I was wondering if the new freeway segments, constructed bit by bit from 2008 to present, all the way down to Balfour Road, are constructed to interstate freeway standards? Theoretically in the future, CA-4 becomes all freeway down to potential CA-239, that could eventually be converted to an interstate spur of I-680/I-580. Realistically, with how Caltrans is, that might not happen, but asking just in case and out of curiosity.
Also, are there any plans to continue converting CA-4 into a freeway to at least Marsh Creek Road?
Quote from: MrAndy1369 on September 20, 2022, 10:01:56 PM
I was wondering if the new freeway segments, constructed bit by bit from 2008 to present, all the way down to Balfour Road, are constructed to interstate freeway standards? Theoretically in the future, CA-4 becomes all freeway down to potential CA-239, that could eventually be converted to an interstate spur of I-680/I-580. Realistically, with how Caltrans is, that might not happen, but asking just in case and out of curiosity.
Also, are there any plans to continue converting CA-4 into a freeway to at least Marsh Creek Road?
The freeway section of the CA-4 Bypass between CA-160 and roughly Balfour Road I believe is constructed to interstate standards, given what I have observed while driving on it with regards to shoulder width, sight distances, and interchange spacing. Also, the rebuild of CA-4 between Bailey Road and CA-160 also added proper-sized shoulders and improved sight lines. That said, your instinct is probably correct: CA-4 is unlikely to ever bear a shield other than the miner's spade. I am going to be quite surprised to see CA-239 constructed within my lifetime, however I am aware that studies are ongoing regarding routing at the terminus with I-580/205
Quote from: MrAndy1369 on September 20, 2022, 10:01:56 PM
freeway standards? Theoretically in the future, CA-4 becomes all freeway down to potential CA-239, that could eventually be converted to an interstate spur of I-680/I-580.
Conversion to an Interstate is unlikely for a large variety of reasons, primarily of which is that there are no realistic x80 numbers available (only 480 is available, and that's unlikely to be used). There also isn't any benefit to signing it as Interstate in terms of funding benefit. So they would have the cost of resigning for little benefit.
Quote from: cahwyguy on September 21, 2022, 04:16:50 PM
there are no realistic x80 numbers available
Just make it an x38.
CA-210 has been interstate ready since 2002 and still hasn't been resigned as I-210. As cahwyguy pointed out, there's not much benefit. Most new interstates do not really get any special funding anymore, so whether it's a state highway or an interstate, it's the same thing on paper. The main benefit to the interstate shield would be "brand recognition." This was part of the reasoning for I-238, at least. But unlike CA-238, CA-4 is one of the original state highways and is fairly well known, one of several that cross the Sierra. Renumbering a portion of it to an interstate would be a stretch since I-480 is realistically the only one that could be used, and seems like it would be renumbering for the sake of renumbering. (Which I'm not necessarily opposed to, but one should be looking at things practically).
Quote from: Quillz on September 21, 2022, 04:32:51 PM
The main benefit to the interstate shield would be "brand recognition."
That's to spur business growth, which is a major reason why North Carolina is trying to slap Interstate markers on anything that might possibly qualify.
But California, and Arizona (notoriously indifferent to the beauty of red-white-and-blue Interstate markers), are less in need of business development than many other states. Indeed. one could argue that California and Arizona already have unsustainable levels of growth (not enough fresh water, among other things), and their DOTs need to focus on managing the growth they already have rather than try to stimulate more growth.
I would agree. I-238 was because they were trying to upgrade any route they could to an interstate, and I-238 was there to provide a link between 880 and 580. At that moment in time, everything except 180 was in use (as that's a state highway), so the logic was motorists would see the shield and realize it's a freeway that gets them to where they want to go. I still think it's a dumb decision overall but that's the logic. But you don't have that with CA-4. It's a long route and already provides a freeway connection between I-5 and CA-99 in Stockton. Upgrading the rest of the route to freeway will just make an already familiar route that much better. So seems pointless to renumber to an interstate. (CA-238 was from the '64 renumbering and is more a south-north route, the actual freeway alignment is very short so it was not in any way a well-established number).
Quote from: Quillz on September 21, 2022, 04:57:01 PM
I would agree. I-238 was because they were trying to upgrade any route they could to an interstate, and I-238 was there to provide a link between 880 and 580. At that moment in time, everything except 180 was in use (as that's a state highway), so the logic was motorists would see the shield and realize it's a freeway that gets them to where they want to go. I still think it's a dumb decision overall but that's the logic. But you don't have that with CA-4. It's a long route and already provides a freeway connection between I-5 and CA-99 in Stockton. Upgrading the rest of the route to freeway will just make an already familiar route that much better. So seems pointless to renumber to an interstate. (CA-238 was from the '64 renumbering and is more a south-north route, the actual freeway alignment is very short so it was not in any way a well-established number).
A few additional points: 238 was changed to interstate signage back in 1983 -- long before mapping apps, when the Interstate number signified something (and, given where the route is, signified that it was the preferred route for trucks, which couldn't use I-580). Today, an Interstate shield means much less, what with mapping apps and apps for truckers that map out the preferred route.
Second. a common belief here seems to be that renumbering a route is minimal cost. That's far from true. Signage must be changed, both on the route, leading to the route, and surface street signage. If the number is changed, then there is lots of cost in reprogramming databases, both for the state and for private companies. There is all the costs for the businesses that are referencing the route. There would be the cost of computing new post-miles.
Balance that cost against the benefits. Will local businesses see more business from this? Unlikely. Will traffic patterns change? Unlikely. The only people made happy might be roadgeeks with another interstate. So there's not much of an upside, and a pretty big downside.
I think the only "new" interstate you might see in California are upgrades of the 15 stub, 905, and 210 . The first two because they were already approved as non-chargable interstate back in the 1980s, once they were brought up to standards. 210 because the cost would be minimal (old signs could be left in place until replacement time). Anything beyond that isn't worth it to the state.
How about I-60? :D
Quote from: Alps on September 21, 2022, 11:32:39 PM
How about I-60? :D
Conflicts with State Route 60, in Southern California, a major freeway.
Quote from: cahwyguy on September 21, 2022, 10:26:21 PM
I think the only "new" interstate you might see in California are upgrades of the 15 stub, 905, and 210 . The first two because they were already approved as non-chargable interstate back in the 1980s, once they were brought up to standards. 210 because the cost would be minimal (old signs could be left in place until replacement time). Anything beyond that isn't worth it to the state.
As to 905, the only reason to switch is that it's ridiculous as a state highway number.
I agree about 15 and 210, because it would simplify directions to have one designation for the whole of each. That shouldn't happen for 210 until the part from I-215 to I-10 is brought up to standards, which is currently underway.
Or am I wrong about that? Are they adding to the inner roadbed to meet interstate standards, or because they want to add lanes, still with no inner shoulders? I notice they're only widening the 4-lane part from Highland Ave to I-10. Or are they laying down enough concrete to do both?
Quote from: cahwyguy on September 21, 2022, 11:59:56 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 21, 2022, 11:32:39 PM
How about I-60? :D
Conflicts with State Route 60, in Southern California, a major freeway.
I give up. The other missing state routes are taken elsewhere (I-30, I-42).
WAIT. Make CA 60 into I-410.
Okay, this is Fictional. Goodnight (:
And SR 60 used to be part of US 60.
Quote from: cahwyguy on September 21, 2022, 04:16:50 PM
Quote from: MrAndy1369 on September 20, 2022, 10:01:56 PM
freeway standards? Theoretically in the future, CA-4 becomes all freeway down to potential CA-239, that could eventually be converted to an interstate spur of I-680/I-580.
Conversion to an Interstate is unlikely for a large variety of reasons, primarily of which is that there are no realistic x80 numbers available (only 480 is available, and that's unlikely to be used). There also isn't any benefit to signing it as Interstate in terms of funding benefit. So they would have the cost of resigning for little benefit.
And what is now the northern extension of I-580 was once I-180, but it had to be renumbered because CA 180 already existed. For this reason, there'll never be an I-70 extension into the state either.
Quote from: pderocco on September 22, 2022, 12:12:04 AM
Quote from: cahwyguy on September 21, 2022, 10:26:21 PM
I think the only "new" interstate you might see in California are upgrades of the 15 stub, 905, and 210 . The first two because they were already approved as non-chargable interstate back in the 1980s, once they were brought up to standards. 210 because the cost would be minimal (old signs could be left in place until replacement time). Anything beyond that isn't worth it to the state.
As to 905, the only reason to switch is that it's ridiculous as a state highway number.
I agree about 15 and 210, because it would simplify directions to have one designation for the whole of each. That shouldn't happen for 210 until the part from I-215 to I-10 is brought up to standards, which is currently underway.
Or am I wrong about that? Are they adding to the inner roadbed to meet interstate standards, or because they want to add lanes, still with no inner shoulders? I notice they're only widening the 4-lane part from Highland Ave to I-10. Or are they laying down enough concrete to do both?
I'm being led to believe one thing about why these highways haven't had their shields switched out: Caltrans simply does not give a shit about Interstates. Even if the upgrades do happen, it'll be a very long time before the red, white and blue signs appear on them.
Quote from: Henry on September 22, 2022, 10:21:57 AM
I'm being led to believe one thing about why these highways haven't had their shields switched out: Caltrans simply does not give a shit about Interstates. Even if the upgrades do happen, it'll be a very long time before the red, white and blue signs appear on them.
Be precise: In the current environment, Caltrans doesn't see a strong advantage in Interstate signing over state route signing. The routes are built (not to mention all of the 90/10 milage is allocated), matainance doesn't care about signage, and with GPS, it doesn't make a directional difference.
However, the current Interstates do represent major state highways, and Caltrans does care about those.
Context: Improvements to Route 210 between I-215 and I-10 near Redlands.
Quote from: pderocco on September 22, 2022, 12:12:04 AM
Or am I wrong about that? Are they adding to the inner roadbed to meet interstate standards, or because they want to add lanes, still with no inner shoulders? I notice they're only widening the 4-lane part from Highland Ave to I-10. Or are they laying down enough concrete to do both?
I'd have to look at the EIRs and such, but my best guess is that they are improving a road that requires widening due to age and quality of service; any meeting of the Interstate standards is probably secondary in consideration. However, if they are working on those elements, they are probably bringing them to the current standards if they can and it fits within the budget.
My impression, driving it on a semi-regular basis, is the 210 upgrade is for capacity first and Interstate standards are just a bonus. The two-banger section used to have some gnarly backups at times.
The segment of 4 between I-80 and I-680 likely won't be Interstate standard ever and included at-grade intersections. CA 239 is long way from happening if it happens at all. Kind of a waste of an X3 Interstate to just have it signed east from I-680 to Brentwood.
I could see potential in the Cross Town Freeway in Stockton signed as X05 so long as it was co-signed as CA 4 (which is likely wouldn't be).
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 23, 2022, 01:09:24 PM
I could see potential in the Cross Town Freeway in Stockton signed as X05 so long as it was co-signed as CA 4 (which is likely wouldn't be).
If you sign the freeway as I-705 (that's the only one left), why not move CA 4 back to the surface streets?
Quote from: Evan_Th on September 23, 2022, 01:46:59 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 23, 2022, 01:09:24 PM
I could see potential in the Cross Town Freeway in Stockton signed as X05 so long as it was co-signed as CA 4 (which is likely wouldn't be).
If you sign the freeway as I-705 (that's the only one left), why not move CA 4 back to the surface streets?
The state won't adopt a surface alignment they already relinquished. That being the case, maintaining the continuity of CA 4 is more important to me versus adding another 3d.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 23, 2022, 02:05:43 PM
The state won't adopt a surface alignment they already relinquished.
I wonder how often this happens elsewhere. Seems like the equivalent of selling your car and then having to buy it back again at a loss.
Quote from: kphoger on September 23, 2022, 02:16:11 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 23, 2022, 02:05:43 PM
The state won't adopt a surface alignment they already relinquished.
I wonder how often this happens elsewhere. Seems like the equivalent of selling your car and then having to buy it back again at a loss.
If you look at the County Sign Route system, quite a few are state highways dropped or relinquished in the 1950s and 1960s, that the counties then signed. Of course, there haven't been new County Sign Routes in a long time (with the exception of SBD 66, which is former US 66).
Quote from: cahwyguy on September 23, 2022, 03:14:09 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 23, 2022, 02:16:11 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 23, 2022, 02:05:43 PM
The state won't adopt a surface alignment they already relinquished.
I wonder how often this happens elsewhere. Seems like the equivalent of selling your car and then having to buy it back again at a loss.
If you look at the County Sign Route system, quite a few are state highways dropped or relinquished in the 1950s and 1960s, that the counties then signed. Of course, there haven't been new County Sign Routes in a long time (with the exception of SBD 66, which is former US 66).
So... the state relinquished the routes to the counties, and thus they have remained ever since. That isn't the same thing at all.
Quote from: Evan_Th on September 23, 2022, 01:46:59 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 23, 2022, 01:09:24 PM
I could see potential in the Cross Town Freeway in Stockton signed as X05 so long as it was co-signed as CA 4 (which is likely wouldn't be).
If you sign the freeway as I-705 (that's the only one left), why not move CA 4 back to the surface streets?
Far less trouble to cosign.
The 22 was not moved back to surface streets when the 405 was constructed through Seal Beach.
Quote from: cahwyguy on September 22, 2022, 06:13:02 PM
Context: Improvements to Route 210 between I-215 and I-10 near Redlands.
Quote from: pderocco on September 22, 2022, 12:12:04 AM
Or am I wrong about that? Are they adding to the inner roadbed to meet interstate standards, or because they want to add lanes, still with no inner shoulders? I notice they're only widening the 4-lane part from Highland Ave to I-10. Or are they laying down enough concrete to do both?
I'd have to look at the EIRs and such, but my best guess is that they are improving a road that requires widening due to age and quality of service; any meeting of the Interstate standards is probably secondary in consideration. However, if they are working on those elements, they are probably bringing them to the current standards if they can and it fits within the budget.
Something that a lot of roadgeeks tend to forget is that Interstate standards aren't the only Standards out there. Every state has its own standards for shoulder width, lane widths, and everything else on a road!
In Caltrans' case, their Highway Design Manual (https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/manual-highway-design-manual-hdm) has a table on Page 300-6 that states that freeways with 6 lanes or more (3 lanes or more per direction) must have 10-foot shoulders on both sides, the same as would be required to meet interstate standards. So unless someone on the project went through the effort to get a deviation from state standards approved, which seems unlikely given there is plenty of space to provide that shoulder width AFAIK, the project will be built to interstate standards automatically.
As a side note, the Caltrans standard for four lane freeways (2 lanes per direction) requires a 5-foot left shoulder and 10-foot right shoulder, which actually
exceeds Interstate standards that only call for a 4-foot left shoulder!