Interstate 238/California State Route 238

[Max Rockatansky]

Next up on the Bay Area stuff is I-238/CA 238.  Suffice to say the number "I-238" alone has brought a lot of attention (deservedly negative in my opinion) to what really is a pretty bland 2.1 mile stretch of freeway.  What is really interesting regarding I-238 and more so CA 238 is the sheer number of Signed Highways that occupied the corridor; US 48, US 101E, CA 9, CA 17 and CA 21.  I started my approach to I-238 from Foothill Boulevard at the former terminus points of CA 92/CA 185 at Mission Boulevard where I headed westward towards I-880.  The BGS from I-238 still displays CA 238 for Foothill Boulevard which I suppose is "technically" true as a tiny portion of it is still state maintained. 

https://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2019/02/interstate-238-interstate-numbering.html

My photo set for I-238/former CA 238 can be found here:

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmAnEdCB

[Max Rockatansky]

A reply to the above blog on the San Francisco Bay Roads Page got me thinking what would the minimal legislative renumbering hurdles to put I-238 in compliance with the National Grid.  Someone brought up I-58 and making assigning CA 58 a new number of CA 40.  Given how large significant of a corridor CA 58 is it got me thinking about numbers.  The only route number between 40 and 80 that's fully available without a current legislative definition is 42.  So that being the case my "fictional"  proposal would be as follows:

-  Run I-42 over current I-580 and I-205 to I-5.  A possible extension to CA 99 Via CA 120 would be possible with this configuration.  Leave I-580 west of I-80 as is. 
-  Make I-580 east of the I-205 junction I-342. 
-  Make I-680 in its entirety I-642 which would line up nicely with CA 242. 
-  Make I-238 a odd number spur of I-542. 

I'm aware I-42 is assigned in North Carolina to a future corridor but I figure the duplication isn't as big of a deal given that many routes already have duplicate numbers in the Mountain West. 

[SSR_317]

A reply to the above blog on the San Francisco Bay Roads Page got me thinking what would the minimal legislative renumbering hurdles to put I-238 in compliance with the National Grid.  Someone brought up I-58 and making assigning CA 58 a new number of CA 40.  Given how large significant of a corridor CA 58 is it got me thinking about numbers.  The only route number between 40 and 80 that's fully available without a current legislative definition is 42.  So that being the case my "fictional"  proposal would be as follows:

-  Run I-42 over current I-580 and I-205 to I-5.  A possible extension to CA 99 Via CA 120 would be possible with this configuration.  Leave I-580 west of I-80 as is. 
-  Make I-580 east of the I-205 junction I-342. 
-  Make I-680 in its entirety I-642 which would line up nicely with CA 242. 
-  Make I-238 a odd number spur of I-542. 

I'm aware I-42 is assigned in North Carolina to a future corridor but I figure the duplication isn't as big of a deal given that many routes already have duplicate numbers in the Mountain West.

Since we're talking "fictional" here, how about making it part of an extended I-70? From it's current terminus at I-15 in Cove Fort, UT, I'd route I-70 west-northwest across the desert to meet up with US 6/50 near the UT-NV line. It would then roughly follow US 50 across central NV from Ely to Carson City. From there it would turn south along I-580 to an upgraded US 395 & NV 88 west of Minden. Just past the CA border It would leave CA 88, tunnel under the ridge line of the Sierra (to avoid the high passes), and roughly follow the Old Mormon Trail back to US 50 east of Placerville to take the existing freeway west to a new southwestern bypass of Sacramento. From there it might follow an upgraded CA 99 freeway south to I-205 at Manteca and then replace the CA 120/I-205 freeways west to I-580. At that point, I-70 would replace I-580 (with the orphaned section south of Tracy being renumbered as I-570) until meeting the MacArthur Freeway at I-238/CA 238/Foothills Blvd. I-70 would then replace I-238 and either terminate at the Nimitz Freeway (I-880) or turn north and replace that route to terminate at the MacArthur Maze (with I-980 either becoming I-970 or reverting to CA 24).

I know it would be nearly impossible to get an I-70 Sierra crossing built, due to environmental and cost objections, but if that could somehow be done there should be little problem getting the rest of the route done. And just like that, the problem of "what to do with I-238" would be permanently solved. Plus, I-70 would better fulfill its role as a "true transcontinental" route, in addition to providing an all-weather alternative to already overcrowded I-80 for Easterners and Mid-westerners to reach the Bay Area.

[mrsman]

A reply to the above blog on the San Francisco Bay Roads Page got me thinking what would the minimal legislative renumbering hurdles to put I-238 in compliance with the National Grid.  Someone brought up I-58 and making assigning CA 58 a new number of CA 40.  Given how large significant of a corridor CA 58 is it got me thinking about numbers.  The only route number between 40 and 80 that's fully available without a current legislative definition is 42.  So that being the case my "fictional"  proposal would be as follows:

-  Run I-42 over current I-580 and I-205 to I-5.  A possible extension to CA 99 Via CA 120 would be possible with this configuration.  Leave I-580 west of I-80 as is. 
-  Make I-580 east of the I-205 junction I-342. 
-  Make I-680 in its entirety I-642 which would line up nicely with CA 242. 
-  Make I-238 a odd number spur of I-542. 

I'm aware I-42 is assigned in North Carolina to a future corridor but I figure the duplication isn't as big of a deal given that many routes already have duplicate numbers in the Mountain West.

Since we're talking "fictional" here, how about making it part of an extended I-70? From it's current terminus at I-15 in Cove Fort, UT, I'd route I-70 west-northwest across the desert to meet up with US 6/50 near the UT-NV line. It would then roughly follow US 50 across central NV from Ely to Carson City. From there it would turn south along I-580 to an upgraded US 395 & NV 88 west of Minden. Just past the CA border It would leave CA 88, tunnel under the ridge line of the Sierra (to avoid the high passes), and roughly follow the Old Mormon Trail back to US 50 east of Placerville to take the existing freeway west to a new southwestern bypass of Sacramento. From there it might follow an upgraded CA 99 freeway south to I-205 at Manteca and then replace the CA 120/I-205 freeways west to I-580. At that point, I-70 would replace I-580 (with the orphaned section south of Tracy being renumbered as I-570) until meeting the MacArthur Freeway at I-238/CA 238/Foothills Blvd. I-70 would then replace I-238 and either terminate at the Nimitz Freeway (I-880) or turn north and replace that route to terminate at the MacArthur Maze (with I-980 either becoming I-970 or reverting to CA 24).

I know it would be nearly impossible to get an I-70 Sierra crossing built, due to environmental and cost objections, but if that could somehow be done there should be little problem getting the rest of the route done. And just like that, the problem of "what to do with I-238" would be permanently solved. Plus, I-70 would better fulfill its role as a "true transcontinental" route, in addition to providing an all-weather alternative to already overcrowded I-80 for Easterners and Mid-westerners to reach the Bay Area.

I think the idea is to deal with the numbering issue without actually building additional highways, just renumbering some of the existing ones to deal with the fact that the state has run out of I-x80's and I-x05's. 

I like the idea of routing the Oakland-Manteca as a 2di to allow I-238 and some other East Bay Area 3dis to be renumbered.  (I-980 should also be renumbered.)  But I believe that the number of the 2di should be a lot closer to 80 than 40 given how north it is.  IMO I-72 would be a good number, especially since the existing CA 72 (Whittier Blvd-Harbor Blvd) is almost fully relinquished.  The remaining parts of CA 72 should be renumbered to allow for I-72's use here.

[Occidental Tourist]

A reply to the above blog on the San Francisco Bay Roads Page got me thinking what would the minimal legislative renumbering hurdles to put I-238 in compliance with the National Grid.  Someone brought up I-58 and making assigning CA 58 a new number of CA 40.  Given how large significant of a corridor CA 58 is it got me thinking about numbers.  The only route number between 40 and 80 that's fully available without a current legislative definition is 42.  So that being the case my "fictional"  proposal would be as follows:

-  Run I-42 over current I-580 and I-205 to I-5.  A possible extension to CA 99 Via CA 120 would be possible with this configuration.  Leave I-580 west of I-80 as is. 
-  Make I-580 east of the I-205 junction I-342. 
-  Make I-680 in its entirety I-642 which would line up nicely with CA 242. 
-  Make I-238 a odd number spur of I-542. 

I'm aware I-42 is assigned in North Carolina to a future corridor but I figure the duplication isn't as big of a deal given that many routes already have duplicate numbers in the Mountain West.

Since we're talking "fictional" here, how about making it part of an extended I-70? From it's current terminus at I-15 in Cove Fort, UT, I'd route I-70 west-northwest across the desert to meet up with US 6/50 near the UT-NV line. It would then roughly follow US 50 across central NV from Ely to Carson City. From there it would turn south along I-580 to an upgraded US 395 & NV 88 west of Minden. Just past the CA border It would leave CA 88, tunnel under the ridge line of the Sierra (to avoid the high passes), and roughly follow the Old Mormon Trail back to US 50 east of Placerville to take the existing freeway west to a new southwestern bypass of Sacramento. From there it might follow an upgraded CA 99 freeway south to I-205 at Manteca and then replace the CA 120/I-205 freeways west to I-580. At that point, I-70 would replace I-580 (with the orphaned section south of Tracy being renumbered as I-570) until meeting the MacArthur Freeway at I-238/CA 238/Foothills Blvd. I-70 would then replace I-238 and either terminate at the Nimitz Freeway (I-880) or turn north and replace that route to terminate at the MacArthur Maze (with I-980 either becoming I-970 or reverting to CA 24).

I know it would be nearly impossible to get an I-70 Sierra crossing built, due to environmental and cost objections, but if that could somehow be done there should be little problem getting the rest of the route done. And just like that, the problem of "what to do with I-238" would be permanently solved. Plus, I-70 would better fulfill its role as a "true transcontinental" route, in addition to providing an all-weather alternative to already overcrowded I-80 for Easterners and Mid-westerners to reach the Bay Area.

I think the idea is to deal with the numbering issue without actually building additional highways, just renumbering some of the existing ones to deal with the fact that the state has run out of I-x80's and I-x05's. 

I like the idea of routing the Oakland-Manteca as a 2di to allow I-238 and some other East Bay Area 3dis to be renumbered.  (I-980 should also be renumbered.)  But I believe that the number of the 2di should be a lot closer to 80 than 40 given how north it is.  IMO I-72 would be a good number, especially since the existing CA 72 (Whittier Blvd-Harbor Blvd) is almost fully relinquished.  The remaining parts of CA 72 should be renumbered to allow for I-72's use here.

This . . . except there are still 3dis they could use for I-238.  Without renumbering I-580, you could renumber I-238 as I-480, and you'd have less of a numbering violation than currently exists. 

Alternatively, you could renumber the Tracy to Oakland portion of I-580 as I-705, renumber I-238 as I-305, and redesignate the unsigned portion of US 50 from Unsigned I-305 to Unsigned I-480.

If you're going to use a primary interstate designation for I-580, I'd suggest I-64.  It fits in the national numbering scheme, would simply be another example of a repeated 2di far away from its East Coast counterpart, and is currently unused as a state highway number.

[Max Rockatansky]

Could always use 48 on the I-580 corridor since the state highway is just a line on paper.  Besides...that would be one hell of throwback to US 48.  Personally 72 would also be my number of preference. 

[sparker]

Seeing as how we're already engaged in I-580/238 renumbering speculation, my choice would be simply to wait until enough of CA 58 is completed to at least upgradeable standards and then (by the usual hook & crook used to cobble up new Interstate corridors elsewhere -- a new HPC complete with I-number) plop a I-40 extension on it, with the remainder to the west CA 40.  Then just drop the zero and redesignate I-580 -- only the portion SE of I-80 -- as I-58; this would subsume I-580 from I-80 to I-205, I-205 in its entirety, and -- when & if CA 99 becomes I-7 or I-9, CA 120 east to present CA 99.  I-205 would swivel down and occupy the I-580 section currently between I-205 and I-5.  And ta-da! I-238 becomes I-458.  Fits in the grid, eliminates a ludicrous anomaly, and isn't too far off from what's there now.  Put it this way -- it's been 55 years since the great CA renumbering and the sky hasn't fallen; a little tweaking here and there won't cause widespread panic or apoplexy among senior citizens.  

[Max Rockatansky]

Something that hasn't been said but I've seen on Facebook highway groups is that I-238 does serve an important connection purpose getting truck traffic off I-580 to I-880.  I've seen a lot of suggestion by locals that during rush hour peaks that 92 to former CA 238 on Foothill Boulevard is actually faster than I-238 getting between I-580 and I-880.  I suspect that probably is why Foothill traffic now splits on a one-way configuration via A Street and Mission to discourage use of downtown Hayward as a through route. 

[FightingIrish]

Could always use 48 on the I-580 corridor since the state highway is just a line on paper.  Besides...that would be one hell of throwback to US 48.  Personally 72 would also be my number of preference.

I-48 would be ideal for the length of I-580 from I-5 to US 101. Currently, there really isn't a CA 48 (just some vague proposed route down south), so it's easily available (if California really wanted to put forth the effort). I-238 becomes something like I-448.

Then again, California tends to be a bit sluggish and not very creative with updating interstates.

[TheStranger]

Something that hasn't been said but I've seen on Facebook highway groups is that I-238 does serve an important connection purpose getting truck traffic off I-580 to I-880.  I've seen a lot of suggestion by locals that during rush hour peaks that 92 to former CA 238 on Foothill Boulevard is actually faster than I-238 getting between I-580 and I-880.  I suspect that probably is why Foothill traffic now splits on a one-way configuration via A Street and Mission to discourage use of downtown Hayward as a through route. 

The stretch of 880 between 238 and 92 gets backed up at rush hour for sure (probably why the 92 connector between downtown Hayward and I-580 was proposed in the first place).  Really, a lot of the area between Castro Valley and Warm Springs (particularly along 880) deals with a traffic influx due to the lack of network redundancy created by the cancellations of the 61 and 92 extensions, the unbuilt 238 freeway proposal between 680 and 580, and even the never-ending hot potato that is the Route 84 realignment plan in Fremont.

Then again, California tends to be a bit sluggish and not very creative with updating interstates.

If we go back to the 1964 renumbering, it seems the philosophy behind that project was as follows:

- preserve as many existing 1934 state route numbers as possible, except for those that conflict with an interstate (i.e. the old Route 5 in SF).  Of course, this was an opportunity to renumber Route 180 but that never was considered.
- Get rid of long concurrencies like 6/395 and multiple-route concurrencies like I-10/US 60/70/99 and I-15/US 66/91/395/Route 18.
- Get every state-maintained road signed (which was never completely followed through after the 1960s)

Since then, the stasis behind the route number preservation part of the 1964 project has remained.  In the batch of x80s today, 280/680 date to 1958-1959, 580 has been in use for 55 years, and even the newest designations are from the 1980s (980 in 1981, current 880 in 1984).  Now that chargeable Interstate mileage isn't really a thing anymore, I think that has disincentivized new Interstate designations in california, save for whatever Route 99 in the valley ends up becoming.  (Though this has been taken to an extreme with Route 15, Route 210, and Route 905, all of which really should be given Interstate signage for continuity/consistency.)

Certainly the philosophy for Interstate additions here is the polar opposite of, say, North Carolina.

[Max Rockatansky]

Something I've noticed comparing the 1963 and 1964 highway maps as much as I have was that minor state highways usually were designated in the high 100s or even the 200s.  The highways assigned with two digits generally had some of far flung plan to make them major transportation corridors.  The irony is that some of those highways like 237 and 238 became major corridors while some of the lower digit ones like 77 essentially became nothing route. 

[TheStranger]

Something I've noticed comparing the 1963 and 1964 highway maps as much as I have was that minor state highways usually were designated in the high 100s or even the 200s.  The highways assigned with two digits generally had some of far flung plan to make them major transportation corridors.  The irony is that some of those highways like 237 and 238 became major corridors while some of the lower digit ones like 77 essentially became nothing route. 

I wonder how much of it was just geographic clustering, i.e. the addition of 82, 84, 85, 87 to the Bay Area, and the 236/237/238 trio replacing parts of Route 9.  The unbuilt 81 is parallel to 83 (which I think is a pre-1964 number) in the Inland Empire area.

Having said that, it seems overall that there really wasn't much of a primary/secondary split to the 1964 plan at all, as compared to the 1934 plan (three digit routes in rural areas, and the 440/740 rural extensions of 44 and 74).  72 and 82 as former parts of US 101 essentially took up two 2 digit state route numbers that could have easily been used for longer corridors, and 170 replacing what had been a planned portion of US 6 in San Fernando Valley was an interesting choice given the importance of that part of the Hollywood Freeway.

All of the proposed new freeways except for Route 65 in metro Sacramento that were canceled in 1975-1976 had three digit numbers: 102, 143, 148, 244.

In the Bay Area, most of the freeway proposals were 2 digit (61, 77, 93, the 13 extension to Oakland International Airport, 87 extension north of San Jose) with 238 as a whole being the longest of the planned three-digit state route freeway corridors. 186 was assigned to what became I-380, 230 was originally a short connector from 101 in Brisbane to the never-built 87 extension into SF, but later subsumed unbuilt 87 from Brisbane north to today's I-280/Cesar Chavez Street interchange. 

In Los Angeles and Orange Counties, most of the new freeway designations post-1964 had 2 digit numbers (57, unbuilt 64, 14 replacing old US 6, 73, 90, 47).  Exceptions were 170, 241 (the never-built East Bypass connecting today's I-110/I-10 interchange with the I-5/Route 110 junction), 258, 187, and the rather pointless 164 which really has always been signed as and most likely will always be signed as its 1934-present identity of Route 19.   The never-built freeway set in Palmdale, a more rural area in the 1960s, was given 3 digit numbers: 196, 122, 249; but just a few miles north in Lancaster, 138 between Lake Elizabeth Road and Route 14 was to have been part of a never-constructed Route 48 (eventually reverting to its 1934 definition by the mid-90s).

San Diego was a mix: 52/54/56 are all 1964-era designations for routes that were eventually constructed, while multiple San Diego connector freeways that never saw the light of day were 3 digit routes (157, 171, 252).  125 is the one three-digit freeway route in the area that ended up being built out.

[SoCal Kid]

San Diego was a mix: 52/54/56 are all 1964-era designations for routes that were eventually constructed, while multiple San Diego connector freeways that never saw the light of day were 3 digit routes (157, 171, 252).  125 is the one three-digit freeway route in the area that ended up being built out.

Could we count CA 905 as a three-digit SR?

[JustDrive]

Could we count CA 905 as a three-digit SR?

Why not? 905 was once SR 117.

[sparker]

San Diego was a mix: 52/54/56 are all 1964-era designations for routes that were eventually constructed, while multiple San Diego connector freeways that never saw the light of day were 3 digit routes (157, 171, 252).  125 is the one three-digit freeway route in the area that ended up being built out.

Could we count CA 905 as a three-digit SR?

All three of the proposed 3-digit freeways cited (157, 171, 252) were removed from the state highway system during the Gianturco Caltrans reign ('75-'83); the first two had no actually adopted mileage and were simply proposals, while 252 was a connector between I-805 and the I-5/CA 15 junction -- and there were a couple of ramp stubs built from I-805.
 

Why not? 905 was once SR 117.

117 was changed to 905 a couple of decades back as a prelude to the route being designated I-905; its role then as now was to divert cross-border truck traffic away from the always-congested I-5 San Ysidro border crossing; holding areas for truck inspection were built along that portion of 905 nearest the border as part of the overall project.  The number 117 seems to be particularly jinxed; the original post-'64 iteration was as part of Junipero Serra Blvd. in Colma and Daly City; it was subsumed by the I-280 freeway when that was built in the late '60's.   CA 117 was then assigned (and actually signed) along the present CA 905 corridor back in the mid-'70's as a replacement for the original CA 75 eastern extension assigned to that route in '64;  it was reasoned that "jogging" CA 75 a mile or two south along I-5 was unnecessary, so the unused 117 was utilized there instead.  When it was decided to split the border crossing into separate car & truck facilities in the late '80's,  I-905 was proposed as the truck leg; CA 905 was signed as a "placeholder" until the entire route could be brought up to Interstate standards.  But like with I/CA 210 east of Los Angeles, Caltrans seems not to be in any hurry to request an Interstate designation for 905, despite the completion of the facility by 2011.     

[SoCal Kid]

San Diego was a mix: 52/54/56 are all 1964-era designations for routes that were eventually constructed, while multiple San Diego connector freeways that never saw the light of day were 3 digit routes (157, 171, 252).  125 is the one three-digit freeway route in the area that ended up being built out.

Could we count CA 905 as a three-digit SR?

All three of the proposed 3-digit freeways cited (157, 171, 252) were removed from the state highway system during the Gianturco Caltrans reign ('75-'83); the first two had no actually adopted mileage and were simply proposals, while 252 was a connector between I-805 and the I-5/CA 15 junction -- and there were a couple of ramp stubs built from I-805.
 

Why not? 905 was once SR 117.

117 was changed to 905 a couple of decades back as a prelude to the route being designated I-905; its role then as now was to divert cross-border truck traffic away from the always-congested I-5 San Ysidro border crossing; holding areas for truck inspection were built along that portion of 905 nearest the border as part of the overall project.  The number 117 seems to be particularly jinxed; the original post-'64 iteration was as part of Junipero Serra Blvd. in Colma and Daly City; it was subsumed by the I-280 freeway when that was built in the late '60's.   CA 117 was then assigned (and actually signed) along the present CA 905 corridor back in the mid-'70's as a replacement for the original CA 75 eastern extension assigned to that route in '64;  it was reasoned that "jogging" CA 75 a mile or two south along I-5 was unnecessary, so the unused 117 was utilized there instead.  When it was decided to split the border crossing into separate car & truck facilities in the late '80's,  I-905 was proposed as the truck leg; CA 905 was signed as a "placeholder" until the entire route could be brought up to Interstate standards.  But like with I/CA 210 east of Los Angeles, Caltrans seems not to be in any hurry to request an Interstate designation for 905, despite the completion of the facility by 2011.   

I heard Caltrans accidentally signed CA 905 as I-905 at first, which I thought was quite funny.

[Max Rockatansky]

San Diego was a mix: 52/54/56 are all 1964-era designations for routes that were eventually constructed, while multiple San Diego connector freeways that never saw the light of day were 3 digit routes (157, 171, 252).  125 is the one three-digit freeway route in the area that ended up being built out.

Could we count CA 905 as a three-digit SR?

All three of the proposed 3-digit freeways cited (157, 171, 252) were removed from the state highway system during the Gianturco Caltrans reign ('75-'83); the first two had no actually adopted mileage and were simply proposals, while 252 was a connector between I-805 and the I-5/CA 15 junction -- and there were a couple of ramp stubs built from I-805.
 

Why not? 905 was once SR 117.

117 was changed to 905 a couple of decades back as a prelude to the route being designated I-905; its role then as now was to divert cross-border truck traffic away from the always-congested I-5 San Ysidro border crossing; holding areas for truck inspection were built along that portion of 905 nearest the border as part of the overall project.  The number 117 seems to be particularly jinxed; the original post-'64 iteration was as part of Junipero Serra Blvd. in Colma and Daly City; it was subsumed by the I-280 freeway when that was built in the late '60's.   CA 117 was then assigned (and actually signed) along the present CA 905 corridor back in the mid-'70's as a replacement for the original CA 75 eastern extension assigned to that route in '64;  it was reasoned that "jogging" CA 75 a mile or two south along I-5 was unnecessary, so the unused 117 was utilized there instead.  When it was decided to split the border crossing into separate car & truck facilities in the late '80's,  I-905 was proposed as the truck leg; CA 905 was signed as a "placeholder" until the entire route could be brought up to Interstate standards.  But like with I/CA 210 east of Los Angeles, Caltrans seems not to be in It hurry to request an Interstate designation for 905, despite the completion of the facility by 2011.   

I heard Caltrans accidentally signed CA 905 as I-905 at first, which I thought was quite funny.

It would be more amusing if they "accidentally"  signed CA 210 and CA 15 as Interstates. 

[sparker]

IIRC, I-905 appeared for a short time on the approach BGS's from I-5; never noticed if such signage was repeated over on I-805.  Don't recall noticing any reassurance/roadside signage at the time, since the freeway ended just east of the 805 interchange, and the remainder wasn't state maintained until much later.   

[ClassicHasClass]

It would be more amusing if they "accidentally"  signed CA 210 ... as Interstates.

They did. There used to be an I-210 on advance signage along I-10 WB in Redlands. It got replaced, but it was up for a couple years.

There are also a number of locations that are obvious CA 210 coverplates. No bets on what's under them.

[SoCal Kid]

It would be more amusing if they "accidentally"  signed CA 210 ... as Interstates.

They did. There used to be an I-210 on advance signage along I-10 WB in Redlands. It got replaced, but it was up for a couple years.

There are also a number of locations that are obvious CA 210 coverplates. No bets on what's under them.

I recall someone posting an image of a US 210 shield somewhere here

[sparker]

It would be more amusing if they "accidentally"  signed CA 210 ... as Interstates.

They did. There used to be an I-210 on advance signage along I-10 WB in Redlands. It got replaced, but it was up for a couple years.

There are also a number of locations that are obvious CA 210 coverplates. No bets on what's under them.

I recall someone posting an image of a US 210 shield somewhere here

There are I-210 shields under those coverplates; a couple fell off in Upland back about 2008 during a storm and weren't reattached for a week or two (BGS's on Mountain Ave. at the 210 interchange; saw them personally back then). 

[mrsman]

It would be more amusing if they "accidentally"  signed CA 210 ... as Interstates.

They did. There used to be an I-210 on advance signage along I-10 WB in Redlands. It got replaced, but it was up for a couple years.

There are also a number of locations that are obvious CA 210 coverplates. No bets on what's under them.

I recall someone posting an image of a US 210 shield somewhere here

There are I-210 shields under those coverplates; a couple fell off in Upland back about 2008 during a storm and weren't reattached for a week or two (BGS's on Mountain Ave. at the 210 interchange; saw them personally back then).

I find it disconcerting to have two 15s and two 210s.  I'm so used to these highways being interstates that I may drive by Sr 15 and Sr 210 unwittingly.  There is no good reason for this to exist.  We need the signage changed.


Nexus 5X

[TheStranger]

I find it disconcerting to have two 15s and two 210s.  I'm so used to these highways being interstates that I may drive by Sr 15 and Sr 210 unwittingly.  There is no good reason for this to exist.  We need the signage changed.

Because route numbers are so much more dominant than route types out here (due to the no-duplication rule), to the public there really is no functional difference between the State Route and Interstate segments of each road at all.

An interesting illustration of this is at the Four-Level, where from US 101, the Harbor Freeway is signed (southbound) for I-110 and the no-trucks-allowed State Route 110 is signed for the Arroyo Seco Parkway/former US 66 segment north of there.  The advance signage has it listed as "I-110 Fwy" and "Route 110 Pkwy" to mark the differentiation between the two, as the shield type isn't enough on its own to highlight this.

[mrsman]

I find it disconcerting to have two 15s and two 210s.  I'm so used to these highways being interstates that I may drive by Sr 15 and Sr 210 unwittingly.  There is no good reason for this to exist.  We need the signage changed.

Because route numbers are so much more dominant than route types out here (due to the no-duplication rule), to the public there really is no functional difference between the State Route and Interstate segments of each road at all.

An interesting illustration of this is at the Four-Level, where from US 101, the Harbor Freeway is signed (southbound) for I-110 and the no-trucks-allowed State Route 110 is signed for the Arroyo Seco Parkway/former US 66 segment north of there.  The advance signage has it listed as "I-110 Fwy" and "Route 110 Pkwy" to mark the differentiation between the two, as the shield type isn't enough on its own to highlight this.

The no-duplication rule is a good thing IMO.  There are so many numbers out there, why have a state route that has the same number as a US or interstate route?  It makes no sense.

And I can understand where an interstate route meets a route of lesser quality, keep the number, but change the shield.  (as in the example with 110).   And to some degree, it would not be so bad to renumber CA 58 as CA 40 to deomonstrate that this is a corridor contiunation of 40's route through a non-interstate highway.

And yes, for a long time there were deficincies in CA-15 and CA-210 that prevented AASHTO approval for an interstate.  But as those have been improved, the number should also be upgraded.

[sparker]

It would be more amusing if they "accidentally"  signed CA 210 ... as Interstates.

They did. There used to be an I-210 on advance signage along I-10 WB in Redlands. It got replaced, but it was up for a couple years.

There are also a number of locations that are obvious CA 210 coverplates. No bets on what's under them.

I recall someone posting an image of a US 210 shield somewhere here

There are I-210 shields under those coverplates; a couple fell off in Upland back about 2008 during a storm and weren't reattached for a week or two (BGS's on Mountain Ave. at the 210 interchange; saw them personally back then).

I find it disconcerting to have two 15s and two 210s.  I'm so used to these highways being interstates that I may drive by Sr 15 and Sr 210 unwittingly.  There is no good reason for this to exist.  We need the signage changed.


Nexus 5X

Caltrans is in no particular hurry to address Interstate designation/signage on any of the three routes discussed (15, 210, 905); at this point it's unclear if that's an administrative decision on their part or simply a lack of project prioritization.  When it comes to 210, the chargeable portion of what's signed as CA 57 between I-10 and I-210 is cited as a sticking point (my solution would be the "I-305" one -- let FHWA keep that portion on their books as an unsigned Interstate -- perhaps I-510 -- and then apply for Interstate designation for CA 210).  But Caltrans' lack of interest in either continuity or signage is fast becoming legend -- not like the Division of Highways back in the late '60's, when it seems everything they owned -- urban or rural -- got signage.