Sign Collecting

[ClassicHasClass]

I'm unclear the Embarcadero Freeway was ever actually signed as I-480. 

Was it ever even designated I-480? I thought that was Caltrans wishful thinking. I only ever remember CA 480 (see also the sequence in Koyaanisqatsi).

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm unclear the Embarcadero Freeway was ever actually signed as I-480. 

Was it ever even designated I-480? I thought that was Caltrans wishful thinking. I only ever remember CA 480 (see also the sequence in Koyaanisqatsi).

480 was a chargeable Interstate corridor until 1965.  It makes sense when you consider how much effort went into getting the very expensive Golden Gate Freeway off the ground.

[Molandfreak]

I'm unclear the Embarcadero Freeway was ever actually signed as I-480. 

Was it ever even designated I-480? I thought that was Caltrans wishful thinking. I only ever remember CA 480 (see also the sequence in Koyaanisqatsi).

480 was a chargeable Interstate corridor until 1965.  It makes sense when you consider how much effort went into getting the very expensive Golden Gate Freeway off the ground.

Wasn't it revealed at one point that the existing newspaper photograph we know of I-5W is fake? It might be impossible to know for sure if the Embarcadero was signed as I-480.

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm unclear the Embarcadero Freeway was ever actually signed as I-480. 

Was it ever even designated I-480? I thought that was Caltrans wishful thinking. I only ever remember CA 480 (see also the sequence in Koyaanisqatsi).

480 was a chargeable Interstate corridor until 1965.  It makes sense when you consider how much effort went into getting the very expensive Golden Gate Freeway off the ground.

Wasn't it revealed at one point that the existing newspaper photograph we know of I-5W is fake? It might be impossible to know for sure if the Embarcadero was signed as I-480.

The I-5W shield photo is real.  The photo was in the California Highways & Public Works.  I have a physical copy of the volume in my library.

https://www.facebook.com/100063655972258/posts/pfbid0RBc5Xus9Fo49GVmzg9fq6M1mL5EtiPHssWKL1yXGPbAUhb6EEiqn384Qx9fu6WDil/?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e

[Molandfreak]

I'm unclear the Embarcadero Freeway was ever actually signed as I-480. 

Was it ever even designated I-480? I thought that was Caltrans wishful thinking. I only ever remember CA 480 (see also the sequence in Koyaanisqatsi).

480 was a chargeable Interstate corridor until 1965.  It makes sense when you consider how much effort went into getting the very expensive Golden Gate Freeway off the ground.

Wasn't it revealed at one point that the existing newspaper photograph we know of I-5W is fake? It might be impossible to know for sure if the Embarcadero was signed as I-480.

The I-5W shield photo is real.  The photo was in the California Highways & Public Works.  I have a physical copy of the volume in my library.

https://www.facebook.com/100063655972258/posts/pfbid0RBc5Xus9Fo49GVmzg9fq6M1mL5EtiPHssWKL1yXGPbAUhb6EEiqn384Qx9fu6WDil/?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e

But why was it signed east-west?

[Scott5114]

But why was it signed east-west?

[Molandfreak]

But why was it signed east-west?

That's I-580, which is obviously an east-west spur. I could imagine the early suffixed spurs being signed according to their cardinal direction, but the intent here was a split. Should Texas also sign the southern part of proposed I-27W east-west?

[Scott5114]

That's I-580, which is obviously an east-west spur

I-5W is I-580.

[Molandfreak]

That's I-580, which is obviously an east-west spur

I-5W is I-580.

What about the portion that became I-505?

[Scott5114]

That's I-580, which is obviously an east-west spur

I-5W is I-580.

What about the portion that became I-505?

What about it?

[Max Rockatansky]

I've never put much thought into those 1962-era directional placards.  The MacArthur Freeway is clearly an east/west highway whether it is US 50, I-5W or I-580.  The Division of Highways quickly reconsidered I-5W and had it renumbered by the end of 1963 before much of the overall corridor got built. 

[Scott5114]

I've never put much thought into those 1962-era directional placards.

The routing of CA-18 implies that Caltrans doesn't really put much thought into directional placards either, at least not when cobbling together routes.

I have been harping on CA-18 a lot lately—mostly because I was recently on it—but, really, it and CA-247 have got to be up there as two of the dumbest numbered routes in the country.

[Max Rockatansky]

I've never put much thought into those 1962-era directional placards.

The routing of CA-18 implies that Caltrans doesn't really put much thought into directional placards either, at least not when cobbling together routes.

I have been harping on CA-18 a lot lately—mostly because I was recently on it—but, really, it and CA-247 have got to be up there as two of the dumbest numbered routes in the country.

If they were swapped at Lucerne Valley both would have substantially better route continuity.  It would also eliminate 247 backtracking over itself at the junction.  The Postmile strangely don't make use of a spur.

[Scott5114]

I've never put much thought into those 1962-era directional placards.

The routing of CA-18 implies that Caltrans doesn't really put much thought into directional placards either, at least not when cobbling together routes.

I have been harping on CA-18 a lot lately—mostly because I was recently on it—but, really, it and CA-247 have got to be up there as two of the dumbest numbered routes in the country.

If they were swapped at Lucerne Valley both would have substantially better route continuity.  It would also eliminate 247 backtracking over itself at the junction.  The Postmile strangely don't make use of a spur.

Exactly what I was thinking.

Is that road connecting the two of them even a state highway? I assumed San Bernardino County was on the hook for the connections between the two.

[Max Rockatansky]

I've never put much thought into those 1962-era directional placards.

The routing of CA-18 implies that Caltrans doesn't really put much thought into directional placards either, at least not when cobbling together routes.

I have been harping on CA-18 a lot lately—mostly because I was recently on it—but, really, it and CA-247 have got to be up there as two of the dumbest numbered routes in the country.

If they were swapped at Lucerne Valley both would have substantially better route continuity.  It would also eliminate 247 backtracking over itself at the junction.  The Postmile strangely don't make use of a spur.

Exactly what I was thinking.

Is that road connecting the two of them even a state highway? I assumed San Bernardino County was on the hook for the connections between the two.

That connector is part of mainline Post Mileage for 247.  If you look in the Caltrans Postmile Tool, you can observe how it backtracks suddenly to 18. 

[freebrickproductions]

Saw this CR 94 shield from Lauderdale County, AL, for sale at a local antique store yesterday for a decent price, so I went ahead and picked it up. Turned-out to be on sale for 20% off of the tag's price, so that was even better!

IMG_6725 by freebrickproductions, on Flickr

I now have three different County Route shields in my collection.