CA-58 and I-40

[ElishaGOtis]

An eastern extension of unsigned Interstate 305 along US 50 between Sacramento and Placerville would be more logical (although just as unlikely) as a western extension of Interstate 70.

Or maybe that section of US 50 could just be designated as "I-50" for consistency of numbering? A longer I-50 would never be built, and it fits into the Interstate numbering scheme.  There are other instances in which numbers are maintained across designations (SR and I-15, SR and I-110 for example), and an I-50 designation might be even more meaningful for that area. But I know there are AASHTO considerations, so it probably wouldn't happen.

I-305 is a FHWA designation which accounts for what was a chargeable corridor and the mileage which comprised it.  Approval from AASHTO was never sought because Caltrans had no interest in pursuing a legislatively defined Route 305. 

I do believe the US 50 does meet Interstate design standards though from I-80 east to the vicinity of Placerville.  In theory there isn't really anything AASHTO or the FHWA would object to if a a non-chargeable Interstate designation was sought.  Somehow I think they would find a way to object to "I-50" though. 

The highway will not be upgraded east of where those Interstate design standards presently end, a short distance west of the signals in Placerville.  "Hangtown" would be an odd place to truncate US 50 at.  I'd say that suggestion is less logical than extending the I-40 designation west of Barstow.

To be clear, I don't think there is a need for any of this.  I like I-305 just fine as a weird entity only a couple dozen people even know about.   

I-305 appears on google maps when you zoom in close enough on US-50 near its western terminus, although google likes to make mistakes on route numbering

Google Maps tends to obtain information recently discussed on social media I've noticed. 

At what point do y'all think they'll preemptively sign I-40 on SR-58?