CA 15 not around anymore?

[Roadgeekteen]

Google maps has CA 15 as I-15.

[oscar]

Google maps has CA 15 as I-15.

Google Maps is often wrong on route numbers. This seems to be one of those cases.

Aside from Caltrans being generally slow to Interstate-ize its freeways (like CA 210 and CA 905), parts of route 15 south of I-8 need work to bring them up to Interstate standards.

[Max Rockatansky]

Google Maps also thinks CA 122 and CA 179 exist on more than paper.  CA 15 is very much still a thing:

https://flic.kr/p/2emTzev

[Occidental Tourist]

So now is apparently CA 110 south of the Santa Monica Freeway.  But only in the collector lanes.

[Roadgeekteen]

Google maps has CA 15 as I-15.

Google Maps is often wrong on route numbers. This seems to be one of those cases.

Aside from Caltrans being generally slow to Interstate-ize its freeways (like CA 210 and CA 905), parts of route 15 south of I-8 need work to bring them up to Interstate standards.

Haven't some of these been around for decades?

[Max Rockatansky]

Google maps has CA 15 as I-15.

Google Maps is often wrong on route numbers. This seems to be one of those cases.

Aside from Caltrans being generally slow to Interstate-ize its freeways (like CA 210 and CA 905), parts of route 15 south of I-8 need work to bring them up to Interstate standards.

Haven't some of these been around for decades?

Yes, in the context of CA 210 it is up to Interstate standards to I-215 but not to I-10.  Either way what was once accepted and Grand Fathered out East as Interstates is a far cry (better mostly) from all the freeways in this discussion. 

[skluth]

Google maps has CA 15 as I-15.

Google Maps is often wrong on route numbers. This seems to be one of those cases.

Aside from Caltrans being generally slow to Interstate-ize its freeways (like CA 210 and CA 905), parts of route 15 south of I-8 need work to bring them up to Interstate standards.

Haven't some of these been around for decades?

Yes, in the context of CA 210 it is up to Interstate standards to I-215 but not to I-10.  Either way what was once accepted and Grand Fathered out East as Interstates is a far cry (better mostly) from all the freeways in this discussion.

Having lived in either Wisconsin, St Louis, or Tidewater my entire life until two years ago, I will respectfully disagree the grandfathered Eastern US interstates are better. Many of them were upgraded to interstate standards but were not originally built to those standards. US 40 became I-64 around the time I moved to St Louis in the late 80's; many parts were not close to standard and occasionally quite dangerous until the massive rebuild around 2001. US 40/I-68 in Western Maryland is another example. It was originally the Cumberland Thruway and the section through its namesake is scenic only if you're a passenger; driving it in heavy traffic can be intense though it's better than it was when built. Most rural freeways at least have the right-of-way to be rebuilt to the new standard and usually are upgraded when rebuilt. Most were quite good to start and close to whatever the interstate standard was at the time of original construction; examples include WI-15/I-43, Illinois' East-West/Ronald Reagan Tollway/I-88, and I-69 in Kentucky.

[bing101]

So now is apparently CA 110 south of the Santa Monica Freeway.  But only in the collector lanes.

recent Typos??

[don1991]

So now is apparently CA 110 south of the Santa Monica Freeway.  But only in the collector lanes.

The standards at Caltrans have gone down.  Especially on signage.  They basically did things the wrong way around on signs at the 110 / 10 interchange.  The CA-110 should show on NB signs while I-110 should appear on signs going south of I-10.  There are also errors at the 101 / 110 interchange as well, with signs showing I-110 SB and CA-110 NB, even though the interstate status of 110 ends at I-10.  Perhaps they did this to make it easier for trucks, making it clear that trucks were allowed as far north on the 110 as US-101.  Still, incorrect is incorrect.

[don1991]

Google maps has CA 15 as I-15.

Google Maps is often wrong on route numbers. This seems to be one of those cases.

Aside from Caltrans being generally slow to Interstate-ize its freeways (like CA 210 and CA 905), parts of route 15 south of I-8 need work to bring them up to Interstate standards.

Haven't some of these been around for decades?

Yes, in the context of CA 210 it is up to Interstate standards to I-215 but not to I-10.  Either way what was once accepted and Grand Fathered out East as Interstates is a far cry (better mostly) from all the freeways in this discussion.

Where would you say that CA-210 is not up to interstate standards on the old Crosstown Freeway portion (I-215 to I-10)?  Perhaps the shoulder widths aren't perfect but they really aren't on most urban freeways in Southern California.   In any case, we'll see if the widening that is now underway from Highland to I-10 (4 to 6 lanes) improves standards on that stretch.

In any case, I believe that Caltrans simply has no interest in applying for the interstate shield anymore.  Same with CA-15 and CA-905.  CA-15 maybe still has to deal with the lefthand exits at CA-94 but they even removed an interchange many years ago on CA-15 portion to further improve that stretch to interstate standards.  True, the southern portion of CA-15 (south of CA-94) will probably always be 4 lanes wide but that should not preclude it from Interstate status down to I-5.

[don1991]

Google maps has CA 15 as I-15.

Google Maps is often wrong on route numbers. This seems to be one of those cases.

Aside from Caltrans being generally slow to Interstate-ize its freeways (like CA 210 and CA 905), parts of route 15 south of I-8 need work to bring them up to Interstate standards.

Sometimes you get some geekery by Google too.  For example, showing parts of Rosemead Blvd. as CA-164 (which is technically true) even though that portion of the route is signed as CA-19.

[Max Rockatansky]

CA 15 is indeed around still.  Finally up on the publishing rotation for Gribblenation:

California State Route 15 is an approximately 6.13-mile portion of the Archie Moore Memorial Freeway and Escondido Freeway in the city of San Diego.  California State Route 15 beings at Interstate 5 and ends at Interstate 8.  California State Route 15 functionally acts as an extension of Interstate 15 south of Interstate 8 to Interstate 5.  California State Route 15 exists due to the Archie Moore Memorial Freeway south of Interstate 805 not fully meeting Interstate standards.  California State Route 15 was created during 1969 as a renumbering of the original California State Route 103.  During 1984 California State Route 15 was approved by the Federal Highway Administration to become a non-chargeable part of Interstate 15 once it meets Interstate design standards. 

https://www.gribblenation.org/2023/09/california-state-route-15.html?m=1

[brad2971]

Google maps has CA 15 as I-15.

Google Maps is often wrong on route numbers. This seems to be one of those cases.

Aside from Caltrans being generally slow to Interstate-ize its freeways (like CA 210 and CA 905), parts of route 15 south of I-8 need work to bring them up to Interstate standards.

Haven't some of these been around for decades?

Yes, in the context of CA 210 it is up to Interstate standards to I-215 but not to I-10.  Either way what was once accepted and Grand Fathered out East as Interstates is a far cry (better mostly) from all the freeways in this discussion. 

With the completion of this project: https://www.gosbcta.com/project/sr-210-lane-addition-base-line-interchange/ CA 210 is now (very likely) at interstate standards. Or at least good enough for government work.

[Max Rockatansky]

The amusing thing is that I-710 is signed on Terminal Island despite the actual FHWA definition ending at Ocean Boulevard in Long Beach.  To me that speaks to pretty much everyone involved (Caltrans, FHWA and AASHTO) being apathetic to what is actually signed as Interstate or state route anymore.  The oddities like CA 15, counterfeit I-710 and CA 210 are interesting at least.

[pderocco]

I think a good argument for signing some of these roads as interstates, especially 15 and 210, is that some people can be confused if they've been driving along on, say, I-210 eastbound, and all of a sudden they're not seeing red, white and blue signage any more, so they wonder if they're on the wrong road.

Also, when you give directions, you kind of feel obligated to say that the road will switch between an interstate and a state highway at some point, which just makes the directions more complicated.

[Quillz]

I've never had an issue just telling people the number. "Stay on 15" or "stay on 210." Even if the shield design changes, the number doesn't.

[cahwyguy]

I think a good argument for signing some of these roads as interstates, especially 15 and 210, is that some people can be confused if they've been driving along on, say, I-210 eastbound, and all of a sudden they're not seeing red, white and blue signage any more, so they wonder if they're on the wrong road.

They are driving on a single road. They haven't made any turns. It's no more confusing then if you are driving along US 101 and it turns into Route 170, or vice versa. Further, if one is navigating with Google Maps giving directions (as most people -- other than those on this forum -- do), it will say "Continue onto California 210" or something like that.

We keep thinking there will be confusion, but for much of the world, they don't care (except for us, and the silly folks posting questions on quora). They just do what their NavApps tell them to do.

We Roadgeeks notice the difference. Some uf us get more up in arms about numbering and shield consistency than others.

Also, when you give directions, you kind of feel obligated to say that the road will switch between an interstate and a state highway at some point, which just makes the directions more complicated.

I never feel obligated to say that, because (being from SoCal), I just say "Take the 210" or "Take the 15" or "Take the 710". We really don't identify that nature of the shield, just the number. I think noting the nature of the shield is an East Coast thing.

I think the Interstate shield means something to the trucking community, where that shield should provide some guaranteee of minimum bridge heights, curve radii, grades, etc. It might signify something similar for general drivers. This is why the numbering-oddity I-238 exists: to show truckers (at the time it was numbered) that I-238 was an acceptable truck route, so that they didn't take I-580 through Oakland, which couldn't handle trucks. But again, in these days, with NavApps, that's less critical. Truckers have specialized trucking NavApps that direct them along the right routes.

It's really not the problem some of us think it is.

[The Ghostbuster]

I think the CA 15 designation should have become Interstate 15 when the "missing link" Wabash Blvd./40th St. Freeway was completed in 2000. Does the neighborhood the 40th St. Freeway passes through still have crime, drugs and prostitution problems like it did before the freeway was constructed?

[Quillz]

Crime, drugs, and prostitution doesn't magically disappear when a freeway gets built, so I'm going to say yes.

[JustDrive]

Having the I-15 designation end at I-805 instead wouldn't have been a bad idea, come to think of it.

[vdeane]

I think the Interstate shield means something to the trucking community, where that shield should provide some guaranteee of minimum bridge heights, curve radii, grades, etc. It might signify something similar for general drivers. This is why the numbering-oddity I-238 exists: to show truckers (at the time it was numbered) that I-238 was an acceptable truck route, so that they didn't take I-580 through Oakland, which couldn't handle trucks. But again, in these days, with NavApps, that's less critical. Truckers have specialized trucking NavApps that direct them along the right routes.

If they wanted to do that, then perhaps it would have been better for I-580 to follow I-238 and the remainder of I-580 to instead be CA 238 (or some other state route number).

[cahwyguy]

I think the Interstate shield means something to the trucking community, where that shield should provide some guaranteee of minimum bridge heights, curve radii, grades, etc. It might signify something similar for general drivers. This is why the numbering-oddity I-238 exists: to show truckers (at the time it was numbered) that I-238 was an acceptable truck route, so that they didn't take I-580 through Oakland, which couldn't handle trucks. But again, in these days, with NavApps, that's less critical. Truckers have specialized trucking NavApps that direct them along the right routes.

If they wanted to do that, then perhaps it would have been better for I-580 to follow I-238 and the remainder of I-580 to instead be CA 238 (or some other state route number).

Sigh.

See https://www.cahighways.org/itypes-history.html . I-580 is chargeable insterstate, assigned by AASHTO way back in 1945 (it replaced what would have been I-5W). It was later extended from a terminus with I-80 in Oakland across the bay to end at US 101.

I-238, although once submitted to be chargeable, is non-chargeable interstate approved in May 1983.

If one was somehow to do what you propose, you now have this long duplex of I-580 and I-880 (which is also non-chargeable interstate, approved with I-238) to I-80. That wouldn't fly too well because of the funding rules.

In short: I-238 is a case of "get over it". It's a numbering oddity, and won't be fixed.

[vdeane]

I think the Interstate shield means something to the trucking community, where that shield should provide some guaranteee of minimum bridge heights, curve radii, grades, etc. It might signify something similar for general drivers. This is why the numbering-oddity I-238 exists: to show truckers (at the time it was numbered) that I-238 was an acceptable truck route, so that they didn't take I-580 through Oakland, which couldn't handle trucks. But again, in these days, with NavApps, that's less critical. Truckers have specialized trucking NavApps that direct them along the right routes.

If they wanted to do that, then perhaps it would have been better for I-580 to follow I-238 and the remainder of I-580 to instead be CA 238 (or some other state route number).

Sigh.

See https://www.cahighways.org/itypes-history.html . I-580 is chargeable insterstate, assigned by AASHTO way back in 1945 (it replaced what would have been I-5W). It was later extended from a terminus with I-80 in Oakland across the bay to end at US 101.

I-238, although once submitted to be chargeable, is non-chargeable interstate approved in May 1983.

If one was somehow to do what you propose, you now have this long duplex of I-580 and I-880 (which is also non-chargeable interstate, approved with I-238) to I-80. That wouldn't fly too well because of the funding rules.

In short: I-238 is a case of "get over it". It's a numbering oddity, and won't be fixed.

But why should it even be allowed to be an interstate if trucks are prohibited?

I supposed you could avoid an overlap between I-580 and I-880 with what I proposed by truncating I-880.

Incidentally, I forgot to comment on the NavApps earlier.  What happens in NY is that trucks just use regular car GPS systems and end up hitting bridges on routes they never should be on.  It's to the point where NYSDOT has indefinitely closed a ramp on I-81 to deter trucks from taking Onondaga Lake Parkway (NY 370).

[Rothman]

I think the Interstate shield means something to the trucking community, where that shield should provide some guaranteee of minimum bridge heights, curve radii, grades, etc. It might signify something similar for general drivers. This is why the numbering-oddity I-238 exists: to show truckers (at the time it was numbered) that I-238 was an acceptable truck route, so that they didn't take I-580 through Oakland, which couldn't handle trucks. But again, in these days, with NavApps, that's less critical. Truckers have specialized trucking NavApps that direct them along the right routes.

If they wanted to do that, then perhaps it would have been better for I-580 to follow I-238 and the remainder of I-580 to instead be CA 238 (or some other state route number).

Sigh.

See https://www.cahighways.org/itypes-history.html . I-580 is chargeable insterstate, assigned by AASHTO way back in 1945 (it replaced what would have been I-5W). It was later extended from a terminus with I-80 in Oakland across the bay to end at US 101.

I-238, although once submitted to be chargeable, is non-chargeable interstate approved in May 1983.

If one was somehow to do what you propose, you now have this long duplex of I-580 and I-880 (which is also non-chargeable interstate, approved with I-238) to I-80. That wouldn't fly too well because of the funding rules.

In short: I-238 is a case of "get over it". It's a numbering oddity, and won't be fixed.

*reads link*

"Interstate Completion funds"?  What century are we in?

NYC has a similar issue with what roads are signed as Interstates and funding eligibility.  Frankly, I think the issue was simply bad legislation writing by Congress when they referred to the wrong legislative act when determining eligibility for the long-defunct Interstate Maintenance funding, having read the Acts that screwed up the multiple definitions of the IHS myself.

Still, that now makes me wonder about NHPP funds and the 90% eligibility for Interstate projects.  Wonder if anything changed for them in the City down yonder...or the Bay Area, for that matter.

[Henry]

As much as we would love to see CA 15 become I-15, Caltrans really dropped the ball on this one. It's also why we don't have I-905 or an I-210 extension.