The many iterations of CA 7

[Max Rockatansky]

The current California State Route 7 is a 7-mile State Highway located in Imperial County.  California State Route 7 begins at the Mexican border at the East Calexico Port of Entry and terminates at Interstate 8.  The current California State Route 7 is the third highway to use the number.  The original California State Route 7 was consumed by current California State Route 107, Interstate 405, California State Route 14 (former US Route 6) and US Route 395.  The second California State Route 7 was applied to the Long Beach Freeway corridor which is now Interstate 710 and California State Route 710.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2023/08/california-state-route-7.html?m=1

[kkt]

An awfully short highway to get a single digit route number.

[DTComposer]

From my understanding, Caltrans decided to start assigning new routes the lowest available number, hence 7 and 11 went to the two border access routes. 21 would be next...currently. If CA-19 gets completely relinquished (which is close), it would be next, but depending on where the new route is and how soon it gets designated that might be confusing.

[Max Rockatansky]

Strangely CA 26 has also been designated three separate times also.  Off the top of my head that is just 7 and 26 in the three designations club.

[Quillz]

I found it strange the original CA-7 existed in two segments. The other highways with gaps were due to geographical limitations. But CA-7 had no real excuse there. Seems like when the original numbering guidelines were taken into account, the northern half should have been assigned a different number, but it never was.

And I seem to recall reading here or elsewhere that the original extent of CA-7 was most likely never signed. It was established in 1934 but that doesn't mean signage happened at the same time. And supposedly by the time the signage was nearly complete, it was already renumbered to US-395.

[Max Rockatansky]

It was definitely signed as far north as US 395.  There is a photo floating around of the CA 7/US 466 junction in Mojave.  Considering US 395 was approved to be extended to San Diego a month after the original CA 7 was announced I doubt the CHC really put a lot of thought into that split segment. 

[Quillz]

It was definitely signed as far north as US 395.  There is a photo floating around of the CA 7/US 466 junction in Mojave.  Considering US 395 was approved to be extended to San Diego a month after the original CA 7 was announced I doubt the CHC really put a lot of thought into that split segment. 

Yes, it's on the shield gallery:


Whether it was signed north of there, I don't know. If US-395 was approved that quickly, it probably only existed on maps. Supposedly the original rule was shields were posted every three miles, have no idea if that was actually done in practice.

[TheStranger]

Supposedly the original rule was shields were posted every three miles, have no idea if that was actually done in practice.

"Every three miles" would be better than some current numbered roads in California are signed!

Ironically, Historic US 40 in Fairfield (with the small brown signs) is signed just about every half-block in comparison.

[Quillz]

Supposedly the original rule was shields were posted every three miles, have no idea if that was actually done in practice.

"Every three miles" would be better than some current numbered roads in California are signed!

Ironically, Historic US 40 in Fairfield (with the small brown signs) is signed just about every half-block in comparison.

I think in practice, signage every junction is fine. There are many long stretches (10+ miles) that go without any junctions, so I don't think signage is really that important in those instances. Nothing bothers me more than relinquished segments not being signed, though. They are supposed to. And yet in places like Santa Monica, both CA-1 and CA-2 just disappear. Relinquishment is just a technical thing, it's not supposed to have any impact on actual navigation (at least it shouldn't).

[ClassicHasClass]

Supposedly the original rule was shields were posted every three miles, have no idea if that was actually done in practice.

"Every three miles" would be better than some current numbered roads in California are signed!

Ironically, Historic US 40 in Fairfield (with the small brown signs) is signed just about every half-block in comparison.

We were up in Solano county recently and I was struck by how well Historic US 40 is signed generally there too (as well as Sacramento county and points east). Very easy to follow.

[Quillz]

Supposedly the original rule was shields were posted every three miles, have no idea if that was actually done in practice.

"Every three miles" would be better than some current numbered roads in California are signed!

Ironically, Historic US 40 in Fairfield (with the small brown signs) is signed just about every half-block in comparison.

We were up in Solano county recently and I was struck by how well Historic US 40 is signed generally there too (as well as Sacramento county and points east). Very easy to follow.

Historic US-66 and historic US-99 are well signed, too. (So well signed you almost wonder why they didn't just keep those numbers around).

[Max Rockatansky]

Supposedly the original rule was shields were posted every three miles, have no idea if that was actually done in practice.

"Every three miles" would be better than some current numbered roads in California are signed!

Ironically, Historic US 40 in Fairfield (with the small brown signs) is signed just about every half-block in comparison.

We were up in Solano county recently and I was struck by how well Historic US 40 is signed generally there too (as well as Sacramento county and points east). Very easy to follow.

Historic US-66 and historic US-99 are well signed, too. (So well signed you almost wonder why they didn't just keep those numbers around).

I doubt anyone at the Division of Highways or CHC during the 1963-65 era thought anyone would be nostalgic for obsolete surface segments of US Routes. 

[ClassicHasClass]

I have a love-hate relationship with Historic 66. Yes, they sign it well, but invariably to the detriment of other historic routes (usually it swamps Historic 395 on their co-routed alignments, for example, which is otherwise relatively well-signed also, at least in San Diego and Riverside counties).

[Max Rockatansky]

I have a love-hate relationship with Historic 66. Yes, they sign it well, but invariably to the detriment of other historic routes (usually it swamps Historic 395 on their co-routed alignments, for example, which is otherwise relatively well-signed also, at least in San Diego and Riverside counties).

I generally make sure on my own page that if a multiplex existed on a corridor such as Cajon Pass that I note each highway.  66 fandom tends wash the other US Routes from pretty much any corridor narrative.