MUTCD Mileposts in California?

[michravera]

But most of the driving public doesn't care about mileposts or postmiles. ... The same goes for highway numbering. We may care about it as roadgeeks, but it doesn't make a difference to the state, and most of the driving public doesn't think about it as long as their GPS gets them where they are going.

As for the general driving public...  Really, the only time a driver needs to know a mile marker, it's for one of two reasons:  (1) following directions that refer to one or (2) identifying a location while calling emergency services.  In both cases, it's just as easy to refer to a California postmile as it is to a "normal" mile marker.  The number will be different, but that doesn't really matter for the task at hand.

And the same goes for route numbering.  Route numbers exist to help guide drivers onto the correct road.  The number 238 does that just as well as any x80–probably better, actually, as drivers are less likely to confuse 238 with an x80 as they are to confuse an x80 with a different x80.  The only possible route numbering thing that might really confuse drivers is two routes with the same number being in close proximity.  And, even then, it's only a problem if it's actually a problem.

... like the green 80 and the blue 80 in Sacramento, for instance.

[michravera]

I like the postmile markers.  I wish Caltrans was better about maintaining them.  I also like the AAA maps that show the county lines, to help with pinning my location down exactly.

The mileage numbered exits are helpful, but on non-freeways they don't seem to be posting any mile markers other than the postmile markers.

That made me laugh.  I would say, " I wish Caltrans was better about maintaining all of their signs."

Depends on the district, some got really good after SB1 like D6.

That's not the district with I-880 which has TWO exits 1-D, is it?

[Max Rockatansky]

But most of the driving public doesn't care about mileposts or postmiles. ... The same goes for highway numbering. We may care about it as roadgeeks, but it doesn't make a difference to the state, and most of the driving public doesn't think about it as long as their GPS gets them where they are going.

As for the general driving public...  Really, the only time a driver needs to know a mile marker, it's for one of two reasons:  (1) following directions that refer to one or (2) identifying a location while calling emergency services.  In both cases, it's just as easy to refer to a California postmile as it is to a "normal" mile marker.  The number will be different, but that doesn't really matter for the task at hand.

And the same goes for route numbering.  Route numbers exist to help guide drivers onto the correct road.  The number 238 does that just as well as any x80–probably better, actually, as drivers are less likely to confuse 238 with an x80 as they are to confuse an x80 with a different x80.  The only possible route numbering thing that might really confuse drivers is two routes with the same number being in close proximity.  And, even then, it's only a problem if it's actually a problem.

... like the green 80 and the blue 80 in Sacramento, for instance.

Problem there is now that those green 80 shields tend to disappear by US 50 which can make it confusing to a driver not in the know about the layout of Sacramento.  Then again my thoughts on signing CA 51 over Business 80 are well known on this forum

[michravera]

But most of the driving public doesn't care about mileposts or postmiles. ... The same goes for highway numbering. We may care about it as roadgeeks, but it doesn't make a difference to the state, and most of the driving public doesn't think about it as long as their GPS gets them where they are going.

As for the general driving public...  Really, the only time a driver needs to know a mile marker, it's for one of two reasons:  (1) following directions that refer to one or (2) identifying a location while calling emergency services.  In both cases, it's just as easy to refer to a California postmile as it is to a "normal" mile marker.  The number will be different, but that doesn't really matter for the task at hand.

And the same goes for route numbering.  Route numbers exist to help guide drivers onto the correct road.  The number 238 does that just as well as any x80–probably better, actually, as drivers are less likely to confuse 238 with an x80 as they are to confuse an x80 with a different x80.  The only possible route numbering thing that might really confuse drivers is two routes with the same number being in close proximity.  And, even then, it's only a problem if it's actually a problem.

... like the green 80 and the blue 80 in Sacramento, for instance.

Problem there is now that those green 80 shields tend to disappear by US 50 which can make it confusing to a driver not in the know about the layout of Sacramento.  Then again my thoughts on signing CA 51 over Business 80 are well known on this forum

... as are mine. And I think that we agree!

[kkt]

But most of the driving public doesn't care about mileposts or postmiles. ... The same goes for highway numbering. We may care about it as roadgeeks, but it doesn't make a difference to the state, and most of the driving public doesn't think about it as long as their GPS gets them where they are going.

As for the general driving public...  Really, the only time a driver needs to know a mile marker, it's for one of two reasons:  (1) following directions that refer to one or (2) identifying a location while calling emergency services.  In both cases, it's just as easy to refer to a California postmile as it is to a "normal" mile marker.  The number will be different, but that doesn't really matter for the task at hand.

And the same goes for route numbering.  Route numbers exist to help guide drivers onto the correct road.  The number 238 does that just as well as any x80–probably better, actually, as drivers are less likely to confuse 238 with an x80 as they are to confuse an x80 with a different x80.  The only possible route numbering thing that might really confuse drivers is two routes with the same number being in close proximity.  And, even then, it's only a problem if it's actually a problem.

... like the green 80 and the blue 80 in Sacramento, for instance.

The trouble with I-238 is NOT that it violates all the interstate numbering guidelines. The trouble is that there's green CA 238 a north-south highway, and there's blue I-238, an east-west highway.  They used to meet and 238 turned, but now they touch and require a freeway entrance or exit in order to stay on 238.

[hotdogPi]

The trouble with I-238 is NOT that it violates all the interstate numbering guidelines. The trouble is that there's green CA 238 a north-south highway, and there's blue I-238, an east-west highway.  They used to meet and 238 turned, but now they touch and require a freeway entrance or exit in order to stay on 238.

And this isn't a problem for 283 in Pennsylvania?

[kkt]

The trouble with I-238 is NOT that it violates all the interstate numbering guidelines. The trouble is that there's green CA 238 a north-south highway, and there's blue I-238, an east-west highway.  They used to meet and 238 turned, but now they touch and require a freeway entrance or exit in order to stay on 238.

And this isn't a problem for 283 in Pennsylvania?

I've never been there, but it looks like it would be, yes.

[jdbx]

But most of the driving public doesn't care about mileposts or postmiles. ... The same goes for highway numbering. We may care about it as roadgeeks, but it doesn't make a difference to the state, and most of the driving public doesn't think about it as long as their GPS gets them where they are going.

As for the general driving public...  Really, the only time a driver needs to know a mile marker, it's for one of two reasons:  (1) following directions that refer to one or (2) identifying a location while calling emergency services.  In both cases, it's just as easy to refer to a California postmile as it is to a "normal" mile marker.  The number will be different, but that doesn't really matter for the task at hand.

And the same goes for route numbering.  Route numbers exist to help guide drivers onto the correct road.  The number 238 does that just as well as any x80–probably better, actually, as drivers are less likely to confuse 238 with an x80 as they are to confuse an x80 with a different x80.  The only possible route numbering thing that might really confuse drivers is two routes with the same number being in close proximity.  And, even then, it's only a problem if it's actually a problem.

... like the green 80 and the blue 80 in Sacramento, for instance.

The trouble with I-238 is NOT that it violates all the interstate numbering guidelines. The trouble is that there's green CA 238 a north-south highway, and there's blue I-238, an east-west highway.  They used to meet and 238 turned, but now they touch and require a freeway entrance or exit in order to stay on 238.

If you mention "Highway 238" to pretty much any member of the motoring public in the Bay Area, they are going to assume you are talking about the freeway connector between I-580 and I-880.  Referring to Foothill/Mission Blvd as "238" is probably going to get the same blank stares as referring to East 14th St as "185".   

[kkt]

Certainly, I-238 is better known, but that's not a reason for having an unconnected stretch of boulevard carry the same number.

[oscar]

Certainly, I-238 is better known, but that's not a reason for having an unconnected stretch of boulevard carry the same number.

It was connected, until the city of Hayward took over part of CA 238 within its limits and removed the route signage. Blame Hayward and the legislature.

There's a half-mile stub of CA 238 between Hayward and I-580 which remains unrelinquished, and connected to I-238. 

[kkt]

Caltrans could ask the legislature to change I-238 to I-480.

[Max Rockatansky]

Caltrans could ask the legislature to change I-238 to I-480.

That would require the legislature actually doing something and someone at Caltrans actually pursuing it.  It would be nice if Caltrans and the legislature would get together to clean up some other stuff like highways that will never get built in addition to resolving routes with gaps in them.  I mean, I get it...I'm a government employee myself and I know what apathy tends to come into play when actually petitioning a legislative body for something.  Something like that would never happen unless there was some sort of external push for it to happen.  To that end, all the weird left over scraps in the highway system tend  to be whah interests me the most about it...so is it in the best interest of the road hobby?

More so the concept of D4 spending any real money/funding on signage replacements (retro reflective upgrades to reflective paint signs are lame IMO) is probably a non-starter. 

[TheStranger]

Caltrans could ask the legislature to change I-238 to I-480.

That would require the legislature actually doing something and someone at Caltrans actually pursuing it. 

Is it me or is the last time the legislature even extended a highway designation at all was in the last millennium with 210 taking over old 30 in the late 1990s?

Other than that, the piecemeal relinquishments (which I've oft-opined really should not be so tied to how well a route is navigationally signed) seem to be the only thing that has occurred in the legislative route definitions since.

The routes that were slated to be completed as Interstate extensions (210, 15) or as a full state-to-interstate upgrade (905) have basically just been left as the status quo.  Though it was interesting to see that Tennessee spent many years building what was once state route 840 before finally getting the Interstate shields up a few years ago, so I wonder if that will eventually happen here.

(And of course the Rice Avenue saga on Route 1 is self-explanatory)

[Max Rockatansky]

Caltrans could ask the legislature to change I-238 to I-480.

That would require the legislature actually doing something and someone at Caltrans actually pursuing it. 

Is it me or is the last time the legislature even extended a highway designation at all was in the last millennium with 210 taking over old 30 in the late 1990s?

Other than that, the piecemeal relinquishments (which I've oft-opined really should not be so tied to how well a route is navigationally signed) seem to be the only thing that has occurred in the legislative route definitions since.

The routes that were slated to be completed as Interstate extensions (210, 15) or as a full state-to-interstate upgrade (905) have basically just been left as the status quo.  Though it was interesting to see that Tennessee spent many years building what was once state route 840 before finally getting the Interstate shields up a few years ago, so I wonder if that will eventually happen here.

(And of course the Rice Avenue saga on Route 1 is self-explanatory)

I think so, pretty much everything since has been California Transportation Commission and the Legislature relinquishing stuff.  Why not just do the rest the next time a relinquishment if up for legislative authorization.

[mrsman]

Caltrans could ask the legislature to change I-238 to I-480.

That would require the legislature actually doing something and someone at Caltrans actually pursuing it.  It would be nice if Caltrans and the legislature would get together to clean up some other stuff like highways that will never get built in addition to resolving routes with gaps in them.  I mean, I get it...I'm a government employee myself and I know what apathy tends to come into play when actually petitioning a legislative body for something.  Something like that would never happen unless there was some sort of external push for it to happen.  To that end, all the weird left over scraps in the highway system tend  to be whah interests me the most about it...so is it in the best interest of the road hobby?

More so the concept of D4 spending any real money/funding on signage replacements (retro reflective upgrades to reflective paint signs are lame IMO) is probably a non-starter.

I also work as a federal employee in Washington DC in a part of the government that doesn't deal with highways.  I can tell you that our agency often does look around the federal laws and makes recommendations to the appropriate Congressional committees to do some "housekeeping" efforts to make sure the laws on the books still make sense.  Often these are non-controversial issues and generally pass with wide majorities.  [Most legislation is like that, its only the highly partisan stuff that tends to make the news.]

It is sort of a shame that something similar does not occur on a state level.  Cleaning up the highway system should be far less controversial and partisan than something like taxes or environmental regulation.  It seems like there is nobody at Caltrans who could basically take on a project of this sort and then make recommendations to the legislature.  Nor does this seem to be the type of issue that would so bother a legislator to make it a pet project to put signs up all over the state.

[Occidental Tourist]

Caltrans could ask the legislature to change I-238 to I-480.

That would require the legislature actually doing something and someone at Caltrans actually pursuing it.  It would be nice if Caltrans and the legislature would get together to clean up some other stuff like highways that will never get built in addition to resolving routes with gaps in them.  I mean, I get it...I'm a government employee myself and I know what apathy tends to come into play when actually petitioning a legislative body for something.  Something like that would never happen unless there was some sort of external push for it to happen.  To that end, all the weird left over scraps in the highway system tend  to be whah interests me the most about it...so is it in the best interest of the road hobby?

More so the concept of D4 spending any real money/funding on signage replacements (retro reflective upgrades to reflective paint signs are lame IMO) is probably a non-starter. 

If someone here had the time, we could write the proposed legislation to clean up the S&H code and send it out to state reps and senators.  I've been thinking about doing that for Historic Route 101 signing here in Orange County.  I could get my local heritage/historical orgs to put it on their letterhead.  I've just been too busy to put together the language of a bill.

If someone were really bold, they could fake a letter to AASHTO from the CTC or the Caltrans District heads and apply for AASHTO approval to clean up some of the interstate designations in California.  Not that I am advocating forging a state agency document . . .

[kkt]

Faking a letter would discredit the whole project.  Must be someone in Caltrans we could talk to about putting the noncontroversial route cleanups before the Legislature.

[Max Rockatansky]

Problem is finding out "who" that person might be.  I kind of thought maybe reaching out to one of the District Directors might be a decent place to start for something like that. 

[vdeane]

Caltrans could ask the legislature to change I-238 to I-480.

That would require the legislature actually doing something and someone at Caltrans actually pursuing it.  It would be nice if Caltrans and the legislature would get together to clean up some other stuff like highways that will never get built in addition to resolving routes with gaps in them.  I mean, I get it...I'm a government employee myself and I know what apathy tends to come into play when actually petitioning a legislative body for something.  Something like that would never happen unless there was some sort of external push for it to happen.  To that end, all the weird left over scraps in the highway system tend  to be whah interests me the most about it...so is it in the best interest of the road hobby?

More so the concept of D4 spending any real money/funding on signage replacements (retro reflective upgrades to reflective paint signs are lame IMO) is probably a non-starter.

I also work as a federal employee in Washington DC in a part of the government that doesn't deal with highways.  I can tell you that our agency often does look around the federal laws and makes recommendations to the appropriate Congressional committees to do some "housekeeping" efforts to make sure the laws on the books still make sense.  Often these are non-controversial issues and generally pass with wide majorities.  [Most legislation is like that, its only the highly partisan stuff that tends to make the news.]

It is sort of a shame that something similar does not occur on a state level.  Cleaning up the highway system should be far less controversial and partisan than something like taxes or environmental regulation.  It seems like there is nobody at Caltrans who could basically take on a project of this sort and then make recommendations to the legislature.  Nor does this seem to be the type of issue that would so bother a legislator to make it a pet project to put signs up all over the state.

Over here in NY, NYSDOT only has a limited number of items per year it can petition the legislature on.  I've heard that all of them get used every year, though I'm not sure what on.

Problem is finding out "who" that person might be.  I kind of thought maybe reaching out to one of the District Directors might be a decent place to start for something like that. 

In NY it's in the Main Office somewhere, probably Legal if I had to guess.  It might be similar for CalTrans.

[ClassicHasClass]

The routes that were slated to be completed as Interstate extensions (210, 15) or as a full state-to-interstate upgrade (905) have basically just been left as the status quo.

It's not quite that bad: CA 15 and CA 905 may be rotting but CA 210 is getting expanded out to three lanes from San Bernardino through Redlands. It should meet Interstate standard after that.

[TheStranger]

The routes that were slated to be completed as Interstate extensions (210, 15) or as a full state-to-interstate upgrade (905) have basically just been left as the status quo.

It's not quite that bad: CA 15 and CA 905 may be rotting but CA 210 is getting expanded out to three lanes from San Bernardino through Redlands. It should meet Interstate standard after that.

I was actually thinking much more in the terms of getting the full red and blue shield designations but that makes sense too.

905 basically has been built entirely to its eastern terminus in Otay right? Is the 125 junction the last step before the road is considered complete?

I recall 15 on the Wabash corridor was only going to be considered fully Interstate standard once the interchange with 94 was rebuilt to remove left exit ramps.

SM-G973U1

[ethanhopkin14]

The routes that were slated to be completed as Interstate extensions (210, 15) or as a full state-to-interstate upgrade (905) have basically just been left as the status quo.

It's not quite that bad: CA 15 and CA 905 may be rotting but CA 210 is getting expanded out to three lanes from San Bernardino through Redlands. It should meet Interstate standard after that.

I was actually thinking much more in the terms of getting the full red and blue shield designations but that makes sense too.

905 basically has been built entirely to its eastern terminus in Otay right? Is the 125 junction the last step before the road is considered complete?

I recall 15 on the Wabash corridor was only going to be considered fully Interstate standard once the interchange with 94 was rebuilt to remove left exit ramps.

SM-G973U1

I think a lot of this comes from the fact that California is one of those states that doesn't differentiate between State Highway, US Highway and Interstate Highway in regards to numbers.  There is no push for them internally to designate SR-210 to I-210.  To them the entire route is Route-210, regardless of what the shield says in the field.   Same goes for 110, 710 and 15.

[andy3175]

The routes that were slated to be completed as Interstate extensions (210, 15) or as a full state-to-interstate upgrade (905) have basically just been left as the status quo.

It's not quite that bad: CA 15 and CA 905 may be rotting but CA 210 is getting expanded out to three lanes from San Bernardino through Redlands. It should meet Interstate standard after that.

I was actually thinking much more in the terms of getting the full red and blue shield designations but that makes sense too.

905 basically has been built entirely to its eastern terminus in Otay right? Is the 125 junction the last step before the road is considered complete?

I recall 15 on the Wabash corridor was only going to be considered fully Interstate standard once the interchange with 94 was rebuilt to remove left exit ramps.

SM-G973U1

Yes, the 125-905-11 interchange is the final improvement to complete the 905 project. There are plans to improve La Media Road as it serves the commercial truck border crossing, and there might be other planned interchange improvements once the adjacent areas develop (Otay Mesa is not fully built out according to the community plan). So I think 905 would meet Interstate standards once the 125-905-11 project is done. I just don't know if District 11 will make application.

As for 15, the interchange with 94 is the remaining non standard segment. 15 is Interstate standard between 805 and 8. In not sure where the 15-94 project status is.  It is tied to a proposed HOV/Busway planned along 94 between 805 and downtown San Diego. So we will have to see what the next steps will be for that project.

I believe 210 will become an Interstate once the 3-lane project is done on the old SR 30 section, but we will see!

SM-G975U

[Bickendan]

What I don't understand is why the interchange with the 94 affects the 15's Interstate eligibility - the left exits are from the 94, not the 15, and neither route has left entrances.

[vdeane]

Or the 125/11/905 interchange, for that matter.  The roadway geometry on 905 isn't affected by whether the rest of the ramps to/from 125 and 11 have been built yet.  FHWA may not like partial interchanges these days, but it's not like they're banned, and that wouldn't have applied back in the days where there wasn't an interchange at all.