CA 51/I-80 Business Loop

[michravera]

A thought that would make every roadgeek vomit, but would also probably result in the least friction from local communities and Caltrans:  Take a page out of Bud Shuster's book and number it I-99.  We already have I-238 that upsets so many, and the precedent of duplicate 2-dis already exists (I-76, I-84, etc...).

Or I-538 <duck!>

[sparker]

A thought that would make every roadgeek vomit, but would also probably result in the least friction from local communities and Caltrans:  Take a page out of Bud Shuster's book and number it I-99.  We already have I-238 that upsets so many, and the precedent of duplicate 2-dis already exists (I-76, I-84, etc...).

Or I-538 <duck!>

I think that from both a practical -- and roadgeek -- standpoint, I-7 would be the optimal choice for the CA 99 corridor.  It's grid appropriate -- the most so -- it causes the least P.R. problems for Caltrans, since present CA 7 has virtually no history, lore, or any other issues surrounding its presence in the system, and could be renumbered with ease (Caltrans could potentially eliminate the E-W segment of CA 115, run it down to the 8/7 interchange, and then continue south to the border over the current alignment).  The number could be either Congressionally established (any number of Congressfolks from the valley, including the new kids or possibly even McCarthy, the pending minority leader, could shepherd such legislative language through the process) or go the SCOURN route, which would necessarily involve a submission from Caltrans.  However, given their historic disinterest/disdain, that would be the trickiest approach (the issue might be put into "study" mode indefinitely!).  But I-7 as a designation wouldn't be problematic at the federal level, whereas a second out-of-place I-99 might raise more objections than eyebrows; if SCOURN were involved, they'd probably toss that idea out in a hot N.Y. second -- remember, they got grid-consciously pissy when NC suggested I-36 for the US 70 corridor because it was technically north of I-40.  IMO, no one out here should get gratuitously stupid when it comes to the numbering issue; pick the least objectionable appropriate number and run with it.           

[Occidental Tourist]

Nah! Just route I-305 all of the way down to Wheeler Ridge!

You joke, but you could always take I-205 off the Tracy Bypass and stick it on 99 from Wheeler Ridge to at least Stockton.

I agree with Max that it would be a long-ass 3di.

[michravera]

Nah! Just route I-305 all of the way down to Wheeler Ridge!

You joke, but you could always take I-205 off the Tracy Bypass and stick it on 99 from Wheeler Ridge to at least Stockton.

I agree with Max that it would be a long-ass 3di.

My point is that numbering the whole damned thing I-305 would:
1) Violate NOTHING
2) Be a continuations (although through a 90 degree turn) of an existing route. Who cares if CalTrans ever signs the existing portion or not? It might be better, if they didn't.
3) Give the route an I- designation. Only Road Geeks would feel slighted that it is "only a 3di".
4) Not require renumbering ANYTHING ELSE
5) Be done incrementally and with "FUTURE" or CASR-305 signs until all of the problems are eliminated or waivers obtained.
6) Is similar to what was done with US-395 between Carson City and Reno. They didn't want to waste "I-9" on such a short route, but they wanted an Interstate designation so I-580 made sense
7) Even kind of makes sense since this is a Spur Route INTO a city. OK, so it is a couple dozen cities, what does it matter?
8) Stay completely within a state's boundaries (and NOT just technically)
9) Not be confusing to anyone (and anyone who did get confused could fix themselves through some of the cross routes of which there are teens)
10) Not open up a bunch of I-x0Y routes with which Road Geeks or politicians could tamper.
11) Enable contemporaneous display of "Historic US 99" signs at appropriate places.

If the only drawback is the length of the 3di, I humbly suggest that we get over ourselves.

The only real alternative that does all 11 of the things that I enumerated above is to revive the "I-5E" designation and no one really wants a split route at all, least of all of this kind of distance, and especially no one wants to renumber the existing I-5 as "I-5W" or "I-3" or "I-1".

Yeah, Yeah, Yeah. I-7 would sort of work with only a little fuss, but I-305/CASR-305 could be done TODAY with only a small change to the California Highway Code. Once we get the Feds to go along, the rest gets done. Also, if we got busy on CASR-305, it would look like the Feds were dragging their feet and not the other way around (which *IS* the truth).

[MrAndy1369]

6) Is similar to what was done with US-395 between Carson City and Reno. They didn't want to waste "I-9" on such a short route, but they wanted an Interstate designation so I-580 made sense

Not to veer too off point, but how come it was made I-580, not I-180? As there is no other x80 3di interstates in Nevada.

[michravera]

6) Is similar to what was done with US-395 between Carson City and Reno. They didn't want to waste "I-9" on such a short route, but they wanted an Interstate designation so I-580 made sense

Not to veer too off point, but how come it was made I-580, not I-180? As there is no other x80 3di interstates in Nevada.

My thinking is that Nevada has 1xx, 2xx, 3xx, and 4xx in use for various types of routes and it was known that I-580 wouldn't conflict with any of those. You will notice that they use I-515 in southern Nevada (ok, so they use I-215 also, but it is short, stays close to I-15, and maybe the 21xs aren't used with the other 2xxs route types {or maybe 215 fits the pattern}.)

[sparker]

Nah! Just route I-305 all of the way down to Wheeler Ridge!

You joke, but you could always take I-205 off the Tracy Bypass and stick it on 99 from Wheeler Ridge to at least Stockton.

I agree with Max that it would be a long-ass 3di.

My point is that numbering the whole damned thing I-305 would:
1) Violate NOTHING
2) Be a continuations (although through a 90 degree turn) of an existing route. Who cares if CalTrans ever signs the existing portion or not? It might be better, if they didn't.
3) Give the route an I- designation. Only Road Geeks would feel slighted that it is "only a 3di".
4) Not require renumbering ANYTHING ELSE
5) Be done incrementally and with "FUTURE" or CASR-305 signs until all of the problems are eliminated or waivers obtained.
6) Is similar to what was done with US-395 between Carson City and Reno. They didn't want to waste "I-9" on such a short route, but they wanted an Interstate designation so I-580 made sense
7) Even kind of makes sense since this is a Spur Route INTO a city. OK, so it is a couple dozen cities, what does it matter?
8) Stay completely within a state's boundaries (and NOT just technically)
9) Not be confusing to anyone (and anyone who did get confused could fix themselves through some of the cross routes of which there are teens)
10) Not open up a bunch of I-x0Y routes with which Road Geeks or politicians could tamper.
11) Enable contemporaneous display of "Historic US 99" signs at appropriate places.

If the only drawback is the length of the 3di, I humbly suggest that we get over ourselves.

The only real alternative that does all 11 of the things that I enumerated above is to revive the "I-5E" designation and no one really wants a split route at all, least of all of this kind of distance, and especially no one wants to renumber the existing I-5 as "I-5W" or "I-3" or "I-1".

Yeah, Yeah, Yeah. I-7 would sort of work with only a little fuss, but I-305/CASR-305 could be done TODAY with only a small change to the California Highway Code. Once we get the Feds to go along, the rest gets done. Also, if we got busy on CASR-305, it would look like the Feds were dragging their feet and not the other way around (which *IS* the truth).

(point by point)

(1) Not true; the definition of CA I-305 in Title 23/139 code would have to be changed to include CA 99, which would leave a "spur" along the CA 51 portion from the Oak Park/US 50 interchange north to the "C" street overpass, the end of the chargeable Interstate portion of the biz loop; that would have to be addressed in any change to the present route definition.
(2) See (1) above.
(3) CA 99 from Wheeler Ridge to US 50 is already a "future" Interstate per the 2005 designation of HPC #54 as such; any numbering consideration was kicked down the road at that time.  So any number acceptable to the various parties (save an arbitrary Congressional selection) could be considered.  But in addition, see (1) above.
(4) The selection of 7 over 9 was intended to make that process as painless as possible for all parties involved.  Also, see (1) above.
(5) That process would be applicable to any number selected.
(6) The NV I-580 designation has been around for about 37 years but unsigned until a significant portion of the route was constructed.  There's no indication that I-9 was in serious consideration at any time (if Roadfro or any other poster has any information to indicate otherwise, please chime in!).
(7) Gimme a fucking break!  A 300-mile spur is really stretching the limits of systemic credibility.
(8) Pointless point.  Only valid to those who whine about intrastate 2dis; this would be longer than any of TX's intrastate Interstates. 
(9) Huh? 
(10) I-380 (functional spur of I-280) and I-980 (connecting 580 & 880) say hello.  There's still 705 available in the state; someone in the Valley would probably think of applying it somewhere along the corridor (maybe into Visalia?). 
(11) Could be done regardless of Interstate designation.

And no, some of us reserve the right to get righteously pissed about really egregious and unnecessarily dumb designation selections.  Yeah, we care -- and aren't going to give up caring about such things.

And regardless of what number is selected, it'll still require vetting at both state and federal levels; because of (1) above, I-305 would actually require multiple processes -- considerably more than a SCOURN submission and a lot more than getting a Congressperson to slip in some authorizing language into the yearly budget (which is how I-22, I-11, I-14, and I-42 were born).  Since there's already a corridor ready and waiting, adding a numerical designation would be a relatively straightforward process with ample precedent.  Now -- getting appropriations for the upgrades is another story altogether -- but that situation would pertain regardless of numerical designation.

[Max Rockatansky]

Something I put together for the original CA 51 which was a former segment of US 101 in Orange:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2024/03/the-original-california-state-route-51.html?m=1

[The Ghostbuster]

Maybe if they ever decide to decommission Business 80 in Sacramento, they should just sign the north-south segment as CA 51. After all, a number of overhead signs on the Business 80/US 50 duplex are signed as US 50 only (although there are plenty of Business 80 markers along the corridor). However, I view the prospect of Sacramento decommissioning Business 80 to be very unlikely.

[Max Rockatansky]

Maybe if they ever decide to decommission Business 80 in Sacramento, they should just sign the north-south segment as CA 51. After all, a number of overhead signs on the Business 80/US 50 duplex are signed as US 50 only (although there are plenty of Business 80 markers along the corridor). However, I view the prospect of Sacramento decommissioning Business 80 to be very unlikely.

Not up to Sacramento (the city).  CA 51 being signed as I-80BL is due to the State Highway Code (351.1 specifically) mandating it.

[roadfro]

Maybe if they ever decide to decommission Business 80 in Sacramento, they should just sign the north-south segment as CA 51. After all, a number of overhead signs on the Business 80/US 50 duplex are signed as US 50 only (although there are plenty of Business 80 markers along the corridor). However, I view the prospect of Sacramento decommissioning Business 80 to be very unlikely.

Not up to Sacramento (the city).  CA 51 being signed as I-80BL is due to the State Highway Code (351.1 specifically) mandating it.

And IIRC, Caltrans took the opportunity to remove some BL 80 signs along the stretch concurrent with US 50 during the "Fix 50" project a little while back (or at least didn't replace them), since that stretch is not mandated to be signed as BL 80 in the State Highway Code.

Seems to me like it would make sense to remove BL 80 from the code and let the highway just be signed as SR 51 (it could even retain the "Capital City Freeway" name). Let BL 80 be applied to an appropriate surface alignment instead.

[Max Rockatansky]

Mostly yes, I did find a couple left over reassurance shields on US 50 after that project.

[mrsman]

Maybe if they ever decide to decommission Business 80 in Sacramento, they should just sign the north-south segment as CA 51. After all, a number of overhead signs on the Business 80/US 50 duplex are signed as US 50 only (although there are plenty of Business 80 markers along the corridor). However, I view the prospect of Sacramento decommissioning Business 80 to be very unlikely.

Not up to Sacramento (the city).  CA 51 being signed as I-80BL is due to the State Highway Code (351.1 specifically) mandating it.

And IIRC, Caltrans took the opportunity to remove some BL 80 signs along the stretch concurrent with US 50 during the "Fix 50" project a little while back (or at least didn't replace them), since that stretch is not mandated to be signed as BL 80 in the State Highway Code.

Seems to me like it would make sense to remove BL 80 from the code and let the highway just be signed as SR 51 (it could even retain the "Capital City Freeway" name). Let BL 80 be applied to an appropriate surface alignment instead.

I totally agree with this approach.  For CA, business routes generally mean the old surface alignment with gas stations, restaurants, and other businesses.  A freeway biz route is a little confusing.

Also, when I lived in the area, it seemed confusing to a lot of newcomers (like CSUS or UCD students who weren't from the area) to explain directions when there were two 80 freeways in the town.  Directions from Davis to Arden Fair Mall would be to take 80 and not take the exit for 80 to Reno before hitting Downtown Sacramento but then taking the second 80 to Reno with the green signs.

CA generally is  a place where highways are distinguished by the different numbering, not by the shield.  (E.g. CA-210 and  I-210 are the same highway referred to as the 210, independent of what is actually signed.) 

The Biz-80 freeway had its place when they renumbered the existing 80 that followed that path to the I-880 bypass freeway.  But at this point in time, it doesn't seem to do any good.  Thru traffic between Bay Area and Nevada are using the 80 bypass (signed for Reno or San Francisco) and traffic into Sacramento will follow the signs along US 50 or CA-51.  It is a distinct freeway from I-80, all we need are the signs to state it as such.

[cahwyguy]

Seems to me like it would make sense to remove BL 80 from the code and let the highway just be signed as SR 51 (it could even retain the "Capital City Freeway" name). Let BL 80 be applied to an appropriate surface alignment instead.

If this is the case (and presumably, if you live in California), then make a case to a State Assembly or State Senate critter to introduce a bill to do just that. Make the case that the designation is no longer necessary for continuity and the public. However, you'll probably need to do a cost analysis of the resigning costs, both for the signs on the freeway itself (reassurance markers, transition signs ... both of which would need to add Route 51 signage) and for all the off-freeway directional signage pointing motorists to on/off ramps. My guess is that you would likely be talking 1.5 million (simply because that's a good minimum cost for any government change), and the benefits wouldn't justify the costs. Another approach would simply be to remove the legislative line, but let it continue to be marked as BL 80. Not sure that's better.

Cost is likely the sole reason why Caltrans hasn't pushed a bill to change the legal definition. They've likely got better places to spend the money.

ETA: Personally, I'd be happier if CA 51 was renumbered as part of CA 99, and the legislative definition of 99 was just changed to end at I-80. If you're going to renumber, that's a much better number to make visible, and actually might help the public. But there's no cost justification for that either.

[michravera]

Seems to me like it would make sense to remove BL 80 from the code and let the highway just be signed as SR 51 (it could even retain the "Capital City Freeway" name). Let BL 80 be applied to an appropriate surface alignment instead.

If this is the case (and presumably, if you live in California), then make a case to a State Assembly or State Senate critter to introduce a bill to do just that. Make the case that the designation is no longer necessary for continuity and the public. However, you'll probably need to do a cost analysis of the resigning costs, both for the signs on the freeway itself (reassurance markers, transition signs ... both of which would need to add Route 51 signage) and for all the off-freeway directional signage pointing motorists to on/off ramps. My guess is that you would likely be talking 1.5 million (simply because that's a good minimum cost for any government change), and the benefits wouldn't justify the costs. Another approach would simply be to remove the legislative line, but let it continue to be marked as BL 80. Not sure that's better.

Cost is likely the sole reason why Caltrans hasn't pushed a bill to change the legal definition. They've likely got better places to spend the money.

ETA: Personally, I'd be happier if CA 51 was renumbered as part of CA 99, and the legislative definition of 99 was just changed to end at I-80. If you're going to renumber, that's a much better number to make visible, and actually might help the public. But there's no cost justification for that either.

... but cost didn't stop them resigning it back in the 1980s!
The problem with signing it as CASR-99 is that someone trying to follow CASR-99 further north ends up diverted further away from the continuation. They end up on I-80, probably headed east, and would have to go west to pick up CASR-99, so there would have to be "TO CASR-99" signs or, contravening CalTrans's usual practice, a Multiplex.

[cahwyguy]

(a) ... but cost didn't stop them resigning it back in the 1980s!

9b) The problem with signing it as CASR-99 is that someone trying to follow CASR-99 further north ends up diverted further away from the continuation. They end up on I-80, probably headed east, and would have to go west to pick up CASR-99, so there would have to be "TO CASR-99" signs or, contravening CalTrans's usual practice, a Multiplex.

Re: (a) The budget situation was very different then, and they were trying to promote BL 80 as a loop after I-80 was pulled off to the new routing.

Re: (b) They don't currently have signs pointing to the rest of CA 99, which doesn't begin again until near the airport.

[Max Rockatansky]

There is CA 99 reassurance signage on US 50 and I-5. Enough at least that while there is a gap in the route definition, getting to the rest of 99 is fairly clear.

[Rothman]

Heh.  Budget situation was very different for all states in the 1980s when it came to Interstates.

[mrsman]

Seems to me like it would make sense to remove BL 80 from the code and let the highway just be signed as SR 51 (it could even retain the "Capital City Freeway" name). Let BL 80 be applied to an appropriate surface alignment instead.

If this is the case (and presumably, if you live in California), then make a case to a State Assembly or State Senate critter to introduce a bill to do just that. Make the case that the designation is no longer necessary for continuity and the public. However, you'll probably need to do a cost analysis of the resigning costs, both for the signs on the freeway itself (reassurance markers, transition signs ... both of which would need to add Route 51 signage) and for all the off-freeway directional signage pointing motorists to on/off ramps. My guess is that you would likely be talking 1.5 million (simply because that's a good minimum cost for any government change), and the benefits wouldn't justify the costs. Another approach would simply be to remove the legislative line, but let it continue to be marked as BL 80. Not sure that's better.

Cost is likely the sole reason why Caltrans hasn't pushed a bill to change the legal definition. They've likely got better places to spend the money.

ETA: Personally, I'd be happier if CA 51 was renumbered as part of CA 99, and the legislative definition of 99 was just changed to end at I-80. If you're going to renumber, that's a much better number to make visible, and actually might help the public. But there's no cost justification for that either.

... but cost didn't stop them resigning it back in the 1980s!
The problem with signing it as CASR-99 is that someone trying to follow CASR-99 further north ends up diverted further away from the continuation. They end up on I-80, probably headed east, and would have to go west to pick up CASR-99, so there would have to be "TO CASR-99" signs or, contravening CalTrans's usual practice, a Multiplex.

If 99 were headed to 80, then there would be an impossible way to stay on route as there are no ramps from current Biz-80 EB to I-80 WB.  IMO, it would only make sense for this to be 99 if a) the old US 99E were revived as CA-99, meaning a multiplex along I-80 and then CA-99 would follow CA-65, CA-70, and CA-149 via Marysville and then rejoin CA-99 before Chico, with existing parts of CA-99 in Yuba City area and CA-70 south of Marysville being renumbered to other numbers or b) if the entire CA-99 north of Sacramento Airport were renumbered to a new highway, so as to sever CA-99 north of Sacramento from CA-99 south of Sacramento.

It seems better to not adjust CA-99's routing at all, and to only focus on the  numbering of Biz-80.  Several options: a) Existing Biz-80, b) CA-51 its legislative identity, c) CA-244 which ties in with the stub to Auburn Blvd, d) CA-899, a number that hints to the highway being a connection between 80 and 99.

[cahwyguy]

IMO, it would only make sense for this to be 99 if a) the old US 99E were revived as CA-99, meaning a multiplex along I-80 and then CA-99 would follow CA-65, CA-70, and CA-149 via Marysville and then rejoin CA-99 before Chico...

Yeah, that's what was going through my head; I completely forgot where 99 joined I-5. Side effect of being mostly down in Southern California.

[Voyager]

I've never understood the signing issues that Sacramento gave itself because of the cancelled Capital City Freeway project causing 80 to not be interstate standards around Marconi Ave (80 is also not interstate standards in a lot of CA but apparently this was too big of a no-no). But just in general, why did they go with the business loop when there are several interstate 5 designations still available (or there were at that time)? I know the x80 was filled up because 80 took over 880 to move it to the Bay Area, but there was still 105 (century freeway hadn't been built yet).

[TheStranger]

I've never understood the signing issues that Sacramento gave itself because of the cancelled Capital City Freeway project causing 80 to not be interstate standards around Marconi Ave (80 is also not interstate standards in a lot of CA but apparently this was too big of a no-no). But just in general, why did they go with the business loop when there are several interstate 5 designations still available (or there were at that time)? I know the x80 was filled up because 80 took over 880 to move it to the Bay Area, but there was still 105 (century freeway hadn't been built yet).

I-305 indeed is the FHWA-only designation for the section that was primarily built as I-80 (specifically from the old 80/880 junction in West Sacramento, now 80/50, to around E Street in Midtown Sacramento), but has never been signed nor has it ever been a California legislative route.

Since the route had been Interstate 80 from around 1962-1982, I suspect the number was retained for continuity (at the time), back in this pre-GPS/pre-Internet era. 

As for the remaining I-5 based options:

I-105 was literally being built or proposed by the mid-1980s with land clearance activities going on.  (That route designation was first codified in 1968)

I-305 ended up being the hidden number FHWA assigned to the Interstate-quality portion of US 50/Business 80.

I-705 has never been proposed in California.  Route 905 (the future I-905) ended up being designated sometime in the mid-1980s.

[cahwyguy]

But just in general, why did they go with the business loop when there are several interstate 5 designations still available (or there were at that time)? I know the x80 was filled up because 80 took over 880 to move it to the Bay Area, but there was still 105 (century freeway hadn't been built yet).

Probably for the same reason they didn't keep it I-80: If it wasn't suitable interstate quality for I-80, it wouldn't be interstate quality for I-x05. Further, if there were no plans to make it current interstate quality, there was no need to use a state-shield x05.

[pderocco]

Is there any law or regulation that prohibits a 4di?

[Alps]

Is there any law or regulation that prohibits a 4di?

I don't think there necessarily is, but the FHWA / MUTCD specified Interstate shield that is 30" x 24" is intended for 3 numerals. So you may be constrained by that definition.