US Route 50 in West Sacramento from Interstate 80 east to the California State Route 51/California State Route 99 in Sacramento carries a secret FHWA designation of Interstate 305. What is presently the West Sacramento-Sacramento segment of US 50 was once the original alignment of Interstate 80. The State of California petitioned the AASHTO to shift Interstate 80 onto the original Interstate 880 in 1980. Part of this request by the State of California was to extend US Route 50 to West Sacramento and designate it administratively as Interstate 305. The AASHTO approved the relocation of Interstate 80, creation of Interstate 305, and extension of US Route 50 in December 1980. The AASHTO's decision Interstate 80, Interstate 305, and US Route 50 was subsequently affirmed by the FHWA in a memo from early 1981. These changes also led to the creation of the Interstate 80 Business Loop and current California State Route 51. As of 2016 the Interstate 80 Business Loop has been deemphasized on US Route 50/Interstate 305. Note; Interstate 305 never has been recognized by the California State Legislature as an official Route designation.
https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/01/us-route-50-in-west-sacramento-and.html
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 07, 2021, 08:09:40 PM
US Route 50 in West Sacramento from Interstate 80 east to the California State Route 51/California State Route 99 in Sacramento carries a secret FHWA designation of Interstate 305. What is presently the West Sacramento-Sacramento segment of US 50 was once the original alignment of Interstate 80. The State of California petitioned the AASHTO to shift Interstate 80 onto the original Interstate 880 in 1980. Part of this request by the State of California was to extend US Route 50 to West Sacramento and designate it administratively as Interstate 305. The AASHTO approved the relocation of Interstate 80, creation of Interstate 305, and extension of US Route 50 in December 1980. The AASHTO's decision Interstate 80, Interstate 305, and US Route 50 was subsequently affirmed by the FHWA in a memo from early 1981. These changes also led to the creation of the Interstate 80 Business Loop and current California State Route 51. As of 2016 the Interstate 80 Business Loop has been deemphasized on US Route 50/Interstate 305. Note; Interstate 305 never has been recognized by the California State Legislature as an official Route designation.
https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/01/us-route-50-in-west-sacramento-and.html
The signing of a freeway as Business 80 was always kind of weird to me. This brings to mind an interesting question, perhaps it's already been answered elsewhere. Are there any other freeways in the US which are signed as Business Loop or Route? I'm aware that there are some expressways with at-grade intersections that are signed that way back east, but any actual freeways?
Quote from: jdbx on January 08, 2021, 02:23:34 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 07, 2021, 08:09:40 PM
US Route 50 in West Sacramento from Interstate 80 east to the California State Route 51/California State Route 99 in Sacramento carries a secret FHWA designation of Interstate 305. What is presently the West Sacramento-Sacramento segment of US 50 was once the original alignment of Interstate 80. The State of California petitioned the AASHTO to shift Interstate 80 onto the original Interstate 880 in 1980. Part of this request by the State of California was to extend US Route 50 to West Sacramento and designate it administratively as Interstate 305. The AASHTO approved the relocation of Interstate 80, creation of Interstate 305, and extension of US Route 50 in December 1980. The AASHTO's decision Interstate 80, Interstate 305, and US Route 50 was subsequently affirmed by the FHWA in a memo from early 1981. These changes also led to the creation of the Interstate 80 Business Loop and current California State Route 51. As of 2016 the Interstate 80 Business Loop has been deemphasized on US Route 50/Interstate 305. Note; Interstate 305 never has been recognized by the California State Legislature as an official Route designation.
https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/01/us-route-50-in-west-sacramento-and.html
The signing of a freeway as Business 80 was always kind of weird to me. This brings to mind an interesting question, perhaps it's already been answered elsewhere. Are there any other freeways in the US which are signed as Business Loop or Route? I'm aware that there are some expressways with at-grade intersections that are signed that way back east, but any actual freeways?
The Lodge Freeway for a time was signed as I-696 Business. I want to say there is another example in North Carolina but it eludes me at the moment.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 08, 2021, 02:27:42 PM
Quote from: jdbx on January 08, 2021, 02:23:34 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 07, 2021, 08:09:40 PM
US Route 50 in West Sacramento from Interstate 80 east to the California State Route 51/California State Route 99 in Sacramento carries a secret FHWA designation of Interstate 305. What is presently the West Sacramento-Sacramento segment of US 50 was once the original alignment of Interstate 80. The State of California petitioned the AASHTO to shift Interstate 80 onto the original Interstate 880 in 1980. Part of this request by the State of California was to extend US Route 50 to West Sacramento and designate it administratively as Interstate 305. The AASHTO approved the relocation of Interstate 80, creation of Interstate 305, and extension of US Route 50 in December 1980. The AASHTO's decision Interstate 80, Interstate 305, and US Route 50 was subsequently affirmed by the FHWA in a memo from early 1981. These changes also led to the creation of the Interstate 80 Business Loop and current California State Route 51. As of 2016 the Interstate 80 Business Loop has been deemphasized on US Route 50/Interstate 305. Note; Interstate 305 never has been recognized by the California State Legislature as an official Route designation.
https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/01/us-route-50-in-west-sacramento-and.html
The signing of a freeway as Business 80 was always kind of weird to me. This brings to mind an interesting question, perhaps it's already been answered elsewhere. Are there any other freeways in the US which are signed as Business Loop or Route? I'm aware that there are some expressways with at-grade intersections that are signed that way back east, but any actual freeways?
The Lodge Freeway for a time was signed as I-696 Business. I want to say there is another example in North Carolina but it eludes me at the moment.
I think that I may have answered my own question, looking at another forums thread. Spartanburg, SC has a Business Loop 85 freeway.
I still think of BL-80 as "old 80" and the current I-80 as "new 80" (or "old 880").
I had wondered whether there might be people who thought of it as "old 40", but from Max's article I gather that only a small piece was built early enough to be signed only as US-40 (more may have been signed both US-40 and I-80).
Quote from: GaryA on January 08, 2021, 02:45:16 PM
I still think of BL-80 as "old 80" and the current I-80 as "new 80" (or "old 880").
I had wondered whether there might be people who thought of it as "old 40", but from Max's article I gather that only a small piece was built early enough to be signed only as US-40 (more may have been signed both US-40 and I-80).
Yes, some of what is now CA 51 and US 50 was part of US 40 but definitely not all of it. US 40 used the North Sacramento Freeway (CA 160) to get into downtown.
^^^^^^^^^
The "secret" designation of I-305 was intended solely to classify and catalogue that section of original I-80 that was chargeable to the Interstate funding pool; its definition included not only that part of now US 50 from I-80 in West Sacramento to the Oak Park (US 50/CA 51/CA 99) interchange but also the CA 51 freeway from that interchange north to the "C" street overpass. North of there to I-80 CA 51 was originally "grandfathered" into the system as I-80 although with substandard RIRO-type ramps, underheight overpasses, and poor lines of sight at the Marconi Curve; as it predated the '56 Interstate act, it was not chargeable and thus didn't get included in the FHWA definition of I-305.
Curiously, the presence of a chargeable (signage notwithstanding) Interstate at the Oak Park interchange makes a Sacramento terminus for any Interstate re-designation of CA 99 less problematic since it would terminate at a federally recognized Interstate -- which could (and likely would) be signed as "TO I-x" from either or both I-5 and I-80 (and vice-versa toward the existing interstates).
North Carolina loves signing freeways as business routes. US 421 in Winston-Salem used to be Business 40. There's now a Business 85 in Greensboro, and there used to be a Business 40 too (with mainline 40 routed onto the bypass. Business 85 in High Point and Lexington is also more than half freeway.
Quote from: Evan_Th on January 08, 2021, 03:54:38 PM
North Carolina loves signing freeways as business routes. US 421 in Winston-Salem used to be Business 40. There's now a Business 85 in Greensboro, and there used to be a Business 40 too (with mainline 40 routed onto the bypass. Business 85 in High Point and Lexington is also more than half freeway.
That's the one I was thinking of above (Business I-85). From what I recall it was co-signed with US 29/70/220?
Quote from: sparker on January 08, 2021, 03:43:29 PM
^^^^^^^^^
The "secret" designation of I-305 was intended solely to classify and catalogue that section of original I-80 that was chargeable to the Interstate funding pool; its definition included not only that part of now US 50 from I-80 in West Sacramento to the Oak Park (US 50/CA 51/CA 99) interchange but also the CA 51 freeway from that interchange north to the "C" street overpass. North of there to I-80 CA 51 was originally "grandfathered" into the system as I-80 although with substandard RIRO-type ramps, underheight overpasses, and poor lines of sight at the Marconi Curve; as it predated the '56 Interstate act, it was not chargeable and thus didn't get included in the FHWA definition of I-305.
Curiously, the presence of a chargeable (signage notwithstanding) Interstate at the Oak Park interchange makes a Sacramento terminus for any Interstate re-designation of CA 99 less problematic since it would terminate at a federally recognized Interstate -- which could (and likely would) be signed as "TO I-x" from either or both I-5 and I-80 (and vice-versa toward the existing interstates).
The interesting thing is that I could find anything regarding CA 51 north to the C Street overpass in the AASHTO database. All the documents from 1980/81 show I-305 ending at the 99/50 interchange.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 08, 2021, 03:59:58 PM
Quote from: sparker on January 08, 2021, 03:43:29 PM
^^^^^^^^^
The "secret" designation of I-305 was intended solely to classify and catalogue that section of original I-80 that was chargeable to the Interstate funding pool; its definition included not only that part of now US 50 from I-80 in West Sacramento to the Oak Park (US 50/CA 51/CA 99) interchange but also the CA 51 freeway from that interchange north to the "C" street overpass. North of there to I-80 CA 51 was originally "grandfathered" into the system as I-80 although with substandard RIRO-type ramps, underheight overpasses, and poor lines of sight at the Marconi Curve; as it predated the '56 Interstate act, it was not chargeable and thus didn't get included in the FHWA definition of I-305.
Curiously, the presence of a chargeable (signage notwithstanding) Interstate at the Oak Park interchange makes a Sacramento terminus for any Interstate re-designation of CA 99 less problematic since it would terminate at a federally recognized Interstate -- which could (and likely would) be signed as "TO I-x" from either or both I-5 and I-80 (and vice-versa toward the existing interstates).
The interesting thing is that I could find anything regarding CA 51 north to the C Street overpass in the AASHTO database. All the documents from 1980/81 show I-305 ending at the 99/50 interchange.
The total mileage allotted to I-305 in FHWA logs corresponds with that portion of US 50 between its western terminus and Oak Park plus the portion of CA 51 I cited earlier. It's also not like FHWA to have missed even one foot of chargeable Interstate back in 1981 since those miles delineated the specific facilities eligible for maintenance/upgrade funds at the time, although the program has since been discontinued. One thing I've noticed over the years is that AASHTO and FHWA specifications often don't line up perfectly; the former tends to "round off" in regards to such issues, while the latter is more exacting due to fund disbursement differentials.
Quote from: sparker on January 08, 2021, 05:55:39 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 08, 2021, 03:59:58 PM
Quote from: sparker on January 08, 2021, 03:43:29 PM
^^^^^^^^^
The "secret" designation of I-305 was intended solely to classify and catalogue that section of original I-80 that was chargeable to the Interstate funding pool; its definition included not only that part of now US 50 from I-80 in West Sacramento to the Oak Park (US 50/CA 51/CA 99) interchange but also the CA 51 freeway from that interchange north to the "C" street overpass. North of there to I-80 CA 51 was originally "grandfathered" into the system as I-80 although with substandard RIRO-type ramps, underheight overpasses, and poor lines of sight at the Marconi Curve; as it predated the '56 Interstate act, it was not chargeable and thus didn't get included in the FHWA definition of I-305.
Curiously, the presence of a chargeable (signage notwithstanding) Interstate at the Oak Park interchange makes a Sacramento terminus for any Interstate re-designation of CA 99 less problematic since it would terminate at a federally recognized Interstate -- which could (and likely would) be signed as "TO I-x" from either or both I-5 and I-80 (and vice-versa toward the existing interstates).
The interesting thing is that I could find anything regarding CA 51 north to the C Street overpass in the AASHTO database. All the documents from 1980/81 show I-305 ending at the 99/50 interchange.
The total mileage allotted to I-305 in FHWA logs corresponds with that portion of US 50 between its western terminus and Oak Park plus the portion of CA 51 I cited earlier. It's also not like FHWA to have missed even one foot of chargeable Interstate back in 1981 since those miles delineated the specific facilities eligible for maintenance/upgrade funds at the time, although the program has since been discontinued. One thing I've noticed over the years is that AASHTO and FHWA specifications often don't line up perfectly; the former tends to "round off" in regards to such issues, while the latter is more exacting due to fund disbursement differentials.
Any idea where I might find said FHWA mileage log by chance?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 08, 2021, 03:58:05 PM
Quote from: Evan_Th on January 08, 2021, 03:54:38 PM
North Carolina loves signing freeways as business routes. US 421 in Winston-Salem used to be Business 40. There's now a Business 85 in Greensboro, and there used to be a Business 40 too (with mainline 40 routed onto the bypass. Business 85 in High Point and Lexington is also more than half freeway.
That's the one I was thinking of above (Business I-85). From what I recall it was co-signed with US 29/70/220?
Here's a shot from May 21, 2005.
(https://www.teresco.org/pics/signs/20050521/i40busi85us29us70us220us421.jpg)
Quote from: Jim on January 08, 2021, 05:59:02 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 08, 2021, 03:58:05 PM
Quote from: Evan_Th on January 08, 2021, 03:54:38 PM
North Carolina loves signing freeways as business routes. US 421 in Winston-Salem used to be Business 40. There's now a Business 85 in Greensboro, and there used to be a Business 40 too (with mainline 40 routed onto the bypass. Business 85 in High Point and Lexington is also more than half freeway.
That's the one I was thinking of above (Business I-85). From what I recall it was co-signed with US 29/70/220?
Here's a shot from May 21, 2005.
(https://www.teresco.org/pics/signs/20050521/i40busi85us29us70us220us421.jpg)
Didn't snag photo of that Salad but I got one of the overhead gantries in 2014 it seems:
https://flic.kr/p/T6QCKf
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 08, 2021, 05:57:34 PM
Any idea where I might find said FHWA mileage log by chance?
Interstate Route Log/FHWA will get you to the listing; look for the sub-section "auxiliary routes". 6 miles is allotted to I-305; since mile zero on US 50 is exit #1, Oak Park is 6A (a hair under 5 miles in), and there's just about one mile north to Avenue C; combined, that accounts for the overall mileage.
Quote from: jdbx on January 08, 2021, 02:23:34 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 07, 2021, 08:09:40 PM
US Route 50 in West Sacramento from Interstate 80 east to the California State Route 51/California State Route 99 in Sacramento carries a secret FHWA designation of Interstate 305. What is presently the West Sacramento-Sacramento segment of US 50 was once the original alignment of Interstate 80. The State of California petitioned the AASHTO to shift Interstate 80 onto the original Interstate 880 in 1980. Part of this request by the State of California was to extend US Route 50 to West Sacramento and designate it administratively as Interstate 305. The AASHTO approved the relocation of Interstate 80, creation of Interstate 305, and extension of US Route 50 in December 1980. The AASHTO's decision Interstate 80, Interstate 305, and US Route 50 was subsequently affirmed by the FHWA in a memo from early 1981. These changes also led to the creation of the Interstate 80 Business Loop and current California State Route 51. As of 2016 the Interstate 80 Business Loop has been deemphasized on US Route 50/Interstate 305. Note; Interstate 305 never has been recognized by the California State Legislature as an official Route designation.
https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/01/us-route-50-in-west-sacramento-and.html
The signing of a freeway as Business 80 was always kind of weird to me. This brings to mind an interesting question, perhaps it's already been answered elsewhere. Are there any other freeways in the US which are signed as Business Loop or Route? I'm aware that there are some expressways with at-grade intersections that are signed that way back east, but any actual freeways?
Also I-85 Business in Spartanburg SC (former I-85 routing through the city)
The one that has always had me stumped is US 90 BUS in the New Orleans metro. It's mostly freeway while mainline US 90 is almost 100% surface street. You'd think it would be the other way around.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 08, 2021, 03:58:05 PM
Quote from: Evan_Th on January 08, 2021, 03:54:38 PM
North Carolina loves signing freeways as business routes. US 421 in Winston-Salem used to be Business 40. There's now a Business 85 in Greensboro, and there used to be a Business 40 too (with mainline 40 routed onto the bypass. Business 85 in High Point and Lexington is also more than half freeway.
That's the one I was thinking of above (Business I-85). From what I recall it was co-signed with US 29/70/220?
Not US-220, but US-64 and US-52 were signed on a part of Business I-85 (Temp I-85) in Lexington, NC
Quote from: jdbx on January 08, 2021, 02:23:34 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 07, 2021, 08:09:40 PM
US Route 50 in West Sacramento from Interstate 80 east to the California State Route 51/California State Route 99 in Sacramento carries a secret FHWA designation of Interstate 305. What is presently the West Sacramento-Sacramento segment of US 50 was once the original alignment of Interstate 80. The State of California petitioned the AASHTO to shift Interstate 80 onto the original Interstate 880 in 1980. Part of this request by the State of California was to extend US Route 50 to West Sacramento and designate it administratively as Interstate 305. The AASHTO approved the relocation of Interstate 80, creation of Interstate 305, and extension of US Route 50 in December 1980. The AASHTO's decision Interstate 80, Interstate 305, and US Route 50 was subsequently affirmed by the FHWA in a memo from early 1981. These changes also led to the creation of the Interstate 80 Business Loop and current California State Route 51. As of 2016 the Interstate 80 Business Loop has been deemphasized on US Route 50/Interstate 305. Note; Interstate 305 never has been recognized by the California State Legislature as an official Route designation.
https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/01/us-route-50-in-west-sacramento-and.html
The signing of a freeway as Business 80 was always kind of weird to me. This brings to mind an interesting question, perhaps it's already been answered elsewhere. Are there any other freeways in the US which are signed as Business Loop or Route? I'm aware that there are some expressways with at-grade intersections that are signed that way back east, but any actual freeways?
It definitely is weird. From a CA perspective, the business routes were routes that you would follow to actually reach businesses: gas stations, hotels, markets, etc. In most instances it followed an old routing of the highway - the new routing is along a bypass that is either expressway or freeway with few or no businesses.
In CA, there are many signed business routes of 101 and 99 through many towns in CA. There is also a good signed business route for I-5 through towns north of Sacramento, following the old US 99W.
Sacramento's Biz-80 was different and that was a problem. It was a full freeway, albeit with certain old designs that made it less useful than the bypass I-80 that followed modern interstate standards. Following Biz-80 would lead you through central Sacramento, but you still need to exit if you need to reach a gas station.
Biz-80 also amounted to a lot of confusion in giving directions. Imagine if you are west of Sacramento (like in Davis) and need to give directions to the Arden Fair Mall. You'd say take I-80 east and then at the 80 split interchange don't take the blue 80 to Reno, instead follow green 80/US-50 to Sacramento through town and then at the Oak Park interchange take green 80 to Reno and get off at Arden Way. These were confusing directions that I heard when I lived in the area.
In the 1964 renumbering, CA was very big that only one number should be used for one road to ease travel confusion. It seems odd that with such a mindset, it would be appropriate to have two separate roads in the same city both using the same number <80>, with one using the red/blue and other using green. Nowhere else does this exist in CA, where the highway numbering is very strict that once a number is used, it cannot be used elsewhere in the state.* Its confusing and IMO, it would be better to get rid of this second 80 freeway and renumber it as US 50 along the EW portion and CA 51 as the NS portion.
Now, in NC, having an I-40 and a green-40 freeway is/was normal. But that's not normal for CA.
* This is not true in every state. One example in Maryland, there is both I-68 and MD-68 and both have interchanges with I-70. But in CA this is not an issue as one number for each highway within US, Interstate, and state systems.
Here is an interesting one according to this video I-70 was supposed to have its west end where I-305 US-50 is located today according to this video at 8:00.
Quote from: bing101 on January 10, 2021, 10:55:01 PM
Here is an interesting one according to this video I-70 was supposed to have its west end where I-305 US-50 is located today according to this video at 8:00.
There have been any number of "pipedream" western extensions of I-70 over the years; most of them ended up near Fernley, NV where they would empty out onto I-80, or simply continue to follow US 50 to its western terminus in West Sacramento. Even the abortive Interstate addition cluster in 1970 contained a corridor crossing NV (curiously, UT wanted nothing to do with that corridor, but the concept never gained traction and the proposed additions literally became "history"). Of course, the reality of lack of need plus the outsized expense of a corridor crossing the basin & range territory that characterizes central NV -- not to mention an additional Sierra crossing in CA -- has relegated that and other extension proposals essentially DOA. Nevertheless, proposals for such a corridor will likely continue to pop up from time to time -- and will just as quickly dissipate!
Quote from: sparker on January 11, 2021, 05:30:59 AM
There have been any number of "pipedream" western extensions of I-70 over the years; most of them ended up near Fernley, NV where they would empty out onto I-80, or simply continue to follow US 50 to its western terminus in West Sacramento. Even the abortive Interstate addition cluster in 1970 contained a corridor crossing NV (curiously, UT wanted nothing to do with that corridor, but the concept never gained traction and the proposed additions literally became "history"). Of course, the reality of lack of need plus the outsized expense of a corridor crossing the basin & range territory that characterizes central NV -- not to mention an additional Sierra crossing in CA -- has relegated that and other extension proposals essentially DOA. Nevertheless, proposals for such a corridor will likely continue to pop up from time to time -- and will just as quickly dissipate!
Utah has opposed highway corridors in this area almost from the beginning with the US Highway system - the original Lincoln Highway ran directly from Salt Lake City to Ely but never became a US highway. Their primary motivation was that by limiting possible routes to the Victory Highway (eventual US 40/I-80) and Arrowhead Trail (US 91/I-15), it would force northern and southern California-bound traffic to split at Salt Lake City. Both the Arrowhead and Victory highways (especially Arrowhead) ran through far more towns in Utah than the Lincoln.
It seems quite likely that something similar was at play with a potential extension of I-70. Utah was already a little salty about the decision to route I-70 to Cove Fort, taking SoCal traffic out of the Wasatch Front ... but traffic heading to NorCal still goes through Salt Lake via US 6, I-15, and I-80. Building I-70 across western Utah and Nevada removes the Wasatch Front from the equation and also routes traffic through far fewer towns in Utah.
Quote from: mrsman on January 10, 2021, 09:25:03 PM
Biz-80 also amounted to a lot of confusion in giving directions. Imagine if you are west of Sacramento (like in Davis) and need to give directions to the Arden Fair Mall. You'd say take I-80 east and then at the 80 split interchange don't take the blue 80 to Reno, instead follow green 80/US-50 to Sacramento through town and then at the Oak Park interchange take green 80 to Reno and get off at Arden Way. These were confusing directions that I heard when I lived in the area.
In the 1964 renumbering, CA was very big that only one number should be used for one road to ease travel confusion. It seems odd that with such a mindset, it would be appropriate to have two separate roads in the same city both using the same number <80>, with one using the red/blue and other using green. Nowhere else does this exist in CA, where the highway numbering is very strict that once a number is used, it cannot be used elsewhere in the state.* Its confusing and IMO, it would be better to get rid of this second 80 freeway and renumber it as US 50 along the EW portion and CA 51 as the NS portion.
Now, in NC, having an I-40 and a green-40 freeway is/was normal. But that's not normal for CA.
I agree with you, it is confusing to have two I-80s in the same city and I agree with your suggestion. The only thing I'd add is that the 1964 renumbering was all about reducing duplexes and confusing multiple routes, but making old I-80 into I-80 Business was a 1980 decision so it was a new generation of engineers.
Quote from: bing101 on January 10, 2021, 10:55:01 PM
Here is an interesting one according to this video I-70 was supposed to have its west end where I-305 US-50 is located today according to this video at 8:00.
That video notwithstanding I-70, was never expected to go any farther west than I-15 outside the fever dreams of Nevada boosters and proto-Fritzowls. I-70 goes as far west as I-15 in order to provide a short interstate route from Denver and the northeastern US to Los Angeles and southern California. If you were headed for Reno and San Francisco, you'd take I-80 across the Rockies instead.
Quote from: kkt on January 12, 2021, 12:03:11 AM
Quote from: bing101 on January 10, 2021, 10:55:01 PM
Here is an interesting one according to this video I-70 was supposed to have its west end where I-305 US-50 is located today according to this video at 8:00.
That video notwithstanding I-70, was never expected to go any farther west than I-15 outside the fever dreams of Nevada boosters and proto-Fritzowls. I-70 goes as far west as I-15 in order to provide a short interstate route from Denver and the northeastern US to Los Angeles and southern California. If you were headed for Reno and San Francisco, you'd take I-80 across the Rockies instead.
Never mind the fact that US 50 is plenty adequate west of I-15 through all of Nevada. The worst bottleneck point from there is South Lake Tahoe but as you stated the freight corridor is up on I-80.
Quote from: kkt on January 11, 2021, 11:50:40 PM
Quote from: mrsman on January 10, 2021, 09:25:03 PM
Biz-80 also amounted to a lot of confusion in giving directions. Imagine if you are west of Sacramento (like in Davis) and need to give directions to the Arden Fair Mall. You'd say take I-80 east and then at the 80 split interchange don't take the blue 80 to Reno, instead follow green 80/US-50 to Sacramento through town and then at the Oak Park interchange take green 80 to Reno and get off at Arden Way. These were confusing directions that I heard when I lived in the area.
In the 1964 renumbering, CA was very big that only one number should be used for one road to ease travel confusion. It seems odd that with such a mindset, it would be appropriate to have two separate roads in the same city both using the same number <80>, with one using the red/blue and other using green. Nowhere else does this exist in CA, where the highway numbering is very strict that once a number is used, it cannot be used elsewhere in the state.* Its confusing and IMO, it would be better to get rid of this second 80 freeway and renumber it as US 50 along the EW portion and CA 51 as the NS portion.
Now, in NC, having an I-40 and a green-40 freeway is/was normal. But that's not normal for CA.
I agree with you, it is confusing to have two I-80s in the same city and I agree with your suggestion. The only thing I'd add is that the 1964 renumbering was all about reducing duplexes and confusing multiple routes, but making old I-80 into I-80 Business was a 1980 decision so it was a new generation of engineers.
Heh. Syracuse is going to have two I-81s in a few years.
Quote from: Rothman on January 12, 2021, 12:20:26 AM
Quote from: kkt on January 11, 2021, 11:50:40 PM
Quote from: mrsman on January 10, 2021, 09:25:03 PM
Biz-80 also amounted to a lot of confusion in giving directions. Imagine if you are west of Sacramento (like in Davis) and need to give directions to the Arden Fair Mall. You'd say take I-80 east and then at the 80 split interchange don't take the blue 80 to Reno, instead follow green 80/US-50 to Sacramento through town and then at the Oak Park interchange take green 80 to Reno and get off at Arden Way. These were confusing directions that I heard when I lived in the area.
In the 1964 renumbering, CA was very big that only one number should be used for one road to ease travel confusion. It seems odd that with such a mindset, it would be appropriate to have two separate roads in the same city both using the same number <80>, with one using the red/blue and other using green. Nowhere else does this exist in CA, where the highway numbering is very strict that once a number is used, it cannot be used elsewhere in the state.* Its confusing and IMO, it would be better to get rid of this second 80 freeway and renumber it as US 50 along the EW portion and CA 51 as the NS portion.
Now, in NC, having an I-40 and a green-40 freeway is/was normal. But that's not normal for CA.
I agree with you, it is confusing to have two I-80s in the same city and I agree with your suggestion. The only thing I'd add is that the 1964 renumbering was all about reducing duplexes and confusing multiple routes, but making old I-80 into I-80 Business was a 1980 decision so it was a new generation of engineers.
Heh. Syracuse is going to have two I-81s in a few years.
:banghead:
Does anyone think that there would be less confusion in the Sacramento area if Interstate 305 and CA 51 had been signposted, instead of signing both as Business 80? Certainly if the CA 99 freeway south of Sacramento becomes Interstate 7 or 9, the 7 or 9 designation could be extended westward along unsigned 305 to terminate at Interstate 80. Interestingly, Google Maps does have an Interstate 305 marker on the Business 80/US 50 freeway, although it disappears just west of Exit 1.
I don't think posting I-305 would save confusion. Making US 50 continue west to meet I-80 in West Sacramento is simpler than having US 50 turn south like it used to. However posting CA 51 would save some confusion after some teething pains.
Quote from: Rothman on January 12, 2021, 12:20:26 AM
Quote from: kkt on January 11, 2021, 11:50:40 PM
Quote from: mrsman on January 10, 2021, 09:25:03 PM
Biz-80 also amounted to a lot of confusion in giving directions. Imagine if you are west of Sacramento (like in Davis) and need to give directions to the Arden Fair Mall. You'd say take I-80 east and then at the 80 split interchange don't take the blue 80 to Reno, instead follow green 80/US-50 to Sacramento through town and then at the Oak Park interchange take green 80 to Reno and get off at Arden Way. These were confusing directions that I heard when I lived in the area.
In the 1964 renumbering, CA was very big that only one number should be used for one road to ease travel confusion. It seems odd that with such a mindset, it would be appropriate to have two separate roads in the same city both using the same number <80>, with one using the red/blue and other using green. Nowhere else does this exist in CA, where the highway numbering is very strict that once a number is used, it cannot be used elsewhere in the state.* Its confusing and IMO, it would be better to get rid of this second 80 freeway and renumber it as US 50 along the EW portion and CA 51 as the NS portion.
Now, in NC, having an I-40 and a green-40 freeway is/was normal. But that's not normal for CA.
I agree with you, it is confusing to have two I-80s in the same city and I agree with your suggestion. The only thing I'd add is that the 1964 renumbering was all about reducing duplexes and confusing multiple routes, but making old I-80 into I-80 Business was a 1980 decision so it was a new generation of engineers.
Heh. Syracuse is going to have two I-81s in a few years.
Unless they simply sign the southern "stub" as I-181 or the like, and the section north or I-690 to the current northern I-81/481 junction as the rerouted I-481 (to correspond with the existing NY 481 northwest of that junction) -- which IMO is the appropriate choice, considering both will be separate freeways, there should be no problem. Now -- signing the original I-81 as a "green" business loop might be dicey, since it would involve three overall segments with a boulevard in the middle. But if the 3di's are retained on the remaining section, NB "I-181" (or whatever) could use "I-181/Downtown Syracuse" with a yellow banner stating "FREEWAY ENDS IN (X) MILES"; southbound, it would read "I-481/Downtown Syracuse/TO I-690".
Something similar would work for the erstwhile "Biz 80" loop in Sacramento: From I-80 westbound at the CA 51/Biz 80 split, the sign would read "South CA 51/Central Sacramento/To CA 99/Fresno"; at the CA 160 exit, the two BGS' would read "South CA 51/To CA 99/Fresno" and "CA 160/Downtown Sacramento". Since it's something of an oblique angle to traffic coming WB on I-80, US 50 need not be cited until approaching the Oak Park interchange. Eastbound on US 50 on the W-X freeway; the signage prior to Oak Park could read simply "North CA 51 to I-80 East/Reno", duplicated on CA 99 north and US 50 west. Simple and straightforward; keep I-305 hidden; no need to confuse things just because FHWA needs some formal record of parvenu.
It's already decided: Old I-81 will get a green shield. I-481 becomes I-81.
Quote from: Rothman on January 12, 2021, 06:26:03 PM
It's already decided: Old I-81 will get a green shield. I-481 becomes I-81.
That's depressing -- and profoundly idiotic! Question: since the original through-town alignment was chargeable, will there be hidden FHWA designations (like CA's I-305) for the remnants? (And who or what, pray tell, was responsible for the "green shield" biz-route decision?).
My 2 cents for a disruptive way to get rid of the bad idea that is Green 80
* CA 99 replaces CA 51; overlaps with I-80 to Roseville; replaces CA 65; overlaps CA 70 into Yuba City to reach current 99
* old CA 99 north of Sacramento becomes extended CA 70, then CA 399 to Yuba City
* CA 51 is gone, green 80 is gone
* I-305 remains unsigned
* no confusing, poorly signed overlaps for 99/50 and 99/5
Quote from: kurumi on January 12, 2021, 10:03:33 PM
My 2 cents for a disruptive way to get rid of the bad idea that is Green 80
* CA 99 replaces CA 51; overlaps with I-80 to Roseville; replaces CA 65; overlaps CA 70 into Yuba City to reach current 99
* old CA 99 north of Sacramento becomes extended CA 70, then CA 399 to Yuba City
* CA 51 is gone, green 80 is gone
* I-305 remains unsigned
* no confusing, poorly signed overlaps for 99/50 and 99/5
I appreciate the effort but that's an awful lot of resigning very well established route numbers north of Sacramento in order to fix a pretty short stretch of CA 51. How about:
CA 99 from Wheeler Ridge to Oak Park becomes I-7
unsigned CA 51 becomes CA 7
CA 51 is gone, Biz 80 is gone, I-305 remains unsigned
CA 99 is truncated to I-5 northwest of Sacramento to Red Bluff
no overlaps of US 50/CA 99 or I-5/CA 99
Quote from: sparker on January 12, 2021, 06:46:03 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 12, 2021, 06:26:03 PM
It's already decided: Old I-81 will get a green shield. I-481 becomes I-81.
That's depressing -- and profoundly idiotic! Question: since the original through-town alignment was chargeable, will there be hidden FHWA designations (like CA's I-305) for the remnants? (And who or what, pray tell, was responsible for the "green shield" biz-route decision?).
I don't believe so as of right now.
Not sure who made the decision, but I'm fairly sure the idea that a green route actually directs people to businesses held sway.
Quote from: Rothman on January 12, 2021, 11:04:23 PM
Quote from: sparker on January 12, 2021, 06:46:03 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 12, 2021, 06:26:03 PM
It's already decided: Old I-81 will get a green shield. I-481 becomes I-81.
That's depressing -- and profoundly idiotic! Question: since the original through-town alignment was chargeable, will there be hidden FHWA designations (like CA's I-305) for the remnants? (And who or what, pray tell, was responsible for the "green shield" biz-route decision?).
I don't believe so as of right now.
Not sure who made the decision, but I'm fairly sure the idea that a green route actually directs people to businesses held sway.
Well.....we've tried that approach out here both with the Biz 80 example (full freeway) and numerous surface loops over previous alignments, and the results haven't been terribly successful -- most surface business routes have been formally (AASHTO) deleted or their signage has both aged out and/or disappeared. But some agencies seem to hold on to longstanding concepts (or myths) regardless of field experience.
Another question concerning this: Since NY tends to keep maintaining and signing the original routes adjacent to Interstates (i.e. I-81 & US 11, I-88 & NY 7, etc.), are there all that many instances of actual green-shielded business loops within the state -- and if so, has traffic/usage data been compiled to underscore the opinion that business Interstates provide significant value?
Quote from: sparker on January 13, 2021, 01:06:45 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 12, 2021, 11:04:23 PM
Quote from: sparker on January 12, 2021, 06:46:03 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 12, 2021, 06:26:03 PM
It's already decided: Old I-81 will get a green shield. I-481 becomes I-81.
That's depressing -- and profoundly idiotic! Question: since the original through-town alignment was chargeable, will there be hidden FHWA designations (like CA's I-305) for the remnants? (And who or what, pray tell, was responsible for the "green shield" biz-route decision?).
I don't believe so as of right now.
Not sure who made the decision, but I'm fairly sure the idea that a green route actually directs people to businesses held sway.
Well.....we've tried that approach out here both with the Biz 80 example (full freeway) and numerous surface loops over previous alignments, and the results haven't been terribly successful -- most surface business routes have been formally (AASHTO) deleted or their signage has both aged out and/or disappeared. But some agencies seem to hold on to longstanding concepts (or myths) regardless of field experience.
Another question concerning this: Since NY tends to keep maintaining and signing the original routes adjacent to Interstates (i.e. I-81 & US 11, I-88 & NY 7, etc.), are there all that many instances of actual green-shielded business loops within the state -- and if so, has traffic/usage data been compiled to underscore the opinion that business Interstates provide significant value?
BL-81 will be the first green shield in NY, I believe.
Quote from: Rothman on January 13, 2021, 01:57:16 PM
BL-81 will be the first green shield in NY, I believe.
TO QC XXX
Quote from: Rothman on January 13, 2021, 01:57:16 PM
Quote from: sparker on January 13, 2021, 01:06:45 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 12, 2021, 11:04:23 PM
Quote from: sparker on January 12, 2021, 06:46:03 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 12, 2021, 06:26:03 PM
It's already decided: Old I-81 will get a green shield. I-481 becomes I-81.
That's depressing -- and profoundly idiotic! Question: since the original through-town alignment was chargeable, will there be hidden FHWA designations (like CA's I-305) for the remnants? (And who or what, pray tell, was responsible for the "green shield" biz-route decision?).
I don't believe so as of right now.
Not sure who made the decision, but I'm fairly sure the idea that a green route actually directs people to businesses held sway.
Well.....we've tried that approach out here both with the Biz 80 example (full freeway) and numerous surface loops over previous alignments, and the results haven't been terribly successful -- most surface business routes have been formally (AASHTO) deleted or their signage has both aged out and/or disappeared. But some agencies seem to hold on to longstanding concepts (or myths) regardless of field experience.
Another question concerning this: Since NY tends to keep maintaining and signing the original routes adjacent to Interstates (i.e. I-81 & US 11, I-88 & NY 7, etc.), are there all that many instances of actual green-shielded business loops within the state -- and if so, has traffic/usage data been compiled to underscore the opinion that business Interstates provide significant value?
BL-81 will be the first green shield in NY, I believe.
Wow! A dataset with n=0! Probably someone simply thought "they're doing it elsewhere; we may as well give it a shot!" Wait until the first winter/low-visibility weather, when folks get the 81's confused!
Quote from: sparker on January 13, 2021, 05:14:06 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 13, 2021, 01:57:16 PM
Quote from: sparker on January 13, 2021, 01:06:45 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 12, 2021, 11:04:23 PM
Quote from: sparker on January 12, 2021, 06:46:03 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 12, 2021, 06:26:03 PM
It's already decided: Old I-81 will get a green shield. I-481 becomes I-81.
That's depressing -- and profoundly idiotic! Question: since the original through-town alignment was chargeable, will there be hidden FHWA designations (like CA's I-305) for the remnants? (And who or what, pray tell, was responsible for the "green shield" biz-route decision?).
I don't believe so as of right now.
Not sure who made the decision, but I'm fairly sure the idea that a green route actually directs people to businesses held sway.
Well.....we've tried that approach out here both with the Biz 80 example (full freeway) and numerous surface loops over previous alignments, and the results haven't been terribly successful -- most surface business routes have been formally (AASHTO) deleted or their signage has both aged out and/or disappeared. But some agencies seem to hold on to longstanding concepts (or myths) regardless of field experience.
Another question concerning this: Since NY tends to keep maintaining and signing the original routes adjacent to Interstates (i.e. I-81 & US 11, I-88 & NY 7, etc.), are there all that many instances of actual green-shielded business loops within the state -- and if so, has traffic/usage data been compiled to underscore the opinion that business Interstates provide significant value?
BL-81 will be the first green shield in NY, I believe.
Wow! A dataset with n=0! Probably someone simply thought "they're doing it elsewhere; we may as well give it a shot!" Wait until the first winter/low-visibility weather, when folks get the 81's confused!
While I also agree that Syracuse is making a mistake with its renumbering proposal, I will submit that there is some precedent for the approach. 280 miles south of Syracuse is York, PA. I-83 bypasses the town to the east, but there is a Biz-83 (or green-83, I'm not sure how the locals refer to that road) that heads right into town. The southernmost mile or so of this is a pre-interstate freeway that connects directly to I-83. THe freeway ends and defaults onto George street, the main NS street through town (and the former routing of US 111). The green 83 shields are used well and the route is easy to follow and the Biz-83 route ends at the northern interchange of George St and I-83.
Quote from: mrsman on January 15, 2021, 04:36:22 PM
Quote from: sparker on January 13, 2021, 05:14:06 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 13, 2021, 01:57:16 PM
Quote from: sparker on January 13, 2021, 01:06:45 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 12, 2021, 11:04:23 PM
Quote from: sparker on January 12, 2021, 06:46:03 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 12, 2021, 06:26:03 PM
It's already decided: Old I-81 will get a green shield. I-481 becomes I-81.
That's depressing -- and profoundly idiotic! Question: since the original through-town alignment was chargeable, will there be hidden FHWA designations (like CA's I-305) for the remnants? (And who or what, pray tell, was responsible for the "green shield" biz-route decision?).
I don't believe so as of right now.
Not sure who made the decision, but I'm fairly sure the idea that a green route actually directs people to businesses held sway.
Well.....we've tried that approach out here both with the Biz 80 example (full freeway) and numerous surface loops over previous alignments, and the results haven't been terribly successful -- most surface business routes have been formally (AASHTO) deleted or their signage has both aged out and/or disappeared. But some agencies seem to hold on to longstanding concepts (or myths) regardless of field experience.
Another question concerning this: Since NY tends to keep maintaining and signing the original routes adjacent to Interstates (i.e. I-81 & US 11, I-88 & NY 7, etc.), are there all that many instances of actual green-shielded business loops within the state -- and if so, has traffic/usage data been compiled to underscore the opinion that business Interstates provide significant value?
BL-81 will be the first green shield in NY, I believe.
Wow! A dataset with n=0! Probably someone simply thought "they're doing it elsewhere; we may as well give it a shot!" Wait until the first winter/low-visibility weather, when folks get the 81's confused!
While I also agree that Syracuse is making a mistake with its renumbering proposal, I will submit that there is some precedent for the approach. 280 miles south of Syracuse is York, PA. I-83 bypasses the town to the east, but there is a Biz-83 (or green-83, I'm not sure how the locals refer to that road) that heads right into town. The southernmost mile or so of this is a pre-interstate freeway that connects directly to I-83. THe freeway ends and defaults onto George street, the main NS street through town (and the former routing of US 111). The green 83 shields are used well and the route is easy to follow and the Biz-83 route ends at the northern interchange of George St and I-83.
Nevertheless, what is unique about the Syracuse situation is that a full freeway segment of soon-to-be-former I-81 between I-690 and the north current I-481 interchange will get the biz-loop treatment; it's not just the southern segment which will be truncated by the teardown/boulevard activity. So there will be a situation where the signed "green" loop, south-to-north, will consist of freeway stub followed by a boulevard followed by a lengthy stretch of freeway between two existing Interstates. From a navigational standpoint, it has all the markings of a major clusterfuck. I could see the southern stub as a business
spur intended to empty out onto the new boulevard -- but a fully functional freeway extending between two others not so much -- if it were built as a full-fledged Interstate, it should be retained as such. Maybe it's being caught between a rock and the proverbial hard place, but NYDOT appears to have been cast in roles that require it to be both an urbanization advocate as well as an adjunct "chamber of commerce" for Syracuse business interests; that sort of oft-conflicting multitasking often results in suboptimal decision-making. Even NC had the good sense to delete "Biz 40" from their older Winston-Salem loop!
But then nothing's really final until it's posted in the field!
Quote from: kkt on January 12, 2021, 04:42:07 PM
I don't think posting I-305 would save confusion. Making US 50 continue west to meet I-80 in West Sacramento is simpler than having US 50 turn south like it used to. However posting CA 51 would save some confusion after some teething pains.
Hear Here!
The routes are well-defined and well-intentioned. Just sign the stinking routes as they are defined. You could even just sign Bus-80 as CASR-51 without changing any of the control locations or anything else. But, "Central Sacramento / Fresno" for at the separation from I-80 and signing CASR-160 at its separation from CASR-51 as "Downtown Sacramento" (as it currently is, I believe) would all make sense. Perhaps a sign at the CASR-51/I-80 separation advising "Los Angeles use I-80 to I-5" would be sensible.
It's one thing to have two different routes with the same number in different parts of the state (but both CalTrans and the Highway Code avoid this), but two different freeways that touch intersect, run roughly parallel for a while, don't move more than a few km apart is not an aid to navigation. As I have said before, people need to adapt. It's been CASR-51 now for over twice as long as it was I-80. Back when all of the phone area code changes were going into effect, they gave a 3-month permissive dialing period then three months of "check the new area code" and then you started getting wrong numbers once the new numbers were assigned or "not in service". It's been over 40 years! Time to move on!
Quote from: sparker on January 15, 2021, 07:29:52 PM
Quote from: mrsman on January 15, 2021, 04:36:22 PM
Quote from: sparker on January 13, 2021, 05:14:06 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 13, 2021, 01:57:16 PM
Quote from: sparker on January 13, 2021, 01:06:45 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 12, 2021, 11:04:23 PM
Quote from: sparker on January 12, 2021, 06:46:03 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 12, 2021, 06:26:03 PM
It's already decided: Old I-81 will get a green shield. I-481 becomes I-81.
That's depressing -- and profoundly idiotic! Question: since the original through-town alignment was chargeable, will there be hidden FHWA designations (like CA's I-305) for the remnants? (And who or what, pray tell, was responsible for the "green shield" biz-route decision?).
I don't believe so as of right now.
Not sure who made the decision, but I'm fairly sure the idea that a green route actually directs people to businesses held sway.
Well.....we've tried that approach out here both with the Biz 80 example (full freeway) and numerous surface loops over previous alignments, and the results haven't been terribly successful -- most surface business routes have been formally (AASHTO) deleted or their signage has both aged out and/or disappeared. But some agencies seem to hold on to longstanding concepts (or myths) regardless of field experience.
Another question concerning this: Since NY tends to keep maintaining and signing the original routes adjacent to Interstates (i.e. I-81 & US 11, I-88 & NY 7, etc.), are there all that many instances of actual green-shielded business loops within the state -- and if so, has traffic/usage data been compiled to underscore the opinion that business Interstates provide significant value?
BL-81 will be the first green shield in NY, I believe.
Wow! A dataset with n=0! Probably someone simply thought "they're doing it elsewhere; we may as well give it a shot!" Wait until the first winter/low-visibility weather, when folks get the 81's confused!
While I also agree that Syracuse is making a mistake with its renumbering proposal, I will submit that there is some precedent for the approach. 280 miles south of Syracuse is York, PA. I-83 bypasses the town to the east, but there is a Biz-83 (or green-83, I'm not sure how the locals refer to that road) that heads right into town. The southernmost mile or so of this is a pre-interstate freeway that connects directly to I-83. THe freeway ends and defaults onto George street, the main NS street through town (and the former routing of US 111). The green 83 shields are used well and the route is easy to follow and the Biz-83 route ends at the northern interchange of George St and I-83.
Nevertheless, what is unique about the Syracuse situation is that a full freeway segment of soon-to-be-former I-81 between I-690 and the north current I-481 interchange will get the biz-loop treatment; it's not just the southern segment which will be truncated by the teardown/boulevard activity. So there will be a situation where the signed "green" loop, south-to-north, will consist of freeway stub followed by a boulevard followed by a lengthy stretch of freeway between two existing Interstates. From a navigational standpoint, it has all the markings of a major clusterfuck. I could see the southern stub as a business spur intended to empty out onto the new boulevard -- but a fully functional freeway extending between two others not so much -- if it were built as a full-fledged Interstate, it should be retained as such. Maybe it's being caught between a rock and the proverbial hard place, but NYDOT appears to have been cast in roles that require it to be both an urbanization advocate as well as an adjunct "chamber of commerce" for Syracuse business interests; that sort of oft-conflicting multitasking often results in suboptimal decision-making. Even NC had the good sense to delete "Biz 40" from their older Winston-Salem loop!
But then nothing's really final until it's posted in the field!
Another option for Syracuse would be to sign the road as an odd 3di of I-81, let's say I-581. For the section that is a full freeway, it is I-581, but for the boulevard section as well as the freeway spur, NY-581.
To bring this slightly back to topic, there are examples of this in CA. THe one that comes to mind is the 110 in the LA area.
Surface street, Gaffey Street in San Pedroa was onetime CA-110, leading to the I-110 Harbor Freeway. North of Interstate 10, the I-110 becomes CA-110. North of US 101, it is still a freeway/parkway but does not meet interstate standards and is still CA-110. Finally, in Pasadena, the surface street Arroyo Parkway is also part of CA-110.
So one corridor, with one number that has an appropriate shield based on the type of highway that is being transversed. The number will fit in with the interstate system, but will also be a state number for the sections where an interstae highway number would be inappropriate.
Quote from: mrsman on February 28, 2021, 04:47:08 PM
Quote from: sparker on January 15, 2021, 07:29:52 PM
Quote from: mrsman on January 15, 2021, 04:36:22 PM
Quote from: sparker on January 13, 2021, 05:14:06 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 13, 2021, 01:57:16 PM
Quote from: sparker on January 13, 2021, 01:06:45 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 12, 2021, 11:04:23 PM
Quote from: sparker on January 12, 2021, 06:46:03 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 12, 2021, 06:26:03 PM
It's already decided: Old I-81 will get a green shield. I-481 becomes I-81.
That's depressing -- and profoundly idiotic! Question: since the original through-town alignment was chargeable, will there be hidden FHWA designations (like CA's I-305) for the remnants? (And who or what, pray tell, was responsible for the "green shield" biz-route decision?).
I don't believe so as of right now.
Not sure who made the decision, but I'm fairly sure the idea that a green route actually directs people to businesses held sway.
Well.....we've tried that approach out here both with the Biz 80 example (full freeway) and numerous surface loops over previous alignments, and the results haven't been terribly successful -- most surface business routes have been formally (AASHTO) deleted or their signage has both aged out and/or disappeared. But some agencies seem to hold on to longstanding concepts (or myths) regardless of field experience.
Another question concerning this: Since NY tends to keep maintaining and signing the original routes adjacent to Interstates (i.e. I-81 & US 11, I-88 & NY 7, etc.), are there all that many instances of actual green-shielded business loops within the state -- and if so, has traffic/usage data been compiled to underscore the opinion that business Interstates provide significant value?
BL-81 will be the first green shield in NY, I believe.
Wow! A dataset with n=0! Probably someone simply thought "they're doing it elsewhere; we may as well give it a shot!" Wait until the first winter/low-visibility weather, when folks get the 81's confused!
While I also agree that Syracuse is making a mistake with its renumbering proposal, I will submit that there is some precedent for the approach. 280 miles south of Syracuse is York, PA. I-83 bypasses the town to the east, but there is a Biz-83 (or green-83, I'm not sure how the locals refer to that road) that heads right into town. The southernmost mile or so of this is a pre-interstate freeway that connects directly to I-83. THe freeway ends and defaults onto George street, the main NS street through town (and the former routing of US 111). The green 83 shields are used well and the route is easy to follow and the Biz-83 route ends at the northern interchange of George St and I-83.
Nevertheless, what is unique about the Syracuse situation is that a full freeway segment of soon-to-be-former I-81 between I-690 and the north current I-481 interchange will get the biz-loop treatment; it's not just the southern segment which will be truncated by the teardown/boulevard activity. So there will be a situation where the signed "green" loop, south-to-north, will consist of freeway stub followed by a boulevard followed by a lengthy stretch of freeway between two existing Interstates. From a navigational standpoint, it has all the markings of a major clusterfuck. I could see the southern stub as a business spur intended to empty out onto the new boulevard -- but a fully functional freeway extending between two others not so much -- if it were built as a full-fledged Interstate, it should be retained as such. Maybe it's being caught between a rock and the proverbial hard place, but NYDOT appears to have been cast in roles that require it to be both an urbanization advocate as well as an adjunct "chamber of commerce" for Syracuse business interests; that sort of oft-conflicting multitasking often results in suboptimal decision-making. Even NC had the good sense to delete "Biz 40" from their older Winston-Salem loop!
But then nothing's really final until it's posted in the field!
Another option for Syracuse would be to sign the road as an odd 3di of I-81, let's say I-581. For the section that is a full freeway, it is I-581, but for the boulevard section as well as the freeway spur, NY-581.
To bring this slightly back to topic, there are examples of this in CA. THe one that comes to mind is the 110 in the LA area.
Surface street, Gaffey Street in San Pedroa was onetime CA-110, leading to the I-110 Harbor Freeway. North of Interstate 10, the I-110 becomes CA-110. North of US 101, it is still a freeway/parkway but does not meet interstate standards and is still CA-110. Finally, in Pasadena, the surface street Arroyo Parkway is also part of CA-110.
So one corridor, with one number that has an appropriate shield based on the type of highway that is being transversed. The number will fit in with the interstate system, but will also be a state number for the sections where an interstae highway number would be inappropriate.
Technically, CA 110 terminates at the northeast end of the Arroyo Seco Parkway; the N-S Arroyo Parkway has been relinquished to the City of Pasadena -- although the last time I was through there the CA 110 reassurance shields on the street remained posted. But the poster's point about the number following the route but the type of facility differentiated by state vs. Interstate signage (although from I-10 north to US 101 CA 110 meets Interstate criteria) is spot on -- if CA 99 is ever designated and signed as an Interstate (let's say I-9 just for kicks), the Interstate signage could simply cease at the Oak Park interchange, with present CA 51 redesignated as CA 9 (the folks in the Santa Cruz Mountains would just have to suck it up*) north to the I-80 junction near Watt Ave. Of course, US 50 (hidden I-305) between I-5 and CA 99/I-9 would be signed -- and majorly trailblazed -- as "TO I-5" (WB) and "TO I-9" (EB), including references on the I-5 approaches to the US 50 interchange.
*
since CA 9 is a mere shadow of its former self, IMO the numbering of the current remnant, if I-9 is eventually selected for CA 99, should be either CA 117 (as a functional "child route" or alternative to CA 17) or a 2nd iteration of CA 21 (wonder if there are any shields left in D4's corporate yards?). I'd commission a poll of the residents along current CA 9 to ascertain which they'd prefer and follow that lead for renumbering.
Quote from: sparker on March 02, 2021, 01:31:51 AM
Quote from: mrsman on February 28, 2021, 04:47:08 PM
Quote from: sparker on January 15, 2021, 07:29:52 PM
Quote from: mrsman on January 15, 2021, 04:36:22 PM
Quote from: sparker on January 13, 2021, 05:14:06 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 13, 2021, 01:57:16 PM
Quote from: sparker on January 13, 2021, 01:06:45 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 12, 2021, 11:04:23 PM
Quote from: sparker on January 12, 2021, 06:46:03 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 12, 2021, 06:26:03 PM
It's already decided: Old I-81 will get a green shield. I-481 becomes I-81.
That's depressing -- and profoundly idiotic! Question: since the original through-town alignment was chargeable, will there be hidden FHWA designations (like CA's I-305) for the remnants? (And who or what, pray tell, was responsible for the "green shield" biz-route decision?).
I don't believe so as of right now.
Not sure who made the decision, but I'm fairly sure the idea that a green route actually directs people to businesses held sway.
Well.....we've tried that approach out here both with the Biz 80 example (full freeway) and numerous surface loops over previous alignments, and the results haven't been terribly successful -- most surface business routes have been formally (AASHTO) deleted or their signage has both aged out and/or disappeared. But some agencies seem to hold on to longstanding concepts (or myths) regardless of field experience.
Another question concerning this: Since NY tends to keep maintaining and signing the original routes adjacent to Interstates (i.e. I-81 & US 11, I-88 & NY 7, etc.), are there all that many instances of actual green-shielded business loops within the state -- and if so, has traffic/usage data been compiled to underscore the opinion that business Interstates provide significant value?
BL-81 will be the first green shield in NY, I believe.
Wow! A dataset with n=0! Probably someone simply thought "they're doing it elsewhere; we may as well give it a shot!" Wait until the first winter/low-visibility weather, when folks get the 81's confused!
While I also agree that Syracuse is making a mistake with its renumbering proposal, I will submit that there is some precedent for the approach. 280 miles south of Syracuse is York, PA. I-83 bypasses the town to the east, but there is a Biz-83 (or green-83, I'm not sure how the locals refer to that road) that heads right into town. The southernmost mile or so of this is a pre-interstate freeway that connects directly to I-83. THe freeway ends and defaults onto George street, the main NS street through town (and the former routing of US 111). The green 83 shields are used well and the route is easy to follow and the Biz-83 route ends at the northern interchange of George St and I-83.
Nevertheless, what is unique about the Syracuse situation is that a full freeway segment of soon-to-be-former I-81 between I-690 and the north current I-481 interchange will get the biz-loop treatment; it's not just the southern segment which will be truncated by the teardown/boulevard activity. So there will be a situation where the signed "green" loop, south-to-north, will consist of freeway stub followed by a boulevard followed by a lengthy stretch of freeway between two existing Interstates. From a navigational standpoint, it has all the markings of a major clusterfuck. I could see the southern stub as a business spur intended to empty out onto the new boulevard -- but a fully functional freeway extending between two others not so much -- if it were built as a full-fledged Interstate, it should be retained as such. Maybe it's being caught between a rock and the proverbial hard place, but NYDOT appears to have been cast in roles that require it to be both an urbanization advocate as well as an adjunct "chamber of commerce" for Syracuse business interests; that sort of oft-conflicting multitasking often results in suboptimal decision-making. Even NC had the good sense to delete "Biz 40" from their older Winston-Salem loop!
But then nothing's really final until it's posted in the field!
Another option for Syracuse would be to sign the road as an odd 3di of I-81, let's say I-581. For the section that is a full freeway, it is I-581, but for the boulevard section as well as the freeway spur, NY-581.
To bring this slightly back to topic, there are examples of this in CA. THe one that comes to mind is the 110 in the LA area.
Surface street, Gaffey Street in San Pedroa was onetime CA-110, leading to the I-110 Harbor Freeway. North of Interstate 10, the I-110 becomes CA-110. North of US 101, it is still a freeway/parkway but does not meet interstate standards and is still CA-110. Finally, in Pasadena, the surface street Arroyo Parkway is also part of CA-110.
So one corridor, with one number that has an appropriate shield based on the type of highway that is being transversed. The number will fit in with the interstate system, but will also be a state number for the sections where an interstae highway number would be inappropriate.
Technically, CA 110 terminates at the northeast end of the Arroyo Seco Parkway; the N-S Arroyo Parkway has been relinquished to the City of Pasadena -- although the last time I was through there the CA 110 reassurance shields on the street remained posted. But the poster's point about the number following the route but the type of facility differentiated by state vs. Interstate signage (although from I-10 north to US 101 CA 110 meets Interstate criteria) is spot on -- if CA 99 is ever designated and signed as an Interstate (let's say I-9 just for kicks), the Interstate signage could simply cease at the Oak Park interchange, with present CA 51 redesignated as CA 9 (the folks in the Santa Cruz Mountains would just have to suck it up*) north to the I-80 junction near Watt Ave. Of course, US 50 (hidden I-305) between I-5 and CA 99/I-9 would be signed -- and majorly trailblazed -- as "TO I-5" (WB) and "TO I-9" (EB), including references on the I-5 approaches to the US 50 interchange.
*since CA 9 is a mere shadow of its former self, IMO the numbering of the current remnant, if I-9 is eventually selected for CA 99, should be either CA 117 (as a functional "child route" or alternative to CA 17) or a 2nd iteration of CA 21 (wonder if there are any shields left in D4's corporate yards?). I'd commission a poll of the residents along current CA 9 to ascertain which they'd prefer and follow that lead for renumbering.
Heck, with how much of CA-19 is left (practically none), 19 would be an alternative too
Most of the length of former CA 9 has changed into 23x numbers: 237, 238. CA 9 connects to CA 236 through Big Basin. If we have to change CA 9's number, how about CA 239? It's an unconstructed route connecting CA 4 and I-205, but since it's unconstructed the number is fair game.
Quote from: kkt on March 02, 2021, 03:01:18 PM
Most of the length of former CA 9 has changed into 23x numbers: 237, 238. CA 9 connects to CA 236 through Big Basin. If we have to change CA 9's number, how about CA 239? It's an unconstructed route connecting CA 4 and I-205, but since it's unconstructed the number is fair game.
In theory but it still requires the legislative description of Route 239 to be changed or delete. For what it's worth the present Route 239 probably be usurped by what the counties involved with County Route J4 plan to construct.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 02, 2021, 03:58:06 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 02, 2021, 03:01:18 PM
Most of the length of former CA 9 has changed into 23x numbers: 237, 238. CA 9 connects to CA 236 through Big Basin. If we have to change CA 9's number, how about CA 239? It's an unconstructed route connecting CA 4 and I-205, but since it's unconstructed the number is fair game.
In theory but it still requires the legislative description of Route 239 to be changed or delete. For what it's worth the present Route 239 probably be usurped by what the counties involved with County Route J4 plan to construct.
Which will likely be an extension of the present CA 4 freeway bypassing Brentwood. Housing in that area is developing faster than the regional road system can accommodate, so something will be done sooner than later. J4 is inadequate to handle peak commute traffic, particularly that from central Contra Costa County employment centers looking to avoid the hell that is I-580 in late afternoon. But in any case, the number 239 would be off limits unless the legislature elects to eliminate it, which just won't happen anytime soon. Now -- 240 is available -- but I still opine that 117 would work better for reasons cited previously, and 21 has a long Bay Area history and might deserve a second shot! But as said before, I'd canvass the residents along the route and get their opinion as to what would be an appropriate replacement number. But CA 99 has to become an Interstate -- and the number "9" has to be chosen as that Interstate, neither of which is really close to happening at this time (too much "rehab" work required on multiple sections of 99 for that to happen within the short term). That being said, the changeover
would provide impetus to finally address the Biz 80 remnants.
It would require legislative action to change the number of CA 9. But it would also require legislative action to change the number of CA 99 south of Sacramento. So if and when they decide to make an interstate out of 99, they could make changing the number of CA 9 part of the same bill, yes?
How did they do it in 1964 - one big bill with all the changes, or a separate bill for every route?
Quote from: kkt on March 02, 2021, 09:42:01 PM
It would require legislative action to change the number of CA 9. But it would also require legislative action to change the number of CA 99 south of Sacramento. So if and when they decide to make an interstate out of 99, they could make changing the number of CA 9 part of the same bill, yes?
How did they do it in 1964 - one big bill with all the changes, or a separate bill for every route?
It was one huge multi-page bill that listed all the affected routes, shepherded through the state legislative by state Senator Randolph Collier (D-Yreka), who performed that same duty for virtually every highway funding bill since he got into office in the '30's and until he retired. Was widely considered the "godfather" or "patron saint" of the California Freeway & Expressway system (and frequently cited in CHPW!).
Quote from: sparker on March 03, 2021, 10:37:32 AM
Quote from: kkt on March 02, 2021, 09:42:01 PM
It would require legislative action to change the number of CA 9. But it would also require legislative action to change the number of CA 99 south of Sacramento. So if and when they decide to make an interstate out of 99, they could make changing the number of CA 9 part of the same bill, yes?
How did they do it in 1964 - one big bill with all the changes, or a separate bill for every route?
It was one huge multi-page bill that listed all the affected routes, shepherded through the state legislative by state Senator Randolph Collier (D-Yreka), who performed that same duty for virtually every highway funding bill since he got into office in the '30's and until he retired. Was widely considered the "godfather" or "patron saint" of the California Freeway & Expressway system (and frequently cited in CHPW!).
Plus there are a lot of instances outside of the 1964 Renumbering where the legislature defined/redefined multiple routes. Pretty much new route added in 1970 was part of Legislative Chapter 1473 as an example.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 03, 2021, 10:53:29 AM
Quote from: sparker on March 03, 2021, 10:37:32 AM
Quote from: kkt on March 02, 2021, 09:42:01 PM
It would require legislative action to change the number of CA 9. But it would also require legislative action to change the number of CA 99 south of Sacramento. So if and when they decide to make an interstate out of 99, they could make changing the number of CA 9 part of the same bill, yes?
How did they do it in 1964 - one big bill with all the changes, or a separate bill for every route?
It was one huge multi-page bill that listed all the affected routes, shepherded through the state legislative by state Senator Randolph Collier (D-Yreka), who performed that same duty for virtually every highway funding bill since he got into office in the '30's and until he retired. Was widely considered the "godfather" or "patron saint" of the California Freeway & Expressway system (and frequently cited in CHPW!).
Plus there are a lot of instances outside of the 1964 Renumbering where the legislature defined/redefined multiple routes. Pretty much new route added in 1970 was part of Legislative Chapter 1473 as an example.
Thanks to you both :) I was sure someone would know.