In Sacramento, the I-80 Business Loop, also known as the "Capital City Freeway," is actually a conglomerate of various concurrent highways. In fact, the segment between I-5 and CA-99 (at least, the section that heads south) has been officially funded as Interstate 305 for many years now, but CalTRANS does not publicly sign the route. The other segment that connects CA-99 to I-80 has been State Route 51 for a long time, too, but also is not publicly signed.
Being that I'm not at all a fan of business loops and spurs, my question is quite simple: As concurrences are already signed on this particularly heavily traveled segment of freeway, would you like to see the I-305 and CA-51 signage made public? I'm aware it would probably just create unnecessary confusion, though.
Why sign I-305 when US 50 exists for that entire east-west segment legislatively? (305 doesn't exist at all legislatively and is not even used internally by Caltrans)
The ideal solution would be for the east-west portion to be 50 only (and 99 where concurrent) and the north-south segment from the Oak Park interchange to Foothill Farms signed as solely 51.
I'd be a fan of signing I-305. I think all Interstate highways should be signed - that's the idea of having the system. If you're unwilling to sign it, it loses funding/status.
Quote from: AlpsROADS on October 18, 2010, 06:30:04 PM
I'd be a fan of signing I-305. I think all Interstate highways should be signed - that's the idea of having the system. If you're unwilling to sign it, it loses funding/status.
I don't think it's particularly necessary to sign a short interstate when it already has a number that makes it part of a much longer route - in this case, US-50. The other branch of Green 80 needs to go away, though, and 51 is a good number for it.
I also think 980 is a silly interstate designation in CA and it should just be 24, at least until the tunnels are upgraded and the road extends to 680. In that case, the interstate designation makes a lot more sense. But, really, I'd rather see 17, 21, 24, etc. Having all the routes be x80 just adds to driver confusion.
(similarly, I have no idea how drivers in Washington fare with their endless set of 5xx routes, and some 9xx as well, all in close proximity in the Seattle area)
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 18, 2010, 07:14:09 PM
I also think 980 is a silly interstate designation in CA and it should just be 24, at least until the tunnels are upgraded and the road extends to 680. In that case, the interstate designation makes a lot more sense. But, really, I'd rather see 17, 21, 24, etc. Having all the routes be x80 just adds to driver confusion.
I wonder how hard it is to deal with the multiple 3dis in metro Los Angeles, in comparison to the near total lack of in San Diego (though you have route clustering of similar-numbered designations in the latter, i.e. 52/54/56...and a little bit of that in SoCal, i.e. 241/261 and 55/57).
New York has a bunch of the x78s (none of which intersect I-78 due to cancellations) but the numbers are rarely used by locals.
Quote from: TheStranger on October 18, 2010, 07:57:50 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 18, 2010, 07:14:09 PM
I also think 980 is a silly interstate designation in CA and it should just be 24, at least until the tunnels are upgraded and the road extends to 680. In that case, the interstate designation makes a lot more sense. But, really, I'd rather see 17, 21, 24, etc. Having all the routes be x80 just adds to driver confusion.
I wonder how hard it is to deal with the multiple 3dis in metro Los Angeles, in comparison to the near total lack of in San Diego (though you have route clustering of similar-numbered designations in the latter, i.e. 52/54/56...and a little bit of that in SoCal, i.e. 241/261 and 55/57).
New York has a bunch of the x78s (none of which intersect I-78 due to cancellations) but the numbers are rarely used by locals.
You answered your own question. Californians navigate by freeway names as well. Now take Hawaii, where routes are grouped by first digit on each island. All the 5's are on Kauai, 3's and 4's on Maui, 1's and 2's on Big Island, the rest on Oahu. If you can't tell the difference between 378 and 379, or 31/32/34/35/36, you're in trouble.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 18, 2010, 07:14:09 PM
I don't think it's particularly necessary to sign a short interstate when it already has a number that makes it part of a much longer route - in this case, US-50.
Then I'd take away the Interstate designation entirely. If the designation is superfluous and won't be signed, then it doesn't need to be there, especially now that funding formulas aren't used so strictly. Stick it in the NHS at a 90% funding rate and keep it plain US 50. Free up your Interstate miles and apply them somewhere useful like 110, 710, or 980.
Quote from: TheStranger on October 18, 2010, 07:57:50 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 18, 2010, 07:14:09 PM
I also think 980 is a silly interstate designation in CA and it should just be 24, at least until the tunnels are upgraded and the road extends to 680. In that case, the interstate designation makes a lot more sense. But, really, I'd rather see 17, 21, 24, etc. Having all the routes be x80 just adds to driver confusion.
I wonder how hard it is to deal with the multiple 3dis in metro Los Angeles, in comparison to the near total lack of in San Diego (though you have route clustering of similar-numbered designations in the latter, i.e. 52/54/56...and a little bit of that in SoCal, i.e. 241/261 and 55/57).
New York has a bunch of the x78s (none of which intersect I-78 due to cancellations) but the numbers are rarely used by locals.
It's not too bad in the L.A. area because a lot of them are spread out and there is a fair even mix of x5, x10 and x15. Also the leading digits tend to only be repeated once or twice in the area... For example, instead of having 205, 210 and 215, there is only the latter two. Only one occurrence of an 4xx, 6xx and 7xx.
On the other hand, I-305 is one of the few quinplexes in the country... (I-305/BUS I-80/US 50/CA 16/CA 99)
However, as I-305 is wholly superfluous, with no legislative or CalTrans recognition, it's a functionally useless number.
Bus I-80 only serves as a even-3di for I-80 (ironic, as I-80 is on old I-880's alignment), but I'm not convinced taking down the green 80 shields and replacing them with CA 51's would cause any disservice to the public. If CalTrans and/or the Feds want a Green 80 maintained, they can have it take CA 275 (was this decommed?), CA 160 and Northgate Blvd back to I-80.
CA 16... either sign the blasted concurrency with I-5 and US 50 or renumber one of the two segments.
CA 99 needs US highway shields. 'Nuff said.
Quote from: Bickendan on October 19, 2010, 12:05:52 AMCA 16... either sign the blasted concurrency with I-5 and US 50 or renumber one of the two segments.
CA 99 needs US highway shields. 'Nuff said.
You will probably never see CA-16 signed along US 50 and I-5 because the concurrency you speak of does not exist. That segment of CA-16 was deleted back in 1984.
CA-16 isn't the only non-continuous highway in California. CA-65 has a 200-mile unconstructed segment from CA-198 to I-80 which is why exit numbers on CA-65 in Roseville start at 307. CA-84 also has a gap in it from I-580 in Livermore to CA-12 in Rio Vista.
As far as the signing of BL-80, I really don't see what the fuss is all about. The "Business Loop" designation was probably used to provide continuity back in the mid-80's when the renumbering of the Sacramento freeways occurred (I-880 becomes I-80, old I-80 becomes BL-80, US 50 extended west to the old 80/880 interchange). Why use two different route numbers (305 and 51) for a freeway that used to have a single number (80)? I personally like the BL-80 designation because drivers can follow this route knowing that you will eventually reconnect with I-80.
FWIW, I drove through downtown Sacramento recently and my TomTom GPS was going crazy as I approached the east-west segment of BL-80 as it tried to handle a 4-route concurrency which interestingly enough included CA-16 along with I-80, US-50 and CA-99. The current map in my GPS (which is the latest from TomTom) still refers to BL-80 as Interstate 80.
Quote from: AlpsROADS on October 18, 2010, 10:05:15 PM
You answered your own question. Californians navigate by freeway names as well.
Depends: some routes are almost always never referred to by name, but number (i.e. 680, 24) in the Bay Area. And isn't it a generational thing in Los Angeles, in which the names have been deprecated somewhat over time (though not entirely)?
Quote from: AlpsROADSFree up your Interstate miles and apply them somewhere useful like 110, 710, or 980.
I don't think 305 is a matter of miles being "used" that could be used elsewhere, but rather an FHWA attempt to acknowledge the fact that today's Business 80 between Route 275 and E Street WAS built as I-80 with interstate funds (and partially as US 99E/US 50) in the 1960s, and was not existing US 40 freeway built before the Interstate era began. Not sure how that affects the chargeable/non-chargeable calculations.
Quote from: myosh_tinoQuote from: Bickendan
CA 16... either sign the blasted concurrency with I-5 and US 50 or renumber one of the two segments.
You will probably never see CA-16 signed along US 50 and I-5 because the concurrency you speak of does not exist. That segment of CA-16 was deleted back in 1984.
Bickendan's point still stands - as a result of the 1984 deletion of the original Route 16 alignment along River Road between Woodland and Sacramento, what was once a mere 5 miles gap between segments is now a 27 mile gap.
Really, that should be two entirely separate numbered routes, just as the former southern portion of Route 71 became Route 371 in 1974 as a result of the creation of I-15E (now I-215) and the rerouting of I-15 over part of what was Route 71 to Corona. It's different from the Route 65 gap - a situation in which the long gap there IS intended to be filled up some time this century.
Quote from: myosh_tinoFWIW, I drove through downtown Sacramento recently and my TomTom GPS was going crazy as I approached the east-west segment of BL-80 as it tried to handle a 4-route concurrency which interestingly enough included CA-16 along with I-80, US-50 and CA-99. The current map in my GPS (which is the latest from TomTom) still refers to BL-80 as Interstate 80.
Google Maps also attempts to show Route 16 along I-5 and US 50 as well, even though I don't think it's ever been legislatively assigned to that pathway. (IIRC, one map I've seen at UC Davis when I was going there did show 16 and 5 concurrent east of Woodland to where River Road access to West Sacramento splits off before I-5 enters Sacramento County)
Quote from: AlpsROADS on October 18, 2010, 10:07:17 PMThen I'd take away the Interstate designation entirely. If the designation is superfluous and won't be signed, then it doesn't need to be there, especially now that funding formulas aren't used so strictly. Stick it in the NHS at a 90% funding rate and keep it plain US 50. Free up your Interstate miles and apply them somewhere useful like 110, 710, or 980.
I don't think it works that way. NHS is 80% federal, 20% state, and only for new construction. Interstate designation (whether hidden or not) attracts IM funding at the old 90% federal, 10% state ratio, but a cutoff date (sometime in 2003?) is in effect--any Interstate route designated or signed after that date no longer attracts that funding ratio.
My personal view is that Interstates should be signed only when that has navigational utility for the travelling public. On this ground I would get rid of the I-980 signs just to eliminate a change of number on one of the two through routes at the Oakland stack.
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 19, 2010, 03:58:10 AM
Quote from: AlpsROADS on October 18, 2010, 10:07:17 PMThen I'd take away the Interstate designation entirely. If the designation is superfluous and won't be signed, then it doesn't need to be there, especially now that funding formulas aren't used so strictly. Stick it in the NHS at a 90% funding rate and keep it plain US 50. Free up your Interstate miles and apply them somewhere useful like 110, 710, or 980.
I don't think it works that way. NHS is 80% federal, 20% state, and only for new construction. Interstate designation (whether hidden or not) attracts IM funding at the old 90% federal, 10% state ratio, but a cutoff date (sometime in 2003?) is in effect--any Interstate route designated or signed after that date no longer attracts that funding ratio.
My personal view is that Interstates should be signed only when that has navigational utility for the travelling public. On this ground I would get rid of the I-980 signs just to eliminate a change of number on one of the two through routes at the Oakland stack.
Well, until very recently, I believe I-980 was actually never signed. All signs simply said "TO I-580" or "TO CA-24."
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 19, 2010, 02:40:25 AM
CA-16 isn't the only non-continuous highway in California. CA-65 has a 200-mile unconstructed segment from CA-198 to I-80 which is why exit numbers on CA-65 in Roseville start at 307.
yet, the US-395 freeway coming out of Reno has exit numbers starting at 1. The 395/70 junction is exit 7. I can't remember what number the 395/203 junction, well south of there at Mammoth, is... but it is certainly higher than 7!
QuoteI personally like the BL-80 designation because drivers can follow this route knowing that you will eventually reconnect with I-80.
the main reason I do not like it is because business loops should directly provide business access, and Green 80 does no such thing.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 19, 2010, 11:25:55 AM
yet, the US-395 freeway coming out of Reno has exit numbers starting at 1. The 395/70 junction is exit 7. I can't remember what number the 395/203 junction, well south of there at Mammoth, is... but it is certainly higher than 7!
Yeah, you got me on that one. Is there any other case where a highway leaves and re-enters a state? If so, how are the exit numbers handled.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 19, 2010, 11:25:55 AM
the main reason I do not like it is because business loops should directly provide business access, and Green 80 does no such thing.
Well, it does take traffic into downtown Sacramento while I-80 bypasses the downtown area to the north.
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 19, 2010, 01:37:24 PM
Yeah, you got me on that one. Is there any other case where a highway leaves and re-enters a state? If so, how are the exit numbers handled.
This topic has been discussed before at least once:
In-&-Back Routes (between states, counties, etc.) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1800.0)
I-24's exit numbering is continuous in TN, GA, and TN again - it is treated as though the crossing into Georgia and back does not take place. GA exits are in the 160s.
Quote from: Quillz on October 19, 2010, 04:05:30 AM
Well, until very recently, I believe I-980 was actually never signed. All signs simply said "TO I-580" or "TO CA-24."
980 has always been signed at the termini (the split with 880 and the stack with 580/24), I don't know about trailblazers though.
Quote from: myosh_tinoYeah, you got me on that one. Is there any other case where a highway leaves and re-enters a state? If so, how are the exit numbers handled.
future I-86/NY 17 enters Pennsylvania briefly to intersect US 220, then reenters New York - exit numbers continue in sequence.
Quote from: TheStranger on October 19, 2010, 04:38:37 PM
Quote from: Quillz on October 19, 2010, 04:05:30 AM
Well, until very recently, I believe I-980 was actually never signed. All signs simply said "TO I-580" or "TO CA-24."
980 has always been signed at the termini (the split with 880 and the stack with 580/24), I don't know about trailblazers though.
Quote from: myosh_tinoYeah, you got me on that one. Is there any other case where a highway leaves and re-enters a state? If so, how are the exit numbers handled.
future I-86/NY 17 enters Pennsylvania briefly to intersect US 220, then reenters New York - exit numbers continue in sequence.
I-980 just recently got trailblazer signage through the downtown Oakland segment to include only a mention of I-980 (no more CA-24 shields). As far as I can remember, the I-980 section was well-posted on freeway entrances prior to this move.
As far as a highway entering one state and the re-entering later, US-395 leaves California in Lassen County, then enters Nevada passing through Reno and Carson City, before re-entering California in Alpine County. From what I can tell, California resets the milepost upon re-entry in the northern section. According to the Cal-NEXUS database, there is one exit on this highway given Exit 7 - CA-70. Since CA numbers their exits in ascending order in the northerly and easterly directions, this indicates the mileage must has reset because otherwise US-395 should have a exit number much higher (probably in the 400s or 500s at that point).
To get to the OP's question though. I think that Bus-80 needs to go, period. The idea of having two freeways with an 80 designation is confusing to many people I know that do not spend much time around Sacramento. I have had at least three friends call me and tell me they got lost because they stayed to the left when driving up from the Bay Area and ended up off course in West Sacramento.
There are two ways, in my view, resolve this issue:
1- Renumber the whole segment of Bus-80 as CA-480. Clearly, this will never get reused by the Bay Area due to its negative connotations associated with the Embarcardero Freeway so why not put it to use. In a perfect world this would be I-480 but good luck getting the CA-51 segment approved due to its substandard sections (e.g. Marconi Curve). This serves the functional equivalent of a 2di urban loop through the central core of the city (see I-405, Oregon) and it is distinguishable enough from its parent to avoid confusion. US-50 can still be signed for concurrency purposes but the primary route is CA-480 for mileage and exit numbering purposes (sort of like the I-980/CA-24 arrangement in the Bay Area). CA-51 would be completely eliminated and available for reassignment elsewhere.
2- If/when the CA-99 freeway is upgraded to Interstate standards from Grapevine to Sacramento, the CA-51 section can be tied into that adjustment. For the sake of argument, suppose CA-99 becomes I-9. The CA-51 segment can then be signed as CA-9 much as how CA-15 continues after I-15 "ends" at I-8 in San Diego. The mileage and exit numbering would be contiguous with I-9 (starting around 298 and ending at approximately 307) and the route would end at the eastern I-80 split near North Highlands.
Quote from: subzeroepsilon on October 20, 2010, 04:47:56 PM
There are two ways, in my view, resolve this issue:
1- Renumber the whole segment of Bus-80 as CA-480. Clearly, this will never get reused by the Bay Area due to its negative connotations associated with the Embarcardero Freeway so why not put it to use. In a perfect world this would be I-480 but good luck getting the CA-51 segment approved due to its substandard sections (e.g. Marconi Curve). This serves the functional equivalent of a 2di urban loop through the central core of the city (see I-405, Oregon) and it is distinguishable enough from its parent to avoid confusion. US-50 can still be signed for concurrency purposes but the primary route is CA-480 for mileage and exit numbering purposes (sort of like the I-980/CA-24 arrangement in the Bay Area). CA-51 would be completely eliminated and available for reassignment elsewhere.
Considering that US 50 is the only legislatively assigned route for the portion of Business 80 from West Sacramento to the Oak Park interchange, I don't think having a state route concurrent with the first 5 miles of it would entirely solve the issue of route simplification in the are - particularly when Route 99 already has its concurrency with US 50 (and Business 80) between I-5 and Oak Park. If anything, 50 should be getting more emphasis westbound than it has at present.
I'd say no just because there's already enough routes on that stretch of road and adding any more would lead to confusion.
Amazingly, we now have a trailblazer on the route between I-80 and Oak Park for the first time!
It's a Business 80 westbound shield between Harbor Boulevard and the I-80 west terminus. Not sure how useful this is, especially when this stretch of road is known to most folks as US 50. :p
"Do you think CalTrans should publicly sign I-305 and CA-51?"
Looks like Google Maps has done that already...
http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=sacramento,+ca&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=31.23349,55.810547&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Sacramento,+California&ll=38.600774,-121.479263&spn=0.120203,0.21801&t=h&z=12
Oddly enough, CA-99, CA-16 and US 50 are all signed on the east-west section and I-80 is signed on the north-south section. They are also showing an I-305 shield east of the 50/99/BL80 interchange and a CA-51 shield north of the 80/BL80 interchange in north Sacramento.
Seeing how Caltrans has not signed either I-305 or CA-51, I think someone should contact Google and tell them to remove the I-305 and CA-51 references from their map to avoid driver confusion. Does anyone know how to contact Google to report "errors"?
There's a link in the lower right corner that says, "Report a problem." I already reported it, but the more complaints they get, the more likely they'll do something about it. :P
Quote from: myosh_tino on November 01, 2010, 01:41:17 PM
"Do you think CalTrans should publicly sign I-305 and CA-51?"
Looks like Google Maps has done that already...
http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=sacramento,+ca&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=31.23349,55.810547&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Sacramento,+California&ll=38.600774,-121.479263&spn=0.120203,0.21801&t=h&z=12
Oddly enough, CA-99, CA-16 and US 50 are all signed on the east-west section and I-80 is signed on the north-south section. They are also showing an I-305 shield east of the 50/99/BL80 interchange and a CA-51 shield north of the 80/BL80 interchange in north Sacramento.
Seeing how Caltrans has not signed either I-305 or CA-51, I think someone should contact Google and tell them to remove the I-305 and CA-51 references from their map to avoid driver confusion. Does anyone know how to contact Google to report "errors"?
Google Maps is full of weird errors. For example, there is a street in the San Fernando Valley known as "Woodlake Avenue," which begins at Ventura Boulevard. Except, for some reason, Google Maps decided that the first quarter mile of the avenue is "San Juan Road," when in fact it isn't...
Quote from: TheStranger on November 01, 2010, 11:05:37 AM
Amazingly, we now have a trailblazer on the route between I-80 and Oak Park for the first time!
It's a Business 80 westbound shield between Harbor Boulevard and the I-80 west terminus. Not sure how useful this is, especially when this stretch of road is known to most folks as US 50. :p
I did the sign plans for that interchange reconstruction project. It's standard practice to put signs in at the downstream end of an interchange. The reason why I only used a Business 80 shield was for consistency with the guide signing upstream - there are no US-50 shields on those signs. In the eastbound direction, I wanted to put up both a US-50 shield and a Business 80 shield, again, in order to be consistent with guide signing upstream and downstream. The idea was killed, though, by the same engineer who also eliminated the CA-99 multiplex with I-5 in Sacramento.
Quote from: jrouse on July 06, 2011, 05:47:04 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on November 01, 2010, 11:05:37 AM
Amazingly, we now have a trailblazer on the route between I-80 and Oak Park for the first time!
It's a Business 80 westbound shield between Harbor Boulevard and the I-80 west terminus. Not sure how useful this is, especially when this stretch of road is known to most folks as US 50. :p
I did the sign plans for that interchange reconstruction project. It's standard practice to put signs in at the downstream end of an interchange. The reason why I only used a Business 80 shield was for consistency with the guide signing upstream - there are no US-50 shields on those signs. In the eastbound direction, I wanted to put up both a US-50 shield and a Business 80 shield, again, in order to be consistent with guide signing upstream and downstream. The idea was killed, though, by the same engineer who also eliminated the CA-99 multiplex with I-5 in Sacramento.
I did see at least one 50/Business 80 duo trailblazer in the vicinity going eastbound - was that something you had input in?
I've often wondered why 50 isn't signed at all on the pull-throughs between Oak Park and West Sacramento, even though it has now been on that road for 30 years. (There is a TO US 50 sign on Tower Bridge Gateway in West Sacramento that I think was city-installed)
Quote from: TheStranger on July 07, 2011, 02:28:39 PM
Quote from: jrouse on July 06, 2011, 05:47:04 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on November 01, 2010, 11:05:37 AM
Amazingly, we now have a trailblazer on the route between I-80 and Oak Park for the first time!
It's a Business 80 westbound shield between Harbor Boulevard and the I-80 west terminus. Not sure how useful this is, especially when this stretch of road is known to most folks as US 50. :p
I did the sign plans for that interchange reconstruction project. It's standard practice to put signs in at the downstream end of an interchange. The reason why I only used a Business 80 shield was for consistency with the guide signing upstream - there are no US-50 shields on those signs. In the eastbound direction, I wanted to put up both a US-50 shield and a Business 80 shield, again, in order to be consistent with guide signing upstream and downstream. The idea was killed, though, by the same engineer who also eliminated the CA-99 multiplex with I-5 in Sacramento.
I did see at least one 50/Business 80 duo trailblazer in the vicinity going eastbound - was that something you had input in?
I've often wondered why 50 isn't signed at all on the pull-throughs between Oak Park and West Sacramento, even though it has now been on that road for 30 years. (There is a TO US 50 sign on Tower Bridge Gateway in West Sacramento that I think was city-installed)
The 50/Business 80 trailblazer was what I proposed. It was removed from the plans. I don't know how it got put in.
Quote from: jrouse on July 08, 2011, 11:09:04 AM
The 50/Business 80 trailblazer was what I proposed. It was removed from the plans. I don't know how it got put in.
Drove by there last night and I'm actually not sure if the eastbound 50 trailblazer in West Sacramento is still there. I DO remember it being there for several months though, so that's interesting...
I was just in Sacramento a few weeks ago for work and I found the whole Capitol City Freeway thing confusing. The Business Loop 80 designation is a problem. There are clearly two different highways here; the 6 mile east/west section concurrent with US 50 and the 9 mile north/south section concurrent with CA 51. If it were up to me each section would be signed separately as east/west US 50 and north/south CA 51. The Biz 80 designation should go away.
If the 300 mile section of CA 99 between Mettler and Sacramento were to be upgraded to Interstate 9 then I would change CA 51 to CA 9 because CA 51 is just a continuation of the southern segment of CA 99 anyway. Under this scenario you could really go crazy and mark the 6 mile section of US 50 (the I-305 part) as I-50 so that I-9 ends at a marked interstate. Yeah, I know that sounds a little bit like the heresy of I-238, but I-50 would fit into the grid here and the reason the numbers 50 and 60 were skipped in the original interstate plan was to avoid confusion with US 50 and US 60. Well this is US 50, and keeping the number the same would work well for motorists.
Quote from: Odysseus on July 23, 2011, 05:15:32 PM
If the 300 mile section of CA 99 between Mettler and Sacramento were to be upgraded to Interstate 9 then I would change CA 51 to CA 9 because CA 51 is just a continuation of the southern segment of CA 99 anyway. Under this scenario you could really go crazy and mark the 6 mile section of US 50 (the I-305 part) as I-50 so that I-9 ends at a marked interstate. Yeah, I know that sounds a little bit like the heresy of I-238, but I-50 would fit into the grid here and the reason the numbers 50 and 60 were skipped in the original interstate plan was to avoid confusion with US 50 and US 60. Well this is US 50, and keeping the number the same would work well for motorists.
Or you could have a hypothetical I-9 continue west on US 50 to I-5 or I-80 and maintain the existing US highway designation.
Having said that, I've always been of the mind that US 50 should be signed westbound along the 50/Business 80 section, as locals call that "50" more than anything else.
Well, the current situation is terrible with Westbound and Eastbound signage being completely different on (I-305).
It seems the only reason the Sacramento "business loop" isn't signed normally, with an even 3DI, is because California ran out of x80's.
The simple solution would be 4 digit xx80 routes. It solves the BL-80, I-238, and wrong-way I-580 numbering problems in one fell swoop. And it wouldn't require massive route reassignments or downgrading existing routes.
BL-80 = I-1080
I-238 = I-1280 or I-2380
I-580 = I-1580
^ Wait, what's wrong with 580?
I do agree that the whole "Biz 80" thing is a bit confusing. I think Caltrans ought to either publicly sign the two separate numbers (US 50 & SR 51), or give the whole bit a new designation...maybe as SR 480 until such time that the substandard sections of the Capital City Fwy can be upgraded to Interstate standards and become a new I-480.
Quote from: roadfro on July 24, 2011, 04:38:59 AM
^ Wait, what's wrong with 580?
the fact that it's two separate segments with a very strangely oriented I-80 multiplex in the middle.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 24, 2011, 10:19:44 AM
the fact that it's two separate segments with a very strangely oriented I-80 multiplex in the middle.
I agree, I-580 is a mess. The concurrency with I-80 along the Eastshore Freeway in Oakland is strange and the connection to the heretical I-238 in Castro Valley is even worse.
I would create a new I-64. There is no SR 64 in California and the western end of the existing I-64 is 2000 miles away in Wentzville, MO. The new East/West I-64 would run along the Breed Fwy and the Monagan Fwy from I-880 in San Leandro to I-5 northwest of Tracy. This would completely eliminate I-238, and I-205 and replace that portion of I-580. The part of I-580 that runs along the Brown Fwy from the split with current I-205 down to I-5 southeast of Tracy would become East/West I-464. The portion I-580 from the new I-64 to the Eastern end of the Bay Bridge would become North/South I-264. The only part of I-580 that would remain intact would be the Richmond San Rafael Bridge and the Knox Fwy between US 101 and I-80 near Berkley.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 24, 2011, 10:19:44 AM
Quote from: roadfro on July 24, 2011, 04:38:59 AM
^ Wait, what's wrong with 580?
the fact that it's two separate segments with a very strangely oriented I-80 multiplex in the middle.
Ahh...forgot about the separate northern section...
Personally I think I-305 should be signed.
Quote from: roadfro on July 24, 2011, 04:38:59 AM
...maybe as SR 480 until such time that the substandard sections of the Capital City Fwy can be upgraded to Interstate standards and become a new I-480.
I don't think that's ever going to happen - the reason Business 80 as a designation exists at all is primarily the result of the city of Sacramento rejecting the CalTrans plan (ca. 1979) to build a new alignment for what is now Route 51, back when that was still I-80. (The funding that would have gone to this Interstate-standard project ended up being transferred to today's light rail system)
Quote from: TheStranger on July 25, 2011, 12:09:18 PM
I don't think that's ever going to happen - the reason Business 80 as a designation exists at all is primarily the result of the city of Sacramento rejecting the CalTrans plan (ca. 1979) to build a new alignment for what is now Route 51, back when that was still I-80. (The funding that would have gone to this Interstate-standard project ended up being transferred to today's light rail system)
That always struck me as specious bureaucratic logic. Does the average driver even understand the difference between a blue interstate and a green interstate? (Especially in CA, where there are hardly any business routes.) Is BL-80 noticeably worse than numerous other urban Interstates that don't meet modern standards? Would there be any actual problems cause by giving it a I route number?
Quote from: flowmotion on July 25, 2011, 11:21:38 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on July 25, 2011, 12:09:18 PM
I don't think that's ever going to happen - the reason Business 80 as a designation exists at all is primarily the result of the city of Sacramento rejecting the CalTrans plan (ca. 1979) to build a new alignment for what is now Route 51, back when that was still I-80. (The funding that would have gone to this Interstate-standard project ended up being transferred to today's light rail system)
That always struck me as specious bureaucratic logic. Does the average driver even understand the difference between a blue interstate and a green interstate? (Especially in CA, where there are hardly any business routes.) Is BL-80 noticeably worse than numerous other urban Interstates that don't meet modern standards? Would there be any actual problems cause by giving it a I route number?
It WAS a signed Interstate from 1964 to 1982, so obviously it was "good enough" at one point in time.
The segment of today's Business 80 that is concurrent with US 50 is entirely up to Interstate standards (thus the I-305 hidden designation), with the middle portion from (former) Route 275 to Route 99 (the WX Freeway between I-5 and Route 99) being built AS I-80 in the 1960s. Also built to Interstate standards is the other 1960s segment, today's unsigned Route 51 from Route 99 to E Street.
The narrow portion of unsigned route 51 from E Street north to I-80/unsigned Route 244 in Foothill Farms represents the segment built as US 99E (and partially US 40) in the late 1940s/early 1950s, which would've been bypassed by the canceled realignment. Some Google Maps views of the most troublesome portions of the road:
1. odd left-entrance ramp from Arden Way near the Arden Fair Mall
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Arden+Way,+Sacramento&hl=en&ll=38.603339,-121.434814&spn=0.006146,0.008733&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=50.557552,71.542969&z=17
2. the Marconi Curve, a tight turn within limited right-of-way:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Marconi+and+Auburn,+Sacramento&hl=en&ll=38.621514,-121.418828&spn=0.006144,0.008733&sll=38.603339,-121.434814&sspn=0.006146,0.008733&z=17
3. Howe Avenue exit northbound (Business 80 Exit 12A), entrance ramp has no acceleration lane whatsoever:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Howe+%26+Auburn,+Sacramento&hl=en&ll=38.624897,-121.414847&spn=0.003064,0.004367&sll=38.624339,-121.414944&sspn=0.006127,0.008733&z=18
Quote from: flowmotion on July 25, 2011, 11:21:38 PM
That always struck me as specious bureaucratic logic. Does the average driver even understand the difference between a blue interstate and a green interstate?
Some average drivers may understand what an Interstate business loop (or spur) is when its used properly on an actual surface street, but when used improperly on a limited access highway its confusing. I'm sure people don't understand that the BL-80 designation is used because its a quasi-interstate. You have two freeways/expressways marked as some form of "route 80" that's just dumb if you ask me.
Quote from: flowmotion on July 25, 2011, 11:21:38 PM
Is BL-80 noticeably worse than numerous other urban Interstates that don't meet modern standards? Would there be any actual problems cause by giving it a I route number?
You're right in saying that there are plenty of old urban interstate highways that don't meet modern interstate standards. The Schuylkill Expressway in Philadelphia is a great example of a substandard urban interstate. The Schuylkill is I-76 between Valley Forge Interchange and the Walt Whitman Bridge. The "Surekill Expressway" is an engineering nightmare that falls short of interstate standards all over the place. However, there isn't much PENNDOT can do to fix this problem; Interstate 76 has to make its way through Philadelphia and over to South Jersey somehow and there are no practical alternatives.
Quote from: TheStranger on July 26, 2011, 11:41:17 AM
It WAS a signed Interstate from 1964 to 1982, so obviously it was "good enough" at one point in time.
It may have been "good enough" in the early 1960s, but its not anymore, which is why I would not give the SR-51 portion of the Capitol City Freeway an interstate number. Just because the same sin is committed elsewhere doesn't make it OK in Sacramento.
Quote from: flowmotion on July 25, 2011, 11:21:38 PM
...giving it a I route number?
Be careful what you wish for here. Caltrans would probably make it I-305, not I-480 because I-305 is already "sort of" there. Most of us roadgeeks would find this very irritating.
Quote from: TheStranger on July 26, 2011, 11:41:17 AM
The narrow portion of unsigned route 51 from E Street north to I-80/unsigned Route 244 in Foothill Farms represents the segment built as US 99E (and partially US 40) in the late 1940s/early 1950s, which would've been bypassed by the canceled realignment.
This is why my solution to the problem would be to simply mark it as a California State Route. It could either be signed as SR 51 or in the future SR 9 might make sense if the Interstate 9 thing ever happens. Also, as I said earlier there are clearly two separate highways here. The true East/West portion that is US 50 and the North/South portion (marked as East/West BL 80) that is really SR 51.
Quote from: Odysseus on July 26, 2011, 08:22:16 PM
It may have been "good enough" in the early 1960s, but its not anymore,
While I'm not at all arguing that the freeway is up to modern standards, the mere existence of examples like the Schuykill (as you pointed out) and the BQE in New York City makes me think that the entire removal of I-80 on this route was just a kneejerk reaction by CalTrans to the 1979 Sacramento legislative vote to cancel the realignment.
Really, the removal of 880/creation of Business 80 should have never happened in the first place based on the precedents set in other cities...but as it did, the end result has the east-west segment more known as US 50 now.
Quote from: Odysseus
Caltrans would probably make it I-305
Probably not actually - CalTrans has never acknowledged the 305 number, and it is also not legislatively assigned. I think it only exists as a FHWA designation that has never once been signed.
nope, there aren't even paddles for 305.
I believe there are 51 paddles, but I haven't driven that segment of Green 80 in years.
Quote from: TheStranger on July 26, 2011, 09:18:16 PM
Really, the removal of 880/creation of Business 80 should have never happened in the first place based on the precedents set in other cities...
I agree with you here. Back in 1979 CalTrans should have left the interstate designations alone.
My point is that the highway doesn't meet interstate standards in today's world, so it would be wrong to make it an interstate again 30 years later.
Quote from: TheStranger on July 26, 2011, 09:18:16 PM
Probably not actually - CalTrans has never acknowledged the 305 number, and it is also not legislatively assigned. I think it only exists as a FHWA designation that has never once been signed.
I was suggesting that
if CalTrans were to make the entire road an interstate, which would
never happen, then they might use the current FHWA designation of I-305 instead of a number that actually makes sense like I-480.
.
Quote from: Odysseus on July 26, 2011, 10:30:35 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on July 26, 2011, 09:18:16 PM
Really, the removal of 880/creation of Business 80 should have never happened in the first place based on the precedents set in other cities...
I agree with you here. Back in 1979 CalTrans should have left the interstate designations alone.
My point is that the highway doesn't meet interstate standards in today's world, so it would be wrong to make it an interstate again 30 years later.
The recent Business I-40 switcharound in Greensboro though does suggest that sometimes, navigational logic ends up winning out.
Quote from: Odysseus on July 26, 2011, 08:22:16 PM
This is why my solution to the problem would be to simply mark it as a California State Route. It could either be signed as SR 51 or in the future SR 9 might make sense if the Interstate 9 thing ever happens. Also, as I said earlier there are clearly two separate highways here. The true East/West portion that is US 50 and the North/South portion (marked as East/West BL 80) that is really SR 51.
I think there is a clear advantage to signing a loop route, especially given how much tourist traffic passes through Sacramento. Giving this segment a complete different SR number would just befuddle motorists, and create a even more confusing situation than Biz-80, in my opinion.
Also it would be difficult to get Sacramento to give up their "interstate", even if it is a green one.
How 'bout:
-Replacing CA-51 with a northward extension of CA-99, then have CA-99 multiplex with I-80 north, then take over CA-65 from Roseville to Marysville/Yuba City (i.e., the old US-99E route), then pick up the current CA-99 route to Chico and so on.
-The current CA-99 segment from I-5 north of Sacramento to the CA-70/99 split is given to CA-70 (it used to be signed as both, anyway).
-The current CA-99 from CA-113 to Yuba City is given to CA-113.
-That just leaves the segment between CA-70 and CA-113 (about 12 miles), which could be renumbered (or dropped from the state system altogether).
I'd like to see I-305 signed as well. But, California likely needs to pawn a few things for sign money first. :-P
Quote from: OCGuy81 on September 16, 2011, 10:05:21 AM
I'd like to see I-305 signed as well. But, California likely needs to pawn a few things for sign money first. :-P
How would signing I-305 be useful on a navigational basis, especially when Route 99 - a longer, more important through route in the area - is inconsistently signed there now?
---
DTComposer: In the 1964 renumbering, 99 was reassigned from the 99E/80 route (and for that matter, the 99W route along today's 113) primarily because the 1957-1964 Route 24 corridor along El Centro Road is the most direct route to Yuba City/Marysville from Sacramento. Going through Roseville on 80 - even with the widening - still forces drivers through two of the worst bottlenecks in the region (there, and through the Marconi Curve on Business 80).
Here's my suggestion: Drop business-80. Renumber I-305 as I-50, but continue to sign it US-50 from West Sacramento to the junction with 99. From the 99-50 junction to I-80 near North Highlands, sign it as CA-51. That would leave us with just one duplexed section, 50/99, which is a big improvement over calling it 50/bus-80/99/305.
My rational is that route 50 is what people call this route and it's part of a much larger route. Business loops are supposed to be non-freeway routes, where businesses can put their driveways. 99 should continue its current (post-1964) route along 50 and 5; it too is part of a much larger route.
The feds can call it I-50 for funding purposes, and it won't be as confusing as a secret interstate.
I kind of liked changing bus-80 to I-480, but it has two troubles: 50 and 99 are both too important not to sign, so we'd end up with a triplexed section with I-480. And second, the Elvas Freeway portion was rejected for interstate system already, so I don't think they'll change their mind and allow it a blue shield now.