It's Official in L.A. - It's the [number here] Freeway

[The High Plains Traveler]

The L.A. Times has officially adopted the terminology that seems to have been in general use for a long time.

[cpzilliacus]

The L.A. Times has officially adopted the terminology that seems to have been in general use for a long time.

My other definitive media source for information about Los Angeles-area traffic (including especially the freeway network) is KNX-1070, and their traffic reports ("traffic and weather together on the 5's") have been saying "the 405" and "the 101" and "the 5" and "the 91" for many years. 

So even though I will (as a confirmed East Coast guy) continue to write "I-405," "U.S. 101," "I-5," and "Ca. 91," I think the Times is making the right call.

[J N Winkler]

So even though I will (as a confirmed East Coast guy) continue to write "I-405," "U.S. 101," "I-5," and "Ca. 91," I think the Times is making the right call.

This change is not about using the definite article with route numbers or omitting the system designator.  Instead, it is about not referring to the freeways by their traditional names--Hollywood Freeway, San Diego Freeway, Colorado Freeway, etc.

There are some pros and cons to the traditionalist argument.  Pro:  names are arguably more stable.  The Harbor Freeway has always been the Harbor Freeway, despite being Route 11 for decades, and now Route 110 (I-110 south and Calif. 110 north).  Con:  names are not always stable.  Cases in point:  Colorado Freeway (now part of the Foothill Freeway), Los Angeles River Freeway (now better known as the Long Beach Freeway).  Pro:  names can be more specific.  "Harbor Freeway" and "Arroyo Seco Parkway" give a better idea of location since both are discrete parts of Route 110.  Con:  Names do not have very good relatability to maps even in Los Angeles.  Caltrans signing policy has deprecated freeway names since the 1960's, although the practical effect of this in LA has been muted because new signs tend to be "carbon copies" of existing signs.  (Some have suggested that this is because the plans for the old signs are reused for the new signs, but I don't think it is that simple.  Old signing plans are not pattern-accurate, while new signing plans have to be.  Instead, I think what actually happens is that the exterior dimensions of each sign to be replaced are read off as-built data--either SIOs or the actual plan sheets--and the existing legends are simply re-drawn into the same footprint, with mild modifications for exit numbers and the like, because Caltrans doesn't have the construction budget or personnel resource to do a bottom-up redesign of all LA freeway guide signing even if such a change would be accepted by the public, which is doubtful given the de facto landmark status of much signing.)

Whatever actually appears on signs or is used in the news media, however, you still need to know the traditional freeway names in order to retrieve construction plans for them from the City of Los Angeles' engineering vault.

[TheStranger]

Colorado Freeway (now part of the Foothill Freeway)

Actually, the Colorado Freeway (the original Route 134 through Burbank) partially got subsumed by an extension of the Ventura Freeway, and partially still exists as a spur off of I-5.  (The Foothill Freeway has always had that name - including the oldest segment that the current 210 has bypassed).

Caltrans signing policy has deprecated freeway names since the 1960's, although the practical effect of this in LA has been muted because new signs tend to be "carbon copies" of existing signs.  (Some have suggested that this is because the plans for the old signs are reused for the new signs, but I don't think it is that simple.  Old signing plans are not pattern-accurate, while new signing plans have to be.  Instead, I think what actually happens is that the exterior dimensions of each sign to be replaced are read off as-built data--either SIOs or the actual plan sheets--and the existing legends are simply re-drawn into the same footprint, with mild modifications for exit numbers and the like, because Caltrans doesn't have the construction budget or personnel resource to do a bottom-up redesign of all LA freeway guide signing even if such a change would be accepted by the public, which is doubtful given the de facto landmark status of much signing.)

In addition to the "carbon copy" new signs that keep the route names (San Diego Freeway for instance) in circulation, there's the recent resigning project to restore the Arroyo Seco Parkway name to the non-interstate stretch of Route 110 (primarily, historic US 66).

THAT can feed into both sides of the argument - a name that is now being reemphasized by CalTrans, but also a demonstration of (relative) lack of moniker stability for that route while it has remained state route 110 since 1981.

[nexus73]

I like the names better than the numbers.  LA/SoCal local flavor and all that you know!

Rick

[TheStranger]

I like the names better than the numbers.  LA/SoCal local flavor and all that you know!

Rick

I do too!  However, when a named freeway ends up involving segments of multiple numbered routes, I can completely see where this would be inconvenient.

Most notably, every segment of US 101 in Los Angeles County shares its name with another numbered route: Route 170 is the north part of the Hollywood Freeway, Route 134 is the east segment of the Ventura Freeway, and Interstate 5 (along former US 101) is the majority of the Santa Ana Freeway.

[cpzilliacus]

So even though I will (as a confirmed East Coast guy) continue to write "I-405," "U.S. 101," "I-5," and "Ca. 91," I think the Times is making the right call.

This change is not about using the definite article with route numbers or omitting the system designator.  Instead, it is about not referring to the freeways by their traditional names--Hollywood Freeway, San Diego Freeway, Colorado Freeway, etc.

I agree.

There are some pros and cons to the traditionalist argument.  Pro:  names are arguably more stable.  The Harbor Freeway has always been the Harbor Freeway, despite being Route 11 for decades, and now Route 110 (I-110 south and Calif. 110 north).  Con:  names are not always stable.  Cases in point:  Colorado Freeway (now part of the Foothill Freeway), Los Angeles River Freeway (now better known as the Long Beach Freeway).  Pro:  names can be more specific.  "Harbor Freeway" and "Arroyo Seco Parkway" give a better idea of location since both are discrete parts of Route 110.  Con:  Names do not have very good relatability to maps even in Los Angeles.  Caltrans signing policy has deprecated freeway names since the 1960's, although the practical effect of this in LA has been muted because new signs tend to be "carbon copies" of existing signs.  (Some have suggested that this is because the plans for the old signs are reused for the new signs, but I don't think it is that simple.  Old signing plans are not pattern-accurate, while new signing plans have to be.  Instead, I think what actually happens is that the exterior dimensions of each sign to be replaced are read off as-built data--either SIOs or the actual plan sheets--and the existing legends are simply re-drawn into the same footprint, with mild modifications for exit numbers and the like, because Caltrans doesn't have the construction budget or personnel resource to do a bottom-up redesign of all LA freeway guide signing even if such a change would be accepted by the public, which is doubtful given the de facto landmark status of much signing.)

While I personally like the freeway names, I can understand why radio traffic reporters and the station managements prefer numbers.  Consider that it takes a traffic anchor more time and more syllables to say "the San Bernardino Freeway" than it does to say "the Ten Freeway" or "the Four-O-Five" instead of  "the San Diego Freeway," I can see why they use numbers.

Closer to home for me, in the Md./Va./D.C. area, the Capital Beltway is almost invariably referred to as "the Inner Loop" or "the Outer Loop;" the Shirley Highway as "395" or "95;" I-66 as "66," I-270 as "270;" the Anacostia Freeway as "295" and the InterCounty Connector as "200."  U.S. 50 in Maryland is usually also called "John Hanson Highway" (to distinguish it from U.S. 50 in Northern Virginia, most of which is Arlington Boulevard).

Whatever actually appears on signs or is used in the news media, however, you still need to know the traditional freeway names in order to retrieve construction plans for them from the City of Los Angeles' engineering vault.

Interesting that those plans are in custody of the municipal government of Los Angeles, and not stored someplace by Caltrans, since (I believe) that Caltrans now has maintenance responsibility for the entire Southland freeway network.

[OCGuy81]

Great article.  I think this is the only area of the country where I hear people use terms a la "The 405".  Even up in northern California, I don't seem to hear it as much.  (ex. "Take 280, and then follow 1 to the Persidio")

Pro:  names can be more specific.

Agree for the most part.  The San Diego Freeway being in LA is one such exception that comes to mind.

[TheStranger]

Pro:  names can be more specific.

Agree for the most part.  The San Diego Freeway being in LA is one such exception that comes to mind.

The names still work for specificity if the nearest city/neighborhood is mentioned - i.e. "the Santa Ana Freeway approaching the Four-Level" as opposed to "the Santa Ana Freeway in Norwalk." 

Do any local traffic reports use both at the same time?  I know in NorCal, it still does tend to be one or the other on its own (i.e. usage of 280 as a number, "the Bayshore Freeway" as name).

[JustDrive]

Pro:  names can be more specific.

Agree for the most part.  The San Diego Freeway being in LA is one such exception that comes to mind.

The names still work for specificity if the nearest city/neighborhood is mentioned - i.e. "the Santa Ana Freeway approaching the Four-Level" as opposed to "the Santa Ana Freeway in Norwalk." 

Do any local traffic reports use both at the same time?  I know in NorCal, it still does tend to be one or the other on its own (i.e. usage of 280 as a number, "the Bayshore Freeway" as name).

I know the Bay Area mentions the "Nimitz" in both Oakland and Fremont.  Same with the Bayshore in the City itself.

[J N Winkler]

Interesting that those plans are in custody of the municipal government of Los Angeles, and not stored someplace by Caltrans, since (I believe) that Caltrans now has maintenance responsibility for the entire Southland freeway network.

Caltrans does have its own copies of the construction plans, in District 7 Map Files.  It is just that the City of Los Angeles' Engineering Vault is more easily accessible.  It is searchable online, and most of the aperture card archive has been scanned and can be downloaded online, though image quality is often poor due to microfilm "snow" (you know you have hit a dud when you download an aperture card set and each TIFF file averages 3.5 MB in size).

Another advantage is that bridge plans are more readily accessible for casual inspection.  If you want to know what the Four Level interchange structure looked like when it was finished in 1953, you can find the original plans (not plans for any rehabilitations or seismic retrofits) through the Engineering Vault without too much trouble.  To get the same information from Caltrans, you would have to supply a records request form, a special form for structure plans which includes a confidentiality statement, a scan or photocopy of your driver's license, and some sort of statement identifying a specific reason for needing the plans.  In return (assuming your request was successful) you would get not just one set of structure plans from a specific project involving that bridge, but rather an extract from Caltrans' bridge records inventory system, which includes all sets of structure plans covering that particular bridge number plus inspection reports.  For a casual interest in bridge design that information is a bit too much and entails too much time spent under the microscope of officialdom.

[myosh_tino]

I know the Bay Area mentions the "Nimitz" in both Oakland and Fremont.  Same with the Bayshore in the City itself.

Actually, US 101 has many names within the city of San Francisco.  Here are the freeway names I hear local traffic reporters using in the S.F. Bay Area.
* Bayshore (US 101 - San Jose to South S.F.)
* James Lick (US 101 - San Francisco)
* Central (US 101 - San Francisco)
* Eastshore (I-80 - Richmond to Oakland)
* Nimitz (I-880 - Oakland to San Jose)
* Redwood Highway (US 101 - Novato northward)
* MacArthur (I-580 - Castro Valley to Oakland)
* Guadalupe Pkwy (CA-87 - San Jose)
* Doyle Drive (US 101 - San Francisco... soon to be replaced with Presidio Pkwy)
* West Valley (CA-85 - San Jose to Cupertino)
* Warren (CA-13 - Oakland)

Many traffic reporters around here have names for certain interchanges...
* MacArthur Maze (I-80, I-880, I-580 - Oakland)
* Alemany Maze (I-280, US 101 - San Francisco)
* Dublin Interchange (I-580, I-680 - Dublin)
* Castro Valley "Y" (I-580, I-238, CA-238 - Castro Valley)
* Guadalupe Maze (I-280, CA-87 - San Jose... not very common but has been used)

and names for certain stretches of freeway...
* Dublin Grade (I-580 - Castro Valley and Dublin)
* Sunol Grade (I-680 - CA-238 to CA-84)
* Waldo Grade (US 101 - north of the Golden Gate Bridge)
* Altamont Pass (I-580 - east of Livermore)
* Hospital Curve (US 101 - San Francisco)
* The Skyway (I-80 - San Francisco)
* "The 280 Extension" (I-280 - north of US 101 in S.F.)

*whew* that's all I can think of right now.  If I missed any, I'm sure TheStranger will fill in the gaps.

[DTComposer]

I know the Bay Area mentions the "Nimitz" in both Oakland and Fremont.  Same with the Bayshore in the City itself.

Actually, US 101 has many names within the city of San Francisco.  Here are the freeway names I hear local traffic reporters using in the S.F. Bay Area.
* Bayshore (US 101 - San Jose to South S.F.)
* James Lick (US 101 - San Francisco)
* Central (US 101 - San Francisco)
* Eastshore (I-80 - Richmond to Oakland)
* Nimitz (I-880 - Oakland to San Jose)
* Redwood Highway (US 101 - Novato northward)
* MacArthur (I-580 - Castro Valley to Oakland)
* Guadalupe Pkwy (CA-87 - San Jose)
* Doyle Drive (US 101 - San Francisco... soon to be replaced with Presidio Pkwy)
* West Valley (CA-85 - San Jose to Cupertino)
* Warren (CA-13 - Oakland)

Many traffic reporters around here have names for certain interchanges...
* MacArthur Maze (I-80, I-880, I-580 - Oakland)
* Alemany Maze (I-280, US 101 - San Francisco)
* Dublin Interchange (I-580, I-680 - Dublin)
* Castro Valley "Y" (I-580, I-238, CA-238 - Castro Valley)
* Guadalupe Maze (I-280, CA-87 - San Jose... not very common but has been used)

and names for certain stretches of freeway...
* Dublin Grade (I-580 - Castro Valley and Dublin)
* Sunol Grade (I-680 - CA-238 to CA-84)
* Waldo Grade (US 101 - north of the Golden Gate Bridge)
* Altamont Pass (I-580 - east of Livermore)
* Hospital Curve (US 101 - San Francisco)
* The Skyway (I-80 - San Francisco)
* "The 280 Extension" (I-280 - north of US 101 in S.F.)

*whew* that's all I can think of right now.  If I missed any, I'm sure TheStranger will fill in the gaps.

When I lived in the Bay Area the ones I heard regularly were the Nimitz and Bayshore, less often MacArthur, Eastshore and Central, rarely on the others (although a good portion of my time there was before the West Valley or Guadalupe Freeways were open. This seems to hold true still when I visit. It seems to tie in a little bit on the age of the freeways - the Bayshore and Nimitz were among the first to open, and I would imagine people still used names of highways more often than route numbers back then, so the convention stuck.

[a little OT]
I'm of the opinion that all freeways and highways should have names, and that these names (even if they're not in popular usage) should be reflected in the legislative route definitions (as should surface streets):

Route 880 is from: Route 280 in San Jose to Route 80 in Oakland via the Nimitz Freeway.

That way we would have a more accurate record year-to-year of route re-alignments, adoptions and rescindings, etc. in the legislative record. Unconstructed or unadopted alignments would also be included:

Route 710 is from: Route 47 in Long Beach to Route 210 in Pasadena via the Long Beach Freeway, including an unconstructed routing to be determined between Valley Boulevard and California Boulevard

Some of the longer routes' definitions (101, 1, etc.) might get lengthy. Several years ago I went through and re-wrote most of the routes definitions to reflect this, making up names for freeways and highways where I couldn't find any existing names.

[/a little OT]

[mcdonaat]

This is actually what confused me in California. I would ask people where I-10 is, and they would immediately correct me and say that it's "The 10 Freeway." I drove from New Orleans to California on I-10, but it suddenly changed to The 10, not just any 10. Here in the Bayou State, we refer to our Interstates as I-10 or I-20, and any road called "highway 20" or "highway 10" is actually LA 10 or LA 20. We also use names, like the Inner Loop (LA 3132), Baton Rouge Expressway (I-110), and the "Crescent City Connection" (US 90 Business).

The use of the word "the" in front of the number would be confusing here, because saying "the 59" could refer to I-59 or LA 59, both of which exist about twenty miles from each other. My GPS always tells me that when I'm in Los Angeles, to merge onto U.S. Route 80 instead of I-10.

[myosh_tino]

This is actually what confused me in California. I would ask people where I-10 is, and they would immediately correct me and say that it's "The 10 Freeway." I drove from New Orleans to California on I-10, but it suddenly changed to The 10, not just any 10. Here in the Bayou State, we refer to our Interstates as I-10 or I-20, and any road called "highway 20" or "highway 10" is actually LA 10 or LA 20. We also use names, like the Inner Loop (LA 3132), Baton Rouge Expressway (I-110), and the "Crescent City Connection" (US 90 Business).

The use of the word "the" in front of the number would be confusing here, because saying "the 59" could refer to I-59 or LA 59, both of which exist about twenty miles from each other. My GPS always tells me that when I'm in Los Angeles, to merge onto U.S. Route 80 instead of I-10.

Adding "the" in front of a route number is purely a southern California thing.  Northern Californians typically say the route number (80, 50, 880, 101, etc) or preface the route number with "highway" or "interstate" or "I" or "US" or "route" (i.e. I-80, US 50, Highway 85).

Southern Californians can get away with saying "the 5" or "the 10" because California does not allow route number duplication.  US 10 and CA-10 cannot and do not exist because there is already a route 10 (I-10).  Hence the potential hub-bub about getting an interstate designation for CA-99.  If Caltrans wants to renumber CA-99 as I-9, then they would also have to renumber CA-9 (Los Gatos to Santa Cruz) to resolve the conflicting route numbers.  CA-9 runs through some populated areas (Los Gatos, Saratoga, Boulder Creek, Felton, Santa Cruz, etc).  That's why there are some (including myself) that think that CA-99 should be renumbered to I-7 because CA-7 is a short highway from I-8 to the Mexican border that can easily be renumbered with minimal impact.

[The High Plains Traveler]

So even though I will (as a confirmed East Coast guy) continue to write "I-405," "U.S. 101," "I-5," and "Ca. 91," I think the Times is making the right call.

This change is not about using the definite article with route numbers or omitting the system designator.  Instead, it is about not referring to the freeways by their traditional names--Hollywood Freeway, San Diego Freeway, Colorado Freeway, etc.

There are some pros and cons to the traditionalist argument.  Pro:  names are arguably more stable.  The Harbor Freeway has always been the Harbor Freeway, despite being Route 11 for decades, and now Route 110 (I-110 south and Calif. 110 north).  Con:  names are not always stable.  Cases in point:  Colorado Freeway (now part of the Foothill Freeway), Los Angeles River Freeway (now better known as the Long Beach Freeway).  Pro:  names can be more specific.  "Harbor Freeway" and "Arroyo Seco Parkway" give a better idea of location since both are discrete parts of Route 110.  Con:  Names do not have very good relatability to maps even in Los Angeles.  Caltrans signing policy has deprecated freeway names since the 1960's, although the practical effect of this in LA has been muted because new signs tend to be "carbon copies" of existing signs.

CalTrans, or perhaps it was still Division of Highways at that time, went through a period of emphasizing freeway name in the mid to late 1960s. Prior to that, the only use of a freeway name prior to an interchange was on exit sequence signs, and on an auxiliary (NEXT EXIT) sign just before the interchange. Signage at the interchange itself was direction/route number/destination. Due to complaints from the public, this style of signage was introduced. Since that time, a number of freeways without generally well-known names have opened in southern California (Gardena Freeway, anyone?) and so route numbers have become predominant.

[TheStranger]

I know the Bay Area mentions the "Nimitz" in both Oakland and Fremont.  Same with the Bayshore in the City itself.

Actually, US 101 has many names within the city of San Francisco.  Here are the freeway names I hear local traffic reporters using in the S.F. Bay Area.
* Bayshore (US 101 - San Jose to South S.F.)
* James Lick (US 101 - San Francisco)
* Central (US 101 - San Francisco)
* Eastshore (I-80 - Richmond to Oakland)
* Nimitz (I-880 - Oakland to San Jose)
* Redwood Highway (US 101 - Novato northward)
* MacArthur (I-580 - Castro Valley to Oakland)
* Guadalupe Pkwy (CA-87 - San Jose)
* Doyle Drive (US 101 - San Francisco... soon to be replaced with Presidio Pkwy)
* West Valley (CA-85 - San Jose to Cupertino)
* Warren (CA-13 - Oakland)

I don't think I've ever heard the James Lick name used in traffic reports at all, only Bayshore and Central for 101.  (This is probably in part because the "James Lick" name includes the rest of former LRN 68 - the I-80 Skyway - and also because seems to be more of a honorary name in the same vein as "John F. Foran" for 280 in SF).

There IS one sign for the Bayshore Freeway from 280 north approaching Alemany Boulevard (historic US 101).

Was "Stevens Creek Freeway" ever used much in traffic reports for 85?

"Cypress Freeway" for I-880 between the Maze and 980 has been deprecated since being rebuilt in 1997 (probably because the current alignment no longer runs right above what was Cypress Street, but has since been renamed to Mandela Parkway).

CalTrans, or perhaps it was still Division of Highways at that time, went through a period of emphasizing freeway name in the mid to late 1960s. Prior to that, the only use of a freeway name prior to an interchange was on exit sequence signs, and on an auxiliary (NEXT EXIT) sign just before the interchange. Signage at the interchange itself was direction/route number/destination. Due to complaints from the public, this style of signage was introduced. Since that time, a number of freeways without generally well-known names have opened in southern California (Gardena Freeway, anyone?) and so route numbers have become predominant.

Post-1960s examples of new signage with freeway names:

- Martin Luther King Jr. Freeway signage for Route 94 in San Diego, a corridor that until the late 1980s was previously named "Helix Freeway" after a nearby peak. 

- Arroyo Seco Parkway name restoration for the non-interstate segment of 110 from US 101 to Pasadena, new signage added starting in 2010 or so.

- Capital City Freeway name for Business 80 in Sacramento/West Sacramento since 1996.

[Road Hog]

Radio stations in DFW use names and numbers in tandem usually: i.e. 35E Stemmons Freeway or 121 Sam Rayburn Tollway. (The I/US/SH designation is usually omitted, but is understood since there isn't duplication of numbers of major routes).

A couple of oddities: The Dallas North Tollway doesn't have a number, funny enough, and the George Bush Turnpike is referred to as 190 in traffic reports but isn't signed as such.

The print medium, however, is different. I think a higher degree of formality is required, especially on first reference. "Interstate 405" or the "San Diego Freeway" (or both) should be the first reference and "the 405" can be used thereafter. Slipping into vernacular on first reference is just another step toward idiocracy.

[NE2]

121 Sam Rayburn Tollway

Which is actually signed with SRT in a toll state highway shield; SH 121 is the frontage roads.

[Henry]

I must admit, when I first moved out to L.A., I had a hard time getting used to the freeway naming customs there, but have since adjusted rather nicely. Being from Chicago, I have been accustomed to the locals referring to their expressways by name rather than the number (i.e. Dan Ryan instead of I-90/I-94).

[TheStranger]

I must admit, when I first moved out to L.A., I had a hard time getting used to the freeway naming customs there, but have since adjusted rather nicely. Being from Chicago, I have been accustomed to the locals referring to their expressways by name rather than the number (i.e. Dan Ryan instead of I-90/I-94).

In Chicago, the names get much more usage on the pull-through signs than they do here - even at the peak of LA-area name emphasis (1960s), the route names were more easily found at major interchanges than throughout the freeway network.

[flowmotion]

I don't think I've ever heard the James Lick name used in traffic reports at all, only Bayshore and Central for 101.  (This is probably in part because the "James Lick" name includes the rest of former LRN 68 - the I-80 Skyway - and also because seems to be more of a honorary name in the same vein as "John F. Foran" for 280 in SF).

Occasionally, you used to hear "Lick Skyway" to refer to the I-80 portion, but I don't recall a traffic reporter ever using "James Lick Freeway" to refer to US-101.

In general, Bay Area traffic reporters use the names far less frequently than they did 10-15 years ago, most reports I hear solely refer to the route numbers and a handful of locations (e.g. MacArthur Maze).

Was "Stevens Creek Freeway" ever used much in traffic reports for 85?

A little bit after it was first opened.

(Was this even a real name? CA-85 used to dead-end at Stevens Creek Blvd, so that's how the SB exits were signed from I-280. In any case, it was never signed or used 'officially' as far as I know. Google Maps calls it the W Valley Fwy.)

[myosh_tino]

Was "Stevens Creek Freeway" ever used much in traffic reports for 85?

A little bit after it was first opened.

(Was this even a real name? CA-85 used to dead-end at Stevens Creek Blvd, so that's how the SB exits were signed from I-280. In any case, it was never signed or used 'officially' as far as I know. Google Maps calls it the W Valley Fwy.)

Apparently the "old" section of route 85 from Stevens Creek Blvd north to US 101 has three names.  That portion of 85 was originally named the Stevens Creek Freeway but when the new section of route 85 that opened in 1993, the entire route was named the West Valley Freeway.  In 2007, the entire route (except from Quito Rd to Prospect Rd) was also named the Norman Y Mineta Highway a few years ago with signs being installed near El Camino Real southbound and near Cottle Road northbound.

So while Google Maps is technically correct in calling the entire length of route 85 the West Valley Freeway, I still refer to the old section as the Stevens Creek Freeway.

[TheStranger]

Occasionally, you used to hear "Lick Skyway" to refer to the I-80 portion, but I don't recall a traffic reporter ever using "James Lick Freeway" to refer to US-101.

Yeah, I have heard "Skyway" in the last week to refer to 80 in SF (no James Lick).

In general, Bay Area traffic reporters use the names far less frequently than they did 10-15 years ago, most reports I hear solely refer to the route numbers and a handful of locations (e.g. MacArthur Maze).

What DOES surprise me is that the (traditional, non-honorary) names were known enough to be used - despite never being signed to the frequency LA names were!  I know of only one Bayshore Freeway sign left (280 north approaching 101).  There's a few Junipero Serra signs on 280...

MacArthur Freeway signage does exist in several spots near the same-named Maze, i.e. 80 west approaching the junction.

Are there any Nimitz Freeway or Eastshore Freeway signs anywhere?

I feel the names that got the most play in traffic reports/common usage are the ones that existed before the freeways were built - Eastshore, Bayshore, MacArthur (and Junipero Serra to a much lesser degree), of which the namesake surface roads all still exist in varying forms.  The Central Freeway has never had signage identifying its identity but the controversy over its existence over the years probably kept the name in public consciousness; the Nimitz's traffic woes led to its moniker becoming well-known.

[flowmotion]

Apparently the "old" section of route 85 from Stevens Creek Blvd north to US 101 has three names.  That portion of 85 was originally named the Stevens Creek Freeway but when the new section of route 85 that opened in 1993, the entire route was named the West Valley Freeway.

Thanks. I'm sure the traffic reporters used "Stevens Creek Fwy" to ID the new section as well, for a while. Although, it's odd to have Stevens Creek Freeway run perpendicular to Stevens Creek Boulevard, so it's probably a good thing it didn't stick.

For a number of years, KQED (public radio) would include Sacramento traffic in their reports. Occasionally they would refer to the "The Capital City" (Biz-80) or "The Eldorado" (US 50).

(Although, I don't know how 'reliable' traffic reporters really are. They're probably mostly new hires from Iowa who get handed a translation sheet. Very very few people "IRL" use the freeway names.)