California State Route concurrencies with Interstates

[bing101]

CA-380 was supposed to be co signed with I-380 west of the I-280 interchange in San Bruno but that was cancelled though.

https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2005/shc/300-635.html

[TheStranger]

CA-380 was supposed to be co signed with I-380 west of the I-280 interchange in San Bruno but that was cancelled though.

https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2005/shc/300-635.html

That was not a concurrency at all, but 380 becoming a signed non-interstate route west of I-280.  (There were covered shields on the original Sneath/San Bruno Avenue BGSes until the 2000s, though I don't know for sure whether they were I-380 or State Route 380 shields)  If this had been built, this would be more akin to the I-110/Route 110 switchover at the Four-Level in Los Angeles.

[sparker]

CA-99 is supposed to be cosigned with I-9 or I-7 if the interstate is approved.

Ideas of I-9/I-7 becoming a thing along the CA 99 corridor are very speculative...

California doesn't move very fast when it comes to establishing new Interstate routes. They pretty much make upgrades whenever they have money and aren't very aggressive about assigning miles. Examples include CA 99, 58, 15, 210, 905, etc.

And in the event CA 99 actually is designated and signed as an Interstate (7 or 9), it'll only be as far north as Sacramento (or possibly Stockton); that will leave a large portion of CA 99 remaining north via Yuba City and Chico.  If all that occurs, CA 99 signage will be removed from the Interstate portion; neither Caltrans as an entity nor any of their districts will "double-number" such a facility -- a policy in place since '64. 

There are still only 3 facilities in CA that carry state shielded numbers of adjoining and/or future Interstates: 15, 210, and 905; while CA 99 is on the federal books as a future Interstate (sans assigned number) via HPC #54, no portion of it has been submitted much less accepted as an Interstate.  And no action has been taken to bring CA 58 into the Interstate system, although it's an obvious I-40 extension and carries a high level of commercial traffic.   

[bing101]

I-210 in the past was co signed with the north end of CA-57 freeway prior to CA-210 freeway being opened in the 2000's from Glendora to Redlands.

[TheStranger]

I-210 in the past was co signed with the north end of CA-57 freeway prior to CA-210 freeway being opened in the 2000's from Glendora to Redlands.

That also is not a concurrency at all.  For about 30 years, Route 57, I-210, and Route 71 all shared a terminus.  (And IIRC the FHWA interstate log still has the segment of the Orange Freeway between 210 and 10 as part of the Interstate system)  When 210 was extended to Redlands on the newer part of the Foothill Freeway, that north-south segment simply became a Route 57 extension, and not a 57/210 multiplex.

[mrsman]

I-210 in the past was co signed with the north end of CA-57 freeway prior to CA-210 freeway being opened in the 2000's from Glendora to Redlands.

That also is not a concurrency at all.  For about 30 years, Route 57, I-210, and Route 71 all shared a terminus.  (And IIRC the FHWA interstate log still has the segment of the Orange Freeway between 210 and 10 as part of the Interstate system)  When 210 was extended to Redlands on the newer part of the Foothill Freeway, that north-south segment simply became a Route 57 extension, and not a 57/210 multiplex.

Is this related to why CA 210 is still not yet signed as an interstate?  Is there a problem with 57 being officially part of I-210 to prevent CA 210 from becoming I-210.  Perhaps a secret designation is needed (similar to I-305 in Sacramento) or maybe just simply renumber 57 as an interstate (I-510??) the same way that CA-11 and CA-7 became I-110 and I-710 30 years ago.

[TheStranger]

I-210 in the past was co signed with the north end of CA-57 freeway prior to CA-210 freeway being opened in the 2000's from Glendora to Redlands.

That also is not a concurrency at all.  For about 30 years, Route 57, I-210, and Route 71 all shared a terminus.  (And IIRC the FHWA interstate log still has the segment of the Orange Freeway between 210 and 10 as part of the Interstate system)  When 210 was extended to Redlands on the newer part of the Foothill Freeway, that north-south segment simply became a Route 57 extension, and not a 57/210 multiplex.

Is this related to why CA 210 is still not yet signed as an interstate?  Is there a problem with 57 being officially part of I-210 to prevent CA 210 from becoming I-210.  Perhaps a secret designation is needed (similar to I-305 in Sacramento) or maybe just simply renumber 57 as an interstate (I-510??) the same way that CA-11 and CA-7 became I-110 and I-710 30 years ago.

From cahighways:

"In September 2018, an explanation was given for why the portion E of Route 57 was still not signed as an interstate route. Joy Schneider from Caltrans District 8 (Riverside and San Bernardino counties), said state legislation authorizing number changes for Route 210 construction project was complex because the entire route for the highway was considered, beginning with Los Angeles County communities all the way east through Riverside and San Bernardino counties. Interstate status was more directly tied Route 210 Freeway construction projects, she said, explaining that interstate status was initiated, then partially rescinded to coincide with construction limits. Schneider said all highway signs should all be updated to reflect the name of I-210 once pending freeway upgrade construction through to I-10 is completed. More work on Route 210 is expected to begin in the fall of 2019 and updated interstate signs will follow.
(Source: Press-Enterprise, 9/16/2018)"

In a way this seems similar to the whole TN 840/I-840 thing, though at the end of the day I would say Route 210, Route 15, and Route 905 are all at decent enough standard to have been signed as Interstates.  (Route 110 north of I-5 is the only time I think this state/Interstate distinction truly makes sense, due to truck restriction north of US 101; the Harbor Freeway in downtown LA between I-10 and US 101 has been signed as both I-110 (southbound) and Route 110 (northbound) since the 1980s but really should just all be signed as I-110 for consistency)

[bing101]

https://socalregion.com/highways/socal_unsigned/foothill_fwy/

I-210 was once co-signed with CA-118 where Oak Grove drive is currently located.

[dbz77]

Parentheses mark former concurrencies

I-5:
(Route 75 in San Diego)
[Will Route 58 have a concurrency with I-5 in the future once the Westside Parkway is extended to near Buttonwillow?]
Route 33 near Coalinga
Route 4 in Stockton
Route 99 in Sacramento
(unclear if Route 16 ever really counted as it seems 1964-1984 there was a gap from downtown Sacramento to the College Greens district)
Route 113 in Woodland
(Route 299 in Redding)

I-405:
Route 22 near Long Beach

I-8:
(Route 67 in El Cajon)

I-15:
Route 79 in Temecula

I-215:
Route 74 in Perris
Route 60 in Moreno Valley/Riverside
(Note: there was an I-15/Route 18 concurrency in San Bernardino when 15 used the northern portion of modern 215)

I-80:
(Route 17 in Berkeley)
Route 113 between Dixon and Davis
Route 89 in Truckee

I-280:
(Route 85 in Cupertino until the early 90s)
Route 35 between San Mateo and San Bruno
Route 1 in Daly City

I-680:
Route 84 in one direction near Sunol

I-880:
Route 84 in Fremont/Newark

Here are some that you missed.

I-5:
(Route 126 near Santa Clarita)

I-15:
Route 18 in Victorville

[ClassicHasClass]

I-5:
(Route 126 near Santa Clarita)

If you mean Magic Mtn Pkwy, that was relinquished a number of years ago (2001, according to Dan: https://www.cahighways.org/121-128.html#126 ). Signage did stick around for awhile, as usual.

[Max Rockatansky]

I-5:
(Route 126 near Santa Clarita)

If you mean Magic Mtn Pkwy, that was relinquished a number of years ago (2001, according to Dan: https://www.cahighways.org/121-128.html#126 ). Signage did stick around for awhile, as usual.

Beat me to the punch on it.  Interestingly CA 126 presently ends just east of I-5 on Newhall Ranch Road.  The maintenance oddly extends past the junction which I thought was kind of odd. 

[dbz77]

I-5:
(Route 126 near Santa Clarita)

If you mean Magic Mtn Pkwy, that was relinquished a number of years ago (2001, according to Dan: https://www.cahighways.org/121-128.html#126 ). Signage did stick around for awhile, as usual.

Beat me to the punch on it.  Interestingly CA 126 presently ends just east of I-5 on Newhall Ranch Road.  The maintenance oddly extends past the junction which I thought was kind of odd.

I am.guessing there were plans to cobstruct a divided highway between Golden State and Antelope Balley Freeways.

[Max Rockatansky]

I-5:
(Route 126 near Santa Clarita)

If you mean Magic Mtn Pkwy, that was relinquished a number of years ago (2001, according to Dan: https://www.cahighways.org/121-128.html#126 ). Signage did stick around for awhile, as usual.

Beat me to the punch on it.  Interestingly CA 126 presently ends just east of I-5 on Newhall Ranch Road.  The maintenance oddly extends past the junction which I thought was kind of odd.

I am.guessing there were plans to cobstruct a divided highway between Golden State and Antelope Balley Freeways.

Actually yes, I linked over the page from CAhighways on the CA 126 which goes into way more detail. 

[bing101]

I-680 was co-signed with CA-21 from Fairfield to the Benicia Bridge in the past but that probably got removed sometime when CA-21 met interstate standards CA-21 was removed and it is only signed as I-680.

[Mark68]

I-210 in the past was co signed with the north end of CA-57 freeway prior to CA-210 freeway being opened in the 2000's from Glendora to Redlands.

That also is not a concurrency at all.  For about 30 years, Route 57, I-210, and Route 71 all shared a terminus.  (And IIRC the FHWA interstate log still has the segment of the Orange Freeway between 210 and 10 as part of the Interstate system)  When 210 was extended to Redlands on the newer part of the Foothill Freeway, that north-south segment simply became a Route 57 extension, and not a 57/210 multiplex.

Is this related to why CA 210 is still not yet signed as an interstate?  Is there a problem with 57 being officially part of I-210 to prevent CA 210 from becoming I-210.  Perhaps a secret designation is needed (similar to I-305 in Sacramento) or maybe just simply renumber 57 as an interstate (I-510??) the same way that CA-11 and CA-7 became I-110 and I-710 30 years ago.

From cahighways:

"In September 2018, an explanation was given for why the portion E of Route 57 was still not signed as an interstate route. Joy Schneider from Caltrans District 8 (Riverside and San Bernardino counties), said state legislation authorizing number changes for Route 210 construction project was complex because the entire route for the highway was considered, beginning with Los Angeles County communities all the way east through Riverside and San Bernardino counties. Interstate status was more directly tied Route 210 Freeway construction projects, she said, explaining that interstate status was initiated, then partially rescinded to coincide with construction limits. Schneider said all highway signs should all be updated to reflect the name of I-210 once pending freeway upgrade construction through to I-10 is completed. More work on Route 210 is expected to begin in the fall of 2019 and updated interstate signs will follow.
(Source: Press-Enterprise, 9/16/2018)"

In a way this seems similar to the whole TN 840/I-840 thing, though at the end of the day I would say Route 210, Route 15, and Route 905 are all at decent enough standard to have been signed as Interstates.  (Route 110 north of I-5 is the only time I think this state/Interstate distinction truly makes sense, due to truck restriction north of US 101; the Harbor Freeway in downtown LA between I-10 and US 101 has been signed as both I-110 (southbound) and Route 110 (northbound) since the 1980s but really should just all be signed as I-110 for consistency)

What additional work needs to be done on 210? Isn't it interstate standards now for its entire length?

[DTComposer]

I-680 was co-signed with CA-21 from Fairfield to the Benicia Bridge in the past but that probably got removed sometime when CA-21 met interstate standards CA-21 was removed and it is only signed as I-680.

Is this true? The bridge log says all the current bridges on that section were completed by 1966, and the route number change happened ten years later. Why would there be any need to co-sign the route (except perhaps a brief period right when the change happened)?

My first time on that part of the route was late 1977, and as far as I remember it was just I-680.

[bing101]

I-680 was co-signed with CA-21 from Fairfield to the Benicia Bridge in the past but that probably got removed sometime when CA-21 met interstate standards CA-21 was removed and it is only signed as I-680.

Is this true? The bridge log says all the current bridges on that section were completed by 1966, and the route number change happened ten years later. Why would there be any need to co-sign the route (except perhaps a brief period right when the change happened)?

My first time on that part of the route was late 1977, and as far as I remember it was just I-680.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_680_(California) according to this CA-21 was signed from 1934-1976. But I-680 got interstate status in 1955 in this article.

[Max Rockatansky]

I-680 was co-signed with CA-21 from Fairfield to the Benicia Bridge in the past but that probably got removed sometime when CA-21 met interstate standards CA-21 was removed and it is only signed as I-680.

Is this true? The bridge log says all the current bridges on that section were completed by 1966, and the route number change happened ten years later. Why would there be any need to co-sign the route (except perhaps a brief period right when the change happened)?

My first time on that part of the route was late 1977, and as far as I remember it was just I-680.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_680_(California) according to this CA-21 was signed from 1934-1976. But I-680 got interstate status in 1955 in this article.

Timeline I did on CA 21 and I-680:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/02/interstate-680-over-benicia-martinez.html?m=1

[TheStranger]

I-680 was co-signed with CA-21 from Fairfield to the Benicia Bridge in the past but that probably got removed sometime when CA-21 met interstate standards CA-21 was removed and it is only signed as I-680.

Is this true? The bridge log says all the current bridges on that section were completed by 1966, and the route number change happened ten years later. Why would there be any need to co-sign the route (except perhaps a brief period right when the change happened)?

My first time on that part of the route was late 1977, and as far as I remember it was just I-680.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_680_(California) according to this CA-21 was signed from 1934-1976. But I-680 got interstate status in 1955 in this article.

Timeline I did on CA 21 and I-680:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/02/interstate-680-over-benicia-martinez.html?m=1

To add to that (so that it is in a post here) -

Route 21 between the bridge and I-80 was NOT an Interstate from 1955-1976 and was built as a state highway.  The original 680 routing as planned in the 1940s/1950s was built from Benicia to Vallejo by the late 1950s and signed as such until 1976-1977.

At that point, the Benicia-Vallejo section became I-780 and that final portion of 21 from Benicia to Cordelia became I-680 as it is now (and is pretty unchanged from that era, being 4 lanes).  The first major change to the section that was 1970s Route 21 will occur in the next few years when 680 is rerouted at the northern terminus to instead a new connection with the existing Route 12/I-80 western interchange.

[pderocco]

What additional work needs to be done on 210? Isn't it interstate standards now for its entire length?

The old CA-30 freeway from I-215 in SB to I-10 in Redlands is pretty old, and has no room for shoulders on the various grade separations. But all the newer stuff from San Dimas to I-215 looks like it's up to snuff, as far as I can tell. Not sure about the westernmost bit between CA-57 and Foothill Blvd in San Dimas, since it's old too.