SFGate article on I-80 links cahighways.org, still gets info wrong

[DTComposer]

https://www.sfgate.com/travel/article/bay-area-drivers-turn-tahoe-never-easier-miss-20154362.php

The article starts out on the construction near the I-80/US-50 junction in West Sacramento, and how motorists may miss the turn to stay on I-80. It then goes on to talk about the history of I-80/I-880/Bus I-80:

The reason for the twin highways boils down to traffic management. Historically, I-80 cut through downtown Sacramento before continuing eastbound toward Reno. However, in 1965, a proposal was put forth to reconfigure the highway to bypass downtown Sacramento, detouring unnecessary cars and trucks from entering and congesting the city.

The new section of highway bypassing the city from the north was completed in 1972, and for the sake of continuity, Caltrans realigned I-80 to fold in with the bypass. However, the remaining roadway of the existing I-80 was still in the middle of Sacramento. It took on the name Business Route 80 before it was dubbed the Capitol City Freeway, but signs exist throughout the city with "Business Loop" in small letters. Those signs can befuddle some drivers.

The "proposal" was not the northern Sacramento Bypass (today's I-80, née LRN 242, née I-880), but the replacement for the substandard Elvas Freeway (today's hidden CA-51, née US-40, née I-80) between Watt Avenue and the American River, which was never built. The bypass was on Caltrans maps by 1959.

The "realigning" was not for the sake of continuity, but because the Elvas Freeway didn't meet Interstate standards and wasn't meant to be the permanent routing of I-80 from the jump. Once the Elvas Freeway replacement was dead, I-80 was moved onto I-880 to meet standards - and that didn't happen until 1980.

[jdbx]

I read that article this morning and shaking my head.  At least it was a good exercise in remembering the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect as I read the rest of the morning's news.

Ignoring the incorrect historical info in the article, the Business-80 designation is redundant, and I can absolutely see how it would be confusing for people who don't understand the difference meant by the green shield, but the TOTSO configuration which comes up pretty quickly after the causeway along with the heavy traffic in this area is probably a much larger driver of the confusion.

[mrsman]

I read that article this morning and shaking my head.  At least it was a good exercise in remembering the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect as I read the rest of the morning's news.

Ignoring the incorrect historical info in the article, the Business-80 designation is redundant, and I can absolutely see how it would be confusing for people who don't understand the difference meant by the green shield, but the TOTSO configuration which comes up pretty quickly after the causeway along with the heavy traffic in this area is probably a much larger driver of the confusion.

I lived in the area 25 years ago.  It was confusing then, even without the construction.

There are plenty of threads here where I (and others) rant about the useless Biz-80 designation.  It does not lead to businesses (perhaps the signage can be moved onto Auburn Blvd and other streets that were once part of the pre-freeway US 40 route).  And it's also confusing to have two separate roads with the same number.  (This exists nowhere else in CA, where we do not duplicate a number even among state, US, or interstate routes unless they are part of the same roadway.)

For the E-W part of Biz-80, more and more of the signage has removed Biz-80 in favor of US 50.  But this needs to be done more completely at all levels.  BGS signage, on street signage, freeway entrance signs, etc.  And it would also be nice to maintain consistency with regards to the control cities as well.  For US 50 east, the control used throughout the area should be either South Lake Tahoe or Placerville, not interchanging between the two. 

The N-S signage should also be replaced with CA-51.  This is a much harder task, since there is a state law requiring signing the route as Biz-80, but the same reasons as to why it should be replaced are the same.

[brad2971]

I read that article this morning and shaking my head.  At least it was a good exercise in remembering the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect as I read the rest of the morning's news.

Ignoring the incorrect historical info in the article, the Business-80 designation is redundant, and I can absolutely see how it would be confusing for people who don't understand the difference meant by the green shield, but the TOTSO configuration which comes up pretty quickly after the causeway along with the heavy traffic in this area is probably a much larger driver of the confusion.

I lived in the area 25 years ago.  It was confusing then, even without the construction.

There are plenty of threads here where I (and others) rant about the useless Biz-80 designation.  It does not lead to businesses (perhaps the signage can be moved onto Auburn Blvd and other streets that were once part of the pre-freeway US 40 route).  And it's also confusing to have two separate roads with the same number.  (This exists nowhere else in CA, where we do not duplicate a number even among state, US, or interstate routes unless they are part of the same roadway.)

For the E-W part of Biz-80, more and more of the signage has removed Biz-80 in favor of US 50.  But this needs to be done more completely at all levels.  BGS signage, on street signage, freeway entrance signs, etc.  And it would also be nice to maintain consistency with regards to the control cities as well.  For US 50 east, the control used throughout the area should be either South Lake Tahoe or Placerville, not interchanging between the two. 

The N-S signage should also be replaced with CA-51.  This is a much harder task, since there is a state law requiring signing the route as Biz-80, but the same reasons as to why it should be replaced are the same.

You still have to go through the Lege to get it repealed, even though the mileposts say SR 51? Interesting...

[TheStranger]

You still have to go through the Lege to get it repealed, even though the mileposts say SR 51? Interesting...

The legislative basis for route numbering in California is part of the reason we have piecemeal route relinquishments as well (since numbering signage in California is supposed to represent state maintenance first, even though I have always felt signage is about and should always be about navigational utility more than anything else).

[DTComposer]

For US 50 east, the control used throughout the area should be either South Lake Tahoe or Placerville, not interchanging between the two. 

At least the last time I was through there (last summer) I thought the only time Placerville was used was on I-80 EB approaching the I-80/US-50 split, and it was co-signed with South Lake Tahoe. I'm pretty sure everything else was South Lake Tahoe only.

even though I have always felt signage is about and should always be about navigational utility more than anything else

I agree - it's especially strange in the case of CA-1, with so many in-city relinquishments (Dana Point, Newport Beach, Santa Monica, Oxnard; and pending relinquishments in Laguna Beach, Torrance, Los Angeles, and Pismo Beach) where route signage is coming down (even though it's not supposed to) - CA-1 is iconic branding/marketing, and I would think the cities would want to maximize that by keeping the signage up.

[Henry]

The "proposal" was not the northern Sacramento Bypass (today's I-80, née LRN 242, née I-880), but the replacement for the substandard Elvas Freeway (today's hidden CA-51, née US-40, née I-80) between Watt Avenue and the American River, which was never built. The bypass was on Caltrans maps by 1959.

The "realigning" was not for the sake of continuity, but because the Elvas Freeway didn't meet Interstate standards and wasn't meant to be the permanent routing of I-80 from the jump. Once the Elvas Freeway replacement was dead, I-80 was moved onto I-880 to meet standards - and that didn't happen until 1980.

At least they did manage to complete the bypass before the realignment occurred, because it just happened to be there in case the I-80 downtown upgrades failed. As for I-880, I think more people are familiar with the newer (and longer-lasting) Oakland-San Jose version that was commissioned two years after the Sacramento original had been replaced, and thus unaware that the current alignment is not the first.

[The Ghostbuster]

I think the present Interstate 880 is a better use of the 3di designation than the original. The construction of the former double-decked elevated viaduct alignment along present-day Mandela Parkway was definitely a mistake that was rectified by the 1989 earthquake. Maybe if it had been built on its post-1997 alignment from the get-go, West Oakland might have been better off.

[jdbx]

I think the present Interstate 880 is a better use of the 3di designation than the original. The construction of the former double-decked elevated viaduct alignment along present-day Mandela Parkway was definitely a mistake that was rectified by the 1989 earthquake. Maybe if it had been built on its post-1997 alignment from the get-go, West Oakland might have been better off.

I don't know about all that.  My grandfather grew up in West Oakland in the 20's and 30's (I have a 1933 photo of him and his class at Cole School), and the stories he told me of growing up suggest that it was always a pretty rough area.  Growing up, he told me that the freeway was pushed through there because it was already the worst part of town and the people who owned their homes were happy to cash a check and get out of there.

[Max Rockatansky]

I think the present Interstate 880 is a better use of the 3di designation than the original. The construction of the former double-decked elevated viaduct alignment along present-day Mandela Parkway was definitely a mistake that was rectified by the 1989 earthquake. Maybe if it had been built on its post-1997 alignment from the get-go, West Oakland might have been better off.

I don't know about all that.  My grandfather grew up in West Oakland in the 20's and 30's (I have a 1933 photo of him and his class at Cole School), and the stories he told me of growing up suggest that it was always a pretty rough area.  Growing up, he told me that the freeway was pushed through there because it was already the worst part of town and the people who owned their homes were happy to cash a check and get out of there.

Wasn't Clawson once nicknamed or known as Dogtown?  That moniker usually does't have the most glowing connotation when it was used elsewhere in California. 

[Henry]

I think the present Interstate 880 is a better use of the 3di designation than the original. The construction of the former double-decked elevated viaduct alignment along present-day Mandela Parkway was definitely a mistake that was rectified by the 1989 earthquake. Maybe if it had been built on its post-1997 alignment from the get-go, West Oakland might have been better off.

Agreed on all counts! BTW, the collapse of that double-decker section in Oakland was the genesis of my phobia pertaining to similar structures, such as the Alaskan Way, another long-gone alignment on the West Coast.