Google maps has CA 15 as I-15.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 02, 2020, 04:46:26 PM
Google maps has CA 15 as I-15.
Google Maps is often wrong on route numbers. This seems to be one of those cases.
Aside from Caltrans being generally slow to Interstate-ize its freeways (like CA 210 and CA 905), parts of route 15 south of I-8 need work to bring them up to Interstate standards.
Google Maps also thinks CA 122 and CA 179 exist on more than paper. CA 15 is very much still a thing:
https://flic.kr/p/2emTzev
So now is apparently CA 110 south of the Santa Monica Freeway. But only in the collector lanes.
(https://i.imgur.com/K8vLfhU.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/6MpQ2QC.jpg)
Quote from: oscar on May 02, 2020, 04:58:08 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 02, 2020, 04:46:26 PM
Google maps has CA 15 as I-15.
Google Maps is often wrong on route numbers. This seems to be one of those cases.
Aside from Caltrans being generally slow to Interstate-ize its freeways (like CA 210 and CA 905), parts of route 15 south of I-8 need work to bring them up to Interstate standards.
Haven't some of these been around for decades?
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 03, 2020, 10:14:10 AM
Quote from: oscar on May 02, 2020, 04:58:08 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 02, 2020, 04:46:26 PM
Google maps has CA 15 as I-15.
Google Maps is often wrong on route numbers. This seems to be one of those cases.
Aside from Caltrans being generally slow to Interstate-ize its freeways (like CA 210 and CA 905), parts of route 15 south of I-8 need work to bring them up to Interstate standards.
Haven't some of these been around for decades?
Yes, in the context of CA 210 it is up to Interstate standards to I-215 but not to I-10. Either way what was once accepted and Grand Fathered out East as Interstates is a far cry (better mostly) from all the freeways in this discussion.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 03, 2020, 10:35:33 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 03, 2020, 10:14:10 AM
Quote from: oscar on May 02, 2020, 04:58:08 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 02, 2020, 04:46:26 PM
Google maps has CA 15 as I-15.
Google Maps is often wrong on route numbers. This seems to be one of those cases.
Aside from Caltrans being generally slow to Interstate-ize its freeways (like CA 210 and CA 905), parts of route 15 south of I-8 need work to bring them up to Interstate standards.
Haven't some of these been around for decades?
Yes, in the context of CA 210 it is up to Interstate standards to I-215 but not to I-10. Either way what was once accepted and Grand Fathered out East as Interstates is a far cry (better mostly) from all the freeways in this discussion.
Having lived in either Wisconsin, St Louis, or Tidewater my entire life until two years ago, I will respectfully disagree the grandfathered Eastern US interstates are better. Many of them were upgraded to interstate standards but were not originally built to those standards. US 40 became I-64 around the time I moved to St Louis in the late 80's; many parts were not close to standard and occasionally quite dangerous until the massive rebuild around 2001. US 40/I-68 in Western Maryland is another example. It was originally the Cumberland Thruway and the section through its namesake is scenic only if you're a passenger; driving it in heavy traffic can be intense though it's better than it was when built. Most rural freeways at least have the right-of-way to be rebuilt to the new standard and usually are upgraded when rebuilt. Most were quite good to start and close to whatever the interstate standard was at the time of original construction; examples include WI-15/I-43, Illinois' East-West/Ronald Reagan Tollway/I-88, and I-69 in Kentucky.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on May 03, 2020, 02:54:09 AM
So now is apparently CA 110 south of the Santa Monica Freeway. But only in the collector lanes.
(https://i.imgur.com/K8vLfhU.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/6MpQ2QC.jpg)
recent Typos??
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on May 03, 2020, 02:54:09 AM
So now is apparently CA 110 south of the Santa Monica Freeway. But only in the collector lanes.
(https://i.imgur.com/K8vLfhU.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/6MpQ2QC.jpg)
The standards at Caltrans have gone down. Especially on signage. They basically did things the wrong way around on signs at the 110 / 10 interchange. The CA-110 should show on NB signs while I-110 should appear on signs going south of I-10. There are also errors at the 101 / 110 interchange as well, with signs showing I-110 SB and CA-110 NB, even though the interstate status of 110 ends at I-10. Perhaps they did this to make it easier for trucks, making it clear that trucks were allowed as far north on the 110 as US-101. Still, incorrect is incorrect.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 03, 2020, 10:35:33 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 03, 2020, 10:14:10 AM
Quote from: oscar on May 02, 2020, 04:58:08 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 02, 2020, 04:46:26 PM
Google maps has CA 15 as I-15.
Google Maps is often wrong on route numbers. This seems to be one of those cases.
Aside from Caltrans being generally slow to Interstate-ize its freeways (like CA 210 and CA 905), parts of route 15 south of I-8 need work to bring them up to Interstate standards.
Haven't some of these been around for decades?
Yes, in the context of CA 210 it is up to Interstate standards to I-215 but not to I-10. Either way what was once accepted and Grand Fathered out East as Interstates is a far cry (better mostly) from all the freeways in this discussion.
Where would you say that CA-210 is not up to interstate standards on the old Crosstown Freeway portion (I-215 to I-10)? Perhaps the shoulder widths aren't perfect but they really aren't on most urban freeways in Southern California. In any case, we'll see if the widening that is now underway from Highland to I-10 (4 to 6 lanes) improves standards on that stretch.
In any case, I believe that Caltrans simply has no interest in applying for the interstate shield anymore. Same with CA-15 and CA-905. CA-15 maybe still has to deal with the lefthand exits at CA-94 but they even removed an interchange many years ago on CA-15 portion to further improve that stretch to interstate standards. True, the southern portion of CA-15 (south of CA-94) will probably always be 4 lanes wide but that should not preclude it from Interstate status down to I-5.
Quote from: oscar on May 02, 2020, 04:58:08 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 02, 2020, 04:46:26 PM
Google maps has CA 15 as I-15.
Google Maps is often wrong on route numbers. This seems to be one of those cases.
Aside from Caltrans being generally slow to Interstate-ize its freeways (like CA 210 and CA 905), parts of route 15 south of I-8 need work to bring them up to Interstate standards.
Sometimes you get some geekery by Google too. For example, showing parts of Rosemead Blvd. as CA-164 (which is technically true) even though that portion of the route is signed as CA-19.
CA 15 is indeed around still. Finally up on the publishing rotation for Gribblenation:
California State Route 15 is an approximately 6.13-mile portion of the Archie Moore Memorial Freeway and Escondido Freeway in the city of San Diego. California State Route 15 beings at Interstate 5 and ends at Interstate 8. California State Route 15 functionally acts as an extension of Interstate 15 south of Interstate 8 to Interstate 5. California State Route 15 exists due to the Archie Moore Memorial Freeway south of Interstate 805 not fully meeting Interstate standards. California State Route 15 was created during 1969 as a renumbering of the original California State Route 103. During 1984 California State Route 15 was approved by the Federal Highway Administration to become a non-chargeable part of Interstate 15 once it meets Interstate design standards.
https://www.gribblenation.org/2023/09/california-state-route-15.html?m=1
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 03, 2020, 10:35:33 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 03, 2020, 10:14:10 AM
Quote from: oscar on May 02, 2020, 04:58:08 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 02, 2020, 04:46:26 PM
Google maps has CA 15 as I-15.
Google Maps is often wrong on route numbers. This seems to be one of those cases.
Aside from Caltrans being generally slow to Interstate-ize its freeways (like CA 210 and CA 905), parts of route 15 south of I-8 need work to bring them up to Interstate standards.
Haven't some of these been around for decades?
Yes, in the context of CA 210 it is up to Interstate standards to I-215 but not to I-10. Either way what was once accepted and Grand Fathered out East as Interstates is a far cry (better mostly) from all the freeways in this discussion.
With the completion of this project: https://www.gosbcta.com/project/sr-210-lane-addition-base-line-interchange/ CA 210 is now (very likely) at interstate standards. Or at least good enough for government work.
The amusing thing is that I-710 is signed on Terminal Island despite the actual FHWA definition ending at Ocean Boulevard in Long Beach. To me that speaks to pretty much everyone involved (Caltrans, FHWA and AASHTO) being apathetic to what is actually signed as Interstate or state route anymore. The oddities like CA 15, counterfeit I-710 and CA 210 are interesting at least.
I think a good argument for signing some of these roads as interstates, especially 15 and 210, is that some people can be confused if they've been driving along on, say, I-210 eastbound, and all of a sudden they're not seeing red, white and blue signage any more, so they wonder if they're on the wrong road.
Also, when you give directions, you kind of feel obligated to say that the road will switch between an interstate and a state highway at some point, which just makes the directions more complicated.
I've never had an issue just telling people the number. "Stay on 15" or "stay on 210." Even if the shield design changes, the number doesn't.
Quote from: pderocco on September 11, 2023, 03:11:29 AM
I think a good argument for signing some of these roads as interstates, especially 15 and 210, is that some people can be confused if they've been driving along on, say, I-210 eastbound, and all of a sudden they're not seeing red, white and blue signage any more, so they wonder if they're on the wrong road.
They are driving on a single road. They haven't made any turns. It's no more confusing then if you are driving along US 101 and it turns into Route 170, or vice versa. Further, if one is navigating with Google Maps giving directions (as most people -- other than those on this forum -- do), it will say "Continue onto California 210" or something like that.
We keep thinking there will be confusion, but for much of the world, they don't care (except for us, and the silly folks posting questions on quora). They just do what their NavApps tell them to do.
We Roadgeeks notice the difference. Some uf us get more up in arms about numbering and shield consistency than others.
Quote from: pderocco on September 11, 2023, 03:11:29 AM
Also, when you give directions, you kind of feel obligated to say that the road will switch between an interstate and a state highway at some point, which just makes the directions more complicated.
I never feel obligated to say that, because (being from SoCal), I just say "Take the 210" or "Take the 15" or "Take the 710". We really don't identify that nature of the shield, just the number. I think noting the nature of the shield is an East Coast thing.
I think the Interstate shield means something to the trucking community, where that shield should provide some guaranteee of minimum bridge heights, curve radii, grades, etc. It might signify something similar for general drivers. This is why the numbering-oddity I-238 exists: to show truckers (at the time it was numbered) that I-238 was an acceptable truck route, so that they didn't take I-580 through Oakland, which couldn't handle trucks. But again, in these days, with NavApps, that's less critical. Truckers have specialized trucking NavApps that direct them along the right routes.
It's really not the problem some of us think it is.
I think the CA 15 designation should have become Interstate 15 when the "missing link" Wabash Blvd./40th St. Freeway was completed in 2000. Does the neighborhood the 40th St. Freeway passes through still have crime, drugs and prostitution problems like it did before the freeway was constructed?
Crime, drugs, and prostitution doesn't magically disappear when a freeway gets built, so I'm going to say yes.
Having the I-15 designation end at I-805 instead wouldn't have been a bad idea, come to think of it.
Quote from: cahwyguy on September 11, 2023, 08:12:10 AM
I think the Interstate shield means something to the trucking community, where that shield should provide some guaranteee of minimum bridge heights, curve radii, grades, etc. It might signify something similar for general drivers. This is why the numbering-oddity I-238 exists: to show truckers (at the time it was numbered) that I-238 was an acceptable truck route, so that they didn't take I-580 through Oakland, which couldn't handle trucks. But again, in these days, with NavApps, that's less critical. Truckers have specialized trucking NavApps that direct them along the right routes.
If they wanted to do that, then perhaps it would have been better for I-580 to follow I-238 and the remainder of I-580 to instead be CA 238 (or some other state route number).
Quote from: vdeane on September 11, 2023, 09:07:11 PM
Quote from: cahwyguy on September 11, 2023, 08:12:10 AM
I think the Interstate shield means something to the trucking community, where that shield should provide some guaranteee of minimum bridge heights, curve radii, grades, etc. It might signify something similar for general drivers. This is why the numbering-oddity I-238 exists: to show truckers (at the time it was numbered) that I-238 was an acceptable truck route, so that they didn't take I-580 through Oakland, which couldn't handle trucks. But again, in these days, with NavApps, that's less critical. Truckers have specialized trucking NavApps that direct them along the right routes.
If they wanted to do that, then perhaps it would have been better for I-580 to follow I-238 and the remainder of I-580 to instead be CA 238 (or some other state route number).
Sigh.
See https://www.cahighways.org/itypes-history.html . I-580 is chargeable insterstate, assigned by AASHTO way back in 1945 (it replaced what would have been I-5W). It was later extended from a terminus with I-80 in Oakland across the bay to end at US 101.
I-238, although once submitted to be chargeable, is non-chargeable interstate approved in May 1983.
If one was somehow to do what you propose, you now have this long duplex of I-580 and I-880 (which is also non-chargeable interstate, approved with I-238) to I-80. That wouldn't fly too well because of the funding rules.
In short: I-238 is a case of "get over it". It's a numbering oddity, and won't be fixed.
Quote from: cahwyguy on September 11, 2023, 09:16:26 PM
Quote from: vdeane on September 11, 2023, 09:07:11 PM
Quote from: cahwyguy on September 11, 2023, 08:12:10 AM
I think the Interstate shield means something to the trucking community, where that shield should provide some guaranteee of minimum bridge heights, curve radii, grades, etc. It might signify something similar for general drivers. This is why the numbering-oddity I-238 exists: to show truckers (at the time it was numbered) that I-238 was an acceptable truck route, so that they didn't take I-580 through Oakland, which couldn't handle trucks. But again, in these days, with NavApps, that's less critical. Truckers have specialized trucking NavApps that direct them along the right routes.
If they wanted to do that, then perhaps it would have been better for I-580 to follow I-238 and the remainder of I-580 to instead be CA 238 (or some other state route number).
Sigh.
See https://www.cahighways.org/itypes-history.html . I-580 is chargeable insterstate, assigned by AASHTO way back in 1945 (it replaced what would have been I-5W). It was later extended from a terminus with I-80 in Oakland across the bay to end at US 101.
I-238, although once submitted to be chargeable, is non-chargeable interstate approved in May 1983.
If one was somehow to do what you propose, you now have this long duplex of I-580 and I-880 (which is also non-chargeable interstate, approved with I-238) to I-80. That wouldn't fly too well because of the funding rules.
In short: I-238 is a case of "get over it". It's a numbering oddity, and won't be fixed.
But why should it even be allowed to be an interstate if trucks are prohibited?
I supposed you could avoid an overlap between I-580 and I-880 with what I proposed by truncating I-880.
Incidentally, I forgot to comment on the NavApps earlier. What happens in NY is that trucks just use regular car GPS systems and end up hitting bridges on routes they never should be on. It's to the point where NYSDOT has indefinitely closed a ramp on I-81 to deter trucks from taking Onondaga Lake Parkway (NY 370).
Quote from: cahwyguy on September 11, 2023, 09:16:26 PM
Quote from: vdeane on September 11, 2023, 09:07:11 PM
Quote from: cahwyguy on September 11, 2023, 08:12:10 AM
I think the Interstate shield means something to the trucking community, where that shield should provide some guaranteee of minimum bridge heights, curve radii, grades, etc. It might signify something similar for general drivers. This is why the numbering-oddity I-238 exists: to show truckers (at the time it was numbered) that I-238 was an acceptable truck route, so that they didn't take I-580 through Oakland, which couldn't handle trucks. But again, in these days, with NavApps, that's less critical. Truckers have specialized trucking NavApps that direct them along the right routes.
If they wanted to do that, then perhaps it would have been better for I-580 to follow I-238 and the remainder of I-580 to instead be CA 238 (or some other state route number).
Sigh.
See https://www.cahighways.org/itypes-history.html . I-580 is chargeable insterstate, assigned by AASHTO way back in 1945 (it replaced what would have been I-5W). It was later extended from a terminus with I-80 in Oakland across the bay to end at US 101.
I-238, although once submitted to be chargeable, is non-chargeable interstate approved in May 1983.
If one was somehow to do what you propose, you now have this long duplex of I-580 and I-880 (which is also non-chargeable interstate, approved with I-238) to I-80. That wouldn't fly too well because of the funding rules.
In short: I-238 is a case of "get over it". It's a numbering oddity, and won't be fixed.
*reads link*
"Interstate Completion funds"? What century are we in? :D
NYC has a similar issue with what roads are signed as Interstates and funding eligibility. Frankly, I think the issue was simply bad legislation writing by Congress when they referred to the wrong legislative act when determining eligibility for the long-defunct Interstate Maintenance funding, having read the Acts that screwed up the multiple definitions of the IHS myself.
Still, that now makes me wonder about NHPP funds and the 90% eligibility for Interstate projects. Wonder if anything changed for them in the City down yonder...or the Bay Area, for that matter.
As much as we would love to see CA 15 become I-15, Caltrans really dropped the ball on this one. It's also why we don't have I-905 or an I-210 extension.
If it makes everyone feel better Caltrans does sign I-710 in two segments which actually aren't FHWA defined Interstate.
Quote from: vdeane on September 11, 2023, 09:43:01 PM
Quote from: cahwyguy on September 11, 2023, 09:16:26 PM
Quote from: vdeane on September 11, 2023, 09:07:11 PM
Quote from: cahwyguy on September 11, 2023, 08:12:10 AM
I think the Interstate shield means something to the trucking community, where that shield should provide some guaranteee of minimum bridge heights, curve radii, grades, etc. It might signify something similar for general drivers. This is why the numbering-oddity I-238 exists: to show truckers (at the time it was numbered) that I-238 was an acceptable truck route, so that they didn't take I-580 through Oakland, which couldn't handle trucks. But again, in these days, with NavApps, that's less critical. Truckers have specialized trucking NavApps that direct them along the right routes.
If they wanted to do that, then perhaps it would have been better for I-580 to follow I-238 and the remainder of I-580 to instead be CA 238 (or some other state route number).
Sigh.
See https://www.cahighways.org/itypes-history.html . I-580 is chargeable insterstate, assigned by AASHTO way back in 1945 (it replaced what would have been I-5W). It was later extended from a terminus with I-80 in Oakland across the bay to end at US 101.
I-238, although once submitted to be chargeable, is non-chargeable interstate approved in May 1983.
If one was somehow to do what you propose, you now have this long duplex of I-580 and I-880 (which is also non-chargeable interstate, approved with I-238) to I-80. That wouldn't fly too well because of the funding rules.
In short: I-238 is a case of "get over it". It's a numbering oddity, and won't be fixed.
But why should it even be allowed to be an interstate if trucks are prohibited?
Well, because, FHA approved it :)
Carrying trucks is ONE purpose of interstates, but not the only one. The S.F. Bay Area is blessed with many other truck routes.
I-580 is built to the same standards as other interstates, and trucks have been allowed during temporary periods when there has been major damage to the I-880 freeway route, most obviously the Loma Prieta Earthquake aftermath in which I-880 structure collapsed.
The key there is "temporary". As I note on my page, there is legislation prohibiting trucks in the stretch through Oakland:
QuoteTrucks are banned along the stretch of I-580 that runs along the base of the East Bay Hills in Oakland and San Leandro. The truck ban on I-580 dates back to 1951, before the road was even a highway. Then it was called MacArthur Boulevard and Oakland's City Council wanted to keep it free from truck traffic. MacArthurs Blvd traverses the Oakland hills, which were middle and upper middle class, and the flatlands (which were traversed by US 101E/Route 17 (now I-880) were working class. When MacArthur Boulevard became a highway in the early 1960s, the City of Oakland continued the ban on a roughly nine mile stretch of highway without significant debate. It applied to vehicles weighing more than 9,000 pounds, like big rigs, but not smaller trucks like those delivering packages on residential streets. The ban also excluded buses. In 1967, the ban was up for renewal, this time sparking a more intense deliberation. The possibility that trucks could barrel down both East Bay highways made people irate. The California Department of Transportation, Caltrans, studied the issue in 1967 to verify that trucks could travel an alternate route instead of I-580. The study looked at traffic, not impacts on health or quality of life. According to their website, the department concluded that "there was no strong evidence either to retain or to terminate the truck ban." Caltrans recommended the ban be extended indefinitely, but with periodic reviews of "operations of the alternate routes, 238 and 880." Those reviews happened just a few times, with none occurring after 1972.
(Source: KQED, 7/1/2021)
In 1990, the California Trucking Association asked Caltrans to study lifting the ban on trucks on I-580. And according to their website, Caltrans officials said if they found good reasons to lift the ban – and the City of Oakland was onboard – they would recommend opening the freeway to trucks. That study never happened though. Residents living along I-580 worried studying the issue would open the door to lifting the ban, so they put pressure on their representatives to stop the study before it started. The Oakland City Council passed a resolution affirming they wanted to continue the ban. State legislators also wanted to stop the study and continue the ban. The Assemblyperson at the time said her constituents felt that if Oakland and San Leandro lifted the ban, they would be breaking a promise made to residents decades ago. The I-580 highway ban is the only one of its kind meant to assuage the concerns of local residents. According to the Federal Highway Authority, there are only nine such bans nationwide. Seven of those bans are due to construction or structural engineering constraints. One ban – on the Theodore Roosevelt Memorial Bridge in D.C. – was ordered by President Eisenhower to keep trucks away from the Lincoln Memorial.
(Source: KQED, 7/1/2021)
So, designating Route 238 as I-238 for that short stretch, in the pre-NavApp days, encouraged trucks to use the I-238/I-880 routing. Nowadays, they likely would have left it as Route 238, because NavApps would simply inform trucks which route to take. But I-238 was designated back in 1983.
And, to bring it back to the original topic, that's one reason for it being Route 15 S of I-805. It is 139(b) non-chargeable miles, so Caltrans could resign it whenever they think it is ready (unlike, for example, Route 210).
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 11, 2023, 11:59:06 AM
I think the CA 15 designation should have become Interstate 15 when the "missing link" Wabash Blvd./40th St. Freeway was completed in 2000. Does the neighborhood the 40th St. Freeway passes through still have crime, drugs and prostitution problems like it did before the freeway was constructed?
There's been a dramatic drop in all three between 40th St and Central Ave. No one knows why.
Quote from: JustDrive on September 11, 2023, 02:31:39 PM
Having the I-15 designation end at I-805 instead wouldn't have been a bad idea, come to think of it.
Better yet, have I-805 go into downtown, and I-15 go down and merge with I-5 at the border crossing. I-15 deserves to go all the way to Mexico, since it also goes all the way to Canada.
Quote from: pderocco on September 12, 2023, 01:05:55 AM
Quote from: JustDrive on September 11, 2023, 02:31:39 PM
Having the I-15 designation end at I-805 instead wouldn't have been a bad idea, come to think of it.
Better yet, have I-805 go into downtown, and I-15 go down and merge with I-5 at the border crossing. I-15 deserves to go all the way to Mexico, since it also goes all the way to Canada.
This makes logical sense, but of course, it will never happen. Wishful thinkin'.
Quote from: cahwyguy on September 11, 2023, 08:12:10 AM
They are driving on a single road. They haven't made any turns. It's no more confusing then if you are driving along US 101 and it turns into Route 170, or vice versa.
I agree with the rest of your post, but this example I'm less sure about. US 101 doesn't just suddenly turn into CA-170, it intersects with it (and technically, going "straight" onto CA-170 is signed as a left exit). If you told me to take the Hollywood Freeway that's one thing, going straight onto CA-170 is staying on that road. But if you told me to take 101 North, I think that that would imply staying on the numbered route. Especially if I were new to the area, I'd follow the numbered freeway signs. The road being straight isn't always particularly meaningful, for example northbound at the 5/99 split, the road goes "straight" to become CA-99 but if your intention is to stay on the same route, you should take what looks visually like an exit to stay on I-5.
Quote from: FredAkbar on September 12, 2023, 02:48:08 AM
Quote from: cahwyguy on September 11, 2023, 08:12:10 AM
They are driving on a single road. They haven't made any turns. It's no more confusing then if you are driving along US 101 and it turns into Route 170, or vice versa.
I agree with the rest of your post, but this example I'm less sure about. US 101 doesn't just suddenly turn into CA-170, it intersects with it (and technically, going "straight" onto CA-170 is signed as a left exit). If you told me to take the Hollywood Freeway that's one thing, going straight onto CA-170 is staying on that road. But if you told me to take 101 North, I think that that would imply staying on the numbered route. Especially if I were new to the area, I'd follow the numbered freeway signs. The road being straight isn't always particularly meaningful, for example northbound at the 5/99 split, the road goes "straight" to become CA-99 but if your intention is to stay on the same route, you should take what looks visually like an exit to stay on I-5.
That's always been an interesting historical holdover. Because it used to be US-99. I always wondered why the junction wasn't designed so the left lanes didn't merge onto I-5 instead of having to be in the right lanes which then cross over. But I guess it was just a design choice back in the 70s or w/e the 5 opened.
US 99 was already an established freeway and was going to pull the bulk of traffic. It made sense to just allow the original configuration to remain rather than try to wedge US 99 onto a right hand exit. Trying to reconfigure everything even now doesn't make financial sense.
Quote from: Quillz on September 12, 2023, 04:21:21 AM
Quote from: FredAkbar on September 12, 2023, 02:48:08 AM
Quote from: cahwyguy on September 11, 2023, 08:12:10 AM
They are driving on a single road. They haven't made any turns. It's no more confusing then if you are driving along US 101 and it turns into Route 170, or vice versa.
I agree with the rest of your post, but this example I'm less sure about. US 101 doesn't just suddenly turn into CA-170, it intersects with it (and technically, going "straight" onto CA-170 is signed as a left exit). If you told me to take the Hollywood Freeway that's one thing, going straight onto CA-170 is staying on that road. But if you told me to take 101 North, I think that that would imply staying on the numbered route. Especially if I were new to the area, I'd follow the numbered freeway signs. The road being straight isn't always particularly meaningful, for example northbound at the 5/99 split, the road goes "straight" to become CA-99 but if your intention is to stay on the same route, you should take what looks visually like an exit to stay on I-5.
That's always been an interesting historical holdover. Because it used to be US-99. I always wondered why the junction wasn't designed so the left lanes didn't merge onto I-5 instead of having to be in the right lanes which then cross over. But I guess it was just a design choice back in the 70s or w/e the 5 opened.
Route 170, to my knowledge, was NEVER US 99. US 99 was routed along San Fernando Road prior to the construction of I-5. What would become 170 was routed along Lankershim. Michael Ballard has some pictures showing that 170 perhaps might have been proposed to be US 6 for a short time.
Further, the "Left Exit" notion exists only NB. SB, it is a seamless transition from 170 into 101. In both directions, if you're in the HOV or #1/#2 lanes, the mainline just transitions from 101/170. There are similar transitions for the "straight line forward" for 101 to 134 to 210.
I was referring to the Grapevine junction.
Quote from: cahwyguy on September 12, 2023, 09:06:36 AM
There are similar transitions for the "straight line forward" for 101 to 134 to 210.
I think if the numbered highway that you're on ends (as with 170S at 101, 134E at 210) the traveler's default would be go keep going straight, because what else would they do. But if the numbered highway "turns" (as with 101N at 170, 101S at 134, even 210N at 134 I suppose) then someone if instructed to follow a numbered road would exit if necessary to stay on that numbered road.
But I've only driven through those intersections sporadically during my life, so I imagine if you are accustomed to the area it might be more natural to think of continuing on the straight road as the default option, regardless of the number change.
Quote from: FredAkbar on September 13, 2023, 01:48:10 AM
Quote from: cahwyguy on September 12, 2023, 09:06:36 AM
There are similar transitions for the "straight line forward" for 101 to 134 to 210.
I think if the numbered highway that you're on ends (as with 170S at 101, 134E at 210) the traveler's default would be go keep going straight, because what else would they do. But if the numbered highway "turns" (as with 101N at 170, 101S at 134, even 210N at 134 I suppose) then someone if instructed to follow a numbered road would exit if necessary to stay on that numbered road.
But I've only driven through those intersections sporadically during my life, so I imagine if you are accustomed to the area it might be more natural to think of continuing on the straight road as the default option, regardless of the number change.
Following the number is always the straight option on a freeway, based on current signage practices, including the downplaying of the old freeway names.
[This is different from surface streets, where one would have to physically make a turn and likely the street name doesnt change, even if the highway number follows a turn.]
This even holds with regard to control cities, for the most part, at least in CA. I-210 has the control of San Fernando (or Sacramento) within Pasadena even east of the 134/210 interchange and does not have 134's control, even though it is straight. Similarly, US 101 Hollywood Fwy northbound has the control of Ventura, and not Sacramento (except for some signs) and US 101 Ventura Fwy has the control of Los Angeles and not Pasadena.
So while the numbers have taken precedence and there is less and less use of signing the old freeway names on a regular basis, I do think that using the old freeway name as a control city (obviously in the proper direction) could be helpful.
For the most part, this is already done. The entire Ventura Fwy (134 and 101) has Ventura as the westbound/northbound control until you reach Ventura.
But this should be done in other cases as well. There is a trend to remove the Hollywood control over the Hollywood Fwy in favor of Ventura. I think Hollywood and Ventura (or Hollywood and Los Angeles) should be cosigned at least at the major interchanges with other freeways between 5/170 and the East LA interchange. At 5/170 I like Hollywood-Los Angeles (170) with Burbank-Los Angeles (5) to let people know that both routes are good ways to get into Downtown generally at that split.
101/134/210 as a straight line concept is great, and those that don't go that way that often probably don't view that as being all the same freeway, even though you generally keep left to stay on this straight line. For this reason, I think it would be helpful that at 15/210, 215/210, and 10/210 in Redlands that there be supplemental signage directing traffic headed to the San Fernando Valley to use 210. The Pasadena control is nice, but many travelers would first head into Los Angeles with the knowledge that SFV is part of LA, so if one takes 210, one really has all parts of the Valley at their disposal via 134 to 101 or 118.
Quote from: vdeane on September 11, 2023, 09:43:01 PM
But why should it even be allowed to be an interstate if trucks are prohibited?
That's like saying the Interstates inside I-285 (Georgia) should be re-designated because trucks are prohibited.
No one actually believes that would be a good idea, it's just understood that segments of Interstates in urban regions can have trucks banned as long as there's still a complete network of other Interstate(s) available as an alternative for trucks to use.
Quote from: mrsman on September 21, 2023, 12:06:52 PM
Quote from: FredAkbar on September 13, 2023, 01:48:10 AM
Quote from: cahwyguy on September 12, 2023, 09:06:36 AM
There are similar transitions for the "straight line forward" for 101 to 134 to 210.
I think if the numbered highway that you're on ends (as with 170S at 101, 134E at 210) the traveler's default would be go keep going straight, because what else would they do. But if the numbered highway "turns" (as with 101N at 170, 101S at 134, even 210N at 134 I suppose) then someone if instructed to follow a numbered road would exit if necessary to stay on that numbered road.
But I've only driven through those intersections sporadically during my life, so I imagine if you are accustomed to the area it might be more natural to think of continuing on the straight road as the default option, regardless of the number change.
Following the number is always the straight option on a freeway, based on current signage practices, including the downplaying of the old freeway names.
[This is different from surface streets, where one would have to physically make a turn and likely the street name doesnt change, even if the highway number follows a turn.]
This even holds with regard to control cities, for the most part, at least in CA. I-210 has the control of San Fernando (or Sacramento) within Pasadena even east of the 134/210 interchange and does not have 134's control, even though it is straight. Similarly, US 101 Hollywood Fwy northbound has the control of Ventura, and not Sacramento (except for some signs) and US 101 Ventura Fwy has the control of Los Angeles and not Pasadena.
So while the numbers have taken precedence and there is less and less use of signing the old freeway names on a regular basis, I do think that using the old freeway name as a control city (obviously in the proper direction) could be helpful.
For the most part, this is already done. The entire Ventura Fwy (134 and 101) has Ventura as the westbound/northbound control until you reach Ventura.
But this should be done in other cases as well. There is a trend to remove the Hollywood control over the Hollywood Fwy in favor of Ventura. I think Hollywood and Ventura (or Hollywood and Los Angeles) should be cosigned at least at the major interchanges with other freeways between 5/170 and the East LA interchange. At 5/170 I like Hollywood-Los Angeles (170) with Burbank-Los Angeles (5) to let people know that both routes are good ways to get into Downtown generally at that split.
101/134/210 as a straight line concept is great, and those that don't go that way that often probably don't view that as being all the same freeway, even though you generally keep left to stay on this straight line. For this reason, I think it would be helpful that at 15/210, 215/210, and 10/210 in Redlands that there be supplemental signage directing traffic headed to the San Fernando Valley to use 210. The Pasadena control is nice, but many travelers would first head into Los Angeles with the knowledge that SFV is part of LA, so if one takes 210, one really has all parts of the Valley at their disposal via 134 to 101 or 118.
Some signage right by the interchange that says "To SF Valley/Ventura use 210" and below that "To Downtown Los Angeles use 10".