Interstate 210 shields on new section of California state route 210?
I have noticed on Google maps that the new section of the Foothill Freeway, California state route 210 is still signed as a California state route, but not an Interstate as of yet? Has AASHTO (American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials) approved of the change to Interstate 210, as of yet?
I would like to see Interstate 210 signed on the section of the Foothill Freeway, from San Dimas to Redlands as of now, what is your comments?
Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on June 30, 2016, 02:54:51 PM
Interstate 210 shields on new section of California state route 210?
I have noticed on Google maps that the new section of the Foothill Freeway, California state route 210 is still signed as a California state route, but not an Interstate as of yet? Has AASHTO (American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials) approved of the change to Interstate 210, as of yet?
I would like to see Interstate 210 signed on the section of the Foothill Freeway, from San Dimas to Redlands as of now, what is your comments?
Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA
In the same boat as the 905 which won't be changed even though it is ready, and the shields for the 905 are even up on I-5 underneath the State Route shields, but they aren't supposed to come off anytime soon. And in a state where there is no route duplication, I would assume that the 210, where the shields aren't even up, would be an even lower priority for conversion.
Maybe it should be a high priority as of now, however it isn't. I wonder if people still use the California state route 57 designation for the Orange Freeway to get to Interstate 10, the San Bernardino Freeway (Christopher Columbus Transcontential Highway), I have enjoyed California 210, as the Foothill Freeway since I have been on it, to Interstate 15, Ontario Freeway to I-10 east to Oro Valley, Arizona. If the Foothill Freeway was completed all the way through, by that time it would take my family to Redlands, instead of Ontario, CA.
Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA
Somehow, I doubt state route 210 will ever get Interstate 210 shields. Same with 905.
Interestingly enough, on several of the approach BGS's on streets interchanging with CA 210 in and around Upland (at least circa 2011-12) the CA 210 state shield is on a patch -- ostensibly covering an I-210 shield, which would tend to indicate that Caltrans intends at some time down the line to seek Interstate designation. I'm just wondering if any delay is tied to the issue of fund reimbursement for the N-S section of CA 57 between 10 and 210 that was paid for by original Interstate construction funds. I'd venture an educated guess that the issues concerning that section are similar to that around the "I-305" designation of a portion of Biz 80 in Sacramento: the 305 number doesn't appear in any CA route log; it's merely a designator for federal fund disbursement after the 1982 I-80 rerouting. To FHWA, 210 likely is still deployed over CA 57 south to I-10 (if anyone has info to the contrary, please speak up!). The federal route log for I-210 indicates a mileage of 48+; the 57/210 interchange is at or near MP 45; the distance from 210 to 10 on 57 essentially accounts for the difference.
IMHO, what Caltrans should do is to seek a separate Interstate designation (I-910 anyone?) for CA 57 north of I-10; it would be a "hidden" Interstate number, like 305, for official reference only. Thus any discrepancy regarding original I-210 expenditures could be rolled over onto the "910" books, freeing up the number for deployment east to Redlands.
Quote from: sparker on June 30, 2016, 06:52:00 PM
Interestingly enough, on several of the approach BGS's on streets interchanging with CA 210 in and around Upland (at least circa 2011-12) the CA 210 state shield is on a patch -- ostensibly covering an I-210 shield, which would tend to indicate that Caltrans intends at some time down the line to seek Interstate designation.
I agree with this and have seen these signs before they were covered up by a CA 210 shield. These signs are primary in the LA county section of CA 210 east of CA 57 yet west of San Bernardino County.
Quote
IMHO, what Caltrans should do is to seek a separate Interstate designation (I-910 anyone?) for CA 57 north of I-10; it would be a "hidden" Interstate number, like 305, for official reference only. Thus any discrepancy regarding original I-210 expenditures could be rolled over onto the "910" books, freeing up the number for deployment east to Redlands.
Perhaps straying too close to fictional territory, since FHWA has not added the extended 210 onto its book nor moved the "chargeable" interstate mileage along 57 between 10 and 210, I would argue that 57 is hidden I-210 until the FHWA books are changed and that same section of 57 should be renumbered (perhaps as hidden route comparable to 305) as 510. I'd go with 510 since 57 connects 5 and 10, and as a designation, 510 has fewer syllables than 57. 910 would work too. Thanks Scott!
Ahh -- recognized my denser-than-hell writing style, did you, Andy! In any case, I do concur with you about 510 v. 910. But since obviously FHWA does still recognize the 10 to 210 section of 57 as I-210 regardless of field signage, I do think my concept of a new, likely hidden, designation for the section in question is a viable one. However, the ball's in Caltrans' court (where balls in play historically have gone to die!). FHWA is highly unlikely to add anything, even unchargeable mileage, to their books without some impetus from the state agency that actually owns the facility. It would just be nice (bear with me, I'm trying to steer this back from the fictional realm) to see Caltrans actually make an attempt to tie up loose ends regarding this situation -- and there's no loose end like a signed Interstate route petering out at the junction of two state routes, regardless of the numerical designation of one.
Quote from: sparker on June 30, 2016, 06:52:00 PM
Interestingly enough, on several of the approach BGS's on streets interchanging with CA 210 in and around Upland (at least circa 2011-12) the CA 210 state shield is on a patch -- ostensibly covering an I-210 shield, which would tend to indicate that Caltrans intends at some time down the line to seek Interstate designation. I'm just wondering if any delay is tied to the issue of fund reimbursement for the N-S section of CA 57 between 10 and 210 that was paid for by original Interstate construction funds. I'd venture an educated guess that the issues concerning that section are similar to that around the "I-305" designation of a portion of Biz 80 in Sacramento: the 305 number doesn't appear in any CA route log; it's merely a designator for federal fund disbursement after the 1982 I-80 rerouting. To FHWA, 210 likely is still deployed over CA 57 south to I-10 (if anyone has info to the contrary, please speak up!). The federal route log for I-210 indicates a mileage of 48+; the 57/210 interchange is at or near MP 45; the distance from 210 to 10 on 57 essentially accounts for the difference.
IMHO, what Caltrans should do is to seek a separate Interstate designation (I-910 anyone?) for CA 57 north of I-10; it would be a "hidden" Interstate number, like 305, for official reference only. Thus any discrepancy regarding original I-210 expenditures could be rolled over onto the "910" books, freeing up the number for deployment east to Redlands.
Some of that green out is starting to fall off. I was getting on the freeway from southbound Haven Ave (part of old SR 30) in Rancho Cucamonga and noticed the SR 210 shield fell off the East/West onramp indicator. It was a little startling and I started getting excited that maybe things were finally picking up steam to sign it all as I-210. It doesn't really mean anything to the normal commuter. Caltrans could accidentally misprint a sign marking the 210 as US 210 and I don't think anyone except us road geeks would really care. Signing SR 210 as I-210 is probably the lowest to-do on Caltrans' agenda I'm sure sadly.
Since all the routes in Caltrans' log are by official status state routes -- without differentiation as to type -- the full 85 miles from Sylmar to Redlands are simply, to the agency, "210" -- period. Once the entire freeway was opened, it was likely, as far as they were concerned, a done deal. Regardless of the roadgeek tendency to bite our nails over such anomalies, an Interstate designation would be simply an extra layer of icing on that particular cake! If the designation upgrade does happen, it'll be due to political pressure from the region rather than anything internal -- and at the moment, the Inland Empire has more pressing issues with the San Bernardino bankruptcy, the housing market still reeling from the 2008 downturn, et cetera. It'll probably happen eventually -- but it's a bit premature to get any office pools going regarding just when!
Why not have CA SR 210 from San Dimas to Redlands become I-210, unless the issue here is federal funding and they want to transfer it to the state? The freeway trails the former CA SR 30 and when it was proposed, CalTrans called it the CA SR 30 instead of the 210.
Quote from: andy3175 on July 01, 2016, 12:31:24 AM
Perhaps straying too close to fictional territory, since FHWA has not added the extended 210 onto its book nor moved the "chargeable" interstate mileage along 57 between 10 and 210, I would argue that 57 is hidden I-210 until the FHWA books are changed and that same section of 57 should be renumbered (perhaps as hidden route comparable to 305) as 510. I'd go with 510 since 57 connects 5 and 10, and as a designation, 510 has fewer syllables than 57. 910 would work too. Thanks Scott!
Looks like you're correct; according to this map (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/nhs_maps/southern_california/losangeles_ca.pdf), which is dated March 2015, the northern section of CA 57 is still on the books as part of the Interstate Highway System.
This sign refers to I-210 even though the roadway is technically CA-210.
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1195635,-117.7840853,3a,75y,256.84h,86.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suIGozrxUPQoykBmVjVI9BA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
This is Foothill Blvd in La Verne. As many know, for many years I-210 left the Foothill Freeway to reach I-10 at the Kellogg Interchange in Pomona. The remaining part of the freeway was signed for many years as CA-30 and ended in this area right on Foothill Blvd. Even though it was technically the 30 freeway, signs leading to the westbound freeway were always signed as I-210.
The majority of the traffic from the 30 freeway continued east onto Foothill Blvd towards Claremont, Upland and beyond. Then, that portion of Foothill, between the CA-30 freeway and I-215 was signed as CA-66. To reach CA-30, you had to make an odd left turn onto Foothill and then a sharp right turn onto Base Line Rd to continue along the CA-30 routing.
Of course, once the Foothill Freeway was extended further east, they began decommissioning the state highways off of Foothill and Base Line.
You can see similar I-210 west signage along San Dimas Ave as well.
Quote from: mrsman on July 01, 2016, 06:33:12 PM
This sign refers to I-210 even though the roadway is technically CA-210.
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1195635,-117.7840853,3a,75y,256.84h,86.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suIGozrxUPQoykBmVjVI9BA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
This is Foothill Blvd in La Verne. As many know, for many years I-210 left the Foothill Freeway to reach I-10 at the Kellogg Interchange in Pomona. The remaining part of the freeway was signed for many years as CA-30 and ended in this area right on Foothill Blvd. Even though it was technically the 30 freeway, signs leading to the westbound freeway were always signed as I-210.
The majority of the traffic from the 30 freeway continued east onto Foothill Blvd towards Claremont, Upland and beyond. Then, that portion of Foothill, between the CA-30 freeway and I-215 was signed as CA-66. To reach CA-30, you had to make an odd left turn onto Foothill and then a sharp right turn onto Base Line Rd to continue along the CA-30 routing.
Of course, once the Foothill Freeway was extended further east, they began decommissioning the state highways off of Foothill and Base Line.
You can see similar I-210 west signage along San Dimas Ave as well.
If you go a little further west on Foothill to the Base Line intersection, Caltrans just put up a new SR 30 assembly sometimes in the last 4-7 years, well after it was deleted and replaced with the SR 210 freeway in the area. Brand new retroreflective signs that I got pictures of. It's interesting because it has the PROPERTY OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA stamped on it too, and the previous sign directing traffic to the interchange north of the freeway was not replaced.
For good measure, here's the guidance sign on Haven Ave (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1367006,-117.5759934,3a,75y,191.44h,74.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1PtvNOYqFFAemA5ARjDZug!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) I previously mentioned. I remember it having green out with SR 210 on it, but it fell off over 5 years ago and Caltrans hasn't replace it yet.
Also, has Caltrans finally decided to make San Bernardino the control city for the 210? Because at the 15/210 interchange there is still signage from when the road was SR 30 that denotes it as San Bernardino, and then Redlands.
210 is following the same story as 15, near as I can tell. That story is basically "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." This means just keep on with the existing shields even if the road quality has improved to Interstate standards. I was thinking about this when I drove a portion of SR 15 earlier today between 8 and 805. This section was built to Interstate standards when it opened up. As part of the construction of a new bus rapid transit lane in the median of 15, I saw that many overhead signs have been replaced. And sure enough, while driving north on 15, the new pull-through signs still say SR 15 not I-15 on the approach to I-8, even though I-8 is now signed with its exit number of 6B. But some other signs (including one or two reassurance shields and the sign on southbound I-5) mention I-15 not SR 15. Given that FHWA still does not include SR 15 within the definition of I-15 (see http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/nhs_maps/southern_california/sandiego_ca.pdf) and SR 210 still does not extend east of SR 57 (see http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/nhs_maps/southern_california/losangeles_ca.pdf), I believe we are still in a holding pattern waiting for a day that may never come: upgrading 15 south of 8, 710 south of 1, 210 east of 57, all of 905, etc. to full Interstate Highway status.
Andy's spot on with his analysis -- any impetus toward Interstate designation on these "interim" routes will have to originate with external political pressure rather than anything emanating from within Caltrans itself -- i.e., local/state/national figures (or a combination thereof) who figure that Interstate signage will provide some tangible benefit. This ain't North Carolina, folks!
California seems to be the opposite of North Carolina and Texas.
I'd need a couple of packs of legal pads and a packet of pens to count the ways the above statement is true!
Quote from: sparker on July 04, 2016, 06:01:01 AM
Andy's spot on with his analysis -- any impetus toward Interstate designation on these "interim" routes will have to originate with external political pressure rather than anything emanating from within Caltrans itself -- i.e., local/state/national figures (or a combination thereof) who figure that Interstate signage will provide some tangible benefit. This ain't North Carolina, folks!
Could always bring back CA 30 over 210. :-D
Never happen -- District 8 likes re-using reassurance signs, and pretty much all the old 30 shields were rustbuckets by the time they were taken down; probably sitting in one of their corporate yards getting even more corroded! Maybe we'll finally see I-210 when rust sets in on the CA 210 signage! :-/
Quote from: sparker on July 05, 2016, 11:22:07 PM
Never happen -- District 8 likes re-using reassurance signs, and pretty much all the old 30 shields were rustbuckets by the time they were taken down; probably sitting in one of their corporate yards getting even more corroded! Maybe we'll finally see I-210 when rust sets in on the CA 210 signage! :-/
Yeah I know, I thought it made for some good satire given the state of things with these routes. Begs the question though...which one happens first? All of 210 becomes I-210 or does CA 39 finally get fixed to CA 2? The 511 map showed projected completion of 39 by 2020 a couple months ago...whether that's true or some place holder that someone thought nobody would look at I have no idea.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 05, 2016, 11:07:34 PMCould always bring back CA 30 over 210. :-D
Honestly if Caltrans doesn't sign SR 210 as I-210 soon enough I'd advocate for this. Route 30 roles off the tongue (and coincides with SR 330) better then Route 210.
Quote from: Exit58 on July 07, 2016, 01:45:02 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 05, 2016, 11:07:34 PMCould always bring back CA 30 over 210. :-D
Honestly if Caltrans doesn't sign SR 210 as I-210 soon enough I'd advocate for this. Route 30 roles off the tongue (and coincides with SR 330) better then Route 210.
On the other hand, the exit numbers are already set up for one unified 210 from Redlands to San Fernando (keeping in mind that the state/Interstate designations are not part of the legislative definitions of numbered routes, thus I-15/Route 15 and Route 110/I-110 are each single unified corridors).
Quote from: Exit58 on July 07, 2016, 01:45:02 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 05, 2016, 11:07:34 PMCould always bring back CA 30 over 210. :-D
Honestly if Caltrans doesn't sign SR 210 as I-210 soon enough I'd advocate for this. Route 30 roles off the tongue (and coincides with SR 330) better then Route 210.
They'll sooner sign I-305.
Quote from: emory on July 07, 2016, 03:13:40 PM
Quote from: Exit58 on July 07, 2016, 01:45:02 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 05, 2016, 11:07:34 PMCould always bring back CA 30 over 210. :-D
Honestly if Caltrans doesn't sign SR 210 as I-210 soon enough I'd advocate for this. Route 30 roles off the tongue (and coincides with SR 330) better then Route 210.
They'll sooner sign I-305.
I'm thinking that maybe every project or upgrade that ends up in limbo on the Caltrans catalog ought to be renumbered CA 39. That way nobody will ever have any expectation of the work, upgrades or repairs ever being complete. Come to think of it...they could also use CA 173 for a similar purpose. :-D
Quote from: djsekani on July 01, 2016, 09:11:57 AM
Quote from: andy3175 on July 01, 2016, 12:31:24 AM
Perhaps straying too close to fictional territory, since FHWA has not added the extended 210 onto its book nor moved the "chargeable" interstate mileage along 57 between 10 and 210, I would argue that 57 is hidden I-210 until the FHWA books are changed and that same section of 57 should be renumbered (perhaps as hidden route comparable to 305) as 510. I'd go with 510 since 57 connects 5 and 10, and as a designation, 510 has fewer syllables than 57. 910 would work too. Thanks Scott!
Looks like you're correct; according to this map (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/nhs_maps/southern_california/losangeles_ca.pdf), which is dated March 2015, the northern section of CA 57 is still on the books as part of the Interstate Highway System.
Cool map. I find it funny that they have all of Alameda Street from the 710 to I-10 listed as CA 47 and have it labeled as part of the National Highway System, even though CA 47 officially ends at CA 90.
Looking at the San Diego map, I also see that the portion of I-8 west of I-5 is not listed as an interstate highway, even though Caltrans signs it as I-8 and not CA 8 ala I-15/CA 15.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 07, 2016, 11:29:45 PM
Quote from: emory on July 07, 2016, 03:13:40 PM
Quote from: Exit58 on July 07, 2016, 01:45:02 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 05, 2016, 11:07:34 PMCould always bring back CA 30 over 210. :-D
Honestly if Caltrans doesn't sign SR 210 as I-210 soon enough I'd advocate for this. Route 30 roles off the tongue (and coincides with SR 330) better then Route 210.
They'll sooner sign I-305.
I'm thinking that maybe every project or upgrade that ends up in limbo on the Caltrans catalog ought to be renumbered CA 39. That way nobody will ever have any expectation of the work, upgrades or repairs ever being complete. Come to think of it...they could also use CA 173 for a similar purpose. :-D
I prefer CA 90. That gap being filled in has a completion date of 3016.
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 08, 2016, 06:18:35 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 07, 2016, 11:29:45 PM
Quote from: emory on July 07, 2016, 03:13:40 PM
Quote from: Exit58 on July 07, 2016, 01:45:02 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 05, 2016, 11:07:34 PMCould always bring back CA 30 over 210. :-D
Honestly if Caltrans doesn't sign SR 210 as I-210 soon enough I'd advocate for this. Route 30 roles off the tongue (and coincides with SR 330) better then Route 210.
They'll sooner sign I-305.
I'm thinking that maybe every project or upgrade that ends up in limbo on the Caltrans catalog ought to be renumbered CA 39. That way nobody will ever have any expectation of the work, upgrades or repairs ever being complete. Come to think of it...they could also use CA 173 for a similar purpose. :-D
I prefer CA 90. That gap being filled in has a completion date of 3016.
I thought most of it was relinquished to Yorba Linda?
Quote from: sparker on July 01, 2016, 04:18:26 AM
Since all the routes in Caltrans' log are by official status state routes -- without differentiation as to type -- the full 85 miles from Sylmar to Redlands are simply, to the agency, "210" -- period. Once the entire freeway was opened, it was likely, as far as they were concerned, a done deal. Regardless of the roadgeek tendency to bite our nails over such anomalies, an Interstate designation would be simply an extra layer of icing on that particular cake! If the designation upgrade does happen, it'll be due to political pressure from the region rather than anything internal -- and at the moment, the Inland Empire has more pressing issues with the San Bernardino bankruptcy, the housing market still reeling from the 2008 downturn, et cetera. It'll probably happen eventually -- but it's a bit premature to get any office pools going regarding just when!
By this logic, does this mean Caltrans has no actual desire to renumber CA-99 once the various widening and upgrades are complete? I have heard many rumors about "Interstate 7" or "Interstate 9," but frankly, I'd rather CA-99 just stick around, even if the entire route was interstate-quality.
Although not directly on point with SR 210, I drove SR 15 today and noted some new signs posted in the Mid-City area on northbound SR 15 that continue to use SR 15 signage, not I-15. Here's a link to the pictures, on the AARoads Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/aaroads/posts/10154402270857948
This is relevant to the SR 210 discussion since I think the continued existence of SR 15 between I-8 and I-805 demonstrates a lack of interest on the part of Caltrans to convert SR 15 to I-15. And I don't know if there is any local political will to make this change, either.
Do the current mileage markers on I-15 reflect the CA-15 freeway, or is Exit 1 just north of I-8? If the latter, that might be part of the reason for the reluctance to resign CA-15 as I-15.
Quote from: Quillz on July 11, 2016, 01:14:21 AM
Do the current mileage markers on I-15 reflect the CA-15 freeway, or is Exit 1 just north of I-8? If the latter, that might be part of the reason for the reluctance to resign CA-15 as I-15.
Mileage markers reflect CA 15 and I-15, or what the state simply refers to as Route 15. This is statewide policy.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 08, 2016, 10:23:49 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 08, 2016, 06:18:35 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 07, 2016, 11:29:45 PM
Quote from: emory on July 07, 2016, 03:13:40 PM
Quote from: Exit58 on July 07, 2016, 01:45:02 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 05, 2016, 11:07:34 PMCould always bring back CA 30 over 210. :-D
Honestly if Caltrans doesn't sign SR 210 as I-210 soon enough I'd advocate for this. Route 30 roles off the tongue (and coincides with SR 330) better then Route 210.
They'll sooner sign I-305.
I'm thinking that maybe every project or upgrade that ends up in limbo on the Caltrans catalog ought to be renumbered CA 39. That way nobody will ever have any expectation of the work, upgrades or repairs ever being complete. Come to think of it...they could also use CA 173 for a similar purpose. :-D
I prefer CA 90. That gap being filled in has a completion date of 3016.
I thought most of it was relinquished to Yorba Linda?
Only a small portion of the CA 90 freeway was relinquished to Yorba Linda. Roughly half a mile. The rest remains from CA 91 to CA 39 in Orange County.
I wouldn't be surprised if CA 99 remains CA 99 forever. If CA doesn't even want to do a simple signage swap and requests to AASHTO/FHWA for routes that were planned to be interstates from the get-go (wonder what changed their mind?), I doubt they'll want to take on renumbering anything.
I'm going to reply to vdeane's comments, but I'm going to move my response to the "CA99/The Final Countdown" thread; the topic here is the 210 situation, not 99, which is addressed in several other threads. Give me a few minutes to post something there. S.P.
Quote from: vdeane on July 11, 2016, 01:07:45 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if CA 99 remains CA 99 forever. If CA doesn't even want to do a simple signage swap and requests to AASHTO/FHWA for routes that were planned to be interstates from the get-go (wonder what changed their mind?), I doubt they'll want to take on renumbering anything.
Fine with me, "99" is a historic number within California, and is arguably as ingrained in California's culture as Route 66 or 101.
A side thought to this:
In Baltimore, part of I-695 is not actually Interstate-funded road, but has always been signed as interstate. So there's an example of one shield being used for continuity regardless of which funds were used to construct that particular freeway. (To some extent this was also discussed recently by sparker in the 215/15E thread, where 15E
We've had several threads in the past over the signage of 110 along the downtown Los Angeles portion of the Harbor Freeway, which is signed as I-110 southbound from the Four-Level on (and is signed as such off of US 101) with only three or four exceptions towards the Staples Center, but is signed as state Route 110 from about 9th street heading north:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9265.0
Having said that...
- IIRC, the conversion of Route 15 to I-15 was supposed to be contingent on a major rebuild of the 15/94 junction. I don't know if that has happened yet
- Route 210 east of Route 57 is a much longer stretch of road than 110 in downtown LA or 15 through San Diego's Mid-City.
Chris - You've been around long enough to recall the difference between chargable and non-chargable interstate (if not, you can find it on my pages). You're just talking about non-chargable interstates.
Quote from: cahwyguy on July 14, 2016, 02:26:36 PM
Chris - You've been around long enough to recall the difference between chargable and non-chargable interstate (if not, you can find it on my pages). You're just talking about non-chargable interstates.
I was actually trying to describe something entirely different: roads that are not officially in the Interstate system at all but are entirely signed as such; I-80 in the San Francisco city limits is another in this category. for comparison, 880 is a non-chargable interstate in every way (signed years after being built as Route 17, but fully in the system per FHWA)
695 is a weird case because it was originally built as a state route, then upgraded before receiving the shields - but Maryland itself does not consider it part of the official I-695 routing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_695_(Maryland)#Outer_Harbor_Crossing
QuoteI-80 in the San Francisco city limits is another in this category.
Perhaps, perhaps not. It could be that my page is in error, thinking about it again. Too bad your page on SF Francisco freeways is no longer up (if it is, my link to it is broken). Rmember that they rerouted I-80 in 1965, but DOH didn't renumber things until 1968. Quoting from my pages:
QuoteAs defined in 1963, Route 80 was defined to run from "Route 280 in San Francisco to the Nevada state line near Verdi, Nevada, passing near Division Street in San Francisco, passing near Oakland, via Albany, via Sacramento, passing near North Sacramento, passing near Roseville, via Auburn, via Emigrant Gap, via Truckee and via the Truckee River Canyon." Note that I-280 is present-day Route 1.
In 1968, Chapter 282 transferred the portion from I-280 (present-day Route 1) to US 101 (LRN 223) to Route 241. This was originally part of a much longer route, and would have formed the handle of the "Panhandle" Freeway. Additional history on the planned freeways for the San Francisco Bay area can be found here. This ended up splitting the definition of Route 80, giving the current segment. Note that, technically, this segment is not part of the interstate system; it is unclear how it is signed.
Now I-80 in San Francisco was only withdrawn westerly of I-280; I think at that point it transitions to US 101. Looking at my site:
August 1965:
I-280
12 ReRoute in San Francisco Approved +2.1 miles
I-80
12 Delete westerly of Route 280 in San Francisco Approved -5.3 miles
12 Note that these were all adjustments that actually took place in January 1968 as part of the Howard Cramer bill, under 23 USC 103. Specifically:
- I-80: 5.2/5.3 mi withdrawn per 23 USC 103(e)(2).
- I-280: 6.7 mi withdrawn per 23 USC 103(e)(2). Subsequent rerouting for continuity purposes actually increased its length by a little over 2 miles.
But this is the routing of 280 in 1965, not 1968. Per http://www.cahighways.org/maps-sf-fwy.html , I-80 at that time was still the Western / Panhandle Freeway, terminating at Route 280/480 (now Route 1), but there had been some discussion of continuing it W a bit. So I'm thinking that that mileage that is now US 101 to current I-280 is the old I-80 mileage (US 101 and LRN 223) to Route 1
Perhaps someone knows a bit more authoritatively. I'll update things when I get the information.
Quote from: cahwyguy on July 14, 2016, 06:47:27 PM
Too bad your page on SF Francisco freeways is no longer up (if it is, my link to it is broken).
I haven't had it up for years and don't know where my source material is anymore. Thanks though for the shout out!
Quote from: cahwyguy on July 14, 2016, 06:47:27 PM
But this is the routing of 280 in 1965, not 1968. Per http://www.cahighways.org/maps-sf-fwy.html , I-80 at that time was still the Western / Panhandle Freeway, terminating at Route 280/480 (now Route 1), but there had been some discussion of continuing it W a bit. So I'm thinking that that mileage that is now US 101 to current I-280 is the old I-80 mileage (US 101 and LRN 223) to Route 1
Perhaps someone knows a bit more authoritatively. I'll update things when I get the information.
Yeah, I had always been under the impression that it was up to 480 (planned but unbuilt post-1968 280 terminus), based on this bit from your I-80 entry:
QuoteFrom Route 280 near First Street in San Francisco to the Nevada state line near Verdi, Nevada, passing near Oakland, via Albany, via Sacramento, passing near Roseville, via Auburn, via Emigrant Gap, via Truckee and via the Truckee River Canyon
First Street is pretty much about the location where the old 480/80 split was, though 80 has never had an exit to it (closest westbound would be the Fremont Street ramps today, closest eastbound is 4th Street).
http://www.sanbag.ca.gov/projects/210LaneAddition.html
SANBAG is proposing to add a third lane through Highland & Redlands.
Could this be the moment we all been waiting for? If not, lets just get some paint cans & make our own Interstate 210 signs.
Quote from: jfs1988 on July 18, 2016, 02:07:58 AM
http://www.sanbag.ca.gov/projects/210LaneAddition.html
SANBAG is proposing to add a third lane through Highland & Redlands.
Could this be the moment we all been waiting for? If not, lets just get some paint cans & make our own Interstate 210 signs.
I always thought that this might be what was keeping it from it's inclusion into the Interstate system. Isn't it required for urban Interstates to have six lanes? Either which way, Caltrans secured enough ROW back in the day that it shouldn't be a problem. Seeing that road upgraded to six lanes would be awesome. It's always a bottleneck in peakhour.
It isn't a requirement for urban Interstates to have six lanes or more (I-5 in Portland says hello!). However, the 4-lane section of CA 210, IIRC, had substandard shoulders in the median; whether that in itself disqualified the route from Interstate status is not known. Nearby I-215 between Murietta and Menifee also had substandard inner shoulders (as of 2012), but still sported Interstate signage -- but consistency re standards has never been a District 8 hallmark. Since 6-laning of 210 will most certainly satisfy I-criteria, we'll just have to wait to see whether that prompts a designation change.
Quote from: sparker on July 18, 2016, 02:49:05 AM
It isn't a requirement for urban Interstates to have six lanes or more (I-5 in Portland says hello!). However, the 4-lane section of CA 210, IIRC, had substandard shoulders in the median; whether that in itself disqualified the route from Interstate status is not known. Nearby I-215 between Murietta and Menifee also had substandard inner shoulders (as of 2012), but still sported Interstate signage -- but consistency re standards has never been a District 8 hallmark. Since 6-laning of 210 will most certainly satisfy I-criteria, we'll just have to wait to see whether that prompts a designation change.
I hope so. I don't see Caltrans out there putting up new SR 210 entrance assemblies or reassurance shields, so maybe that's a good sign? Because some are looking rather crummy and aren't aging well. New guide signs are going up left and right in the area with spades still on them.
There are at least two Interstate 210 shields already in use in the San Bernardino area, but I take them more as a sign of Caltrans' indifference than of future changes.
One of them is on the westbound I-10 shortly after it enters Redlands. The other is in the northbound I-215 carpool lane near Baseline Street.
The shoulders could be it. While existing interstates don't lose their designation for not meeting modern standards, new interstates are required to meet the most modern standards with no leeway.
Quote from: vdeane on July 18, 2016, 01:04:45 PM
The shoulders could be it. While existing interstates don't lose their designation for not meeting modern standards, new interstates are required to meet the most modern standards with no leeway.
What are the shoulder requirements? Last time I was out there the shoulders were pretty wide, albeit dirt. I remember reading somewhere that when the requirements were updated in 2007 it made the SR 30 freeway ineligible for Interstate status. It didn't go into detail, but I thought it might have been a lane count or width.
At this point I'd be happy to see Interstate shield on this route in my lifetime, but with Caltrans' schedule this seems unlikely.
It's probably the dirt. Current I-criteria call for a minimum 4-foot paved inner strip. starting at the inside edge of the traffic lane. On rural facilities Caltrans has been known to use chip-seal for these medians; they do seem to prefer asphalt in urban regions -- which would entail a substantial project. Of course, if they're planning to expand out to 6 lanes by using the median, all this speculation is moot -- given the overall width of that facility, it's likely that there would be a K-rail barrier in the middle, followed by 4 feet of asphalt and then the new traffic lane. Until the funding's available for such a project, it's unlikely Caltrans would "touch up" the existing route just to make it acceptable for red, white, & blue signage.
And then it still wouldn't be interstate standards because current standards call for 12-foot paved shoulders on carriageways with 3 or more lanes.
Something tells me Caltrans would attempt to "grandfather" the current 10-foot outside shoulders into the future project; otherwise, numerous bridges would also require widening. I that didn't fly, I wouldn't put it past them to simply restripe the lanes for 11.25-foot width, stealing as much as they could from the inner shoulders. They did this on I-110 in the Torrance area back in the '80's when the Interstate redesignation happened (a prominent non-Interstate example of this is US 101 from the 134/170 interchange west to I-405).
Quote from: sparker on July 18, 2016, 11:36:12 PM
Something tells me Caltrans would attempt to "grandfather" the current 10-foot outside shoulders into the future project; otherwise, numerous bridges would also require widening. I that didn't fly, I wouldn't put it past them to simply restripe the lanes for 11.25-foot width, stealing as much as they could from the inner shoulders. They did this on I-110 in the Torrance area back in the '80's when the Interstate redesignation happened (a prominent non-Interstate example of this is US 101 from the 134/170 interchange west to I-405).
I think if a Caltrans petition to sign CA-210 as I-210 is rejected because of substandard shoulders, the most logical choice is to keep the route signed as a California state route rather than tinkering with lane widths.
Plus it's not just the outer shoulders that factor in to the standard, but the inner as well. Wouldn't be surprised if CalTrans just ended the idea of signing as an interstate when FHWA started to get stringent about standards adherence.
Quote from: vdeane on July 19, 2016, 01:39:12 PM
Plus it's not just the outer shoulders that factor in to the standard, but the inner as well. Wouldn't be surprised if CalTrans just ended the idea of signing as an interstate when FHWA started to get stringent about standards adherence.
They'll probably give up eventually. Much like I-238, it doesn't particular matter anymore if I-210 is signed or not. It's "Route 210" regardless, and motorists certainly don't care. All they care about is having a freeway thru route, which 210 has been doing now since the late 90s or so.
Technically, they could sign the route as I-210 west of I-215 (newer, Interstate-grade construction) and leave the remainder as CA 210 (and possibly sign the westbound I-10 approach in Redlands as "CA 210 TO I-210/San Bernardino/Pasadena"). But they probably won't bother; in terms of local logistics, it's not a BFD!
What is BFD?
BFD = Big F---ing Deal! Just another f---ing acronym!
From the 57 to the 215, all that really needs to be done is change the reassurance shields and freeway entrance signs, which realistically only needs to be done when the current shields are removed from service (most are retroreflective, so maybe another five years before they start looking ratty). A lot of the guidance signs can be greened out with I-210 and the directionals at the on ramps are I-210 already with SR 210 on green out.
The only thing is getting FHWA to sign off on changing the Kellogg to Glendora Curve potion of 57 to something other then I-210. All chargeable miles there though.
I spotted this erroneous US 210 shield on a local road in Pasadena tonight. A fresh install.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FMeQdNJd.png&hash=71c98e9eef5820e96c5552ef03581d39f62224a7)
Through in a county route 210 somewhere and they'll have a full set.
Quote from: emory on August 23, 2016, 05:51:26 AM
I spotted this erroneous US 210 shield on a local road in Pasadena tonight. A fresh install.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FMeQdNJd.png&hash=71c98e9eef5820e96c5552ef03581d39f62224a7)
The original one was button-copy. It's on California Blvd west of Orange Grove Blvd. I take that route from the Rose Bowl to downtown L. A. whenever I go to UCLA football games.
Quote from: JustDrive on August 23, 2016, 12:32:03 PM
The original one was button-copy. It's on California Blvd west of Orange Grove Blvd. I take that route from the Rose Bowl to downtown L. A. whenever I go to UCLA football games.
Yep. Not far from this overhead banner that gets I-210 correct, but gets the 134 and 110 wrong.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FRzX6ayF.png&hash=b1359ba4557c08a62098e7c6cd6c87c280a7b646)
Quote from: emory on August 23, 2016, 05:51:26 AM
I spotted this erroneous US 210 shield on a local road in Pasadena tonight. A fresh install.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FMeQdNJd.png&hash=71c98e9eef5820e96c5552ef03581d39f62224a7)
It's not
that fresh; according to Google Street View the sign has been there since 2007, which is the earliest set of photos available... so probably even longer than that.
Quote from: emory on August 23, 2016, 07:21:52 PM
Quote from: JustDrive on August 23, 2016, 12:32:03 PM
The original one was button-copy. It's on California Blvd west of Orange Grove Blvd. I take that route from the Rose Bowl to downtown L. A. whenever I go to UCLA football games.
Yep. Not far from this overhead banner that gets I-210 correct, but gets the 134 and 110 wrong.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FRzX6ayF.png&hash=b1359ba4557c08a62098e7c6cd6c87c280a7b646)
That overhead banner looks like it's over one of the Rose Bowl parking lot exits. Private contractors' signage expertise is, more often than not, well shy of ensuring accuracy!
Quote from: emory on August 23, 2016, 07:21:52 PM
Quote from: JustDrive on August 23, 2016, 12:32:03 PM
The original one was button-copy. It's on California Blvd west of Orange Grove Blvd. I take that route from the Rose Bowl to downtown L. A. whenever I go to UCLA football games.
Yep. Not far from this overhead banner that gets I-210 correct, but gets the 134 and 110 wrong.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FRzX6ayF.png&hash=b1359ba4557c08a62098e7c6cd6c87c280a7b646)
Where's Carl Rogers?
Quote from: sparker on August 24, 2016, 04:57:06 PM
That overhead banner looks like it's over one of the Rose Bowl parking lot exits. Private contractors' signage expertise is, more often than not, well shy of ensuring accuracy!
It's on Rosemont Avenue approaching Seco Street, to the east of the Rose Bowl.
Quote from: emory on August 23, 2016, 05:51:26 AM
I spotted this erroneous US 210 shield on a local road in Pasadena tonight. A fresh install.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FMeQdNJd.png&hash=71c98e9eef5820e96c5552ef03581d39f62224a7)
Thanks, I will forward this to my contact at Pasadena DOT.
Quote from: AndyMax25 on August 24, 2016, 11:51:53 PM
Thanks, I will forward this to my contact at Pasadena DOT.
NO!!!
If it's not hurting anyone, leave an error in the field for us roadgeeks to discover! We're here because we love seeing the interesting and unusual things on the road. If every sign were perfect, life would be so boring.
Shield type errors are so boring.
Quote from: AndyMax25 on August 24, 2016, 11:51:53 PM
Quote from: emory on August 23, 2016, 05:51:26 AM
I spotted this erroneous US 210 shield on a local road in Pasadena tonight. A fresh install.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FMeQdNJd.png&hash=71c98e9eef5820e96c5552ef03581d39f62224a7)
Quote from: NE2 on August 25, 2016, 03:04:33 AM
Shield type errors are so boring.
But it might give nostalgic comfort to those Pasadena locals who pine for northern Minnesota, circa 1965!
Quote from: AndyMax25 on August 24, 2016, 11:51:53 PM
Thanks, I will forward this to my contact at Pasadena DOT.
Tell them it's supposed to be County Route 210. Thanks.