Harbor Freeway incorrectly signed in downtown LA (I-110 vs CA 110)

[TheStranger]

I think he's asking what's historic about the road. Use the Goog.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arroyo_Seco_Parkway

o ok that's a good reason then!  I didn't know that about that highway.  Were there ever any plans to connect it to i-210?

Not 210 directly, but to the still-unbuilt 710 tunnel (which would then connect to the 210/134 junction) - that interchange however has been removed in the most recent plans for that freeway.

[TheStranger]

Here's a couple of photos to add to the mix.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/10794876525/in/set-72157637545399534 - local signage in San Pedro for "Route 110 north."  State Route 110 has NEVER actually run north from the nearby 47/110 interchange; prior to the mid-2000s it did exist southward along Gaffey Street from 47/110 to 9th Street.  But the freeway segment past Route 47 has always been either US 6/Route 11 or I-110.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/10795006074/in/set-72157637545399534 This is the first time I've seen a northbound I-110 reassurance shield NORTH of I-10!  For that matter, this may be the only trailblazer for 110 north between I-10 and the Four-Level.  It is very new as it was not on the Google Street View of this segment of the Harbor Freeway (note also that the Figueroa Street sign was replaced recently too) -

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Figueroa+%26+9th&hl=en&ll=34.04351,-118.272306&spn=0.002524,0.002387&sll=37.269174,-119.306607&sspn=13.95558,19.555664&t=h&hq=Figueroa+%26+9th&z=19&layer=c&cbll=34.04351,-118.272306&panoid=WzFg87Wh8B2uQ7bBOthRvA&cbp=12,44.03,,1,-1.77

With that, it seems to be a case where CalTrans's and FHWA's definitions of I-110 are slightly different (with CalTrans considering all of the Harbor Freeway as Interstate, but FHWA only acknowledging the segment south of the Santa Monica Freeway), much like the difference in FHWA and CalTrans concepts of I-80 that I mentioned earlier in the thread.

[jrouse]

The official California State Highway Log shows that the interstate designation for Route 110 ends at the junction with I-10.   It is classified as a Federal Aid secondary route north of I-10, so it does not have an interstate designation and is officially CA-110. 

Because the majority of the Harbor Freeway is designated as I-110, it would make some sense from a motoring public benefit to use the I-110 designation on any signs indicating Harbor Freeway, even though the portion of the Harbor Freeway north of I-10 is officially CA-110.

[TheStranger]

The official California State Highway Log shows that the interstate designation for Route 110 ends at the junction with I-10.   It is classified as a Federal Aid secondary route north of I-10, so it does not have an interstate designation and is officially CA-110. 

Is this true as well for the section of I-80 between US 101 and the Bay Bridge that FHWA has not considered an interstate route since 1968?

Because the majority of the Harbor Freeway is designated as I-110, it would make some sense from a motoring public benefit to use the I-110 designation on any signs indicating Harbor Freeway, even though the portion of the Harbor Freeway north of I-10 is officially CA-110.

With CalTrans reaffirming southbound Harbor Freeway in its entirety as "Interstate 110" in signage...it seems this distinction is actually even more useful now - having the interstate associated with the route that DOES allow trucks on it, and the state route with the much older parkway that does not, i.e.:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/10794870756/in/set-72157637545399534
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/10795089553/in/set-72157637545399534

All of the pull-throughs from the Four-Level southward, as noted earlier, are marked for I-110...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/10795091973/in/set-72157637545399534 (marked on both the mainline pullthrough and the local exits pullthrough)

However, a couple of these State Route 110 overheads exist.  Given the number change from 11 to 110 occurred in 1981, I am curious when these shield replacements were installed (as opposed to the pre-retroreflective I-110 southbound signs) -

http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/10794976934/in/set-72157637545399534

---

My take has always been pretty simple on this: if I-110 is to be signed southbound from US 101 onwards, it should be signed north of I-10 on the northbound direction until the Four-Level, for consistency.

[jrouse]

Route 80 is also not designated as Interstate 80 past the former junction with the Embarcadero Freeway.  According to the State Highway Log, it was designated as Federal Aid Primary Route 480 from that point to the junction with 101.

It should be pointed out that with the establishment of the National Highway System, the Federal Aid Urban, Federal Aid Secondary, and Federal Aid Primary numbering systems were done away with; the Interstate System is a component of the National Highway System.  I think the only numbers now used are the official legislative route numbers.   

One can quickly and easily see where Interstate designations begin and end by looking at the California Road System maps, found at http://dot.ca.gov/hq/tsip/hseb/crs_maps/index.php.

Some observations from the CRS maps:
The I-80 designation ends at roughly the eastern end of the Bay Bridge/former Embarcadero Freeway junction.
The I-110 designation ends at I-10.
Interestingly, the section of Route 50 that is on the Interstate system as I-305 designation is not shown as Interstate on the CRS maps.  It is instead shown as "other" and is signed as CA-50?!?  Not sure what is going on here.  According to the State Highway Log, Route 50 is designated as I-305 from the junction with I-80 in West Sacramento up to the junction with CA-99/Business 80 in Sacramento (total length is 5.63 miles).

[TheStranger]

One can quickly and easily see where Interstate designations begin and end by looking at the California Road System maps, found at http://dot.ca.gov/hq/tsip/hseb/crs_maps/index.php.

Some observations from the CRS maps:
The I-80 designation ends at roughly the eastern end of the Bay Bridge/former Embarcadero Freeway junction.

Interesting side effect of I-80 not being an "interstate" west of the bridge:

Does this allow for the grandfathering of the left-exit ramps that date back to the US 40/50 era at 5th Street?  They were reconstructed - but in place - a few years ago.

The I-110 designation ends at I-10.
Interestingly, the section of Route 50 that is on the Interstate system as I-305 designation is not shown as Interstate on the CRS maps.  It is instead shown as "other" and is signed as CA-50?!?  Not sure what is going on here.  According to the State Highway Log, Route 50 is designated as I-305 from the junction with I-80 in West Sacramento up to the junction with CA-99/Business 80 in Sacramento (total length is 5.63 miles).

This map from the CRS doesn't even acknowledge the WX segment of the Capital City Freeway as an interstate:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tsip/hseb/crs_map/07j.pdf

Lately I've been under the impression that hidden I-305 applies to not only US 50 from I-80 to Route 99, but Route 51 from Route 99 to E Street.  (The latter was built as I-80/US 99E in the late 1950s/early 1960s and is up to interstate standards, unlike the segment north of there; it would fit in with the increased official FHWA length of 305 that I've seen at places like Kurumi's website)  But that isn't even marked as an interstate on this PDF.

The difference between legislation/internal designations and in-the-field signage is nothing new out here though; I remember in an earlier thread discussing the mid-1950s signage of US 70 east beginning on southbound US 101 at the Four-Level, which may have been in similar fashion to the famous Ankrom modifications of the northbound 110 signs there to acknowledge the upcoming I-5 exit:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/24431382@N03/5006703733/in/photolist-8CqEAa-8CtMxh-aGzHpT-bySMBh-d4FHCU-d4G3P3-ezQLfN-7R8ji5-dzvWVR-bR9seK-b34CNF-abxKrv-7Z2L6S-b34CZa-gm7z1G-8wedpJ-eZXiQ9-eZXkRw-eZXewJ-eZGRVz-eZXmBA-eZGNfa-eZGWXt-eZXfy5-eZXaPW-eZXfco-eZXbhb-eZXqxh-eZXbR7-eZGVrx-eZXjqy-eZGSo6-eZXkoS-eZX5sf-eZX4xG-eZX9U3-eZGQ24-eZXjNG-eZGNDa-eZGVZH-eZXq4N-eZGWpe-cxKaGs-9tsFPq-bKtmgv-hd2toQ-8LU3D4-eZX7Bb-eZXi27-eZGXWt-eZX3Kq

Didn't know until now that 305 was in the state highway log either...

[NE2]

The difference between legislation/internal designations and in-the-field signage is nothing new out here though; I remember in an earlier thread discussing the mid-1950s signage of US 70 east beginning on southbound US 101 at the Four-Level, which may have been in similar fashion to the famous Ankrom modifications of the northbound 110 signs there to acknowledge the upcoming I-5 exit:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/24431382@N03/5006703733/

The left sign does say San Bernardino Freeway, so it's logical to put the number of the freeway there. (I suppose by that point they may have been planning to move US 60 to the Pomona Freeway.)

As for I-305: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/nhs_maps/northern_california/sacramento_ca.pdf
I refuse to believe that SR 51 is not even on the NHS. FHWA almost certainly screwed this up.

[TheStranger]

The difference between legislation/internal designations and in-the-field signage is nothing new out here though; I remember in an earlier thread discussing the mid-1950s signage of US 70 east beginning on southbound US 101 at the Four-Level, which may have been in similar fashion to the famous Ankrom modifications of the northbound 110 signs there to acknowledge the upcoming I-5 exit:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/24431382@N03/5006703733/

The left sign does say San Bernardino Freeway, so it's logical to put the number of the freeway there. (I suppose by that point they may have been planning to move US 60 to the Pomona Freeway.)

Yeah, I was figuring THAT might be the very first example of the infamous implied "TO" that California is so fond of using.  (Which makes the actual use of TO on a concurrency the route actually is running, Route 99 in Sacramento, baffling in comparison)

As for I-305: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/nhs_maps/northern_california/sacramento_ca.pdf
I refuse to believe that SR 51 is not even on the NHS. FHWA almost certainly screwed this up.

Also notable: 99 and 50 each get the red line for "other NHS routes" but 51 is somehow entirely local?  (Maybe that is the case, but it's something that surprises me)

The Los Angeles FHWA map also brings some interesting pieces of info:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/nhs_maps/southern_california/losangeles_ca.pdf

- As expected, 110 is not acknowledged as an interstate by FHWA north of 10.  The Harbor Freeway's north end is listed as Other NHS Route...but the Arroyo Seco Parkway is marked as entirely local.

- The future 710 tunnel is marked as Other NHS Route, along with what is currently State Route 210 east of Glendora.

- Route 47 in its ENTIRETY! (including the corridor along Alameda north of Route 91 that is presently _not_ state highway) is marked as Other NHS Route.

- The southernmost part of the Glendale Freeway (between I-5 and Glendale Boulevard) is marked as entirely local, while the rest is Other NHS Route.

- The most intriguing to me, and the most relevant to the earlier discussions of I-80 and I-110, are the following two tidbits:

1. The segment of signed I-10 (the San Bernardino Freeway spur/former US 60/70/99) between 101 and 5 is NOT marked as Interstate OR as even "Other NHS Route".  It is considered entirely local, even though it connects between an interstate and US 101 (Other STRAHNET Route).

2. What is signed as I-710 between Route 47 and Route 1 is marked as "Major STRAHNET Connector" and NOT interstate, even though it has finally been completed as full freeway out to 47/103 in the last few years.  While 1 to 210 is the official definition of the route as listed at Faigin's page - http://cahighways.org/466-740.html#710 - it also notes that the segment from 47/103 to 1 would be added to the route once completed.  That southernmost segment seems to have always been signed as I-710 (and didn't exist when the route was Route 7 or previously Route 15). 

Is this even a state route yet, or has the definition not been updated to acknowledge the following:

The legislative description of Route 710 includes a portion between Route 1 and the northern end of Harbor Scenic Drive, a portion of Harbor Scenic Drive to Ocean Blvd, a portion of Ocean Blvd west of its intersection with Harbor Scenic Drive to its junction with Seaside Blvd, and a portion of Seaside Blvd from the junction with Ocean Blvd to Route 47. This will apparently be signed as part of the route after planned port-related improvements by the cities of Long Beach and Los Angeles. The segment from Ocean Blvd to Route 1 is non-chargeable 139(b) milage.

So signed 710 south of Route 1 could either be "state route 710", or an unnumbered city-built and city-maintained freeway that FHWA acknowledges as STRAHNET route 710.  Hmm.

- Imperial Highway west of I-105 is given a "Other NHS Route" marking even though it is not part of the definition for 105 nor has it ever been state highway.  Map error, or something new?

----

The San Francisco map offers similar oddities, some of which have already been mentioned.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/nhs_maps/northern_california/sanfrancisco_ca.pdf

Most notable though is the marking of US 101 along the now demolished portion of the Central Freeway between Market Street and Turk Street.

[emory]

1. The segment of signed I-10 (the San Bernardino Freeway spur/former US 60/70/99) between 101 and 5 is NOT marked as Interstate OR as even "Other NHS Route".  It is considered entirely local, even though it connects between an interstate and US 101 (Other STRAHNET Route).

This spur used to be old Interstate 110. I'm actually surprised they never gave it a new number. US 101 from this spur to Interstate 5 was old Interstate 105.

2. What is signed as I-710 between Route 47 and Route 1 is marked as "Major STRAHNET Connector" and NOT interstate, even though it has finally been completed as full freeway out to 47/103 in the last few years.  While 1 to 210 is the official definition of the route as listed at Faigin's page - http://cahighways.org/466-740.html#710 - it also notes that the segment from 47/103 to 1 would be added to the route once completed.  That southernmost segment seems to have always been signed as I-710 (and didn't exist when the route was Route 7 or previously Route 15). 

Is this even a state route yet, or has the definition not been updated to acknowledge the following:

The legislative description of Route 710 includes a portion between Route 1 and the northern end of Harbor Scenic Drive, a portion of Harbor Scenic Drive to Ocean Blvd, a portion of Ocean Blvd west of its intersection with Harbor Scenic Drive to its junction with Seaside Blvd, and a portion of Seaside Blvd from the junction with Ocean Blvd to Route 47. This will apparently be signed as part of the route after planned port-related improvements by the cities of Long Beach and Los Angeles. The segment from Ocean Blvd to Route 1 is non-chargeable 139(b) milage.

So signed 710 south of Route 1 could either be "state route 710", or an unnumbered city-built and city-maintained freeway that FHWA acknowledges as STRAHNET route 710.  Hmm.

Long Beach handed control of the Long Beach Freeway south of CA 1 to CalTrans in exchange for the state's relinquishment of CA 103U on  August 25, 2000.

It looks like that subletter in the definition of Route 710 no longer applies, and CalTrans has adopted the rest of Ocean Blvd to CA 47. They plan to upgrade that section of freeway.

- Imperial Highway west of I-105 is given a "Other NHS Route" marking even though it is not part of the definition for 105 nor has it ever been state highway.  Map error, or something new?

Imperial Hwy from Pershing Drive to I-105 is an unconstructed portion of Route 105 that CalTrans probably won't ever construct.

[TheStranger]

1. The segment of signed I-10 (the San Bernardino Freeway spur/former US 60/70/99) between 101 and 5 is NOT marked as Interstate OR as even "Other NHS Route".  It is considered entirely local, even though it connects between an interstate and US 101 (Other STRAHNET Route).

This spur used to be old Interstate 110. I'm actually surprised they never gave it a new number. US 101 from this spur to Interstate 5 was old Interstate 105.

When the routes connecting I-5 with the San Bernardino Split (the old US 60/70/99 and today's southernmost portion of 101) were taken out of the Interstate system in 1968, I always interpreted that as a funding mechanism to get more milage for today's 105 (tied into the removal of 80 west of the Bay Bridge as interstate milage, the elimination of 480 from the system, and other cancellations).

Not sure the 1964 110 and 105 were ever signed either, as short as they were.  The San Bernardino Freeway spur seems wide enough to be Interstate standard, but that portion of the Santa Ana Freeway between it and 5 has never been (and doesn't seem like it will ever be expanded).

2. What is signed as I-710 between Route 47 and Route 1 is marked as "Major STRAHNET Connector" and NOT interstate, even though it has finally been completed as full freeway out to 47/103 in the last few years.  While 1 to 210 is the official definition of the route as listed at Faigin's page - http://cahighways.org/466-740.html#710 - it also notes that the segment from 47/103 to 1 would be added to the route once completed.  That southernmost segment seems to have always been signed as I-710 (and didn't exist when the route was Route 7 or previously Route 15). 

Is this even a state route yet, or has the definition not been updated to acknowledge the following:

The legislative description of Route 710 includes a portion between Route 1 and the northern end of Harbor Scenic Drive, a portion of Harbor Scenic Drive to Ocean Blvd, a portion of Ocean Blvd west of its intersection with Harbor Scenic Drive to its junction with Seaside Blvd, and a portion of Seaside Blvd from the junction with Ocean Blvd to Route 47. This will apparently be signed as part of the route after planned port-related improvements by the cities of Long Beach and Los Angeles. The segment from Ocean Blvd to Route 1 is non-chargeable 139(b) milage.

So signed 710 south of Route 1 could either be "state route 710", or an unnumbered city-built and city-maintained freeway that FHWA acknowledges as STRAHNET route 710.  Hmm.

Long Beach handed control of the Long Beach Freeway south of CA 1 to CalTrans in exchange for the state's relinquishment of CA 103U on  August 25, 2000.

It looks like that subletter in the definition of Route 710 no longer applies, and CalTrans has adopted the rest of Ocean Blvd to CA 47. They plan to upgrade that section of freeway.

Now that signed 710 is full freeway between Ocean Boulevard and 47/103...is the reconstruction of the Desmond Bridge the final step in officially adding it to the route definition?

[andy3175]

This is a great thread that demonstrates how the information available about several topics conflict, especially as related to Interstate/SR 80 west of the SF Bay Bridge, I-305's eastern terminus (or existence), and I-110's northern terminus. It seems signage is not consistently labeling the true endpoints of these routes, and the true routing may not be consistently listed on source documents (such as I-305, which I think Caltrans only grudgingly acknowledges). I love how we all dig into the details on this and look for consistency on documents produced by people who aren't road enthusiasts and don't share the same need for consistency on these points (I suspect the employees are more typically interested in the road quality and driveability).

I for one would prefer if I-305 was legislatively defined by the state of California, if for no other reason than to clarify its end points and to explain clearly that it was created from the remains of Interstate-standard I-80 when it was relocated to former I-880 across the top of Sacramento. The FHWA history site implies that I-305 extends northeast beyond the US 50/CA 99 interchange, and the mileage totals back that up (5 vs. 8 miles). Why the FHWA and/or Caltrans maps don't match the mileage on the Interstate Route Log and Finder List is beyond me.

Given the expectation I've had regarding new Interstates anticipated for California over the past 10 years and seeing no action on the part of local MPO's (municipal planning organizations) or Caltrans (specifically with relation to I-210 east, I-15 south, I-110 btwn I-10 and US 101, and I-80 in SF), I believe at this point that Caltrans may not bother with requesting AASHTO permission and will instead erect signs that match their understanding of how motorists perceive the route. I think that's how I-110 signs ended up north of US 101, and I think that's also why CA 210 and CA 15 remain even though they meet Interstate standards (other than the CA 15/94 interchange and the recently upgraded I-215/CA 210 interchange). It will be interesting to see if the recent improvements to I-80 in SF will result in an application to restore that route to Interstate designation via FHWA and AASHTO, even though the motoring public has no idea I-80 does not reach US 101 according to a map on the Caltrans webpage.

Regards,
Andy

[TheStranger]

Great addition to the thread, Andy.  Speaks to a lot of the thoughts that this topic (and the other situations mentioned) brings up, i.e. the differences between what is official/legislated and what is in the field.

I believe at this point that Caltrans may not bother with requesting AASHTO permission and will instead erect signs that match their understanding of how motorists perceive the route.

In that vein, I'm under the assumption Caltrans erected all the I-710 signage for the newer freeway segment between 47/103 and Ocean Boulevard in Long Beach, even though it was Long Beach that had the route constructed - and even if it isn't officially adopted yet, at least not until the Desmond Bridge reconstruction.

---

EDIT: A late night thought.

What if all those system additions (710 on Terminal Island, 210 east of 57, 15 south of 8) are ALL awaiting 905 being re-signed to interstate, at which point they'd all be submitted at once along with 905?  I haven't seen any word that would suggest that 905 would remain a state route permanently, and that freeway is now complete...

[SSOWorld]

The freeway's complete, but you still have that 126 toll road that ends short of it.

[andy3175]

What if all those system additions (710 on Terminal Island, 210 east of 57, 15 south of 8) are ALL awaiting 905 being re-signed to interstate, at which point they'd all be submitted at once along with 905?  I haven't seen any word that would suggest that 905 would remain a state route permanently, and that freeway is now complete...

I have wondered the same over the past several years and have tried to contact Caltrans and some of the local planning organizations (such as SANBAG for SR 210, SANDAG for SR 15 and SR 905, etc.) and have gotten no response. It would be nice if they did have a master plan for such things, but since Caltrans is regionalized through its districts, I don't know if they have gotten with the headquarters in Sacramento to create a plan to convert these routes or not.

Speaking of 710 south, I think you're right that any formal application for I-710's south extension will wait until the Gerald Desmond Bridge is completed. But for drivers (based on signage), I-710 begins at the SR 47 interchange on Terminal Island and extends onto the Long Beach Freeway. Signage to this effect is in place in both directions, and I think it's set that way to ensure the significant truck traffic on the freeway take I-710 to the Port of Long Beach (or Port of LA) rather than end up in downtown Long Beach or at the Queen Mary and cruise ship terminal.

Regards,
Andy

[TheStranger]

What if all those system additions (710 on Terminal Island, 210 east of 57, 15 south of 8) are ALL awaiting 905 being re-signed to interstate, at which point they'd all be submitted at once along with 905?  I haven't seen any word that would suggest that 905 would remain a state route permanently, and that freeway is now complete...

I have wondered the same over the past several years and have tried to contact Caltrans and some of the local planning organizations (such as SANBAG for SR 210, SANDAG for SR 15 and SR 905, etc.) and have gotten no response. It would be nice if they did have a master plan for such things, but since Caltrans is regionalized through its districts, I don't know if they have gotten with the headquarters in Sacramento to create a plan to convert these routes or not.

If I'm not mistaken, AASHTO rejected a 2002 submission to include 210 east of 57 with the Interstate, because the route was not complete at the time.  Given the hit-or-miss approach nationally to this (i.e. how I-73 is signed in segments, while it's taken more years for 49 to finally be accepted north of Louisiana), I wish this had simply been a conditional approval (as opposed to requiring an eventual re-submission) a decade ago.

Speaking of 710 south, I think you're right that any formal application for I-710's south extension will wait until the Gerald Desmond Bridge is completed. But for drivers (based on signage), I-710 begins at the SR 47 interchange on Terminal Island and extends onto the Long Beach Freeway. Signage to this effect is in place in both directions, and I think it's set that way to ensure the significant truck traffic on the freeway take I-710 to the Port of Long Beach (or Port of LA) rather than end up in downtown Long Beach or at the Queen Mary and cruise ship terminal.

Regards,
Andy

The 710 situation highlights another weakness of the legislative-based California system, in that now that that segment is complete (and the existing Gerald Desmond Bridge is in place to connect the newer and older portions), the route definition should have already automatically (re)included it.

The 10-west-of-101, 110-north-of-101, and 80-west-of-the-Bay Bridge situations at least are more quibbles in route designation that the legislative routes don't really deal with.  This is more related to the recent "decommission in segments" trend (i.e. what has been mentioned in the Route 1 thread) where funding technicalities, not navigation, become the priority with signage (or vice versa in 710's case).

[NE2]

The 710 situation highlights another weakness of the legislative-based California system, in that now that that segment is complete (and the existing Gerald Desmond Bridge is in place to connect the newer and older portions), the route definition should have already automatically (re)included it.

It does:

Route 710 shall also include that portion of the freeway between Route 1 and the northern end of Harbor Scenic Drive, that portion of Harbor Scenic Drive to Ocean Boulevard, that portion of Ocean Boulevard west of its intersection with Harbor Scenic Drive to its junction with Seaside Boulevard, and that portion of Seaside Boulevard from the junction with Ocean Boulevard to Route 47.

The state codificators have chosen to codify this as a separate paragraph, but they probably could have simply changed the short definition to "Route 710 is from Route 47 to Route 210 in Pasadena."

[TheStranger]

The state codificators have chosen to codify this as a separate paragraph, but they probably could have simply changed the short definition to "Route 710 is from Route 47 to Route 210 in Pasadena."

I guess I should clarify what I meant:

The condition (of a 710 freeway extension to 47) exists, but I'm not sure if the definition has been updated except for that addendum paragraph.

Of course, in the 1960s and 1970s, Route 7's definition did include the southern portion already, so having it removed for a few years and then readded is semantic silliness in retrospect.

That addendum also brings up the following: is 710 the only route in California with multiple spurs/prongs at one end?

[NE2]

That addendum also brings up the following: is 710 the only route in California with multiple spurs/prongs at one end?

710 doesn't have multiple spurs. Read the description carefully.

[TheStranger]

That addendum also brings up the following: is 710 the only route in California with multiple spurs/prongs at one end?

710 doesn't have multiple spurs. Read the description carefully.

Alright, I was confused significantly by the second portion of that (as I'm not sure that segment of "Harbor Scenic Drive" between Route 1 and Ocean is signed as such now).

It's much clearer via google street view: while there is a mainline pullthrough for 710 north at the start of Harbor Scenic Drive, 710 is then listed as an exit from it on a next-three-exits overhead after an offramp.

[andy3175]

That addendum also brings up the following: is 710 the only route in California with multiple spurs/prongs at one end?

710 doesn't have multiple spurs. Read the description carefully.

Correct, but again the signage is confusing. Heading southbound, I-710 goes only one way: to Terminal Island. Northbound, whenever you start on any of those "spurs," you are shown to be on I-710, almost as if it's the mainline. In reality, those "spurs" are maintained by city of Long Beach as city streets, even though they are freeways and are not truly part of I-710. Most of the city's signage predates when I-710 was extended legislatively to Terminal Island.

Regards,
Andy

[emory]

The freeway's complete, but you still have that 126 toll road that ends short of it.

And the unconstructed (HA!) segment of the 905 west of I-5.

[TheStranger]

And the unconstructed (HA!) segment of the 905 west of I-5.

Granted, just like unbuilt 380 west of 280, it was never planned to be submitted to the Interstate system (in contrast to both routes' constructed sections).

[emory]

On the subject of logs, could someone explain the 880 description?

625.  (a) Route 880 is from Route 280 in San Jose to Route 80 in
Oakland.
   (b) (1) The commission may relinquish to the City of Oakland the
portion of the former right-of-way of Route 880 that is located
between 8th Street and 32nd Street within that city, upon terms and
conditions the commission finds to be in the best interests of the
state, including, but not limited to, a requirement that the
department and the city enter into a cooperative agreement to
improve, at the department's expense, the two parallel adjacent city
streets, including, but not limited to, sidewalks, landscaping, and
street lighting, when improving the portion of right-of-way that is
to be relinquished in accordance with plans to be developed by the
department. The cooperative agreement shall include, but need not to
be limited to, all of the following:
   (A) A requirement that, if the commission allocates funds for this
purpose, the improvements include bicycle paths and the associated
roadway improvements and landscaping, including a bicycle path that
closes the gap in the San Francisco Bay Trail Plan.
   (B) A requirement that the improvements include removal of
contaminated materials on the department's property.
   (C) A requirement that the improvements include erection of a
memorial to the victims of the collapse of the Cypress Freeway
Viaduct and to the heroism of those who responded to that disaster.
   (2) A relinquishment under this subdivision shall become effective
immediately following the commission's approval of the terms and
conditions of the relinquishment.

Where is this former right-of-way they're talking about?

[TheStranger]

Where is this former right-of-way they're talking about?

Most likely that is a reference to Mandela Parkway in West Oakland (former Cypress Street, which is former Route 17/Business US 50) which once had the old Cypress Freeway viaduct in its median until the 1989 earthquake. 

Here's a photo of the area today, with present 880 in the background, and Mandela Parkway and its wide median (where the Cypress Freeway once existed) towards the fore:

http://urbanhabitat.org/files/images/aeriel%20view%20westoakland_aa10775.preview.jpg

A map of the area in question:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/environmental_justice/case_studies/freeway.jpg

[myosh_tino]

Where is this former right-of-way they're talking about?

Most likely that is a reference to Mandela Parkway in West Oakland (former Cypress Street, which is former Route 17/Business US 50) which once had the old Cypress Freeway viaduct in its median until the 1989 earthquake. 

Here's a photo of the area today, with present 880 in the background, and Mandela Parkway and its wide median (where the Cypress Freeway once existed) towards the fore:

http://urbanhabitat.org/files/images/aeriel%20view%20westoakland_aa10775.preview.jpg

A map of the area in question:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/environmental_justice/case_studies/freeway.jpg

I'm rather surprised that Caltrans hasn't turned over the old Cypress Viaduct alignment to the city of Oakland.  October 17, 2014 will mark the 25th anniversary of the Loma Prieta Earthquake.