Freeways that were formerly signed Interstates but now are not in the system?

[bulldog1979]

What was the reason for removing the I-296 signs? It seems like most of the hidden interstate designations never have had interstate signs.

Consensus is that they were removed to avoid driver confusion. Since US 131 is a freeway south of the southern terminus of I-296 and continues north of the split with I-296 as a freeway, it could be confusing to drive along and suddenly gain a designation without a corresponding change in overall road quality. Unlike M-66  which isn't a freeway north and south of the I-194 designation in Battle Creek, US 131 is a freeway for 172 miles in total. Of course something to remember about I-296 is that it not completely concurrent with US 131; what is normally assumed to be the left exit ramp from US 131 NB to I-96 WB is mainline, but unsigned, I-296, as is the ramp from I-96 EB to US 131 SB.

[agentsteel53]

Consensus is that they were removed to avoid driver confusion.

someone needs to come to the Bay Area and tell I-980 that.

[NE2]

I-980 doesn't overlap anything.

[agentsteel53]

I-980 doesn't overlap anything.

it used to be CA-24.  it would be a lot less confusing to keep it as CA-24.

[TheStranger]

I-980 doesn't overlap anything.

it used to be CA-24.  it would be a lot less confusing to keep it as CA-24.

You know, this is something I've genuinely wondered for years:

Was that freeway (980) EVER signed as Route 24?

It was planned as such (not sure if this includes the never-built extension from the Nimitz/Cypress Freeway to the unconstructed Southern Crossing) in the early 1970s, but gained its interstate designation ca. 1976 while still under construction.  Didn't the whole route open in 1982 or so?

[myosh_tino]

I-980 doesn't overlap anything.

it used to be CA-24.  it would be a lot less confusing to keep it as CA-24.

You know, this is something I've genuinely wondered for years:

Was that freeway (980) EVER signed as Route 24?

It was planned as such (not sure if this includes the never-built extension from the Nimitz/Cypress Freeway to the unconstructed Southern Crossing) in the early 1970s, but gained its interstate designation ca. 1976 while still under construction.  Didn't the whole route open in 1982 or so?

Looking at Daniel Faigin's cahighways.org website, the I-980 designation was approved in 1976.  I'm pretty sure the freeway wasn't completed to I-880 until sometime in the 80's so I'm pretty sure that would mean the segment from 880 to 580 was never signed as CA-24.

With that said, I agree with Agentsteel that I-980 really should have been signed as CA-24.

[agentsteel53]

Looking at Daniel Faigin's cahighways.org website, the I-980 designation was approved in 1976.

then what do all those pre-1973 porcelains signs say under the 980 shields?  I had always thought it was 24. 

[TheStranger]

Looking at Daniel Faigin's cahighways.org website, the I-980 designation was approved in 1976.

then what do all those pre-1973 porcelains signs say under the 980 shields?  I had always thought it was 24. 

Looking at the Caltrans bridge log, the 1970-1973 section ended at 18th Street, so there were only the two offramps coming from the 580/24 stack, and no offramps eastbound on today's 980. 

Thus there's the possibility that 24 mainline signs may have been planned, then greenedout in anticipation of the original designation, but never unveiled once 980 was approved for the stretch of road.

[agentsteel53]

Looking at the Caltrans bridge log, the 1970-1973 section ended at 18th Street, so there were only the two offramps coming from the 580/24 stack, and no offramps eastbound on today's 980. 

Thus there's the possibility that 24 mainline signs may have been planned, then greenedout in anticipation of the original designation, but never unveiled once 980 was approved for the stretch of road.

what about the ones on 580 eastbound coming off the Bay Bridge/MacArthur Maze?  those say "980 to 880" but they are on porcelain signs, so I had thought underneath was 24.

[TheStranger]

what about the ones on 580 eastbound coming off the Bay Bridge/MacArthur Maze?  those say "980 to 880" but they are on porcelain signs, so I had thought underneath was 24.

I've never been sure.  There's always the possibility what was under it wasn't 24, but a reference to the exits that were open pre-1980s, some sort of temporary signage.

Wonder if there are any photos of the construction of 980 in the archives...

[NE2]

Don't those cover a SOUTH, while the 24 signs say EAST?

[agentsteel53]

Don't those cover a SOUTH, while the 24 signs say EAST?

I think I have figured it out!  see here:

http://g.co/maps/9xhbx

24 east is in the other direction, towards Walnut Creek.  that should be "24 west" if it were up to me, and I had not thought this through until now, but underneath there is actually "17 south"!  the "south" is the original porcelain, so it must correspond to a pre-1973 route.

so if 980 was designated in 1976, and 17 was taken off in the late 80s when 880 was designated and 580 was extended, does this imply that the entirety of 980 was 17 as well for a while?

[agentsteel53]

interestingly, the next gantry has a WEST banner and what appears to be a porcelain original 980?

http://g.co/maps/8jxjf

I really should look up what year that sign gantry is from... if it has a post-1973 date stamp, I would be damned surprised, because I have seen the letter in the Caltrans Library from Cal Div Hwys to Cameo, from April 1973, thanking them for their years of service and issuing their regrets that the contract would have to be terminated as they just could not match federal green with their porcelain colors.

I have never seen a porcelain sign with a date stamp later than 1973 in California.  a 1976 I-980 shield in porcelain would be truly something else.

my guess is it's a button-copy shield and I cannot tell the difference at low resolution.  but then it would be covering up something ... something WEST.  what route appears under there?  24???

[TheStranger]

so if 980 was designated in 1976, and 17 was taken off in the late 80s when 880 was designated and 580 was extended, does this imply that the entirety of 980 was 17 as well for a while?

Not at all: what this implies is that CalTrans has been using the "sign for the next route after terminus" philosophy for years!

(i.e. US 101 south as only signage for I-80 west BGSes in SF, since the late 1980s)

880 was first signed in 1984.  I THINK 980 was opened before the 880 designation was signed, but it was a brief one or two year period.

[agentsteel53]

I'd like to know how and when 17 was truncated.  When was 580 extended to San Rafael, knocking off the 17 designation north of the maze? 

[TheStranger]

I'd like to know how and when 17 was truncated.  When was 580 extended to San Rafael, knocking off the 17 designation north of the maze?  

http://cahighways.org/017-024.html

In 1984, Chapter 409 trunchated the route significantly, leaving Route 17 as only "from Route 1 near Santa Cruz to Route 280 in San Jose." The portion from Route 280 to Route 80 was renumbered as I-880; and the former (b), Route 80 near Albany to Route 101 near San Rafael, was transferred to I-580. Former (c), Route 101 near San Rafael to Route 1 near Point Reyes Station, was added to Route 251. This latter portion was to have been the "Point Reyes" Freeway. The 1984 act also gave high priority to the improvement of the former (b) as part of I-580.

As for I-980...

In 1981, Chapter 292 defined this route by transfer from Route 24: "Route 17 in Oakland to Route 580."

In 1986, Chapter 928 changed "Route 17" to "Route 880"

In 1988, Chapter 106 clarified the routing: "Route 880 in Oakland to Route 580 in Oakland".


Approved as 139(a) non-chargeable interstate in July 1976; Freeway.

I think the Richmond segment of 17 as an Interstate slightly predates I-880 being created - it was the proposed I-180 ca. 1981 (before CalTrans chose to extend 580 instead so that Route 180 in Fresno would not have to be renumbered).

Interesting that it took 5 years between Interstate funding and the legislative designation change for 980...

[NE2]

interestingly, the next gantry has a WEST banner and what appears to be a porcelain original 980?

http://g.co/maps/8jxjf

It's over greenout: http://g.co/maps/c45ge
It's hard to tell, but there may have been SOUTH pulled off under the WEST.

[agentsteel53]

so there indeed was a time when I-980 was a segment of CA-17: 1976 (or 1981, depending on your perspective) to 1984. 

was it ever signed dual?

also, why did it take two years for the 980 definition to change from "580 to 17" to "580 to 880"?  1984 - 17 truncated, 880 established; 1986 - designation changed.  was there a delay of two years in which 980's definition was incorrect?

[NE2]

so there indeed was a time when I-980 was a segment of CA-17

No. There may have been a time when westbound I-980 was signed only as leading to SR 17 south. SR 17 always went to the Bay Bridge approach.

[agentsteel53]

It's over greenout: http://g.co/maps/c45ge
It's hard to tell, but there may have been SOUTH pulled off under the WEST.

if SOUTH were part of the original porcelain, it could not have been pulled off, just greened out.  I cannot discern a greenout patch under the WEST, but I am 99% sure that that right sign is a porcelain, not a button copy.

next time I am up there (maybe this Saturday), I will take a look.  I checked briefly to see if I have any photos of that segment of 580, but I cannot find any offhand.  Anyone else got one?

[agentsteel53]

No. There may have been a time when westbound I-980 was signed only as leading to SR 17 south. SR 17 always went to the Bay Bridge approach.

I should have remembered that.  I have a photo from that approach segment with the 580 patch fallen off, and a 17 revealed!  it's a terrible photo from 10pm; when I went back the next morning, it had been already patched.

[US71]

There's an abandoned section of I-44 near Newburg, MO. The highway was rerouted.

Also an old section of  I-44 (old 66) near Devil's Elbow that's now Missouri Route Z.

[Henry]

What was the reason for removing the I-296 signs? It seems like most of the hidden interstate designations never have had interstate signs.

Consensus is that they were removed to avoid driver confusion. Since US 131 is a freeway south of the southern terminus of I-296 and continues north of the split with I-296 as a freeway, it could be confusing to drive along and suddenly gain a designation without a corresponding change in overall road quality. Unlike M-66  which isn't a freeway north and south of the I-194 designation in Battle Creek, US 131 is a freeway for 172 miles in total. Of course something to remember about I-296 is that it not completely concurrent with US 131; what is normally assumed to be the left exit ramp from US 131 NB to I-96 WB is mainline, but unsigned, I-296, as is the ramp from I-96 EB to US 131 SB.

Add to that I-305 in Sacramento and I-595 east of Washington, DC, as they are both part of US 50. Also, I-695 in Washington, due to the fact that another I-695 exists around Baltimore, and I-345 in Dallas, which acts as a connector between I-45 and the US 75 freeway that continues further north.

[NE2]

Also, I-695 in Washington, due to the fact that another I-695 exists around Baltimore,

[citation needed]

[deathtopumpkins]

I-695 is a moot point anyway, because it is signed again now with the new bridge project.