This was buried in the chain Re: Changes to the California Highways Web Pages — July 2018 (Mapping Project) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=23379.0).
Quote from: cahwyguy on August 12, 2018, 11:41:14 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 12, 2018, 03:30:36 AM
- I-5: If I recall correctly, I-5W never incorporated what is now 205 and 120 (I want to say I-205 was proposed as a connector between 5W and 5E originally, which makes me wonder if the 120 Manteca bypass was originally to have been part of 205 in early planning), but rather today's 580 southeastern segment and 132 (including the 2018-era planned 132 expressway in Modesto).
According to what I had as written text in my entry on I-5W, it was along 120 and 205. 205 (or its predecessor surface routing) would make a lot of sense; that's former US 50/US 48 routing, and the 580 routing to I-5 didn't exist. Similarly (and remember, we're talking the period when I-5 was signed on Route 99), 120 makes more sense as it is closer to where 205 is in the area; 132 is a bit out of the way.
Supporting what I have is the AAroads page on I-505 (see https://www.interstate-guide.com/i-505_ca.html ). There, the 1963 map shows I-5W running along what is now I-205 and Route 120; Route 132 is not shown as signed I-5W.
Supporting your position is a discussion on I-5W on this forum in 2016 ( https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18341.msg2165427#msg2165427 ), where Sparker says:
QuotePrior to 1958 there was a connector from US 99 in Modesto to Oakland via SSR 132, a new-terrain route extending 132 northwest from its terminus at SSR 33 to Altamont Pass, and thence west along US 50 to the east end of the Bay Bridge. The original number proposed for that route was I-72, but complaints began rolling in from Bay Area political figures that such a designation didn't place the region on the Interstate north-south grid.
I haven't been able to find a map, however, to support that. My notes posted earlier in that discussion, quoting from the Caltrans "Interstate Highways in California" had:
I-5804 I-80 to I-5, Oakland to Modesto
Quote(Oakland adjustment, MacArthur Freeway, Sept. 1995)
(Tracy adjustment, November 1957)
14-Aug-1957 I-5W Tentatively Approved
08-Nov-1957 Proposed as I-72
07-Aug-1958 Proposed as I-5W
10-Nov-1958 Approved as I-5W
01-Jul-1964 Renumbered as I-580
4 Originally, these routes were numbered as I-5W. In the map that accompanied the November 1957 letter proposing I-76, I-505 is shown proposed as I-7, and I-580 is shown as I-72.
The interesting part here is that "Tracy Adjustment" -- I'm wondering if I-580 (nee I-5W/I-72) originally ran along the I-205/US 50 routing, and the "Tracy Adjustment" moved it to the current routing.
So I think we need to find a map or other evidence supporting a routing along the I-580 near Vernalis to Route 132 to Modesto routing; the map we have, and the history of US 50, appears to support the I-205/Route 120 routing.
As more evidence comes up, I'll fix the map. I'll edit the page text, however, to note the controversy.
Quote from: TheStranger on August 12, 2018, 12:46:34 PM
The 580/205/132/120 discussion actually interests me because of how much of it does exist, plus the fact the 132/99 split was graded for in the 1960s but is only finally seeing the light of day as a constructed road in the next 2-3 years. (Note that the "Interstate Highways in California" thing you quoted mentioned 580 as "Oakland to Modesto" rather than Manteca)
Quote from: cahwyguy on August 12, 2018, 05:58:10 PM
On I-5 W, the answer may be .... both
Here's a link to the 1947 Interstate Map, showing I-5W: https://www.cambooth.net/project-1947-interstate-highways/
Here's a link to the 1957 and 1958 maps, again, showing I-5W: http://www.roadfan.com/5758int.html
Note that both 1947 and 1957 show I-5 going from Oakland to Modesto, which would imply (given that I-580 to Vernalis was not constructed), that the routing was likely US 50 (I-580, I-205) to Tracy, Route 33 to Route 132, and Route 132 to Modesto. That fits with the straight line shown.
1958 shows the route going to I-5 near Tracy. That would fit with I-205, but no use of Route 120 to Manteca or Route 132 to Modesto.
If that makes sense, I can figure out how to update my maps and text. It would still be great to find some additional more detailed maps to confirm. It would also possibly make the map on the I-505 entry on AAroads suspect.
Daniel
Does anyone have anything that can help resolve this?
Flipped through the late 50s State Maps on Rumsey. Only the LRNs under construction and current signed highway numbers are displayed which doesn't help with the potential Interstate numberings.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 14, 2018, 04:49:16 PM
Only the LRNs under construction and current signed highway numbers are displayed which doesn't help with the potential Interstate numberings.
Were any planned (but not under construction) routes' LRNs shown in those 1950s maps?
Quote from: TheStranger on August 14, 2018, 05:14:55 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 14, 2018, 04:49:16 PM
Only the LRNs under construction and current signed highway numbers are displayed which doesn't help with the potential Interstate numberings.
Were any planned (but not under construction) routes' LRNs shown in those 1950s maps?
Yes, they are all displayed. Example: on the 1958 map planned LRN 238 is shown on the I-5/I-580 corridor near Tracy. LRN 41 has a planned route which ultimately became the route of I-5.
http://www.davidrumsey.com/ll/thumbnailView.html?startUrl=%2F%2Fwww.davidrumsey.com%2Fluna%2Fservlet%2Fas%2Fsearch%3Fos%3D0%26lc%3DRUMSEY~8~1%26q%3DCaltrans%26sort%3DPub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No%26bs%3D10#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0&r=0&xywh=3238%2C6022%2C564%2C1175
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 14, 2018, 05:32:28 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 14, 2018, 05:14:55 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 14, 2018, 04:49:16 PM
Only the LRNs under construction and current signed highway numbers are displayed which doesn't help with the potential Interstate numberings.
Were any planned (but not under construction) routes' LRNs shown in those 1950s maps?
Yes, they are all displayed. Example: on the 1958 map planned LRN 238 is shown on the I-5/I-580 corridor near Tracy. LRN 41 has a planned route which ultimately became the route of I-5.
http://www.davidrumsey.com/ll/thumbnailView.html?startUrl=%2F%2Fwww.davidrumsey.com%2Fluna%2Fservlet%2Fas%2Fsearch%3Fos%3D0%26lc%3DRUMSEY~8~1%26q%3DCaltrans%26sort%3DPub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No%26bs%3D10#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0&r=0&xywh=3238%2C6022%2C564%2C1175
What's interesting about the 1958 map:
- the connector from US 50 (today's 580 corridor) to Vernalis seems to feed directly into Route 132, as opposed to the modern arrangement where 132 ends at 580
- LRN 238 includes the original West Sacramento proposed routing; on this map, it appears that what is now I-80 between US 50 and the Sacramento River was along the early path for that iteration of the West Side Freeway! (Contingent to that, LRN 238/then-proposed I-5 would have crossed the Sacramento River a second time near today's Pocket neighborhood in Sacramento)
Quote from: TheStranger on August 14, 2018, 05:47:59 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 14, 2018, 05:32:28 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 14, 2018, 05:14:55 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 14, 2018, 04:49:16 PM
Only the LRNs under construction and current signed highway numbers are displayed which doesn't help with the potential Interstate numberings.
Were any planned (but not under construction) routes' LRNs shown in those 1950s maps?
Yes, they are all displayed. Example: on the 1958 map planned LRN 238 is shown on the I-5/I-580 corridor near Tracy. LRN 41 has a planned route which ultimately became the route of I-5.
http://www.davidrumsey.com/ll/thumbnailView.html?startUrl=%2F%2Fwww.davidrumsey.com%2Fluna%2Fservlet%2Fas%2Fsearch%3Fos%3D0%26lc%3DRUMSEY~8~1%26q%3DCaltrans%26sort%3DPub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No%26bs%3D10#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0&r=0&xywh=3238%2C6022%2C564%2C1175
What's interesting about the 1958 map:
- the connector from US 50 (today's 580 corridor) to Vernalis seems to feed directly into Route 132, as opposed to the modern arrangement where 132 ends at 580
- LRN 238 includes the original West Sacramento proposed routing; on this map, it appears that what is now I-80 between US 50 and the Sacramento River was along the early path for that iteration of the West Side Freeway! (Contingent to that, LRN 238/then-proposed I-5 would have crossed the Sacramento River a second time near today's Pocket neighborhood in Sacramento)
Looks like the modern configuration of I-580/I-5/CA 132 shows up in 1959. Weird that the 58 alignment shows a route almost through the heart of Tracy to the US 50 corridor.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 14, 2018, 07:26:26 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 14, 2018, 05:47:59 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 14, 2018, 05:32:28 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 14, 2018, 05:14:55 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 14, 2018, 04:49:16 PM
Only the LRNs under construction and current signed highway numbers are displayed which doesn't help with the potential Interstate numberings.
Were any planned (but not under construction) routes' LRNs shown in those 1950s maps?
Yes, they are all displayed. Example: on the 1958 map planned LRN 238 is shown on the I-5/I-580 corridor near Tracy. LRN 41 has a planned route which ultimately became the route of I-5.
http://www.davidrumsey.com/ll/thumbnailView.html?startUrl=%2F%2Fwww.davidrumsey.com%2Fluna%2Fservlet%2Fas%2Fsearch%3Fos%3D0%26lc%3DRUMSEY~8~1%26q%3DCaltrans%26sort%3DPub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No%26bs%3D10#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0&r=0&xywh=3238%2C6022%2C564%2C1175
What's interesting about the 1958 map:
- the connector from US 50 (today's 580 corridor) to Vernalis seems to feed directly into Route 132, as opposed to the modern arrangement where 132 ends at 580
- LRN 238 includes the original West Sacramento proposed routing; on this map, it appears that what is now I-80 between US 50 and the Sacramento River was along the early path for that iteration of the West Side Freeway! (Contingent to that, LRN 238/then-proposed I-5 would have crossed the Sacramento River a second time near today's Pocket neighborhood in Sacramento)
Looks like the modern configuration of I-580/I-5/CA 132 shows up in 1959. Weird that the 58 alignment shows a route almost through the heart of Tracy to the US 50 corridor.
Coincidentally, 1959 was the year of the first iteration of the California Freeway and Expressway System; that was reflected in that year's state highway map. Quite a few route modifications within that year, with quite a few reflecting the shift of I-5 from its previous US 99 alignment to the LRN 238 "Westside" freeway, including the first display of the present "Tracy Triangle" configuration. But still the section of (now) I-580, then I-5W in its first post-shift iteration, was part of LRN 110, historically aka SSR 132. Apparently LRN 238, which originally was shown as heading directly into Tracy, was shifted at that time to the present I-5 side of the "Tracy Triangle"; with SSR 132 extended to I-5W as the LRN 110 extension; the short section of I-5W/I-580 from the southern E/W split was a LRN 110 spur. US 50 or, later, I-205 was still part of LRN 5; LRN 110's terminus was at the present 580/205 interchange.
Quote from: sparker on August 15, 2018, 09:43:48 PM
Coincidentally, 1959 was the year of the first iteration of the California Freeway and Expressway System; that was reflected in that year's state highway map. Quite a few route modifications within that year, with quite a few reflecting the shift of I-5 from its previous US 99 alignment to the LRN 238 "Westside" freeway, including the first display of the present "Tracy Triangle" configuration. But still the section of (now) I-580, then I-5W in its first post-shift iteration, was part of LRN 110, historically aka SSR 132. Apparently LRN 238, which originally was shown as heading directly into Tracy, was shifted at that time to the present I-5 side of the "Tracy Triangle"; with SSR 132 extended to I-5W as the LRN 110 extension; the short section of I-5W/I-580 from the southern E/W split was a LRN 110 spur. US 50 or, later, I-205 was still part of LRN 5; LRN 110's terminus was at the present 580/205 interchange.
Perhaps. But that doesn't explain the 1958 Interstate map showing I-5W going to Tracy along the 205 routing; nor does it explain the map on the I-505 page showing the I-205 routing for I-5W. It could be that post-1958, I-5W was routing along I-205 to what would become I-5. It is also quite possible the pre-1958 routing was LRN 110/I-580. Are there any maps that show SSR 132 being signed or cosigned as I-5W from Route 99?
This is why I want some corroborating evidence. The state highway map does not show I-5W. All we have are the interstate submissions and memories. The one map I could find questions those memories, and the gross definitions submitted to AASHTO and the AASHTO maps seem to support both.
Looked at all the Rumsey archived state maps from 1958 through 1966; these indicate the following:
(1) No Interstate numbers were referenced in any form until after the 1964 renumbering; the Westside Freeway was simply LRN 238.
(2) LRN 110, aka SSR 132 east of SSR 33/LRN 41, showed a general unadopted routing in 1958 that took it west from the existing route west terminus at Vernalis and curved it north to US 50/LRN 5 near Altamont Pass. Although not referenced as such on the official '58 map, it follows the path projected on the national maps for I-5W.
(3) As of 1958, LRN 238 was unadopted; the line shown on that year's map indicates just that. However, the following year, LRN 238 is shown as specifically adopted (with the line matching the I-5 facility of today) up to the present 5/580 split (then 5E/5W); with LRN 110 shown as specifically adopted northwest to Altamont Pass.
(4) The due N-S alignment from the split north to (then) US 50 was never part of LRN 41; the square symbol indicating that actually referred to SSR 33 "next door". The proposed corridor there was part of LRN 238; shown as continuing to Stockton adjacent to US 50/LRN 5 and continuing north of that city as then-unadopted LRN 238.
(5) At that time there was no indication of a I-205-type Tracy bypass; that came much later. But applying logic to the situation, the Division of Highways intended to put I-205 somewhere; it's likely that was, pre-'59 (the first map to show an adopted Westside alignment) intended to be deployed along US 50 between I-5W/LRN 110 at Altamont and somewhere along I-5E, at that time utilizing US 99. Whether that would have followed US 50 up to Stockton or simply headed directly to US 99 along SSR 120 past Manteca isn't indicated on the state maps simply because no Interstate routes were referenced or even acknowledged at that time. Something tells me that a trip to the Caltrans HQ basement archives would provide the answer to the "original" I-205 question. I doubt the Division of Highways would have skipped over 205 and gone straight to 405 for the first I-5 "loop child".
(6) It seems that every year after 1959 more and more of the LRN 238 route was formally adopted; the N-S I-5 section of the Tracy Triangle was adopted by 1960, with an exact route through Stockton happening within a couple of years of that.
(7) When it comes to the Division of Highways vis-a-vis (then) AASHO planning maps, it's likely one hand just didn't know what the other was doing. Since the switch to the Westside/LRN 238 routing was promulgated locally prior to federal approval, I would imagine that anyone attempting to pin down routings on a map was increasingly frustrated by the changes and simply didn't produce anything until more concrete information became available by the end of '59. BTW, the Portland Cement promotional map from late 1959 (where, at age 10, I finally was able to see the complete Interstate system plans) did indicate the 5E/5W split where the 5/580 split is today -- but didn't indicate any E-W connector such as I-205 between the legs -- which leads me to think that the connector had yet to be finalized or approved by that time.
(8) Within CA, controversy seems to surround any route connected with the number "238"! :eyebrow:
I think I'm beginning to figure things out. First, remember that there may be a distinction between I-5W as signed, and I-5W as submitted, and maps at the time may have only focused on what was signed. So, given that:
1. LRN 110 between Route 33 near Vernalis and US 50 near Tracy wasn't constructed until after 1963. The I-580 numbering was approved in 1964. So that segment may have been originally submitted as I-5W, but it was never signed as such.
2. LRN 110 between Route 33 and Route 99 (I-5E at one time) -- SSR 132. This may have been submitted as I-5W (per http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/yellowbook/numbering-1957.jpg, I-5W to Modesto), but it is unclear if it was ever SIGNED as I-5W. If it was, given the unconstructed segment of LRN 110, I-5W had to have been signed along Route 33 to US 50, and then along US 50 to Oakland (current BR 205 and I-580).
3. The 1958 submission of I-5W as "to near Tracy" (see http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/yellowbook/numbering-1958.jpg) may have been reflecting the fact that LRN 110 was unconstructed, and was never signed along Route 132 to Modesto. The "to Tracy" wording allowed the signed route to either terminate where I-580 would eventually break off, or to end (essentially) at SSR 33, which was close enough to the adopted routing for I-5 (LRN 238) to be close enough for government work. Further, the "near Tracy" words would be sufficient for the eventual I-580 redesignation, or to cover I-205, which was also submitted in 1957, and approved as I-205 in 1958. The 1958 submission map does appear to show I-5E along LRN 238, and I-5W as a straight line to Tracy, meaning possibly the current I-205 routing.
4. The only evidence we have for the signage of I-5W is on points E -- along US 50 near Oakland, along future I-505.
Quote from: sparker on August 16, 2018, 02:42:02 AM
Looked at all the Rumsey archived state maps from 1958 through 1966; these indicate the following:
(1) No Interstate numbers were referenced in any form until after the 1964 renumbering; the Westside Freeway was simply LRN 238.
(2) LRN 110, aka SSR 132 east of SSR 33/LRN 41, showed a general unadopted routing in 1958 that took it west from the existing route west terminus at Vernalis and curved it north to US 50/LRN 5 near Altamont Pass. Although not referenced as such on the official '58 map, it follows the path projected on the national maps for I-5W.
(3) As of 1958, LRN 238 was unadopted; the line shown on that year's map indicates just that. However, the following year, LRN 238 is shown as specifically adopted (with the line matching the I-5 facility of today) up to the present 5/580 split (then 5E/5W); with LRN 110 shown as specifically adopted northwest to Altamont Pass.
(4) The due N-S alignment from the split north to (then) US 50 was never part of LRN 41; the square symbol indicating that actually referred to SSR 33 "next door". The proposed corridor there was part of LRN 238; shown as continuing to Stockton adjacent to US 50/LRN 5 and continuing north of that city as then-unadopted LRN 238.
(5) At that time there was no indication of a I-205-type Tracy bypass; that came much later. But applying logic to the situation, the Division of Highways intended to put I-205 somewhere; it's likely that was, pre-'59 (the first map to show an adopted Westside alignment) intended to be deployed along US 50 between I-5W/LRN 110 at Altamont and somewhere along I-5E, at that time utilizing US 99. Whether that would have followed US 50 up to Stockton or simply headed directly to US 99 along SSR 120 past Manteca isn't indicated on the state maps simply because no Interstate routes were referenced or even acknowledged at that time. Something tells me that a trip to the Caltrans HQ basement archives would provide the answer to the "original" I-205 question. I doubt the Division of Highways would have skipped over 205 and gone straight to 405 for the first I-5 "loop child".
(6) It seems that every year after 1959 more and more of the LRN 238 route was formally adopted; the N-S I-5 section of the Tracy Triangle was adopted by 1960, with an exact route through Stockton happening within a couple of years of that.
(7) When it comes to the Division of Highways vis-a-vis (then) AASHO planning maps, it's likely one hand just didn't know what the other was doing. Since the switch to the Westside/LRN 238 routing was promulgated locally prior to federal approval, I would imagine that anyone attempting to pin down routings on a map was increasingly frustrated by the changes and simply didn't produce anything until more concrete information became available by the end of '59. BTW, the Portland Cement promotional map from late 1959 (where, at age 10, I finally was able to see the complete Interstate system plans) did indicate the 5E/5W split where the 5/580 split is today -- but didn't indicate any E-W connector such as I-205 between the legs -- which leads me to think that the connector had yet to be finalized or approved by that time.
(8) Within CA, controversy seems to surround any route connected with the number "238"! :eyebrow:
I suppose that without photographic evidence of the signing of I-5W this will never be resolved. Many of the maps of that era, official and unofficial, were known to map what was planned as opposed to what actually existed.
Nexus 5X
Quote from: mrsman on August 17, 2018, 01:02:58 AM
I suppose that without photographic evidence of the signing of I-5W this will never be resolved. Many of the maps of that era, official and unofficial, were known to map what was planned as opposed to what actually existed.
Nexus 5X
That's the issue with a lot of stuff in California. Case and point; every map of US 399 I've seen shows it multiplexing US 99 to US 466 in Bakersfield. I've never seen a photo of said terminus and is likely one will never emerge. The only Signed State Highway I've ever seen a photo of on a County Maintained Roadway was CA 12 which NE2 posted awhile back. Who's to say for Routes like 180, 33, 49, and other's?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 17, 2018, 01:30:52 AM
Quote from: mrsman on August 17, 2018, 01:02:58 AM
I suppose that without photographic evidence of the signing of I-5W this will never be resolved. Many of the maps of that era, official and unofficial, were known to map what was planned as opposed to what actually existed.
Nexus 5X
That's the issue with a lot of stuff in California. Case and point; every map of US 399 I've seen shows it multiplexing US 99 to US 466 in Bakersfield. I've never seen a photo of said terminus and is likely one will never emerge. The only Signed State Highway I've ever seen a photo of on a County Maintained Roadway was CA 12 which NE2 posted awhile back. Who's to say for Routes like 180, 33, 49, and other's?
The 99/399 multiplex did in fact exist -- right up to the completion of the Bakersfield US 99 freeway bypass in late 1962. For the approximately 16 months between the completion of that freeway and the changeover to the new numbering system that became official on 1/1/64, US 399 was effectively terminated at the present 99/119 junction. Prior to that, the US 99 route over Union Avenue between Pumpkin Center and US 466/LRN 58 was always co-signed with US 399. The "sign salad" at the 99/399/466/178 junction was quite impressive indeed; I passed it a few times per year as a kid to and from my Glendale home to visit with family in the Sacramento area. IIRC, up until the time the 99 freeway opened all the Bakersfield-area U.S. route shields were of the old state-name-above-the-line design, but the last iteration of those with button copy; the SSR 178 in-town shields were always the "bear" equivalent, also with button copy on the numbers. The larger white and off-white "semi-neutered" shields were deployed along the freeways but didn't seem to make it into town in that particular district.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 17, 2018, 01:30:52 AM
Case and point; every map of US 399 I've seen shows it multiplexing US 99 to US 466 in Bakersfield. I've never seen a photo of said terminus and is likely one will never emerge.
This photo shows the back of 99 and 399 shields (at far left): http://calisphere.org/item/ark:/13030/kt0b69q4s2/
^^^^
I'll to pull the picture up on computer when I'm home, it's too small to see on my phone.
Quote from: sparker on August 17, 2018, 01:54:11 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 17, 2018, 01:30:52 AM
Quote from: mrsman on August 17, 2018, 01:02:58 AM
I suppose that without photographic evidence of the signing of I-5W this will never be resolved. Many of the maps of that era, official and unofficial, were known to map what was planned as opposed to what actually existed.
Nexus 5X
That's the issue with a lot of stuff in California. Case and point; every map of US 399 I've seen shows it multiplexing US 99 to US 466 in Bakersfield. I've never seen a photo of said terminus and is likely one will never emerge. The only Signed State Highway I've ever seen a photo of on a County Maintained Roadway was CA 12 which NE2 posted awhile back. Who's to say for Routes like 180, 33, 49, and other's?
The 99/399 multiplex did in fact exist -- right up to the completion of the Bakersfield US 99 freeway bypass in late 1962. For the approximately 16 months between the completion of that freeway and the changeover to the new numbering system that became official on 1/1/64, US 399 was effectively terminated at the present 99/119 junction. Prior to that, the US 99 route over Union Avenue between Pumpkin Center and US 466/LRN 58 was always co-signed with US 399. The "sign salad" at the 99/399/466/178 junction was quite impressive indeed; I passed it a few times per year as a kid to and from my Glendale home to visit with family in the Sacramento area. IIRC, up until the time the 99 freeway opened all the Bakersfield-area U.S. route shields were of the old state-name-above-the-line design, but the last iteration of those with button copy; the SSR 178 in-town shields were always the "bear" equivalent, also with button copy on the numbers. The larger white and off-white "semi-neutered" shields were deployed along the freeways but didn't seem to make it into town in that particular district.
That must have been something to see when 178 came in with US 466 on Summer. Any idea how the assembly looked when 178 was moved to 24th Street?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 17, 2018, 09:54:25 AM
^^^^
I'll to pull the picture up on computer when I'm home, it's too small to see on my phone.
Quote from: sparker on August 17, 2018, 01:54:11 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 17, 2018, 01:30:52 AM
Quote from: mrsman on August 17, 2018, 01:02:58 AM
I suppose that without photographic evidence of the signing of I-5W this will never be resolved. Many of the maps of that era, official and unofficial, were known to map what was planned as opposed to what actually existed.
Nexus 5X
That's the issue with a lot of stuff in California. Case and point; every map of US 399 I've seen shows it multiplexing US 99 to US 466 in Bakersfield. I've never seen a photo of said terminus and is likely one will never emerge. The only Signed State Highway I've ever seen a photo of on a County Maintained Roadway was CA 12 which NE2 posted awhile back. Who's to say for Routes like 180, 33, 49, and other's?
The 99/399 multiplex did in fact exist -- right up to the completion of the Bakersfield US 99 freeway bypass in late 1962. For the approximately 16 months between the completion of that freeway and the changeover to the new numbering system that became official on 1/1/64, US 399 was effectively terminated at the present 99/119 junction. Prior to that, the US 99 route over Union Avenue between Pumpkin Center and US 466/LRN 58 was always co-signed with US 399. The "sign salad" at the 99/399/466/178 junction was quite impressive indeed; I passed it a few times per year as a kid to and from my Glendale home to visit with family in the Sacramento area. IIRC, up until the time the 99 freeway opened all the Bakersfield-area U.S. route shields were of the old state-name-above-the-line design, but the last iteration of those with button copy; the SSR 178 in-town shields were always the "bear" equivalent, also with button copy on the numbers. The larger white and off-white "semi-neutered" shields were deployed along the freeways but didn't seem to make it into town in that particular district.
That must have been something to see when 178 came in with US 466 on Summer. Any idea how the assembly looked when 178 was moved to 24th Street?
By that time, US 99 had been moved over to the freeway; as it was 1963, and I was still 2 years away from my drivers' license, I never got the chance to see that arrangement. Have no idea if D6 simply slapped "business" banners over the US 99 shields; my feeling is that it wouldn't have been quite as impressive as when everything came together at that particular intersection at the curve of former 99! The next time I saw the arrangement was in the fall of '68, after CA 204 had been signed but CA 58 still ran E-W through Bakersfield city streets. IIRC, most directional signage was confined to green rectangular signs, both large and small -- but by that time the CA 178 freeway east of downtown was in place. That configuration placed WB CA 58 on Golden State Blvd. between Sumner and the 178 overpass; 58 turned onto the ramp directly to WB 24th street on the north side of the overpass. Narrow ramp; but that didn't seem to matter; most commercial traffic coming off WB 58 (heavy even then) stayed on NB 204 to access NB CA 99; until the full length of I-5 north to Stockton opened in 1972, trucks, of course, tended to stay on CA 99. After the opening of I-5, most still avoided the slog through downtown Bakersfield on 24th Street and, if electing to use the new I-5, simply utilized CA 46 to do so. CA 58 west of Bakersfield didn't see a lot of through truck traffic until the 58 freeway east of CA 99 was completed in 1979, allowing a bypass of downtown.
Quote from: cahwyguy on August 16, 2018, 10:19:49 PM
4. The only evidence we have for the signage of I-5W is on points E -- along US 50 near Oakland, along future I-505.
Was the MacArthur Freeway portion of what is now 580 (not 505, which I don't think had any construction on it pre-1964) signed as I-5W in its entirety, or only that short segment in Oakland near Grand Avenue?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4698383839
---
Not an official state map, but a 1963 Rand McNally snippet from the AARoads Interstate Guide, showing I-5W on future I-505 and on then-US 50 (now the I-580 corridor) near Altamont. More interesting is I-5E being listed along County Route J8
(https://www.interstate-guide.com/maps/i0005w_ca_1963_map.jpg)
Just to clarify: This map shows I-5W along the LRN 5 (I-205) alignment -- there is no angling down to Vernalis, no I-5W along Route 132. It supports the contention that the submission for I-5W may have been LRN 110 before 1958, but that was never signed. Signage of I-5W came after its approval in 1958, and that signage was along present day I-205 and I-580. Given the I-5E on the map, it appears that signage would have been along US 50 N of Tracy along I-5 until the point where I-5W rejoined I-5E N of Zamora.
I do like the "floating" 5W shield. :D
That's just standard Rand McNally practice to only show proposed freeways where there is no existing surface road in the same alignment (or where a definite alignment is set?).
Also standard McNally practice in regards to proposed Interstate corridors: approximation. The map shown is a '63 edition; the "Tracy Triangle" alignments -- at least the I-5W & I-5E portions, were already formally adopted, but McNally simply chose to show the corridor heading directly into Tracy. And where the future Interstate corridor was planned to overlay an existing route, they simply slapped shields on that route (they certainly did it with the original I-64 corridor along US 50 and US 150 from St. Louis to Louisville; you can also see that practice here with the I-5 shield affixed to a 2-lane section of US 99W north of Dunnigan). The only signed section of the I-5 suffixed routes was I-5W from I-80 east to the temporary end of the freeway near Piedmont; no other freeway or expressway sections of US 50 were signed as either I-5W or I-5E. The numbering change eliminating the suffixed split actually occurred about October '63, a few months ahead of the general statewide renumbering (at least according to CH&PW), so the I-5W shields were very short-lived: deployed barely 2 years before being replaced by I-580 shields.
Since the alignment of I-5E between Stockton and Sacramento hadn't been formalized by '63 -- and it definitely wasn't along US 99 any more -- they simply elected to show it along the sole continuous surface facility (J8) between the points that were actually adopted. Likewise with I-5W north of Vacaville; the difference is that the "light blue line" used there was actually an unsigned state highway (LRN 90). Also: I-5(E) between Woodland and Sacramento is shown as under construction and north of SSR 16; the actual current I-5 Yolo Causeway through that area is a few hundred yards south of the former SSR/CA 16 alignment. As stated earlier, typical McNally "guesstimation".
Quote from: sparker on August 17, 2018, 04:21:03 PM
Also standard McNally practice in regards to proposed Interstate corridors: approximation. The map shown is a '63 edition; the "Tracy Triangle" alignments -- at least the I-5W & I-5E portions, were already formally adopted, but McNally simply chose to show the corridor heading directly into Tracy. And where the future Interstate corridor was planned to overlay an existing route, they simply slapped shields on that route (they certainly did it with the original I-64 corridor along US 50 and US 150 from St. Louis to Louisville; you can also see that practice here with the I-5 shield affixed to a 2-lane section of US 99W north of Dunnigan). The only signed section of the I-5 suffixed routes was I-5W from I-80 east to the temporary end of the freeway near Piedmont; no other freeway or expressway sections of US 50 were signed as either I-5W or I-5E.
So it is clear that this portion of I-580 or SSR 132 was never signed. So the question then is: What was submitted as the route for I-5W, and did that change between 1957 and 1958 when the southern end was seemingly changed from Modesto to "Near Tracy"? Was the original submittal in 1957 the I-580 and SSR 132 routing, and that was changed during 1958 to be the I-580 and I-205 routing (or just I-580).
What I have, from the "Interstate Highways in California", supports the I-580 (no SSR 132) theory:
For I-580:
I-80 to I-5, Oakland to Modesto
14-Aug-1957 I-5W Tentatively Approved
(Tracy adjustment, November 1957)
08-Nov-1957 Proposed as I-72
07-Aug-1958 Proposed as I-5W
10-Nov-1958 Approved as I-5W
01-Jul-1964 Renumbered as I-580
For I-205:
North Tracy Bypass
8-Nov-1957 Number Unknown
1-Apr-1958 Proposed as I-112
7-Aug-1958 Proposed as I-205
10-Nov-1958 Approved as I-205
For I-505:
14-Aug-1957 I-5W Tentatively Approved
08-Nov-1957 Proposed as I-7
01-Apr-1958 Proposed as I-115
07-Aug-1958 Proposed as I-5W
10-Nov-1958 Approved as I-5W
01-Jul-1964 Renumbered as I-505
Yet the 1958 approved map http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/yellowbook/numbering-1958.jpg shows the route going straight to Tracy.
What that indicates is that the Yellow Book was as inured to the art of approximation as was McNally; it's likely the McNally "dashed lines" were gleaned from the Yellow Book. The California Division of Highways was likely on a completely separate page; at the time, they were compiling the first iteration of the state Freeway & Expressway System which would contain the Interstate corridors within their network. Until that system was effectively finalized, including the Westside Freeway and its ancillary branches, the Division's plans wouldn't have been set in stone, regardless of BPR/FHWA or AASHO's systemwide outlines. Basically, 1957-58 was simply each entity getting things into place according to their individual needs and, in terms of communicating with each other, "running things up the flagpole" from time to time; it looks like 11/10/58 was the day things finally came together as the basis for the network as it is today.
Thank you all for this discussion. The goal was to correct the map that I had on my Route 5 page ( https://www.cahighways.org/001-008.html#005 ), as well as the description. Here's the updated map. I still need to go back and make sure I have the correct coordinating information on the pages for I-580, I-205, Route 120, and Route 132 (some may have erroneous old information, and someone should tell Wikipedia, because they copied from my pages :-) ). Here's the updated map:
(https://www.cahighways.org/maps/005-segall.jpg)
However... updating the other pages uncovered one other minor mystery: LRN 110 (Route 132) ended at LRN 41 (Route 33) until 1957, when it was extended to LRN 5 (I-580/I-205) junction. So here's the mystery: I-5W was proposed as two segments, Vacaville to Dunnigan (now I-505), and Oakland to Modesto (what became I-580) in 1947. But the route of Oakland to Modesto in 1947 was US 50 to Route 33 to Route 132 -- there was no connection between Route 132 (LRN 11) and US 50 (LRN 5). That didn't come until 1957, and I-5W/I-580 was cut back to near Tracy in 1958. Further, the stub extending LRN 110 along future I-580 between Route 132 and I-5 wasn't added to LRN 110 until 1959.
So what was the department thinking between 1947 and 1957? My best guess is: Nothing. They wanted a route from Oakland to Modesto, but didn't officially add it to the state highway system until it was near final approval in the 1957-1958 timeframe. At that time, they extended LRN 110 to provide the proposed freeway connection.
First off, thanks so much for all the hard work on research from everyone here. 5W is probably one of the most fascinating routes (IIRC as a signed route it might be the shortest-lived Interstate in California, as 480 existed as an Interstate until its mile allocation was moved to I-105/Century Freeway in 1968) because of all the mysteries above and the fact most of its proposed length has been built out under other numbers.
That leads to an interesting followup thought: Is the future 99/132 interchange in Modesto one of the few examples of something from the 1947 proposals that didn't make it to the 1958 Interstate system yet is eventually being built decades later?
Quote from: TheStranger on August 18, 2018, 01:14:05 PM
First off, thanks so much for all the hard work on research from everyone here. 5W is probably one of the most fascinating routes (IIRC as a signed route it might be the shortest-lived Interstate in California, as 480 existed as an Interstate until its mile allocation was moved to I-105/Century Freeway in 1968) because of all the mysteries above and the fact most of its proposed length has been built out under other numbers.
That leads to an interesting followup thought: Is the future 99/132 interchange in Modesto one of the few examples of something from the 1947 proposals that didn't make it to the 1958 Interstate system yet is eventually being built decades later?
The section of CA 99 freeway including the never-completed 132 (nee' I-5W) interchange wasn't opened until 1965, so the Division of Highways had ample time after the late '57 I-5 shift to the Westside alignment to alter their plans; they never did, probably figuring the plans for the original I-5E/I-5W split would also be appropriate for any future plans pertaining to CA 132. That paid off; the preliminary grading that's now been in place for 53 years will be part of the relocated 99/132 interchange.
Has everybody seen this? I have no idea who took it or where or when it was taken.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1870/43409024224_061dac6672_b.jpg)
See https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18341.msg2158170#msg2158170 . It is the MacArthur Freeway in Oakland. THis was posted to show the spot today: https://tinyurl.com/yd925329 It is from the August 1962 issue of CHPW: http://libraryarchives.metro.net/DPGTL/Californiahighways/chpw_1962_julaug.pdf
P.S.: As was just before the forum page break, the map that resulted from this discussion is at the bottom of the post. Updating my other pages to agree uncovered a mystery: LRN 110 (Route 132) ended at LRN 41 (Route 33) until 1957, when it was extended to LRN 5 (I-580/I-205) junction. So here's the mystery: I-5W was proposed as two segments, Vacaville to Dunnigan (now I-505), and Oakland to Modesto (what became I-580) in 1947. But the route of Oakland to Modesto in 1947 was US 50 to Route 33 to Route 132 -- there was no connection between Route 132 (LRN 11) and US 50 (LRN 5). That didn't come until 1957, and I-5W/I-580 was cut back to near Tracy in 1958. Further, the stub extending LRN 110 along future I-580 between Route 132 and I-5 wasn't added to LRN 110 until 1959.
So what was the department thinking between 1947 and 1957? My best guess is: Nothing. They wanted a route from Oakland to Modesto, but didn't officially add it to the state highway system until it was near final approval in the 1957-1958 timeframe. At that time, they extended LRN 110 to provide the proposed freeway connection.
(https://www.cahighways.org/maps/005-segall.jpg)
Quote from: bugo on August 19, 2018, 05:54:55 AM
Has everybody seen this? I have no idea who took it or where or when it was taken.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1870/43409024224_061dac6672_b.jpg)
I'm definitely no expert, but that I-5W sign looks photoshopped in to me.
It's West I-5W(est) West!
Quote from: doorknob60 on August 21, 2018, 02:55:08 PM
I'm definitely no expert, but that I-5W sign looks photoshopped in to me.
It's (very) digitally enhanced, but the photo is legit -- from the July/August 1962 issue of California Highways & Public Works. Here's a direct link to the page with the photo:
https://archive.org/stream/cvol4142alifornia196263hiwacalirich#page/n245
Quote from: Zonie on August 21, 2018, 03:13:43 PM
It's West I-5W(est) West!
The other "West" is most likely for a missing US 50 shield that should be there.
Quote from: Kniwt on August 21, 2018, 03:40:56 PM
Quote from: doorknob60 on August 21, 2018, 02:55:08 PM
I'm definitely no expert, but that I-5W sign looks photoshopped in to me.
It's (very) digitally enhanced, but the photo is legit -- from the July/August 1962 issue of California Highways & Public Works. Here's a direct link to the page with the photo:
https://archive.org/stream/cvol4142alifornia196263hiwacalirich#page/n245
Quote from: Zonie on August 21, 2018, 03:13:43 PM
It's West I-5W(est) West!
The other "West" is most likely for a missing US 50 shield that should be there.
The illustration on page 245 even has a I-5W on it. That's a hell of a find to get an actual photo.
As I noted in my post above, you've got a cleaner version at http://libraryarchives.metro.net/DPGTL/Californiahighways/chpw_1962_julaug.pdf
Noticed that the map on pg. 245 also shows a I-5W hand-drawn shield on the Bay Bridge east approach at about the toll plaza; obviously an illustrator error (although LRN 5 did extend onto the bridge to the Alameda/S.F. county line about midway along the eastern span, at which point it became LRN 68). Until the change to I-580/505 in late '63 (with a signage change in mid-'64), I-5W was intended to multiplex east on I-80 to Vacaville (about 47 miles); whether that would have been signed or silent hadn't been publicly discussed prior to the time of the change.
Maybe third time is the charm. Since we're talking changes in time, here's something I noted that I'd like thoughts on:
P.S.: [...] Updating my other pages to agree uncovered a mystery: LRN 110 (Route 132) ended at LRN 41 (Route 33) until 1957, when it was extended to LRN 5 (I-580/I-205) junction. So here's the mystery: I-5W was proposed as two segments, Vacaville to Dunnigan (now I-505), and Oakland to Modesto (what became I-580) in 1947. But the route of Oakland to Modesto in 1947 was US 50 to Route 33 to Route 132 -- there was no connection between Route 132 (LRN 11) and US 50 (LRN 5). That didn't come until 1957, and I-5W/I-580 was cut back to near Tracy in 1958. Further, the stub extending LRN 110 along future I-580 between Route 132 and I-5 wasn't added to LRN 110 until 1959.
So what was the department thinking between 1947 and 1957? My best guess is: Nothing. They wanted a route from Oakland to Modesto, but didn't officially add it to the state highway system until it was near final approval in the 1957-1958 timeframe. At that time, they extended LRN 110 to provide the proposed freeway connection.
That's probably as good an assessment as any -- the Division of Highways had quite a bit on its plate circa 1958 or so -- compiling the first iteration of the state freeway & expressway system, integrating the new Interstate corridors into that system, and actually laying out the final path of the Westside Freeway (remember, it was simply an unadopted concept prior to the I-5 alignment switch). Once the Westside alignment was finalized, the LRN 110 extension was simply blended into the overall project, becoming the SE>NW eastern end of I-580 as it exists today as well as the CA 132 extension west from CA 33 to I-580 (originally, of course, I-5W); that portion of current I-580 from I-5 NW to CA 132 was simply a legislative "spur" of LRN 110.
As an aside -- I would have liked to have been the proverbial "fly on the wall" to gauge the reaction of the various cities arrayed along US 99 in the Valley to the announcement that I-5 would bypass them all on a new alignment intended to be a functional "beeline" between L.A. and the Bay Area. Aside from any projected loss of "pass-through" revenues to those cities from the interregional traffic, the alignment shift meant that the then-guaranteed Federal funds that would have been directed to upgrading US 99 were to be deployed well to the west; the Valley's "main street" would be enhanced at a more "leisurely" pace. The fact that CA 99 wasn't brought up to full freeway standards until 44 years after the Westside alignment opened to traffic speaks for itself and the state's overall priorities!
Quote from: TheStranger on August 17, 2018, 01:17:57 PM
Quote from: cahwyguy on August 16, 2018, 10:19:49 PM
4. The only evidence we have for the signage of I-5W is on points E -- along US 50 near Oakland, along future I-505.
Was the MacArthur Freeway portion of what is now 580 (not 505, which I don't think had any construction on it pre-1964) signed as I-5W in its entirety, or only that short segment in Oakland near Grand Avenue?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4698383839 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4698383839)
---
Not an official state map, but a 1963 Rand McNally snippet from the AARoads Interstate Guide, showing I-5W on future I-505 and on then-US 50 (now the I-580 corridor) near Altamont. More interesting is I-5E being listed along County Route J8
(https://www.interstate-guide.com/maps/i0005w_ca_1963_map.jpg)
Thats Interesting CA-24 used to Exist in the Sacramento area too and it takes areas that became CA-160. Even More interesting is that CA-24 goes to Downtown Sacramento where I-5 was later placed and it meets the current I-5/US-50 Interchange and the current I-80 @ I-5 interchange. Also CA-24 went through an area that is now known as CA-70.
Quote from: bing101 on August 27, 2018, 09:36:11 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 17, 2018, 01:17:57 PM
Quote from: cahwyguy on August 16, 2018, 10:19:49 PM
4. The only evidence we have for the signage of I-5W is on points E -- along US 50 near Oakland, along future I-505.
Was the MacArthur Freeway portion of what is now 580 (not 505, which I don't think had any construction on it pre-1964) signed as I-5W in its entirety, or only that short segment in Oakland near Grand Avenue?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4698383839 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4698383839)
---
Not an official state map, but a 1963 Rand McNally snippet from the AARoads Interstate Guide, showing I-5W on future I-505 and on then-US 50 (now the I-580 corridor) near Altamont. More interesting is I-5E being listed along County Route J8
(https://www.interstate-guide.com/maps/i0005w_ca_1963_map.jpg)
Thats Interesting CA-24 used to Exist in the Sacramento area too and it takes areas that became CA-160. Even More interesting is that CA-24 goes to Downtown Sacramento where I-5 was later placed and it meets the current I-5/US-50 Interchange and the current I-80 @ I-5 interchange. Also CA-24 went through an area that is now known as CA-70.
24 I believe is the most truncated State Route after CA 7 was replaced by US 395 and 6.
Let's see how many errors can be spotted in the map above:
(1) SSR 128 is shown as a state highway on the county road (Russell Rd.?) between Winters and Davis.
(2) Altamont Pass is shown as being between Livermore and Vasco Road (down in the valley before US 50 surmounted the hills east of Livermore).
(3) I-280's projected route takes it through Campbell (it always was intended to stay well north of there).
(4) US 50 is shown as intersecting US 99 at the SSR 8 interchange in east Stockton (it did so about a mile to the south and multiplexed with SSR 4 south of downtown.
But then, McNally's cartography wasn't always the most precise back then. Saving grace: they did show SSR 84 in its first year of existence as a signed highway.
Quote from: sparker on August 28, 2018, 03:43:18 AM
Let's see how many errors can be spotted in the map above:
(2) Altamont Pass is shown as being between Livermore and Vasco Road (down in the valley before US 50 surmounted the hills east of Livermore).
And for years, RMcN wrongly claimed "EL 2130" (not 1,009 feet) for the modern Altamont Pass.
Ca-21 later became I-680 and CA-5 in Daly City/ South San Francisco area later became I-280.
Or is CA-5 supposed to be near the current CA-82?
Quote from: bing101 on August 28, 2018, 07:46:12 AM
Ca-21 later became I-680 and CA-5 in Daly City/ South San Francisco area later became I-280.
Or is CA-5 supposed to be near the current CA-82?
CA 5 became CA 35, Skyline is right next to the I-280 alignment at the foot of the Santa Cruz Range and multiplexes the Interstate a couple miles now. The northern part of 9 became other routers like 85 and 237.
Here's another interesting note the city of West Sacramento was known as Bryte at the time the map was made.
Quote from: bing101 on August 28, 2018, 10:48:31 AM
Here's another interesting note the city of West Sacramento was known as Bryte at the time the map was made.
There were two incorporated cities in east Yolo County in that area, Bryte and Broderick; both were absorbed into West Sacramento in the '80's in order to consolidate the area between the Yolo Bypass and the Sacramento River into one jurisdiction.
Quote from: sparker on August 28, 2018, 03:43:18 AM
Let's see how many errors can be spotted in the map above:
(1) SSR 128 is shown as a state highway on the county road (Russell Rd.?) between Winters and Davis.
IIRC that has existed as part of the route definition (from 505 to 113) though has never been signed as 128.
Quote from: sparker on August 28, 2018, 03:43:18 AM
(3) I-280's projected route takes it through Campbell (it always was intended to stay well north of there).
I wonder if this was their attempt (albeit extremely poor) at trying to show where 280 doubled back up 17 (today's 880) between 101 and the Santana Row area! Wasn't that actually the first segment of 280 signed at all, a portion that is now a part of a completely different Interstate decades later?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 27, 2018, 10:55:36 PM
Quote from: bing101 on August 27, 2018, 09:36:11 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 17, 2018, 01:17:57 PM
Quote from: cahwyguy on August 16, 2018, 10:19:49 PM
4. The only evidence we have for the signage of I-5W is on points E -- along US 50 near Oakland, along future I-505.
Was the MacArthur Freeway portion of what is now 580 (not 505, which I don't think had any construction on it pre-1964) signed as I-5W in its entirety, or only that short segment in Oakland near Grand Avenue?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4698383839 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4698383839)
---
Not an official state map, but a 1963 Rand McNally snippet from the AARoads Interstate Guide, showing I-5W on future I-505 and on then-US 50 (now the I-580 corridor) near Altamont. More interesting is I-5E being listed along County Route J8
(https://www.interstate-guide.com/maps/i0005w_ca_1963_map.jpg)
Thats Interesting CA-24 used to Exist in the Sacramento area too and it takes areas that became CA-160. Even More interesting is that CA-24 goes to Downtown Sacramento where I-5 was later placed and it meets the current I-5/US-50 Interchange and the current I-80 @ I-5 interchange. Also CA-24 went through an area that is now known as CA-70.
24 I believe is the most truncated State Route after CA 7 was replaced by US 395 and 6.
US-99E in Roseville that became the current CA-65 and there was always talks that CA-65 would be a bypass for CA-99(Proposed I-7/I-9) though
Quote from: TheStranger on August 28, 2018, 01:22:02 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 28, 2018, 03:43:18 AM
Let's see how many errors can be spotted in the map above:
(1) SSR 128 is shown as a state highway on the county road (Russell Rd.?) between Winters and Davis.
IIRC that has existed as part of the route definition (from 505 to 113) though has never been signed as 128.
Quote from: sparker on August 28, 2018, 03:43:18 AM
(3) I-280's projected route takes it through Campbell (it always was intended to stay well north of there).
I wonder if this was their attempt (albeit extremely poor) at trying to show where 280 doubled back up 17 (today's 880) between 101 and the Santana Row area! Wasn't that actually the first segment of 280 signed at all, a portion that is now a part of a completely different Interstate decades later?
From LRN 6 days, the stretch between Winters and Davis has always been an unadopted corridor concept. The original traversable road was in fact Russell Road, which heads directly into downtown Davis. Later, a connection was made to the parallel County Road E6, which eventually loops around Davis to I-80 east of town. But neither road was ever adopted into the state highway system, although the current through E6 is at or above rural state highway standards.
Prior to the first portion of the E-W I-280 (Junipero Serra) freeway being opened to traffic, I-280 was indeed signed concurrent with then-SSR 17 from Stevens Creek Blvd. north to US 101 Bypass (present US 101); I-680 took over co-signage from that point north. The signage was removed by 1965, when the decision to reroute the Interstate corridor over the former CA 17 freeway around the east side of downtown (today's I-280/680 "loop") was made (utilizing mileage transferred from the deletion of most of the S.F. Interstate routes). I came through the area in late 1965 on a high-school college tour; the bus came up US 101 and turned north on then-CA 17 toward Berkeley, our first Bay Area stop; the I-280 signs were gone from the NB BGS's for SB CA 17; but I-680 still remained signed with CA 17 north of the junction as far as its original Warm Springs "split". It, too, was gone by my next trip through the area in early 1967.
CA-48 is now known as CA-37.
The former CA-37 on this map became CA-121.
US-40W has to be an approximate area for CA-113 today.
Quote from: bing101 on August 30, 2018, 12:20:36 AM
CA-48 is now known as CA-37.
The former CA-37 on this map became CA-121.
US-40W has to be an approximate area for CA-113 today.
SSR 37 occupied the west end of present CA 37 (from US 101 to the present 37/121 junction) and all of present CA 121. SSR 48 is now CA 37 from CA 121 to I-80. Alternate US 40 used present CA 113 from I-80 to CA 99 (from Davis to Woodland it was multiplexed with US 99W), CA 99 north to CA 20, CA 20 east to CA 70, and CA 70 from Marysville to US 395 at Hallelujah Junction; it then multiplexed south on US 395 back to (then) US 40 at Reno.
Alternate US 40 was designated at the end of 1953 as a response to the severe winter of 1952-53 that saw US 40 over Donner Pass closed for much of the season -- and the passenger train City of San Francisco was trapped in a snowbank near Norden, just west of the summit, for several days. The concept was to provide a continuously signed all-weather highway as a winter alternative; to that end, SSR 24 was cut back to Woodland and Alternate US 40 commissioned over the route north and east of there. Ironically, this ended up being a case of "frying pan/fire"; while Alternate 40 worked as a detour during winter months, the fact that it ran at the bottom of the Feather River canyon for much of its length made it prone to spring flooding. That designation was, of course, a casualty of the renumbering 11 years later, becoming a combination of CA 113, CA 99, and CA 70.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 28, 2018, 07:52:05 AM
Quote from: bing101 on August 28, 2018, 07:46:12 AM
Ca-21 later became I-680 and CA-5 in Daly City/ South San Francisco area later became I-280.
Or is CA-5 supposed to be near the current CA-82?
CA 5 became CA 35, Skyline is right next to the I-280 alignment at the foot of the Santa Cruz Range and multiplexes the Interstate a couple miles now. The northern part of 9 became other routers like 85 and 237.
CA-9 in Hayward became CA-238 south of an area now known as I-580/I-238 Interchange then known as US-50/I-5W Interchange in Hayward.
https://www.sacbee.com/latest-news/article208619029.html
Also there was a video in the article mentioning that I-5 was originally planned for West Sacramento back in the 1960-1970's before I-5 was put in the downtown district of Sacramento to spark growth for the mall (Note the Downtown Mall in Sacramento is where the current Golden 1 Center is Located).
Also I-5 in Sacramento is 43 years old as of 2018.
Quote from: TheStranger on August 17, 2018, 01:17:57 PM
Quote from: cahwyguy on August 16, 2018, 10:19:49 PM
4. The only evidence we have for the signage of I-5W is on points E -- along US 50 near Oakland, along future I-505.
Was the MacArthur Freeway portion of what is now 580 (not 505, which I don't think had any construction on it pre-1964) signed as I-5W in its entirety, or only that short segment in Oakland near Grand Avenue?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4698383839 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4698383839)
---
Not an official state map, but a 1963 Rand McNally snippet from the AARoads Interstate Guide, showing I-5W on future I-505 and on then-US 50 (now the I-580 corridor) near Altamont. More interesting is I-5E being listed along County Route J8
(https://www.interstate-guide.com/maps/i0005w_ca_1963_map.jpg)
Thats Interesting there's a CA-8 Signed near Stockton and this is before it became the eastern part of CA-4
Quote from: bing101 on August 30, 2018, 03:50:43 PM
Thats Interesting there's a CA-8 Signed near Stockton and this is before it became the eastern part of CA-4
That actually became post-1964 route 26.
Quote from: TheStranger on August 30, 2018, 03:53:39 PM
Quote from: bing101 on August 30, 2018, 03:50:43 PM
Thats Interesting there's a CA-8 Signed near Stockton and this is before it became the eastern part of CA-4
That actually became post-1964 route 26.
CA 4, and SSR 4 before it, always has been that red line going through Farmington east of Stockton. Pre-renumbering, SSR 8 was a relatively short connector from Stockton to Mokelumne Hill, with a multiplex north on SSR 49 into Jackson. Pre WW II what is now CA 88 east of Jackson over Carson Pass to the NV state line was originally SSR 8; SSR 88 was commissioned as a more direct route from Stockton to Jackson; it replaced SSR 8 east of Jackson.
Quote from: bing101 on August 30, 2018, 03:50:43 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 17, 2018, 01:17:57 PM
Quote from: cahwyguy on August 16, 2018, 10:19:49 PM
4. The only evidence we have for the signage of I-5W is on points E -- along US 50 near Oakland, along future I-505.
Was the MacArthur Freeway portion of what is now 580 (not 505, which I don't think had any construction on it pre-1964) signed as I-5W in its entirety, or only that short segment in Oakland near Grand Avenue?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4698383839 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4698383839)
---
Not an official state map, but a 1963 Rand McNally snippet from the AARoads Interstate Guide, showing I-5W on future I-505 and on then-US 50 (now the I-580 corridor) near Altamont. More interesting is I-5E being listed along County Route J8
(https://www.interstate-guide.com/maps/i0005w_ca_1963_map.jpg)
Thats Interesting there's a CA-8 Signed near Stockton and this is before it became the eastern part of CA-4
I'm not sure if you're aware of this but in a lot of my threads I go over these maps and put links in that show the year-to-year differences. CA 26 and CA 88 were some of the routes that I recently covered, both which were part of CA 8. Go check out some of my threads from the last couple months I think you'll get a kick out some of the differences you see today in the highway system versus how things used to be.
^^^^^
Pre-1964 there were two diamond interchanges on LRN 90 (erstwhile I-5W and now I-505) built back in 1960, at the intersections of LRN 6 (CA 128) near Winters and LRN 50 (CA 16) at Madison. The bridges (both on the crossing state highways) were among the last CA freeway bridges built with cast concrete "picket fence" railings rather than the later aluminum pipes held in place by stanchions. The LRN 90 bypasses of both those towns were the only part of the eventual I-505 ROW to be built before the mid-'60s; the future freeway featured a 4-lane divided alignment extending for about a half-mile north and south of the junctions; the alignment originally curved back toward the original LRN 90 alignment to the west in both instances -- except for the south extension from Winters (CA 128); because of the proximity of Putah Creek (which drains Lake Berryessa) to the interchange, it was extended as a 2-lane expressway across a bridge on the new alignment before curving back to the original route. By 1967 a 2-lane expressway on the new alignment connected the two freeway segments as well as extending south to I-80; north of CA 16 the route remained a 2-lane conventional road (except for the I-5 merge near Dunnigan). At that time the route was signed as "Temporary I-505" until the full 32-mile freeway was completed. Except for state highway maps and CSAA county/regional maps, the Winters and Madison interchanges were never shown on standard (Gousha/McNally) maps until the Interstate was fully completed -- although later Gousha maps showed the 2-lane route on the revised alignment bypassing the two towns to the east.
Even though it's a major regional connector, the I-505 corridor has always seemed like the "red-headed stepchild" of CA's Interstate network -- not really acknowledged until a few years before it was completed.
Quote from: sparker on August 31, 2018, 12:51:31 AM
^^^^^
Pre-1964 there were two diamond interchanges on LRN 90 (erstwhile I-5W and now I-505) built back in 1960, at the intersections of LRN 6 (CA 128) near Winters and LRN 50 (CA 16) at Madison. The bridges (both on the crossing state highways) were among the last CA freeway bridges built with cast concrete "picket fence" railings rather than the later aluminum pipes held in place by stanchions. The LRN 90 bypasses of both those towns were the only part of the eventual I-505 ROW to be built before the mid-'60s; the future freeway featured a 4-lane divided alignment extending for about a half-mile north and south of the junctions; the alignment originally curved back toward the original LRN 90 alignment to the west in both instances -- except for the south extension from Winters (CA 128); because of the proximity of Putah Creek (which drains Lake Berryessa) to the interchange, it was extended as a 2-lane expressway across a bridge on the new alignment before curving back to the original route. By 1967 a 2-lane expressway on the new alignment connected the two freeway segments as well as extending south to I-80; north of CA 16 the route remained a 2-lane conventional road (except for the I-5 merge near Dunnigan). At that time the route was signed as "Temporary I-505" until the full 32-mile freeway was completed. Except for state highway maps and CSAA county/regional maps, the Winters and Madison interchanges were never shown on standard (Gousha/McNally) maps until the Interstate was fully completed -- although later Gousha maps showed the 2-lane route on the revised alignment bypassing the two towns to the east.
Even though it's a major regional connector, the I-505 corridor has always seemed like the "red-headed stepchild" of CA's Interstate network -- not really acknowledged until a few years before it was completed.
Are there any vestiges of the 1960s era connectors (the curved roads that diverged from today's 505) for the original Madison and Winters bypasses?
SAMSUNG-SM-G930A
Quote from: TheStranger on August 31, 2018, 11:32:15 AM
Are there any vestiges of the 1960s era connectors (the curved roads that diverged from today's 505) for the original Madison and Winters bypasses?
I don't see anything on a 1968 aerial photo. The only construction appears to be in the current ROW.
Quote from: TheStranger on August 31, 2018, 11:32:15 AM
Are there any vestiges of the 1960s era connectors (the curved roads that diverged from today's 505) for the original Madison and Winters bypasses?
SAMSUNG-SM-G930A
If you peruse Google Earth, two traces of the connectors to the original LRN 90 remain; one is decidedly more prominent than the other. One is south of Winters; there's a crease across a field where the original connector was sited; the coordinates are:
38 degrees 30 minutes 25.02 seconds N, and
121 degrees 57 minutes 17.90 seconds W.
You'll notice that this extends from the point where the present I-505 turns slightly SE.
The other, north of Madison, is actually still partially extant as a farm road; look at:
38 degrees 42 minutes 29.14 seconds N, and
121 degrees 57 minutes 30.76 seconds W.
When the 1960 interchange was built the old wooden LRN 90 bridge over Cache Creek was taken out of service and removed; traffic on LRN 90 was shunted to the new facility. The other two connectors, which were the first to be replaced by the original section of 2-lane expressway on the present I-505 ROW between the two interchanges, are long gone; subsumed by various agricultural facilities.
My first sojourn into the area was about the time the original overpasses/interchanges were built in '60; the freeway ROW between Winters and Madison had been grubbed and partially graded; the connecting 2-lane expressway was opened by mid-'64. The interchange signage didn't indicate any route numbers for the nascent freeway until about '67; signage simply indicated control cities: Madison/Redding for NB from the Winters/CA 128 interchange, and solely Redding for the NB ramp from CA 16. Conversely, SB from CA 16 the ramp was signed Winters/San Francisco -- but, curiously, Vacaville/San Francisco on the SB ramp from CA 128 (the only time I've seen Vacaville as a control city on that corridor).
Quote from: sparker on August 31, 2018, 08:22:52 PM
If you peruse Google Earth, two traces of the connectors to the original LRN 90 remain; one is decidedly more prominent than the other. One is south of Winters; there's a crease across a field where the original connector was sited; the coordinates are:
38 degrees 30 minutes 25.02 seconds N, and
121 degrees 57 minutes 17.90 seconds W.
You'll notice that this extends from the point where the present I-505 turns slightly SE.
This "crease" doesn't appear on any old aerial photos through 2014: http://www.historicaerials.com/location/38.506/-121.954/2014/17
Quote from: sparker on August 31, 2018, 08:22:52 PM
The other, north of Madison, is actually still partially extant as a farm road; look at:
38 degrees 42 minutes 29.14 seconds N, and
121 degrees 57 minutes 30.76 seconds W.
That's a power line right-of-way (and was in 1954, before any realignment was built): http://www.historicaerials.com/location/38.708/-121.957/T1954/15
By the way, CH&PW included a map of it as I-5W: http://archive.org/stream/cavol3940liforniahigh6061wa00calirich#page/n677
The photo on the previous page looks south and shows that two lanes existed on the current ROW at least to south of Road 27 (exit 17).
^^^^^^
Looks like my timeline recollection as a kid was off a bit regarding just when the original 2 lanes of the (then) future I-5W replaced the former LRN 90 alignment between Winters and Madison. I first visited the area on a family trip back in '60, when I noticed the grubbing of the ROW; my next visit was in '64, after the realignment had opened. I didn't see any indication of the realignment on the official CA state highway map from '63, so I guessed it had opened after that was published. By the CHPW article, it appears that the alignment was at least under construction by the end of '60, so the opening was well ahead of my "guesstimate" -- my bad! In any case, that section between the cities was the only improved section of LRN 90 (and, after '64, the 505 alignment -- which didn't even get "temporary" signage until about 1967. North of the Cache Creek crossing near Madison, the alignment did veer back to the original 2-lane route; when the freeway was being constructed in the '70's, the new alignment was somewhat east of there. That was also the case south of Winters and Putah Creek; the alignment reverted back (more or less along the line delineated by the "crease" NE2 couldn't verify); the freeway construction was parallel and east of the original alignment, done that way to avoid Vacaville-area development along the original route.
Here's a Temp I-5 from 1980. What roads did it follow?
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1870/44059584124_32cc449cba_z.jpg)
From what I can recall, the first Temporary I-5 iteration departed from the current I-5 N-S corridor in south Stockton at Charter Way (CA 4). For a while after 1972 I-5 ended there, but was incrementally constructed farther and farther north over the next 9 years. The temporary route used Charter Way (CA 4 east to Mariposa Road and CA 26 east from there) to CA 99, CA 99 north to (then) I-80 at the Oak Park interchange in Sacramento, then I-80 (now US 50) west to the completed I-5 alignment paralleling the east bank of the Sacramento River. The map shown in the above post is inaccurate; there was no E-W freeway connection in Stockton until the early '90's, when the CA 4 crosstown connector was completed. Charter Way, the temporary I-5 route, was a multilane city arterial out to the CA 4/26 junction and a 2-lane expressway from there to CA 99. The above map is accurate in its depiction of the last unfinished segment of I-5 north of CA 12; that was the area where fill kept sinking into the delta wetlands; it took Caltrans and the contractors an extra year or so of simply piling on dry dirt and rocks before they had a stable platform on which to construct the highway itself, which opened to traffic in early 1981 (I was on it 5 days after it opened).
IIRC, the temporary I-5 arrangement lasted until the final freeway segment was opened; at the ends (CA 4 on the south and I-80 to the north) the opened freeway segments were signed "Local Traffic Only"; neither Caltrans nor the counties wanted large amounts of traffic on the E-W connectors, which in that day were more often than not 2-lane rural roads.