AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Pacific Southwest => Topic started by: MrAndy1369 on March 04, 2018, 02:10:58 PM

Title: Sacramento - odd signs changed from Business 80 to 50 west/east?
Post by: MrAndy1369 on March 04, 2018, 02:10:58 PM
Okay, so here's an odd one. Looking at Harbor Blvd and the Business-80 intersection (which happens east right after the divide of original 80/Business 80, west of downtown Sacramento), Harbor Blvd calls out for going onto U.S. 50 west/east, even though that part of Business 80 isn't U.S. 50 anymore. Perhaps an old sign, maybe, that hasn't been updated in years?

No. Doing a lookback on the Street View history, it shows that in 2016, the signs properly referenced Business 80, but in 2017, it changed to U.S. 50. Yes, I'm serious. You can go to Google Maps yourself, go to the Harbor Blvd/Business 80 intersection, and the current Street View photo shows U.S. 50. I have also taken screenshots (not photoshopped, except to mask my name and to emphasize with red circles the years)

Here's the 2017 version: https://imgur.com/a/VlumG
Then, compare this to the 2016 version: https://imgur.com/a/j8uSs

It seriously makes no sense. Why would CalTrans add U.S. 50 (which no longer exists on that segment, especially west to San Francisco) after the proper Business 80 designation was on the signs? You can see this on both sides of the intersection (Harbor coming south to B80, and Harbor coming up north to B80).

So mystifying.
Title: Re: Sacramento - odd signs changed from Business 80 to 50 west/east?
Post by: US 89 on March 04, 2018, 02:25:48 PM
even though that part of Business 80 isn't U.S. 50 anymore.

Is that true? I thought the west end of US 50 was at the regular/business 80 junction in West Sacramento, and US 50 went east concurrent with Business 80 to the CA-99 junction, where Business 80 splits off to the north. Wikipedia suggests this as well.
Title: Re: Sacramento - odd signs changed from Business 80 to 50 west/east?
Post by: Techknow on March 04, 2018, 02:39:57 PM
I don't think you're crazy. According to the Interstate 80 Business Wikipedia page, Caltrans as around 2016 completed a sign replacement project. A PDF to details of the project was referenced (http://caltrans.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_ads_addenda/03/03-4F7104/plans/03-4f7104_plans.pdf (http://caltrans.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_ads_addenda/03/03-4F7104/plans/03-4f7104_plans.pdf)). The PDF did have details of the old signs being removed, and that the new signs lack the Business 80 designation west of CA 99. Why is that I'm not sure yet.

(https://i.imgur.com/Bt1bgwY.png)
Title: Re: Sacramento - odd signs changed from Business 80 to 50 west/east?
Post by: roadfro on March 04, 2018, 03:40:02 PM
I知 fairly sure this was discussed in a previous thread on this board. As part of the sign replacement project, a decision was made to deemphasize the biz 80 designation along the section concurrent with US 50. The biz 80 designation is now really just signed on the eastern portion of Capital City Freeway concurrent with hidden SR 51.


EDIT - Link to previous thread: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16501.0
Title: Re: Sacramento - odd signs changed from Business 80 to 50 west/east?
Post by: MrAndy1369 on March 04, 2018, 03:56:02 PM
I did a bit more digging.

Before 2016, on 80, right before the split of 80 and "former" Business 80, the shields showed both Business 80 and U.S. 50, but in 2017, it's only U.S. 50.

2015: https://imgur.com/a/S0bU3
2017: https://imgur.com/a/mMDXP

Interesting. I always thought U.S. 50 ended at the 99/B80 intercharge, but apparently, it's always been 50 until the split, concurrent with B80. I can understand why CalTrans wanted to simplify and have B80 just end at the 99/50 intercharge.

However, they should update the "freeway entrance" shields. Harbor Blvd's intercharge still shows the entrance ramp as B80, even though it technically isn't B80 anymore. They should replace it with U.S. 50. https://imgur.com/a/Ovzmm

Also, I thought that segment was also scheduled to be U.S. Interstate 305? Google Maps show the 305 shield. Kind of confusing!
Title: Re: Sacramento - odd signs changed from Business 80 to 50 west/east?
Post by: MrAndy1369 on March 04, 2018, 04:01:05 PM
Also, I went to the B80/99/50 intercharge. It does show U.S. 50 now fully, but here's how it looked before 2017:

https://imgur.com/a/N9iK0

So, based on that signage, I was truly under the impression that U.S. 50 ended at the B80/99 intercharge, given that signage (I drove through that area a lot when I lived in the Sacramento area).

EDIT: I'm sorry, I'm still new to this website. Didn't realize there was an existing discussion thread! My bad.
Title: Re: Sacramento - odd signs changed from Business 80 to 50 west/east?
Post by: US 89 on March 04, 2018, 06:47:54 PM
Also, I thought that segment was also scheduled to be U.S. Interstate 305? Google Maps show the 305 shield. Kind of confusing!

The portion of US 50/Business 80 between the I-80 split in West Sacramento and the 99/50 junction in Sacramento is hidden I-305. The Interstate designation is not signed, but it is kept for funding purposes.
Title: Re: Sacramento - odd signs changed from Business 80 to 50 west/east?
Post by: mrsman on March 04, 2018, 06:54:22 PM
I知 fairly sure this was discussed in a previous thread on this board. As part of the sign replacement project, a decision was made to deemphasize the biz 80 designation along the section concurrent with US 50. The biz 80 designation is now really just signed on the eastern portion of Capital City Freeway concurrent with hidden SR 51.


EDIT - Link to previous thread: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16501.0

IMO the Biz 80 designation is totally unnecessary and confusing.  Outside of NC and SC, and certainly in the rest of CA, green business interstate shields designate surface street former routings of the US or state route that was replaced by the interstate - not another freeway.  If they want Biz-80 sign it along Auburn Blvd and sign the freeway segments as US 50 and CA-51.  Looks like they did this for US 50 recently on the W/X freeway -- hopefully they will sign CA-51 instead of Biz-80 on the 29/30 freeway
Title: Re: Sacramento - odd signs changed from Business 80 to 50 west/east?
Post by: jpm on March 04, 2018, 07:31:21 PM
Thanks for posting the link to the Caltrans plans.

The (proposed) signage for the segment from West Sac to downtown looks a lot cleaner when signed only for US 50.

It's a bummer that this will be another road with disappearing co-signage.

But it's also interesting how US 50 has been extended westward vs its normal "termination" at the Bus 80 / CA 99 interchange - look back at old/historic maps of the area, one would have never guessed that US 50 would have been extended so far west.

-j
Title: Re: Sacramento - odd signs changed from Business 80 to 50 west/east?
Post by: Max Rockatansky on March 04, 2018, 08:22:58 PM
Probably should add CA 99 still seems to be silent through the US 50/I-80BL segment.  CAhighways.org has way more detail than Wikipedia on the topic.

https://www.cahighways.org/049-056.html#050
Title: Re: Sacramento - odd signs changed from Business 80 to 50 west/east?
Post by: TheStranger on March 05, 2018, 12:25:02 AM

But it's also interesting how US 50 has been extended westward vs its normal "termination" at the Bus 80 / CA 99 interchange - look back at old/historic maps of the area, one would have never guessed that US 50 would have been extended so far west.


At one point US 50 did extend further west - to San Francisco!

The route though did not involve the freeway in West Sacramento at all (which was built as I-80/US 40/US 99E in the 1960s).  It followed 99 south to Stockton, then the surface street routing that Route 4 took until the 1990s in Stockton, then approximately I-5 south to Mossdale, Business I-205 west towards Altamont, I-580 west to the Macarthur Maze in Oakland, and I-80 west to US 101 in SF.
Title: Re: Sacramento - odd signs changed from Business 80 to 50 west/east?
Post by: OrangeLantern on March 06, 2018, 08:11:54 PM
I知 fairly sure this was discussed in a previous thread on this board. As part of the sign replacement project, a decision was made to deemphasize the biz 80 designation along the section concurrent with US 50. The biz 80 designation is now really just signed on the eastern portion of Capital City Freeway concurrent with hidden SR 51.


EDIT - Link to previous thread: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16501.0

IMO the Biz 80 designation is totally unnecessary and confusing.  Outside of NC and SC, and certainly in the rest of CA, green business interstate shields designate surface street former routings of the US or state route that was replaced by the interstate - not another freeway.  If they want Biz-80 sign it along Auburn Blvd and sign the freeway segments as US 50 and CA-51.  Looks like they did this for US 50 recently on the W/X freeway -- hopefully they will sign CA-51 instead of Biz-80 on the 29/30 freeway

I'm going to be nitpicky and say that Business 376 in Pittsburg is a freeway

but yes, in general you are correct
Title: Re: Sacramento - odd signs changed from Business 80 to 50 west/east?
Post by: Henry on March 07, 2018, 09:23:37 AM
If their intent was to get rid of BL 80, then they should sign the eastern half as CA 51 and call it a day.
Title: Re: Sacramento - odd signs changed from Business 80 to 50 west/east?
Post by: roadfro on March 07, 2018, 12:45:04 PM
If their intent was to get rid of BL 80, then they should sign the eastern half as CA 51 and call it a day.
I don't think they were trying to get rid of Biz 80, but simplify signing since locals tended to refer to that section as US 50 only.

As mentioned in the other thread, the state's highway law stipulates that SR 51 shall be signed as BL 80, but the US 50 portion of the business route didn't have that distinction.
Title: Re: Sacramento - odd signs changed from Business 80 to 50 west/east?
Post by: mrsman on March 07, 2018, 09:10:37 PM
If their intent was to get rid of BL 80, then they should sign the eastern half as CA 51 and call it a day.
I don't think they were trying to get rid of Biz 80, but simplify signing since locals tended to refer to that section as US 50 only.

As mentioned in the other thread, the state's highway law stipulates that SR 51 shall be signed as BL 80, but the US 50 portion of the business route didn't have that distinction.

I wonder if it would be more correct to sign the road as Business SPUR 80 (and not LOOP 80) since it now only connects to I-80 on the east end.
Title: Re: Sacramento - odd signs changed from Business 80 to 50 west/east?
Post by: andy3175 on March 08, 2018, 01:17:50 AM
If their intent was to get rid of BL 80, then they should sign the eastern half as CA 51 and call it a day.
I don't think they were trying to get rid of Biz 80, but simplify signing since locals tended to refer to that section as US 50 only.

As mentioned in the other thread, the state's highway law stipulates that SR 51 shall be signed as BL 80, but the US 50 portion of the business route didn't have that distinction.

I am still waiting for someone in the Sacramento area to request lawmakers remove that law to eliminate Business 80 in full and allow SR 51 to be signed as SR 51 or perhaps as SR 99. (Yes I know that moves SR 99 traffic away from its implied overlap with US 50 and I-5 and away from its continuation north of the airport, but it seems logical given SR 99 is the through route when traveling through the US 50 interchange heading northbound.) Joe Rouse might be able to tell us if someone is pursuing that goal, since it seems silly to have Business 80 take a spur southwest to the US 50 interchange and end without an apparent reconnection to its parent. If you're going to get rid of the route, might as well get rid of the whole thing, not just the US 50 section.

For what it is worth, California in general has deemphasized business routes of any type. Local municipalities typically do a poor job of maintaining signage for business routes, and there is no state law requiring municipalities or counties to sign their business routes. So unless the business route happens to overlap a state highway, the business route is more than likely unsigned. But with that said, Caltrans hasn't really enacted many new business routes (I can think of one on SR 58 at Mojave and another on SR 4) in the past ten years. Very few business routes remain in Southern California (I-10's loops for places like Indio and Colton are largely unsigned and therefore decommissioned, except for a couple of remnant shields), and I think they are getting less and less frequently found on rural freeways such as US 101 (Paso Robles), I-80 (Truckee), and I-5 (Redding). I am sure others on the board can cite additional examples.
Title: Re: Sacramento - odd signs changed from Business 80 to 50 west/east?
Post by: Max Rockatansky on March 08, 2018, 07:41:43 AM
If their intent was to get rid of BL 80, then they should sign the eastern half as CA 51 and call it a day.
I don't think they were trying to get rid of Biz 80, but simplify signing since locals tended to refer to that section as US 50 only.

As mentioned in the other thread, the state's highway law stipulates that SR 51 shall be signed as BL 80, but the US 50 portion of the business route didn't have that distinction.

I am still waiting for someone in the Sacramento area to request lawmakers remove that law to eliminate Business 80 in full and allow SR 51 to be signed as SR 51 or perhaps as SR 99. (Yes I know that moves SR 99 traffic away from its implied overlap with US 50 and I-5 and away from its continuation north of the airport, but it seems logical given SR 99 is the through route when traveling through the US 50 interchange heading northbound.) Joe Rouse might be able to tell us if someone is pursuing that goal, since it seems silly to have Business 80 take a spur southwest to the US 50 interchange and end without an apparent reconnection to its parent. If you're going to get rid of the route, might as well get rid of the whole thing, not just the US 50 section.

For what it is worth, California in general has deemphasized business routes of any type. Local municipalities typically do a poor job of maintaining signage for business routes, and there is no state law requiring municipalities or counties to sign their business routes. So unless the business route happens to overlap a state highway, the business route is more than likely unsigned. But with that said, Caltrans hasn't really enacted many new business routes (I can think of one on SR 58 at Mojave and another on SR 4) in the past ten years. Very few business routes remain in Southern California (I-10's loops for places like Indio and Colton are largely unsigned and therefore decommissioned, except for a couple of remnant shields), and I think they are getting less and less frequently found on rural freeways such as US 101 (Paso Robles), I-80 (Truckee), and I-5 (Redding). I am sure others on the board can cite additional examples.

In general Caltrans seems to be interested in removing Business Routes when possible.  When the CA 43 roundabout was completed last year the Business Route 198 signage was removed entirely.  Most of the Business Routes I encounter are just a single guide sign or shield which likely was part of a higher degree of signing. 
Title: Re: Sacramento - odd signs changed from Business 80 to 50 west/east?
Post by: Henry on March 08, 2018, 08:59:46 AM
If their intent was to get rid of BL 80, then they should sign the eastern half as CA 51 and call it a day.
I don't think they were trying to get rid of Biz 80, but simplify signing since locals tended to refer to that section as US 50 only.

As mentioned in the other thread, the state's highway law stipulates that SR 51 shall be signed as BL 80, but the US 50 portion of the business route didn't have that distinction.

I wonder if it would be more correct to sign the road as Business SPUR 80 (and not LOOP 80) since it now only connects to I-80 on the east end.
The western half is also I-305, and there are no signs for that either. As for the idea of BS 80, I kind of like it, for the reason you stated above.
Title: Re: Sacramento - odd signs changed from Business 80 to 50 west/east?
Post by: mrsman on March 08, 2018, 08:28:46 PM
If their intent was to get rid of BL 80, then they should sign the eastern half as CA 51 and call it a day.
I don't think they were trying to get rid of Biz 80, but simplify signing since locals tended to refer to that section as US 50 only.

As mentioned in the other thread, the state's highway law stipulates that SR 51 shall be signed as BL 80, but the US 50 portion of the business route didn't have that distinction.

I am still waiting for someone in the Sacramento area to request lawmakers remove that law to eliminate Business 80 in full and allow SR 51 to be signed as SR 51 or perhaps as SR 99. (Yes I know that moves SR 99 traffic away from its implied overlap with US 50 and I-5 and away from its continuation north of the airport, but it seems logical given SR 99 is the through route when traveling through the US 50 interchange heading northbound.) Joe Rouse might be able to tell us if someone is pursuing that goal, since it seems silly to have Business 80 take a spur southwest to the US 50 interchange and end without an apparent reconnection to its parent. If you're going to get rid of the route, might as well get rid of the whole thing, not just the US 50 section.

For what it is worth, California in general has deemphasized business routes of any type. Local municipalities typically do a poor job of maintaining signage for business routes, and there is no state law requiring municipalities or counties to sign their business routes. So unless the business route happens to overlap a state highway, the business route is more than likely unsigned. But with that said, Caltrans hasn't really enacted many new business routes (I can think of one on SR 58 at Mojave and another on SR 4) in the past ten years. Very few business routes remain in Southern California (I-10's loops for places like Indio and Colton are largely unsigned and therefore decommissioned, except for a couple of remnant shields), and I think they are getting less and less frequently found on rural freeways such as US 101 (Paso Robles), I-80 (Truckee), and I-5 (Redding). I am sure others on the board can cite additional examples.

In general Caltrans seems to be interested in removing Business Routes when possible.  When the CA 43 roundabout was completed last year the Business Route 198 signage was removed entirely.  Most of the Business Routes I encounter are just a single guide sign or shield which likely was part of a higher degree of signing.

I see this trend as a function of the use of GPS and onliine mapping services available while driving.  In the  past, if you wanted gas, food, lodging they were found right on the highways.  As individual bypasses were built, people who wanted to partake of those services could generally find them along the old highway corridor.  And for many small cities, you can get directly to the old highway corridor by taking the first exit of the town, follow the old highway through town and be deposited right back onto the freeway at the other end.  It was important for people to know that they could simply keep driving in the same direction to get back on the road, as opposed to doubling back and heading back to find an on-ramp where you exited (in some cases the ramps to business routes are unidirectional and don't serve the minor direction).

But now, your online service can tell you where the services are and how to get back to the freeway.  So the need for such signage has diminished greatly.

I, like many of you road enthusiasts, enjoy driving business routes to get a feel for a town that I may be passing through.  Take an extra 10 minutes to see what there is. Try to imagine what it is like to drive this road back in the 1920's and 1930's when this was the main road.  But it is harder now that the signage is gone and outside of certain historical examples like US 66, the municipalities don't really seem to care.

That being said, I don't have any nostalgia when I drove Biz-80 in the late '90s when I lived in Northern California.  It was a freeway and its purpose was to get to my destination as quickly as possible.  If I wanted nostalgia, I would drive the true business route through Sacramento along West Capitol - 16th- Del Paso -etc.

Oddly enough, I would have less of a philosophical problem if the Tower Bridge Gateway (back in the '90s this was a freeway connector between the bridge and I-80, now its largely a surface route) and CA-160 freeways [and the surface streets in Downtown Sacramento between them] were signed as Biz-80 as this followed the old US 40 corridor and actually led to some businesses.  And it provided a decent way to get a feel of Sacramento and then guide me back to I-80 to continue my journeys.
Title: Re: Sacramento - odd signs changed from Business 80 to 50 west/east?
Post by: mrsman on March 08, 2018, 08:29:13 PM
I知 fairly sure this was discussed in a previous thread on this board. As part of the sign replacement project, a decision was made to deemphasize the biz 80 designation along the section concurrent with US 50. The biz 80 designation is now really just signed on the eastern portion of Capital City Freeway concurrent with hidden SR 51.


EDIT - Link to previous thread: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16501.0

IMO the Biz 80 designation is totally unnecessary and confusing.  Outside of NC and SC, and certainly in the rest of CA, green business interstate shields designate surface street former routings of the US or state route that was replaced by the interstate - not another freeway.  If they want Biz-80 sign it along Auburn Blvd and sign the freeway segments as US 50 and CA-51.  Looks like they did this for US 50 recently on the W/X freeway -- hopefully they will sign CA-51 instead of Biz-80 on the 29/30 freeway

I'm going to be nitpicky and say that Business 376 in Pittsburg is a freeway

but yes, in general you are correct

I forgot about Biz-376.  That designation is relatively new, so I didn't think of it.  IMO it should also be replaced with a new state highway number, but discussion of that should be in teh Northeast or Fictional  boards.
Title: Re: Sacramento - odd signs changed from Business 80 to 50 west/east?
Post by: skluth on March 09, 2018, 01:15:12 AM
In general Caltrans seems to be interested in removing Business Routes when possible.  When the CA 43 roundabout was completed last year the Business Route 198 signage was removed entirely.  Most of the Business Routes I encounter are just a single guide sign or shield which likely was part of a higher degree of signing.

I have no objection to removing business routes. I do have an expectation that a business route will meet its parent at both ends. I've seen business spurs on occasion. That could be a solution, but it's probably better to get rid of the business route designation entirely.
Title: Re: Sacramento - odd signs changed from Business 80 to 50 west/east?
Post by: sparker on March 09, 2018, 06:32:48 PM
Biz 80 is a (now) 36-year-old experiment that hasn't had the results Caltrans and Sacramento originally wanted -- to provide an in-town through alternative, not necessarily to Interstate standards -- to the relocated I-80 around the north side of town.  However, no one really utilizes it as such; it is simply a series of disconnected sections; the relatively slow-speed Oak Park turbine interchange never helped to define the route as a through facility.  And seeing as the E-W (W/X + West Sacramento) freeway segment is formally part of California Route 50 (that just happens to be a US Highway -- Caltrans, except for purposes of standards & sometimes funding, doesn't distinguish on the master list), signing it (apparently only on BGS's and not with reassurance shields) as US 50 is a no-brainer.  But apparently Caltrans has no real idea what to do with the CA 51 segment -- sign it as such would be the obvious choice (when means they won't even consider that!) -- they'll just keep the Biz 80 signs up for the foreseeable future and hope nobody in the field lodges any complaints regarding continuity (they're probably hoping the "To I-80" signage on and leading to westbound will suffice).  Poor signage seems to be an agency-wide issue rather than one endemic to one district or another; Caltrans seems just not particularly interested in providing consistent navigational aids.

Of course if CA 99 ever gets Interstate status & signage, what to do with I-7 or I-9 once it hits Sacramento (unless truncated at Stockton per some plan variations) might well toss an additional monkey wrench into the signage situation (take it over to I-5 or all the way to I-80 along with US 50 -- but because of the substandard CA 51 segments, they'd probably not route it up that corridor -- although it could be signed (lazily, IMO) "To I-X" southbound and To I-80" northbound -- but if the whole assembly would read CA 51/TO I-80 NB and as the same but with the new I-designation SB, to me that would be the optimal solution for that route at that time (just speculating!).   
Title: Re: Sacramento - odd signs changed from Business 80 to 50 west/east?
Post by: kkt on March 09, 2018, 07:00:13 PM
Since Business 80 never became a popular through route, I think Caltrans might as well abandon it.  The US 50 section is easy, sign as US 50 only.
The CA 51 section is more problematic.  I do not agree with making it part of CA 99 - it makes following CA 99 to the northern section problematic.  Maybe the southern section and northern section should have different numbers - if the southern section became I-7 or I-9 that would be simple, but would still leave us wondering what to do with CA 51, because it doesn't meet interstate standards.  I say drop the Business 80 designation and sign it as CA 51.  With accompanying signs southbound "To CA 99 SOUTH - Downtown Sacramento" and northbound to "To I-80 EAST Roseville - Reno" it should be clear enough.
Title: Re: Sacramento - odd signs changed from Business 80 to 50 west/east?
Post by: Concrete Bob on March 09, 2018, 08:52:27 PM
Caltrans is planning to widen and modernize SR 51 (Elvas Freeway) through Midtown Sacramento up to Arden Way, and the upgrades should be in place by 2027.  Should additional upgrades be added on the stretch north of Arden Way on up to the Interstate 80/Auburn Boulevard (244) interchange, the route could become some sort of northbound extension of I-7 or I-9 (assuming additional upgrades on existing SR 99 from Lodi to Elk Grove as well).  It would be a very logical north endpoint to the new I-7 or I-9 interstate route.    I could easily see overhead signs on US 50 indicating:

"9 South - Fresno; 9 North - Reno"

Also, it is nice to see all the overhead freeway signs being replaced.  But, I have noticed that the new signs installed throughout the Sacramento area seem to be blistering and peeling a lot.  I hope what appears to be thin, plastic coating that is currently blistering and peeling off of the new BGSs is not the material used to reflect headlights of oncoming traffic.  Otherwise all those new signs will need to be replaced in less than five years. 

Nonetheless, I say good riddance to the bad rubbish that was the original concept of "Business Loop 80" in Sacramento.   As a life long resident of the Sacramento area, I never liked the concept. US 50 and Interstate 7/9 works well for me. 

Title: Re: Sacramento - odd signs changed from Business 80 to 50 west/east?
Post by: Max Rockatansky on March 09, 2018, 10:13:43 PM
Caltrans is planning to widen and modernize SR 51 (Elvas Freeway) through Midtown Sacramento up to Arden Way, and the upgrades should be in place by 2027.  Should additional upgrades be added on the stretch north of Arden Way on up to the Interstate 80/Auburn Boulevard (244) interchange, the route could become some sort of northbound extension of I-7 or I-9 (assuming additional upgrades on existing SR 99 from Lodi to Elk Grove as well).  It would be a very logical north endpoint to the new I-7 or I-9 interstate route.    I could easily see overhead signs on US 50 indicating:

"9 South - Fresno; 9 North - Reno"

Also, it is nice to see all the overhead freeway signs being replaced.  But, I have noticed that the new signs installed throughout the Sacramento area seem to be blistering and peeling a lot.  I hope what appears to be thin, plastic coating that is currently blistering and peeling off of the new BGSs is not the material used to reflect headlights of oncoming traffic.  Otherwise all those new signs will need to be replaced in less than five years. 

Nonetheless, I say good riddance to the bad rubbish that was the original concept of "Business Loop 80" in Sacramento.   As a life long resident of the Sacramento area, I never liked the concept. US 50 and Interstate 7/9 works well for me.

That all sounds great but CA 99 needs a massive amount of upgrades to meet Interstate standards.  Given some of the chatter Andy cited regarding the I-710 extension I don't see any chance in hell that 99 will be upgraded any time soon.  There are way too many soft shoulders, narrow lanes, and right on/right off ramps to get anyone interested in Interstate upgrades. 

Since Business 80 never became a popular through route, I think Caltrans might as well abandon it.  The US 50 section is easy, sign as US 50 only.
The CA 51 section is more problematic.  I do not agree with making it part of CA 99 - it makes following CA 99 to the northern section problematic.  Maybe the southern section and northern section should have different numbers - if the southern section became I-7 or I-9 that would be simple, but would still leave us wondering what to do with CA 51, because it doesn't meet interstate standards.  I say drop the Business 80 designation and sign it as CA 51.  With accompanying signs southbound "To CA 99 SOUTH - Downtown Sacramento" and northbound to "To I-80 EAST Roseville - Reno" it should be clear enough.

Since the multiplex to that northern section of 99 is presently all but silent why not just change the legislative definition of route 99?  The section of 99 north of I-5 would be more fitting as it's own route, maybe something like CA 499?  That way the legislative definition of 51 could be absorbed into a 99 that meets I-80.
Title: Re: Sacramento - odd signs changed from Business 80 to 50 west/east?
Post by: michravera on March 10, 2018, 06:05:10 PM
If their intent was to get rid of BL 80, then they should sign the eastern half as CA 51 and call it a day.

That would get my vote! It has been CASR-51 for longer than it was I-80 -OR- US-40. People need to adapt.
Title: Re: Sacramento - odd signs changed from Business 80 to 50 west/east?
Post by: mrsman on March 11, 2018, 11:57:09 AM
Caltrans is planning to widen and modernize SR 51 (Elvas Freeway) through Midtown Sacramento up to Arden Way, and the upgrades should be in place by 2027.  Should additional upgrades be added on the stretch north of Arden Way on up to the Interstate 80/Auburn Boulevard (244) interchange, the route could become some sort of northbound extension of I-7 or I-9 (assuming additional upgrades on existing SR 99 from Lodi to Elk Grove as well).  It would be a very logical north endpoint to the new I-7 or I-9 interstate route.    I could easily see overhead signs on US 50 indicating:

"9 South - Fresno; 9 North - Reno"

Also, it is nice to see all the overhead freeway signs being replaced.  But, I have noticed that the new signs installed throughout the Sacramento area seem to be blistering and peeling a lot.  I hope what appears to be thin, plastic coating that is currently blistering and peeling off of the new BGSs is not the material used to reflect headlights of oncoming traffic.  Otherwise all those new signs will need to be replaced in less than five years. 

Nonetheless, I say good riddance to the bad rubbish that was the original concept of "Business Loop 80" in Sacramento.   As a life long resident of the Sacramento area, I never liked the concept. US 50 and Interstate 7/9 works well for me.

If significant parts of 99 become I-9 or I-7, I would imagine that any non-qualifying sections of 99 would become CA 9 or CA 7 (similar to CA 210 and CA 15).  So if we have an interstate corridor up to Stockton or to US 50, the northern section [including the CA 51 freeway] can become CA 9/7.
Title: Re: Sacramento - odd signs changed from Business 80 to 50 west/east?
Post by: roadfro on March 11, 2018, 12:05:47 PM
If their intent was to get rid of BL 80, then they should sign the eastern half as CA 51 and call it a day.

That would get my vote! It has been CASR-51 for longer than it was I-80 -OR- US-40. People need to adapt.

Except that it has never been signed as SR 51, making it a bit harder for people to adapt to...

It is postmiled as SR 51. According to the Wikipedia page, CalTrans refers to it as SR 51 for reporting traffic conditions. But that's about it. (However, I don't disagree with the premise. Just calling it SR 51 makes much more sense.)
Title: Re: Sacramento - odd signs changed from Business 80 to 50 west/east?
Post by: mrsman on March 11, 2018, 01:58:52 PM
If their intent was to get rid of BL 80, then they should sign the eastern half as CA 51 and call it a day.

That would get my vote! It has been CASR-51 for longer than it was I-80 -OR- US-40. People need to adapt.

Except that it has never been signed as SR 51, making it a bit harder for people to adapt to...

It is postmiled as SR 51. According to the Wikipedia page, CalTrans refers to it as SR 51 for reporting traffic conditions. But that's about it. (However, I don't disagree with the premise. Just calling it SR 51 makes much more sense.)

The highway was never directly signed as 51, but there were some signs of the nature of your tax dollars at work that were signed as 51.  This occurred back in the 1990's.  There were articles in the newspaper explaining that 51 was the legal designation of the road for caltrans purposes even though the road was exclusively signed as Biz 80
Title: Re: Sacramento - odd signs changed from Business 80 to 50 west/east?
Post by: sparker on March 11, 2018, 02:18:15 PM
Caltrans is planning to widen and modernize SR 51 (Elvas Freeway) through Midtown Sacramento up to Arden Way, and the upgrades should be in place by 2027.  Should additional upgrades be added on the stretch north of Arden Way on up to the Interstate 80/Auburn Boulevard (244) interchange, the route could become some sort of northbound extension of I-7 or I-9 (assuming additional upgrades on existing SR 99 from Lodi to Elk Grove as well).  It would be a very logical north endpoint to the new I-7 or I-9 interstate route.    I could easily see overhead signs on US 50 indicating:

"9 South - Fresno; 9 North - Reno"

Also, it is nice to see all the overhead freeway signs being replaced.  But, I have noticed that the new signs installed throughout the Sacramento area seem to be blistering and peeling a lot.  I hope what appears to be thin, plastic coating that is currently blistering and peeling off of the new BGSs is not the material used to reflect headlights of oncoming traffic.  Otherwise all those new signs will need to be replaced in less than five years. 

Nonetheless, I say good riddance to the bad rubbish that was the original concept of "Business Loop 80" in Sacramento.   As a life long resident of the Sacramento area, I never liked the concept. US 50 and Interstate 7/9 works well for me.

If significant parts of 99 become I-9 or I-7, I would imagine that any non-qualifying sections of 99 would become CA 9 or CA 7 (similar to CA 210 and CA 15).  So if we have an interstate corridor up to Stockton or to US 50, the northern section [including the CA 51 freeway] can become CA 9/7.

Now that's a series of very viable ideas -- of course, dependent upon any Interstate conversion of CA 99 down the line.  If the Interstate segment terminates in Stockton -- with the current CA 99 between Stockton and Sacramento becoming CA 7 or CA 9 (the latter would piss off a number of folks in the Saratoga area!), the currently convoluted signage issues regarding the continuity of CA 99 in Sacramento would effectively disappear; CA 99 would be truncated back to its current "merge" with I-5 near the airport -- and CA 9 or 7 wouldn't necessarily need to be mentioned at the 5/50 interchange.  However, if I-whatever is designated all the way north to Sacramento, then "TO I-X" would be appended to the exits from at least SB I-5 to EB US 50 as well as at the beginning of US 50 at I-80 in West Sacramento -- and from WB I-80, the current Biz 80 divergence would read "CA X TO I-X/Fresno". 

Of course if the CA 51 improvements were extended northeast all the way to I-80, then whatever Interstate occupied CA 99 could also be routed right up CA 51, as previously stated.  Given Caltrans' reticence to kick Biz 80 to the curb once and for all, it may be that the appearance or near-appearance of a CA 99-based Interstate might be the only incentive for them to actually make changes at all.  While signage of CA 51 would be the obvious plan not needing Interstate activity as a prerequisite, that option's been open to Caltrans for over three decades; but it appears that someone in their midst (or within the District 3 hierarchy) may still be holding on to the Biz 80 concept regardless of its worth (or lack thereof) in the field.

 
The highway was never directly signed as 51, but there were some signs of the nature of your tax dollars at work that were signed as 51.  This occurred back in the 1990's.  There were articles in the newspaper explaining that 51 was the legal designation of the road for caltrans purposes even though the road was exclusively signed as Biz 80


Obviously, that concept never became part of public perception -- and didn't, at the time, make a dent in the signage policies regarding the composite (50/51) corridor.  Admitting to mistakes has never been Caltrans' strong suit. 
Title: Re: Sacramento - odd signs changed from Business 80 to 50 west/east?
Post by: andy3175 on March 17, 2018, 01:18:52 AM
Given Caltrans' reticence to kick Biz 80 to the curb once and for all, it may be that the appearance or near-appearance of a CA 99-based Interstate might be the only incentive for them to actually make changes at all.

All we need is a legislator to carry a bill forward to remove the legislative definition of Business Loop 80 (Section 351.1):

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=SHC&division=1.&title=&part=&chapter=2.&article=3.

Quote
Notwithstanding Section 640, Route 51 shall be signed Interstate Business Loop 80.

Note that there is no Section 350.1 that requires similar provisions for Route 50; i.e., there is no requirement for any portion of US 50 to be signed as Interstate Business Loop 80. Once Caltrans engineers had realized this, the Business 80 signs on Route 50 were removed since there was no legal requirement to post them. This is why US 50 is now signed solely as US 50 between Interstate 80 and Route 99.
Title: Re: Sacramento - odd signs changed from Business 80 to 50 west/east?
Post by: roadfro on March 17, 2018, 01:01:20 PM
Given Caltrans' reticence to kick Biz 80 to the curb once and for all, it may be that the appearance or near-appearance of a CA 99-based Interstate might be the only incentive for them to actually make changes at all.

All we need is a legislator to carry a bill forward to remove the legislative definition of Business Loop 80 (Section 351.1):

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=SHC&division=1.&title=&part=&chapter=2.&article=3.

Quote
Notwithstanding Section 640, Route 51 shall be signed Interstate Business Loop 80.

Note that there is no Section 350.1 that requires similar provisions for Route 50; i.e., there is no requirement for any portion of US 50 to be signed as Interstate Business Loop 80. Once Caltrans engineers had realized this, the Business 80 signs on Route 50 were removed since there was no legal requirement to post them. This is why US 50 is now signed solely as US 50 between Interstate 80 and Route 99.

Note also that the page does not have a Section 640 (it ends at Section 635). The table of contents indicates that the state highway code sections jump from 635 to 660, so Section 640 might have been repealed. Anybody know what Section 640 said?
Title: Re: Sacramento - odd signs changed from Business 80 to 50 west/east?
Post by: sparker on March 17, 2018, 03:53:49 PM
Note that there is no Section 350.1 that requires similar provisions for Route 50; i.e., there is no requirement for any portion of US 50 to be signed as Interstate Business Loop 80. Once Caltrans engineers had realized this, the Business 80 signs on Route 50 were removed since there was no legal requirement to post them. This is why US 50 is now signed solely as US 50 between Interstate 80 and Route 99.

Although a bit backhandedly pathetic, that's kind of funny!  Solve a problem by just letting it fade away.  But, IIRC, the signage from SB 51/Biz 80 for the ramp leading to WB US 50/former Biz 80 still makes reference to the business loop.  I guess D3 is guessing that the "To I-80" signage along the W-X freeway will suffice to give directions back to the "mother route". 

Gathering from this situation -- among others -- it appears that one of Caltrans' new mottos is "Continuity?.....We don't need no stinking continuity!"
Title: Re: Sacramento - odd signs changed from Business 80 to 50 west/east?
Post by: DTComposer on March 17, 2018, 04:53:21 PM
Here's a slightly more fanciful idea: give 99 back to the old US-99E routing. From the Oak Park Interchange, send it north on CA-51, multiplex on I-80 to Roseville, take over CA-65 to Olivehurst (eliminating the giant break in that route which will never be joined), multiplex CA-70 and CA-20 to Yuba City, resume current route.

Current CA-99 from I-5 to Catlett goes to CA-70; current CA-99 from Catlett to Tudor gets a new inconsequential number (maybe....CA-51??); current CA-99 from Tudor to Yuba City goes to CA-113.

Fanciful idea #2: Give the north section of CA-51 (from CA-160 to I-80) to CA-160, leave the southern section on the books as CA-51, but sign as "To CA-99/US-50" or "To I-80." That's only about 3 miles, with three exits.
Title: Re: Sacramento - odd signs changed from Business 80 to 50 west/east?
Post by: kkt on March 18, 2018, 12:39:01 PM
Note that there is no Section 350.1 that requires similar provisions for Route 50; i.e., there is no requirement for any portion of US 50 to be signed as Interstate Business Loop 80. Once Caltrans engineers had realized this, the Business 80 signs on Route 50 were removed since there was no legal requirement to post them. This is why US 50 is now signed solely as US 50 between Interstate 80 and Route 99.

Although a bit backhandedly pathetic, that's kind of funny!  Solve a problem by just letting it fade away.  But, IIRC, the signage from SB 51/Biz 80 for the ramp leading to WB US 50/former Biz 80 still makes reference to the business loop.  I guess D3 is guessing that the "To I-80" signage along the W-X freeway will suffice to give directions back to the "mother route". 

Gathering from this situation -- among others -- it appears that one of Caltrans' new mottos is "Continuity?.....We don't need no stinking continuity!"

Not really a new thing.  Caltrans gave that up back in '64 with only a few exceptions.
Title: Re: Sacramento - odd signs changed from Business 80 to 50 west/east?
Post by: NE2 on March 18, 2018, 12:50:48 PM
Note that there is no Section 350.1 that requires similar provisions for Route 50; i.e., there is no requirement for any portion of US 50 to be signed as Interstate Business Loop 80. Once Caltrans engineers had realized this, the Business 80 signs on Route 50 were removed since there was no legal requirement to post them. This is why US 50 is now signed solely as US 50 between Interstate 80 and Route 99.

Although a bit backhandedly pathetic, that's kind of funny!  Solve a problem by just letting it fade away.  But, IIRC, the signage from SB 51/Biz 80 for the ramp leading to WB US 50/former Biz 80 still makes reference to the business loop.

Not anymore (as of two days ago).
Title: Re: Sacramento - odd signs changed from Business 80 to 50 west/east?
Post by: sparker on March 18, 2018, 01:02:15 PM
Note that there is no Section 350.1 that requires similar provisions for Route 50; i.e., there is no requirement for any portion of US 50 to be signed as Interstate Business Loop 80. Once Caltrans engineers had realized this, the Business 80 signs on Route 50 were removed since there was no legal requirement to post them. This is why US 50 is now signed solely as US 50 between Interstate 80 and Route 99.

Although a bit backhandedly pathetic, that's kind of funny!  Solve a problem by just letting it fade away.  But, IIRC, the signage from SB 51/Biz 80 for the ramp leading to WB US 50/former Biz 80 still makes reference to the business loop.

Not anymore (as of two days ago).

Got some recent pix?  Haven't been SB on 51 for about a year (my Sacramento business takes me east on 50 to the Folsom area); would certainly like to see what the current signage is like!

Well...as the late great Gilda Radner would say, never mind!  Got on GSV (my shitty Comcast modem actually didn't FUBAR that one this morning); saw the signs solely referring to the E-W freeway as US 50; no Biz 80 signage in sight.  Looks like D3 is indeed following the letter of the legislation as narrowly as possible.  Now -- to get them, or the agency in general -- to actually walk a couple of blocks to the state legislators' offices and see about excising the Biz 80 definition appended to the CA 51 definition.  Right now, Biz 80 is effectively a spur, not a loop -- and as such, has virtually no real relevance; in fact, I'm thinking of Biz 80 as the Black Knight in Holy Grail: physically "truncated" but still hanging around being obnoxious. 
Title: Re: Sacramento - odd signs changed from Business 80 to 50 west/east?
Post by: myosh_tino on March 18, 2018, 01:11:01 PM
Note that there is no Section 350.1 that requires similar provisions for Route 50; i.e., there is no requirement for any portion of US 50 to be signed as Interstate Business Loop 80. Once Caltrans engineers had realized this, the Business 80 signs on Route 50 were removed since there was no legal requirement to post them. This is why US 50 is now signed solely as US 50 between Interstate 80 and Route 99.

Although a bit backhandedly pathetic, that's kind of funny!  Solve a problem by just letting it fade away.  But, IIRC, the signage from SB 51/Biz 80 for the ramp leading to WB US 50/former Biz 80 still makes reference to the business loop.

Not anymore (as of two days ago).

Got some recent pix?  Haven't been SB on 51 for about a year (my Sacramento business takes me east on 50 to the Folsom area); would certainly like to see what the current signage is like!

How about a link to Google Maps Street View...

https://goo.gl/maps/zVKK77Xxfjp

Note that this image was taken in September of 2017 so the change has been in place for quite sometime.
Title: Re: Sacramento - odd signs changed from Business 80 to 50 west/east?
Post by: sparker on March 18, 2018, 01:25:18 PM
Note that there is no Section 350.1 that requires similar provisions for Route 50; i.e., there is no requirement for any portion of US 50 to be signed as Interstate Business Loop 80. Once Caltrans engineers had realized this, the Business 80 signs on Route 50 were removed since there was no legal requirement to post them. This is why US 50 is now signed solely as US 50 between Interstate 80 and Route 99.

Although a bit backhandedly pathetic, that's kind of funny!  Solve a problem by just letting it fade away.  But, IIRC, the signage from SB 51/Biz 80 for the ramp leading to WB US 50/former Biz 80 still makes reference to the business loop.

Not anymore (as of two days ago).

Got some recent pix?  Haven't been SB on 51 for about a year (my Sacramento business takes me east on 50 to the Folsom area); would certainly like to see what the current signage is like!

How about a link to Google Maps Street View...

https://goo.gl/maps/zVKK77Xxfjp

Note that this image was taken in September of 2017 so the change has been in place for quite sometime.

Thanks.....I was probably looking while you were typing.  Like I said, hadn't been on 51 itself for about a year.  Just surprised to not see some reference to WB I-80 or at least I-5 on the West 50 ramp signage, given that US 50 only extends a few miles west to its terminus.   Guess it's just D3 being hyper-literal! 
Title: Re: Sacramento - odd signs changed from Business 80 to 50 west/east?
Post by: Occidental Tourist on March 20, 2018, 12:16:09 AM
Note also that the page does not have a Section 640 (it ends at Section 635). The table of contents indicates that the state highway code sections jump from 635 to 660, so Section 640 might have been repealed. Anybody know what Section 640 said?

Among other things, to promote route continuity, the section required that Caltrans sign highways according to their numerical designations in the Streets & Highways Code.

I知 on a tablet, so I can稚 excerpt the text.  Google 鼎alifornia Streets & Highways Code section 640 and select the result that痴 the 1957 California Senate Journal.
Title: Re: Sacramento - odd signs changed from Business 80 to 50 west/east?
Post by: mrsman on March 21, 2018, 06:08:22 PM
Note that there is no Section 350.1 that requires similar provisions for Route 50; i.e., there is no requirement for any portion of US 50 to be signed as Interstate Business Loop 80. Once Caltrans engineers had realized this, the Business 80 signs on Route 50 were removed since there was no legal requirement to post them. This is why US 50 is now signed solely as US 50 between Interstate 80 and Route 99.

Although a bit backhandedly pathetic, that's kind of funny!  Solve a problem by just letting it fade away.  But, IIRC, the signage from SB 51/Biz 80 for the ramp leading to WB US 50/former Biz 80 still makes reference to the business loop.

Not anymore (as of two days ago).

Got some recent pix?  Haven't been SB on 51 for about a year (my Sacramento business takes me east on 50 to the Folsom area); would certainly like to see what the current signage is like!

How about a link to Google Maps Street View...

https://goo.gl/maps/zVKK77Xxfjp

Note that this image was taken in September of 2017 so the change has been in place for quite sometime.

Thanks.....I was probably looking while you were typing.  Like I said, hadn't been on 51 itself for about a year.  Just surprised to not see some reference to WB I-80 or at least I-5 on the West 50 ramp signage, given that US 50 only extends a few miles west to its terminus.   Guess it's just D3 being hyper-literal!

I think the SF control serves the purpose of telling people the way to get back to I-80.  Likewise, for the other direction, the Reno control serves the same purpose so there is really no need for the Biz-80 designation.  Let's get the legislation passed.

What is interesting about the sign is that D3 removed designations while D7 added designations.  As many know, this sign used to read Biz-80 west to I-5, so the sign used to have 3 designations (50west, Biz-80 east and I-5) and now only has US 50.  (IMO this is much better, US 50 alone is much simpler.)  In constrast, in Downtown LA, signs along the southern section of the 101 used to read "5 Santa Ana/ 10 San Bernardino" now read "101 south to 5 south 10 east 60 east".  More designations of highways but no control cities at all!  (I would prefer a sign that says US 101 south Santa Ana/San Bernardino and supplemental signage on the shoulder saying traffic for 10 east, 60 east and 5 south should follow 101 south.)

The Catrans districts indeed operate like separate fiefdoms.
Title: Re: Sacramento - odd signs changed from Business 80 to 50 west/east?
Post by: sparker on March 21, 2018, 06:48:16 PM
I think the SF control serves the purpose of telling people the way to get back to I-80.  Likewise, for the other direction, the Reno control serves the same purpose so there is really no need for the Biz-80 designation.  Let's get the legislation passed.

What is interesting about the sign is that D3 removed designations while D7 added designations.  As many know, this sign used to read Biz-80 west to I-5, so the sign used to have 3 designations (50west, Biz-80 east and I-5) and now only has US 50.  (IMO this is much better, US 50 alone is much simpler.)  In constrast, in Downtown LA, signs along the southern section of the 101 used to read "5 Santa Ana/ 10 San Bernardino" now read "101 south to 5 south 10 east 60 east".  More designations of highways but no control cities at all!  (I would prefer a sign that says US 101 south Santa Ana/San Bernardino and supplemental signage on the shoulder saying traffic for 10 east, 60 east and 5 south should follow 101 south.)

The Catrans districts indeed operate like separate fiefdoms.

Seeing as how current SoCal idiom tends to emphasize the route number as the sole reference to a particular freeway, the "TO" multi-route reference probably isn't terribly inappropriate down there.  D7 seems to go through alternating phases of "simple" vs. "comprehensive"; the more recent signage seems to indicate a bias toward the latter under the current district regime.  That being said, I would think that a little of that thinking might benefit the D3 signage game, particularly in reference to the Oak Park 50/51/99 interchange; my choice would be to append "To West I-80" on the SB 51/Biz 80 approach -- but only if 51 still carries the Biz 80 signage!  If, on the other hand, if actual CA 51 signage eventually supplants the green Interstate shields, then the business loop concept will have effectively dissipated and directions to get back on I-80 likely would be unnecessary.   And, IMO, signage onto 51 should read -- from all Oak Park approaches "CA 51 to east I-80/Reno", and from WB I-80 "CA 51 to south CA 99".  Period.  No US 50 reference needed, as the major portion of that route involves something of a backwards angle from the generally SW trajectory of I-80 in the region. 
Title: Re: Sacramento - odd signs changed from Business 80 to 50 west/east?
Post by: michravera on March 21, 2018, 09:45:24 PM
I think the SF control serves the purpose of telling people the way to get back to I-80.  Likewise, for the other direction, the Reno control serves the same purpose so there is really no need for the Biz-80 designation.  Let's get the legislation passed.

What is interesting about the sign is that D3 removed designations while D7 added designations.  As many know, this sign used to read Biz-80 west to I-5, so the sign used to have 3 designations (50west, Biz-80 east and I-5) and now only has US 50.  (IMO this is much better, US 50 alone is much simpler.)  In constrast, in Downtown LA, signs along the southern section of the 101 used to read "5 Santa Ana/ 10 San Bernardino" now read "101 south to 5 south 10 east 60 east".  More designations of highways but no control cities at all!  (I would prefer a sign that says US 101 south Santa Ana/San Bernardino and supplemental signage on the shoulder saying traffic for 10 east, 60 east and 5 south should follow 101 south.)

The Catrans districts indeed operate like separate fiefdoms.

Seeing as how current SoCal idiom tends to emphasize the route number as the sole reference to a particular freeway, the "TO" multi-route reference probably isn't terribly inappropriate down there.  D7 seems to go through alternating phases of "simple" vs. "comprehensive"; the more recent signage seems to indicate a bias toward the latter under the current district regime.  That being said, I would think that a little of that thinking might benefit the D3 signage game, particularly in reference to the Oak Park 50/51/99 interchange; my choice would be to append "To West I-80" on the SB 51/Biz 80 approach -- but only if 51 still carries the Biz 80 signage!  If, on the other hand, if actual CA 51 signage eventually supplants the green Interstate shields, then the business loop concept will have effectively dissipated and directions to get back on I-80 likely would be unnecessary.   And, IMO, signage onto 51 should read -- from all Oak Park approaches "CA 51 to east I-80/Reno", and from WB I-80 "CA 51 to south CA 99".  Period.  No US 50 reference needed, as the major portion of that route involves something of a backwards angle from the generally SW trajectory of I-80 in the region.

Finding a good control city for NB CASR-51 isn't easy. Perhaps "Midtown Sacramento" or "N E Sacramento" or "Arden / Arcade" would work. Whatever you signed at Oak Park could be used SB at CASR-244 and then sign "Fresno" once you pass about H street. (or even the American River). Another idea is "American River Bridge" or whatever the bridge is eventual called ("John Sutter" or "Florence Truton Clunie" or "William Bancroft" or "Lynnette 'Squeaky' Fromme" Bridge). There is precedent for this in the Bay Area: "Golden Gate Bridge" and "Dumbarton Bridge". How is EB CASR-92 signed at US-101?
Title: Re: Sacramento - odd signs changed from Business 80 to 50 west/east?
Post by: MrAndy1369 on March 21, 2018, 11:40:24 PM
I think the SF control serves the purpose of telling people the way to get back to I-80.  Likewise, for the other direction, the Reno control serves the same purpose so there is really no need for the Biz-80 designation.  Let's get the legislation passed.

What is interesting about the sign is that D3 removed designations while D7 added designations.  As many know, this sign used to read Biz-80 west to I-5, so the sign used to have 3 designations (50west, Biz-80 east and I-5) and now only has US 50.  (IMO this is much better, US 50 alone is much simpler.)  In constrast, in Downtown LA, signs along the southern section of the 101 used to read "5 Santa Ana/ 10 San Bernardino" now read "101 south to 5 south 10 east 60 east".  More designations of highways but no control cities at all!  (I would prefer a sign that says US 101 south Santa Ana/San Bernardino and supplemental signage on the shoulder saying traffic for 10 east, 60 east and 5 south should follow 101 south.)

The Catrans districts indeed operate like separate fiefdoms.

Seeing as how current SoCal idiom tends to emphasize the route number as the sole reference to a particular freeway, the "TO" multi-route reference probably isn't terribly inappropriate down there.  D7 seems to go through alternating phases of "simple" vs. "comprehensive"; the more recent signage seems to indicate a bias toward the latter under the current district regime.  That being said, I would think that a little of that thinking might benefit the D3 signage game, particularly in reference to the Oak Park 50/51/99 interchange; my choice would be to append "To West I-80" on the SB 51/Biz 80 approach -- but only if 51 still carries the Biz 80 signage!  If, on the other hand, if actual CA 51 signage eventually supplants the green Interstate shields, then the business loop concept will have effectively dissipated and directions to get back on I-80 likely would be unnecessary.   And, IMO, signage onto 51 should read -- from all Oak Park approaches "CA 51 to east I-80/Reno", and from WB I-80 "CA 51 to south CA 99".  Period.  No US 50 reference needed, as the major portion of that route involves something of a backwards angle from the generally SW trajectory of I-80 in the region.

Finding a good control city for NB CASR-51 isn't easy. Perhaps "Midtown Sacramento" or "N E Sacramento" or "Arden / Arcade" would work. Whatever you signed at Oak Park could be used SB at CASR-244 and then sign "Fresno" once you pass about H street. (or even the American River). Another idea is "American River Bridge" or whatever the bridge is eventual called ("John Sutter" or "Florence Truton Clunie" or "William Bancroft" or "Lynnette 'Squeaky' Fromme" Bridge). There is precedent for this in the Bay Area: "Golden Gate Bridge" and "Dumbarton Bridge". How is EB CASR-92 signed at US-101?

Looking at 101 NB and 92 EB, it says:

"East 92
Hayward
San Mateo Br"
Title: Re: Sacramento - odd signs changed from Business 80 to 50 west/east?
Post by: mrsman on March 22, 2018, 12:58:59 AM
I think the SF control serves the purpose of telling people the way to get back to I-80.  Likewise, for the other direction, the Reno control serves the same purpose so there is really no need for the Biz-80 designation.  Let's get the legislation passed.

What is interesting about the sign is that D3 removed designations while D7 added designations.  As many know, this sign used to read Biz-80 west to I-5, so the sign used to have 3 designations (50west, Biz-80 east and I-5) and now only has US 50.  (IMO this is much better, US 50 alone is much simpler.)  In constrast, in Downtown LA, signs along the southern section of the 101 used to read "5 Santa Ana/ 10 San Bernardino" now read "101 south to 5 south 10 east 60 east".  More designations of highways but no control cities at all!  (I would prefer a sign that says US 101 south Santa Ana/San Bernardino and supplemental signage on the shoulder saying traffic for 10 east, 60 east and 5 south should follow 101 south.)

The Catrans districts indeed operate like separate fiefdoms.

Seeing as how current SoCal idiom tends to emphasize the route number as the sole reference to a particular freeway, the "TO" multi-route reference probably isn't terribly inappropriate down there.  D7 seems to go through alternating phases of "simple" vs. "comprehensive"; the more recent signage seems to indicate a bias toward the latter under the current district regime.  That being said, I would think that a little of that thinking might benefit the D3 signage game, particularly in reference to the Oak Park 50/51/99 interchange; my choice would be to append "To West I-80" on the SB 51/Biz 80 approach -- but only if 51 still carries the Biz 80 signage!  If, on the other hand, if actual CA 51 signage eventually supplants the green Interstate shields, then the business loop concept will have effectively dissipated and directions to get back on I-80 likely would be unnecessary.   And, IMO, signage onto 51 should read -- from all Oak Park approaches "CA 51 to east I-80/Reno", and from WB I-80 "CA 51 to south CA 99".  Period.  No US 50 reference needed, as the major portion of that route involves something of a backwards angle from the generally SW trajectory of I-80 in the region.

Finding a good control city for NB CASR-51 isn't easy. Perhaps "Midtown Sacramento" or "N E Sacramento" or "Arden / Arcade" would work. Whatever you signed at Oak Park could be used SB at CASR-244 and then sign "Fresno" once you pass about H street. (or even the American River). Another idea is "American River Bridge" or whatever the bridge is eventual called ("John Sutter" or "Florence Truton Clunie" or "William Bancroft" or "Lynnette 'Squeaky' Fromme" Bridge). There is precedent for this in the Bay Area: "Golden Gate Bridge" and "Dumbarton Bridge". How is EB CASR-92 signed at US-101?

I don't see a need to change the control cities on 51.  Just because the number that is signed has changed doesn't mean that the road goes to different places.  The control for NB 51 is now Reno and should remain Reno as its main function is to lead to I-80 east from the eastern side of Sacramento.  (There are many examples of this in CA where the control for a road is beyond where the road goes, but rather to a destination that the road leads to.  And this is OK. Example I-680 NB to Sacramento doesn't actually go to Sac but leads to I-80 which does.)

For SB CA 51, the control between I-80 and CA 160 is rightfully Sacramento as it takes people towards downtown Sacramento.  (I would also add the control Fresno because at this point it is an important connection towards CA 99.)  At the CA 160 split, the signage has an interesting history.  In its earliest days, this was the split of US 40 to 12th St Sac and US 99E to 29th St Sac. 

See:  http://archive.li/VyU0u

In the early interstate era, this road was I-80.  I imagine this had a control of SF, but I don't know for sure if that was signed at the split.

In more recent times, the sign has said "Biz 80 Capital City Fwy to US 50 and CA 99" and now says "Biz 80 Capital City Fwy".  I believe that this should be streamlined to read "CA 51 south Fresno San Francisco" (without the need for reference to other freeways.)
(The on-ramps to the freeway at both Arden and Expo currently have a control of SF.  If feasible, Fresno should be added to these signs if the road is signed as CA-51.)

FWIW, I'm glad that they signed the WX as US 50 instead of Biz-80 or (gasp) I-305.  It makes no sense to change the designation of the main e-w freeway in Sacramento.  And if you think that signing it as I-305 is too crazy, how do you explain signing the western section of CA 24 as I-980.  IMO, its an unnecessary and confusing designation.
Title: Re: Sacramento - odd signs changed from Business 80 to 50 west/east?
Post by: sparker on March 22, 2018, 01:00:03 AM
In the Bay Area, the bridges need to be mentioned because of the tolls (even in the free directions, apparently) and the relative familiarity of the bridge names vis-a-vis the route number (although KCBS News, with its every-10-minute traffic reports tends to cite both name and route when discussing traffic conditions).  But getting back to Sacramento, IMO "TO I-80 East/Reno" is an appropriate control NB; "Downtown Sacramento" is fine for SB 51 down as far as the CA 160 divergence; at that point simply "To CA 99" would likely suffice for the remainder of the route.  Locals (particularly state employees) pretty much know where they're going; the signage would be more for through travelers.
Title: Re: Sacramento - odd signs changed from Business 80 to 50 west/east?
Post by: michravera on March 22, 2018, 06:04:12 PM
I think the SF control serves the purpose of telling people the way to get back to I-80.  Likewise, for the other direction, the Reno control serves the same purpose so there is really no need for the Biz-80 designation.  Let's get the legislation passed.

What is interesting about the sign is that D3 removed designations while D7 added designations.  As many know, this sign used to read Biz-80 west to I-5, so the sign used to have 3 designations (50west, Biz-80 east and I-5) and now only has US 50.  (IMO this is much better, US 50 alone is much simpler.)  In constrast, in Downtown LA, signs along the southern section of the 101 used to read "5 Santa Ana/ 10 San Bernardino" now read "101 south to 5 south 10 east 60 east".  More designations of highways but no control cities at all!  (I would prefer a sign that says US 101 south Santa Ana/San Bernardino and supplemental signage on the shoulder saying traffic for 10 east, 60 east and 5 south should follow 101 south.)

The Catrans districts indeed operate like separate fiefdoms.

Seeing as how current SoCal idiom tends to emphasize the route number as the sole reference to a particular freeway, the "TO" multi-route reference probably isn't terribly inappropriate down there.  D7 seems to go through alternating phases of "simple" vs. "comprehensive"; the more recent signage seems to indicate a bias toward the latter under the current district regime.  That being said, I would think that a little of that thinking might benefit the D3 signage game, particularly in reference to the Oak Park 50/51/99 interchange; my choice would be to append "To West I-80" on the SB 51/Biz 80 approach -- but only if 51 still carries the Biz 80 signage!  If, on the other hand, if actual CA 51 signage eventually supplants the green Interstate shields, then the business loop concept will have effectively dissipated and directions to get back on I-80 likely would be unnecessary.   And, IMO, signage onto 51 should read -- from all Oak Park approaches "CA 51 to east I-80/Reno", and from WB I-80 "CA 51 to south CA 99".  Period.  No US 50 reference needed, as the major portion of that route involves something of a backwards angle from the generally SW trajectory of I-80 in the region.

Finding a good control city for NB CASR-51 isn't easy. Perhaps "Midtown Sacramento" or "N E Sacramento" or "Arden / Arcade" would work. Whatever you signed at Oak Park could be used SB at CASR-244 and then sign "Fresno" once you pass about H street. (or even the American River). Another idea is "American River Bridge" or whatever the bridge is eventual called ("John Sutter" or "Florence Truton Clunie" or "William Bancroft" or "Lynnette 'Squeaky' Fromme" Bridge). There is precedent for this in the Bay Area: "Golden Gate Bridge" and "Dumbarton Bridge". How is EB CASR-92 signed at US-101?

I don't see a need to change the control cities on 51.  Just because the number that is signed has changed doesn't mean that the road goes to different places.  The control for NB 51 is now Reno and should remain Reno as its main function is to lead to I-80 east from the eastern side of Sacramento.  (There are many examples of this in CA where the control for a road is beyond where the road goes, but rather to a destination that the road leads to.  And this is OK. Example I-680 NB to Sacramento doesn't actually go to Sac but leads to I-80 which does.)

For SB CA 51, the control between I-80 and CA 160 is rightfully Sacramento as it takes people towards downtown Sacramento.  (I would also add the control Fresno because at this point it is an important connection towards CA 99.)  At the CA 160 split, the signage has an interesting history.  In its earliest days, this was the split of US 40 to 12th St Sac and US 99E to 29th St Sac. 

See:  http://archive.li/VyU0u

In the early interstate era, this road was I-80.  I imagine this had a control of SF, but I don't know for sure if that was signed at the split.

In more recent times, the sign has said "Biz 80 Capital City Fwy to US 50 and CA 99" and now says "Biz 80 Capital City Fwy".  I believe that this should be streamlined to read "CA 51 south Fresno San Francisco" (without the need for reference to other freeways.)
(The on-ramps to the freeway at both Arden and Expo currently have a control of SF.  If feasible, Fresno should be added to these signs if the road is signed as CA-51.)

FWIW, I'm glad that they signed the WX as US 50 instead of Biz-80 or (gasp) I-305.  It makes no sense to change the designation of the main e-w freeway in Sacramento.  And if you think that signing it as I-305 is too crazy, how do you explain signing the western section of CA 24 as I-980.  IMO, its an unnecessary and confusing designation.

I'm not saying that the control city needs to be a place that the road actually goes. But, rather, that it should give a good idea of where the road goes. This is one reason NOT to sign "San Francisco" anywhere in the LA area. To me, "Reno" doesn't make any sense on NB CASR-51 (at least until passed CASR-160 and really not until you get almost to Watt). For reference, no control point is signed on most of CASR-87 in San Jose.

Maybe CASR-51 could be just signed as "CASR-51" or "CASR-51 Capitol City Freeway"
Title: Re: Sacramento - odd signs changed from Business 80 to 50 west/east?
Post by: sparker on March 22, 2018, 06:30:00 PM
In the era before I-80 was (originally) snaked through Sacramento on what is (or was) the full Biz 80 loop, some of the references, particularly on the older section of what's now CA 51 in the Arden/El Camino area, read "Roseville/Reno".  Seeing that Roseville is now over 100K population and a commercial "magnet" on its own, that city may be an appropriate control city for NB CA 51; Reno need not be mentioned until at least the merge with I-80 at the CA 244 stub. 

CA 87's an odd bird indeed; "TO US 101" and "TO CA 85" seem to suffice as controls from intersecting freeways (primarily I-280) and the various crossing arterials.  Seeing as how SB traffic splits about 60-40 between 85 south and 85 north, using one of the controls of that route might not be particularly useful; and certainly "Oakridge Mall" (via the Santa Teresa exit right before the 85 split) would be laughable.  And on the north -- while 87's sole state highway exit simply spills out onto NB US 101, a sizeable amount of traffic veers right onto Charcot Street to access the tech-heavy sector via North First, Zanker, and Junction Streets -- so utilizing 101's control system for NB 87 would not address the local traffic patterns endemic to 87's role as a commute arterial.
Title: Re: Sacramento - odd signs changed from Business 80 to 50 west/east?
Post by: mrsman on March 22, 2018, 08:16:43 PM
In the era before I-80 was (originally) snaked through Sacramento on what is (or was) the full Biz 80 loop, some of the references, particularly on the older section of what's now CA 51 in the Arden/El Camino area, read "Roseville/Reno".  Seeing that Roseville is now over 100K population and a commercial "magnet" on its own, that city may be an appropriate control city for NB CA 51; Reno need not be mentioned until at least the merge with I-80 at the CA 244 stub. 

CA 87's an odd bird indeed; "TO US 101" and "TO CA 85" seem to suffice as controls from intersecting freeways (primarily I-280) and the various crossing arterials.  Seeing as how SB traffic splits about 60-40 between 85 south and 85 north, using one of the controls of that route might not be particularly useful; and certainly "Oakridge Mall" (via the Santa Teresa exit right before the 85 split) would be laughable.  And on the north -- while 87's sole state highway exit simply spills out onto NB US 101, a sizeable amount of traffic veers right onto Charcot Street to access the tech-heavy sector via North First, Zanker, and Junction Streets -- so utilizing 101's control system for NB 87 would not address the local traffic patterns endemic to 87's role as a commute arterial.

85 and 87, the newer generation of freeways in the San Jose area, do have odd control city choices.  While Mtn View and Gilroy are definitely accurate for 85, it is odd since most bypasses (nationally) have long distance controls.  So at the southern 101/85 jct, I'd expect 101 to have a San Jose control and 85 to have a SF control, but since 101 has always had the SF control and 85 is a much newer highway they decided to give 85 the local control of Mtn View instead.

87 at least has the occasional control for Downtown San Jose.  But I don't like the lack of a city for the exterior parts of 87.  We don't need to repeat the problems of I-605!  I would personally use SF and Gilroy to be consistent with the existing controls on 101 and 85. 

And how about the control for I-280 south between 87 and 101?  Sacramento?  Los Angeles?  This one is really tough since I-280 really turns east here, but is signed southbound.  Most of the lanes of course lead to 680 toward Sacramento, but the notion of 280 south to Sacramento is of course wrong since Sac is north of San Jose.  Those signs would just lead to confusion, so they probably are better off the way they are.
Title: Re: Sacramento - odd signs changed from Business 80 to 50 west/east?
Post by: sparker on March 22, 2018, 10:01:52 PM
Frankly, I grew up with I-605 (I was 21 when the last section north of I-10 was opened) and don't see any particular issues with a lack of control city (either direction would be a "dartboard" process -- pick a 'burb, any 'burb!), although SB a limited case could be made for Long Beach, at least south of I-105.  It's just a quasi-convenient N-S connector for all the other freeways it crosses -- and a good alternative to get from the L.A./Long Beach port area to other routes heading east.  CA 87 just doesn't get a lot of non-local usage; folks going to downtown SJ from NB 101 generally just use I-280.  And downtown SJ is indeed the CA 87 control for those who find themselves on CA 85.  At least the 101 approach to 87 has secondary signage for both downtown and the airport -- although the BGS at the exit reads "CA 87/Guadalupe Parkway", the same basic signage deployed in 1987 when that section of the route was an at-grade expressway (and the first field signage for CA 87) -- it might be better if the downtown/airport reference was included on that sign rather than off to the side of US 101.     
Title: Re: Sacramento - odd signs changed from Business 80 to 50 west/east?
Post by: myosh_tino on March 23, 2018, 01:56:54 PM
At least the 101 approach to 87 has secondary signage for both downtown and the airport -- although the BGS at the exit reads "CA 87/Guadalupe Parkway", the same basic signage deployed in 1987 when that section of the route was an at-grade expressway (and the first field signage for CA 87) -- it might be better if the downtown/airport reference was included on that sign rather than off to the side of US 101.   

That particular exit sign was replaced this past year and now reads "87 SOUTH" with no control point or road name but does include an airport symbol...

(http://markyville.com/aaroads/101s-87s.png)

I would rather lose the airport symbol and have a conventional control point...

(http://markyville.com/aaroads/101s-87s_alt.png)
Title: Re: Sacramento - odd signs changed from Business 80 to 50 west/east?
Post by: TheStranger on March 23, 2018, 03:06:27 PM


85 and 87, the newer generation of freeways in the San Jose area, do have odd control city choices.  While Mtn View and Gilroy are definitely accurate for 85, it is odd since most bypasses (nationally) have long distance controls.  So at the southern 101/85 jct, I'd expect 101 to have a San Jose control and 85 to have a SF control, but since 101 has always had the SF control and 85 is a much newer highway they decided to give 85 the local control of Mtn View instead.

IIRC Route 85 south of I-280 has restrictions on heavy trucks and I surmise this is why it isn't signed southbound for US 101's long distance control in the South Bay (Los Angeles) or for San Francisco going northbound.



And how about the control for I-280 south between 87 and 101?  Sacramento?  Los Angeles?  This one is really tough since I-280 really turns east here, but is signed southbound.  Most of the lanes of course lead to 680 toward Sacramento, but the notion of 280 south to Sacramento is of course wrong since Sac is north of San Jose.  Those signs would just lead to confusion, so they probably are better off the way they are.

Southbound 280 past 87 really works as "TO 101/680" if anything IMO.
Title: Re: Sacramento - odd signs changed from Business 80 to 50 west/east?
Post by: sparker on March 23, 2018, 04:36:52 PM
At least the 101 approach to 87 has secondary signage for both downtown and the airport -- although the BGS at the exit reads "CA 87/Guadalupe Parkway", the same basic signage deployed in 1987 when that section of the route was an at-grade expressway (and the first field signage for CA 87) -- it might be better if the downtown/airport reference was included on that sign rather than off to the side of US 101.   

That particular exit sign was replaced this past year and now reads "87 SOUTH" with no control point or road name but does include an airport symbol...

(http://markyville.com/aaroads/101s-87s.png)

I would rather lose the airport symbol and have a conventional control point...

(http://markyville.com/aaroads/101s-87s_alt.png)

Just did my first full CA 87 north-to-south trip in a couple of months this morning (don't get north of 280 all that often) and noticed the all-caps "87 South" sign with the airport symbol.  Fully agree about the "Downtown San Jose" substitution being optimal; the airport notation (including symbol) could easily be located to the side just before the ramp (although it's plainly obvious that the airport's near -- the runway ends near the 101 De La Cruz exit just NW of the 87 interchange).
 
IIRC Route 85 south of I-280 has restrictions on heavy trucks and I surmise this is why it isn't signed southbound for US 101's long distance control in the South Bay (Los Angeles) or for San Francisco going northbound.

Great point -- while 85 looks like an alternative to US 101, the truck restriction (noted prominently at the south CA 87 terminus) makes it less than a universal routing option.  However the same doesn't apply to I-580 in Oakland; Stockton is cited as a control city as far back as the I-80/580/880 interchange.
Title: Re: Sacramento - odd signs changed from Business 80 to 50 west/east?
Post by: DTComposer on March 23, 2018, 04:44:01 PM
85 and 87, the newer generation of freeways in the San Jose area, do have odd control city choices.  While Mtn View and Gilroy are definitely accurate for 85, it is odd since most bypasses (nationally) have long distance controls.  So at the southern 101/85 jct, I'd expect 101 to have a San Jose control and 85 to have a SF control, but since 101 has always had the SF control and 85 is a much newer highway they decided to give 85 the local control of Mtn View instead.
IIRC Route 85 south of I-280 has restrictions on heavy trucks and I surmise this is why it isn't signed southbound for US 101's long distance control in the South Bay (Los Angeles) or for San Francisco going northbound.

Correct about the truck restriction. However, the controls vary depending on the vintage of the highway and I'm wondering how dependent they are/were on the truck restriction. At the north terminus (i.e. the 1960s portion of the route), controls from US-101 southbound are Cupertino/Santa Cruz. This is reinforced on pull-through signage at the CA-82 junction (that said, from CA-237 west to CA-85 south the controls are Los Gatos/Santa Cruz).

Before CA-85 was completed south of I-280, signage for I-280 south directed drivers to San Jose/Santa Cruz (now the Santa Cruz has been greened out).

From I-280 south, the control is just Gilroy. Santa Cruz is dropped from pull-throughs and not mentioned again until CA-17 south.

So here's where I wonder about the truck restriction coming into play: If you're on I-280 south and you see CA-85 south/Gilroy, that's using CA-85 as a bypass to downtown San Jose, and wouldn't that therefore imply long-distance drivers (including trucks) should use it as such?

I would use more local controls throughout the route:

Heading south from US-101: Cupertino/Los Gatos
(Santa Cruz on supplemental signage. I chose this because Los Gatos is used as a destination on the traffic time VMS but is not mentioned on any other signage).
From I-280: Los Gatos/Santa Cruz
From CA-17: Gilroy

Heading north:
From US-101: Los Gatos/Mountain View
(Cupertino, Santa Cruz on supplemental signs)
From CA-17: Cupertino/Mountain View
From I-280: Mountain View
From CA-82/CA-237: To US-101/San Francisco
Title: Re: Sacramento - odd signs changed from Business 80 to 50 west/east?
Post by: sparker on March 23, 2018, 06:06:44 PM
So here's where I wonder about the truck restriction coming into play: If you're on I-280 south and you see CA-85 south/Gilroy, that's using CA-85 as a bypass to downtown San Jose, and wouldn't that therefore imply long-distance drivers (including trucks) should use it as such?

IMO, signage from SB 280 would optimally read "South CA 85/Los Gatos/Gilroy" -- but with prominent secondary signage, preferably on the I-280 pull-through panel, stating "Gilroy Trucks Use I-280 to US 101" -- and repeat this message on at least two successive BGS assemblies (along with the existing truck-restriction notices for CA 85 south). 
Title: Re: Sacramento - odd signs changed from Business 80 to 50 west/east?
Post by: sparker on March 27, 2018, 05:45:14 PM
Just got back from a 1-day Sacramento business trip that took me north on CA 99 from Manteca to US 50; have a few observations re the things brought up in this thread:

Signage at the Oak Park interchange seems to be evolving to minimalist, particularly as regards US 50 west of the interchange.  The old button-copy sign on NB 99 referencing "TO I-5, CA 99, I-80 West" about a half-mile south of the exit ramp was still there -- but Caltrans crews were out and about and up on the sign gantry itself -- it's probably not long for this world.  Just prior to that sign was a newer reflective-copy sign stating "To North CA 99/Yuba City, Use Exit 298A" which refers to the ramp leading to US 50 westbound.  But once on the exit ramp, there's no more reference to a continuation of CA 99, simply US 50 West/San Francisco or US 50 East/South Lake Tahoe at the ramp split.  The only reference to anything besides US 50 within the interchange itself is the pull-through on WB 50; it states "West US 50 TO I-80/San Francisco"  It would seem to me wise to at least "walk" a driver wanting to continue along CA 99 through the Oak Park "maze" by including that reference on the ensuing signage (since expecting drivers to memorize the exit number -- particularly if it's the same number with an "A" or "B" suffix -- isn't a likely scenario).  Omitting I-5 and I-80 themselves from the approach sign isn't terribly egregious, as long as the continuation of CA 99 is clearly marked; if Oak Park is successfully negotiated, the signage for the two Interstates will appear soon enough on WB 50. 

There's a big, tall Biz 80 shield on east US 50 in West Sac just east of the Harbor Blvd. interchange (looks like the vertically elongated profile I-shields deployed statewide in the late '90's).   With the "simplification" rationale prevailing, I would have thought that would have been history by now. 

And, finally, I ended up shooting off a very pointed email to D3 this morning concerning the fact that bridges aren't lining up (vertically) very well with the adjacent carriageways; some of the vertical drops are at least several inches -- and ome rises/bumps are of similar height.  Particularly egregious are the ramps from US 50 EB to I-5 SB, coming off the Pioneer Bridge itself I encountered one bump and one drop in a row (the "bump" was particularly jarring in my relatively low Camry); it appears the  bridges had settled more than just a bit in relation to the berm atop which the ramp is seated.  This was the worst of the issues; the pavement on US 50 EB between Harbor Blvd. and the Pioneer Bridge was also quite rough, with a number of vertical mismatches (though not to the degree found on the I-5 ramp).  Just a warning to folks using US 50 EB through the area:  it's going to be a bumpy ride!