News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Changes to the California Highways Web Pages – July 2018 (Mapping Project)

Started by cahwyguy, August 01, 2018, 03:18:01 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

cahwyguy

July was not a normal update: It was phase 1 of the site refresh, also known as the "Mapping Project Phase."  In this phase, maps illustrating each route were added to the pages. Future phases in this project will include:


  • Adding maps to the county highways, and conversion of the county pages away from the "table"  format.
  • Potentially adding some more historical maps for the pre-1964 routes, although Tom Fearer​/​Max Rockatansky/Challenger 66 may be doing this on some of his blogs, and I may just point there.
  • Reworking of the site to have one highway per page, instead of the present eight per page.
  • Adapting the site for responsive design.

Folks, the short description above may not give what was done sufficient weight. Basically, for every numbered state route, a map was added showing where the route currently runs, or where the route did run when it existed. For some of the routes, there are additional maps and insets providing more history and annotation. The Caltrans postmile tool (http://postmile.dot.ca.gov/) was of great help here, as was the archive of state highway maps in the David Rumsey collection (linked here:  https://www.cahighways.org/maps.html). Comments and corrections are welcome, but note the emphasis is not on showing all the historical routings. The primary goal was to give the site user a sense of where the route is or was in relation to the overall state, so that it is more than just a number.

You can see the route pages, with the updated maps, by starting here: https://www.cahighways.org/state.html .
Daniel - California Highway Guy ● Highway Site: http://www.cahighways.org/ ●  Blog: http://blog.cahighways.org/ ● Podcast (CA Route by Route): http://caroutebyroute.org/ ● Follow California Highways on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cahighways


kurumi

That is a lot of hard work and detail. Check out the Route 99 entry (https://www.cahighways.org/097-104.html#099) for an example: more than 30 images and an hour's worth of reading. Very cool.
My first SF/horror short story collection is available: "Young Man, Open Your Winter Eye"

cahwyguy

Thanks. Note that only five maps for Route 99 were new: the ones showing the current segments, and the one showing the old routing S of the Grapevine, in Sacramento, and the Northern segment. The fun part was piecing together all the maps (thank you, Corel Paint Shop Pro) to show 99W and 99E. You want fun, look at what I did for both 395 and 480, two of my later efforts.

P.S.: Did you notice the Palm and the Pine on the Route 99 map in the  first segment.
Daniel - California Highway Guy ● Highway Site: http://www.cahighways.org/ ●  Blog: http://blog.cahighways.org/ ● Podcast (CA Route by Route): http://caroutebyroute.org/ ● Follow California Highways on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cahighways

Max Rockatansky

I thought the maps were a great addition and really illustrated where the highways are geographically.  We were talking back and forth early in the mapping process, that was a massive effort to get all those online.

TheStranger

Thanks for all the hard work into this!  I've been browsing the site for...wow...two decades and this really gives me a better sense of each route (as well as making me want to roadtrip to far off parts of the state) for sure.
Chris Sampang

Max Rockatansky

I had a thought about the maps, what about something for the Signed County Routes?   Got to thinking about it because I'll be working on a blog post for J41 today. 

cahwyguy

If you read the post, that's in the future plans. Converting the county route perl script to not use tables needs to come first. The issue with county routes is that I'll need to find and trace them by hand -- there's nothing like the postmile tool for that. I'll probably take a month off before starting that -- call it "wife recovery time". :-)
Daniel - California Highway Guy ● Highway Site: http://www.cahighways.org/ ●  Blog: http://blog.cahighways.org/ ● Podcast (CA Route by Route): http://caroutebyroute.org/ ● Follow California Highways on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cahighways

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: cahwyguy on August 02, 2018, 01:38:48 PM
If you read the post, that's in the future plans. Converting the county route perl script to not use tables needs to come first. The issue with county routes is that I'll need to find and trace them by hand -- there's nothing like the postmile tool for that. I'll probably take a month off before starting that -- call it "wife recovery time". :-)

Yeah missed that in the first post.  I can probably help out a little with the Signed County Routes.  Granted the postmile tool won't be any use but I'm pretty familiar with the J and G band from all the stuff I've already written up. 

Also, I was thinking of working up a list of Signed County Routes that actually still Signed.  Some in the G band have fallen off but for some reason almost all the J routes are unsigned in Tulare County. 

cahwyguy

Just noting that I updated a few of the first maps I did on this project: Route 1, Route 2 Seg 4, Route 3 Seg 1, Route 4, Route 5, Route 8, and Route 10. If there are others in the early bunch (I'd say, below 60ish or so), let me know and I can look and see if they need improvement. I learned and improved the style as I went along.
Daniel - California Highway Guy ● Highway Site: http://www.cahighways.org/ ●  Blog: http://blog.cahighways.org/ ● Podcast (CA Route by Route): http://caroutebyroute.org/ ● Follow California Highways on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cahighways

TheStranger

Great work!  I love the comparison between the modern Interstate routings and the older US routings that they supplanted (i.e. 5 vs. 99E)

A few minor things I noticed:

- I-5: If I recall correctly, I-5W never incorporated what is now 205 and 120 (I want to say I-205 was proposed as a connector between 5W and 5E originally, which makes me wonder if the 120 Manteca bypass was originally to have been part of 205 in early planning), but rather today's 580 southeastern segment and 132 (including the 2018-era planned 132 expressway in Modesto).

- Route 9: IIRC on the historic 9 map, today's I-680 between 238 and 262 is marked as part of the route; I think it actually went up along Mission Boulevard

- Route 238: I wonder if the late-1960s state highway maps showed the portion of former Route 17 between Route 262 and US 101 that was at one point signed as 238.  (which relates back to the creation of 262 after 680 was switched over to the modern freeway routing from Fremont to San Jose that was 1964-1965 Route 17)

- Route 251: the map for segment 2 mistakenly marks the unbuilt segment of 37 as part of 251

Chris Sampang

cahwyguy

Quote from: TheStranger on August 12, 2018, 03:30:36 AM
- I-5: If I recall correctly, I-5W never incorporated what is now 205 and 120 (I want to say I-205 was proposed as a connector between 5W and 5E originally, which makes me wonder if the 120 Manteca bypass was originally to have been part of 205 in early planning), but rather today's 580 southeastern segment and 132 (including the 2018-era planned 132 expressway in Modesto).

According to what I had as written text in my entry on I-5W, it was along 120 and 205. 205 (or its predecessor surface routing) would make a lot of sense; that's former US 50/US 48 routing, and the 580 routing to I-5 didn't exist. Similarly (and remember, we're talking the period when I-5 was signed on Route 99), 120 makes more sense as it is closer to where 205 is in the area; 132 is a bit out of the way.

Supporting what I have is the AAroads page on I-505 (see https://www.interstate-guide.com/i-505_ca.html ). There, the 1963 map shows I-5W running along what is now I-205 and Route 120; Route 132 is not shown as signed I-5W.

Supporting your position is a discussion on I-5W on this forum in 2016 ( https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18341.msg2165427#msg2165427 ), where Sparker says:

QuotePrior to 1958 there was a connector from US 99 in Modesto to Oakland via SSR 132, a new-terrain route extending 132 northwest from its terminus at SSR 33 to Altamont Pass, and thence west along US 50 to the east end of the Bay Bridge.  The original number proposed for that route was I-72, but complaints began rolling in from Bay Area political figures that such a designation didn't place the region on the Interstate north-south grid.

I haven't been able to find a map, however, to support that. My notes posted earlier in that discussion, quoting from the Caltrans "Interstate Highways in California" had:

I-5804     I-80 to I-5, Oakland to Modesto
Quote(Oakland adjustment, MacArthur Freeway, Sept. 1995)
(Tracy adjustment, November 1957)

14-Aug-1957    I-5W Tentatively Approved
08-Nov-1957    Proposed as I-72
07-Aug-1958    Proposed as I-5W
10-Nov-1958    Approved as I-5W
01-Jul-1964    Renumbered as I-580

4 Originally, these routes were numbered as I-5W. In the map that accompanied the November 1957 letter proposing I-76, I-505 is shown proposed as I-7, and I-580 is shown as I-72.

The interesting part here is that "Tracy Adjustment" -- I'm wondering if I-580 (nee I-5W/I-72) originally ran along the I-205/US 50 routing, and the "Tracy Adjustment" moved it to the current routing.

So I think we need to find a map or other evidence supporting a routing along the I-580 near Vernalis to Route 132 to Modesto routing; the map we have, and the history of  US 50, appears to support the I-205/Route 120 routing.

As more evidence comes up, I'll fix the map. I'll edit the page text, however, to note the controversy.

Quote from: TheStranger on August 12, 2018, 03:30:36 AM
- Route 9: IIRC on the historic 9 map, today's I-680 between 238 and 262 is marked as part of the route; I think it actually went up along Mission Boulevard

Look closely at what I've got. It is slightly off of the 680 routing; I believe I drew it roughly along mission blvd. I may, at some point, add some more detailed maps on the pre-1964 routings, but for now the intent is to give readers the notion that Route 9 was once much more than it is now.

Quote from: TheStranger on August 12, 2018, 03:30:36 AM
- Route 238: I wonder if the late-1960s state highway maps showed the portion of former Route 17 between Route 262 and US 101 that was at one point signed as 238.  (which relates back to the creation of 262 after 680 was switched over to the modern freeway routing from Fremont to San Jose that was 1964-1965 Route 17)

Looking at the definition of 238, my notes show:

In 1963, Route 238 was defined as "Route 680 near Warm Springs to Route 61 near San Lorenzo via Hayward."
In 1965, Chapter 1371 changed the origin to "Route 680 near Warm Springs in Fremont to ..."

So (a) it looks like 238 was never defined to start at Route 17 or US 101, and (b) if it is was going to show on any map, it would be either 1964 or 1965, as the definition was changed to the current 680 in 1965 (thus showing on the 1966 map). Looking at the 1964 map ( https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239525~5511850:State-Highway-Map,-California,-1964?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=27&trs=86 ), 238 seems to start near Warm Springs, which is the current 680. However, it does appear on the 1965 map: https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239522~5511848?qvq=q%3Acaltrans%3Bsort%3APub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No%3Blc%3ARUMSEY~8~1&mi=25&trs=86 . So I'll add that as an inset on my 238 routing and add some text to the notes.

However, I never have seen a definition of 238 extending further from 680 to 101. It certainly didn't show on the 1964 or 1965 maps; perhaps you're confusing it with 237. The 1963 maps shows that segment signed as Route 9.

Quote from: TheStranger on August 12, 2018, 03:30:36 AM
- Route 251: the map for segment 2 mistakenly marks the unbuilt segment of 37 as part of 251

Thanks for catching that. Fixed and uploaded.
Daniel - California Highway Guy ● Highway Site: http://www.cahighways.org/ ●  Blog: http://blog.cahighways.org/ ● Podcast (CA Route by Route): http://caroutebyroute.org/ ● Follow California Highways on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cahighways

TheStranger

The 580/205/132/120 discussion actually interests me because of how much of it does exist, plus the fact the 132/99 split was graded for in the 1960s but is only finally seeing the light of day as a constructed road in the next 2-3 years.  (Note that the "Interstate Highways in California" thing you quoted mentioned 580 as "Oakland to Modesto" rather than Manteca)

238, I saw this interesting little blurb on the Route 61 page:
https://www.cahighways.org/maps/061-seg1.jpg

The 1969 map linked above shows 238 along former 9 between today's 238/680 and 238/680 junctions (which seems to fit the 1963 definition of the route rather than the 1965-present one)  The inset of the 1965 state highway map you posted for Route 87 actually DOES show a 238 shield on Oakland Road in San Jose along old 17:
https://www.cahighways.org/maps/087-seg1.jpg

I think Sparker posted in a previous thread that 238 was indeed signed along old 17 (Oakland Road et al.) south of Warm Springs in the 1960s.  I'd have to look for that though. 

As that surface street appears to have been legislatively Route 17 until 1965, the former 238 from Warm Springs to San Jose might be one of several in-the-field designations after 1964 that do not at all reflect the defined route, the others being 164/19, 260/61, 112/61 at one point, 77/185 until recently, 194/15E in the 1970s, and 242/24.  (51/Business 80 is a special case)
Chris Sampang

kurumi

Regarding CA 238 signing: in the book Milpitas (Images of America: California) there's a photo on Main Street (Milpitas) of the signed intersection of CA 237 and 238. I believe it's at today's Serra Way. I don't own the book so I don't have a scan.
My first SF/horror short story collection is available: "Young Man, Open Your Winter Eye"

TheStranger

Following up on the 238 deal:  I looked closely at the inset in the 1965 California state map for the Bay Area, which most clearly shows 238 as the sign route along Oakland Road:

https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239522~5511848:State-Highway-Map,-California,-1965

Some interesting details from that:
fremont and san jose by Chris Sampang, on Flickr

- 17 is now shown as the legislative route (instead of 280) for the segment of today's 880 between 280 and 101, which would be the case until 1984.  However, 680's southern terminus after being rerouted to today's Alum Rock/east San Jose corridor is marked not at 101, but at the 280/880/17 junction, with modern 280 from 880 to 101 being shown as part of 680 at the time.

- 680 is the legislative route for both the Alum Rock/Fremont segment of the modern freeway and the old Route 17/signed route 238 along Oakland Road!

- A closeup of Fremont makes it clear for the first time how the 17/680 switchover that was proposed before 1965 would have been handled.  The existing portion of today's Route 262 that is freeway (west of old 17) was the only portion ever originally planned as controlled-access; from there, a new freeway connector was slated to continue north from the modern intersection of Warm Springs Boulevard and Mission Boulevard to 680.  (Then north of there was the 680/238 split that was graded but never finished)

(What I'm not sure about: was that unbuilt Warm Springs freeway connector supposed to be 238 or 262?  It does correspond with the pre-1965 680)

- Not sure if Route 92 was ever signed along 3rd Avenue and Crystal Springs Road in San Mateo but it does suggest this was under state maintenance before the modern 92 freeway was finished.
92 san mateo by Chris Sampang, on Flickr
Chris Sampang

cahwyguy

OK. I've gone through all of this, and I believe I've corrected the map on Route 238 and the accompanying text, showing that Route 238 was signed S of Mission San Jose to US 101 prior to the completion of the I-680 freeway between those two points. I've uploaded the corrections; let me know if they are better.

As for I-5W: I'll keep looking to see if I can find anything to corroborate the routing via Vernalis and Route 132 vs. the 205/120 routing. It could very well be that both are correct. One was before the completion of 580 to Vernalis. If anyone has any map scans, they would be appreciated. I'll see if I have anything from that era of the bay area.
Daniel - California Highway Guy ● Highway Site: http://www.cahighways.org/ ●  Blog: http://blog.cahighways.org/ ● Podcast (CA Route by Route): http://caroutebyroute.org/ ● Follow California Highways on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cahighways

cahwyguy

On I-5 W, the answer may be .... both

Here's a link to the 1947 Interstate Map, showing I-5W: https://www.cambooth.net/project-1947-interstate-highways/

Here's a link to the 1957 and 1958 maps, again, showing I-5W: http://www.roadfan.com/5758int.html

Note that both 1947 and 1957 show I-5 going from Oakland to Modesto, which would imply (given that I-580 to Vernalis was not constructed), that the routing was likely US 50 (I-580, I-205) to Tracy, Route 33 to Route 132, and Route 132 to Modesto. That fits with the straight line shown.

1958 shows the route going to I-5 near Tracy. That would fit with I-205, but no use of Route 120 to Manteca or Route 132 to Modesto.

If that makes sense, I can figure out how to update my maps and text. It would still be great to find some additional more detailed maps to confirm. It would also possibly make the map on the I-505 entry on AAroads suspect.

Daniel



Daniel - California Highway Guy ● Highway Site: http://www.cahighways.org/ ●  Blog: http://blog.cahighways.org/ ● Podcast (CA Route by Route): http://caroutebyroute.org/ ● Follow California Highways on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cahighways



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.