Does anyone know the reason why Caltrans decided to remove the CA 99 shields along the overlap with Interstate 5? Do they want people to get lost or something? :-D
laziness?
I have never driven the freeways in Sacramento without a) getting terribly lost or 2) having at least one incidence of having to swerve over at least 4 lanes just to stay on the highway that I'm trying to follow.
also, my GPS really loves the distinction between "80" and "80".
Lol,
That sucks. "80" and "80" I forgot about that. It's hard to call it laziness since the signs where there at one point and were taken down. Someone had to have come and physically remove them.
BL80 has to be the dumbest designation for a freeway I've seen in a while. Why not state 51 as it is postmiled? Hell, why not 80 and the loop road is 880. (and the one in the bay is perfectly valid as state 17, as it was for so many years.)
I like the idea of CA 51. As for I-80 replacing BUS 80, they would have to upgade it interstate standards first. Ofcouse I don't see that ever happening. :banghead:
there's a lot of Interstates that are nowhere near up to spec. Ever driven I-278 in Manhattan? *one* lane northbound. It doesn't even meet the standards for an average traffic jam!
^^ Brooklyn actually, but you're right, it's nowhere near Interstate standards (as are a lot of expressways in that region).
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 23, 2009, 12:50:08 AM
BL80 has to be the dumbest designation for a freeway I've seen in a while. Why not state 51 as it is postmiled? Hell, why not 80 and the loop road is 880. (and the one in the bay is perfectly valid as state 17, as it was for so many years.)
The change from 17 to 880 (and 580) was designed to provide funds for upgrading the route, IIRC by Glenn Anderson (the same guy behind the completion of 105 in Los Angeles).
Quote from: AZDude on May 23, 2009, 12:28:53 AM
Does anyone know the reason why Caltrans decided to remove the CA 99 shields along the overlap with Interstate 5? Do they want people to get lost or something? :-D
But isn't getting lost part of the whole CA driving experience? After growing up in the Los Angeles area, I can still get lost once in a while. It is not easy, but it is possible. If you want a state where getting lost is hrd, you can move out to NV, where other than Las Vegas and Reno, the street system is actually a lot simpler than CA. Of course, then there is the eternal construction CA roads are always having! :banghead:
Quote from: tankerdave on May 23, 2009, 06:08:45 PM
If you want a state where getting lost is hrd, you can move out to NV, where other than Las Vegas and Reno, the street system is actually a lot simpler than CA.
I'd argue that street layouts in Las Vegas and Reno are simpler than many areas of CA... Especially in Las Vegas, where the majority of major streets are on a grid system (section-line roads, actually).
Quote from: AZDude on May 23, 2009, 12:28:53 AM
Does anyone know the reason why Caltrans decided to remove the CA 99 shields along the overlap with Interstate 5? Do they want people to get lost or something? :-D
They didn't have enough money to sign that section with both designations? :spin:
Well, they could have left the existing ones there.
I-385 in South Carolina isn't up to spec, either. No median berm (just a yellow line and then grass). And the shoulder varies at around 6' wide.
As for BL-80, it should be signed as ANYTHING other than BL-80.
Sykotyk
I have an idea, just drop the BL-80, and leave it US-50.
That wouldn't work--there is a length of "pure" Business 80 between I-80 and US 50. This is also (I think) the entire length of Calif. 51.
The advantage of a Business 80 designation which overlaps with part of US 50 is that it indicates connectivity with I-80 at both ends. This would be lost if the Business 80 designation were dropped in lieu of signing Calif. 51.
One other option would be to end US 50 at its interchange with Business 80, and sign the entirety of Business 80 as I-305. I am not sure whether the hidden I-305 designation applies to the entire length of this road, however.
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 24, 2009, 06:37:18 PM
One other option would be to end US 50 at its interchange with Business 80, and sign the entirety of Business 80 as I-305. I am not sure whether the hidden I-305 designation applies to the entire length of this road, however.
IIRC, I-305 corresponds to the section of Business 80 that is co-routed with US 50 (and partially with Route 99).
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 24, 2009, 06:37:18 PM
That wouldn't work--there is a length of "pure" Business 80 between I-80 and US 50. This is also (I think) the entire length of Calif. 51.
The advantage of a Business 80 designation which overlaps with part of US 50 is that it indicates connectivity with I-80 at both ends. This would be lost if the Business 80 designation were dropped in lieu of signing Calif. 51.
One other option would be to end US 50 at its interchange with Business 80, and sign the entirety of Business 80 as I-305. I am not sure whether the hidden I-305 designation applies to the entire length of this road, however.
WTF is a "pure" business route?
Second, Caltrans does not need to trim anymore US routes.
"Pure" in this context means that there is no other signed designation on the length of Business 80 in question (between I-80 and US 50 in east Sacramento). It is also Calif. 51, but this is not signed.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 23, 2009, 12:50:08 AM
BL80 has to be the dumbest designation for a freeway I've seen in a while. Why not state 51 as it is postmiled? Hell, why not 80 and the loop road is 880. (and the one in the bay is perfectly valid as state 17, as it was for so many years.)
That's what it used to be many years ago.
I used to live in Sac, and it took me a month to figure out the freeways there, but when I did I never got lost again. Locals there call the section of pure Business loop 80 that is north of 99; "cap city" for Capitol City Freeway, it's easier than calling it Biz 80.
It's just weird how 99 south of downtown and 99 north of town don't connect. Also, people still don't understand how regular 80 bypass of Sac from West Sac to Citrus Heights, and then throw in 50 which actually does connect to 80 before the bypass starts... you just got a huge mess. Also almost all the freeways have overlapping designations and unmarked designations only to add to the confusion.
This coming from the place where CalTrans is headquartered.
Living in the Bay Area, I know numerous people who have been confused by "Green 80".
In my opinion, using a Business Interstate route for a full freeway loop is not obvious for most drivers. Sacramento is one of the few or only cities to use Biz signage this way. (Raleigh NC gave it up rather quickly.) Plus, it doesn't help that the freeway mainline going westbound is US-50 rather than I-80.
This route needs the I-480 designation more than I-238 does.
As for the gap in CA-99, I-9 can't get here soon enough.
I don't consider it a gap since it does silently merge with U.S. 50 and I-5. It's just no longer signed.
I repeat, Caltrans, do not kill anymore US routes in California. They are becoming extinct, you wouldn't kill all the moose, so don't kill off US-50, 395, and 95.
395 is hardly in danger of getting killed. even if the road between Victorville and Reno becomes I-11 or something, the road from Reno to Laurier, WA will retain the US number.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 16, 2009, 01:17:40 AM
395 is hardly in danger of getting killed. even if the road between Victorville and Reno becomes I-11 or something, the road from Reno to Laurier, WA will retain the US number.
I was just ranting about how caltrans kills off US routes like we killed the buffalo.
Quote from: flowmotion on June 15, 2009, 03:53:32 AM
As for the gap in CA-99, I-9 can't get here soon enough.
Actually, it's probably going to be I-7. CA-9 is a lengthly mountain highway that runs from Santa Cruz to Los Gatos.
Quote from: AZDude on June 15, 2009, 11:28:37 PM
I don't consider it a gap since it does silently merge with U.S. 50 and I-5. It's just no longer signed.
It's signed but very partially, at certain exits (through downtown and up to Garden Highway, then at the north 99/5 interchange...and along ramps on W and X Streets for the US 50 segment).
I do remember a CA 99 shield placed under an I-5 reassurance shield just before CA 99 splits off and heads north.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 23, 2009, 01:13:10 AMIt doesn't even meet the standards for an average traffic jam!
I'll need to remember that. :nod:
As someone who spent most of their teenage years (and learned to drive) on Sacramento freeways, why not give the unused I-480 designation that the Bay Area so desperately wants to wring from its memory to Business Loop 80. Look at it as a trade for the 880 designation they gave the Nimitz freeway (which is in MUCH worse condition than any of the sections of the Cap City Freeway, especially through Oakland).
And I agree, exceptions can and have always been made for substandard Interstates, so no logical reason this cannot happen if CalTrans really wanted to push it.
Quote from: subzeroepsilon on May 27, 2010, 01:34:35 AM
As someone who spent most of their teenage years (and learned to drive) on Sacramento freeways, why not give the unused I-480 designation that the Bay Area so desperately wants to wring from its memory to Business Loop 80. Look at it as a trade for the 880 designation they gave the Nimitz freeway (which is in MUCH worse condition than any of the sections of the Cap City Freeway, especially through Oakland).
And I agree, exceptions can and have always been made for substandard Interstates, so no logical reason this cannot happen if CalTrans really wanted to push it.
From what I recall, the main reason that Business 80 et al. lost its interstate designation, is not unlike why the 470 beltway in Denver did - funding was transferred to a light rail project in lieu of completing road construction.
If anything, I think that the north-south substandard segment (currently hidden Route 51) should be highlighted as a seperate route, with the Business 80 designation being deprecated in favor of the existing US 50/Route 99 designations - after all, the US 50/Business 80 segment is mostly known as "US 50" by locals, and in order to stay on Business 80 through the Oak Park interchange, one has to exit off to the right to continue on the ostensible through route.
I do agree that the whole 90-degree turn to stay on the "through" road is a little confusing. If we were to sign the N-S portion of CCF as a separate route, I nominate CA-9 to coincide with the creation of I-9 that will be taking over the freeway portion of CA-99 between Sacramento and the Grapevine. This has the added benefit of recognizing that portion of freeway once carried US-99E from downtown Sacramento to Roseville, where it split off US-40 (current day CA-65). [Insert the number 7 where you see 9 in the previous paragraph if the designation is indeed I-7.]
There are other instances, even in California, however, where one must "exit off" a through route itself in order to stay on said route. Look at WB I-80 approaching the MacArthur Maze in Oakland and I-215/CA-60/CA-91 in the Inland Empire as examples to demonstrate the concept is not unique to Sacramento. That said, I think it is important to have a child-route from I-80 for travelers outside the area directed to the downtown area, especially for the state capitol.
If an Interstate designation is off the table, what about CA-480?
Quote from: TheStranger on May 27, 2010, 01:45:09 AM
From what I recall, the main reason that Business 80 et al. lost its interstate designation, is not unlike why the 470 beltway in Denver did - funding was transferred to a light rail project in lieu of completing road construction.
the average driving public wouldn't care if funding were transferred to pump oil into the Gulf!
Drivers equate the interstate shield with "road of particular quality", not some bizarre set of arguments about the exact nature of the funding bureaucracy. If it meets interstate specs, it can get a red, white, and blue shield.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 27, 2010, 10:06:36 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on May 27, 2010, 01:45:09 AM
From what I recall, the main reason that Business 80 et al. lost its interstate designation, is not unlike why the 470 beltway in Denver did - funding was transferred to a light rail project in lieu of completing road construction.
the average driving public wouldn't care if funding were transferred to pump oil into the Gulf!
Drivers equate the interstate shield with "road of particular quality", not some bizarre set of arguments about the exact nature of the funding bureaucracy. If it meets interstate specs, it can get a red, white, and blue shield.
The current (Route 51, formerly US 99E) road does not meet interstate specs north of E Street, and the funding that was cut off in 1979 would have provided for that realignment.
Now, are there many Interstates grandfathered in with worse specs? I-278 comes to mind immediately, yeah.
Quote from: TheStranger on May 27, 2010, 11:33:08 AMThe current (Route 51, formerly US 99E) road does not meet interstate specs north of E Street, and the funding that was cut off in 1979 would have provided for that realignment.
Now, are there many Interstates grandfathered in with worse specs? I-278 comes to mind immediately, yeah.
fair enough, but to de-grandfather a route, causing all kinds of driver confusion? if we're going to de-grandfather a route ... yep, I-278 comes to mind.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 27, 2010, 06:36:17 PM
fair enough, but to de-grandfather a route, causing all kinds of driver confusion? if we're going to de-grandfather a route ... yep, I-278 comes to mind.
I think the only time a de-designation has occurred for that exact reason (well, unless we count I-80 being moved off of today's Route 51/Business 80) would be I-580 in North Omaha...still curious as to what the west leg of that interchange with 480 was originally meant for.
I-480 got demoted to state route in SF but I always thought that was because the route was never going to be completed from Broadway to Doyle Drive, which would have completed the loop (with the original I-280 routing).
One could argue that another de-grandfathering occurred when the Santa Ana Freeway segment of US 101 (from the San Bernardino Freeway southeast) lost its I-105 designation in 1968, though I do not think that was ever signed.
I do not believe I-105 was ever signed, but I know it was postmiled. There was also an I-110 in the same area, and I do not know if it was signed or paddled.
Arizona I-410 was once signed; I do not know what led to its disappearance.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 27, 2010, 09:39:45 PM
Arizona I-410 was once signed; I do not know what led to its disappearance.
IIRC, former 410 is now the current route of 10 through downtown, or the 17 bend? Forget which one, though my 1967 Rand McNally had 10 proposed following a more southerly alignment west of 17, then using the last part of today's 17 to continue on to its current routing east from town.
It wouldn't quite be de-grandfathering a route though, as it was built as an Interstate and is still one.
Now, AZ 51, if any of it was ever part of the one-time I-510...
AZ 51/I-510 is the only one I can think of. Can't remember where I read it though, so I don't know if AZ 51 was meant to be I-510 or if it ever was I-510 :/