As has been pointed out here before, CA 57 from I-10 to I-210/CA 210 is a part of the interstate highway system, federally defined as Interstate 210. If CA 210 becomes part of the system and I-210 is routed onto it, that leaves a segment of the system without a definition. Thankfully we have a handful of usable options: I-410, I-610 and I-810. However even if California is required to redefine unsigned I-210 after the move, they'll probably continue to sign it as CA 57 and the San Garbriel Valley ends up with its own I-305.
Why did you only list even numbers for the first digit of the 3di options? It could be argued that the segment in question would operate more as a spur than a bypass and thus would have an odd first digit.
A change of CA-57 to I-510 would be an option, given the historical changes of CA-7 to I-710 and CA-11 to I-110.
However, as you noted, it would likely just be signed as CA-57 even though it defined as an interstate.
I would assume CA-57 would get an even number designation since its South end merges into I-5 (and the North end is at I-210). I would probably use "I-810" as the designation to avoid any possible confusion between I-410/I-610 designations and existing I-405/I-605.
Personally I think 57 is fine. It's been that way long enough that people are used to it being the signed route number. There too much satuaration with 3d Interstate numbers to begin with already in Southern California, we really don't need another. I'm not saying drop it from the Interstate system, I just prefer it stay signed as is.
Is there a useful purpose to Interstate signage or designation for the freeway connector between I-10/CA 57 and I-/CA 210? AIUI, Caltrans' initial (and no longer pending) proposal to Interstate-ize CA 210 called for simply moving the I-210 designation to CA 210, without any new Interstate designation or number for the former I-210 segment. I agree with Max that it would be simpler to just sign that segment as CA 57, and leave it at that.
I highly doubt the Interstate 210-turned-CA 57 route will be returned to the Interstate system. The freeway's existing CA 57 designation is the correct one, IMHO.
It's still part of the IHS, dude.
I would have thought that segment would have been removed from the Interstate system upon being redesignated CA-57. In any event, that segment does not need a new Interstate designation.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 22, 2016, 04:36:40 PM
I would have thought that segment would have been removed from the Interstate system upon being redesignated CA-57. In any event, that segment does not need a new Interstate designation.
I would be under the same assumption - depends on the Federal funding split for existing I-210 along CA 57 vs. proposed I-210 along CA 210. If the funding split would be the same, then I imagine a pure designation swap is in order. If CA 57 is funded at a higher rate, let's just pretend it's 90% instead of 50%, then I would imagine 57 stays on the system.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 21, 2016, 06:32:39 PM
I highly doubt the Interstate 210-turned-CA 57 route will be returned to the Interstate system. The freeway's existing CA 57 designation is the correct one, IMHO.
Quote from: NE2 on December 21, 2016, 06:45:26 PM
It's still part of the IHS, dude.
Quote from: Alps on December 22, 2016, 07:10:53 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 22, 2016, 04:36:40 PM
I would have thought that segment would have been removed from the Interstate system upon being redesignated CA-57. In any event, that segment does not need a new Interstate designation.
I would be under the same assumption - depends on the Federal funding split for existing I-210 along CA 57 vs. proposed I-210 along CA 210. If the funding split would be the same, then I imagine a pure designation swap is in order. If CA 57 is funded at a higher rate, let's just pretend it's 90% instead of 50%, then I would imagine 57 stays on the system.
The solution, if it is ever decided to extend I-210 out to Redlands over now CA 210, is quite simple: just re-designate (legislatively if necessary) the chargeable portion of the original I-210 that is now signed as CA 57 as a completely new (to CA, at least) 10-family 3di (410, 810, etc.)-- but, as with I-595 in MD or I-296 in MI,
don't sign it as such, leave it as CA 57.
Quote from: sparker on December 22, 2016, 07:42:27 PM
The solution, if it is ever decided to extend I-210 out to Redlands over now CA 210, is quite simple: just re-designate (legislatively if necessary) the chargeable portion of the original I-210 that is now signed as CA 57 as a completely new (to CA, at least) 10-family 3di (410, 810, etc.)-- but, as with I-595 in MD or I-296 in MI, don't sign it as such, leave it as CA 57.
Hence why I cited I-305 in my original post. California signs it as US 50/Business I-80, that freeway of which is its own anomaly in Caltrans signage.
Knowing CA, they would probably designate it as a second I-57. Hey, if it works for I-74, I-87, and I-238...
Quote from: vdeane on December 22, 2016, 08:35:30 PM
Knowing CA, they would probably designate it as a second I-57. Hey, if it works for I-74, I-87, and I-238...
Actually you're probably right given the legislative history with 238 and now 57:
http://www.cahighways.org/057-064.html
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 22, 2016, 08:43:30 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 22, 2016, 08:35:30 PM
Knowing CA, they would probably designate it as a second I-57. Hey, if it works for I-74, I-87, and I-238...
Actually you're probably right given the legislative history with 238 and now 57:
http://www.cahighways.org/057-064.html
Please -- don't give Caltrans any stupid ideas; maybe they'll actually do something logical on their own (uhh...who am I kidding?).
I-238 was just a matter of bad timing; they commissioned that thing, along with the 2nd iteration of I-880, a few years before Mother Nature took care of the "480" designation on her own, which would have freed up the number for re-use. And, as the "210" situation has demonstrated, Caltrans is in no hurry to designate any more Interstates; satisfying the Interstate chargeability issue would be the sole rationale for doing so in this instance.
Quote from: sparker on December 23, 2016, 01:14:40 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 22, 2016, 08:43:30 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 22, 2016, 08:35:30 PM
Knowing CA, they would probably designate it as a second I-57. Hey, if it works for I-74, I-87, and I-238...
Actually you're probably right given the legislative history with 238 and now 57:
http://www.cahighways.org/057-064.html
Please -- don't give Caltrans any stupid ideas; maybe they'll actually do something logical on their own (uhh...who am I kidding?).
I-238 was just a matter of bad timing; they commissioned that thing, along with the 2nd iteration of I-880, a few years before Mother Nature took care of the "480" designation on her own, which would have freed up the number for re-use. And, as the "210" situation has demonstrated, Caltrans is in no hurry to designate any more Interstates; satisfying the Interstate chargeability issue would be the sole rationale for doing so in this instance.
An extension of Interstate 15 and creation of Interstate 905 are not on the front burner. But improvements to SR 15 and SR 905 are (including revision of the SR15-94 interchange and SR905-125-11 interchange). Creating new Interstates does not appear to be of interest to Caltrans. Making roadway improvements is. I've spoken with the district director previously, and during that brief conversation, it was clear to me adding Interstate shields (despite I-15 and I-905 already approved by AASHTO in the 1980s) is not something District XI appears to be actively pursuing. Having said that, sporadic signage has appeared in the past decade for I-15, including one sign for I-15 on southbound I-5, a freeway entrance shield assembly off of University Avenue, a trailblazer near the intersection of Adams and 40th Street, and a reassurance route marker on northbound SR 15 past the I-805 interchange.
Having said that, both I-15 and I-905, along with SR 210 becoming I-210, are logical additions to the Interstate system. And SR 57 between I-10 and I-210 is already part of the Interstate system unless an action is taken to AASHTO and FHWA to decommission it. For the time being, SR 57 between I-10 and SR 210 is I-210 until action is taken to either remove SR 57 from the Interstate Highway System or renumber that leftover segment of I-210 to something else. I think that I-210 may still come to pass depending on whether SANBAG takes an interest in having a third interstate serve San Bernardino. With the recent improvements at the 210-215 interchange, I am not sure what other improvements are necessary to bring all of SR 210 up to Interstate standards. Finally, it is worth noting that there is a lone I-210 sign on westbound I-10 in Redlands (eastern terminus).
If all of SR 57 is to be added to the Interstate Highway System, I have always thought I-510 would be a great number since it connects I-5 and I-10 (and it has the potential, albeit very slight, to extend further south based on the legislative definition of SR 57 - as described on the terminated franchise agreement on http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/paffairs/about/toll/rt57.htm). Together with I-210, SR 57 is a potentially good alternative route to bypass downtown Los Angeles (other options include 605 and 405), so it may fit a role as an Interstate better than other LA-area freeways.
As for SR 58 ... let's get that segment upgraded to expressway first (such as Hinckley and Kramer) and see completion of the Centennial Corridor linking SR 99 to the Westside Parkway. Bringing that corridor to Interstate standards is appropriate due to the heavy truck traffic, and I believe that remains the goal of the local Caltrans district. Once we have a full freeway (probably in several decades), then an extension request for I-40 might be in order. I don't think exit numbers will be a big deal because the movement of SR 58 onto the Westside Parkway will alter the exit numbers anyway (or there will be a milepost equation somewhere since it appears the new route will contain fewer miles than the old). So we'll see what happens.
Quote from: andy3175 on December 23, 2016, 12:28:03 PM
If all of SR 57 is to be added to the Interstate Highway System, I have always thought I-510 would be a great number since it connects I-5 and I-10 (and it has the potential, albeit very slight, to extend further south based on the legislative definition of SR 57 - as described on the terminated franchise agreement on http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/paffairs/about/toll/rt57.htm). Together with I-210, SR 57 is a potentially good alternative route to bypass downtown Los Angeles (other options include 605 and 405), so it may fit a role as an Interstate better than other LA-area freeways.
As for SR 58 ... let's get that segment upgraded to expressway first (such as Hinckley and Kramer) and see completion of the Centennial Corridor linking SR 99 to the Westside Parkway. Bringing that corridor to Interstate standards is appropriate due to the heavy truck traffic, and I believe that remains the goal of the local Caltrans district. Once we have a full freeway (probably in several decades), then an extension request for I-40 might be in order. I don't think exit numbers will be a big deal because the movement of SR 58 onto the Westside Parkway will alter the exit numbers anyway (or there will be a milepost equation somewhere since it appears the new route will contain fewer miles than the old). So we'll see what happens.
In full agreement about the utility of CA 57 as an intraregional 3di (510's just fine!). It's too bad topology & development have made an actual eastern LA metro bypass unlikely. And I definitely concur regarding CA 58 eventually becoming an Interstate -- but I don't see that happening until the 2030's or so (hell, I'll be in my 80's by then -- better start taking
uber-supplements so I can live to not only see my avatar over Tehachapi Pass but drive it as well!).
The CA 57 segment could remain as an unsigned branch of I-210. The concept of a branch route would not be new, as I-465 previously had the branch (later renumbered to I-865) west to I-65 in addition to the beltway alignment around Indianapolis.
Quote from: Alex on December 23, 2016, 05:28:21 PM
The CA 57 segment could remain as an unsigned branch of I-210. The concept of a branch route would not be new, as I-465 previously had the branch (later renumbered to I-865) west to I-65 in addition to the beltway alignment around Indianapolis.
The only thing that could possibly prevent the CA 57-signed segment of original I-210 from being considered a "branch" might be the presence of multiple interchanges along that segment; the I-465 "branch" that eventually became I-865 had no interchanges; it was more or less an elongated set of ramps to and from northward I-65 to the northwest corner of the I-465 beltway. I suppose consideration as such would depend upon the set of definitions that FHWA uses to define various Interstate configurations; if I'm in fact worrying for nothing -- or if anyone can shed further light upon previous actions concerning like situations -- please feel free to chime in!
Quote from: Alex on December 23, 2016, 05:28:21 PM
The CA 57 segment could remain as an unsigned branch of I-210. The concept of a branch route would not be new, as I-465 previously had the branch (later renumbered to I-865) west to I-65 in addition to the beltway alignment around Indianapolis.
We did have something like that with the I-10 spur in Los Angeles, formerly designated I-110, but it was deleted from the IHS in the 60s. Now it's basically a glorified exit ramp. I don't see it ever coming back unless they made it more accessible to I-5.
Quote from: Alex on December 23, 2016, 05:28:21 PM
The CA 57 segment could remain as an unsigned branch of I-210. The concept of a branch route would not be new, as I-465 previously had the branch (later renumbered to I-865) west to I-65 in addition to the beltway alignment around Indianapolis.
Another example is I-270 at the Washington Beltway (I-495). Is the "spur" portion of I-270 a true Interstate Highway or is it considered to be something less, such as a state route or connecting route of some kind? SR 57 (between SR 210 and I-10) is not really a branch of I-210; it is the first segment of a major north-south freeway corridor that has a purpose beyond just connecting to I-10. So that may make this a little different from I-270 in Maryland or I-465/865.
Quote from: andy3175 on December 26, 2016, 01:38:08 AM
Quote from: Alex on December 23, 2016, 05:28:21 PM
The CA 57 segment could remain as an unsigned branch of I-210. The concept of a branch route would not be new, as I-465 previously had the branch (later renumbered to I-865) west to I-65 in addition to the beltway alignment around Indianapolis.
Another example is I-270 at the Washington Beltway (I-495). Is the "spur" portion of I-270 a true Interstate Highway or is it considered to be something less, such as a state route or connecting route of some kind? SR 57 (between SR 210 and I-10) is not really a branch of I-210; it is the first segment of a major north-south freeway corridor that has a purpose beyond just connecting to I-10. So that may make this a little different from I-270 in Maryland or I-465/865.
Recall also that I-295 in the Bronx, New York also had a spur branch incorporated into its mainline mileage, before I-695 was inventoried separately in the Interstate Route Log. Meant to include this in my I-465 comparison up thread.
Quote from: Alex on December 27, 2016, 12:07:28 AM
Quote from: andy3175 on December 26, 2016, 01:38:08 AM
Quote from: Alex on December 23, 2016, 05:28:21 PM
The CA 57 segment could remain as an unsigned branch of I-210. The concept of a branch route would not be new, as I-465 previously had the branch (later renumbered to I-865) west to I-65 in addition to the beltway alignment around Indianapolis.
Another example is I-270 at the Washington Beltway (I-495). Is the "spur" portion of I-270 a true Interstate Highway or is it considered to be something less, such as a state route or connecting route of some kind? SR 57 (between SR 210 and I-10) is not really a branch of I-210; it is the first segment of a major north-south freeway corridor that has a purpose beyond just connecting to I-10. So that may make this a little different from I-270 in Maryland or I-465/865.
Recall also that I-295 in the Bronx, New York also had a spur branch incorporated into its mainline mileage, before I-695 was inventoried separately in the Interstate Route Log. Meant to include this in my I-465 comparison up thread.
Since some sort of action vis-a-vis FHWA will likely be required if & when an I-210 designation over CA 210 is sought, it's unlikely that any one methodology (new Interstate designation for the CA 57 segment, a "spur" of I-210 itself, or an outright recission of that segment from the Interstate system) will hold much sway over another. I still think that the idea I forwarded several posts back -- a new x10 number, unsigned -- is as viable as any other suggested. As there are 3 interchanges along CA 57, I don't see any precedent for a "spur" designation applicable here. There are signed Interstates that are shorter (DC's I-695, NY's I-895, and even CA's I-380 as examples); presenting FHWA with a proposal (I like Andy's "I-510" idea -- but keeping it unsigned unless the whole of CA 57 receives an Interstate designation) that actually solves the chargeability issue is likely to be the one that would survive the process.
I vote on I-210 on CA 57 be resigned as "To Interstate 210" Northbound, and "To Interstate 10" Southbound, and carry the "secret Spur Interstate 210" Designation, and CA 57 stays signed.
Quote from: sparker on December 27, 2016, 01:27:30 AM
(I like Andy's "I-510" idea -- but keeping it unsigned unless the whole of CA 57 receives an Interstate designation) that actually solves the chargeability issue is likely to be the one that would survive the process.
I don't think SR 57 is up to modern interstate standards through Anaheim, north of the stadiums. The shoulder width seems to narrow. Then again, I don't know that is north of I-10 either.
Another 3di makes the most sense from a system standpoint: you have a long loop 3di and a route that offers a connection to it from its parent at a good midpoint. So that gets into even vs. odd. Is this like I-170 in St. Louis, or is it like I-275 in Knoxville? I think it's easy to look at it and say "that's a spur" but there's a case for it being a loop is you think about it.
Quote from: sparker on December 27, 2016, 01:27:30 AM
As there are 3 interchanges along CA 57, I don't see any precedent for a "spur" designation applicable here. There are signed Interstates that are shorter (DC's I-695, NY's I-895, and even CA's I-380 as examples)
I commuted through Miami and drove to Tampa frequently while I lived in Florida and that state has three tiny interstates. Four if you count I-195. I-395 is 1.3 miles long, I-175 is slightly shorter, and I-375 is 1.2 miles long. The x75 interstates are remnants of a canceled freeway project across the bay, and I'm not sure as to the origin of I-395. I-195 is 4.4 miles long, and gives mainlanders access to the beach islands.
Quote from: coatimundi on December 27, 2016, 06:31:19 PM
Quote from: sparker on December 27, 2016, 01:27:30 AM
(I like Andy's "I-510" idea -- but keeping it unsigned unless the whole of CA 57 receives an Interstate designation) that actually solves the chargeability issue is likely to be the one that would survive the process.
I don't think SR 57 is up to modern interstate standards through Anaheim, north of the stadiums. The shoulder width seems to narrow. Then again, I don't know that is north of I-10 either.
That would be nice if all of the Orange Freeway became an interstate that linked both counties. It's the only north-south freeway in the region that isn't, and it's always a nice drive when I get the chance to use it.
I hope that whatever happens behind the scenes on the route logs does not affect the current signing. This north-south segment makes sense as CA 57 and it will make CA 57 like the other major freeways that goes all the way to the 210. (I don't care about the secret designation that may be necessary to comply with federal law.)
I do think that there should be an effort to add a control city for northbound 57. For most of its routing, the northbound control is Pomona until CA 57 merges into CA 60. North of there, there is no major city that 57 reaches, but perhaps listing Glendora or San Dimas would be better than leaving this blank.
I also recommend signing Pasadena as an additional control city on north 57 from I-10 WB and CA-71 NB. This road was of course singed to Pasadena when it was singed as I-210 and remains the best way to reach Pasadena from the Pomona area. There is no need to sign Pasadena from I-10 EB because this routing involves significant backtracking.
With all the meddling CALTrans has done with I-210, does it EVEN connect with I-10 anymore? With maps, it's hard to tell anymore.
Quote from: ATLRedSoxFan on December 28, 2016, 12:40:48 AM
With all the meddling CALTrans has done with I-210, does it EVEN connect with I-10 anymore? With maps, it's hard to tell anymore.
Yes -- both via CA 210 in Redlands and via CA 57 if the official FHWA designation is still I-210 because that portion of CA 57 is still Chargeable Interstate Mileage.
Something that occurred to me yesterday regarding this: what happened to the interstate mileage that was gained from the decommissioning of I-480 in SF? Not a lot there, but was that just not chargeable?
Quote from: coatimundi on December 29, 2016, 11:39:16 AM
Something that occurred to me yesterday regarding this: what happened to the interstate mileage that was gained from the decommissioning of I-480 in SF? Not a lot there, but was that just not chargeable?
It was withdrawn as chargeable interstate in 1965. Dan Faigin's (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1010)website (http://cahighways.org/itypes.html) is super helpful on this.
I'm in favor of just keeping it signed as CA-57.
Hmm, stray thought, and I haven't been by Dan Faigin's site to research this, but when I-210 signage swapped to CA 57, did that portion become part of the Orange Freeway, has it always been part of the Orange Freeway (ie, CA 30 being part of the Foothill Freeway), or is this portion still officially a part of the Foothill?
Personally, I think I-210 should be rerouted on the extension to San Bernardino, and the little piece reverting completely to CA 57. Or, if they insist on a new 3di, I could see I-310, I-510, I-810 or I-910 being implemented here, though seeing how Caltrans is run nowadays, I'd be totally surprised if that ever happened.
Quote from: Bickendan on December 30, 2016, 03:26:04 AM
Hmm, stray thought, and I haven't been by Dan Faigin's site to research this, but when I-210 signage swapped to CA 57, did that portion become part of the Orange Freeway, has it always been part of the Orange Freeway (ie, CA 30 being part of the Foothill Freeway), or is this portion still officially a part of the Foothill?
I don't think the names make that much of a difference. I think they only corrected the numbers in the legislative definition; naming is only at the concurrent resolution level.
Quote from: cahwyguy on December 30, 2016, 02:01:30 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on December 30, 2016, 03:26:04 AM
Hmm, stray thought, and I haven't been by Dan Faigin's site to research this, but when I-210 signage swapped to CA 57, did that portion become part of the Orange Freeway, has it always been part of the Orange Freeway (ie, CA 30 being part of the Foothill Freeway), or is this portion still officially a part of the Foothill?
I don't think the names make that much of a difference. I think they only corrected the numbers in the legislative definition; naming is only at the concurrent resolution level.
True. The names had much more meaning in the old days than they do today. The current Caltrans policy is to remove reference to the names as much as possible in the name of reducing sign clutter.
As far as the convention along the Foothill Freeway, when I was growing up in the 1980's, the Foothill Freeway was signed along I-210 and the 30 freeway up until its terminus at Foothill Blvd in La Verne. The I-210 N/S was unnamed. This was corroborated on signs along the freeway as well as most maps of the era.
Is the new extended part of CA 57 (between I-10 and I-210) now a part of the Orange Freeway? I don't think so. Caltrans no longer names freeways.
Quote from: mrsman on January 01, 2017, 11:26:47 AM
True. The names had much more meaning in the old days than they do today. The current Caltrans policy is to remove reference to the names as much as possible in the name of reducing sign clutter.
[...]
Is the new extended part of CA 57 (between I-10 and I-210) now a part of the Orange Freeway? I don't think so. Caltrans no longer names freeways.
I don't believe Caltrans has ever named freeways; with one or two exceptions, the names are not defined in the state highway code. If they did, it was pre-1963 (and I should correct my page, because I'm not even sure of that). Here's what I have on my naming page:
In District 7 (Los Angeles), highways were originally named based on their ultimate designation. In District 4, they were often named after people, but some acquired names through local usage. To address this, in 1962, Senate Concurrent Resolution 8 requested a study and report regarding the naming of freeways, highways, and expressways. The report made recommendations and suggested criteria for naming highways and freeways in the State Highway system. In response to the report, the legislature in 1963 (SCR 12) placed a moratorium on assigning further highway names until there was more study. In 1967, subsequent legislation directed Caltrans to update and expand the report. Caltrans did, and recommended the following:
- Freeway naming should be vested in a single authority: the Highway Commission.
- Naming should be provided on the basis of motorists' needs.
- Geographical or historical names are most suitable.
- Terminal or destination names are not suitable.
- Memorial names should be avoided.
- A single name shall apply to the entire length of a route between logical points.
- Names should be limited to a maximum of twelve letters not including the word "Freeway"
Of course, the legislature being the legislature ignored the recommendation. Since then, there have been numerous naming bills. Currently, highways get named either through general usage or through legislative action. The latter typcially occurs when a legislator introduces a resolution naming a piece of freeway after someone. Since such a resolution would have to be approved by the Senate Transportation Committee, that body's policy on naming is generally followed. The criteria are as follows:
- Any person being so recognized must have provided extraordinary public service or contributed to the public good.
- Any signage be installed without cost to the public.
- The author and coauthors of the joint resolution must reside within the area of the structure being dedicated.
- The dedication must reflect community consensus and have no local opposition.
- There is no requirement that the person being honored be deceased. Sponsors of the highway dedication must raise the funds for at least two roadside signs, one in each traffic direction. According to Caltrans, the total cost for two signs ranges from $800 to $1,200, depending on the length of the name inscribed on them.
For years, California had no guidelines for naming highways. During the 2009-2010 legislative session, the state Senate and Assembly transportation committees adopted the following policies:
- The person being honored should "have provided extraordinary public service or some exemplary contribution to the public good and have a connection" to the community in which the highway or structure is located.
- The legislator proposing the naming, or a co-author, must represent the district in which the highway or structure is situated.
- The designation "must reflect a community consensus and be without local opposition."
- The proposed naming must not replace a prior naming unless there's overwhelming support for the name change.
- A person being honored with a naming must be deceased, "except in the instance of elected officials, in which case they must be out of office."
- The stretch of highway being named must be longer than 5 miles.
Of course, those aren't being followed either. In the last updates, I had segments that were perhaps a tenth of a mile long. And talk about naming confusion!?! Most of the current names aren't used. To see how many names there are, just look at http://www.cahighways.org/names.html
Daniel
Very informative and interesting Daniel. Thank you for your research.
It seems that in the early days 1940's, 1950's, 1960's the most common naming scheme for existing and planned freeways in the LA area is by the name of a major parallel street: Olympic Parkway, Ramona Parkway, Sepulveda Freeway, Allessandro Parkway, etc.
Then, at some point in the 1960's and 1970's the naming convention changed to a destination that the freeway reaches: Santa Monica Fwy, San Bernardino Fwy, San Diego Fwy, Glendale Fwy. Some of these names may be head-scratchers. For instance the 60 is the Pomona Fwy, even though it only skirts the southern end of Pomona while the I-10 goes through its heart.
Now, of course, the trend is to remove most of these names from the big green signs with the hope that they will fall out of common usage in favor of the highway numbers.
There is an old map from ACSC that tended to popularize many nicknames that were used by the traffic reporters. Here is a link to it from E-bay. (I'm not selling or buying.)
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1982-Los-Angeles-metro-freewy-system-map-AAA-oil-gas-California/401224778334?_trksid=p2047675.c100011.m1850&_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIC.MBE%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D38530%26meid%3D64b5117e91a741258f92cf3ef6d41794%26pid%3D100011%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D12%26sd%3D222301926793
According to this map, neither the 30 freeway stub between Glendora and La Verne nor the N/S section of the 210 in San Dimas were named.
What is also interesting is that many very common names were never official but just nicknames that everyone sort of knew. East L.A. Interchange, Sepulveda Pass, Orange Crush Interchange, San Bernardino Split, Kellogg Hill. This ACSC map labelled all of these nicknames.
Of course, the trend of naming certain small sections of road after people who died or injured in a vehicle crash was done by act of the legislature, but most people would not be aware of these names and they are not in common usage.
San Diego Freeway was always a terrible name. Good riddance.
Quote from: Quillz on January 02, 2017, 02:11:53 PM
San Diego Freeway was always a terrible name. Good riddance.
In which sense?
Since it's both the length of I-405 and I-5 south of the El Toro Y down to San Diego, naming I-405 as the San Diego has some logic to present non-stop through travelers from the Central Valley to San Diego with a bypass around Los Angeles.
Quote from: mrsman on January 02, 2017, 07:42:33 AM
What is also interesting is that many very common names were never official but just nicknames that everyone sort of knew. East L.A. Interchange, Sepulveda Pass, Orange Crush Interchange, San Bernardino Split, Kellogg Hill. This ACSC map labelled all of these nicknames.
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Alibraryarchives.metro.net%2FDPGTL%2FCaliforniahighways+%22east+los+angeles+interchange%22
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Alibraryarchives.metro.net%2FDPGTL%2FCaliforniahighways+%22sepulveda+pass%22
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Alibraryarchives.metro.net%2FDPGTL%2FCaliforniahighways+%22kellogg+hill%22
Orange Crush is obviously an unofficial nickname; San Bernardino Split gets very few matches on the Goog on any site.
Quote from: andy3175 on December 26, 2016, 01:38:08 AM
Quote from: Alex on December 23, 2016, 05:28:21 PM
The CA 57 segment could remain as an unsigned branch of I-210. The concept of a branch route would not be new, as I-465 previously had the branch (later renumbered to I-865) west to I-65 in addition to the beltway alignment around Indianapolis.
Another example is I-270 at the Washington Beltway (I-495). Is the "spur" portion of I-270 a true Interstate Highway or is it considered to be something less, such as a state route or connecting route of some kind? SR 57 (between SR 210 and I-10) is not really a branch of I-210; it is the first segment of a major north-south freeway corridor that has a purpose beyond just connecting to I-10. So that may make this a little different from I-270 in Maryland or I-465/865.
Both legs of the I-270 tie-in to I-495 are in the system...they originally had separate designations:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2F495vintage%2F70Sat270.jpg&hash=381adb49c2b68a920cfc6e1e461710ef95b75124)
Photo from late 1960s
Quote from: mrsman on January 01, 2017, 11:26:47 AM
True. The names had much more meaning in the old days than they do today. The current Caltrans policy is to remove reference to the names as much as possible in the name of reducing sign clutter.
Never would have thought I would ever read a sentence containing both "CalTrans" and "reducing sign clutter". IMO they could accomplish that a lot more effectively if they would stop insisting that every BGS in the entire state be the exact same size.
Quote from: mrsman on January 02, 2017, 07:42:33 AM
Now, of course, the trend is to remove most of these names from the big green signs with the hope that they will fall out of common usage in favor of the highway numbers.
They should ask New York City how well that worked. Or Boston.
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 02, 2017, 04:48:07 PM
Quote from: andy3175 on December 26, 2016, 01:38:08 AM
Quote from: Alex on December 23, 2016, 05:28:21 PM
The CA 57 segment could remain as an unsigned branch of I-210. The concept of a branch route would not be new, as I-465 previously had the branch (later renumbered to I-865) west to I-65 in addition to the beltway alignment around Indianapolis.
Another example is I-270 at the Washington Beltway (I-495). Is the "spur" portion of I-270 a true Interstate Highway or is it considered to be something less, such as a state route or connecting route of some kind? SR 57 (between SR 210 and I-10) is not really a branch of I-210; it is the first segment of a major north-south freeway corridor that has a purpose beyond just connecting to I-10. So that may make this a little different from I-270 in Maryland or I-465/865.
Both legs of the I-270 tie-in to I-495 are in the system...they originally had separate designations:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2F495vintage%2F70Sat270.jpg&hash=381adb49c2b68a920cfc6e1e461710ef95b75124)
Photo from late 1960s
I was reading the 70S as 705 and was doing a double take, wondering when the hell I-270 was in Tacoma or I-705 in Maryland :pan:
Quote from: vdeane on January 02, 2017, 10:24:43 PM
Quote from: mrsman on January 01, 2017, 11:26:47 AM
True. The names had much more meaning in the old days than they do today. The current Caltrans policy is to remove reference to the names as much as possible in the name of reducing sign clutter.
Never would have thought I would ever read a sentence containing both "CalTrans" and "reducing sign clutter". IMO they could accomplish that a lot more effectively if they would stop insisting that every BGS in the entire state be the exact same size.
Honestly, the uniform BGS heights is something I find aesthetically pleasing, even if it does make message loading a bit cramped.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on December 29, 2016, 02:13:30 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on December 29, 2016, 11:39:16 AM
Something that occurred to me yesterday regarding this: what happened to the interstate mileage that was gained from the decommissioning of I-480 in SF? Not a lot there, but was that just not chargeable?
It was withdrawn as chargeable interstate in 1965. Dan Faigin's (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1010)website (http://cahighways.org/itypes.html) is super helpful on this.
So it went to 105. And that's kind of where my question was going: pulling I-210 from that northern end of 57 would free up mileage that essentially has no where to go (unless Norwalk changes its mind and lets 105 be completed). Or would it just go to the new I-210 east of there?
Quote from: coatimundi on January 03, 2017, 12:02:16 PM
(unless Norwalk changes its mind and lets 105 be completed)
Why do you think 105 was supposed to continue east? The legislative definition always ended at 605.
Quote from: NE2 on January 03, 2017, 03:56:36 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on January 03, 2017, 12:02:16 PM
(unless Norwalk changes its mind and lets 105 be completed)
Why do you think 105 was supposed to continue east? The legislative definition always ended at 605.
Everything I've read about its history has indicated that the original intent of the road was to connect it to its parent route.
From AARoads:
Quote
Although the freeway was originally intended to connect to Interstate 5 and possibly continue east toward Orange County and California 91, it was truncated at Interstate 605.
From the 1968 state statutes:
Quote405. Route 105 is from Route 1 west of Inglewood to Route 605.
There was a plan for a SR 42 freeway east of I-605, but in 1965 it was shifted north and renumbered as part of SR 90.
Quote from: coatimundi on January 03, 2017, 05:13:39 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 03, 2017, 03:56:36 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on January 03, 2017, 12:02:16 PM
(unless Norwalk changes its mind and lets 105 be completed)
Why do you think 105 was supposed to continue east? The legislative definition always ended at 605.
Everything I've read about its history has indicated that the original intent of the road was to connect it to its parent route.
From AARoads:
Quote
Although the freeway was originally intended to connect to Interstate 5 and possibly continue east toward Orange County and California 91, it was truncated at Interstate 605.
This is an interesting question, one that we'd struggled with a bit when preparing the Interstate 105 webpage years ago. We had written that page at a point in time where we had not yet begun to list citations on AARoads. While we've tried to do a better job at this in recent years, there are plenty of legacy pages that do not have complete citations. The 105 pages (see http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-105_ca.html and https://www.aaroads.com/california/i-105_ca.html) are older, and we haven't made time to go back to add citations.
Our information on this extension goes back to the late 1990s when we met with Casey Cooper of gbcnet.com, who had followed the I-105 proceedings closely and noted early on that 105 would not reach 5 in Norwalk due to a lawsuit. The research we conducted at the time (at the university library) led us to a 1993 New York Times article, which stated (and amazingly is still on the web):
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/14/us/opening-new-freeway-los-angeles-ends-era.html
QuoteThe high-tech Century Freeway, a 17.3-mile stretch running east-west from Los Angeles International Airport through nine cities to suburban Norwalk, cost more per mile than any other road in America. ...
Thus the eight-lane road bears all the marks of the social, environmental and technical changes that have swept the United States over the last three decades and, with a price tag of $2.2 billion, shows why few cities will soon try again to build highways through their urban cores. ...
It is coincidental but quite symbolic that the opening of the Century comes during the same year that Los Angeles started subway service, and four days before California's first toll road is scheduled to open, the first 3.2 miles of more than 68 miles of tollway planned for suburban Orange County. ...
All of this is a far cry from what the road builders had in mind when they first started planning the Century in 1958. They had grander ideas of a 10-lane road stretching 51 miles east to San Bernardino. They were stopped by a Federal lawsuit filed in 1972 by local residents, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the City of Hawthorne, environmental groups and others.
In 1979, the California Department of Transportation entered into a consent decree issued by Judge Harry Pregerson of Federal district court in which the state and the Federal Highway Administration agreed to reduce the length and width of the freeway and to finance social programs to mitigate damage. This included building 5,500 units of new housing, at a cost of $360 million, and an apprentice program that has trained 3,400 people in construction jobs. It also required using businesses owned by women and members of minorities, which have received 34 percent of highway contracts and 46 percent of housing contracts.
In all, actual construction accounted for only 54 percent of the $2.2 billion total cost.
The lawsuit referenced was Keith v. Volpe (352 F.Supp. 1324 (1972)), linked here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15649093864308874626&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr. However, the court case does not seem to reference any extension east of Norwalk, which appears to leave unconfirmed what the NY Times article stated:
QuoteA sketch of the proposed freeway is in order. If and when the Century Freeway is completed, it will, as presently planned, stretch a distance of 17 miles across the southern portion of the densely populated Los Angeles basin. It will connect the Los Angeles International Airport on the west with the San Gabriel River Freeway (Route I-605) on the east; it will also intersect with the San Diego, Harbor, and Long Beach Freeways (Routes I-405, 11, and 7, respectively). The freeway will traverse the cities of El Segundo, Hawthorne, Inglewood, Lynwood, South Gate, Paramount, Downey, and Norwalk, the Watts section of the City of Los Angeles, and unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County, including the communities of Willowbrook and Del Aire. Federal officials have designated the freeway as a part of the interstate highway system – specifically, Route I-105. Therefore 90% of the cost of the freeway will be borne by the federal government, although the California Division of Highways will actually acquire the right-of-way and construct the road. The total cost of acquiring the land and actually constructing the freeway has been estimated at $501,800,000. It has also been estimated that 9000 families, consisting of 21,000 individuals, will be displaced by the freeway and that 3900 single-family dwellings and 3000 multiple-family dwellings will be acquired in order to clear the right-of-way.
In 1963, SR 42, which in part was the forerunner to I-105, was conceived to extend from SR 1 east to SR 91 (see citation below). As NE2 mentioned, it is true that the Century Freeway was disconnected legislatively from the Yorba Linda Freeway in 1968. The Century Freeway was SR 42, and it later became I-105/SR 105. The Yorba Linda Freeway also was SR 42, and the portion east of I-605 became SR 90. Daniel Faigin mentions this legislative change on his SR 42 page.
http://www.cahighways.org/041-048.html#042
QuoteIn 1963, this route was defined as "Route 1 west of Inglewood to Route 91 in Santa Ana Canyon via the vicinity of Norwalk."
On June 5,1963, a public hearing was held regarding the Century Freeway (then Route 42) from the Pacific Coast Freeway (Route 1) to the Santa Ana Freeway (I-5).
In 1965, the portion of former Route 42 from Route 605 to Route 39 was transferred to Route 90, and the routing was redefined as (1) from Route 1 west of Inglewood to Route 605 and (2) Route 39 near La Habra to Route 91 in Santa Ana Canyon. A 1965 planning map shows this as freeway from Route 405 to Route 605, and then continuing as freeway from Route 605 to Route 91 along what is now Route 90.
In 1968, part (1) was transferred to Route 105, and part (2) was transferred to Route 90. Part (1) became the "Century Freeway", and part (2) became the "Yorba Linda Freeway". This resulted in the route's deletion.
On his I-105 page, Daniel mentions the reasons why I-105 does not reach I-5:
QuoteDesigning the freeway took from 1968 to 1972. By 1970, the proposed route was roughly as it is now, and the cost was estimated at $190 million. In 1972, a class action lawsuit was filed to block the freeway's construction. Under this lawsuit, all freeway construction was halted until a number of requirements, including a formal environmental impact statement and public hearings, were conducted. This lawsuit was settled by consent decree in 1979; however, the delay had substantially raised the cost of construction. To salvage the project, the scope was reduced by eliminating two traffic lanes, 11 local interchanges, and 500 units of replacement housing. The court approved the amended consent decree in 1981. The meant that there was design rework to be done, as well as new freeway agreements with local governments, right of way acquisitions, etc. Caltrans was also pressure to have construction substantially started in 1986 (deadline imposed by federal law); that law also stated the last federal funding authorization for such construction would be provided in 1990. Actual construction of the freeway began in 1982. It gradually opened to traffic in 1993 and 1994, at a cost of $2.3 billion.
So why doesn't I-105 extend to I-5? There are a number of reasons why I-105 doesn't go all the way to I-5:
Neighborhood opposition. The main reason. The City of Norwalk is against new freeway construction in their city.
Capacity. The current capacity of I-5 at the potential connection point would not handle an additional interchange. Although additional capacity is planned, the I-605 interchange was a better termination point, as more space and road capacity was available for collector and transition lanes.
A bit further down the same page, in the memorial section of his I-105 write up, Daniel mentions the Joe A. Gonsalves Memorial Interchange. Daniel's page sheds light on Mr. Gonsalves's involvement in the unconstructed segment of I-105 (or SR 42, or SR 90, or ???) between I-605 and I-5:
QuoteIn 1963, during his legislative tenure, Section 405 of the Streets and Highways Code was enacted, describing Route 105 as running from Route 5, to the junction of Route 101 and Route 110, which would have caused Route 105 to cut through the Cities of Norwalk and La Mirada [Note: The above is from the resolution, and reflects poor research. The current incarnation of Route 105 wasn't defined as Route 105 in 1963; the closest routing was pre-1968 Route 42]. At the requests of the Cities of Norwalk and La Mirada and their residents, Joe A. Gonsalves was instrumental in having Section 405 of the Streets and Highways Code amended in 1968, so that Route 105 ended at Route 605 rather than cutting through the Cities of Norwalk and La Mirada (thus, those of you who complain that I-105 doesn't go through to I-5 have Mr. Gonsalves to blame). ... Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 96, Chapter 129, September 24, 2001.
I think this shows an intent to have one freeway corridor, but the legislative definition of 105 appears to include only the freeway west of 605 based on the 1968 change.
Daniel's scan of a 1963 map (http://www.cahighways.org/maps/1963routes.jpg as found on http://www.cahighways.org/maps-sc-fwy-pt3.html) also confirms the mapping change between the pre and post-1968 routes. The 1963 map shows an intent to have a continuous freeway corridor. But later maps show SR 90 well to the north of yet parallel to I-105.
Quote from: andy3175 on January 04, 2017, 01:08:24 AM
Our information on this extension goes back to the late 1990s when we met with Casey Cooper of gbcnet.com, who had followed the I-105 proceedings closely and noted early on that 105 would not reach 5 in Norwalk due to a lawsuit. The research we conducted at the time (at the university library) led us to a 1993 New York Times article, which stated (and amazingly is still on the web):
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/14/us/opening-new-freeway-los-angeles-ends-era.html
God bless the NYT! Seriously, when Uncle Trump orders them shut down in a fiery tantrum as a subversive medium, I hope that they at least preserve their online archive somewhere on a Bahamian server so that stuff like this will always exist.
I think the citations are the key here. I've read about the Norwalk thing from multiple sources over the course of many years, but it's entirely likely that they were all citing AARoads itself without actually citing it. Same thing happened recently with regards to US 40's routing, where I was like, "What about Berkeley Pier?" after seeing multiple sources mention it, but now realize that those sources were probably just citing the same source without noting it.
And I guess there's the catch in the internet age: you have a bunch of amateur writers and researchers producing a ton of content that is rarely properly cited. Not a bash on AARoads, but rather more of a statement of the reliability of online content, in general. It's important to remember that any jackass (looking right at myself) can put up any sort of jackassery and someone can come along later and interpret that as well-researched, factual gospel.
Quote from: coatimundi on January 04, 2017, 11:16:32 AM
And I guess there's the catch in the internet age: you have a bunch of amateur writers and researchers producing a ton of content that is rarely properly cited. Not a bash on AARoads, but rather more of a statement of the reliability of online content, in general. It's important to remember that any jackass (looking right at myself) can put up any sort of jackassery and someone can come along later and interpret that as well-researched, factual gospel.
The early days of road web sites had a lot of us crafting pages just from personal memory or research. For instance most of my Delaware content is just from having grown up there and reading the local paper. With that stated, I started citing sources around 2005, and have tried to be more thorough about it whenever I update pages, or create new ones. Unfortunately, there is just too much content on AARoads to update/verify all of it. We'll amend pages if they are pointed out to us given enough time.
Also as we've updated older pages, we have tried to go back and add more citations. Another issue we have run into is citing other road web sites that are no longer online. Of course, with that, you are trusting that the original author was correct, or had their own sources cited/verified. Back in the late 90s or early 2000s, the bulk of road sites tended to be good enough as sources. Times have definitely changed.
Quote from: Alex on January 04, 2017, 04:22:20 PM
Also as we've updated older pages, we have tried to go back and add more citations. Another issue we have run into is citing other road web sites that are no longer online. Of course, with that, you are trusting that the original author was correct, or had their own sources cited/verified. Back in the late 90s or early 2000s, the bulk of road sites tended to be good enough as sources. Times have definitely changed.
I created Southeast Texas Highways in the late 90's basically just from TxDOT records with a few photos I had taken. It was just basically a prettier and better-organized version of information that was already online. I don't recall throwing any real opinions or unvetted information in there. It seemed like, at that time, you had more responsibility as a content producer because there just were not that many sites out there, so you got a lot of traffic. Putting up a web site was much less accessible than it is today, mainly because it required more work and the tools and processes had to be understood. Hence the jackass factor today, I think.
And I think that's hopefully a future for the internet: have a separation between more researched sites, like this one, and something that just happens to be out there. Google has its ranking algorithms that weight more reputable sites now, but you can still easily work through the cracks by putting together either an overly obscure query or a poorly constructed one.
Sorry for the OT tangent...
I'll second what Alex said. In the early days of my site, it was primarily from my research and what I -- umm, cribbed, shall we say :-D -- from other sites (Casey, Joel, Mike, Andy Fields, etc) plus the excellent stuff from m.t.r in those days. I was poor in crediting things other than my sources page. Over time, I acquired more reliable sources but didn't always cite things from my research. These days I'm citing up the wazoo (and that's painful :-o ). What I'm not doing is ensuring those citation links remain valid. I am sure loads of links throughout my site have gone stale; my current editor doesn't make checking stale links easy. Plus, so many road sites have disappeared....
I'll note that one thing I have done on my site is not include opinion, but that doesn't mean there aren't actual errors or incomplete research. I fix them as they are pointed out to me. In the last batch, I know I fixed a long standing error on Route 24 (Ashby meeting Broadway).
Daniel
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 02, 2017, 04:48:07 PM
Quote from: andy3175 on December 26, 2016, 01:38:08 AM
Quote from: Alex on December 23, 2016, 05:28:21 PM
The CA 57 segment could remain as an unsigned branch of I-210. The concept of a branch route would not be new, as I-465 previously had the branch (later renumbered to I-865) west to I-65 in addition to the beltway alignment around Indianapolis.
Another example is I-270 at the Washington Beltway (I-495). Is the "spur" portion of I-270 a true Interstate Highway or is it considered to be something less, such as a state route or connecting route of some kind? SR 57 (between SR 210 and I-10) is not really a branch of I-210; it is the first segment of a major north-south freeway corridor that has a purpose beyond just connecting to I-10. So that may make this a little different from I-270 in Maryland or I-465/865.
Both legs of the I-270 tie-in to I-495 are in the system...they originally had separate designations:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2F495vintage%2F70Sat270.jpg&hash=381adb49c2b68a920cfc6e1e461710ef95b75124)
Photo from late 1960s
Great picture. I remember that split signed as I 270 to the left and I 270 SPUR signed on the right.
SAMSUNG-SGH-I747