MOD NOTE: This thread was split from the "I-405; the San Diego Freeway" thread on 5/19/19. –Roadfro
Is it me does it feel like the I-405 and CA 22 concurrency is the only Interstate-State Route concurrency in California?
Quote from: SoCal Kid on May 19, 2019, 12:32:56 AM
Is it me does it feel like the I-405 and CA 22 concurrency is the only Interstate-State Route concurrency in California?
Off the top my head I-5 has concurrencies with CA 33 and CA 99.
I know there's I-280 with CA 1 and I-280 with CA 35. I-215 and CA 60 might also be a concurrency
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 19, 2019, 12:42:30 AM
Quote from: SoCal Kid on May 19, 2019, 12:32:56 AM
Is it me does it feel like the I-405 and CA 22 concurrency is the only Interstate-State Route concurrency in California?
Off the top my head I-5 has concurrencies with CA 33 and CA 99.
As well as CA 4.
Quote from: Verlanka on May 19, 2019, 08:36:08 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 19, 2019, 12:42:30 AM
Quote from: SoCal Kid on May 19, 2019, 12:32:56 AM
Is it me does it feel like the I-405 and CA 22 concurrency is the only Interstate-State Route concurrency in California?
Off the top my head I-5 has concurrencies with CA 33 and CA 99.
As well as CA 4.
CA 113 north of Sacramento. CA 79 multiplexes I-15 and CA 74 with I-215...I think this ought to be its own thread.
SR 89 overlaps with I-80 in Truckee for about 2.5 miles.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 19, 2019, 09:59:53 AM
...I think this ought to be its own thread.
And now it is!
CA-12 and I-80 have a concurrency in Fairfield, CA
Quote from: bing101 on May 19, 2019, 11:26:48 AM
CA-12 and I-80 have a concurrency in Fairfield, CA
CA 113 and CA 193 also multiplex I-80.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 19, 2019, 11:44:16 AM
Quote from: bing101 on May 19, 2019, 11:26:48 AM
CA-12 and I-80 have a concurrency in Fairfield, CA
CA 113 and CA 193 also multiplex I-80.
Not sure about 193, since not only is that multiplex unsigned, but you have to take both I-80 and CA 49 to get from one 193 segment to the other. With no help from signage, it's hard to follow the connection.
For the Travel Mapping project, we decided to treat the two parts of CA 193 as separate routes, with no multiplex with either I-80 or CA 49. We preserved other concurrencies, that either are signed or make you travel only one other route to make the connection.
Parentheses mark former concurrencies
I-5:
(Route 75 in San Diego)
[Will Route 58 have a concurrency with I-5 in the future once the Westside Parkway is extended to near Buttonwillow?]
Route 33 near Coalinga
Route 4 in Stockton
Route 99 in Sacramento
(unclear if Route 16 ever really counted as it seems 1964-1984 there was a gap from downtown Sacramento to the College Greens district)
Route 113 in Woodland
(Route 299 in Redding)
I-405:
Route 22 near Long Beach
I-8:
(Route 67 in El Cajon)
I-15:
Route 79 in Temecula
I-215:
Route 74 in Perris
Route 60 in Moreno Valley/Riverside
(Note: there was an I-15/Route 18 concurrency in San Bernardino when 15 used the northern portion of modern 215)
I-80:
(Route 17 in Berkeley)
Route 113 between Dixon and Davis
Route 89 in Truckee
I-280:
(Route 85 in Cupertino until the early 90s)
Route 35 between San Mateo and San Bruno
Route 1 in Daly City
I-680:
Route 84 in one direction near Sunol
I-880:
Route 84 in Fremont/Newark
Isn't CA 99 also briely concurrent with the unsigned I-305 in Sacramento?
Quote from: US 89 on May 19, 2019, 01:55:26 PM
Isn't CA 99 also briely concurrent with the unsigned I-305 in Sacramento?
Yes but the State doesn't consider I-305 to be an actual Route. That multiplex bleeds onto I-5 also.
Also formerly on I-680: CA-24 between Walnut Creek and Concord (although the northern section is legislatively CA-242, it wasn't signed as such until the 1980s)
Also formerly on I-5: CA-134 from the Ventura Freeway to Colorado Street
Between 1964 and 1970 or so, I-280 and I-680 were also concurrent (at least signage-wise) with CA-17 between today's CA-17/I-280/I-880 junction and today's I-880/CA-262 junction, during the time that the alignment for all three routes were in flux circling around downtown San Jose.
Wasn't there a second concurrence of CA-33 with I-5, between CA-152 and Santa Nella (after the Henry Miller/Ingomar Grade section of CA-33 got decommissioned, and before the southern part of Santa Nella Road got transferred from CA-207)?
I believe CA 1 overlaps I-10 along the Santa Monica between PCH and Lincoln Blvd, about a mile but still a concurrence.
Quote from: Exit58 on May 21, 2019, 01:14:52 AM
I believe CA 1 overlaps I-10 along the Santa Monica between PCH and Lincoln Blvd, about a mile but still a concurrence.
I had always been under the impression that the Santa Monica Freeway essentially starts as Route 1 through the tunnel, then I-10 begins right after Route 1 takes the offramp to Lincoln. (Though IMO 10 really should just cover the entirety of the freeway for continuity purposes)
^^^^
This seems congruent with the bridge log for D7 which credits the bridges west of Lincoln to CA 1 (R34.67 at 5th St to 35.07 at Main St). The only weird thing is that I-10 is at PM 2.16 at the CA 1 separation, implying there are 2 miles west of that position. They may be unconstructed.
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on May 21, 2019, 03:02:32 PMThe only weird thing is that I-10 is at PM 2.16 at the CA 1 separation, implying there are 2 miles west of that position.
Does 2 miles go right to the tunnel entrance?
Interestingly, a 1959 topographic map of the area on HistoricAerials shows Alternate US 101 using the tunnel and then Olympic Boulevard to Lincoln, with the 1936-1960 Route 26 then continuing east on Olympic as had been the case for years. (The map also shows 26 using Lincoln southbound for a few blocks, then Pico west to the coastline) Between 1963 and 1968, the portion of Santa Monica Freeway to the tunnel was completed, with what had been US 101A/Olympic subsumed by ramps to Lincoln and that westernmost extent of the freeway (the 1964 aerial photo shows a temporary configuration where the tunnel led out to Olympic, with the Santa Monica Freeway right of way being cleared out in a parallel path to the south)
What that mileposting for I-10 makes me wonder is if the entire Santa Monica Freeway project was thought of as I-10, up to the tunnel, even though the portion of freeway that replaced Olympic/US 101A has always been part of post-1964 Route 1.
Quote from: TheStranger on May 21, 2019, 04:50:22 PM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on May 21, 2019, 03:02:32 PMThe only weird thing is that I-10 is at PM 2.16 at the CA 1 separation, implying there are 2 miles west of that position.
Does 2 miles go right to the tunnel entrance?
Interestingly, a 1959 topographic map of the area on HistoricAerials shows Alternate US 101 using the tunnel and then Olympic Boulevard to Lincoln, with the 1936-1960 Route 26 then continuing east on Olympic as had been the case for years. (The map also shows 26 using Lincoln southbound for a few blocks, then Pico west to the coastline) Between 1963 and 1968, the portion of Santa Monica Freeway to the tunnel was completed, with what had been US 101A/Olympic subsumed by ramps to Lincoln and that westernmost extent of the freeway (the 1964 aerial photo shows a temporary configuration where the tunnel led out to Olympic, with the Santa Monica Freeway right of way being cleared out in a parallel path to the south)
What that mileposting for I-10 makes me wonder is if the entire Santa Monica Freeway project was thought of as I-10, up to the tunnel, even though the portion of freeway that replaced Olympic/US 101A has always been part of post-1964 Route 1.
If you continue to follow the freeway, through the tunnel and onto PCH, then 2.16 miles past the Lincoln Blvd. separation gets you to the Santa Monica/Los Angeles city limit (right by Will Rogers State Beach).
However, for a more fun and conspiratorial idea, continuing due SW (through the tunnel, out the pier and into the ocean) would get you onto the proposed manmade island/causeway...
http://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2003/Sept-2003/09_29_03_Dreaming_Big_The_Road_in_the_Sea.htm
Quote from: TheStranger on May 21, 2019, 03:10:25 AM
Quote from: Exit58 on May 21, 2019, 01:14:52 AM
I believe CA 1 overlaps I-10 along the Santa Monica between PCH and Lincoln Blvd, about a mile but still a concurrence.
I had always been under the impression that the Santa Monica Freeway essentially starts as Route 1 through the tunnel, then I-10 begins right after Route 1 takes the offramp to Lincoln. (Though IMO 10 really should just cover the entirety of the freeway for continuity purposes)
As far as routing is concerned, IMO there is no need for a concurrency if one of the routes ends at the routing of the other. If I-10 somehow continued west of CA 1, then it would make sense to have the routing continue. But since I-10 does not exist west of route 1, there is no point to a one mile concurrency.
Now, of course, the signing should indicate that you are going to I-10, and perhaps for funding purposes this is I-10 since it was part of the interstate highway funding, but there is no reason why this should legally be part of I-10.
Quote from: mrsman on May 21, 2019, 09:15:41 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on May 21, 2019, 03:10:25 AM
Quote from: Exit58 on May 21, 2019, 01:14:52 AM
I believe CA 1 overlaps I-10 along the Santa Monica between PCH and Lincoln Blvd, about a mile but still a concurrence.
I had always been under the impression that the Santa Monica Freeway essentially starts as Route 1 through the tunnel, then I-10 begins right after Route 1 takes the offramp to Lincoln. (Though IMO 10 really should just cover the entirety of the freeway for continuity purposes)
As far as routing is concerned, IMO there is no need for a concurrency if one of the routes ends at the routing of the other. If I-10 somehow continued west of CA 1, then it would make sense to have the routing continue. But since I-10 does not exist west of route 1, there is no point to a one mile concurrency.
Now, of course, the signing should indicate that you are going to I-10, and perhaps for funding purposes this is I-10 since it was part of the interstate highway funding, but there is no reason why this should legally be part of I-10.
I meant it in the sense that the I-10 mainline lanes continue directly to the west of Lincoln (into the tunnel) with Route 1 being an exit off of that, rather than a freeflowing split. And the trajectory to the tunnel is east-west.
I-710 and CA-710 is supposed to be co-signed at the gap section between Pasadena to South Pasadena from the CA-134@I-210 interchange to the I-710 section near the East L.A. Interchange. But that has been debated though.
CA-99 is supposed to be cosigned with I-9 or I-7 if the interstate is approved.
I do remember CA-21 was cosigned with I-680 in Solano County in the past though until Caltrans decommissioned CA-21 because of I-680's completion though.
CA 60 briefly multiplexes I-215.
Quote from: bing101 on May 22, 2019, 08:03:51 AM
CA-99 is supposed to be cosigned with I-9 or I-7 if the interstate is approved.
Ideas of I-9/I-7 becoming a thing along the CA 99 corridor are very speculative...
Quote from: roadfro on May 22, 2019, 11:17:28 AM
Quote from: bing101 on May 22, 2019, 08:03:51 AM
CA-99 is supposed to be cosigned with I-9 or I-7 if the interstate is approved.
Ideas of I-9/I-7 becoming a thing along the CA 99 corridor are very speculative...
California doesn't move very fast when it comes to establishing new Interstate routes. They pretty much make upgrades whenever they have money and aren't very aggressive about assigning miles. Examples include CA 99, 58, 15, 210, 905, etc.
CA-380 was supposed to be co signed with I-380 west of the I-280 interchange in San Bruno but that was cancelled though.
https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2005/shc/300-635.html (https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2005/shc/300-635.html)
Quote from: bing101 on May 22, 2019, 04:00:26 PM
CA-380 was supposed to be co signed with I-380 west of the I-280 interchange in San Bruno but that was cancelled though.
https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2005/shc/300-635.html (https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2005/shc/300-635.html)
That was not a concurrency at all, but 380 becoming a signed non-interstate route west of I-280. (There were covered shields on the original Sneath/San Bruno Avenue BGSes until the 2000s, though I don't know for sure whether they were I-380 or State Route 380 shields) If this had been built, this would be more akin to the I-110/Route 110 switchover at the Four-Level in Los Angeles.
Quote from: FightingIrish on May 22, 2019, 01:10:32 PM
Quote from: roadfro on May 22, 2019, 11:17:28 AM
Quote from: bing101 on May 22, 2019, 08:03:51 AM
CA-99 is supposed to be cosigned with I-9 or I-7 if the interstate is approved.
Ideas of I-9/I-7 becoming a thing along the CA 99 corridor are very speculative...
California doesn't move very fast when it comes to establishing new Interstate routes. They pretty much make upgrades whenever they have money and aren't very aggressive about assigning miles. Examples include CA 99, 58, 15, 210, 905, etc.
And in the event CA 99 actually is designated and signed as an Interstate (7 or 9), it'll only be as far north as Sacramento (or possibly Stockton); that will leave a large portion of CA 99 remaining north via Yuba City and Chico. If all that occurs, CA 99 signage will be removed from the Interstate portion; neither Caltrans as an entity nor any of their districts will "double-number" such a facility -- a policy in place since '64.
There are still only 3 facilities in CA that carry state shielded numbers of adjoining and/or future Interstates: 15, 210, and 905; while CA 99 is on the federal books as a future Interstate (
sans assigned number) via HPC #54, no portion of it has been submitted much less accepted as an Interstate. And no action has been taken to bring CA 58 into the Interstate system, although it's an obvious I-40 extension and carries a high level of commercial traffic.
I-210 in the past was co signed with the north end of CA-57 freeway prior to CA-210 freeway being opened in the 2000's from Glendora to Redlands.
Quote from: bing101 on May 24, 2019, 10:27:40 AM
I-210 in the past was co signed with the north end of CA-57 freeway prior to CA-210 freeway being opened in the 2000's from Glendora to Redlands.
That also is not a concurrency at all. For about 30 years, Route 57, I-210, and Route 71 all shared a terminus. (And IIRC the FHWA interstate log still has the segment of the Orange Freeway between 210 and 10 as part of the Interstate system) When 210 was extended to Redlands on the newer part of the Foothill Freeway, that north-south segment simply became a Route 57 extension, and not a 57/210 multiplex.
Quote from: TheStranger on May 24, 2019, 11:05:13 AM
Quote from: bing101 on May 24, 2019, 10:27:40 AM
I-210 in the past was co signed with the north end of CA-57 freeway prior to CA-210 freeway being opened in the 2000's from Glendora to Redlands.
That also is not a concurrency at all. For about 30 years, Route 57, I-210, and Route 71 all shared a terminus. (And IIRC the FHWA interstate log still has the segment of the Orange Freeway between 210 and 10 as part of the Interstate system) When 210 was extended to Redlands on the newer part of the Foothill Freeway, that north-south segment simply became a Route 57 extension, and not a 57/210 multiplex.
Is this related to why CA 210 is still not yet signed as an interstate? Is there a problem with 57 being officially part of I-210 to prevent CA 210 from becoming I-210. Perhaps a secret designation is needed (similar to I-305 in Sacramento) or maybe just simply renumber 57 as an interstate (I-510??) the same way that CA-11 and CA-7 became I-110 and I-710 30 years ago.
Quote from: mrsman on May 24, 2019, 12:57:35 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on May 24, 2019, 11:05:13 AM
Quote from: bing101 on May 24, 2019, 10:27:40 AM
I-210 in the past was co signed with the north end of CA-57 freeway prior to CA-210 freeway being opened in the 2000's from Glendora to Redlands.
That also is not a concurrency at all. For about 30 years, Route 57, I-210, and Route 71 all shared a terminus. (And IIRC the FHWA interstate log still has the segment of the Orange Freeway between 210 and 10 as part of the Interstate system) When 210 was extended to Redlands on the newer part of the Foothill Freeway, that north-south segment simply became a Route 57 extension, and not a 57/210 multiplex.
Is this related to why CA 210 is still not yet signed as an interstate? Is there a problem with 57 being officially part of I-210 to prevent CA 210 from becoming I-210. Perhaps a secret designation is needed (similar to I-305 in Sacramento) or maybe just simply renumber 57 as an interstate (I-510??) the same way that CA-11 and CA-7 became I-110 and I-710 30 years ago.
From cahighways:
"In September 2018, an explanation was given for why the portion E of Route 57 was still not signed as an interstate route. Joy Schneider from Caltrans District 8 (Riverside and San Bernardino counties), said state legislation authorizing number changes for Route 210 construction project was complex because the entire route for the highway was considered, beginning with Los Angeles County communities all the way east through Riverside and San Bernardino counties. Interstate status was more directly tied Route 210 Freeway construction projects, she said, explaining that interstate status was initiated, then partially rescinded to coincide with construction limits. Schneider said all highway signs should all be updated to reflect the name of I-210 once pending freeway upgrade construction through to I-10 is completed.
More work on Route 210 is expected to begin in the fall of 2019 and updated interstate signs will follow.
(Source: Press-Enterprise, 9/16/2018)"
In a way this seems similar to the whole TN 840/I-840 thing, though at the end of the day I would say Route 210, Route 15, and Route 905 are all at decent enough standard to have been signed as Interstates. (Route 110 north of I-5 is the only time I think this state/Interstate distinction truly makes sense, due to truck restriction north of US 101; the Harbor Freeway in downtown LA between I-10 and US 101 has been signed as both I-110 (southbound) and Route 110 (northbound) since the 1980s but really should just all be signed as I-110 for consistency)
https://socalregion.com/highways/socal_unsigned/foothill_fwy/
I-210 was once co-signed with CA-118 where Oak Grove drive is currently located.
Quote from: TheStranger on May 19, 2019, 01:13:38 PM
Parentheses mark former concurrencies
I-5:
(Route 75 in San Diego)
[Will Route 58 have a concurrency with I-5 in the future once the Westside Parkway is extended to near Buttonwillow?]
Route 33 near Coalinga
Route 4 in Stockton
Route 99 in Sacramento
(unclear if Route 16 ever really counted as it seems 1964-1984 there was a gap from downtown Sacramento to the College Greens district)
Route 113 in Woodland
(Route 299 in Redding)
I-405:
Route 22 near Long Beach
I-8:
(Route 67 in El Cajon)
I-15:
Route 79 in Temecula
I-215:
Route 74 in Perris
Route 60 in Moreno Valley/Riverside
(Note: there was an I-15/Route 18 concurrency in San Bernardino when 15 used the northern portion of modern 215)
I-80:
(Route 17 in Berkeley)
Route 113 between Dixon and Davis
Route 89 in Truckee
I-280:
(Route 85 in Cupertino until the early 90s)
Route 35 between San Mateo and San Bruno
Route 1 in Daly City
I-680:
Route 84 in one direction near Sunol
I-880:
Route 84 in Fremont/Newark
Here are some that you missed.
I-5:
(Route 126 near Santa Clarita)
I-15:
Route 18 in Victorville
QuoteI-5:
(Route 126 near Santa Clarita)
If you mean Magic Mtn Pkwy, that was relinquished a number of years ago (2001, according to Dan: https://www.cahighways.org/121-128.html#126 ). Signage did stick around for awhile, as usual.
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on June 21, 2019, 12:33:56 AM
QuoteI-5:
(Route 126 near Santa Clarita)
If you mean Magic Mtn Pkwy, that was relinquished a number of years ago (2001, according to Dan: https://www.cahighways.org/121-128.html#126 ). Signage did stick around for awhile, as usual.
Beat me to the punch on it. Interestingly CA 126 presently ends just east of I-5 on Newhall Ranch Road. The maintenance oddly extends past the junction which I thought was kind of odd.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 21, 2019, 12:37:18 AM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on June 21, 2019, 12:33:56 AM
QuoteI-5:
(Route 126 near Santa Clarita)
If you mean Magic Mtn Pkwy, that was relinquished a number of years ago (2001, according to Dan: https://www.cahighways.org/121-128.html#126 ). Signage did stick around for awhile, as usual.
Beat me to the punch on it. Interestingly CA 126 presently ends just east of I-5 on Newhall Ranch Road. The maintenance oddly extends past the junction which I thought was kind of odd.
I am.guessing there were plans to cobstruct a divided highway between Golden State and Antelope Balley Freeways.
Quote from: dbz77 on June 21, 2019, 09:35:00 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 21, 2019, 12:37:18 AM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on June 21, 2019, 12:33:56 AM
QuoteI-5:
(Route 126 near Santa Clarita)
If you mean Magic Mtn Pkwy, that was relinquished a number of years ago (2001, according to Dan: https://www.cahighways.org/121-128.html#126 ). Signage did stick around for awhile, as usual.
Beat me to the punch on it. Interestingly CA 126 presently ends just east of I-5 on Newhall Ranch Road. The maintenance oddly extends past the junction which I thought was kind of odd.
I am.guessing there were plans to cobstruct a divided highway between Golden State and Antelope Balley Freeways.
Actually yes, I linked over the page from CAhighways on the CA 126 which goes into way more detail.
I-680 was co-signed with CA-21 from Fairfield to the Benicia Bridge in the past but that probably got removed sometime when CA-21 met interstate standards CA-21 was removed and it is only signed as I-680.
Quote from: TheStranger on May 24, 2019, 01:10:54 PM
Quote from: mrsman on May 24, 2019, 12:57:35 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on May 24, 2019, 11:05:13 AM
Quote from: bing101 on May 24, 2019, 10:27:40 AM
I-210 in the past was co signed with the north end of CA-57 freeway prior to CA-210 freeway being opened in the 2000's from Glendora to Redlands.
That also is not a concurrency at all. For about 30 years, Route 57, I-210, and Route 71 all shared a terminus. (And IIRC the FHWA interstate log still has the segment of the Orange Freeway between 210 and 10 as part of the Interstate system) When 210 was extended to Redlands on the newer part of the Foothill Freeway, that north-south segment simply became a Route 57 extension, and not a 57/210 multiplex.
Is this related to why CA 210 is still not yet signed as an interstate? Is there a problem with 57 being officially part of I-210 to prevent CA 210 from becoming I-210. Perhaps a secret designation is needed (similar to I-305 in Sacramento) or maybe just simply renumber 57 as an interstate (I-510??) the same way that CA-11 and CA-7 became I-110 and I-710 30 years ago.
From cahighways:
"In September 2018, an explanation was given for why the portion E of Route 57 was still not signed as an interstate route. Joy Schneider from Caltrans District 8 (Riverside and San Bernardino counties), said state legislation authorizing number changes for Route 210 construction project was complex because the entire route for the highway was considered, beginning with Los Angeles County communities all the way east through Riverside and San Bernardino counties. Interstate status was more directly tied Route 210 Freeway construction projects, she said, explaining that interstate status was initiated, then partially rescinded to coincide with construction limits. Schneider said all highway signs should all be updated to reflect the name of I-210 once pending freeway upgrade construction through to I-10 is completed. More work on Route 210 is expected to begin in the fall of 2019 and updated interstate signs will follow.
(Source: Press-Enterprise, 9/16/2018)"
In a way this seems similar to the whole TN 840/I-840 thing, though at the end of the day I would say Route 210, Route 15, and Route 905 are all at decent enough standard to have been signed as Interstates. (Route 110 north of I-5 is the only time I think this state/Interstate distinction truly makes sense, due to truck restriction north of US 101; the Harbor Freeway in downtown LA between I-10 and US 101 has been signed as both I-110 (southbound) and Route 110 (northbound) since the 1980s but really should just all be signed as I-110 for consistency)
What additional work needs to be done on 210? Isn't it interstate standards now for its entire length?
Quote from: bing101 on June 21, 2019, 01:28:37 PM
I-680 was co-signed with CA-21 from Fairfield to the Benicia Bridge in the past but that probably got removed sometime when CA-21 met interstate standards CA-21 was removed and it is only signed as I-680.
Is this true? The bridge log says all the current bridges on that section were completed by 1966, and the route number change happened ten years later. Why would there be any need to co-sign the route (except perhaps a brief period right when the change happened)?
My first time on that part of the route was late 1977, and as far as I remember it was just I-680.
Quote from: DTComposer on June 22, 2019, 04:41:57 PM
Quote from: bing101 on June 21, 2019, 01:28:37 PM
I-680 was co-signed with CA-21 from Fairfield to the Benicia Bridge in the past but that probably got removed sometime when CA-21 met interstate standards CA-21 was removed and it is only signed as I-680.
Is this true? The bridge log says all the current bridges on that section were completed by 1966, and the route number change happened ten years later. Why would there be any need to co-sign the route (except perhaps a brief period right when the change happened)?
My first time on that part of the route was late 1977, and as far as I remember it was just I-680.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_680_(California) according to this CA-21 was signed from 1934-1976. But I-680 got interstate status in 1955 in this article.
Quote from: bing101 on June 22, 2019, 05:41:23 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on June 22, 2019, 04:41:57 PM
Quote from: bing101 on June 21, 2019, 01:28:37 PM
I-680 was co-signed with CA-21 from Fairfield to the Benicia Bridge in the past but that probably got removed sometime when CA-21 met interstate standards CA-21 was removed and it is only signed as I-680.
Is this true? The bridge log says all the current bridges on that section were completed by 1966, and the route number change happened ten years later. Why would there be any need to co-sign the route (except perhaps a brief period right when the change happened)?
My first time on that part of the route was late 1977, and as far as I remember it was just I-680.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_680_(California) according to this CA-21 was signed from 1934-1976. But I-680 got interstate status in 1955 in this article.
Timeline I did on CA 21 and I-680:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/02/interstate-680-over-benicia-martinez.html?m=1
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 22, 2019, 06:11:02 PM
Quote from: bing101 on June 22, 2019, 05:41:23 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on June 22, 2019, 04:41:57 PM
Quote from: bing101 on June 21, 2019, 01:28:37 PM
I-680 was co-signed with CA-21 from Fairfield to the Benicia Bridge in the past but that probably got removed sometime when CA-21 met interstate standards CA-21 was removed and it is only signed as I-680.
Is this true? The bridge log says all the current bridges on that section were completed by 1966, and the route number change happened ten years later. Why would there be any need to co-sign the route (except perhaps a brief period right when the change happened)?
My first time on that part of the route was late 1977, and as far as I remember it was just I-680.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_680_(California) according to this CA-21 was signed from 1934-1976. But I-680 got interstate status in 1955 in this article.
Timeline I did on CA 21 and I-680:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/02/interstate-680-over-benicia-martinez.html?m=1
To add to that (so that it is in a post here) -
Route 21 between the bridge and I-80 was NOT an Interstate from 1955-1976 and was built as a state highway. The original 680 routing as planned in the 1940s/1950s was built from Benicia to Vallejo by the late 1950s and signed as such until 1976-1977.
At that point, the Benicia-Vallejo section became I-780 and that final portion of 21 from Benicia to Cordelia became I-680 as it is now (and is pretty unchanged from that era, being 4 lanes). The first major change to the section that was 1970s Route 21 will occur in the next few years when 680 is rerouted at the northern terminus to instead a new connection with the existing Route 12/I-80 western interchange.
Quote from: Mark68 on June 21, 2019, 01:45:40 PM
What additional work needs to be done on 210? Isn't it interstate standards now for its entire length?
The old CA-30 freeway from I-215 in SB to I-10 in Redlands is pretty old, and has no room for shoulders on the various grade separations. But all the newer stuff from San Dimas to I-215 looks like it's up to snuff, as far as I can tell. Not sure about the westernmost bit between CA-57 and Foothill Blvd in San Dimas, since it's old too.