CA 215

[Max Rockatansky]

California State Route 215 was a short-lived state highway which existed in the Los Angeles Metropolitain area after the 1964 State Highway Renumbering.  California State Route 215 was aligned from US Route 60 at 5th Street in Pomona north to US Route 66 near Claremont via Garey Avenue.  California State Route 215 came to be after California State Route 71 was bisected in Pomona due to relinquishment of a portion of Garey Avenue due to the opening of a portion of the Corona Freeway (now Chino Valley Freeway) during 1958.  California State Route 215 was deleted by the Legislature during 1965.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2023/11/former-california-state-route-215.html?m=1

[The Ghostbuster]

The CA 215 designation was created since portions of Interstate 215 south of the CA 60 freeway still had at-grade intersections along the old US 395 alignment. It took until 1994 to remove all at-grade intersections that prevented the roadway from also being signed as Interstate 215.

[TheStranger]

The 215 of 1964-1965 existed as part of the batch of new state route numbers that came about during the 1964 renumbering (others in that apparent sequence: 213 along Western Avenue south of I-405, 214 along former US 91 on Carson Street/Lincoln Boulevard between 19 and I-5, 212 along former US 60/70/99 in San Gabriel Valley)

Kinda funny to think of the 1983-1994 State Route 215 lasting only a short period of time compared to...oh...State Route 15 south of I-8 (now all freeway for the last 15 plus years), and state routes 210 and 905.

[Occidental Tourist]

In '64, the current 215/former 395 alignment in Riverside County was still part of US 395. The decision to extend I-15 south of I-10 wasn't made until sometime in the late 60's and the proposed route was originally going to use part of the US 395 routing. Sometime in the 70's, they decided to swing the routing west through Ontario and Norco down through the CA 71 routing.

So in '64, I-215 wasn't a consideration. Long after the CA 215 in Pomona was decommissioned, parts of US-395 were designated as future I-15E and later as CA 215 until the 395 expressway was fully upgraded to limited access highway.

[Max Rockatansky]

Worth noting that I-15E was designated as CA 194 to avoid the whole numbering duplication issue.

[The Ghostbuster]

Does anyone think existing Interstate 215 should have remained part of Interstate 15? Maybe the at-grade intersections would have been converted sooner if the 15 designation hadn't been moved to the former CA 31 corridor (or if 31 had gotten the 215 designation instead). I also have the same question about whether the original Interstate 75 corridor in Tampa and Saint Petersburg should have remained 75 instead of become Interstate 275 (with the 275 designation being on existing 75).

[Max Rockatansky]

No, the Division of Highways got FHWA chargeable miles to extend I-15 via CA 31, CA 71 and US 395.  Having the eventual duplicate capacity via I-215 was far more valuable in the long run. 

[mrsman]

Does anyone think existing Interstate 215 should have remained part of Interstate 15? Maybe the at-grade intersections would have been converted sooner if the 15 designation hadn't been moved to the former CA 31 corridor (or if 31 had gotten the 215 designation instead). I also have the same question about whether the original Interstate 75 corridor in Tampa and Saint Petersburg should have remained 75 instead of become Interstate 275 (with the 275 designation being on existing 75).

I think this is a somewhat fundamental question regarding interstate numbering policy. 

In a normal setting, a 2di goes through the city and a 3di is the bypass route.  And let's work in the case of bypasses that start and end at its own parent.  For instance, in L.A., 5 and 405 both connect San Fernando to Irvine, but 5 goes through Downtown LA, so it is the 2di and 405 follows the coastal bypass so it is the 3di.  In these normal settings, the 2di is more direct and usually has less mileage, but goes through the busier area, at least when the freeway was first planned.  It also seems true, that for the shorter bypasses, that the next town beyond is the control city for the bypass, to encourage all through traffic to be using the bypass and not riding through the center of town.

But what about the situations where the bypass is actually the shorter route?  Less mileage by the bypass because the roadway design is such that heading to the center city is actually off-route, even though you could drive through the center of town and still make it to the other side.  But long distance traffic would never rationally do that as the in-town route is likely both busier and has more mileage.  So it would seem to make sense to discourage thru travel on the intown route and route the 2di on the bypass.

Arguably, that is the approach taken in Tampa.  75 is the bypass but is far shorter than the intown route through both Tampa and St Pete.  Keep traffic on 75.

Between 15 and 215, its hard to say.  I guess 15 is the better through corridor because it avoids SB and Riv and it also avoids the situation of the highway exiting from itself in Downtown Riverside, so it is easier for through traffic between SD and Las Vegas to just stay on 15 and go through less traffic.

[The Ghostbuster]

Also, in Knoxville, Tennessee, Interstate 75 used to exit its duplex with Interstate 40 in downtown and followed present-day Interstate 275 northward. Then, when the Interstate 640 bypass was completed in 1980, 75 was rerouted onto it, and old 75 became 275. This saved about 2 miles in distance. However, Interstate 75's exits north of 640 were not renumbered to reflect the rerouting of the mainline. Then again, neither were Interstate 40's exits renumbered east of Memphis when 40 was rerouted to follow the northern half of the Interstate 240 beltway, after the original 40 alignment through Overton Park was cancelled.

[Occidental Tourist]

Does anyone think existing Interstate 215 should have remained part of Interstate 15? Maybe the at-grade intersections would have been converted sooner if the 15 designation hadn't been moved to the former CA 31 corridor (or if 31 had gotten the 215 designation instead). I also have the same question about whether the original Interstate 75 corridor in Tampa and Saint Petersburg should have remained 75 instead of become Interstate 275 (with the 275 designation being on existing 75).

When extension of the 15 south of the 10 was first contemplated, a routing of it east of the current 215 routing through Riverside was contemplated, but eventually fell out of favor.  My grandparents owned a house off Watkins Drive at the time and one of the proposed routings would have run along the base of Box Springs Mountain and put a freeway right through their neighborhood.

[cahwyguy]

Going back to the original post on Gribblenation on 1964-1965 Route 215, the article states:

The establishment of California State Route 215 removed the gap in California State Route 71.  California State Route 71 was extended north of US Route 60/5th Street to the Interstate 10 and the San Bernardino Freeway. 

This is wrong, as there was no gap in Route 71. The 1963 definition of the revised Route 71, effective 7/1/1964, was "(a) Route 10 near Pomona to Route 91 via Pomona. (b) Route 91 to Route 395. (c) Route 395 near Temecula to Route 74 east of Anza."  . So the "gap" was not present as the new definition extended Route 71 from Route 60 to Route 10. The current definition uses Route 57. and only runs to Route 91. The remainder (segment (b)) went to I-15.

[Max Rockatansky]

Going back to the original post on Gribblenation on 1964-1965 Route 215, the article states:

The establishment of California State Route 215 removed the gap in California State Route 71.  California State Route 71 was extended north of US Route 60/5th Street to the Interstate 10 and the San Bernardino Freeway. 

This is wrong, as there was no gap in Route 71. The 1963 definition of the revised Route 71, effective 7/1/1964, was "(a) Route 10 near Pomona to Route 91 via Pomona. (b) Route 91 to Route 395. (c) Route 395 near Temecula to Route 74 east of Anza."  . So the "gap" was not present as the new definition extended Route 71 from Route 60 to Route 10. The current definition uses Route 57. and only runs to Route 91. The remainder (segment (b)) went to I-15.

There is a gap, but it existed pre-1964 and could have possibly been signed on relinquished streets.  I explain the situation in the paragraph referring to the 1959 Division of Highways Map. 

[cahwyguy]

Going back to the original post on Gribblenation on 1964-1965 Route 215, the article states:

The establishment of California State Route 215 removed the gap in California State Route 71.  California State Route 71 was extended north of US Route 60/5th Street to the Interstate 10 and the San Bernardino Freeway. 

This is wrong, as there was no gap in Route 71. The 1963 definition of the revised Route 71, effective 7/1/1964, was "(a) Route 10 near Pomona to Route 91 via Pomona. (b) Route 91 to Route 395. (c) Route 395 near Temecula to Route 74 east of Anza."  . So the "gap" was not present as the new definition extended Route 71 from Route 60 to Route 10. The current definition uses Route 57. and only runs to Route 91. The remainder (segment (b)) went to I-15.

There is a gap, but it existed pre-1964 and could have possibly been signed on relinquished streets.  I explain the situation in the paragraph referring to the 1959 Division of Highways Map. 

I think the problem is the language. Yes, in 1959, Route 71 had two segments ("bisected" might be correct, but it is confusing -- there were two segments). But I don't see where there was a gap in the route (except, perhaps, between I-10 and US 66). Referencing the "gap" becomes confusing. Contrast the "gap" in Route 71 with the "gap" in Route 710 -- where there were two segments connected by an unconstructed segment. I don't see that in Route 71 at all.

Admittedly, this is complicated by the lack of strong definition for the pre-1964 sign routes (as in a written definition), unlike the legislative routes. We don't know if the 1959 definition of sign route 71 had two segments, or if indeed it was one segment with a "gap". But there was no "gap" in any of the 1964 definitions, either for Route 71 or Route 215.

[Max Rockatansky]

The strange thing is that there is a lot of pre-1964 sign routes in the Los Angeles area that had gaps, at least on maps.  10, 14, 26 (II) and 39 all come to mind as showing up on DOH maps with a clear state highway gap in the middle pre-1964.  There is some evidence (commercial maps) in the case of 39 to suggest it was signed on local roads between the two sign segments.  I suspect this phenomenon was pretty common in the pre-1964 era and there is at least one Sign County Route 12 shield photo NE2 posted once.

To your point, the only solid definition for the Sign Routes pre-1964 I'm aware of is what was published in the August 1934 CHPW.  Even still, that just listed endpoints and didn't break down segments like the Legislative descriptions.