Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Quillz]

"Do you think CalTrans should publicly sign I-305 and CA-51?"

Looks like Google Maps has done that already...
http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=sacramento,+ca&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=31.23349,55.810547&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Sacramento,+California&ll=38.600774,-121.479263&spn=0.120203,0.21801&t=h&z=12

Oddly enough, CA-99, CA-16 and US 50 are all signed on the east-west section and I-80 is signed on the north-south section.  They are also showing an I-305 shield east of the 50/99/BL80 interchange and a CA-51 shield north of the 80/BL80 interchange in north Sacramento.

Seeing how Caltrans has not signed either I-305 or CA-51, I think someone should contact Google and tell them to remove the I-305 and CA-51 references from their map to avoid driver confusion.  Does anyone know how to contact Google to report "errors"?

Google Maps is full of weird errors. For example, there is a street in the San Fernando Valley known as "Woodlake Avenue," which begins at Ventura Boulevard. Except, for some reason, Google Maps decided that the first quarter mile of the avenue is "San Juan Road," when in fact it isn't...

[jrouse]

Amazingly, we now have a trailblazer on the route between I-80 and Oak Park for the first time!

It's a Business 80 westbound shield between Harbor Boulevard and the I-80 west terminus.  Not sure how useful this is, especially when this stretch of road is known to most folks as US 50.

I did the sign plans for that interchange reconstruction project.  It's standard practice to put signs in at the downstream end of an interchange.  The reason why I only used a Business 80 shield was for consistency with the guide signing upstream - there are no US-50 shields on those signs. In the eastbound direction, I wanted to put up both a US-50 shield and a Business 80 shield, again, in order to be consistent with guide signing upstream and downstream.  The idea was killed, though, by the same engineer who also eliminated the CA-99 multiplex with I-5 in Sacramento.

[TheStranger]

Amazingly, we now have a trailblazer on the route between I-80 and Oak Park for the first time!

It's a Business 80 westbound shield between Harbor Boulevard and the I-80 west terminus.  Not sure how useful this is, especially when this stretch of road is known to most folks as US 50.

I did the sign plans for that interchange reconstruction project.  It's standard practice to put signs in at the downstream end of an interchange.  The reason why I only used a Business 80 shield was for consistency with the guide signing upstream - there are no US-50 shields on those signs. In the eastbound direction, I wanted to put up both a US-50 shield and a Business 80 shield, again, in order to be consistent with guide signing upstream and downstream.  The idea was killed, though, by the same engineer who also eliminated the CA-99 multiplex with I-5 in Sacramento.

I did see at least one 50/Business 80 duo trailblazer in the vicinity going eastbound - was that something you had input in?

I've often wondered why 50 isn't signed at all on the pull-throughs between Oak Park and West Sacramento, even though it has now been on that road for 30 years.  (There is a TO US 50 sign on Tower Bridge Gateway in West Sacramento that I think was city-installed)

[jrouse]

Amazingly, we now have a trailblazer on the route between I-80 and Oak Park for the first time!

It's a Business 80 westbound shield between Harbor Boulevard and the I-80 west terminus.  Not sure how useful this is, especially when this stretch of road is known to most folks as US 50.

I did the sign plans for that interchange reconstruction project.  It's standard practice to put signs in at the downstream end of an interchange.  The reason why I only used a Business 80 shield was for consistency with the guide signing upstream - there are no US-50 shields on those signs. In the eastbound direction, I wanted to put up both a US-50 shield and a Business 80 shield, again, in order to be consistent with guide signing upstream and downstream.  The idea was killed, though, by the same engineer who also eliminated the CA-99 multiplex with I-5 in Sacramento.

I did see at least one 50/Business 80 duo trailblazer in the vicinity going eastbound - was that something you had input in?

I've often wondered why 50 isn't signed at all on the pull-throughs between Oak Park and West Sacramento, even though it has now been on that road for 30 years.  (There is a TO US 50 sign on Tower Bridge Gateway in West Sacramento that I think was city-installed)

The 50/Business 80 trailblazer was what I proposed.  It was removed from the plans.  I don't know how it got put in.

[TheStranger]

The 50/Business 80 trailblazer was what I proposed.  It was removed from the plans.  I don't know how it got put in.

Drove by there last night and I'm actually not sure if the eastbound 50 trailblazer in West Sacramento is still there.  I DO remember it being there for several months though, so that's interesting...

[Odysseus]

I was just in Sacramento a few weeks ago for work and I found the whole Capitol City Freeway thing confusing. The Business Loop 80 designation is a problem. There are clearly two different highways here; the 6 mile east/west section concurrent with US 50 and the 9 mile north/south section concurrent with CA 51. If it were up to me each section would be signed separately as east/west US 50 and north/south CA 51. The Biz 80 designation should go away.

If the 300 mile section of CA 99 between Mettler and Sacramento were to be upgraded to Interstate 9 then I would change CA 51 to CA 9 because CA 51 is just a continuation of the southern segment of CA 99 anyway. Under this scenario you could really go crazy and mark the 6 mile section of US 50 (the I-305 part) as I-50 so that I-9 ends at a marked interstate. Yeah, I know that sounds a little bit like the heresy of I-238, but I-50 would fit into the grid here and the reason the numbers 50 and 60 were skipped in the original interstate plan was to avoid confusion with US 50 and US 60. Well this is US 50, and keeping the number the same would work well for motorists.

[TheStranger]

If the 300 mile section of CA 99 between Mettler and Sacramento were to be upgraded to Interstate 9 then I would change CA 51 to CA 9 because CA 51 is just a continuation of the southern segment of CA 99 anyway. Under this scenario you could really go crazy and mark the 6 mile section of US 50 (the I-305 part) as I-50 so that I-9 ends at a marked interstate. Yeah, I know that sounds a little bit like the heresy of I-238, but I-50 would fit into the grid here and the reason the numbers 50 and 60 were skipped in the original interstate plan was to avoid confusion with US 50 and US 60. Well this is US 50, and keeping the number the same would work well for motorists.

Or you could have a hypothetical I-9 continue west on US 50 to I-5 or I-80 and maintain the existing US highway designation.

Having said that, I've always been of the mind that US 50 should be signed westbound along the 50/Business 80 section, as locals call that "50" more than anything else.

[flowmotion]

Well, the current situation is terrible with Westbound and Eastbound signage being completely different on (I-305).

It seems the only reason the Sacramento "business loop" isn't signed normally, with an even 3DI, is because California ran out of x80's.

The simple solution would be 4 digit xx80 routes. It solves the BL-80, I-238, and wrong-way I-580 numbering problems in one fell swoop. And it wouldn't require massive route reassignments or downgrading existing routes.

BL-80 = I-1080
I-238 = I-1280 or I-2380
I-580 = I-1580

[roadfro]

^ Wait, what's wrong with 580?

I do agree that the whole "Biz 80" thing is a bit confusing. I think Caltrans ought to either publicly sign the two separate numbers (US 50 & SR 51), or give the whole bit a new designation...maybe as SR 480 until such time that the substandard sections of the Capital City Fwy can be upgraded to Interstate standards and become a new I-480.

[agentsteel53]

^ Wait, what's wrong with 580?

the fact that it's two separate segments with a very strangely oriented I-80 multiplex in the middle.

[Odysseus]

the fact that it's two separate segments with a very strangely oriented I-80 multiplex in the middle.

I agree, I-580 is a mess. The concurrency with I-80 along the Eastshore Freeway in Oakland is strange and the connection to the heretical I-238 in Castro Valley is even worse.

I would create a new I-64. There is no SR 64 in California and the western end of the existing I-64 is 2000 miles away in Wentzville, MO. The new East/West I-64 would run along the Breed Fwy and the Monagan Fwy from I-880 in San Leandro to I-5 northwest of Tracy. This would completely eliminate I-238, and I-205 and replace that portion of I-580. The part of I-580 that runs along the Brown Fwy from the split with current I-205 down to I-5 southeast of Tracy would become East/West I-464. The portion I-580 from the new I-64 to the Eastern end of the Bay Bridge would become North/South I-264. The only part of I-580 that would remain intact would be the Richmond San Rafael Bridge and the Knox Fwy between US 101 and I-80 near Berkley.

[roadfro]

^ Wait, what's wrong with 580?

the fact that it's two separate segments with a very strangely oriented I-80 multiplex in the middle.

Ahh...forgot about the separate northern section...

[Interstate Trav]

Personally I think I-305 should be signed.

[TheStranger]

...maybe as SR 480 until such time that the substandard sections of the Capital City Fwy can be upgraded to Interstate standards and become a new I-480.

I don't think that's ever going to happen - the reason Business 80 as a designation exists at all is primarily the result of the city of Sacramento rejecting the CalTrans plan (ca. 1979) to build a new alignment for what is now Route 51, back when that was still I-80.  (The funding that would have gone to this Interstate-standard project ended up being transferred to today's light rail system)

[flowmotion]

I don't think that's ever going to happen - the reason Business 80 as a designation exists at all is primarily the result of the city of Sacramento rejecting the CalTrans plan (ca. 1979) to build a new alignment for what is now Route 51, back when that was still I-80.  (The funding that would have gone to this Interstate-standard project ended up being transferred to today's light rail system)

That always struck me as specious bureaucratic logic. Does the average driver even understand the difference between a blue interstate and a green interstate? (Especially in CA, where there are hardly any business routes.) Is BL-80 noticeably worse than numerous other urban Interstates that don't meet modern standards? Would there be any actual problems cause by giving it a I route number?

[TheStranger]

I don't think that's ever going to happen - the reason Business 80 as a designation exists at all is primarily the result of the city of Sacramento rejecting the CalTrans plan (ca. 1979) to build a new alignment for what is now Route 51, back when that was still I-80.  (The funding that would have gone to this Interstate-standard project ended up being transferred to today's light rail system)

That always struck me as specious bureaucratic logic. Does the average driver even understand the difference between a blue interstate and a green interstate? (Especially in CA, where there are hardly any business routes.) Is BL-80 noticeably worse than numerous other urban Interstates that don't meet modern standards? Would there be any actual problems cause by giving it a I route number?

It WAS a signed Interstate from 1964 to 1982, so obviously it was "good enough" at one point in time.

The segment of today's Business 80 that is concurrent with US 50 is entirely up to Interstate standards (thus the I-305 hidden designation), with the middle portion from (former) Route 275 to Route 99 (the WX Freeway between I-5 and Route 99) being built AS I-80 in the 1960s.  Also built to Interstate standards is the other 1960s segment, today's unsigned Route 51 from Route 99 to E Street.

The narrow portion of unsigned route 51 from E Street north to I-80/unsigned Route 244 in Foothill Farms represents the segment built as US 99E (and partially US 40) in the late 1940s/early 1950s, which would've been bypassed by the canceled realignment.  Some Google Maps views of the most troublesome portions of the road:

1. odd left-entrance ramp from Arden Way near the Arden Fair Mall
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Arden+Way,+Sacramento&hl=en&ll=38.603339,-121.434814&spn=0.006146,0.008733&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=50.557552,71.542969&z=17

2. the Marconi Curve, a tight turn within limited right-of-way:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Marconi+and+Auburn,+Sacramento&hl=en&ll=38.621514,-121.418828&spn=0.006144,0.008733&sll=38.603339,-121.434814&sspn=0.006146,0.008733&z=17

3. Howe Avenue exit northbound (Business 80 Exit 12A), entrance ramp has no acceleration lane whatsoever:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Howe+%26+Auburn,+Sacramento&hl=en&ll=38.624897,-121.414847&spn=0.003064,0.004367&sll=38.624339,-121.414944&sspn=0.006127,0.008733&z=18

[Odysseus]

That always struck me as specious bureaucratic logic. Does the average driver even understand the difference between a blue interstate and a green interstate?

Some average drivers may understand what an Interstate business loop (or spur) is when its used properly on an actual surface street, but when used improperly on a limited access highway its confusing. I'm sure people don't understand that the BL-80 designation is used because its a quasi-interstate. You have two freeways/expressways marked as some form of "route 80"  that's just dumb if you ask me.

Is BL-80 noticeably worse than numerous other urban Interstates that don't meet modern standards? Would there be any actual problems cause by giving it a I route number?

You're right in saying that there are plenty of old urban interstate highways that don't meet modern interstate standards. The Schuylkill Expressway in Philadelphia is a great example of a substandard urban interstate. The Schuylkill is I-76 between Valley Forge Interchange and the Walt Whitman Bridge. The "Surekill Expressway" is an engineering nightmare that falls short of interstate standards all over the place. However, there isn't much PENNDOT can do to fix this problem; Interstate 76 has to make its way through Philadelphia and over to South Jersey somehow and there are no practical alternatives.

It WAS a signed Interstate from 1964 to 1982, so obviously it was "good enough" at one point in time.

It may have been "good enough" in the early 1960s, but its not anymore, which is why I would not give the SR-51 portion of the Capitol City Freeway an interstate number. Just because the same sin is committed elsewhere doesn't make it OK in Sacramento.

...giving it a I route number?

Be careful what you wish for here. Caltrans would probably make it I-305, not I-480 because I-305 is already "sort of" there. Most of us roadgeeks would find this very irritating.

The narrow portion of unsigned route 51 from E Street north to I-80/unsigned Route 244 in Foothill Farms represents the segment built as US 99E (and partially US 40) in the late 1940s/early 1950s, which would've been bypassed by the canceled realignment.

This is why my solution to the problem would be to simply mark it as a California State Route. It could either be signed as SR 51 or in the future SR 9 might make sense if the Interstate 9 thing ever happens. Also, as I said earlier there are clearly two separate highways here. The true East/West portion that is US 50 and the North/South portion (marked as East/West BL 80) that is really SR 51.

[TheStranger]

It may have been "good enough" in the early 1960s, but its not anymore,

While I'm not at all arguing that the freeway is up to modern standards, the mere existence of examples like the Schuykill (as you pointed out) and the BQE in New York City makes me think that the entire removal of I-80 on this route was just a kneejerk reaction by CalTrans to the 1979 Sacramento legislative vote to cancel the realignment.

Really, the removal of 880/creation of Business 80 should have never happened in the first place based on the precedents set in other cities...but as it did, the end result has the east-west segment more known as US 50 now.

Caltrans would probably make it I-305

Probably not actually - CalTrans has never acknowledged the 305 number, and it is also not legislatively assigned.  I think it only exists as a FHWA designation that has never once been signed.

[agentsteel53]

nope, there aren't even paddles for 305.

I believe there are 51 paddles, but I haven't driven that segment of Green 80 in years.

[Odysseus]

Really, the removal of 880/creation of Business 80 should have never happened in the first place based on the precedents set in other cities...

I agree with you here. Back in 1979 CalTrans should have left the interstate designations alone.

My point is that the highway doesn’t meet interstate standards in today’s world, so it would be wrong to make it an interstate again 30 years later.

Probably not actually - CalTrans has never acknowledged the 305 number, and it is also not legislatively assigned.  I think it only exists as a FHWA designation that has never once been signed.

I was suggesting that if CalTrans were to make the entire road an interstate, which would never happen, then they might use the current FHWA designation of I-305 instead of a number that actually makes sense like I-480.
.

[TheStranger]

Really, the removal of 880/creation of Business 80 should have never happened in the first place based on the precedents set in other cities...

I agree with you here. Back in 1979 CalTrans should have left the interstate designations alone.

My point is that the highway doesn’t meet interstate standards in today’s world, so it would be wrong to make it an interstate again 30 years later.

The recent Business I-40 switcharound in Greensboro though does suggest that sometimes, navigational logic ends up winning out.

[flowmotion]

This is why my solution to the problem would be to simply mark it as a California State Route. It could either be signed as SR 51 or in the future SR 9 might make sense if the Interstate 9 thing ever happens. Also, as I said earlier there are clearly two separate highways here. The true East/West portion that is US 50 and the North/South portion (marked as East/West BL 80) that is really SR 51.

I think there is a clear advantage to signing a loop route, especially given how much tourist traffic passes through Sacramento. Giving this segment a complete different SR number would just befuddle motorists, and create a even more confusing situation than Biz-80, in my opinion.

Also it would be difficult to get Sacramento to give up their "interstate", even if it is a green one.

[DTComposer]

How 'bout:

-Replacing CA-51 with a northward extension of CA-99, then have CA-99 multiplex with I-80 north, then take over CA-65 from Roseville to Marysville/Yuba City (i.e., the old US-99E route), then pick up the current CA-99 route to Chico and so on.

-The current CA-99 segment from I-5 north of Sacramento to the CA-70/99 split is given to CA-70 (it used to be signed as both, anyway).

-The current CA-99 from CA-113 to Yuba City is given to CA-113.

-That just leaves the segment between CA-70 and CA-113 (about 12 miles), which could be renumbered (or dropped from the state system altogether).

[OCGuy81]

I'd like to see I-305 signed as well.  But, California likely needs to pawn a few things for sign money first.   

[TheStranger]

I'd like to see I-305 signed as well.  But, California likely needs to pawn a few things for sign money first.   

How would signing I-305 be useful on a navigational basis, especially when Route 99 - a longer, more important through route in the area - is inconsistently signed there now?

---

DTComposer: In the 1964 renumbering, 99 was reassigned from the 99E/80 route (and for that matter, the 99W route along today's 113) primarily because the 1957-1964 Route 24 corridor along El Centro Road is the most direct route to Yuba City/Marysville from Sacramento.  Going through Roseville on 80 - even with the widening - still forces drivers through two of the worst bottlenecks in the region (there, and through the Marconi Curve on Business 80).