AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: CA 51/I-80 Business Loop  (Read 4337 times)

jrouse

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 248
  • Location: Sacramento, CA
  • Last Login: December 05, 2019, 09:41:52 PM
Re: CA 51/I-80 Business Loop
« Reply #50 on: October 23, 2018, 12:46:57 AM »

Figured I would add my few cents worth to the conversation:

Re: the I-80 bypass.  The plans that I was familiar with showed an interchange at Marconi Avenue.  There would have also been a connection to SB 160 and from NB 160 and an interchange at a proposed extension of Exposition Blvd under the SP tracks (the interchange with 160 would have eliminated the buttonhook ramps and horseshoe bridge on 160 at Royal Oaks Drive.  At the junction with the old 80, there would have been collector/distributor ramps down to E Street.  Arden, El Camino, and Marconi would all have been reconfigured onto new overpasses over the SP railroad and the new freeway.  All 3 bridges were eventually built on those proposed alignments in the early 80s in preparation for the light rail system. 

Re: Business 80 upgrades.  There are plans to widen Business 80 between E Street and roughly Arden Way.  This proposal came as a result of a study to close the E Street ontamp to eastbound Business 80 and extend the 4th lane that currently drops around F Street up to the American River Bridge.  This lane drop is the worst bottleneck on the State highways in the city.  Analysis showed that this modification would not help traffic flow and the City of Sacramento pushed for a broader study on improvements to the whole SR-51 corridor.  It led to a proposal to widen SR-51 over its entire length but the focus eventually was reduced to the portion between E Street and Arden Way, with the portion between Arden and I-80 to be looked at later.  These improvements include a new bridge over the American River.  The early study looked at widening the existing bridge but there are substantial deck repairs needed to that hurdle and so I think they came to the conclusion that it was more cost effective to replace it.  The new bridge would sit between he SP railroad bridge and the existing bridge and would cross over the railroad tracks, eliminating the narrow Elvas Junction underpass.  The new alignment would include HOV lanes, and an HOV flyover would be just through the Arden interchange to avoid conflict with the Arden onramp to westbound Business 80, which is a left hand entrance.

Re: Business 80 renumbering to SR-51.  As others have pointed out, this would require legislative action as the Business Loop 80 designation is written into the Streets and Highways Code.  Caltrans occasionally puts together omnibus bills to make minor fixes in the code and this could certainly be handled that way.  I think you could also designate the route as a Business Spur since it functions that way now. 

Recently there were a number of signs on Business 80, State Route 160, and cross streets as part of Caltrans’ broader efforts to install new retro reflective sign panels.  Several of the upgraded signs include the Capital City Freeway name with the Business 80 shield.  The new signs on Arden Way eliminate the control cities altogether.  The new signs on State Route 160 also eliminates the old “Roseville/Reno” pull through signs at the Northgate Blvd and Del paso Blvd offramps.  They now have the Business 80 shield and a control city of Reno even though it is still about 2.5-3 miles to Business 80.  I don’t know why they chose to put up a Business 80 shield instead of a SR-160 shield.



Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3753
  • Last Login: December 06, 2019, 01:42:06 PM
Re: CA 51/I-80 Business Loop
« Reply #51 on: October 23, 2018, 02:13:46 AM »

The new signs on State Route 160 also eliminates the old “Roseville/Reno” pull through signs at the Northgate Blvd and Del paso Blvd offramps.  They now have the Business 80 shield and a control city of Reno even though it is still about 2.5-3 miles to Business 80.  I don’t know why they chose to put up a Business 80 shield instead of a SR-160 shield.

This seems to fit the tendency I've seen statewide for "TO" to be eschewed in favor of signing the upcoming route as the pullthrough control.  Most famous example near me is the "US 101 San Jose" signage on westbound I-80 in San Francisco (which was not the original pullthrough - there's a 1980s video of the Skyway showing US 101/I-80 as the pullthrough routes, probably reflective of the pre-1968 I-80 proposal to Golden Gate Park that was stopped due to heavy opposition), but it can be found elsewhere i.e. US 101 south past I-10 in Los Angeles, and the San Bernardino Freeway spur from I-10 west to US 101.

Even Sacramento has this - IIRC there is one "I-80 San Francisco" sign along US 50 west (Business 80 west) past the Pioneer bridge, which was installed ca. 2009 but reflects a designation that hasn't been accurate since 1982!
Logged
Chris Sampang

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6143
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 04:57:18 AM
Re: CA 51/I-80 Business Loop
« Reply #52 on: October 23, 2018, 03:45:10 AM »

^^^^^^^^^
Those bridges, on Arden Way and El Camino Real, ended up, after the recission of the 80 Bypass, being a functional gift from Caltrans to the City of Sacramento -- having been constructed to accommodate both the railroad and the proposed freeway.  On Arden Way, they replaced a grade crossing where the gates were down about as much as they were up -- that rail line connected Elvas Junction, where the SP lines from Southern California (via Fresno & Stockton) and the Bay Area converged, to the destination of most manifest (non-container) trains:  the sprawling Roseville Yard, then the largest in the SP system.  The city had long sought an overpass;  because the planned Bypass 80 facility followed that rail line, Caltrans started construction on this by 1973, prior to Adriana Gianturco taking the reins at the agency.  To the immediate north, El Camino Real (old US 40/99E and part of LRN 3) ducked under the tracks on a narrow 2-lane underpass that had long outlived its configuration;  once again, construction began about '74, a year before Gianturco's administration.  Both bridges had spans that were designed to accommodate the parallel double-track rail line plus 8 lanes of freeway.  And Chris is correct -- the original alignment of LRN 3 turned north from El Camino Real on a broad curve leading to Auburn Blvd. right at the east end of the original narrow underpass; this was covered up by the berm of the new bridge, requiring traffic wishing to access Auburn Blvd. to go a couple of blocks east and then north on a local street.

Suburban sprawl had happened quite early in this area (known loosely as Arden/Arcade).  My late uncle had his home near the corner of Howe and El Camino (in one of the early Eichler tracts that dotted the Sacramento area); I spent partial summers there from 1957 through 1967 -- and the housing areas were continuous from the North Sacramento (US 40/99E and later I-80) freeway east through Carmichael by 1959 (my cousin and I would regularly play miniature golf at a place at the corner of Manzanita and Fair Oaks Blvd.)  The housing was pretty much continuous from the American River north to well past Madison Ave. by that time; both the freeway and Fair Oaks Blvd., which followed the north bank of the American River, served as the major commute routes, with the intervening area laid out in a basic grid pattern.  Of course, the expansion east and northeast continued unabated into the Citrus Heights and Orangevale areas, eventually absorbing Roseville into the developmental continuum.  It had been planned, ever since the first iteration of the California Freeway & Expressway System in 1959, for at least a few freeways to criss-cross the area in order to convey commuter traffic down to US 50 or over to I-80 or I-880.  It never happened, largely due to the efforts of Gianturco; she actually sold off the property acquired for CA 143 and the west end of 244 before she left office, most of it in the Carmichael area.

Re: the I-80 bypass.  The plans that I was familiar with showed an interchange at Marconi Avenue.  There would have also been a connection to SB 160 and from NB 160 and an interchange at a proposed extension of Exposition Blvd under the SP tracks (the interchange with 160 would have eliminated the buttonhook ramps and horseshoe bridge on 160 at Royal Oaks Drive.

It led to a proposal to widen SR-51 over its entire length but the focus eventually was reduced to the portion between E Street and Arden Way, with the portion between Arden and I-80 to be looked at later.  These improvements include a new bridge over the American River.  The early study looked at widening the existing bridge but there are substantial deck repairs needed to that hurdle and so I think they came to the conclusion that it was more cost effective to replace it.  The new bridge would sit between he SP railroad bridge and the existing bridge and would cross over the railroad tracks, eliminating the narrow Elvas Junction underpass.  The new alignment would include HOV lanes, and an HOV flyover would be just through the Arden interchange to avoid conflict with the Arden onramp to westbound Business 80, which is a left hand entrance.

I think you could also designate the route as a Business Spur since it functions that way now. 

I don’t know why they chose to put up a Business 80 shield instead of a SR-160 shield.

The plans I saw in '76 eliminated all those interchanges eliminated; the only feature described above that remained were WB off and EB on ramps to Marconi; these were part of the then 80/880/244 interchange complex now including the LR park-and-ride on the former approach lanes to the deleted bypass.  I think it was apparent that attempting to site the new CA 51 American River bridge directly atop the existing facility would make a bad situation much worse over the construction period; simply relocating the roadway to the immediate west of the existing freeway and bypassing the original RR underpass is a much better method that'll allow traffic to continue to use the existing road during much of the process (cutting in the new route will likely require a temporary shutdown, however). 

I think that once the CA 51 alignment modification has been completed, the "business" aspect of the route will have gone by the wayside, and that signing it as a business spur would be pointless -- a simple signage as CA 51 would be more appropriate.  Also, since the North Sacramento section of CA 160 is an essential "orphan" route disconnected from the main trunk of the route in the Sacramento Delta, Caltrans is doing all they can to avoid referencing the number NB (EB), while retaining it in the opposite direction more as a long-recognized corridor than a functional through route. 
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3753
  • Last Login: December 06, 2019, 01:42:06 PM
Re: CA 51/I-80 Business Loop
« Reply #53 on: October 23, 2018, 08:39:41 AM »

Just saw in the Historic US 99 group on Facebook this 1968 photo (courtesy Joel Windmiller) of the northbound Route 160 American River bridge at 16th being constructed - a rare look at the old 40/99E configuration at Del Paso Boulevard when the freeway used the original 16th Street Bridge span in both directions.  This project was contemporaneous with what was then Interstate 80 (now US 50 and Business 80/route 51) a few miles away in midtown

A few posts ago I saw some mention of a reconfigured Exposition Boulevard exit from 160 that was slated to be built had the 80 realignment gone through.  Was the twin span here the only upgrade along 160 that ever went through before the late 70s purge of most Sacramento area freeway projects?



SAMSUNG-SM-G930A

« Last Edit: October 23, 2018, 08:58:04 AM by TheStranger »
Logged
Chris Sampang

jrouse

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 248
  • Location: Sacramento, CA
  • Last Login: December 05, 2019, 09:41:52 PM
Re: CA 51/I-80 Business Loop
« Reply #54 on: October 23, 2018, 09:35:11 AM »

^^^^^^^^^
Those bridges, on Arden Way and El Camino Real, ended up, after the recission of the 80 Bypass, being a functional gift from Caltrans to the City of Sacramento -- having been constructed to accommodate both the railroad and the proposed freeway.  On Arden Way, they replaced a grade crossing where the gates were down about as much as they were up -- that rail line connected Elvas Junction, where the SP lines from Southern California (via Fresno & Stockton) and the Bay Area converged, to the destination of most manifest (non-container) trains:  the sprawling Roseville Yard, then the largest in the SP system.  The city had long sought an overpass;  because the planned Bypass 80 facility followed that rail line, Caltrans started construction on this by 1973, prior to Adriana Gianturco taking the reins at the agency.  To the immediate north, El Camino Real (old US 40/99E and part of LRN 3) ducked under the tracks on a narrow 2-lane underpass that had long outlived its configuration;  once again, construction began about '74, a year before Gianturco's administration.  Both bridges had spans that were designed to accommodate the parallel double-track rail line plus 8 lanes of freeway.  And Chris is correct -- the original alignment of LRN 3 turned north from El Camino Real on a broad curve leading to Auburn Blvd. right at the east end of the original narrow underpass; this was covered up by the berm of the new bridge, requiring traffic wishing to access Auburn Blvd. to go a couple of blocks east and then north on a local street.

I’m very familiar with all 3 of those bridges as I grew up in that part of Sacramento and watched all of them get built.  The planning for them may have started in the 70s but they weren’t actually built until 1983-84.  I drive the old US-40/99E alignment and the El Camino bridge every day on my way to and from the light rail station between El Camino and Arden.  There’s still some of the old concrete pavement in place there on Auburn Blvd between Van Ness Street (the connector to El Camino) and the El Camino overpass.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6143
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 04:57:18 AM
Re: CA 51/I-80 Business Loop
« Reply #55 on: October 23, 2018, 04:47:10 PM »

^^^^^^^^
Wasn't in Sacramento a lot during 1975-1986 period (lived in Roseville '86-'90).  But if jrouse states the 3 bridges originally slated as overpasses for the aborted I-80 alignment didn't get constructed until 1983 or so, that would actually make more sense than early '70's construction (with the exception of Arden Way in order to get rid of the rail grade crossing) -- many of the projects cancelled or delayed in the Gianturco administration at Caltrans were revived once Deukmejian became governor in '83 and things started getting built again (but still eked out slowly; the "Duke" was a notorious penny-pincher).  These bridges were likely among the first group of projects out of the gate back then. 
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3753
  • Last Login: December 06, 2019, 01:42:06 PM
Re: CA 51/I-80 Business Loop
« Reply #56 on: October 29, 2018, 12:28:58 PM »

A couple of photos from the Historic US 99 group on Facebook courtesy Kathy Stricklin, of the current Business 80 bridge across the American River as it was being built

SAMSUNG-SM-G930A

Logged
Chris Sampang

bing101

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2801
  • Last Login: December 06, 2019, 11:59:54 AM
Re: CA 51/I-80 Business Loop
« Reply #57 on: October 30, 2018, 08:53:40 PM »

The new signs on State Route 160 also eliminates the old “Roseville/Reno” pull through signs at the Northgate Blvd and Del paso Blvd offramps.  They now have the Business 80 shield and a control city of Reno even though it is still about 2.5-3 miles to Business 80.  I don’t know why they chose to put up a Business 80 shield instead of a SR-160 shield.

This seems to fit the tendency I've seen statewide for "TO" to be eschewed in favor of signing the upcoming route as the pullthrough control.  Most famous example near me is the "US 101 San Jose" signage on westbound I-80 in San Francisco (which was not the original pullthrough - there's a 1980s video of the Skyway showing US 101/I-80 as the pullthrough routes, probably reflective of the pre-1968 I-80 proposal to Golden Gate Park that was stopped due to heavy opposition), but it can be found elsewhere i.e. US 101 south past I-10 in Los Angeles, and the San Bernardino Freeway spur from I-10 west to US 101.

Even Sacramento has this - IIRC there is one "I-80 San Francisco" sign along US 50 west (Business 80 west) past the Pioneer bridge, which was installed ca. 2009 but reflects a designation that hasn't been accurate since 1982!


But US-50 West is no longer signed as Business 80.


In 2016 the Control signs on West Bound US-50 became (West US-50 to I-80 San Francisco) due to the Business 80 removal. But theres also one sign near the Sacramento State University Campus where a sign said "US-50 West San Francisco" on the 65th street intersection with US-50.
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3753
  • Last Login: December 06, 2019, 01:42:06 PM
Re: CA 51/I-80 Business Loop
« Reply #58 on: October 30, 2018, 09:07:44 PM »

The new signs on State Route 160 also eliminates the old “Roseville/Reno” pull through signs at the Northgate Blvd and Del paso Blvd offramps.  They now have the Business 80 shield and a control city of Reno even though it is still about 2.5-3 miles to Business 80.  I don’t know why they chose to put up a Business 80 shield instead of a SR-160 shield.

This seems to fit the tendency I've seen statewide for "TO" to be eschewed in favor of signing the upcoming route as the pullthrough control.  Most famous example near me is the "US 101 San Jose" signage on westbound I-80 in San Francisco (which was not the original pullthrough - there's a 1980s video of the Skyway showing US 101/I-80 as the pullthrough routes, probably reflective of the pre-1968 I-80 proposal to Golden Gate Park that was stopped due to heavy opposition), but it can be found elsewhere i.e. US 101 south past I-10 in Los Angeles, and the San Bernardino Freeway spur from I-10 west to US 101.

Even Sacramento has this - IIRC there is one "I-80 San Francisco" sign along US 50 west (Business 80 west) past the Pioneer bridge, which was installed ca. 2009 but reflects a designation that hasn't been accurate since 1982!


But US-50 West is no longer signed as Business 80.


In 2016 the Control signs on West Bound US-50 became (West US-50 to I-80 San Francisco) due to the Business 80 removal. But theres also one sign near the Sacramento State University Campus where a sign said "US-50 West San Francisco" on the 65th street intersection with US-50.

The "US 50 to I-80 West" sign at Jefferson Boulevard is pretty new (I haven't driven down that stretch of US 50 or I-80 in over a year) -
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.5737212,-121.5183079,3a,39.5y,322.4h,101.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sruvxgKPe0bQFaqoryHG2Jg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Earliest it shows up in Google Street View is December 2016.

For comparison, this is a 2015 photo showing it signed as "I-80 San Francisco" (no TO) -
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.5736998,-121.5182913,3a,43.7y,325.38h,96.31t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s-kOAITlsvx82e9k6Bt5oDg!2e0!5s20150601T000000!7i13312!8i6656

In 2012 this was signed as "Business 80 San Francisco" -
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.5736612,-121.5182947,3a,38y,331.25h,90.52t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1so2685pWXF0z8Ow5MotSlow!2e0!5s20121001T000000!7i13312!8i6656

---

As for the "US 50 - San Francisco" signage near Sacramento State, that has been there for over a decade - it was there when I lived in Sacramento from 2007 to 2014 and predates the 2009 exit numbering project in the area.

The "To I-80 West" sign at US 50 westbound approaching Business 80 east is still there, as opposed to "US 50 to I-80 West":
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.5602687,-121.4666659,3a,17.6y,249h,89.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssyTs20G6Wclztvyp25CKGg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
IIRC there was a button copy To I-80 West sign there in the 80s and 90s.

Right where the ramp for 99 south is, there had been a "Route 99 - To I-80/To I-5" sign (which I thought was really neat, given that 99 does run on 50 west's mainline for a mile or two) as late as 2016:
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.5592241,-121.4707756,3a,75y,275.45h,93.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4eptFMr-3AJqbQs_pW-44Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I suspect it was signed that way in part because this was US 50's west terminus from approximately 1968 to 1982.

It is now signed as "US 50 to I-80"
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.559119,-121.4697197,3a,15y,272.23h,89.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRbcRQXp2_D3vuwyUtQVK1A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656


The big pullthrough on 50 west at I-5 has evolved over the years.  In 2018, it is signed US 50 to I-80 San Francisco
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.5666373,-121.5036779,3a,17.6y,289.18h,92.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBIo1Su3F3waACeHFqscQSQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
August 2008 on Google Street View shows it as Business 80 San Francisco (with Business 80 trailblazer shields covering up where the I-80 shields had been pre-1982), and apparently this sign remained up until early 2016.
Logged
Chris Sampang

mrsman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2469
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: December 06, 2019, 07:49:31 AM
Re: CA 51/I-80 Business Loop
« Reply #59 on: November 02, 2018, 11:06:10 AM »

I am liking the US 50 west to I-80 San Francisco signs.  It clearly denotes that people are on US 50.  It helps people know that they need to get on I-80 to reach San Francisco.  And it also is somewhat helpful for those with old maps who may still be looking for Biz 80 signs on this stretch.  Most importantly, it keeps SF as a control city. (Dist. 7 has US 101 to I-5 and I-10 and CA 60 signs in LA but removed the Santa Ana and San Bernardino controls that have been there for many years.)

As I've said before, we need equivalent signage the other way:  CA-51 north to I-80 Reno.
Logged

cahwyguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 392
  • California Highway Guy

  • Age: 59
  • Location: Northridge, CA
  • Last Login: December 06, 2019, 11:19:00 PM
    • California Highways
Re: CA 51/I-80 Business Loop
« Reply #60 on: November 23, 2018, 11:22:00 AM »

As part of working on the highway page updates, I just read through all of this. My 2c on the signage:

First, as Route 51 has never been signed, the motoring public has no attraction to that number. It provides no useful numbering guidance. I really wouldn't use it. Instead, I'd suggest one of the following:

1. Do what has been done on  Route 110, Route 15, and Route 210: Make the official I-305 section I-305, and make the Route 51 section into CA 305.

2. Number Route 51 as an x50 route, probably CA 350. You could probably convince people in a number of years that it was once US 350, a spur to US 50.

3. Number Route 51 as an x80 route; only CA 480 would be available for reuse.

4. Number Route 51 as a continuation of Route 99, but to eliminate confusion with the northern segment of Route 99 and the lack of connection, make it an x99. Given that 199 and 299 are used, and 399 has historical significance, I'd suggest CA 599 (which has the nice parallel of both the 5 and the 99).

In short, there are  many ways to give the route a number that signifies to the driving public its connection to either 50, 99, 80, or even 5, and has more meaning than 51 ever would (who among you has made the connection between 50 and 51?).
Logged
Daniel - California Highway Guy ● Highway Site: http://www.cahighways.org/ ●  Blog: http://blog.cahighways.org/ ● Follow California Highways on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cahighways

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6143
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 04:57:18 AM
Re: CA 51/I-80 Business Loop
« Reply #61 on: November 23, 2018, 05:47:39 PM »

As part of working on the highway page updates, I just read through all of this. My 2c on the signage:

First, as Route 51 has never been signed, the motoring public has no attraction to that number. It provides no useful numbering guidance. I really wouldn't use it. Instead, I'd suggest one of the following:

1. Do what has been done on  Route 110, Route 15, and Route 210: Make the official I-305 section I-305, and make the Route 51 section into CA 305.

2. Number Route 51 as an x50 route, probably CA 350. You could probably convince people in a number of years that it was once US 350, a spur to US 50.

3. Number Route 51 as an x80 route; only CA 480 would be available for reuse.

4. Number Route 51 as a continuation of Route 99, but to eliminate confusion with the northern segment of Route 99 and the lack of connection, make it an x99. Given that 199 and 299 are used, and 399 has historical significance, I'd suggest CA 599 (which has the nice parallel of both the 5 and the 99).

In short, there are  many ways to give the route a number that signifies to the driving public its connection to either 50, 99, 80, or even 5, and has more meaning than 51 ever would (who among you has made the connection between 50 and 51?).


First -- Caltrans needs to be convinced that designating & signing I-305 would be a worthwhile venture; they haven't in the 36 years since I-80 was rerouted around town and it's doubtful they would today (given their recent track record about signage in general). 

Second -- it's questionable whether the driving public maintains a vested interest in actual designations (unless they're pretty damn egregious!); a 3-digit number connected to any of the three highways mentioned as "parents" (50,80,99) likely wouldn't have any significant meaning and/or be of assistance for navigational purposes. 

Third -- the concept of the continuation of CA 99 north through the Oak Park interchange onto WB US 50 has been downgraded by removal from overhead BGS at the E-W ramp split (while mentioned on mainline NB 99 prior to the interchange, it just disappears while on the initial segment of the ramp).  Caltrans needs to prioritize this issue before tackling what to call the remaining Biz 80/hidden CA 51 segment. 

Fourth -- While the full Biz 80 loop concept has long outlived its expiration date, given the fact that there's no other recognized continuation route that utilizes the CA 51 corridor -- or can readily be deployed save dragging Caltrans kicking & screaming into the I-305 concept (including signage under the "C" street bridge indicating "End I-305/Begin CA 305" -- and vice-versa) -- which would completely upset their newfound interest in prioritizing the US 50 designation for the E-W portion by either co-signage or replacement signage.  IMO, if they have to do something, CA 51 is the best of a poor lot.  Otherwise, they could wait for an I-7 or I-9 to show up on the CA 99 corridor and then rethink the connection (possibly a state highway version of either of the above!).  As far as I'm concerned, when Sacramento interests requested that the original I-80 be preserved as an in-town loop, Caltrans pulled the Biz 80 concept out of their hats (or a rearward-facing orifice!) for want of a better plan; with the US 50 prioritization over half of the original loop, they're clearly having long-delayed second thoughts.  Maybe short-sightedness just isn't a dish enjoyed cold!   

Logged

bing101

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2801
  • Last Login: December 06, 2019, 11:59:54 AM
Re: CA 51/I-80 Business Loop
« Reply #62 on: November 23, 2018, 06:34:04 PM »

As part of working on the highway page updates, I just read through all of this. My 2c on the signage:

First, as Route 51 has never been signed, the motoring public has no attraction to that number. It provides no useful numbering guidance. I really wouldn't use it. Instead, I'd suggest one of the following:

1. Do what has been done on  Route 110, Route 15, and Route 210: Make the official I-305 section I-305, and make the Route 51 section into CA 305.

2. Number Route 51 as an x50 route, probably CA 350. You could probably convince people in a number of years that it was once US 350, a spur to US 50.

3. Number Route 51 as an x80 route; only CA 480 would be available for reuse.

4. Number Route 51 as a continuation of Route 99, but to eliminate confusion with the northern segment of Route 99 and the lack of connection, make it an x99. Given that 199 and 299 are used, and 399 has historical significance, I'd suggest CA 599 (which has the nice parallel of both the 5 and the 99).

In short, there are  many ways to give the route a number that signifies to the driving public its connection to either 50, 99, 80, or even 5, and has more meaning than 51 ever would (who among you has made the connection between 50 and 51?).

I-305 will never be signed mainly because Caltrans only signs the WX Freeway as US-50.
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9860
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 10:44:04 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: CA 51/I-80 Business Loop
« Reply #63 on: November 23, 2018, 11:47:32 PM »

As part of working on the highway page updates, I just read through all of this. My 2c on the signage:

First, as Route 51 has never been signed, the motoring public has no attraction to that number. It provides no useful numbering guidance. I really wouldn't use it. Instead, I'd suggest one of the following:

1. Do what has been done on  Route 110, Route 15, and Route 210: Make the official I-305 section I-305, and make the Route 51 section into CA 305.

2. Number Route 51 as an x50 route, probably CA 350. You could probably convince people in a number of years that it was once US 350, a spur to US 50.

3. Number Route 51 as an x80 route; only CA 480 would be available for reuse.

4. Number Route 51 as a continuation of Route 99, but to eliminate confusion with the northern segment of Route 99 and the lack of connection, make it an x99. Given that 199 and 299 are used, and 399 has historical significance, I'd suggest CA 599 (which has the nice parallel of both the 5 and the 99).

In short, there are  many ways to give the route a number that signifies to the driving public its connection to either 50, 99, 80, or even 5, and has more meaning than 51 ever would (who among you has made the connection between 50 and 51?).

I-305 will never be signed mainly because Caltrans only signs the WX Freeway as US-50.

Personally my preference would be option 4 from the above list, it would also do something with the weird 99 segment north of Sacramento. 

bing101

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2801
  • Last Login: December 06, 2019, 11:59:54 AM
Re: CA 51/I-80 Business Loop
« Reply #64 on: November 24, 2018, 12:41:45 AM »

Make CA-51 as CA-480 or keep the CA-51 designation. But then again the CA-x07 and CA-x09 could be used if I-7 and I-9 were to take the CA-99 spot.
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9860
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 10:44:04 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: CA 51/I-80 Business Loop
« Reply #65 on: November 24, 2018, 10:21:55 PM »

Make CA-51 as CA-480 or keep the CA-51 designation. But then again the CA-x07 and CA-x09 could be used if I-7 and I-9 were to take the CA-99 spot.

Trouble there is that 107 and 207 are already in use.  307 would be acceptable I suppose.

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6143
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 04:57:18 AM
Re: CA 51/I-80 Business Loop
« Reply #66 on: November 25, 2018, 04:18:11 AM »

Make CA-51 as CA-480 or keep the CA-51 designation. But then again the CA-x07 and CA-x09 could be used if I-7 and I-9 were to take the CA-99 spot.

Trouble there is that 107 and 207 are already in use.  307 would be acceptable I suppose.

And if I-9 were to be selected (when & if the designation change happens), CA 109 or CA 209 aren't beyond the realm of possibility; CA 109 is unsigned and barely recognized (and thus could be renumbered with ease) and CA 209 was relinquished years ago.  Personally, I'd choose the latter since if the substandard segments regarding the Marconi Curve are addressed, it could conceivably become an Interstate of the same number (and it would connect I-9 and I-80 on either end).   
Logged

michravera

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 410
  • Location: Northern California
  • Last Login: December 06, 2019, 04:35:05 PM
Re: CA 51/I-80 Business Loop
« Reply #67 on: November 26, 2018, 10:08:48 AM »

Make CA-51 as CA-480 or keep the CA-51 designation. But then again the CA-x07 and CA-x09 could be used if I-7 and I-9 were to take the CA-99 spot.

If they are going to do anything before the late '20s, they should just <blasphemes and expletives> sign it as CASR-51. It just takes an act of the legislature that they could slip into a funding bill (technically they would just have to remove the requirement to sign it as BR-80). They could have the whole route re-signed in about one shift. Remember that Cal-Trans got the 70MPH signs (and the "TRUCK 55") signs up on I-5 in about a day back in 1995 (and 1987). It might have taken a couple of crews and overtime might have been involved, but they did it!

My hunch is that most of the motoring public would barely notice!



« Last Edit: November 27, 2018, 09:50:49 AM by michravera »
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6143
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 04:57:18 AM
Re: CA 51/I-80 Business Loop
« Reply #68 on: November 26, 2018, 12:25:00 PM »

Make CA-51 as CA-480 or keep the CA-51 designation. But then again the CA-x07 and CA-x09 could be used if I-7 and I-9 were to take the CA-99 spot.

If they are going to do anything before the late '20s, they should just <blasphemes and expletives> sign it as CASR-51. It just takes an act of the legislature that they could slip into a funding bill (technically they would just have to remove the requirement to sign it as BR-80). They could have the whole route re-signed in about one shift. Remember that Cal-Trans got the 70MPH signs (and the "TRUCK 55") signs up on I-5 in about a day back in 1995 (and 1987). It might haver taken a couple of crews and overtime might have been involved, but they did it!

My hunch is that most of the motoring public would barely notice!





Quite right; all they'd need besides some premade CA 51 reassurance shields are big squares of greenout with a CA 51 outline on them to put over the Biz 80 overhead and roadside BGS's.  And if Caltrans decides it wants a modicum of publicity for the change, call the Bee and have them send a stringer over with a camera and take pictures of the changeover process.  Channels 3, 10, and 13 probably wouldn't consider it earthshaking enough to dispatch a talking head/crew, so the public would have to depend upon still photos. 

And unless they read the local pages of the Bee, much of the driving public wouldn't discern the difference!
Logged

Occidental Tourist

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 368
  • Last Login: October 29, 2019, 12:22:24 PM
Re: CA 51/I-80 Business Loop
« Reply #69 on: November 27, 2018, 10:56:18 AM »

Make CA-51 as CA-480 or keep the CA-51 designation. But then again the CA-x07 and CA-x09 could be used if I-7 and I-9 were to take the CA-99 spot.

Trouble there is that 107 and 207 are already in use.  307 would be acceptable I suppose.

It wouldn’t be too hard to use 107 and 207.  207 is a two-lane that is less than two miles long.  107 is an urban arterial in the South Bay, is fairly poorly signed, and is due to be relinquished at some point. Neither one would be big losses.

The bigger question is whether renumbering current state Route 7 is more or less of a hassle than renumbering current state Route 9.  7 seems easy given its length, location, and nascency.  I don’t know about 9 because I haven’t been to the Santa Cruz area in 20 years.
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9860
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 10:44:04 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: CA 51/I-80 Business Loop
« Reply #70 on: November 27, 2018, 11:01:03 AM »

Make CA-51 as CA-480 or keep the CA-51 designation. But then again the CA-x07 and CA-x09 could be used if I-7 and I-9 were to take the CA-99 spot.

Trouble there is that 107 and 207 are already in use.  307 would be acceptable I suppose.

It wouldn’t be too hard to use 107 and 207.  207 is a two-lane that is less than two miles long.  107 is an urban arterial in the South Bay, is fairly poorly signed, and is due to be relinquished at some point. Neither one would be big losses.

The bigger question is whether renumbering current state Route 7 is more or less of a hassle than renumbering current state Route 9.  7 seems easy given its length, location, and nascency.  I don’t know about 9 because I haven’t been to the Santa Cruz area in 20 years.

7 would be way easier not only is the distance shorter but the 9 corridor is one of the original state highways and is well signed.  From a historical context I’d rather leave 9 alone. 

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6143
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 04:57:18 AM
Re: CA 51/I-80 Business Loop
« Reply #71 on: November 27, 2018, 12:50:08 PM »

Make CA-51 as CA-480 or keep the CA-51 designation. But then again the CA-x07 and CA-x09 could be used if I-7 and I-9 were to take the CA-99 spot.

Trouble there is that 107 and 207 are already in use.  307 would be acceptable I suppose.

It wouldn’t be too hard to use 107 and 207.  207 is a two-lane that is less than two miles long.  107 is an urban arterial in the South Bay, is fairly poorly signed, and is due to be relinquished at some point. Neither one would be big losses.

The bigger question is whether renumbering current state Route 7 is more or less of a hassle than renumbering current state Route 9.  7 seems easy given its length, location, and nascency.  I don’t know about 9 because I haven’t been to the Santa Cruz area in 20 years.

7 would be way easier not only is the distance shorter but the 9 corridor is one of the original state highways and is well signed.  From a historical context I’d rather leave 9 alone. 

107 was effectively toast once the Torrance-Harbor City-Long Beach freeway (a combination of CA 107 and CA 1) was rescinded back around 1976 or so during the Gianturco regime at Caltrans.   Originally (prewar) the southern end of SSR 7, about the only reason it stuck around as long as it did (cut back to south of I-405 in Lawndale ca. 1982) was that (a) Lawndale and Torrance didn't want to assume maintenance expenses, and (b) at least three major shopping malls were arrayed along its length, and the politically-connected owners wanted a state highway through their midst. 

But I certainly agree that if and when an Interstate designation is selected for the CA 99 corridor, the choice of I-7 would make life simpler for Caltrans; current CA 7 hasn't been around long enough to amass historical significance; and while CA 9 is but a shadow of its former self, what is left still has significant lore attached, particularly in the Boulder Creek-Santa Cruz area, where a number of businesses describe themselves as located on "Highway 9"!  However, when the choice need to be made, it'll come down to the practicality of the "7" number versus potential Valley-based sentiment toward retention of the integer "9" for that particular corridor.  At this juncture, there's no telling which will prevail.
Logged

michravera

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 410
  • Location: Northern California
  • Last Login: December 06, 2019, 04:35:05 PM
Re: CA 51/I-80 Business Loop
« Reply #72 on: November 27, 2018, 04:02:31 PM »

Make CA-51 as CA-480 or keep the CA-51 designation. But then again the CA-x07 and CA-x09 could be used if I-7 and I-9 were to take the CA-99 spot.

Trouble there is that 107 and 207 are already in use.  307 would be acceptable I suppose.

It wouldn’t be too hard to use 107 and 207.  207 is a two-lane that is less than two miles long.  107 is an urban arterial in the South Bay, is fairly poorly signed, and is due to be relinquished at some point. Neither one would be big losses.

The bigger question is whether renumbering current state Route 7 is more or less of a hassle than renumbering current state Route 9.  7 seems easy given its length, location, and nascency.  I don’t know about 9 because I haven’t been to the Santa Cruz area in 20 years.

7 would be way easier not only is the distance shorter but the 9 corridor is one of the original state highways and is well signed.  From a historical context I’d rather leave 9 alone. 

107 was effectively toast once the Torrance-Harbor City-Long Beach freeway (a combination of CA 107 and CA 1) was rescinded back around 1976 or so during the Gianturco regime at Caltrans.   Originally (prewar) the southern end of SSR 7, about the only reason it stuck around as long as it did (cut back to south of I-405 in Lawndale ca. 1982) was that (a) Lawndale and Torrance didn't want to assume maintenance expenses, and (b) at least three major shopping malls were arrayed along its length, and the politically-connected owners wanted a state highway through their midst. 

But I certainly agree that if and when an Interstate designation is selected for the CA 99 corridor, the choice of I-7 would make life simpler for Caltrans; current CA 7 hasn't been around long enough to amass historical significance; and while CA 9 is but a shadow of its former self, what is left still has significant lore attached, particularly in the Boulder Creek-Santa Cruz area, where a number of businesses describe themselves as located on "Highway 9"!  However, when the choice need to be made, it'll come down to the practicality of the "7" number versus potential Valley-based sentiment toward retention of the integer "9" for that particular corridor.  At this juncture, there's no telling which will prevail.

Nah! Just route I-305 all of the way down to Wheeler Ridge!
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6143
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 04:57:18 AM
Re: CA 51/I-80 Business Loop
« Reply #73 on: November 27, 2018, 04:12:53 PM »

^^^^^^^^
Yecch!  Don't like super-long 3di's; this ain't the US system (US 281, I'm looking at you!).  When the time comes, either I-7 or I-9 would work; we've already discussed the pros & cons of either selection at length.  Still many years away for any action toward an I-designation.
Logged

jdbx

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 30
  • Location: Pleasant Hill, CA
  • Last Login: December 06, 2019, 02:24:45 PM
Re: CA 51/I-80 Business Loop
« Reply #74 on: November 28, 2018, 04:58:56 PM »

A thought that would make every roadgeek vomit, but would also probably result in the least friction from local communities and Caltrans:  Take a page out of Bud Shuster's book and number it I-99.  We already have I-238 that upsets so many, and the precedent of duplicate 2-dis already exists (I-76, I-84, etc...). 
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.