Do you think CalTRANS should publicly sign I-305 and CA-51?

[Quillz]

In Sacramento, the I-80 Business Loop, also known as the "Capital City Freeway," is actually a conglomerate of various concurrent highways. In fact, the segment between I-5 and CA-99 (at least, the section that heads south) has been officially funded as Interstate 305 for many years now, but CalTRANS does not publicly sign the route. The other segment that connects CA-99 to I-80 has been State Route 51 for a long time, too, but also is not publicly signed.

Being that I'm not at all a fan of business loops and spurs, my question is quite simple: As concurrences are already signed on this particularly heavily traveled segment of freeway, would you like to see the I-305 and CA-51 signage made public? I'm aware it would probably just create unnecessary confusion, though.

[TheStranger]

Why sign I-305 when US 50 exists for that entire east-west segment legislatively?  (305 doesn't exist at all legislatively and is not even used internally by Caltrans)

The ideal solution would be for the east-west portion to be 50 only (and 99 where concurrent) and the north-south segment from the Oak Park interchange to Foothill Farms signed as solely 51.

[Alps]

I'd be a fan of signing I-305.  I think all Interstate highways should be signed - that's the idea of having the system.  If you're unwilling to sign it, it loses funding/status.

[agentsteel53]

I'd be a fan of signing I-305.  I think all Interstate highways should be signed - that's the idea of having the system.  If you're unwilling to sign it, it loses funding/status.

I don't think it's particularly necessary to sign a short interstate when it already has a number that makes it part of a much longer route - in this case, US-50.  The other branch of Green 80 needs to go away, though, and 51 is a good number for it.

I also think 980 is a silly interstate designation in CA and it should just be 24, at least until the tunnels are upgraded and the road extends to 680.  In that case, the interstate designation makes a lot more sense.  But, really, I'd rather see 17, 21, 24, etc.  Having all the routes be x80 just adds to driver confusion.

(similarly, I have no idea how drivers in Washington fare with their endless set of 5xx routes, and some 9xx as well, all in close proximity in the Seattle area)

[TheStranger]

I also think 980 is a silly interstate designation in CA and it should just be 24, at least until the tunnels are upgraded and the road extends to 680.  In that case, the interstate designation makes a lot more sense.  But, really, I'd rather see 17, 21, 24, etc.  Having all the routes be x80 just adds to driver confusion.

I wonder how hard it is to deal with the multiple 3dis in metro Los Angeles, in comparison to the near total lack of in San Diego (though you have route clustering of similar-numbered designations in the latter, i.e. 52/54/56...and a little bit of that in SoCal, i.e. 241/261 and 55/57).

New York has a bunch of the x78s (none of which intersect I-78 due to cancellations) but the numbers are rarely used by locals.

[Alps]

I also think 980 is a silly interstate designation in CA and it should just be 24, at least until the tunnels are upgraded and the road extends to 680.  In that case, the interstate designation makes a lot more sense.  But, really, I'd rather see 17, 21, 24, etc.  Having all the routes be x80 just adds to driver confusion.

I wonder how hard it is to deal with the multiple 3dis in metro Los Angeles, in comparison to the near total lack of in San Diego (though you have route clustering of similar-numbered designations in the latter, i.e. 52/54/56...and a little bit of that in SoCal, i.e. 241/261 and 55/57).

New York has a bunch of the x78s (none of which intersect I-78 due to cancellations) but the numbers are rarely used by locals.

You answered your own question.  Californians navigate by freeway names as well.  Now take Hawaii, where routes are grouped by first digit on each island.  All the 5's are on Kauai, 3's and 4's on Maui, 1's and 2's on Big Island, the rest on Oahu.  If you can't tell the difference between 378 and 379, or 31/32/34/35/36, you're in trouble.

[Alps]

I don't think it's particularly necessary to sign a short interstate when it already has a number that makes it part of a much longer route - in this case, US-50.

Then I'd take away the Interstate designation entirely.  If the designation is superfluous and won't be signed, then it doesn't need to be there, especially now that funding formulas aren't used so strictly.  Stick it in the NHS at a 90% funding rate and keep it plain US 50.  Free up your Interstate miles and apply them somewhere useful like 110, 710, or 980.

[Quillz]

I also think 980 is a silly interstate designation in CA and it should just be 24, at least until the tunnels are upgraded and the road extends to 680.  In that case, the interstate designation makes a lot more sense.  But, really, I'd rather see 17, 21, 24, etc.  Having all the routes be x80 just adds to driver confusion.

I wonder how hard it is to deal with the multiple 3dis in metro Los Angeles, in comparison to the near total lack of in San Diego (though you have route clustering of similar-numbered designations in the latter, i.e. 52/54/56...and a little bit of that in SoCal, i.e. 241/261 and 55/57).

New York has a bunch of the x78s (none of which intersect I-78 due to cancellations) but the numbers are rarely used by locals.

It's not too bad in the L.A. area because a lot of them are spread out and there is a fair even mix of x5, x10 and x15. Also the leading digits tend to only be repeated once or twice in the area... For example, instead of having 205, 210 and 215, there is only the latter two. Only one occurrence of an 4xx, 6xx and 7xx.

[Bickendan]

On the other hand, I-305 is one of the few quinplexes in the country... (I-305/BUS I-80/US 50/CA 16/CA 99)

However, as I-305 is wholly superfluous, with no legislative or CalTrans recognition, it's a functionally useless number.
Bus I-80 only serves as a even-3di for I-80 (ironic, as I-80 is on old I-880's alignment), but I'm not convinced taking down the green 80 shields and replacing them with CA 51's would cause any disservice to the public. If CalTrans and/or the Feds want a Green 80 maintained, they can have it take CA 275 (was this decommed?), CA 160 and Northgate Blvd back to I-80.
CA 16... either sign the blasted concurrency with I-5 and US 50 or renumber one of the two segments.
CA 99 needs US highway shields. 'Nuff said.

[myosh_tino]

CA 16... either sign the blasted concurrency with I-5 and US 50 or renumber one of the two segments.
CA 99 needs US highway shields. 'Nuff said.

You will probably never see CA-16 signed along US 50 and I-5 because the concurrency you speak of does not exist.  That segment of CA-16 was deleted back in 1984.

CA-16 isn't the only non-continuous highway in California.  CA-65 has a 200-mile unconstructed segment from CA-198 to I-80 which is why exit numbers on CA-65 in Roseville start at 307.  CA-84 also has a gap in it from I-580 in Livermore to CA-12 in Rio Vista.

As far as the signing of BL-80, I really don't see what the fuss is all about.  The "Business Loop" designation was probably used to provide continuity back in the mid-80's when the renumbering of the Sacramento freeways occurred (I-880 becomes I-80, old I-80 becomes BL-80, US 50 extended west to the old 80/880 interchange).  Why use two different route numbers (305 and 51) for a freeway that used to have a single number (80)?  I personally like the BL-80 designation because drivers can follow this route knowing that you will eventually reconnect with I-80.

FWIW, I drove through downtown Sacramento recently and my TomTom GPS was going crazy as I approached the east-west segment of BL-80 as it tried to handle a 4-route concurrency which interestingly enough included CA-16 along with I-80, US-50 and CA-99.  The current map in my GPS (which is the latest from TomTom) still refers to BL-80 as Interstate 80.

[TheStranger]

You answered your own question.  Californians navigate by freeway names as well.

Depends: some routes are almost always never referred to by name, but number (i.e. 680, 24) in the Bay Area.  And isn't it a generational thing in Los Angeles, in which the names have been deprecated somewhat over time (though not entirely)?

Free up your Interstate miles and apply them somewhere useful like 110, 710, or 980.

I don't think 305 is a matter of miles being "used" that could be used elsewhere, but rather an FHWA attempt to acknowledge the fact that today's Business 80 between Route 275 and E Street WAS built as I-80 with interstate funds (and partially as US 99E/US 50) in the 1960s, and was not existing US 40 freeway built before the Interstate era began.  Not sure how that affects the chargeable/non-chargeable calculations.

CA 16... either sign the blasted concurrency with I-5 and US 50 or renumber one of the two segments.

You will probably never see CA-16 signed along US 50 and I-5 because the concurrency you speak of does not exist.  That segment of CA-16 was deleted back in 1984.

Bickendan's point still stands - as a result of the 1984 deletion of the original Route 16 alignment along River Road between Woodland and Sacramento, what was once a mere 5 miles gap between segments is now a 27 mile gap.

 Really, that should be two entirely separate numbered routes, just as the former southern portion of Route 71 became Route 371 in 1974 as a result of the creation of I-15E (now I-215) and the rerouting of I-15 over part of what was Route 71 to Corona.  It's different from the Route 65 gap - a situation in which the long gap there IS intended to be filled up some time this century.

FWIW, I drove through downtown Sacramento recently and my TomTom GPS was going crazy as I approached the east-west segment of BL-80 as it tried to handle a 4-route concurrency which interestingly enough included CA-16 along with I-80, US-50 and CA-99.  The current map in my GPS (which is the latest from TomTom) still refers to BL-80 as Interstate 80.

Google Maps also attempts to show Route 16 along I-5 and US 50 as well, even though I don't think it's ever been legislatively assigned to that pathway.  (IIRC, one map I've seen at UC Davis when I was going there did show 16 and 5 concurrent east of Woodland to where River Road access to West Sacramento splits off before I-5 enters Sacramento County)

[J N Winkler]

Then I'd take away the Interstate designation entirely.  If the designation is superfluous and won't be signed, then it doesn't need to be there, especially now that funding formulas aren't used so strictly.  Stick it in the NHS at a 90% funding rate and keep it plain US 50.  Free up your Interstate miles and apply them somewhere useful like 110, 710, or 980.

I don't think it works that way.  NHS is 80% federal, 20% state, and only for new construction.  Interstate designation (whether hidden or not) attracts IM funding at the old 90% federal, 10% state ratio, but a cutoff date (sometime in 2003?) is in effect--any Interstate route designated or signed after that date no longer attracts that funding ratio.

My personal view is that Interstates should be signed only when that has navigational utility for the travelling public.  On this ground I would get rid of the I-980 signs just to eliminate a change of number on one of the two through routes at the Oakland stack.

[Quillz]

Then I'd take away the Interstate designation entirely.  If the designation is superfluous and won't be signed, then it doesn't need to be there, especially now that funding formulas aren't used so strictly.  Stick it in the NHS at a 90% funding rate and keep it plain US 50.  Free up your Interstate miles and apply them somewhere useful like 110, 710, or 980.

I don't think it works that way.  NHS is 80% federal, 20% state, and only for new construction.  Interstate designation (whether hidden or not) attracts IM funding at the old 90% federal, 10% state ratio, but a cutoff date (sometime in 2003?) is in effect--any Interstate route designated or signed after that date no longer attracts that funding ratio.

My personal view is that Interstates should be signed only when that has navigational utility for the travelling public.  On this ground I would get rid of the I-980 signs just to eliminate a change of number on one of the two through routes at the Oakland stack.

Well, until very recently, I believe I-980 was actually never signed. All signs simply said "TO I-580" or "TO CA-24."

[agentsteel53]

CA-16 isn't the only non-continuous highway in California.  CA-65 has a 200-mile unconstructed segment from CA-198 to I-80 which is why exit numbers on CA-65 in Roseville start at 307.  

yet, the US-395 freeway coming out of Reno has exit numbers starting at 1.  The 395/70 junction is exit 7.  I can't remember what number the 395/203 junction, well south of there at Mammoth, is... but it is certainly higher than 7!

I personally like the BL-80 designation because drivers can follow this route knowing that you will eventually reconnect with I-80.

the main reason I do not like it is because business loops should directly provide business access, and Green 80 does no such thing.

[myosh_tino]

yet, the US-395 freeway coming out of Reno has exit numbers starting at 1.  The 395/70 junction is exit 7.  I can't remember what number the 395/203 junction, well south of there at Mammoth, is... but it is certainly higher than 7!

Yeah, you got me on that one.  Is there any other case where a highway leaves and re-enters a state?  If so, how are the exit numbers handled.

the main reason I do not like it is because business loops should directly provide business access, and Green 80 does no such thing.

Well, it does take traffic into downtown Sacramento while I-80 bypasses the downtown area to the north.

[mightyace]

Yeah, you got me on that one.  Is there any other case where a highway leaves and re-enters a state?  If so, how are the exit numbers handled.

This topic has been discussed before at least once:
In-&-Back Routes (between states, counties, etc.)

[agentsteel53]

I-24's exit numbering is continuous in TN, GA, and TN again - it is treated as though the crossing into Georgia and back does not take place.  GA exits are in the 160s.

[TheStranger]

Well, until very recently, I believe I-980 was actually never signed. All signs simply said "TO I-580" or "TO CA-24."

980 has always been signed at the termini (the split with 880 and the stack with 580/24), I don't know about trailblazers though.

Yeah, you got me on that one.  Is there any other case where a highway leaves and re-enters a state?  If so, how are the exit numbers handled.

future I-86/NY 17 enters Pennsylvania briefly to intersect US 220, then reenters New York - exit numbers continue in sequence.

[subzeroepsilon]

Well, until very recently, I believe I-980 was actually never signed. All signs simply said "TO I-580" or "TO CA-24."

980 has always been signed at the termini (the split with 880 and the stack with 580/24), I don't know about trailblazers though.

Yeah, you got me on that one.  Is there any other case where a highway leaves and re-enters a state?  If so, how are the exit numbers handled.

future I-86/NY 17 enters Pennsylvania briefly to intersect US 220, then reenters New York - exit numbers continue in sequence.

I-980 just recently got trailblazer signage through the downtown Oakland segment to include only a mention of I-980 (no more CA-24 shields). As far as I can remember, the I-980 section was well-posted on freeway entrances prior to this move.

As far as a highway entering one state and the re-entering later, US-395 leaves California in Lassen County, then enters Nevada passing through Reno and Carson City, before re-entering California in Alpine County. From what I can tell, California resets the milepost upon re-entry in the northern section. According to the Cal-NEXUS database, there is one exit on this highway given Exit 7 - CA-70. Since CA numbers their exits in ascending order in the northerly and easterly directions, this indicates the mileage must has reset because otherwise US-395 should have a exit number much higher (probably in the 400s or 500s at that point).

[subzeroepsilon]

To get to the OP's question though. I think that Bus-80 needs to go, period. The idea of having two freeways with an 80 designation is confusing to many people I know that do not spend much time around Sacramento. I have had at least three friends call me and tell me they got lost because they stayed to the left when driving up from the Bay Area and ended up off course in West Sacramento.

There are two ways, in my view, resolve this issue:

1-  Renumber the whole segment of Bus-80 as CA-480. Clearly, this will never get reused by the Bay Area due to its negative connotations associated with the Embarcardero Freeway so why not put it to use. In a perfect world this would be I-480 but good luck getting the CA-51 segment approved due to its substandard sections (e.g. Marconi Curve). This serves the functional equivalent of a 2di urban loop through the central core of the city (see I-405, Oregon) and it is distinguishable enough from its parent to avoid confusion. US-50 can still be signed for concurrency purposes but the primary route is CA-480 for mileage and exit numbering purposes (sort of like the I-980/CA-24 arrangement in the Bay Area). CA-51 would be completely eliminated and available for reassignment elsewhere.

2-  If/when the CA-99 freeway is upgraded to Interstate standards from Grapevine to Sacramento, the CA-51 section can be tied into that adjustment. For the sake of argument, suppose CA-99 becomes I-9. The CA-51 segment can then be signed as CA-9 much as how CA-15 continues after I-15 "ends" at I-8 in San Diego. The mileage and exit numbering would be contiguous with I-9 (starting around 298 and ending at approximately 307) and the route would end at the eastern I-80 split near North Highlands.

[TheStranger]

There are two ways, in my view, resolve this issue:

1-  Renumber the whole segment of Bus-80 as CA-480. Clearly, this will never get reused by the Bay Area due to its negative connotations associated with the Embarcardero Freeway so why not put it to use. In a perfect world this would be I-480 but good luck getting the CA-51 segment approved due to its substandard sections (e.g. Marconi Curve). This serves the functional equivalent of a 2di urban loop through the central core of the city (see I-405, Oregon) and it is distinguishable enough from its parent to avoid confusion. US-50 can still be signed for concurrency purposes but the primary route is CA-480 for mileage and exit numbering purposes (sort of like the I-980/CA-24 arrangement in the Bay Area). CA-51 would be completely eliminated and available for reassignment elsewhere.

Considering that US 50 is the only legislatively assigned route for the portion of Business 80 from West Sacramento to the Oak Park interchange, I don't think having a state route concurrent with the first 5 miles of it would entirely solve the issue of route simplification in the are - particularly when Route 99 already has its concurrency with US 50 (and Business 80) between I-5 and Oak Park.  If anything, 50 should be getting more emphasis westbound than it has at present.

[rschen7754]

I'd say no just because there's already enough routes on that stretch of road and adding any more would lead to confusion.

[TheStranger]

Amazingly, we now have a trailblazer on the route between I-80 and Oak Park for the first time!

It's a Business 80 westbound shield between Harbor Boulevard and the I-80 west terminus.  Not sure how useful this is, especially when this stretch of road is known to most folks as US 50.

[myosh_tino]

"Do you think CalTrans should publicly sign I-305 and CA-51?"

Looks like Google Maps has done that already...
http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=sacramento,+ca&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=31.23349,55.810547&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Sacramento,+California&ll=38.600774,-121.479263&spn=0.120203,0.21801&t=h&z=12

Oddly enough, CA-99, CA-16 and US 50 are all signed on the east-west section and I-80 is signed on the north-south section.  They are also showing an I-305 shield east of the 50/99/BL80 interchange and a CA-51 shield north of the 80/BL80 interchange in north Sacramento.

Seeing how Caltrans has not signed either I-305 or CA-51, I think someone should contact Google and tell them to remove the I-305 and CA-51 references from their map to avoid driver confusion.  Does anyone know how to contact Google to report "errors"?

[KEK Inc.]

There's a link in the lower right corner that says, "Report a problem."  I already reported it, but the more complaints they get, the more likely they'll do something about it.