings closely and noted early on that 105 would not reach 5 in Norwalk due to a lawsuit. The research we conducted at the time (at the university library) led us to a 1993 New York Times article, which stated (and amazingly is still on the web):

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/14/us/opening-new-freeway-los-angeles-ends-era.html

The high-tech Century Freeway, a 17.3-mile stretch running east-west from Los Angeles International Airport through nine cities to suburban Norwalk, cost more per mile than any other road in America. ...

Thus the eight-lane road bears all the marks of the social, environmental and technical changes that have swept the United States over the last three decades and, with a price tag of $2.2 billion, shows why few cities will soon try again to build highways through their urban cores. ...

It is coincidental but quite symbolic that the opening of the Century comes during the same year that Los Angeles started subway service, and four days before California's first toll road is scheduled to open, the first 3.2 miles of more than 68 miles of tollway planned for suburban Orange County. ...

All of this is a far cry from what the road builders had in mind when they first started planning the Century in 1958. They had grander ideas of a 10-lane road stretching 51 miles east to San Bernardino. They were stopped by a Federal lawsuit filed in 1972 by local residents, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the City of Hawthorne, environmental groups and others.

In 1979, the California Department of Transportation entered into a consent decree issued by Judge Harry Pregerson of Federal district court in which the state and the Federal Highway Administration agreed to reduce the length and width of the freeway and to finance social programs to mitigate damage. This included building 5,500 units of new housing, at a cost of $360 million, and an apprentice program that has trained 3,400 people in construction jobs. It also required using businesses owned by women and members of minorities, which have received 34 percent of highway contracts and 46 percent of housing contracts.

In all, actual construction accounted for only 54 percent of the $2.2 billion total cost.

The lawsuit referenced was Keith v. Volpe (352 F.Supp. 1324 (1972)), linked here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15649093864308874626&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr. However, the court case does not seem to reference any extension east of Norwalk, which appears to leave unconfirmed what the NY Times article stated:

A sketch of the proposed freeway is in order. If and when the Century Freeway is completed, it will, as presently planned, stretch a distance of 17 miles across the southern portion of the densely populated Los Angeles basin. It will connect the Los Angeles International Airport on the west with the San Gabriel River Freeway (Route I-605) on the east; it will also intersect with the San Diego, Harbor, and Long Beach Freeways (Routes I-405, 11, and 7, respectively). The freeway will traverse the cities of El Segundo, Hawthorne, Inglewood, Lynwood, South Gate, Paramount, Downey, and Norwalk, the Watts section of the City of Los Angeles, and unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County, including the communities of Willowbrook and Del Aire. Federal officials have designated the freeway as a part of the interstate highway system – specifically, Route I-105. Therefore 90% of the cost of the freeway will be borne by the federal government, although the California Division of Highways will actually acquire the right-of-way and construct the road. The total cost of acquiring the land and actually constructing the freeway has been estimated at $501,800,000. It has also been estimated that 9000 families, consisting of 21,000 individuals, will be displaced by the freeway and that 3900 single-family dwellings and 3000 multiple-family dwellings will be acquired in order to clear the right-of-way.

In 1963, SR 42, which in part was the forerunner to I-105, was conceived to extend from SR 1 east to SR 91 (see citation below). As NE2 mentioned, it is true that the Century Freeway was disconnected legislatively from the Yorba Linda Freeway in 1968. The Century Freeway was SR 42, and it later became I-105/SR 105. The Yorba Linda Freeway also was SR 42, and the portion east of I-605 became SR 90. Daniel Faigin mentions this legislative change on his SR 42 page.

http://www.cahighways.org/041-048.html#042

In 1963, this route was defined as "Route 1 west of Inglewood to Route 91 in Santa Ana Canyon via the vicinity of Norwalk."

On June 5,1963, a public hearing was held regarding the Century Freeway (then Route 42) from the Pacific Coast Freeway (Route 1) to the Santa Ana Freeway (I-5).

In 1965, the portion of former Route 42 from Route 605 to Route 39 was transferred to Route 90, and the routing was redefined as (1) from Route 1 west of Inglewood to Route 605 and (2) Route 39 near La Habra to Route 91 in Santa Ana Canyon. A 1965 planning map shows this as freeway from Route 405 to Route 605, and then continuing as freeway from Route 605 to Route 91 along what is now Route 90.

In 1968, part (1) was transferred to Route 105, and part (2) was transferred to Route 90. Part (1) became the "Century Freeway", and part (2) became the "Yorba Linda Freeway". This resulted in the route's deletion.

On his I-105 page, Daniel mentions the reasons why I-105 does not reach I-5:

Designing the freeway took from 1968 to 1972. By 1970, the proposed route was roughly as it is now, and the cost was estimated at $190 million. In 1972, a class action lawsuit was filed to block the freeway's construction. Under this lawsuit, all freeway construction was halted until a number of requirements, including a formal environmental impact statement and public hearings, were conducted. This lawsuit was settled by consent decree in 1979; however, the delay had substantially raised the cost of construction. To salvage the project, the scope was reduced by eliminating two traffic lanes, 11 local interchanges, and 500 units of replacement housing. The court approved the amended consent decree in 1981. The meant that there was design rework to be done, as well as new freeway agreements with local governments, right of way acquisitions, etc. Caltrans was also pressure to have construction substantially started in 1986 (deadline imposed by federal law); that law also stated the last federal funding authorization for such construction would be provided in 1990. Actual construction of the freeway began in 1982. It gradually opened to traffic in 1993 and 1994, at a cost of $2.3 billion.

So why doesn't I-105 extend to I-5? There are a number of reasons why I-105 doesn't go all the way to I-5:

Neighborhood opposition. The main reason. The City of Norwalk is against new freeway construction in their city.

Capacity. The current capacity of I-5 at the potential connection point would not handle an additional interchange. Although additional capacity is planned, the I-605 interchange was a better termination point, as more space and road capacity was available for collector and transition lanes.

A bit further down the same page, in the memorial section of his I-105 write up, Daniel mentions the Joe A. Gonsalves Memorial Interchange. Daniel's page sheds light on Mr. Gonsalves's involvement in the unconstructed segment of I-105 (or SR 42, or SR 90, or ???) between I-605 and I-5:

In 1963, during his legislative tenure, Section 405 of the Streets and Highways Code was enacted, describing Route 105 as running from Route 5, to the junction of Route 101 and Route 110, which would have caused Route 105 to cut through the Cities of Norwalk and La Mirada [Note: The above is from the resolution, and reflects poor research. The current incarnation of Route 105 wasn't defined as Route 105 in 1963; the closest routing was pre-1968 Route 42]. At the requests of the Cities of Norwalk and La Mirada and their residents, Joe A. Gonsalves was instrumental in having Section 405 of the Streets and Highways Code amended in 1968, so that Route 105 ended at Route 605 rather than cutting through the Cities of Norwalk and La Mirada (thus, those of you who complain that I-105 doesn't go through to I-5 have Mr. Gonsalves to blame). ... Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 96, Chapter 129, September 24, 2001.

I think this shows an intent to have one freeway corridor, but the legislative definition of 105 appears to include only the freeway west of 605 based on the 1968 change.

Daniel's scan of a 1963 map (http://www.cahighways.org/maps/1963routes.jpg as found on http://www.cahighways.org/maps-sc-fwy-pt3.html) also confirms the mapping change between the pre and post-1968 routes. The 1963 map shows an intent to have a continuous freeway corridor. But later maps show SR 90 well to the north of yet parallel to I-105.

[coatimundi]

Our information on this extension goes back to the late 1990s when we met with Casey Cooper of gbcnet.com, who had followed the I-105 proceedings closely and noted early on that 105 would not reach 5 in Norwalk due to a lawsuit. The research we conducted at the time (at the university library) led us to a 1993 New York Times article, which stated (and amazingly is still on the web):

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/14/us/opening-new-freeway-los-angeles-ends-era.html

God bless the NYT! Seriously, when Uncle Trump orders them shut down in a fiery tantrum as a subversive medium, I hope that they at least preserve their online archive somewhere on a Bahamian server so that stuff like this will always exist.

I think the citations are the key here. I've read about the Norwalk thing from multiple sources over the course of many years, but it's entirely likely that they were all citing AARoads itself without actually citing it. Same thing happened recently with regards to US 40's routing, where I was like, "What about Berkeley Pier?" after seeing multiple sources mention it, but now realize that those sources were probably just citing the same source without noting it.
And I guess there's the catch in the internet age: you have a bunch of amateur writers and researchers producing a ton of content that is rarely properly cited. Not a bash on AARoads, but rather more of a statement of the reliability of online content, in general. It's important to remember that any jackass (looking right at myself) can put up any sort of jackassery and someone can come along later and interpret that as well-researched, factual gospel.

[Alex]

And I guess there's the catch in the internet age: you have a bunch of amateur writers and researchers producing a ton of content that is rarely properly cited. Not a bash on AARoads, but rather more of a statement of the reliability of online content, in general. It's important to remember that any jackass (looking right at myself) can put up any sort of jackassery and someone can come along later and interpret that as well-researched, factual gospel.

The early days of road web sites had a lot of us crafting pages just from personal memory or research. For instance most of my Delaware content is just from having grown up there and reading the local paper. With that stated, I started citing sources around 2005, and have tried to be more thorough about it whenever I update pages, or create new ones. Unfortunately, there is just too much content on AARoads to update/verify all of it. We'll amend pages if they are pointed out to us given enough time.

Also as we've updated older pages, we have tried to go back and add more citations. Another issue we have run into is citing other road web sites that are no longer online. Of course, with that, you are trusting that the original author was correct, or had their own sources cited/verified. Back in the late 90s or early 2000s, the bulk of road sites tended to be good enough as sources. Times have definitely changed.