Print

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

[Max Rockatansky]

This past December I took a drive east on I-210 which is known as the Foothill Freeway from I-5 to CA 2.  That being the case the topic of the Foothill Freeway and the oddity of I-210/CA 210 came up finally for the blog series.  Suffice to say I-210/CA 210 is odd enough to warrant a topic by itself but doesn't even begin to touch on the history of the Foothill Freeway.  The Foothill Freeway corridor has ties back to some of the most historic highway corridors in California which include; US 99, CA 118, US 66, and even CA 30.  In the blog below I broke down the development of the Foothill Freeway corridor from 1909 First State Highway Bond Act creation of Legislative Route 9 but to the somewhat empty promise (at least up to now) of CA 30 becoming part of I-210.   

https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/02/interstate-210-and-california-state.html

[The Ghostbuster]

Both CA 210 and CA 905 should have become Interstate 210 and Interstate 905 by now. Ditto for CA 15 becoming Interstate 15.

[Max Rockatansky]

Both CA 210 and CA 905 should have become Interstate 210 and Interstate 905 by now. Ditto for CA 15 becoming Interstate 15.

If I’m not mistaken all of CA 210 is Interstate standard now.  I remember that being a hang up in the early 2000s, not pursuing the addition to I-210 with the AASHTO seems lazy at this point.

[ClassicHasClass]

I think there's still an issue with the former CA 30 portion, but I don't recall exactly where.

[sparker]

I think there's still an issue with the former CA 30 portion, but I don't recall exactly where.

On the bermed portion of the freeway from east of the Waterman Ave. (CA 18) interchange to just east of the Highland Ave. (former Business 30) there are several bridges with no shoulders (constructed ca. 1967); the trenched section to the west has substandard inner shoulders from the CA 259 merge to near Highland.  The 1992-opened sections from Highland to I-10 in Redlands and between 259 and I-215 are both full interstate standard, as is the 2007 section west to Fontana.  The bridges could conceivably get waivers, but it's likely the shoulders will have to be widened before that section is acceptable as an Interstate.

[Max Rockatansky]

I think there's still an issue with the former CA 30 portion, but I don't recall exactly where.

On the bermed portion of the freeway from east of the Waterman Ave. (CA 18) interchange to just east of the Highland Ave. (former Business 30) there are several bridges with no shoulders (constructed ca. 1967); the trenched section to the west has substandard inner shoulders from the CA 259 merge to near Highland.  The 1992-opened sections from Highland to I-10 in Redlands and between 259 and I-215 are both full interstate standard, as is the 2007 section west to Fontana.  The bridges could conceivably get waivers, but it's likely the shoulders will have to be widened before that section is acceptable as an Interstate.

So in theory CA 210 between CA 57 and I-215 is good to go for Interstate inclusion?  That would seemingly have some practicality unto itself given it would have an I-210 connecting to signed Interstate segments at both terminus points. 

[sparker]

I think there's still an issue with the former CA 30 portion, but I don't recall exactly where.

On the bermed portion of the freeway from east of the Waterman Ave. (CA 18) interchange to just east of the Highland Ave. (former Business 30) there are several bridges with no shoulders (constructed ca. 1967); the trenched section to the west has substandard inner shoulders from the CA 259 merge to near Highland.  The 1992-opened sections from Highland to I-10 in Redlands and between 259 and I-215 are both full interstate standard, as is the 2007 section west to Fontana.  The bridges could conceivably get waivers, but it's likely the shoulders will have to be widened before that section is acceptable as an Interstate.

So in theory CA 210 between CA 57 and I-215 is good to go for Interstate inclusion?  That would seemingly have some practicality unto itself given it would have an I-210 connecting to signed Interstate segments at both terminus points. 

Since the raison d'etre for the composite "210" designation is a bypass/alternative to I-10, it's more than likely that the entire corridor, when brought up to standard (or, alternately, given waivers) will be submitted in one fell swoop.  If Caltrans were interested in one-section-at-a-time designations, they would have submitted the section from CA 57 out to I-15 between 2002 and 2007 after that segment opened up.  Obviously, they were at least waiting until the 210/215 interchange was completed a few years back before any such designation activity was contemplated -- but it's been over 5 years and still no action on that front.  I don't think they're in any hurry to do anything until they can fund and finish the San Bernardino upgrades to provide a singular 85-mile I-210 corridor from Redlands to Sylmar.   

[mrsman]

CA is "lucky" that they are a state that disallows the same number being used on two different highways.  Here, the entire highway is part of "the 210" even though it has a miner's spade east of CA 57.  In people's minds, it is all one highway.  So while I and many others on the forum would prefer to see the interstate shield on as much of the highway that qualifies to interstate standards (and ideally the entire roadway at some future point), in Caltrans' view it is no big deal that there is both a CA-210 and I-210 along the same corridor.

CA 15 is a bigger mystery to me.  Are there still non-interstate sections on that road?

[Max Rockatansky]

CA is "lucky" that they are a state that disallows the same number being used on two different highways.  Here, the entire highway is part of "the 210" even though it has a miner's spade east of CA 57.  In people's minds, it is all one highway.  So while I and many others on the forum would prefer to see the interstate shield on as much of the highway that qualifies to interstate standards (and ideally the entire roadway at some future point), in Caltrans' view it is no big deal that there is both a CA-210 and I-210 along the same corridor.

Isn't that attitude by Caltrans kind of a problem unto itself, or at least seems like a dereliction of their role as a DOT?  I seem to recall one of the forum members got some backlash from a Caltrans director regarding the question of the value of the Interstate designation of CA 15 over I-15?

[ClassicHasClass]

CA 15 is a bigger mystery to me. Are there still non-interstate sections on that road?

Largely the CA 15-CA 94 interchange. The curves are substandard.

[theroadwayone]

CA 15 is a bigger mystery to me. Are there still non-interstate sections on that road?

Largely the CA 15-CA 94 interchange. The curves are substandard.

There have been plans to fix that, but so far, nothing has come of that, and I doubt anything ever will.

[CtrlAltDel]

CA 15 is a bigger mystery to me. Are there still non-interstate sections on that road?

Largely the CA 15-CA 94 interchange. The curves are substandard.

While I’m no expert, I find that hard to believe. CA-15, which is the vertical route in the picture below, seems reasonably straight to me.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^
Since the LH exits are on the intersecting CA 94 rather than on the CA/I-15 alignment, that shouldn't be an excuse not to replace the spades with shields on 15.  Notice there are no provisions for a SB15>EB94 movement, likely due to I-805 which essentially crosses both of these routes diagonally, the former just out of the picture to the north, the latter to the east.   If there is indeed some technical reason why CA 15 is substandard, this picture doesn't appear to illustrate it. 

[Techknow]

My educated guess is it could be due to the interchange on the northbound CA 94 exit. The cloverleaf exit from NB15 to WB94 has a 20 MPH advisory speed limit according to StreetView. However I-280 has a very similar exit for CA 85 northbound which has a 25 MPH advisory limit so that can't be why.

The EB94 exit has an exit speed of only 35 MPH, but for the interchange to CA 85 southbound, the speed limit doesn't change at all from 65 MPH, likely because it has a smaller curvature.

[mgk920]

As long as the deceleration lane on NB CA 15 for the ramp to WB CA 94 is sufficient, that should not be a problem with putting up the funky red, white and blue signs on CA 15.  I've looked upon this non-signing as nothing more than a laziness/low priority thing at Caltrans.

Mike

[sparker]

As long as the deceleration lane on NB CA 15 for the ramp to WB CA 94 is sufficient, that should not be a problem with putting up the funky red, white and blue signs on CA 15.  I've looked upon this non-signing as nothing more than a laziness/low priority thing at Caltrans.

Mike

Yeah.....D11 won't even expend the effort to sign I-905 over & down to the border, even though that's been at Interstate standards since about 2014.   I don't see that attitude changing for CA/I-15 either in the near term.  As far as the current Caltrans management is concerned, it appears their Interstate era ceased when I-215 was completed back in '95.  AFAIK, there hasn't been an instance of new Interstate signage applied within the state since then (although I-210 signage along the north end of present CA 57 was removed in 2002!). 

[theroadwayone]

As long as the deceleration lane on NB CA 15 for the ramp to WB CA 94 is sufficient, that should not be a problem with putting up the funky red, white and blue signs on CA 15.  I've looked upon this non-signing as nothing more than a laziness/low priority thing at Caltrans.

Mike

Apparently, there are plans in the cards to add express lanes to the 94. Should that happen, it may bring big-time changes to that interchange as well.

[Max Rockatansky]

Put something together for CA 210 and former CA 30:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2022/11/california-state-route-210-legacy-of.html?m=1

[Quillz]

CA is "lucky" that they are a state that disallows the same number being used on two different highways.  Here, the entire highway is part of "the 210" even though it has a miner's spade east of CA 57.  In people's minds, it is all one highway.  So while I and many others on the forum would prefer to see the interstate shield on as much of the highway that qualifies to interstate standards (and ideally the entire roadway at some future point), in Caltrans' view it is no big deal that there is both a CA-210 and I-210 along the same corridor.

Isn't that attitude by Caltrans kind of a problem unto itself, or at least seems like a dereliction of their role as a DOT?  I seem to recall one of the forum members got some backlash from a Caltrans director regarding the question of the value of the Interstate designation of CA 15 over I-15?

My take on the matter has always been to be consistent with the "tier." For example, I don't think CA-99 needs to be or ever will be an interstate, and that's okay because the entire thing is consistently CA-99. While the 210 is basically the same thing in practice, it's the fact it's state route and not interstate for now roughly half its length. To me, either make the whole thing CA-210, or I-210. Which I guess kind of agrees with what you're saying. I would agree with the seeming Caltrans mentality there is no need to make everything an interstate number (just bring things up to interstate specs), but at this point not having a complete I-210 seems lazy.

[cahwyguy]

My take on the matter has always been to be consistent with the "tier." For example, I don't think CA-99 needs to be or ever will be an interstate, and that's okay because the entire thing is consistently CA-99. While the 210 is basically the same thing in practice, it's the fact it's state route and not interstate for now roughly half its length. To me, either make the whole thing CA-210, or I-210. Which I guess kind of agrees with what you're saying. I would agree with the seeming Caltrans mentality there is no need to make everything an interstate number (just bring things up to interstate specs), but at this point not having a complete I-210 seems lazy.

I think it really boils down to: budget and benefit. First, what would be the cost to change all the signs, both for Caltrans and the local agencies.

Then: What is the benefit of resigning? Does it bring in more federal maintenance funds? Does it change anything about the route?

If the answer is that it costs a lot of money for no real benefit, then the CTC/Caltrans will ask: Why do it? The funds can be better spent improving infrastructure around the state.

We all feel that these numbers are so important. But today, they really aren't. Renumbering existing routes doesn't bring federal funds. GPS routing for trucks makes the interstate designation less important (before, it designated truck-safe routes, which I've come to realize is the real reason for I-238 -- to get trucks off of I-580). There is no benefit to Caltrans from the renumbering, and the funds are better spent elsewhere.

Unless there's a major benefit, we're probably not going to see this reshielded.

[pderocco]

I think it really boils down to: budget and benefit. First, what would be the cost to change all the signs, both for Caltrans and the local agencies.

Then: What is the benefit of resigning? Does it bring in more federal maintenance funds? Does it change anything about the route?

The only real benefit is that it makes directions clearer. People usually refer to interstates with an "I", but if you say "take I-210 to San Bernardino", the person following the directions might get confused when the Interstate signs disappear. I recall giving directions to a Mexican who barely spoke English up in Victorville who asked me how to get to San Fernando, and having to explain that route 210 becomes I-210 at some point. I hope he got there okay.

[Quillz]

I think that's more an issue in places where they say "I-" or "US-" or w/e. A lot of places just say the number and that's it. In that case, "210" would be clear no matter the exact designation.

[ClassicHasClass]

Hey, we say "the 210" in the Southland anyway!

[bing101]

I think that's more an issue in places where they say "I-" or "US-" or w/e. A lot of places just say the number and that's it. In that case, "210" would be clear no matter the exact designation.

Well thats a Sacramento area and Solano county thing where we say I-, US-, State Route given that its a carryover when Business 80 officially on (CA-51 and US-50)  and I-80 are different routes. US-50, State Route 99, I-505, CA-113.

In Solano County we have to deal with Bay Area and Sacramento commuters at the same time.  I hear on Highway 580, Highway 80, Highway 101, Highway 880, Highway 24, Highway 680 to refer to Bay Area Freeways.  In Solano County I hear I-80 and Highway 80 used interchangebly and it's being used to refer to the same freeway.

[roadman65]

Well thats a Sacramento area and Solano county thing where we say I-, US-, State Route given that its a carryover when Business 80 officially on (CA-51 and US-50)  and I-80 are different routes. US-50, State Route 99, I-505, CA-113.

In Solano County we have to deal with Bay Area and Sacramento commuters at the same time.  I hear on Highway 580, Highway 80, Highway 101, Highway 880, Highway 24, Highway 680 to refer to Bay Area Freeways.  In Solano County I hear I-80 and Highway 80 used interchangebly and it's being used to refer to the same freeway.

What’s in a name?


Where is the purple box between [/quote] and [/quote]?

Mod Note: I fixed your quote tag. You need "quote" to start the quoted material and "/quote" at the end of it. In this case, I supplied the full tag element (that also displays the author & original post info) that fills in automatically when you use the built-in quote feature. —Roadfro