Interstate 210 shields on new section of California state route 210?

[ACSCmapcollector]

Interstate 210 shields on new section of California state route 210?

I have noticed on Google maps that the new section of the Foothill Freeway, California state route 210 is still signed as a California state route, but not an Interstate as of yet?  Has AASHTO (American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials) approved of the change to Interstate 210, as of yet?

I would like to see Interstate 210 signed on the section of the Foothill Freeway, from San Dimas to Redlands as of now, what is your comments?

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA

[AMLNet49]

Interstate 210 shields on new section of California state route 210?

I have noticed on Google maps that the new section of the Foothill Freeway, California state route 210 is still signed as a California state route, but not an Interstate as of yet?  Has AASHTO (American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials) approved of the change to Interstate 210, as of yet?

I would like to see Interstate 210 signed on the section of the Foothill Freeway, from San Dimas to Redlands as of now, what is your comments?

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA

In the same boat as the 905 which won't be changed even though it is ready, and the shields for the 905 are even up on I-5 underneath the State Route shields, but they aren't supposed to come off anytime soon. And in a state where there is no route duplication, I would assume that the 210, where the shields aren't even up, would be an even lower priority for conversion.

[ACSCmapcollector]

Maybe it should be a high priority as of now, however it isn't.  I wonder if people still use the California state route 57 designation for the Orange Freeway to get to Interstate 10, the San Bernardino Freeway (Christopher Columbus Transcontential Highway), I have enjoyed California 210, as the Foothill Freeway since I have been on it, to Interstate 15, Ontario Freeway to I-10 east to Oro Valley, Arizona.  If the Foothill Freeway was completed all the way through, by that time it would take my family to Redlands, instead of Ontario, CA.

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA

[The Ghostbuster]

Somehow, I doubt state route 210 will ever get Interstate 210 shields. Same with 905.

[sparker]

Interestingly enough, on several of the approach BGS's on streets interchanging with CA 210 in and around Upland (at least circa 2011-12) the CA 210 state shield is on a patch -- ostensibly covering an I-210 shield, which would tend to indicate that Caltrans intends at some time down the line to seek Interstate designation.  I'm just wondering if any delay is tied to the issue of fund reimbursement for the N-S section of CA 57 between 10 and 210 that was paid for by original Interstate construction funds.  I'd venture an educated guess that the issues concerning that section are similar to that around the "I-305" designation of a portion of Biz 80 in Sacramento:  the 305 number doesn't appear in any CA route log; it's merely a designator for federal fund disbursement after the 1982 I-80 rerouting.  To FHWA, 210 likely is still deployed over CA 57 south to I-10 (if anyone has info to the contrary, please speak up!).  The federal route log for I-210 indicates a mileage of 48+; the 57/210 interchange is at or near MP 45; the distance from 210 to 10 on 57 essentially accounts for the difference.

IMHO, what Caltrans should do is to seek a separate Interstate designation (I-910 anyone?) for CA 57 north of I-10; it would be a "hidden" Interstate number, like 305, for official reference only.  Thus any discrepancy regarding original I-210 expenditures could be rolled over onto the "910" books, freeing up the number for deployment east to Redlands. 

[andy3175]

Interestingly enough, on several of the approach BGS's on streets interchanging with CA 210 in and around Upland (at least circa 2011-12) the CA 210 state shield is on a patch -- ostensibly covering an I-210 shield, which would tend to indicate that Caltrans intends at some time down the line to seek Interstate designation. 

I agree with this and have seen these signs before they were covered up by a CA 210 shield. These signs are primary in the LA county section of CA 210 east of CA 57 yet west of San Bernardino County.

IMHO, what Caltrans should do is to seek a separate Interstate designation (I-910 anyone?) for CA 57 north of I-10; it would be a "hidden" Interstate number, like 305, for official reference only.  Thus any discrepancy regarding original I-210 expenditures could be rolled over onto the "910" books, freeing up the number for deployment east to Redlands. 

Perhaps straying too close to fictional territory, since FHWA has not added the extended 210 onto its book nor moved the "chargeable" interstate mileage along 57 between 10 and 210, I would argue that 57 is hidden I-210 until the FHWA books are changed and that same section of 57 should be renumbered (perhaps as hidden route comparable to 305) as 510. I'd go with 510 since 57 connects 5 and 10, and as a designation, 510 has fewer syllables than 57. 910 would work too. Thanks Scott!

[sparker]

Ahh -- recognized my denser-than-hell writing style, did you, Andy!  In any case, I do concur with you about 510 v. 910.  But since obviously FHWA does still recognize the 10 to 210 section of 57 as I-210 regardless of field signage,  I do think my concept of a new, likely hidden, designation for the section in question is a viable one.  However, the ball's in Caltrans' court (where balls in play historically have gone to die!).  FHWA is highly unlikely to add anything, even unchargeable mileage, to their books without some impetus from the state agency that actually owns the facility.  It would just be nice (bear with me, I'm trying to steer this back from the fictional realm) to see Caltrans actually make an attempt to tie up loose ends regarding this situation -- and there's no loose end like a signed Interstate route petering out at the junction of two state routes, regardless of the numerical designation of one.   

[Exit58]

Interestingly enough, on several of the approach BGS's on streets interchanging with CA 210 in and around Upland (at least circa 2011-12) the CA 210 state shield is on a patch -- ostensibly covering an I-210 shield, which would tend to indicate that Caltrans intends at some time down the line to seek Interstate designation.  I'm just wondering if any delay is tied to the issue of fund reimbursement for the N-S section of CA 57 between 10 and 210 that was paid for by original Interstate construction funds.  I'd venture an educated guess that the issues concerning that section are similar to that around the "I-305" designation of a portion of Biz 80 in Sacramento:  the 305 number doesn't appear in any CA route log; it's merely a designator for federal fund disbursement after the 1982 I-80 rerouting.  To FHWA, 210 likely is still deployed over CA 57 south to I-10 (if anyone has info to the contrary, please speak up!).  The federal route log for I-210 indicates a mileage of 48+; the 57/210 interchange is at or near MP 45; the distance from 210 to 10 on 57 essentially accounts for the difference.

IMHO, what Caltrans should do is to seek a separate Interstate designation (I-910 anyone?) for CA 57 north of I-10; it would be a "hidden" Interstate number, like 305, for official reference only.  Thus any discrepancy regarding original I-210 expenditures could be rolled over onto the "910" books, freeing up the number for deployment east to Redlands.

Some of that green out is starting to fall off. I was getting on the freeway from southbound Haven Ave (part of old SR 30) in Rancho Cucamonga and noticed the SR 210 shield fell off the East/West onramp indicator. It was a little startling and I started getting excited that maybe things were finally picking up steam to sign it all as I-210. It doesn't really mean anything to the normal commuter. Caltrans could accidentally misprint a sign marking the 210 as US 210 and I don't think anyone except us road geeks would really care. Signing SR 210 as I-210 is probably the lowest to-do on Caltrans' agenda I'm sure sadly.

[sparker]

Since all the routes in Caltrans' log are by official status state routes -- without differentiation as to type -- the full 85 miles from Sylmar to Redlands are simply, to the agency, "210" -- period.  Once the entire freeway was opened, it was likely, as far as they were concerned, a done deal.  Regardless of the roadgeek tendency to bite our nails over such anomalies, an Interstate designation would be simply an extra layer of icing on that particular cake!  If the designation upgrade does happen, it'll be due to political pressure from the region rather than anything internal -- and at the moment, the Inland Empire has more pressing issues with the San Bernardino bankruptcy, the housing market still reeling from the 2008 downturn, et cetera.  It'll probably happen eventually -- but it's a bit premature to get any office pools going regarding just when!

[Desert Man]

Why not have CA SR 210 from San Dimas to Redlands become I-210, unless the issue here is federal funding and they want to transfer it to the state? The freeway trails the former CA SR 30 and when it was proposed, CalTrans called it the CA SR 30 instead of the 210. 

[djsekani]

Perhaps straying too close to fictional territory, since FHWA has not added the extended 210 onto its book nor moved the "chargeable" interstate mileage along 57 between 10 and 210, I would argue that 57 is hidden I-210 until the FHWA books are changed and that same section of 57 should be renumbered (perhaps as hidden route comparable to 305) as 510. I'd go with 510 since 57 connects 5 and 10, and as a designation, 510 has fewer syllables than 57. 910 would work too. Thanks Scott!

Looks like you're correct; according to this map, which is dated March 2015, the northern section of CA 57 is still on the books as part of the Interstate Highway System.

[mrsman]

This sign refers to I-210 even though the roadway is technically CA-210.

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1195635,-117.7840853,3a,75y,256.84h,86.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suIGozrxUPQoykBmVjVI9BA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

This is Foothill Blvd in La Verne.  As many know, for many years I-210 left the Foothill Freeway to reach I-10 at the Kellogg Interchange in Pomona.  The remaining part of the freeway was signed for many years as CA-30 and ended in this area right on Foothill Blvd.  Even though it was technically the 30 freeway, signs leading to the westbound freeway were always signed as I-210.

The majority of the traffic from the 30 freeway continued east onto Foothill Blvd towards Claremont, Upland and beyond.  Then, that portion of Foothill, between the CA-30 freeway and I-215 was signed as CA-66.  To reach CA-30, you had to make an odd left turn onto Foothill and then a sharp right turn onto Base Line Rd to continue along the CA-30 routing.

Of course, once the Foothill Freeway was extended further east, they began decommissioning the state highways off of Foothill and Base Line.

You can see similar I-210 west signage along San Dimas Ave as well.

[Exit58]

This sign refers to I-210 even though the roadway is technically CA-210.

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1195635,-117.7840853,3a,75y,256.84h,86.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suIGozrxUPQoykBmVjVI9BA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

This is Foothill Blvd in La Verne.  As many know, for many years I-210 left the Foothill Freeway to reach I-10 at the Kellogg Interchange in Pomona.  The remaining part of the freeway was signed for many years as CA-30 and ended in this area right on Foothill Blvd.  Even though it was technically the 30 freeway, signs leading to the westbound freeway were always signed as I-210.

The majority of the traffic from the 30 freeway continued east onto Foothill Blvd towards Claremont, Upland and beyond.  Then, that portion of Foothill, between the CA-30 freeway and I-215 was signed as CA-66.  To reach CA-30, you had to make an odd left turn onto Foothill and then a sharp right turn onto Base Line Rd to continue along the CA-30 routing.

Of course, once the Foothill Freeway was extended further east, they began decommissioning the state highways off of Foothill and Base Line.

You can see similar I-210 west signage along San Dimas Ave as well.

If you go a little further west on Foothill to the Base Line intersection, Caltrans just put up a new SR 30 assembly sometimes in the last 4-7 years, well after it was deleted and replaced with the SR 210 freeway in the area. Brand new retroreflective signs that I got pictures of. It's interesting because it has the PROPERTY OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA stamped on it too, and the previous sign directing traffic to the interchange north of the freeway was not replaced.

For good measure, here's the guidance sign on Haven Ave I previously mentioned. I remember it having green out with SR 210 on it, but it fell off over 5 years ago and Caltrans hasn't replace it yet.

Also, has Caltrans finally decided to make San Bernardino the control city for the 210? Because at the 15/210 interchange there is still signage from when the road was SR 30 that denotes it as San Bernardino, and then Redlands.

[andy3175]

210 is following the same story as 15, near as I can tell. That story is basically "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." This means just keep on with the existing shields even if the road quality has improved to Interstate standards. I was thinking about this when I drove a portion of SR 15 earlier today between 8 and 805. This section was built to Interstate standards when it opened up. As part of the construction of a new bus rapid transit lane in the median of 15, I saw that many overhead signs have been replaced. And sure enough, while driving north on 15, the new pull-through signs still say SR 15 not I-15 on the approach to I-8, even though I-8 is now signed with its exit number of 6B. But some other signs (including one or two reassurance shields and the sign on southbound I-5) mention I-15 not SR 15. Given that FHWA still does not include SR 15 within the definition of I-15 (see http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/nhs_maps/southern_california/sandiego_ca.pdf) and SR 210 still does not extend east of SR 57 (see http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/nhs_maps/southern_california/losangeles_ca.pdf), I believe we are still in a holding pattern waiting for a day that may never come: upgrading 15 south of 8, 710 south of 1, 210 east of 57, all of 905, etc. to full Interstate Highway status.

[sparker]

Andy's spot on with his analysis -- any impetus toward Interstate designation on these "interim" routes will have to originate with external political pressure rather than anything emanating from within Caltrans itself -- i.e., local/state/national figures (or a combination thereof) who figure that Interstate signage will provide some tangible benefit.  This ain't North Carolina, folks!

[The Ghostbuster]

California seems to be the opposite of North Carolina and Texas.

[sparker]

I'd need a couple of packs of legal pads and a packet of pens to count the ways the above statement is true!

[Max Rockatansky]

Andy's spot on with his analysis -- any impetus toward Interstate designation on these "interim" routes will have to originate with external political pressure rather than anything emanating from within Caltrans itself -- i.e., local/state/national figures (or a combination thereof) who figure that Interstate signage will provide some tangible benefit.  This ain't North Carolina, folks!

Could always bring back CA 30 over 210. 

[sparker]

Never happen -- District 8 likes re-using reassurance signs, and pretty much all the old 30 shields were rustbuckets by the time they were taken down; probably sitting in one of their corporate yards getting even more corroded!  Maybe we'll finally see I-210 when rust sets in on the CA 210 signage!

[Max Rockatansky]

Never happen -- District 8 likes re-using reassurance signs, and pretty much all the old 30 shields were rustbuckets by the time they were taken down; probably sitting in one of their corporate yards getting even more corroded!  Maybe we'll finally see I-210 when rust sets in on the CA 210 signage!

Yeah I know, I thought it made for some good satire given the state of things with these routes.  Begs the question though...which one happens first?  All of 210 becomes I-210 or does CA 39 finally get fixed to CA 2?  The 511 map showed projected completion of 39 by 2020 a couple months ago...whether that's true or some place holder that someone thought nobody would look at I have no idea.

[Exit58]

Could always bring back CA 30 over 210. 

Honestly if Caltrans doesn't sign SR 210 as I-210 soon enough I'd advocate for this. Route 30 roles off the tongue (and coincides with SR 330) better then Route 210.

[TheStranger]

Could always bring back CA 30 over 210. 

Honestly if Caltrans doesn't sign SR 210 as I-210 soon enough I'd advocate for this. Route 30 roles off the tongue (and coincides with SR 330) better then Route 210.

On the other hand, the exit numbers are already set up for one unified 210 from Redlands to San Fernando (keeping in mind that the state/Interstate designations are not part of the legislative definitions of numbered routes, thus I-15/Route 15 and Route 110/I-110 are each single unified corridors).

[emory]

Could always bring back CA 30 over 210. 

Honestly if Caltrans doesn't sign SR 210 as I-210 soon enough I'd advocate for this. Route 30 roles off the tongue (and coincides with SR 330) better then Route 210.

They'll sooner sign I-305.

[Max Rockatansky]

Could always bring back CA 30 over 210. 

Honestly if Caltrans doesn't sign SR 210 as I-210 soon enough I'd advocate for this. Route 30 roles off the tongue (and coincides with SR 330) better then Route 210.

They'll sooner sign I-305.

I'm thinking that maybe every project or upgrade that ends up in limbo on the Caltrans catalog ought to be renumbered CA 39.  That way nobody will ever have any expectation of the work, upgrades or repairs ever being complete.  Come to think of it...they could also use CA 173 for a similar purpose. 

[emory]

Perhaps straying too close to fictional territory, since FHWA has not added the extended 210 onto its book nor moved the "chargeable" interstate mileage along 57 between 10 and 210, I would argue that 57 is hidden I-210 until the FHWA books are changed and that same section of 57 should be renumbered (perhaps as hidden route comparable to 305) as 510. I'd go with 510 since 57 connects 5 and 10, and as a designation, 510 has fewer syllables than 57. 910 would work too. Thanks Scott!

Looks like you're correct; according to this map, which is dated March 2015, the northern section of CA 57 is still on the books as part of the Interstate Highway System.

Cool map. I find it funny that they have all of Alameda Street from the 710 to I-10 listed as CA 47 and have it labeled as part of the National Highway System, even though CA 47 officially ends at CA 90.

Looking at the San Diego map, I also see that the portion of I-8 west of I-5 is not listed as an interstate highway, even though Caltrans signs it as I-8 and not CA 8 ala I-15/CA 15.