Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[michravera]

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.

[mrsman]

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.

[roadfro]

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.)

[mrsman]

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

[sparker]

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. 

[andy3175]

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.

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.

[roadfro]

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.

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?

[sparker]

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!"

[DTComposer]

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.

[kkt]

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.

[NE2]

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).

[sparker]

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. 

[myosh_tino]

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.

[sparker]

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! 

[Occidental Tourist]

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’m on a tablet, so I can’t excerpt the text.  Google “California Streets & Highways Code section 640” and select the result that’s the 1957 California Senate Journal.

[mrsman]

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.

[sparker]

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. 

[michravera]

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?

[MrAndy1369]

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"

[mrsman]

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.

[sparker]

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.

[michravera]

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"

[sparker]

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.

[mrsman]

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.

[sparker]

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.