Interstate 210 shields on new section of California state route 210?

[noelbotevera]

Could always bring back CA 30 over 210. 

Honestly if Caltrans doesn't sign SR 210 as I-210 soon enough I'd advocate for this. Route 30 roles off the tongue (and coincides with SR 330) better then Route 210.

They'll sooner sign I-305.

I'm thinking that maybe every project or upgrade that ends up in limbo on the Caltrans catalog ought to be renumbered CA 39.  That way nobody will ever have any expectation of the work, upgrades or repairs ever being complete.  Come to think of it...they could also use CA 173 for a similar purpose. 

I prefer CA 90. That gap being filled in has a completion date of 3016.

[Max Rockatansky]

Could always bring back CA 30 over 210. 

Honestly if Caltrans doesn't sign SR 210 as I-210 soon enough I'd advocate for this. Route 30 roles off the tongue (and coincides with SR 330) better then Route 210.

They'll sooner sign I-305.

I'm thinking that maybe every project or upgrade that ends up in limbo on the Caltrans catalog ought to be renumbered CA 39.  That way nobody will ever have any expectation of the work, upgrades or repairs ever being complete.  Come to think of it...they could also use CA 173 for a similar purpose. 

I prefer CA 90. That gap being filled in has a completion date of 3016.

I thought most of it was relinquished to Yorba Linda? 

[Quillz]

Since all the routes in Caltrans' log are by official status state routes -- without differentiation as to type -- the full 85 miles from Sylmar to Redlands are simply, to the agency, "210" -- period.  Once the entire freeway was opened, it was likely, as far as they were concerned, a done deal.  Regardless of the roadgeek tendency to bite our nails over such anomalies, an Interstate designation would be simply an extra layer of icing on that particular cake!  If the designation upgrade does happen, it'll be due to political pressure from the region rather than anything internal -- and at the moment, the Inland Empire has more pressing issues with the San Bernardino bankruptcy, the housing market still reeling from the 2008 downturn, et cetera.  It'll probably happen eventually -- but it's a bit premature to get any office pools going regarding just when!

By this logic, does this mean Caltrans has no actual desire to renumber CA-99 once the various widening and upgrades are complete? I have heard many rumors about "Interstate 7" or "Interstate 9," but frankly, I'd rather CA-99 just stick around, even if the entire route was interstate-quality.

[andy3175]

Although not directly on point with SR 210, I drove SR 15 today and noted some new signs posted in the Mid-City area on northbound SR 15 that continue to use SR 15 signage, not I-15. Here's a link to the pictures, on the AARoads Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/aaroads/posts/10154402270857948

This is relevant to the SR 210 discussion since I think the continued existence of SR 15 between I-8 and I-805 demonstrates a lack of interest on the part of Caltrans to convert SR 15 to I-15. And I don't know if there is any local political will to make this change, either.

[Quillz]

Do the current mileage markers on I-15 reflect the CA-15 freeway, or is Exit 1 just north of I-8? If the latter, that might be part of the reason for the reluctance to resign CA-15 as I-15.

[emory]

Do the current mileage markers on I-15 reflect the CA-15 freeway, or is Exit 1 just north of I-8? If the latter, that might be part of the reason for the reluctance to resign CA-15 as I-15.

Mileage markers reflect CA 15 and I-15, or what the state simply refers to as Route 15. This is statewide policy.

[emory]

Could always bring back CA 30 over 210. 

Honestly if Caltrans doesn't sign SR 210 as I-210 soon enough I'd advocate for this. Route 30 roles off the tongue (and coincides with SR 330) better then Route 210.

They'll sooner sign I-305.

I'm thinking that maybe every project or upgrade that ends up in limbo on the Caltrans catalog ought to be renumbered CA 39.  That way nobody will ever have any expectation of the work, upgrades or repairs ever being complete.  Come to think of it...they could also use CA 173 for a similar purpose. 

I prefer CA 90. That gap being filled in has a completion date of 3016.

I thought most of it was relinquished to Yorba Linda?

Only a small portion of the CA 90 freeway was relinquished to Yorba Linda. Roughly half a mile. The rest remains from CA 91 to CA 39 in Orange County.

[vdeane]

I wouldn't be surprised if CA 99 remains CA 99 forever.  If CA doesn't even want to do a simple signage swap and requests to AASHTO/FHWA for routes that were planned to be interstates from the get-go (wonder what changed their mind?), I doubt they'll want to take on renumbering anything.

[sparker]

I'm going to reply to vdeane's comments, but I'm going to move my response to the "CA99/The Final Countdown" thread; the topic here is the 210 situation, not 99, which is addressed in several other threads.  Give me a few minutes to post something there.  S.P.

[Quillz]

I wouldn't be surprised if CA 99 remains CA 99 forever.  If CA doesn't even want to do a simple signage swap and requests to AASHTO/FHWA for routes that were planned to be interstates from the get-go (wonder what changed their mind?), I doubt they'll want to take on renumbering anything.

Fine with me, "99" is a historic number within California, and is arguably as ingrained in California's culture as Route 66 or 101.

[TheStranger]

A side thought to this:

In Baltimore, part of I-695 is not actually Interstate-funded road, but has always been signed as interstate.  So there's an example of one shield being used for continuity regardless of which funds were used to construct that particular freeway.  (To some extent this was also discussed recently by sparker in the 215/15E thread, where 15E

We've had several threads in the past over the signage of 110 along the downtown Los Angeles portion of the Harbor Freeway, which is signed as I-110 southbound from the Four-Level on (and is signed as such off of US 101) with only three or four exceptions towards the Staples Center, but is signed as state Route 110 from about 9th street heading north:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9265.0

Having said that...

- IIRC, the conversion of Route 15 to I-15 was supposed to be contingent on a major rebuild of the 15/94 junction.  I don't know if that has happened yet

- Route 210 east of Route 57 is a much longer stretch of road than 110 in downtown LA or 15 through San Diego's Mid-City.

[cahwyguy]

Chris - You've been around long enough to recall the difference between chargable and non-chargable interstate (if not, you can find it on my pages). You're just talking about non-chargable interstates.

[TheStranger]

Chris - You've been around long enough to recall the difference between chargable and non-chargable interstate (if not, you can find it on my pages). You're just talking about non-chargable interstates.

I was actually trying to describe something entirely different: roads that are not officially in the Interstate system at all but are entirely signed as such; I-80 in the San Francisco city limits is another in this category.  for comparison, 880 is a non-chargable interstate in every way (signed years after being built as Route 17, but fully in the system per FHWA)

695 is a weird case because it was originally built as a state route, then upgraded before receiving the shields - but Maryland itself does not consider it part of the official I-695 routing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_695_(Maryland)#Outer_Harbor_Crossing

[cahwyguy]

I-80 in the San Francisco city limits is another in this category.

Perhaps, perhaps not. It could be that my page is in error, thinking about it again. Too bad your page on SF Francisco freeways is no longer up (if it is, my link to it is broken). Rmember that they rerouted I-80 in 1965, but DOH didn't renumber things until 1968. Quoting from my pages:

As defined in 1963, Route 80 was defined to run from "Route 280 in San Francisco to the Nevada state line near Verdi, Nevada, passing near Division Street in San Francisco, passing near Oakland, via Albany, via Sacramento, passing near North Sacramento, passing near Roseville, via Auburn, via Emigrant Gap, via Truckee and via the Truckee River Canyon." Note that I-280 is present-day Route 1.

In 1968, Chapter 282 transferred the portion from I-280 (present-day Route 1) to US 101 (LRN 223) to Route 241. This was originally part of a much longer route, and would have formed the handle of the "Panhandle" Freeway. Additional history on the planned freeways for the San Francisco Bay area can be found here. This ended up splitting the definition of Route 80, giving the current segment. Note that, technically, this segment is not part of the interstate system; it is unclear how it is signed.

Now I-80 in San Francisco was only withdrawn westerly of I-280; I think at that point it transitions to US 101. Looking at my site:

August 1965:
I-280¹²    ReRoute in San Francisco    Approved +2.1 miles
I-80¹²    Delete westerly of Route 280 in San Francisco    Approved -5.3 miles

¹²    Note that these were all adjustments that actually took place in January 1968 as part of the Howard Cramer bill, under 23 USC 103. Specifically:

• I-80: 5.2/5.3 mi withdrawn per 23 USC 103(e)(2).
• I-280: 6.7 mi withdrawn per 23 USC 103(e)(2). Subsequent rerouting for continuity purposes actually increased its length by a little over 2 miles.

But this is the routing of 280 in 1965, not 1968. Per http://www.cahighways.org/maps-sf-fwy.html , I-80 at that time was still the Western / Panhandle Freeway, terminating at Route 280/480 (now Route 1), but there had been some discussion of continuing it W a bit. So I'm thinking that that mileage that is now US 101 to current I-280 is the old I-80 mileage (US 101 and LRN 223) to Route 1

Perhaps someone knows a bit more authoritatively. I'll update things when I get the information.

[TheStranger]

Too bad your page on SF Francisco freeways is no longer up (if it is, my link to it is broken).

I haven't had it up for years and don't know where my source material is anymore.  Thanks though for the shout out!

But this is the routing of 280 in 1965, not 1968. Per http://www.cahighways.org/maps-sf-fwy.html , I-80 at that time was still the Western / Panhandle Freeway, terminating at Route 280/480 (now Route 1), but there had been some discussion of continuing it W a bit. So I'm thinking that that mileage that is now US 101 to current I-280 is the old I-80 mileage (US 101 and LRN 223) to Route 1

Perhaps someone knows a bit more authoritatively. I'll update things when I get the information.

Yeah, I had always been under the impression that it was up to 480 (planned but unbuilt post-1968 280 terminus), based on this bit from your I-80 entry:

From Route 280 near First Street in San Francisco to the Nevada state line near Verdi, Nevada, passing near Oakland, via Albany, via Sacramento, passing near Roseville, via Auburn, via Emigrant Gap, via Truckee and via the Truckee River Canyon

First Street is pretty much about the location where the old 480/80 split was, though 80 has never had an exit to it (closest westbound would be the Fremont Street ramps today, closest eastbound is 4th Street).

[jfs1988]

http://www.sanbag.ca.gov/projects/210LaneAddition.html
SANBAG is proposing to add a third lane through Highland & Redlands.

Could this be the moment we all been waiting for? If not, lets just get some paint cans & make our own Interstate 210 signs.

[Exit58]

http://www.sanbag.ca.gov/projects/210LaneAddition.html
SANBAG is proposing to add a third lane through Highland & Redlands.

Could this be the moment we all been waiting for? If not, lets just get some paint cans & make our own Interstate 210 signs.

I always thought that this might be what was keeping it from it's inclusion into the Interstate system. Isn't it required for urban Interstates to have six lanes? Either which way, Caltrans secured enough ROW back in the day that it shouldn't be a problem. Seeing that road upgraded to six lanes would be awesome. It's always a bottleneck in peakhour.

[sparker]

It isn't a requirement for urban Interstates to have six lanes or more (I-5 in Portland says hello!).  However, the 4-lane section of CA 210, IIRC, had substandard shoulders in the median; whether that in itself disqualified the route from Interstate status is not known.  Nearby I-215 between Murietta and Menifee also had substandard inner shoulders (as of 2012), but still sported Interstate signage -- but consistency re standards has never been a District 8 hallmark.  Since 6-laning of 210 will most certainly satisfy I-criteria, we'll just have to wait to see whether that prompts a designation change.   

[Exit58]

It isn't a requirement for urban Interstates to have six lanes or more (I-5 in Portland says hello!).  However, the 4-lane section of CA 210, IIRC, had substandard shoulders in the median; whether that in itself disqualified the route from Interstate status is not known.  Nearby I-215 between Murietta and Menifee also had substandard inner shoulders (as of 2012), but still sported Interstate signage -- but consistency re standards has never been a District 8 hallmark.  Since 6-laning of 210 will most certainly satisfy I-criteria, we'll just have to wait to see whether that prompts a designation change.   

I hope so. I don't see Caltrans out there putting up new SR 210 entrance assemblies or reassurance shields, so maybe that's a good sign? Because some are looking rather crummy and aren't aging well.  New guide signs are going up left and right in the area with spades still on them.

[djsekani]

There are at least two Interstate 210 shields already in use in the San Bernardino area, but I take them more as a sign of Caltrans' indifference than of future changes.

One of them is on the westbound I-10 shortly after it enters Redlands. The other is in the northbound I-215 carpool lane near Baseline Street.

[vdeane]

The shoulders could be it.  While existing interstates don't lose their designation for not meeting modern standards, new interstates are required to meet the most modern standards with no leeway.

[Exit58]

The shoulders could be it.  While existing interstates don't lose their designation for not meeting modern standards, new interstates are required to meet the most modern standards with no leeway.

What are the shoulder requirements? Last time I was out there the shoulders were pretty wide, albeit dirt. I remember reading somewhere that when the requirements were updated in 2007 it made the SR 30 freeway ineligible for Interstate status. It didn't go into detail, but I thought it might have been a lane count or width.

At this point I'd be happy to see Interstate shield on this route in my lifetime, but with Caltrans' schedule this seems unlikely.

[sparker]

It's probably the dirt.  Current I-criteria call for a minimum 4-foot paved inner strip. starting at the inside edge of the traffic lane.  On rural facilities Caltrans has been known to use chip-seal for these medians; they do seem to prefer asphalt in urban regions -- which would entail a substantial project.  Of course, if they're planning to expand out to 6 lanes by using the median, all this speculation is moot -- given the overall width of that facility, it's likely that there would be a K-rail barrier in the middle, followed by 4 feet of asphalt and then the new traffic lane.  Until the funding's available for such a project, it's unlikely Caltrans would "touch up" the existing route just to make it acceptable for red, white, & blue signage.

[vdeane]

And then it still wouldn't be interstate standards because current standards call for 12-foot paved shoulders on carriageways with 3 or more lanes.

[sparker]

Something tells me Caltrans would attempt to "grandfather" the current 10-foot outside shoulders into the future project; otherwise, numerous bridges would also require widening.  I that didn't fly, I wouldn't put it past them to simply restripe the lanes for 11.25-foot width, stealing as much as they could from the inner shoulders.  They did this on I-110 in the Torrance area back in the '80's when the Interstate redesignation happened (a prominent non-Interstate example of this is US 101 from the 134/170 interchange west to I-405).