Resolving an Issue with I-5W

[cahwyguy]

This was buried in the chain Re: Changes to the California Highways Web Pages — July 2018 (Mapping Project).

- 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:

Prior 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

(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.

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)

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

Does anyone have anything that can help resolve this?

[Max Rockatansky]

Flipped through the late 50s State Maps on Rumsey.  Only the LRNs under construction and current signed highway numbers are displayed which doesn't help with the potential Interstate numberings.

[TheStranger]

Only the LRNs under construction and current signed highway numbers are displayed which doesn't help with the potential Interstate numberings.

Were any planned (but not under construction) routes' LRNs shown in those 1950s maps? 

[Max Rockatansky]

Only the LRNs under construction and current signed highway numbers are displayed which doesn't help with the potential Interstate numberings.

Were any planned (but not under construction) routes' LRNs shown in those 1950s maps?

Yes, they are all displayed.  Example: on the 1958 map planned LRN 238 is shown on the I-5/I-580 corridor near Tracy.  LRN 41 has a planned route which ultimately became the route of I-5.

http://www.davidrumsey.com/ll/thumbnailView.html?startUrl=%2F%2Fwww.davidrumsey.com%2Fluna%2Fservlet%2Fas%2Fsearch%3Fos%3D0%26lc%3DRUMSEY~8~1%26q%3DCaltrans%26sort%3DPub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No%26bs%3D10#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0&r=0&xywh=3238%2C6022%2C564%2C1175

[TheStranger]

Only the LRNs under construction and current signed highway numbers are displayed which doesn't help with the potential Interstate numberings.

Were any planned (but not under construction) routes' LRNs shown in those 1950s maps?

Yes, they are all displayed.  Example: on the 1958 map planned LRN 238 is shown on the I-5/I-580 corridor near Tracy.  LRN 41 has a planned route which ultimately became the route of I-5.

http://www.davidrumsey.com/ll/thumbnailView.html?startUrl=%2F%2Fwww.davidrumsey.com%2Fluna%2Fservlet%2Fas%2Fsearch%3Fos%3D0%26lc%3DRUMSEY~8~1%26q%3DCaltrans%26sort%3DPub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No%26bs%3D10#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0&r=0&xywh=3238%2C6022%2C564%2C1175

What's interesting about the 1958 map:

- the connector from US 50 (today's 580 corridor) to Vernalis seems to feed directly into Route 132, as opposed to the modern arrangement where 132 ends at 580
- LRN 238 includes the original West Sacramento proposed routing; on this map, it appears that what is now I-80 between US 50 and the Sacramento River was along the early path for that iteration of the West Side Freeway!  (Contingent to that, LRN 238/then-proposed I-5 would have crossed the Sacramento River a second time near today's Pocket neighborhood in Sacramento)

[Max Rockatansky]

Only the LRNs under construction and current signed highway numbers are displayed which doesn't help with the potential Interstate numberings.

Were any planned (but not under construction) routes' LRNs shown in those 1950s maps?

Yes, they are all displayed.  Example: on the 1958 map planned LRN 238 is shown on the I-5/I-580 corridor near Tracy.  LRN 41 has a planned route which ultimately became the route of I-5.

http://www.davidrumsey.com/ll/thumbnailView.html?startUrl=%2F%2Fwww.davidrumsey.com%2Fluna%2Fservlet%2Fas%2Fsearch%3Fos%3D0%26lc%3DRUMSEY~8~1%26q%3DCaltrans%26sort%3DPub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No%26bs%3D10#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0&r=0&xywh=3238%2C6022%2C564%2C1175

What's interesting about the 1958 map:

- the connector from US 50 (today's 580 corridor) to Vernalis seems to feed directly into Route 132, as opposed to the modern arrangement where 132 ends at 580
- LRN 238 includes the original West Sacramento proposed routing; on this map, it appears that what is now I-80 between US 50 and the Sacramento River was along the early path for that iteration of the West Side Freeway!  (Contingent to that, LRN 238/then-proposed I-5 would have crossed the Sacramento River a second time near today's Pocket neighborhood in Sacramento)

Looks like the modern configuration of I-580/I-5/CA 132 shows up in 1959.  Weird that the 58 alignment shows a route almost through the heart of Tracy to the US 50 corridor. 

[sparker]

Only the LRNs under construction and current signed highway numbers are displayed which doesn't help with the potential Interstate numberings.

Were any planned (but not under construction) routes' LRNs shown in those 1950s maps?

Yes, they are all displayed.  Example: on the 1958 map planned LRN 238 is shown on the I-5/I-580 corridor near Tracy.  LRN 41 has a planned route which ultimately became the route of I-5.

http://www.davidrumsey.com/ll/thumbnailView.html?startUrl=%2F%2Fwww.davidrumsey.com%2Fluna%2Fservlet%2Fas%2Fsearch%3Fos%3D0%26lc%3DRUMSEY~8~1%26q%3DCaltrans%26sort%3DPub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No%26bs%3D10#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0&r=0&xywh=3238%2C6022%2C564%2C1175

What's interesting about the 1958 map:

- the connector from US 50 (today's 580 corridor) to Vernalis seems to feed directly into Route 132, as opposed to the modern arrangement where 132 ends at 580
- LRN 238 includes the original West Sacramento proposed routing; on this map, it appears that what is now I-80 between US 50 and the Sacramento River was along the early path for that iteration of the West Side Freeway!  (Contingent to that, LRN 238/then-proposed I-5 would have crossed the Sacramento River a second time near today's Pocket neighborhood in Sacramento)

Looks like the modern configuration of I-580/I-5/CA 132 shows up in 1959.  Weird that the 58 alignment shows a route almost through the heart of Tracy to the US 50 corridor. 

Coincidentally, 1959 was the year of the first iteration of the California Freeway and Expressway System; that was reflected in that year's state highway map.  Quite a few route modifications within that year, with quite a few reflecting the shift of I-5 from its previous US 99 alignment to the LRN 238 "Westside" freeway, including the first display of the present "Tracy Triangle" configuration.  But still the section of (now) I-580, then I-5W in its first post-shift iteration, was part of LRN 110, historically aka SSR 132.  Apparently LRN 238, which originally was shown as heading directly into Tracy, was shifted at that time to the present I-5 side of the "Tracy Triangle"; with SSR 132 extended to I-5W as the LRN 110 extension; the short section of I-5W/I-580 from the southern E/W split was a LRN 110 spur.  US 50 or, later, I-205 was still part of LRN 5; LRN 110's terminus was at the present 580/205 interchange.   

[cahwyguy]

Coincidentally, 1959 was the year of the first iteration of the California Freeway and Expressway System; that was reflected in that year's state highway map.  Quite a few route modifications within that year, with quite a few reflecting the shift of I-5 from its previous US 99 alignment to the LRN 238 "Westside" freeway, including the first display of the present "Tracy Triangle" configuration.  But still the section of (now) I-580, then I-5W in its first post-shift iteration, was part of LRN 110, historically aka SSR 132.  Apparently LRN 238, which originally was shown as heading directly into Tracy, was shifted at that time to the present I-5 side of the "Tracy Triangle"; with SSR 132 extended to I-5W as the LRN 110 extension; the short section of I-5W/I-580 from the southern E/W split was a LRN 110 spur.  US 50 or, later, I-205 was still part of LRN 5; LRN 110's terminus was at the present 580/205 interchange.   

Perhaps. But that doesn't explain the 1958 Interstate map showing I-5W going to Tracy along the 205 routing; nor does it explain the map on the I-505 page showing the I-205 routing for I-5W. It could be that post-1958, I-5W was routing along I-205 to what would become I-5. It is also quite possible the pre-1958 routing was LRN 110/I-580. Are there any maps that show SSR 132 being signed or cosigned as I-5W from Route 99?

This is why I want some corroborating evidence. The state highway map does not show I-5W. All we have are the interstate submissions and memories. The one map I could find questions those memories, and the gross definitions submitted to AASHTO and the AASHTO maps seem to support both.

[sparker]

Looked at all the Rumsey archived state maps from 1958 through 1966; these indicate the following:

(1) No Interstate numbers were referenced in any form until after the 1964 renumbering; the Westside Freeway was simply LRN 238.
(2) LRN 110, aka SSR 132 east of SSR 33/LRN 41, showed a general unadopted routing in 1958 that took it west from the existing route west terminus at Vernalis and curved it north to US 50/LRN 5 near Altamont Pass.  Although not referenced as such on the official '58 map, it follows the path projected on the national maps for I-5W.
(3) As of 1958, LRN 238 was unadopted; the line shown on that year's map indicates just that.  However, the following year, LRN 238 is shown as specifically adopted (with the line matching the I-5 facility of today) up to the present 5/580 split (then 5E/5W); with LRN 110 shown as specifically adopted northwest to Altamont Pass.
(4) The due N-S alignment from the split north to (then) US 50 was never part of LRN 41; the square symbol indicating that actually referred to SSR 33 "next door".  The proposed corridor there was part of LRN 238; shown as continuing to Stockton adjacent to US 50/LRN 5 and continuing north of that city as then-unadopted LRN 238. 
(5) At that time there was no indication of a I-205-type Tracy bypass; that came much later.  But applying logic to the situation, the Division of Highways intended to put I-205 somewhere; it's likely that was, pre-'59 (the first map to show an adopted Westside alignment) intended to be deployed along US 50 between I-5W/LRN 110 at Altamont and somewhere along I-5E, at that time utilizing US 99.  Whether that would have followed US 50 up to Stockton or simply headed directly to US 99 along SSR 120 past Manteca isn't indicated on the state maps simply because no Interstate routes were referenced or even acknowledged at that time.  Something tells me that a trip to the Caltrans HQ basement archives would provide the answer to the "original" I-205 question.  I doubt the Division of Highways would have skipped over 205 and gone straight to 405 for the first I-5 "loop child". 
(6) It seems that every year after 1959 more and more of the LRN 238 route was formally adopted; the N-S I-5 section of the Tracy Triangle was adopted by 1960, with an exact route through Stockton happening within a couple of years of that. 
(7) When it comes to the Division of Highways vis-a-vis (then) AASHO planning maps, it's likely one hand just didn't know what the other was doing.  Since the switch to the Westside/LRN 238 routing was promulgated locally prior to federal approval, I would imagine that anyone attempting to pin down routings on a map was increasingly frustrated by the changes and simply didn't produce anything until more concrete information became available by the end of '59.  BTW, the Portland Cement promotional map from late 1959 (where, at age 10, I finally was able to see the complete Interstate system plans) did indicate the 5E/5W split where the 5/580 split is today -- but didn't indicate any E-W connector such as I-205 between the legs -- which leads me to think that the connector had yet to be finalized or approved by that time.
(8) Within CA, controversy seems to surround any route connected with the number "238"! 

[cahwyguy]

I think I'm beginning to figure things out. First, remember that there may be a distinction between I-5W as signed, and I-5W as submitted, and maps at the time may have only focused on what was signed. So, given that:

1. LRN 110 between Route 33 near  Vernalis and US 50 near Tracy wasn't constructed until after 1963. The I-580 numbering was approved in 1964. So that segment may have been originally submitted as I-5W, but it was never signed as such.

2. LRN 110 between Route 33 and Route 99 (I-5E at one time) -- SSR 132. This may have been submitted as I-5W (per http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/yellowbook/numbering-1957.jpg, I-5W to Modesto), but it is unclear if it was ever SIGNED as I-5W. If it was, given the unconstructed segment of LRN 110, I-5W had to have been signed along Route 33 to US 50, and then along US 50 to Oakland (current BR 205 and I-580).

3. The 1958 submission of I-5W as "to near Tracy" (see http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/yellowbook/numbering-1958.jpg) may have been reflecting the fact that LRN 110 was unconstructed, and was never signed along Route 132 to Modesto. The "to Tracy" wording allowed the signed route to either terminate where I-580 would eventually break off, or to end (essentially) at SSR 33, which was close enough to the adopted routing for I-5 (LRN 238) to be close enough for government work. Further, the "near Tracy" words would be sufficient for the eventual I-580 redesignation, or to cover I-205, which was also submitted in 1957, and approved as I-205 in 1958. The 1958 submission map does appear to show I-5E along LRN 238, and I-5W as a straight line to Tracy, meaning possibly the current I-205 routing.

4. The only evidence we have for the signage of I-5W is on points E -- along US 50 near Oakland, along future I-505.

Looked at all the Rumsey archived state maps from 1958 through 1966; these indicate the following:

(1) No Interstate numbers were referenced in any form until after the 1964 renumbering; the Westside Freeway was simply LRN 238.
(2) LRN 110, aka SSR 132 east of SSR 33/LRN 41, showed a general unadopted routing in 1958 that took it west from the existing route west terminus at Vernalis and curved it north to US 50/LRN 5 near Altamont Pass.  Although not referenced as such on the official '58 map, it follows the path projected on the national maps for I-5W.
(3) As of 1958, LRN 238 was unadopted; the line shown on that year's map indicates just that.  However, the following year, LRN 238 is shown as specifically adopted (with the line matching the I-5 facility of today) up to the present 5/580 split (then 5E/5W); with LRN 110 shown as specifically adopted northwest to Altamont Pass.
(4) The due N-S alignment from the split north to (then) US 50 was never part of LRN 41; the square symbol indicating that actually referred to SSR 33 "next door".  The proposed corridor there was part of LRN 238; shown as continuing to Stockton adjacent to US 50/LRN 5 and continuing north of that city as then-unadopted LRN 238. 
(5) At that time there was no indication of a I-205-type Tracy bypass; that came much later.  But applying logic to the situation, the Division of Highways intended to put I-205 somewhere; it's likely that was, pre-'59 (the first map to show an adopted Westside alignment) intended to be deployed along US 50 between I-5W/LRN 110 at Altamont and somewhere along I-5E, at that time utilizing US 99.  Whether that would have followed US 50 up to Stockton or simply headed directly to US 99 along SSR 120 past Manteca isn't indicated on the state maps simply because no Interstate routes were referenced or even acknowledged at that time.  Something tells me that a trip to the Caltrans HQ basement archives would provide the answer to the "original" I-205 question.  I doubt the Division of Highways would have skipped over 205 and gone straight to 405 for the first I-5 "loop child". 
(6) It seems that every year after 1959 more and more of the LRN 238 route was formally adopted; the N-S I-5 section of the Tracy Triangle was adopted by 1960, with an exact route through Stockton happening within a couple of years of that. 
(7) When it comes to the Division of Highways vis-a-vis (then) AASHO planning maps, it's likely one hand just didn't know what the other was doing.  Since the switch to the Westside/LRN 238 routing was promulgated locally prior to federal approval, I would imagine that anyone attempting to pin down routings on a map was increasingly frustrated by the changes and simply didn't produce anything until more concrete information became available by the end of '59.  BTW, the Portland Cement promotional map from late 1959 (where, at age 10, I finally was able to see the complete Interstate system plans) did indicate the 5E/5W split where the 5/580 split is today -- but didn't indicate any E-W connector such as I-205 between the legs -- which leads me to think that the connector had yet to be finalized or approved by that time.
(8) Within CA, controversy seems to surround any route connected with the number "238"! 

[mrsman]

I suppose that without photographic evidence of the signing of I-5W this will never be resolved.  Many of the maps of that era, official and unofficial, were known to map what was planned as opposed to what actually existed.

Nexus 5X

[Max Rockatansky]

I suppose that without photographic evidence of the signing of I-5W this will never be resolved.  Many of the maps of that era, official and unofficial, were known to map what was planned as opposed to what actually existed.

Nexus 5X

That's the issue with a lot of stuff in California.  Case and point; every map of US 399 I've seen shows it multiplexing US 99 to US 466 in Bakersfield.  I've never seen a photo of said terminus and is likely one will never emerge.  The only Signed State Highway I've ever seen a photo of on a County Maintained Roadway was CA 12 which NE2 posted awhile back.  Who's to say for Routes like 180, 33, 49, and other's?

[sparker]

I suppose that without photographic evidence of the signing of I-5W this will never be resolved.  Many of the maps of that era, official and unofficial, were known to map what was planned as opposed to what actually existed.

Nexus 5X

That's the issue with a lot of stuff in California.  Case and point; every map of US 399 I've seen shows it multiplexing US 99 to US 466 in Bakersfield.  I've never seen a photo of said terminus and is likely one will never emerge.  The only Signed State Highway I've ever seen a photo of on a County Maintained Roadway was CA 12 which NE2 posted awhile back.  Who's to say for Routes like 180, 33, 49, and other's?

The 99/399 multiplex did in fact exist -- right up to the completion of the Bakersfield US 99 freeway bypass in late 1962.  For the approximately 16 months between the completion of that freeway and the changeover to the new numbering system that became official on 1/1/64, US 399 was effectively terminated at the present 99/119 junction.  Prior to that, the US 99 route over Union Avenue between Pumpkin Center and US 466/LRN 58 was always co-signed with US 399.  The "sign salad" at the 99/399/466/178 junction was quite impressive indeed; I passed it a few times per year as a kid to and from my Glendale home to visit with family in the Sacramento area.  IIRC, up until the time the 99 freeway opened all the Bakersfield-area U.S. route shields were of the old state-name-above-the-line design, but the last iteration of those with button copy; the SSR 178 in-town shields were always the "bear" equivalent, also with button copy on the numbers.  The larger white and off-white "semi-neutered" shields were deployed along the freeways but didn't seem to make it into town in that particular district. 

[NE2]

Case and point; every map of US 399 I've seen shows it multiplexing US 99 to US 466 in Bakersfield.  I've never seen a photo of said terminus and is likely one will never emerge.

This photo shows the back of 99 and 399 shields (at far left): http://calisphere.org/item/ark:/13030/kt0b69q4s2/

[Max Rockatansky]

^^^^

I'll to pull the picture up on computer when I'm home, it's too small to see on my phone. 

I suppose that without photographic evidence of the signing of I-5W this will never be resolved.  Many of the maps of that era, official and unofficial, were known to map what was planned as opposed to what actually existed.

Nexus 5X

That's the issue with a lot of stuff in California.  Case and point; every map of US 399 I've seen shows it multiplexing US 99 to US 466 in Bakersfield.  I've never seen a photo of said terminus and is likely one will never emerge.  The only Signed State Highway I've ever seen a photo of on a County Maintained Roadway was CA 12 which NE2 posted awhile back.  Who's to say for Routes like 180, 33, 49, and other's?

The 99/399 multiplex did in fact exist -- right up to the completion of the Bakersfield US 99 freeway bypass in late 1962.  For the approximately 16 months between the completion of that freeway and the changeover to the new numbering system that became official on 1/1/64, US 399 was effectively terminated at the present 99/119 junction.  Prior to that, the US 99 route over Union Avenue between Pumpkin Center and US 466/LRN 58 was always co-signed with US 399.  The "sign salad" at the 99/399/466/178 junction was quite impressive indeed; I passed it a few times per year as a kid to and from my Glendale home to visit with family in the Sacramento area.  IIRC, up until the time the 99 freeway opened all the Bakersfield-area U.S. route shields were of the old state-name-above-the-line design, but the last iteration of those with button copy; the SSR 178 in-town shields were always the "bear" equivalent, also with button copy on the numbers.  The larger white and off-white "semi-neutered" shields were deployed along the freeways but didn't seem to make it into town in that particular district.

That must have been something to see when 178 came in with US 466 on Summer.  Any idea how the assembly looked when 178 was moved to 24th Street?

[sparker]

^^^^

I'll to pull the picture up on computer when I'm home, it's too small to see on my phone. 

I suppose that without photographic evidence of the signing of I-5W this will never be resolved.  Many of the maps of that era, official and unofficial, were known to map what was planned as opposed to what actually existed.

Nexus 5X

That's the issue with a lot of stuff in California.  Case and point; every map of US 399 I've seen shows it multiplexing US 99 to US 466 in Bakersfield.  I've never seen a photo of said terminus and is likely one will never emerge.  The only Signed State Highway I've ever seen a photo of on a County Maintained Roadway was CA 12 which NE2 posted awhile back.  Who's to say for Routes like 180, 33, 49, and other's?

The 99/399 multiplex did in fact exist -- right up to the completion of the Bakersfield US 99 freeway bypass in late 1962.  For the approximately 16 months between the completion of that freeway and the changeover to the new numbering system that became official on 1/1/64, US 399 was effectively terminated at the present 99/119 junction.  Prior to that, the US 99 route over Union Avenue between Pumpkin Center and US 466/LRN 58 was always co-signed with US 399.  The "sign salad" at the 99/399/466/178 junction was quite impressive indeed; I passed it a few times per year as a kid to and from my Glendale home to visit with family in the Sacramento area.  IIRC, up until the time the 99 freeway opened all the Bakersfield-area U.S. route shields were of the old state-name-above-the-line design, but the last iteration of those with button copy; the SSR 178 in-town shields were always the "bear" equivalent, also with button copy on the numbers.  The larger white and off-white "semi-neutered" shields were deployed along the freeways but didn't seem to make it into town in that particular district.

That must have been something to see when 178 came in with US 466 on Summer.  Any idea how the assembly looked when 178 was moved to 24th Street?

By that time, US 99 had been moved over to the freeway; as it was 1963, and I was still 2 years away from my drivers' license, I never got the chance to see that arrangement.  Have no idea if D6 simply slapped "business" banners over the US 99 shields; my feeling is that it wouldn't have been quite as impressive as when everything came together at that particular intersection at the curve of former 99!  The next time I saw the arrangement was in the fall of '68, after CA 204 had been signed but CA 58 still ran E-W through Bakersfield city streets.  IIRC, most directional signage was confined to green rectangular signs, both large and small -- but by that time the CA 178 freeway east of downtown was in place.  That configuration placed WB CA 58 on Golden State Blvd. between Sumner and the 178 overpass; 58 turned onto the ramp directly to WB 24th street on the north side of the overpass.  Narrow ramp; but that didn't seem to matter; most commercial traffic coming off WB 58 (heavy even then) stayed on NB 204 to access NB CA 99; until the full length of I-5 north to Stockton opened in 1972, trucks, of course, tended to stay on CA 99.  After the opening of I-5, most still avoided the slog through downtown Bakersfield on 24th Street and, if electing to use the new I-5, simply utilized CA 46 to do so.  CA 58 west of Bakersfield didn't see a lot of through truck traffic until the 58 freeway east of CA 99 was completed in 1979, allowing a bypass of downtown.   

[TheStranger]

4. The only evidence we have for the signage of I-5W is on points E -- along US 50 near Oakland, along future I-505.

Was the MacArthur Freeway portion of what is now 580 (not 505, which I don't think had any construction on it pre-1964) signed as I-5W in its entirety, or only that short segment in Oakland near Grand Avenue?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4698383839

---

Not an official state map, but a 1963 Rand McNally snippet from the AARoads Interstate Guide, showing I-5W on future I-505 and on then-US 50 (now the I-580 corridor) near Altamont.  More interesting is I-5E being listed along County Route J8

[cahwyguy]

Just to clarify: This map shows I-5W along the LRN 5 (I-205) alignment -- there is no angling down to Vernalis, no I-5W along Route 132. It supports the contention that the submission for I-5W may have been LRN 110 before 1958, but that was never signed. Signage of I-5W came after its approval in 1958, and that signage was along present day I-205 and I-580. Given the I-5E on the map, it appears that signage would have been along US 50 N of Tracy along I-5 until the point where I-5W rejoined I-5E N of Zamora.

[Rothman]

I do like the "floating" 5W shield.

[NE2]

That's just standard Rand McNally practice to only show proposed freeways where there is no existing surface road in the same alignment (or where a definite alignment is set?).

[sparker]

Also standard McNally practice in regards to proposed Interstate corridors:  approximation.  The map shown is a '63 edition; the "Tracy Triangle" alignments -- at least the I-5W & I-5E portions, were already formally adopted, but McNally simply chose to show the corridor heading directly into Tracy.  And where the future Interstate corridor was planned to overlay an existing route, they simply slapped shields on that route (they certainly did it with the original I-64 corridor along US 50 and US 150 from St. Louis to Louisville; you can also see that practice here with the I-5 shield affixed to a 2-lane section of US 99W north of Dunnigan).  The only signed section of the I-5 suffixed routes was I-5W from I-80 east to the temporary end of the freeway near Piedmont; no other freeway or expressway sections of US 50 were signed as either I-5W or I-5E.  The numbering change eliminating the suffixed split actually occurred about October '63, a few months ahead of the general statewide renumbering (at least according to CH&PW), so the I-5W shields were very short-lived: deployed barely 2 years before being replaced by I-580 shields. 

Since the alignment of I-5E between Stockton and Sacramento hadn't been formalized by '63 -- and it definitely wasn't along US 99 any more -- they simply elected to show it along the sole continuous surface facility (J8) between the points that were actually adopted.  Likewise with I-5W north of Vacaville; the difference is that the "light blue line" used there was actually an unsigned state highway (LRN 90).  Also: I-5(E) between Woodland and Sacramento is shown as under construction and north of SSR 16; the actual current I-5 Yolo Causeway through that area is a few hundred yards south of the former SSR/CA 16 alignment.  As stated earlier, typical McNally "guesstimation".   

[cahwyguy]

Also standard McNally practice in regards to proposed Interstate corridors:  approximation.  The map shown is a '63 edition; the "Tracy Triangle" alignments -- at least the I-5W & I-5E portions, were already formally adopted, but McNally simply chose to show the corridor heading directly into Tracy.  And where the future Interstate corridor was planned to overlay an existing route, they simply slapped shields on that route (they certainly did it with the original I-64 corridor along US 50 and US 150 from St. Louis to Louisville; you can also see that practice here with the I-5 shield affixed to a 2-lane section of US 99W north of Dunnigan).  The only signed section of the I-5 suffixed routes was I-5W from I-80 east to the temporary end of the freeway near Piedmont; no other freeway or expressway sections of US 50 were signed as either I-5W or I-5E. 

So it is clear that this portion of I-580 or SSR 132 was never signed. So the question then is: What was submitted as the route for I-5W, and did that change between 1957 and 1958 when the southern end was seemingly changed from Modesto to "Near Tracy"? Was the original submittal in 1957 the I-580 and SSR 132 routing, and that was changed during 1958 to be the I-580 and I-205 routing (or just I-580).

What I have, from the "Interstate Highways in California", supports the I-580 (no SSR 132) theory:

For I-580:
I-80 to I-5, Oakland to Modesto
14-Aug-1957   I-5W Tentatively Approved
(Tracy adjustment, November 1957)
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

For I-205:
North Tracy Bypass
8-Nov-1957   Number Unknown
1-Apr-1958   Proposed as I-112
7-Aug-1958   Proposed as I-205
10-Nov-1958   Approved as I-205

For I-505:
14-Aug-1957   I-5W Tentatively Approved
08-Nov-1957   Proposed as I-7
01-Apr-1958   Proposed as I-115
07-Aug-1958   Proposed as I-5W
10-Nov-1958   Approved as I-5W
01-Jul-1964   Renumbered as I-505

Yet the 1958 approved map http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/yellowbook/numbering-1958.jpg shows the route going straight to Tracy.

[sparker]

What that indicates is that the Yellow Book was as inured to the art of approximation as was McNally; it's likely the McNally "dashed lines" were gleaned from the Yellow Book.  The California Division of Highways was likely on a completely separate page; at the time, they were compiling the first iteration of the state Freeway & Expressway System which would contain the Interstate corridors within their network.  Until that system was effectively finalized, including the Westside Freeway and its ancillary branches, the Division's plans wouldn't have been set in stone, regardless of BPR/FHWA or AASHO's systemwide outlines.  Basically, 1957-58 was simply each entity getting things into place according to their individual needs and, in terms of communicating with each other, "running things up the flagpole" from time to time; it looks like 11/10/58 was the day things finally came together as the basis for the network as it is today.

[cahwyguy]

Thank you all for this discussion. The goal was to correct the map that I had on my Route 5 page ( https://www.cahighways.org/001-008.html#005 ), as well as the description. Here's the updated map. I still need to go back and make sure I have the correct coordinating information on the pages for I-580, I-205, Route 120, and Route 132 (some may have erroneous old information, and someone should tell Wikipedia, because they copied from my pages :-) ). Here's the updated map:

[cahwyguy]

However... updating the other pages uncovered one other minor mystery: LRN 110 (Route 132) ended at LRN 41 (Route 33) until 1957, when it was extended to LRN 5 (I-580/I-205) junction. So here's the mystery: I-5W was proposed as two segments, Vacaville to Dunnigan (now I-505), and Oakland to Modesto (what became I-580) in 1947. But the route of Oakland to Modesto in 1947 was US 50 to Route 33 to Route 132 -- there was no connection between Route 132 (LRN 11) and US 50 (LRN 5). That didn't come until 1957, and I-5W/I-580 was cut back to near Tracy in 1958. Further, the stub extending LRN 110 along future I-580 between Route 132 and I-5 wasn't added to LRN 110 until 1959.

So what was the department thinking between 1947 and 1957? My best guess is: Nothing. They wanted a route from Oakland to Modesto, but didn't officially add it to the state highway system until it was near final approval in the 1957-1958 timeframe. At that time, they extended LRN 110 to provide the proposed freeway connection.