Ques. about I580 from I205 split to I5 merge and then further south....
Kirk_Diggler
I've been having to travel on the I580-Altamont/I5-Westside Freeway down
to the State 152 corridor route a lot more than usual of late and in the
sheer boredom of the route I can't help notice something that really
doesn't make sense: 580 was built in the rolling hills section of the
Diablos when wouldn't it have made more sense to have jogged the roadway
a thousand feet or so to the east to the more flatter sections of the
western San Joaquin Valley?
I might be wrong given the "up and down" aspects of the roadway might
even it out but it seems that all the tractor-trailers using the route
are having to use a lot more fuel because they're having to upshift on
the incline sections of the roadway and "regular" cars have to
accelerate to overcome the slowing of the incline sections to maintain
their 80mph speed that cars on the section seem all to run at.
Seems to me that a LOT of excess fuel is being expended on the I580
corridor and the "Westside I5 Freeway" (to around San Luis?) because
this roadway was built on rolling foothills as opposed to if the
roadways had been placed in the flatter section just a thousand feet or
so.
Why didn't the planners/builders place the roadways on the flatter
sections?
Now I have a LOT of conjectures about why the location is where it is
least of which is that it has to do with the locations of the California
Aqueduct and the Delta-Mendota Canal as well as the *period* of when it
was built contributed to where the roadway was placed.
I conjecture that the 580 roadway was placed where it was because the
roadbuilders NEEDED to avoid too many contacts with the two canals so
they placed the roadway in the THEN empty space between the canals and
the rolling foothills of the Diablos...... BUT then the question becomes
why didn't the planners/builders simply shift the roadway further east
OF the canals to avoid the canals?
The other conjecture I have is that the roadway was planned/built in the
mid/latter 1960s when gasoline was selling for less than a quarter and
the United States was, more or less, self-sufficient on domestic oil
production so the planners/builders didn't give any thought to
fuel-mileage in their placement in the roadways.
The last conjecture, and the one I view as least likely, is that the
builders/planners put the roadways in the locations they are in is
because the rolling foothills were considered "worthless" as opposed to
flatlands where agriculture lands were "too valuable".
Those are my guesses as to why I580/northern Westside Freeway is located
where they are. Anyone familiar with the "truth" or are my guesses
pretty close to this truth?
larry_scholnick
I always thought that I-5 was not built to be a freeway, much less the
main north-south freeway through the Central Valley; I always thought
that it was built as a service road for the Aqueduct.
Why else would it have opened with more miles between gas stations
than many cars of that era could go on a single tank of gas?
Steve Pope
>Why didn't the planners/builders place the roadways on the flatter
>sections?
Possibly to add value to then-valueless land in the hilly
stretches.
There's a consistent pattern of building interstates in the
middle of nowhere, as opposed to a logical routing, in
hopes of plumping up land values.
Steve
Patrick Scheible
I don't see any reason they should have to stay miles away from the
canals.
> The other conjecture I have is that the roadway was planned/built in the
> mid/latter 1960s when gasoline was selling for less than a quarter and
> the United States was, more or less, self-sufficient on domestic oil
> production so the planners/builders didn't give any thought to
> fuel-mileage in their placement in the roadways.
Well, the U.S. was not been anywhere near self-sufficient in oil even
before I-5 was built, we just hadn't had the supply interruptions
yet. Other factors being equal, freeway builders would pick a more
level course, but mainly for cheaper construction and only secondarily
to save fuel.
> The last conjecture, and the one I view as least likely, is that the
> builders/planners put the roadways in the locations they are in is
> because the rolling foothills were considered "worthless" as opposed to
> flatlands where agriculture lands were "too valuable".
>
> Those are my guesses as to why I580/northern Westside Freeway is located
> where they are. Anyone familiar with the "truth" or are my guesses
> pretty close to this truth?
I can't claim that this is The Truth, but I think the main concern was
the quickest possible way from the Bay Area to Los Angeles. It's a
bonus that the land was cheaper because it wasn't being used for much
of anything.
-- Patrick
Patrick Scheible
> > where they are. =A0Anyone familiar with the "truth" or are my guesses
> > pretty close to this truth?
>
> I always thought that I-5 was not built to be a freeway, much less the
> main north-south freeway through the Central Valley; I always thought
> that it was built as a service road for the Aqueduct.
You're joking, right?
> Why else would it have opened with more miles between gas stations
> than many cars of that era could go on a single tank of gas?
Driving range on a tank hasn't changed that much. Whether it's
accomplished by better mileage or bigger tanks has changed. I-5 was
heavily used as soon as it opened.
-- Patrick
Peter Lawrence
An other thing that often influenced the routing an interstate (or any
major highway) was the land acquisition cost including the willingness
of the landowner to sell the land. Caltrans would usually prefer to
route a highway through land that the landowner was willing to sell
versus having to go through a protracted eminent domain proceedings to
acquire the needed right-of-way.
- Peter
Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604
>
> > Why else would it have opened with more miles between gas stations
> > than many cars of that era could go on a single tank of gas?
>
> Driving range on a tank hasn't changed that much. Whether it's
> accomplished by better mileage or bigger tanks has changed. I-5 was
> heavily used as soon as it opened.
>
gas more-or-less directly) along the route when it opened, too.
Note that the land further east was, and is, valuable agricultural
land.
73, doug
CAHighway99
I-5 already had a decent amount of rural traffic in the years after it
first opened...around 9,000 to 10,000 vehicles a day through the lower
San Joaquin Valley.
Jack Bauer
> I've been having to travel on the I580-Altamont/I5-Westside Freeway down
> to the State 152 corridor route a lot more than usual of late and in the
> sheer boredom of the route I can't help notice something that really
> doesn't make sense: 580 was built in the rolling hills section of the
> Diablos when wouldn't it have made more sense to have jogged the roadway
> a thousand feet or so to the east to the more flatter sections of the
> western San Joaquin Valley?
>
One thing about the interstate system that many today tend to forget -
there was no interstate system prior to 1958. At that point there WERE
highways around the country, but they got converted and upgraded to
INTERSTATE FREEWAYS. So if you were to find road maps of this area
printed in the late '50s, you would see what highways were there and it
might all make a bit more sense.
For instance, when I look at the names and numbering of the interstates
around the LA area, it just doesn't seem to make any sense. The Santa
Ana freeway actually changes numbers a few times, but when I go back to
a 1950s map, I can see much more consistency. There was a mix of US
and CA highways, but the names were consistent with the numbers. The
interstate system just screwed it all up.
Larry Sheldon
I believe, but can not prove, that the primary driver was (is) the
Federal Dole, which caused available numbers to be attached, detached,
and reused as necessary to suckle for funding.
Exhibit A: Interstate 480 in San Francisco.
--
Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to
learn from their mistakes.
Eppure si rinfresca
ICBM Targeting Information:
http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
Patrick Scheible
I-480 was assigned when the plan was for it to go all the way from the
west end of the Bay Bridge to the south end of the Golden Gate
Bridge. The stub that was actually built kept the number until it was
demolished. Nothing odd about that.
From the Bay Area's point of view, the biggest problem with interstate
numbering is that there aren't enough x80 numbers for all the interstates.
We have or had 180 (state route near Fresno), I-280, I-380, I-480
(later state route), I-580, I-680, I-780, I-880, I-980. Then we had
the freeway part of 238, which became an interstate but no numbers
were available. Furthermore, no spur or loop numbers off of I-80 were
available for Sacramento's loop.
California asked several times for US-101 from L.A. to S.F. to become
an interstate (I-3, probably). If they had, some of the Bay Area
spurs and beltways could have been numbered off of I-3 as I-x03.
I-280 and I-380 would be obvious candidates.
-- Patrick
Larry Sheldon
Actually it was CA480 when it fell down--the "I" had been moved to
Sacramento some years earlier.
>
> From the Bay Area's point of view, the biggest problem with interstate
> numbering is that there aren't enough x80 numbers for all the interstates.
> We have or had 180 (state route near Fresno), I-280, I-380, I-480
> (later state route), I-580, I-680, I-780, I-880, I-980. Then we had
> the freeway part of 238, which became an interstate but no numbers
> were available. Furthermore, no spur or loop numbers off of I-80 were
> available for Sacramento's loop.
Many of the x80 numbers had (have) nothing to do with I 80. (E. G. 580
which is about as bad an example of an mis-use of the numbering scheme
there is, unless you look at the 280-680-880 mess.
Most of those would make more sense if they had been part of an I 1 and
I 3 network.
> California asked several times for US-101 from L.A. to S.F. to become
> an interstate (I-3, probably). If they had, some of the Bay Area
> spurs and beltways could have been numbered off of I-3 as I-x03.
> I-280 and I-380 would be obvious candidates.
Sorry, didn't notice you had already touched on that.
But it seems clear to me that the history of the word "gerrymander" is
as instructive as anything else is.
And there is no other possible explanation for "I238" --it is not
informative, it is not logical, it is not anything that makes sense
other than ticket-punching for the Federal Dole.
Patrick Scheible
Yes, as I mentioned below it became a state route.
> > From the Bay Area's point of view, the biggest problem with interstate
> > numbering is that there aren't enough x80 numbers for all the interstates.
> > We have or had 180 (state route near Fresno), I-280, I-380, I-480
> > (later state route), I-580, I-680, I-780, I-880, I-980. Then we had
> > the freeway part of 238, which became an interstate but no numbers
> > were available. Furthermore, no spur or loop numbers off of I-80 were
> > available for Sacramento's loop.
>
> Many of the x80 numbers had (have) nothing to do with I 80. (E. G. 580
> which is about as bad an example of an mis-use of the numbering scheme
> there is, unless you look at the 280-680-880 mess.
Not true. I-580 touches I-80 in Oakland. It qualifies as a spur.
If you want a really bad example, look at I-99. Not long enough to
need a 2-digit number at all, in the wrong part of the country, and no
compelling reason to violate interstate numbering conventions (like
being out of I-80 spur numbers in California).
> Most of those would make more sense if they had been part of an I 1 and
> I 3 network.
>
> > California asked several times for US-101 from L.A. to S.F. to become
> > an interstate (I-3, probably). If they had, some of the Bay Area
> > spurs and beltways could have been numbered off of I-3 as I-x03.
> > I-280 and I-380 would be obvious candidates.
>
> Sorry, didn't notice you had already touched on that.
>
> But it seems clear to me that the history of the word "gerrymander" is
> as instructive as anything else is.
What? Gerrymandering is manipulating electoral district lines to
overrepresent one's interest in a legislature. I don't see the
application to highways.
> And there is no other possible explanation for "I238" --it is not
> informative, it is not logical, it is not anything that makes sense
> other than ticket-punching for the Federal Dole.
There was no available interstate spur number, so it kept its old
state route number. Not ideal, but what else could they have done?
And there's not federal money involved. I-238 was non-chargable
interstate miles. The feds didn't pay for its construction.
-- Patrick
Larry Sheldon
>>>> Exhibit A: Interstate 480 in San Francisco.
>>> I-480 was assigned when the plan was for it to go all the way from the
>>> west end of the Bay Bridge to the south end of the Golden Gate
>>> Bridge. The stub that was actually built kept the number until it was
>>> demolished. Nothing odd about that.
>> Actually it was CA480 when it fell down--the "I" had been moved to
>> Sacramento some years earlier.
>
> Yes, as I mentioned below it became a state route.
Above my comment you write:
> The stub that was actually built kept the number until it was
> demolished
which is not correct. The I 480 number had been moved to Sacrament long
before 1989 (when the Embarcadero Freeway was damaged) much less several
years after that when it was torn down.
>> Many of the x80 numbers had (have) nothing to do with I 80. (E. G. 580
>> which is about as bad an example of an mis-use of the numbering scheme
>> there is, unless you look at the 280-680-880 mess.
>
> Not true. I-580 touches I-80 in Oakland. It qualifies as a spur.
That was not tru for years and is only accidental now since it starts in
Marin County (I think, Richmond if not) and zigetyzags acroos the state
to Tracy (a distance greater than some 2-digit interstates run in total).
For example:
> If you want a really bad example, look at I-99. Not long enough to
> need a 2-digit number at all, in the wrong part of the country, and no
> compelling reason to violate interstate numbering conventions (like
> being out of I-80 spur numbers in California).
I'm not sure whose point you are making, mine or yours.
>> But it seems clear to me that the history of the word "gerrymander" is
>> as instructive as anything else is.
>
> What? Gerrymandering is manipulating electoral district lines to
> overrepresent one's interest in a legislature. I don't see the
> application to highways.
The history of Gerrymandering is the manipulation of boundaries for
purposes that have little to do with the nominal purposes of the
boundary setting.
The history of interstate number manipulation similarly has little to do
with the perceived purposes of the numbering schemes.
>
>> And there is no other possible explanation for "I238" --it is not
>> informative, it is not logical, it is not anything that makes sense
>> other than ticket-punching for the Federal Dole.
>
> There was no available interstate spur number, so it kept its old
> state route number. Not ideal, but what else could they have done?
Left it CA238, since "I238" does not meet any objective of the
interstate numbering plan beyond the allocation of federal "freebies".
> And there's not federal money involved. I-238 was non-chargable
> interstate miles. The feds didn't pay for its construction.
So it makes absolutely no sense at all? OK. You made the argument, not me.
I'm out.
Patrick Scheible
> Patrick Scheible wrote:
>
> >>>> Exhibit A: Interstate 480 in San Francisco.
> >>> I-480 was assigned when the plan was for it to go all the way from the
> >>> west end of the Bay Bridge to the south end of the Golden Gate
> >>> Bridge. The stub that was actually built kept the number until it was
> >>> demolished. Nothing odd about that.
> >> Actually it was CA480 when it fell down--the "I" had been moved to
> >> Sacramento some years earlier.
> >
> > Yes, as I mentioned below it became a state route.
>
> Above my comment you write:
>
> > The stub that was actually built kept the number until it was
> > demolished
>
> which is not correct. The I 480 number had been moved to Sacrament long
> before 1989 (when the Embarcadero Freeway was damaged) much less several
> years after that when it was torn down.
That doesn't seem to be the case. You are probably thinking of I-880,
which designated bypass around Sacramento that is now called I-80.
Reliable sites showing this are:
http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/i480.html
http://www.cahighways.org/466-740.html#480
> >> Many of the x80 numbers had (have) nothing to do with I 80. (E. G. 580
> >> which is about as bad an example of an mis-use of the numbering scheme
> >> there is, unless you look at the 280-680-880 mess.
> >
> > Not true. I-580 touches I-80 in Oakland. It qualifies as a spur.
>
> That was not tru for years and is only accidental now since it starts in
> Marin County (I think, Richmond if not) and zigetyzags acroos the state
> to Tracy (a distance greater than some 2-digit interstates run in total).
I-580 has always intersected I-80 in Oakland. Originally, the route
was Tracy NW to Oakland, being the primary car route from S.F. and
Oakland toward L.A. via I-5. Recently, it was extended to continue NW
of Oakland to San Rafael. Some places it's more east-west,
some places more north-south, but it doesn't zigzag.
> For example:
> > If you want a really bad example, look at I-99. Not long enough to
> > need a 2-digit number at all, in the wrong part of the country, and no
> > compelling reason to violate interstate numbering conventions (like
> > being out of I-80 spur numbers in California).
>
> I'm not sure whose point you are making, mine or yours.
>
> >> But it seems clear to me that the history of the word "gerrymander" is
> >> as instructive as anything else is.
> >
> > What? Gerrymandering is manipulating electoral district lines to
> > overrepresent one's interest in a legislature. I don't see the
> > application to highways.
>
> The history of Gerrymandering is the manipulation of boundaries for
> purposes that have little to do with the nominal purposes of the
> boundary setting.
>
> The history of interstate number manipulation similarly has little to do
> with the perceived purposes of the numbering schemes.
Sure it does. There are extremely few exceptions to the interstate
numbering scheme, and all but one happened for technical reasons, not
political reasons.
> >> And there is no other possible explanation for "I238" --it is not
> >> informative, it is not logical, it is not anything that makes sense
> >> other than ticket-punching for the Federal Dole.
> >
> > There was no available interstate spur number, so it kept its old
> > state route number. Not ideal, but what else could they have done?
>
> Left it CA238, since "I238" does not meet any objective of the
> interstate numbering plan beyond the allocation of federal "freebies".
I-238 is a very important route. It's the truck route between the
Port of Oakland and the agricultural region of the central valley.
(You may not know that I-580 does not allow trucks between Oakland and
San Leandro.) It's the freeway route from the south bay and the
peninsula to the central valley and to L.A. via I-5. Its importance
to the region and traffic level justify its being an interstate.
> > And there's not federal money involved. I-238 was non-chargable
> > interstate miles. The feds didn't pay for its construction.
>
> So it makes absolutely no sense at all? OK. You made the argument, not me.
Apparently you're not aware of non-chargable interstates. While the
federal government doesn't pay for their construction, they serve to
mark routes of major importance that are built to interstate
standards.
> I'm out.
If you're actually interested, read rest of the web sites I cited
above. For road geeks it's pretty interesting.
-- Patrick
Larry Sheldon
>> Above my comment you write:
>>
>>> The stub that was actually built kept the number until it was
>>> demolished
>> which is not correct. The I 480 number had been moved to Sacrament long
>> before 1989 (when the Embarcadero Freeway was damaged) much less several
>> years after that when it was torn down.
>
> That doesn't seem to be the case. You are probably thinking of I-880,
> which designated bypass around Sacramento that is now called I-80.
I'm thinking about the freeway that went almost overhead at my office at
Spear and Mission Streets.
I forgot about the 880 thing--was that before ore after the Loma Prieta
quake. Must have been way before when they didn't need it in Sacramento
anymore.
I guess I don't know what the legalities were, I just know that the I480
shields were long gone in 1989.
>
> Reliable sites showing this are:
>
> http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/i480.html
> http://www.cahighways.org/466-740.html#480
I guess everybody is entitled to an opinion.
> I-580 has always intersected I-80 in Oakland.
I'm pretty sure I used CA238-I580 to get to I5 for a lot of years before
there was a freeway north to The Maze. (Come to think of it, CA238
might have been signed "I580" from the Nimitz--but I'm not a bit sure
about that.)
Originally, the route
> was Tracy NW to Oakland, being the primary car route from S.F. and
> Oakland toward L.A. via I-5. Recently, it was extended to continue NW
> of Oakland to San Rafael. Some places it's more east-west,
> some places more north-south, but it doesn't zigzag.
And in no cqse is it a spur running away from I80. Or is it your
position that there are two spurs signed "I580"?
>> For example:
>>> If you want a really bad example, look at I-99. Not long enough to
>>> need a 2-digit number at all, in the wrong part of the country, and no
>>> compelling reason to violate interstate numbering conventions (like
>>> being out of I-80 spur numbers in California).
>> I'm not sure whose point you are making, mine or yours.
>>
>>>> But it seems clear to me that the history of the word "gerrymander" is
>>>> as instructive as anything else is.
>>> What? Gerrymandering is manipulating electoral district lines to
>>> overrepresent one's interest in a legislature. I don't see the
>>> application to highways.
>> The history of Gerrymandering is the manipulation of boundaries for
>> purposes that have little to do with the nominal purposes of the
>> boundary setting.
>>
>> The history of interstate number manipulation similarly has little to do
>> with the perceived purposes of the numbering schemes.
>
> Sure it does. There are extremely few exceptions to the interstate
> numbering scheme, and all but one happened for technical reasons, not
> political reasons.
I can jump on I238 in the sure knowledge that If I stay with it long
enough I will intersect with I38?
Color me skeptical.
>
>>>> And there is no other possible explanation for "I238" --it is not
>>>> informative, it is not logical, it is not anything that makes sense
>>>> other than ticket-punching for the Federal Dole.
>>> There was no available interstate spur number, so it kept its old
>>> state route number. Not ideal, but what else could they have done?
>> Left it CA238, since "I238" does not meet any objective of the
>> interstate numbering plan beyond the allocation of federal "freebies".
>
> I-238 is a very important route. It's the truck route between the
> Port of Oakland and the agricultural region of the central valley.
> (You may not know that I-580 does not allow trucks between Oakland and
> San Leandro.) It's the freeway route from the south bay and the
> peninsula to the central valley and to L.A. via I-5. Its importance
> to the region and traffic level justify its being an interstate.
And all of those features were absent from CA238.
>
>>> And there's not federal money involved. I-238 was non-chargable
>>> interstate miles. The feds didn't pay for its construction.
>> So it makes absolutely no sense at all? OK. You made the argument, not me.
>
> Apparently you're not aware of non-chargable interstates. While the
> federal government doesn't pay for their construction, they serve to
> mark routes of major importance that are built to interstate
> standards.
>
>> I'm out.
Oops.
> If you're actually interested, read rest of the web sites I cited
> above. For road geeks it's pretty interesting.
They are indeed.
Lotta hard work in there, looks to me like.
Hatunen
As noted in another post, I-580 is actually two spurs off I-80,
one to Altamont and one to San Quentin. I-280 is a spur thpough,
rather than a loop. And there's really no accounting for I-380
except that it links to I-280.
I think the big problem was that I-80 is really the only
interstate in the Bay Area spurs and loops could be numbered
from, and this severely restricts the number of auxiliary
interstate numbers available. I-5 isn't really a bay Areaa
interstate, and, besides, most of it's auxiliary numbers got used
up in southern California.
>And there is no other possible explanation for "I238" --it is not
>informative, it is not logical, it is not anything that makes sense
>other than ticket-punching for the Federal Dole.
More than you probably really want to know at
http://www.cahighways.org/
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Hatunen
<lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Patrick Scheible wrote:
>>> But it seems clear to me that the history of the word "gerrymander" is
>>> as instructive as anything else is.
>>
>> What? Gerrymandering is manipulating electoral district lines to
>> overrepresent one's interest in a legislature. I don't see the
>> application to highways.
>
>The history of Gerrymandering is the manipulation of boundaries for
>purposes that have little to do with the nominal purposes of the
>boundary setting.
You can make up new meanings to words as much as you like, but
that doen't make them right (unless a lot of other people use the
word that way, too). "Gerrymandering" still refers to the setting
of electoral district boundaries to benefit one or another party
in the manner mocked in the famous "Gerrymander" cartoon of 1812.
It is sometimes used metaphorically to describe boundaries set
for other less than honest puproses, but there is no way it can
apply to highway routing.
>The history of interstate number manipulation similarly has little to do
>with the perceived purposes of the numbering schemes.
That doesn't make it Gerrymandering.
Hatunen
Why isn't it a spur? The eastern segment of I-580 does connect to
other interstates, but it is still a spur of I-80. The I-580 to
Marin is the same highway etended northwest of I-80, and it is
defintely a spur.
[...]
>I can jump on I238 in the sure knowledge that If I stay with it long
>enough I will intersect with I38?
Tehre is no I-38.
>Color me skeptical.
I-238 is a known example of an exception to the Interstate
numbering scheme. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_238
You might try complaining to AASHTO
Patrick Scheible
> Patrick Scheible wrote:
>
> >> Above my comment you write:
> >>
> >>> The stub that was actually built kept the number until it was
> >>> demolished
> >> which is not correct. The I 480 number had been moved to Sacrament long
> >> before 1989 (when the Embarcadero Freeway was damaged) much less several
> >> years after that when it was torn down.
> >
> > That doesn't seem to be the case. You are probably thinking of I-880,
> > which designated bypass around Sacramento that is now called I-80.
>
>
> I'm thinking about the freeway that went almost overhead at my office at
> Spear and Mission Streets.
That was 480. First signed I-480 and then SR-480 after the interstate
designation was taken away and the interstate mileage used for other
projects.
> I forgot about the 880 thing--was that before ore after the Loma Prieta
> quake. Must have been way before when they didn't need it in Sacramento
> anymore.
That was 1981.
> I guess I don't know what the legalities were, I just know that the I480
> shields were long gone in 1989.
Replaced by SR-480 shields.
> > Reliable sites showing this are:
> >
> > http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/i480.html
> > http://www.cahighways.org/466-740.html#480
>
> I guess everybody is entitled to an opinion.
>
>
> > I-580 has always intersected I-80 in Oakland.
>
> I'm pretty sure I used CA238-I580 to get to I5 for a lot of years before
> there was a freeway north to The Maze. (Come to think of it, CA238
> might have been signed "I580" from the Nimitz--but I'm not a bit sure
> about that.)
My recollection is that there was a sign on the Nimitz saying "To
I-580". Probably other signs with SR-238 and later I-238.
> Originally, the route
> > was Tracy NW to Oakland, being the primary car route from S.F. and
> > Oakland toward L.A. via I-5. Recently, it was extended to continue NW
> > of Oakland to San Rafael. Some places it's more east-west,
> > some places more north-south, but it doesn't zigzag.
>
> And in no cqse is it a spur running away from I80. Or is it your
> position that there are two spurs signed "I580"?
When the Oakland to San Rafael portion was made interstate, there was
the problem of running out of x80 numbers again. So, they continued
I-580 in the NW direction it was already following from Tracy to
Oakland. I think that was a pretty reasonable solution. What would
you like to have seen -- don't make an interstate just because the
numbering scheme doesn't fit quite perfectly?
> >> For example:
> >>> If you want a really bad example, look at I-99. Not long enough to
> >>> need a 2-digit number at all, in the wrong part of the country, and no
> >>> compelling reason to violate interstate numbering conventions (like
> >>> being out of I-80 spur numbers in California).
> >> I'm not sure whose point you are making, mine or yours.
> >>
> >>>> But it seems clear to me that the history of the word "gerrymander" is
> >>>> as instructive as anything else is.
> >>> What? Gerrymandering is manipulating electoral district lines to
> >>> overrepresent one's interest in a legislature. I don't see the
> >>> application to highways.
> >> The history of Gerrymandering is the manipulation of boundaries for
> >> purposes that have little to do with the nominal purposes of the
> >> boundary setting.
> >>
> >> The history of interstate number manipulation similarly has little to do
> >> with the perceived purposes of the numbering schemes.
> >
> > Sure it does. There are extremely few exceptions to the interstate
> > numbering scheme, and all but one happened for technical reasons, not
> > political reasons.
>
> I can jump on I238 in the sure knowledge that If I stay with it long
> enough I will intersect with I38?
This is one of the extremely few exceptions :) But it happened for
technical reasons, running out of x80 numbers, not political reasons.
> Color me skeptical.
>
> >
> >>>> And there is no other possible explanation for "I238" --it is not
> >>>> informative, it is not logical, it is not anything that makes sense
> >>>> other than ticket-punching for the Federal Dole.
> >>> There was no available interstate spur number, so it kept its old
> >>> state route number. Not ideal, but what else could they have done?
> >> Left it CA238, since "I238" does not meet any objective of the
> >> interstate numbering plan beyond the allocation of federal "freebies".
> >
> > I-238 is a very important route. It's the truck route between the
> > Port of Oakland and the agricultural region of the central valley.
> > (You may not know that I-580 does not allow trucks between Oakland and
> > San Leandro.) It's the freeway route from the south bay and the
> > peninsula to the central valley and to L.A. via I-5. Its importance
> > to the region and traffic level justify its being an interstate.
>
> And all of those features were absent from CA238.
No, they were very much present. You even took it yourself, you said,
and my guess is you're not a trucker.
-- Patrick
Larry Sheldon
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:23:20 -0500, Larry Sheldon
> <lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Patrick Scheible wrote:
>
>>>> But it seems clear to me that the history of the word "gerrymander" is
>>>> as instructive as anything else is.
>>> What? Gerrymandering is manipulating electoral district lines to
>>> overrepresent one's interest in a legislature. I don't see the
>>> application to highways.
>> The history of Gerrymandering is the manipulation of boundaries for
>> purposes that have little to do with the nominal purposes of the
>> boundary setting.
>
> You can make up new meanings to words as much as you like, but
> that doen't make them right (unless a lot of other people use the
> word that way, too). "Gerrymandering" still refers to the setting
> of electoral district boundaries to benefit one or another party
> in the manner mocked in the famous "Gerrymander" cartoon of 1812.
> It is sometimes used metaphorically to describe boundaries set
> for other less than honest puproses, but there is no way it can
> apply to highway routing.
>
>> The history of interstate number manipulation similarly has little to do
>> with the perceived purposes of the numbering schemes.
>
> That doesn't make it Gerrymandering.
Can you make a distinction between "the history of Gerrymandering" and
"Gerrymandering"?
No, I didn't think so. That is a shame.
Larry Sheldon
> I-238 is a known example of an exception to the Interstate
> numbering scheme.
Which, as you seem to agree, makes no sense whatever, since it isn't
involved in funding. Or is it?
> You might try complaining to AASHTO
Nah, I moved away from the impending collapse twenty years ago.
Complaining to goobermint is not a good use of my time.
Larry Sheldon
> When the Oakland to San Rafael portion was made interstate, there was
> the problem of running out of x80 numbers again. So, they continued
> I-580 in the NW direction it was already following from Tracy to
> Oakland. I think that was a pretty reasonable solution. What would
> you like to have seen -- don't make an interstate just because the
> numbering scheme doesn't fit quite perfectly?
Why is it important that it have and Interstate system number? Why not
something catchy like CA 17, or something.
If it had to have (underscore "if") an IHS number "I3" would have made
some sense.
But I really would like to know why the IHS number is so important.
There has to be a reason for spening all that money on sign...oh, wait.
This is California. Nevermind.
Hatunen
<lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
Which history? The history of how the Gerrymander came to be
drawn, or the history of gerrymandering since then. I can do
either to a pretty good second approximation.
Let's start with you citing any source other than yourself who
uses that rather odd meaning for the word.
Hatunen
<lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Hatunen wrote:
>
>> I-238 is a known example of an exception to the Interstate
>> numbering scheme.
>
>Which, as you seem to agree, makes no sense whatever, since it isn't
>involved in funding. Or is it?
It's already been pointed out that I-238 was not involved in
federal interstate funding. I say that carefully, because most
state highways do get some federal funding. And I have to say
that carefully as well, since Interstate highways are state
highways.
>> You might try complaining to AASHTO
>
>Nah, I moved away from the impending collapse twenty years ago.
>
>Complaining to goobermint is not a good use of my time.
AASHTO isn't part of the government.
Larry Sheldon
> Let's start with you citing any source other than yourself who
> uses that rather odd meaning for the word.
I'm pretty old, and some how I learned the meaning of the word "history"
a long time ago and I defy anybody to show me a credible dictionary that
shows that I misused the word "history". I understand that if you are
very much younger than I am you might not have learned the meanings of
words.
Larry Sheldon
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:48:54 -0500, Larry Sheldon
> <lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hatunen wrote:
>>
>>> I-238 is a known example of an exception to the Interstate
>>> numbering scheme.
>> Which, as you seem to agree, makes no sense whatever, since it isn't
>> involved in funding. Or is it?
>
> It's already been pointed out that I-238 was not involved in
> federal interstate funding. I say that carefully, because most
> state highways do get some federal funding. And I have to say
> that carefully as well, since Interstate highways are state
> highways.
>
>>> You might try complaining to AASHTO
>> Nah, I moved away from the impending collapse twenty years ago.
>>
>> Complaining to goobermint is not a good use of my time.
>
> AASHTO isn't part of the government.
OK, my error.
Complaining to the good-ol-boys club of goobermint officials is not a
good use of my time.
--
Hatunen
<lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Patrick Scheible wrote:
>
>> When the Oakland to San Rafael portion was made interstate, there was
>> the problem of running out of x80 numbers again. So, they continued
>> I-580 in the NW direction it was already following from Tracy to
>> Oakland. I think that was a pretty reasonable solution. What would
>> you like to have seen -- don't make an interstate just because the
>> numbering scheme doesn't fit quite perfectly?
>
>Why is it important that it have and Interstate system number? Why not
>something catchy like CA 17, or something.
Because CA 17 is the highway from San Jose to Santa Cruz. When I
first moved to the Bay Area the Nimitz Freeway was CA 17; it was
signed I-880 later.
>If it had to have (underscore "if") an IHS number "I3" would have made
>some sense.
A single number like that is usually reserved for some major
highways. And there's the slight problem that there already is an
Interstate Highway Act highway number 3, namely H-3.
>But I really would like to know why the IHS number is so important.
It doesn't really have to have an "I" number. Except that it
makes it seem more like a part of a system.
Until the era of the Interstate highways, most California
freeways didn't even have posted numbers (although I believe they
had numbers for state accounting purposes). It wasn't I-405, it
was just the San Diego Freeway. Usw.
>There has to be a reason for spening all that money on sign...oh, wait.
> This is California. Nevermind.
How many "I-238" signs do your reckon there are on that short
stretch of highway, and how much do you reckon they cost?
Maybe they should have kept the US-50 signs on the freeway going
through Livermore.
Hatunen
<lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Hatunen wrote:
>
>> Let's start with you citing any source other than yourself who
>> uses that rather odd meaning for the word.
>
>I'm pretty old, and some how I learned the meaning of the word "history"
>a long time ago and I defy anybody to show me a credible dictionary that
>shows that I misused the word "history". I understand that if you are
>very much younger than I am you might not have learned the meanings of
>words.
Piffle.
Hatunen
<lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Hatunen wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:48:54 -0500, Larry Sheldon
>> <lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hatunen wrote:
>>>
>>>> You might try complaining to AASHTO
>>> Nah, I moved away from the impending collapse twenty years ago.
>>>
>>> Complaining to goobermint is not a good use of my time.
>>
>> AASHTO isn't part of the government.
>
>OK, my error.
>
>Complaining to the good-ol-boys club of goobermint officials is not a
>good use of my time.
If you want to complain about a problem with public highways you
really haven't much anywhere else to go. Except here, of course.
Larry Sheldon
> Because CA 17 is the highway from San Jose to Santa Cruz. When I
> first moved to the Bay Area the Nimitz Freeway was CA 17; it was
> signed I-880 later.
Actually CA 17 ran from San Rafael to Santa Cruz.
> It doesn't really have to have an "I" number. Except that it
> makes it seem more like a part of a system.
Awwwwwww....that's cute.
> Until the era of the Interstate highways, most California
> freeways didn't even have posted numbers (although I believe they
> had numbers for state accounting purposes). It wasn't I-405, it
> was just the San Diego Freeway. Usw.
I believe that is wrong. I think they all had numbers. Nobody used the
numbers conversationally, they used the names. Arroyo Seco Parkway was
US101(?). Hollywood and Ventura (and San Diego?) Freeways were US 101.
Golden State Freeway was US 99.
Larry Sheldon
> Piffle.
My grandmother said that a lot.
Signaled the same kind of dismissal that "plonk" does now.
jonz
> Hatunen wrote:
>
> > I-238 is a known example of an exception to the Interstate
> > numbering scheme.
>
>
> Which, as you seem to agree, makes no sense whatever, since it isn't
> involved in funding. Or is it?
>
IIRC there was federal funding of some type because the freeway had to
be rebuilt to accomodate the BART tracks in the center divider and it
had to have some type I-number to enable the federal bucks.
--
jonz
Larry Sheldon
> IIRC there was federal funding of some type because the freeway had to
> be rebuilt to accomodate the BART tracks in the center divider and it
> had to have some type I-number to enable the federal bucks.
Which brings me back to my first assertion.
One wonders why they didn't use "I 76" like Nebraska, Colorado,
Pennsylvania, and I forget what all out east do. Ohio? New Jersey?
Patrick Scheible
If it was rebuilt for BART's benefit, wouldn't BART pay for it?
I don't remember how that project was paid for.
The federal government has very little obligation to fund interstates,
beyond construction of the original 43,000 mile system. Maintenance,
expansion, etc. are up to the states. Some projects get federal
funding, but the programs change year to year and there's no
continuing obligation on the fed's part.
-- Patrick
Scott M. Kozel
>
> I-238 is a known example of an exception to the Interstate
> numbering scheme. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_238
Easily correctable once I-480 was decommissioned from the Embarcedero.
Change I-238 to I-480.
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Capital Beltway Projects http://www.capital-beltway.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
Patrick Scheible
> Patrick Scheible wrote:
>
> > When the Oakland to San Rafael portion was made interstate, there was
> > the problem of running out of x80 numbers again. So, they continued
> > I-580 in the NW direction it was already following from Tracy to
> > Oakland. I think that was a pretty reasonable solution. What would
> > you like to have seen -- don't make an interstate just because the
> > numbering scheme doesn't fit quite perfectly?
>
> Why is it important that it have and Interstate system number? Why not
> something catchy like CA 17, or something.
I did try to explain that before. It shows long-distance drivers,
truckers especially, that this is a good route to take your rig.
Probably has 12-foot lanes, gentle turns, and bridges that won't
collapse under you.
> If it had to have (underscore "if") an IHS number "I3" would have made
> some sense.
We should save that in case AASHTO changes its mind and lets US-101 be
an interstate from L.A. to the bay area.
> But I really would like to know why the IHS number is so important.
> There has to be a reason for spening all that money on sign...oh, wait.
> This is California. Nevermind.
Signs are just not that expensive.
-- Patrick
Patrick Scheible
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:55:38 -0500, Larry Sheldon
> <lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Patrick Scheible wrote:
> >
> >> When the Oakland to San Rafael portion was made interstate, there was
> >> the problem of running out of x80 numbers again. So, they continued
> >> I-580 in the NW direction it was already following from Tracy to
> >> Oakland. I think that was a pretty reasonable solution. What would
> >> you like to have seen -- don't make an interstate just because the
> >> numbering scheme doesn't fit quite perfectly?
> >
> >Why is it important that it have and Interstate system number? Why not
> >something catchy like CA 17, or something.
>
> Because CA 17 is the highway from San Jose to Santa Cruz. When I
> first moved to the Bay Area the Nimitz Freeway was CA 17; it was
> signed I-880 later.
SR-17 originally went from San Rafael to Santa Cruz via Oakland.
> >If it had to have (underscore "if") an IHS number "I3" would have made
> >some sense.
>
> A single number like that is usually reserved for some major
> highways. And there's the slight problem that there already is an
> Interstate Highway Act highway number 3, namely H-3.
Yes, for major highways. But I don't think I-3 and I-H-3 would
confuse anybody. If you don't know if you're on an island or a
continent, you have problems that interstate numbering isn't going to
solve.
> >But I really would like to know why the IHS number is so important.
>
> It doesn't really have to have an "I" number. Except that it
> makes it seem more like a part of a system.
There are interstate highways that are not posted. Look up California
I-305.
> Until the era of the Interstate highways, most California
> freeways didn't even have posted numbers (although I believe they
> had numbers for state accounting purposes). It wasn't I-405, it
> was just the San Diego Freeway. Usw.
They wouldn't have US or SR shields? Why not?
-- Patrick
Larry Sheldon
> I did try to explain that before. It shows long-distance drivers,
> truckers especially, that this is a good route to take your rig.
> Probably has 12-foot lanes, gentle turns, and bridges that won't
> collapse under you.
I am a long distance truck driver. I've never done an analysis, but I
would be surprised to learn that I have drive a big truck on more miles
of "interstate" than I have of "not interstate" or even "not freeway".
(not sure that parses right...I think I have driven on "not freeway" as
much or more as I have "freeway" and I think the total off "not freeway"
and "freeway not Interstate" is way more than "Interstate".
(Just one example--many companies won't reimburse for Indiana or Ohio
toll roads. Another: not many freeways across (north to south) Texas
or New Mexico.)
I don't use Interstate numbers for route planning (and in general, I
don't get paid for them) -- I use an MCA to develop a route (or I use a
company specified route) that more often that no will not include
Interstates.
Patrick Scheible
> Hatunen <hat...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> > I-238 is a known example of an exception to the Interstate
> > numbering scheme. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_238
>
> Easily correctable once I-480 was decommissioned from the Embarcedero.
>
> Change I-238 to I-480.
Changing one road's number to one that was previously in use just a
short distance away is really not a good plan.
SR-180 might be far enough away not to confuse people so much.
I know, they could use I-480 for old I-80 through downtown Sacramento.
-- Patrick
Hatunen
wrote:
It doesn't seem to matter that teh nubers are on an island to
federal highway people. They carry the re-white-blue shield of
the Interstate system and I guess the feds do think it would be
confusing to repeat the numbers on the mainland.
>> >But I really would like to know why the IHS number is so important.
>>
>> It doesn't really have to have an "I" number. Except that it
>> makes it seem more like a part of a system.
>
>There are interstate highways that are not posted. Look up California
>I-305.
That's cute. But it is posted, but as Business I-80.
>
>> Until the era of the Interstate highways, most California
>> freeways didn't even have posted numbers (although I believe they
>> had numbers for state accounting purposes). It wasn't I-405, it
>> was just the San Diego Freeway. Usw.
>
>They wouldn't have US or SR shields? Why not?
There ar a lot of highways in the country that aren't numbered. A
numer of turnpikes weren't numbered until they were wedged into
the interstate system. The Ohio Turnpike had no numbers when I
first freove on it when it was first opened. When I lived in
Emporia Kansas 35 years ago the section of the Kansas Turnpike
between Emporia and Topeka had no number; I see it is now I-335.
New York'd Taconic Parkway has no number.
Patrick Scheible
That's what the H is for. Pictures I've seen show the H included on
every Hawaii interstate route sign. And I'll quote from the Federal
DOT's Highway History FAQ,
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/hawaii.cfm
'The fact that they carry an "H" number, rather than an "I" number
differentiates them from the connected system of Interstate routes on
the continental United States.'
> >> >But I really would like to know why the IHS number is so important.
> >>
> >> It doesn't really have to have an "I" number. Except that it
> >> makes it seem more like a part of a system.
> >
> >There are interstate highways that are not posted. Look up California
> >I-305.
>
> That's cute. But it is posted, but as Business I-80.
A business interstate route is not an interstate highway. It's an
alternative to an interstate highway. Business I-80 is unusual in
that it is part of the interstate system as I-305, while being posted
as a non-interstate highway.
> >> Until the era of the Interstate highways, most California
> >> freeways didn't even have posted numbers (although I believe they
> >> had numbers for state accounting purposes). It wasn't I-405, it
> >> was just the San Diego Freeway. Usw.
> >
> >They wouldn't have US or SR shields? Why not?
>
> There ar a lot of highways in the country that aren't numbered. A
> numer of turnpikes weren't numbered until they were wedged into
> the interstate system. The Ohio Turnpike had no numbers when I
> first freove on it when it was first opened. When I lived in
> Emporia Kansas 35 years ago the section of the Kansas Turnpike
> between Emporia and Topeka had no number; I see it is now I-335.
>
> New York'd Taconic Parkway has no number.
I guess the ones built by a turnpike authority had their own name and
no number, though a number was added later to most of them. That
makes sense.
-- Patrick
rsh...@gmail.com
my question to you is
Do you have any idea what a STIP is?
Have you ever seen one?
taking a look any CA's would prove your statement completely and
totally wrong
billions come from the federales to the states for interstate highway
maintainenece
Patrick Scheible
> On Jun 25, 10:49=A0pm, Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net> wrote:
> > "jonz" <jon...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > > Larry Sheldon wrote:
> >
> > > > Hatunen wrote:
> >
> > > > > I-238 is a known example of an exception to the Interstate
> > > > > numbering scheme.
> >
> > > > Which, as you seem to agree, makes no sense whatever, since it isn't
> > > > involved in funding. =A0Or is it?
> >
> > > IIRC there was federal funding of some type because the freeway had to
> > > be rebuilt to accomodate the BART tracks in the center divider and it
> > > had to have some type I-number to enable the federal bucks.
> >
> > If it was rebuilt for BART's benefit, wouldn't BART pay for it?
> > I don't remember how that project was paid for.
> >
> > The federal government has very little obligation to fund interstates,
> > beyond construction of the original 43,000 mile system. =A0Maintenance,
> > expansion, etc. are up to the states. =A0Some projects get federal
> > funding, but the programs change year to year and there's no
> > continuing obligation on the fed's part.
> >
> > -- Patrick
>
> my question to you is
>
> Do you have any idea what a STIP is?
>
> Have you ever seen one?
>
> taking a look any CA's would prove your statement completely and
> totally wrong
>
> billions come from the federales to the states for interstate highway
> maintainenece
Yes, but it's not a continuing obligation. Interstates may get
federal funds for maintenance this year, but next year they might not.
-- Patrick
rsh...@gmail.com
with all due respect, take a look at you state's STIP
everything from line painting to major bridge work is funded 80% by
the feds
I grant you the ORIGINAL interstate funding was 90-10 fed construction
money and zero maintainenece money
iow maint was 100% state responsibility.
but even before the completion of the interstates it became very
apparent that the states, esp states like MT, SD, ND, NE, could not
maintain thousands of miles of 4 lane interstate hwy
and states like NY and PA which had miles of old freeways in urban
areas, could not afford to maintain those and upgrade them to
interstate standards
so the US Congress, which in a lot of cases is made up of former state
legislators, realized early on there had to be fed money for maint.
they started with 3R, then 4R, then that became Interstate
Maintainenece, then they created STP block grants that could be used
for maint
and there is hazard money, cmaq money, and the list goes on
it has been growing since the 1960's and I do not think it will
suddenly end
seriously take a good read of your STIP and you will see what I am
talking about
Hatunen
wrote:
Well, duh.
>> >> >But I really would like to know why the IHS number is so important.
>> >>
>> >> It doesn't really have to have an "I" number. Except that it
>> >> makes it seem more like a part of a system.
>> >
>> >There are interstate highways that are not posted. Look up California
>> >I-305.
>>
>> That's cute. But it is posted, but as Business I-80.
>
>A business interstate route is not an interstate highway.
But it is the use of a number.
>It's an
>alternative to an interstate highway. Business I-80 is unusual in
>that it is part of the interstate system as I-305, while being posted
>as a non-interstate highway.
Yeh. Weird, huh?
[...]
>I guess the ones built by a turnpike authority had their own name and
>no number, though a number was added later to most of them. That
>makes sense.
Most of the numbers were added when they became links in the
interstate system, at first to maintain continuity of numbering
for drivers, rather the way the Golden Gate Bridge is not part of
US-101 but appears to be.
For instance, the eastern part of the Ohio Turnpike is I-76 from
the Pennsylvania line to east of Youngstown and becomes I-80 from
there west, while I-76 takes a different route. The original
scheme was that the turnpikes would become formally part of the
interstate system when they did away with tolls. Obviously, that
hasn't happened, and I'm not clear at all on the status of, e.g.,
the Ohio Turnpike vis a vis the financial aspects of the
intestate syste.
rsh...@gmail.com
> On 25 Jun 2009 23:13:12 -0700, Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Hatunen <hatu...@cox.net> writes:
>
> >> On 25 Jun 2009 20:08:07 -0700, Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >It's an
> >alternative to an interstate highway. Business I-80 is unusual in
> >that it is part of the interstate system as I-305, while being posted
> >as a non-interstate highway.
>
> Yeh. Weird, huh?
>
no it is not "weird"
they do not want thru traffic to use a substandard freeway thru down
town Sacramento
>
> >I guess the ones built by a turnpike authority had their own name and
> >no number, though a number was added later to most of them. That
> >makes sense.
>
they got interstate numbering when the interstate hwy system was
created
for instance the NY Thruway was signed as Interstate 90 and interstate
87 in the 1950's
> Most of the numbers were added when they became links in the
> interstate system, at first to maintain continuity of numbering
> for drivers, rather the way the Golden Gate Bridge is not part of
> US-101 but appears to be.
>
It is a part of US 101, it is not maintained by Caltrans
> For instance, the eastern part of the Ohio Turnpike is I-76 from
> the Pennsylvania line to east of Youngstown and becomes I-80 from
> there west, while I-76 takes a different route. The original
> scheme was that the turnpikes would become formally part of the
> interstate system when they did away with tolls. Obviously, that
> hasn't happened, and I'm not clear at all on the status of, e.g.,
> the Ohio Turnpike vis a vis the financial aspects of the
> intestate syste.
>
the interstate hwy system was a funding mechanism 90-10 federal, but
they were entirely contracted and built by the respective state hwy
depts.
The toll roads, PA Tpk, Maine Tpk, NJ Tpk, Ohio Tpk, Indiana Toll
Road, etc all predate the interstate system.
these were funded entirely by bonds issued by authorities or
commisssions enacted by the respective states
These entities issued bonds to be paid off by tolls.
Yes, they were to become free when the bonds were paid off
The Ohio Tpk for instance had that "promise" in its enabling
legislation
This is what happened. In 1984 the initial bonding for the Ohio Tpk
was paid off.
Upon acceptance by the Ohio Department of transportation it was to
become a "free" road and come under the maintainence of ODOT.
Were this to happen, ODOT would have become responsible for 241 miles
of multi-lane highway with hundreds of bridges, with no additional
revenue
For obvious reasons, ODOT refused acceptance and the state legislature
repealed the "promise" and continued the Ohio Turnpike Commission
Initially the Ohio tpk was to be interstate 80N, interstate 80S was to
follow US 30 approximately thru OH.
that was killed early on. The Ohio Tpk became I-80. what is now i-76
was originally signed as I-80S, I-80S followed the Ohio tpk and the PA
Tpk what is now I-76 east of the ic where I-80 splits off
Hatunen
>On Jun 26, 1:50�pm, Hatunen <hatu...@cox.net> wrote:
>> Most of the numbers were added when they became links in the
>> interstate system, at first to maintain continuity of numbering
>> for drivers, rather the way the Golden Gate Bridge is not part of
>> US-101 but appears to be.
>>
>It is a part of US 101, it is not maintained by Caltrans
No. It's not. Here is the official definition of Rte 101 per the
California Streets and Highways Code:
401. Route 101 is from:
(a) Route 5 near Seventh Street in Los Angeles to Route 1, Funston
approach, and, subject to Section 72.1, the approach to the
Golden Gate Bridge in the Presidio of San Francisco via Santa
Barbara, San Luis Obispo, and Salinas.
(b) A point in Marin County opposite San Francisco to the Oregon
state line via Crescent City.
rsh...@gmail.com
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:24:15 -0700 (PDT), "rshe...@gmail.com"
>
> <rshe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 26, 1:50 pm, Hatunen <hatu...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> Most of the numbers were added when they became links in the
> >> interstate system, at first to maintain continuity of numbering
> >> for drivers, rather the way the Golden Gate Bridge is not part of
> >> US-101 but appears to be.
>
> >It is a part of US 101, it is not maintained by Caltrans
>
> No. It's not. Here is the official definition of Rte 101 per the
> California Streets and Highways Code:
>
> 401. Route 101 is from:
> (a) Route 5 near Seventh Street in Los Angeles to Route 1, Funston
> approach, and, subject to Section 72.1, the approach to the
> Golden Gate Bridge in the Presidio of San Francisco via Santa
> Barbara, San Luis Obispo, and Salinas.
> (b) A point in Marin County opposite San Francisco to the Oregon
> state line via Crescent City.
>
that is the legal description of what is maintained by Caltrans
nonetheless the Golden Gate bridge is US 101 also CA route 1
http://www.transportation.org/sites/route/docs/USRN-page101_186.pdf
here is the AASHTO log
US 101 runs from LA to the OR state line in CA
> --
> ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatu...@cox.net) *************
Hatunen
AASHTO can "specify" certain routings, but they are not binding.
Only state law can establish actual highways. US-101 is a state
highway and only the state has the authority to establich the
number, although certain highways are numbered to form a coherent
route designation across more than one state and AASHTO, as a
conference of state officials, is where the agreement as to what
routing is to receive what number and be able to be signed with
the federal shield.
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
rsh...@gmail.com
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:58:55 -0700 (PDT), "rshe...@gmail.com"
AASHTO does designate the US highway system
they do not fund any of it, but you can sign a US highway only if it
has been designated by AASHTO
The listing from Caltrans, as I said is the legal designation of the
state hwy system in CA
I will agree with you, the routes that cross the GG br are not
maintained by Caltrans
but US 101 and CA 1 do cross the bridge as well as being signed as
such
I don't know if you are aware, but the US highway system is just a
designation for the convenience of motorists, that is all it is
on another note, AASHTO decides to designate or de-designate a US
Highway, see what was US 66
when Caltrans killed US 40, and US 99, and truncated US 50, they had
to get AASHTO approval
not that it would be denied
Patrick Scheible
> On Jun 26, 12:38=A0pm, Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net> wrote:
> > "rshe...@gmail.com" <rshe...@gmail.com> writes:
> > > On Jun 25, 10:49=3DA0pm, Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net> wrote:
> > > > "jonz" <jon...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > > > > Larry Sheldon wrote:
> >
> > > > > > Hatunen wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > I-238 is a known example of an exception to the Interstate
> > > > > > > numbering scheme.
> >
> > > > > > Which, as you seem to agree, makes no sense whatever, since it is=
> n't
> > > > > > involved in funding. =3DA0Or is it?
> >
> > > > > IIRC there was federal funding of some type because the freeway had=
> to
> > > > > be rebuilt to accomodate the BART tracks in the center divider and =
> it
> > > > > had to have some type I-number to enable the federal bucks.
> >
> > > > If it was rebuilt for BART's benefit, wouldn't BART pay for it?
> > > > I don't remember how that project was paid for.
> >
> > > > The federal government has very little obligation to fund interstates=
> ,
> > > > beyond construction of the original 43,000 mile system. =3DA0Maintena=
> nce,
> > > > expansion, etc. are up to the states. =3DA0Some projects get federal
> > > > funding, but the programs change year to year and there's no
> > > > continuing obligation on the fed's part.
> >
> > > > -- Patrick
> >
> > > my question to you is
> >
> > > Do you have any idea what a STIP is?
> >
> > > Have you ever seen one?
> >
> > > taking a look any CA's would prove your statement completely and
> > > totally wrong
> >
> > > billions come from the federales to the states for interstate highway
> > > maintainenece
> >
> > Yes, but it's not a continuing obligation. =A0Interstates may get
> > federal funds for maintenance this year, but next year they might not.
> >
> > -- Patrick
>
> with all due respect, take a look at you state's STIP
>
> everything from line painting to major bridge work is funded 80% by
> the feds
>
> I grant you the ORIGINAL interstate funding was 90-10 fed construction
> money and zero maintainenece money
>
> iow maint was 100% state responsibility.
>
> but even before the completion of the interstates it became very
> apparent that the states, esp states like MT, SD, ND, NE, could not
> maintain thousands of miles of 4 lane interstate hwy
>
> and states like NY and PA which had miles of old freeways in urban
> areas, could not afford to maintain those and upgrade them to
> interstate standards
>
> so the US Congress, which in a lot of cases is made up of former state
> legislators, realized early on there had to be fed money for maint.
>
> they started with 3R, then 4R, then that became Interstate
> Maintainenece, then they created STP block grants that could be used
> for maint
>
> and there is hazard money, cmaq money, and the list goes on
>
> it has been growing since the 1960's and I do not think it will
> suddenly end
>
> seriously take a good read of your STIP and you will see what I am
> talking about
I will take a look. I'd really need to see several years to see how
much they vary from year to year.
Does it matter whether it's chargable interstate miles or
non-chargable?
-- Patrick
rsh...@gmail.com
>
> I will take a look. I'd really need to see several years to see how
> much they vary from year to year.
>
obligations, and all manner of funding
you have to go project by project
> Does it matter whether it's chargable interstate miles or
> non-chargable?
>
I think you are confused here this only deals with what was designated
as the original interstate system built with 90% fed funding as
opposed to a later addition built with some other funding
http://www.cahighways.org/itypes.html
this may answer some of your questions at least as far as CA is
concerned
> -- Patrick
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/transprog/fedpgm.htm
here is the current CA stip
my suggestion is contact Caltrans transportation programming for back
issues
I am just guessing you are from CA
Hatunen
That's what I said. It functions as a cooperative among state
highway officials to establish routes to be desginated as
Interstate or US highways.
>they do not fund any of it, but you can sign a US highway only if it
>has been designated by AASHTO
That's the agreement among the states.
>The listing from Caltrans, as I said is the legal designation of the
>state hwy system in CA
>
>I will agree with you, the routes that cross the GG br are not
>maintained by Caltrans
>
>but US 101 and CA 1 do cross the bridge as well as being signed as
>such
Signing as such doesn't make them, ipso facto, an actual part of
the highway (the bridge is actually short enough [!] that it
really wouldn't require route number signs at all). But the
typical driver has no idea of the bridge authority and there's no
reason to psot signs saying "Bridge is not part of US-10".
>
>I don't know if you are aware, but the US highway system is just a
>designation for the convenience of motorists, that is all it is
Yep. Sure beats the old days when you followed color splashes on
posts and tree trunks.
>on another note, AASHTO decides to designate or de-designate a US
>Highway, see what was US 66
Agreed.
There are still places where state-designated highways cross a
stateline and change numbers as they do so. it can be confusing
at first.
>when Caltrans killed US 40, and US 99, and truncated US 50, they had
>to get AASHTO approval
Agreed.
>not that it would be denied
And I'm sure AASHTO doesn't want to get in pissing matches with
its members.
Larry Sheldon
>> when Caltrans killed US 40, and US 99, and truncated US 50, they had
>> to get AASHTO approval
>
> Agreed.
Sure sounds like a "government" agency, doesn't it?
Hatunen
<lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Hatunen wrote:
>
>>> when Caltrans killed US 40, and US 99, and truncated US 50, they had
>>> to get AASHTO approval
>>
>> Agreed.
>
>Sure sounds like a "government" agency, doesn't it?
No, it sounds like an NGO. I would presume that the AASHTO
approval is part of whatever "contract" exists between states
when they join AASHTO.
AASHTO also sets various standards for highway design and
materials. In this respect it's very much like private
organizations such as ASTM or ANSI.
Mayer and Sharon Samuels
California, this is what I'd do:
I-238 and E-W portion of I-580 should be part of an extended I-205.
One highway from I-880 to I-5 on a more or less straight E-W path.
I-580 truncated to only include the portion from the Maze (80/880/580)
and the new 205. This 580 should be signed N-S.
The old 580 section that bypasses Tracy between I-5 and I-205 should
be renumbered as I-705.
I-980 extended to inlcude all of the CA 24 routing to Walnut Creek.
I-880 extended north to be cosigned with I-80 from Oakland to Richmond
and to extend along the old 580 routing to San Rafael. No more
confusion of driving on the eastbound 80/westbound 580 on the compass-
north Eastshore freeway. Instead, you'll be on the eastbound 80 and
northbound 880.
In Sacramento, leave I-305 as unsigned interstate. Also remove the
confusing "Biz 80" designation. It's a freeway, not a routing with
businesses. The E-W portion should be signed as US 50. The N-S
portion should be signed as CA 51. "To I-80" signs can be co-signed
with US 50 and CA 51 when appropriate.
Larry Sheldon
Nah. Makes way too much sense. My gosh, you'd be able to make
predictions about where you are and where you are going ad all kinds of
weird stuff.
Patrick Scheible
> If one really wanted to fix the numbering scheme in Northern
> California, this is what I'd do:
>
> I-238 and E-W portion of I-580 should be part of an extended I-205.
> One highway from I-880 to I-5 on a more or less straight E-W path.
> I-580 truncated to only include the portion from the Maze (80/880/580)
> and the new 205. This 580 should be signed N-S.
> The old 580 section that bypasses Tracy between I-5 and I-205 should
> be renumbered as I-705.
> I-980 extended to inlcude all of the CA 24 routing to Walnut Creek.
> I-880 extended north to be cosigned with I-80 from Oakland to Richmond
> and to extend along the old 580 routing to San Rafael. No more
> confusion of driving on the eastbound 80/westbound 580 on the compass-
> north Eastshore freeway. Instead, you'll be on the eastbound 80 and
> northbound 880.
I don't think 580 from Tracy to Oakland is a problem. In that
section, it has been a major route since before the Great Renumbering.
It fits the pattern by being routed off its two-digit parent. It's
even mnemonic by connecting I-80 to I-5.
What I would do is make a new major route I-3. It would be what is
now US-101 from L.A. to San Jose, then I-880 from San Jose to Oakland,
then I-580 from Oakland to San Rafael. The stub of I-880 from I-280
to US-101 would be renumbered as a spur off I-3. I-238 would be
another spur off I-3. It would take time to persuade AASHTO, but
CalTrans could, ah, pave the way now by renumbering the existing SR-3
in the far north of the state.
Yes, the little bit of I-980 is confusing. If we can't make the rest
of SR-24 east to Walnut Creek into I-980, it should be SR-980.
> In Sacramento, leave I-305 as unsigned interstate. Also remove the
> confusing "Biz 80" designation. It's a freeway, not a routing with
> businesses. The E-W portion should be signed as US 50. The N-S
> portion should be signed as CA 51. "To I-80" signs can be co-signed
> with US 50 and CA 51 when appropriate.
Yes, the Business I-80 is confusing. I don't see any reason not to
sign it as I-305. Or, if numbering off of I-80 is preferred, call it
I-480. It's been long enough and far enough away that reusing that
number wouldn't be confusing.
-- Patrick
Keith Keller
> Mayer and Sharon Samuels <mayers...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> If one really wanted to fix the numbering scheme in Northern
>> California, this is what I'd do:
>>
>> I-238 and E-W portion of I-580 should be part of an extended I-205.
>> One highway from I-880 to I-5 on a more or less straight E-W path.
>> I-580 truncated to only include the portion from the Maze (80/880/580)
>> and the new 205. This 580 should be signed N-S.
>> The old 580 section that bypasses Tracy between I-5 and I-205 should
>> be renumbered as I-705.
>> I-980 extended to inlcude all of the CA 24 routing to Walnut Creek.
>> I-880 extended north to be cosigned with I-80 from Oakland to Richmond
>> and to extend along the old 580 routing to San Rafael. No more
>> confusion of driving on the eastbound 80/westbound 580 on the compass-
>> north Eastshore freeway. Instead, you'll be on the eastbound 80 and
>> northbound 880.
>
> I don't think 580 from Tracy to Oakland is a problem. In that
> section, it has been a major route since before the Great Renumbering.
> It fits the pattern by being routed off its two-digit parent. It's
> even mnemonic by connecting I-80 to I-5.
Okay, but does that make Mayer's solution bad? I think it's quite good,
and minimizes the number of re-signings.
> What I would do is make a new major route I-3. It would be what is
> now US-101 from L.A. to San Jose, then I-880 from San Jose to Oakland,
> then I-580 from Oakland to San Rafael.
US-101 from LA to San Jose is not all interstate freeway. There are
portions that have cross traffic (e.g., between Gilroy and CA-152 to
Monterey).
> Yes, the little bit of I-980 is confusing. If we can't make the rest
> of SR-24 east to Walnut Creek into I-980, it should be SR-980.
Or, alternatively, turn I-980 into CA-24.
--keith
--
kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information
Patrick Scheible
> On 2009-06-29, Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net> wrote:
> > Mayer and Sharon Samuels <mayers...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> If one really wanted to fix the numbering scheme in Northern
> >> California, this is what I'd do:
> >>
> >> I-238 and E-W portion of I-580 should be part of an extended I-205.
> >> One highway from I-880 to I-5 on a more or less straight E-W path.
> >> I-580 truncated to only include the portion from the Maze (80/880/580)
> >> and the new 205. This 580 should be signed N-S.
> >> The old 580 section that bypasses Tracy between I-5 and I-205 should
> >> be renumbered as I-705.
> >> I-980 extended to inlcude all of the CA 24 routing to Walnut Creek.
> >> I-880 extended north to be cosigned with I-80 from Oakland to Richmond
> >> and to extend along the old 580 routing to San Rafael. No more
> >> confusion of driving on the eastbound 80/westbound 580 on the compass-
> >> north Eastshore freeway. Instead, you'll be on the eastbound 80 and
> >> northbound 880.
> >
> > I don't think 580 from Tracy to Oakland is a problem. In that
> > section, it has been a major route since before the Great Renumbering.
> > It fits the pattern by being routed off its two-digit parent. It's
> > even mnemonic by connecting I-80 to I-5.
>
> Okay, but does that make Mayer's solution bad? I think it's quite good,
> and minimizes the number of re-signings.
Well, most of the traffic on I-580 at Altamont goes on to I-5. I
think it's unfortunate to change the route number twice just because
it turns from NE-SW to E-W to go through Altamont Pass.
> > What I would do is make a new major route I-3. It would be what is
> > now US-101 from L.A. to San Jose, then I-880 from San Jose to Oakland,
> > then I-580 from Oakland to San Rafael.
>
> US-101 from LA to San Jose is not all interstate freeway.
Strictly speaking, none of it is interstate...
> There are portions that have cross traffic (e.g., between Gilroy and
> CA-152 to Monterey).
Not many, and those will be eliminated within a few years.
> > Yes, the little bit of I-980 is confusing. If we can't make the rest
> > of SR-24 east to Walnut Creek into I-980, it should be SR-980.
>
> Or, alternatively, turn I-980 into CA-24.
That would be another possibility, however that would mean either
losing interstate miles or making it another hidden interstate.
-- Patrick
Larry Sheldon
> That would be another possibility, however that would mean either
> losing interstate miles or making it another hidden interstate.
Why is "losing interstate miles" important?
Hatunen
wrote:
>What I would do is make a new major route I-3. It would be what is
>now US-101 from L.A. to San Jose, then I-880 from San Jose to Oakland,
>then I-580 from Oakland to San Rafael.
I believe US-101 still has sections that don't meet interstate
standards. Particulary the short section south of Salinas that
has a grade crossing.
Patrick Scheible
> Patrick Scheible wrote:
>
> > That would be another possibility, however that would mean either
> > losing interstate miles or making it another hidden interstate.
>
> Why is "losing interstate miles" important?
It was part of SR-24 until 1981.
-- Patrick
Patrick Scheible
> On 28 Jun 2009 23:52:54 -0700, Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net>
> wrote:
>
> >What I would do is make a new major route I-3. It would be what is
> >now US-101 from L.A. to San Jose, then I-880 from San Jose to Oakland,
> >then I-580 from Oakland to San Rafael.
>
> I believe US-101 still has sections that don't meet interstate
> standards. Particulary the short section south of Salinas that
> has a grade crossing.
Yes, at least one. I would hope it would be removed sooner rather
than later, though.
-- Patrick
Larry Sheldon
I understand that--I was there.
What I don't understand is: Why is "losing interstate miles" important?
Keith Keller
> Patrick Scheible wrote:
>
>> That would be another possibility, however that would mean either
>> losing interstate miles or making it another hidden interstate.
>
> Why is "losing interstate miles" important?
Because it means losing federal funding for those interstate miles.
(Then again, I-980 is what, one mile?) But, as Patrick suggests, it
could be a ''hidden'' interstate, meaning it's not signed as an
interstate yet still has an interstate designation, and therefore still
gets federal funding.
Keith Keller
On 2009-06-30, Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net> wrote:
> Hatunen <hat...@cox.net> writes:
>>
>> I believe US-101 still has sections that don't meet interstate
>> standards. Particulary the short section south of Salinas that
>> has a grade crossing.
>
> Yes, at least one. I would hope it would be removed sooner rather
> than later, though.
Why? Is US101 really that busy in those sections Hatunen and I
mentioned that grade crossings need to be eliminated? I don't think it
needs to be upgraded simply to bring I-3 to the area.
Larry Sheldon
> On 2009-06-29, Larry Sheldon <lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Patrick Scheible wrote:
>>
>>> That would be another possibility, however that would mean either
>>> losing interstate miles or making it another hidden interstate.
>> Why is "losing interstate miles" important?
>
> Because it means losing federal funding for those interstate miles.
> (Then again, I-980 is what, one mile?) But, as Patrick suggests, it
> could be a ''hidden'' interstate, meaning it's not signed as an
> interstate yet still has an interstate designation, and therefore still
> gets federal funding.
That is really interesting.
Early in this thread I alleged that that was behind the decision
process, and was pretty much dumped on.
rsh...@gmail.com
francisco.ca.us> wrote:
> On 2009-06-29, Larry Sheldon <lfshel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Patrick Scheible wrote:
>
> >> That would be another possibility, however that would mean either
> >> losing interstate miles or making it another hidden interstate.
>
> > Why is "losing interstate miles" important?
>
> Because it means losing federal funding for those interstate miles.
> (Then again, I-980 is what, one mile?) But, as Patrick suggests, it
> could be a ''hidden'' interstate, meaning it's not signed as an
> interstate yet still has an interstate designation, and therefore still
> gets federal funding.
>
>
I don't think that is quite true, most everything gets 80-20 funding,
maintainence and new construction
rsh...@gmail.com
>
> > Patrick Scheible wrote:
>
> >> That would be another possibility, however that would mean either
> >> losing interstate miles or making it another hidden interstate.
>
> > Why is "losing interstate miles" important?
>
> Because it means losing federal funding for those interstate miles.
> (Then again, I-980 is what, one mile?) But, as Patrick suggests, it
> could be a ''hidden'' interstate, meaning it's not signed as an
> interstate yet still has an interstate designation, and therefore still
> gets federal funding.
>
I-980 and I-238 are interstates because they connect interstate 580
with interstate 880
You may not know but I-880 did not always exist, it used to be SR 17
Keith Keller
> Keith Keller wrote:
>>
>> Because it means losing federal funding for those interstate miles.
>
>
> Early in this thread I alleged that that was behind the decision
> process, and was pretty much dumped on.
I dunno about "dumped on", but you were talking about I-480 and I-238,
to which your suggestion was not applicable. I believe that the above
was the original reason for I-980 to be designated as such. It may not
be true any longer, however. If not, it may just be that CalTrans
doesn't want to confuse drivers by re-signing I-980. (Even though it's
moderately confusing to have I-980 change abruptly to CA-24 going
eastbound, or from CA-24 to I-980 westbound...)
Since we're venting about signage, I really dislike the signs coming off
of the Bay Bridge that imply that the stub coming off of the bridge is
US101 South. The way it's signed, basically the entire west span is one
long on-ramp to US-101S at the Octavia/Van Ness interchange. To people
who know the area it doesn't really matter, but I think it is
potentially confusing to people who see the signs and think they're
already on US-101 and should have gotten off earlier. And since the
exits come fast and furious after the span, it's easy for a newcomer to
miss a sign and get confused.
Peter Lawrence
>> informative, it is not logical, it is not anything that makes sense
>> other than ticket-punching for the Federal Dole.
>
> There was no available interstate spur number, so it kept its old
> state route number. Not ideal, but what else could they have done?
They could have done two other things.
Option A: Rename the existing State Route CA-70 to another number (say
CA-707), then rename I-580 (from its I-800/I-80 Junction in Oakland to
its Junction with I-205) and the entire I-205 as I-70. Then the
remaining portion of I-580 that connects to I-5 could be renamed I-570.
The portion of I-580 that connects to San Rafael from I-80 would remain
as I-580. Then I-238 could be renamed I-370.
Option B: Just rename the portion of I-580 from its I-800/I-80 Junction
in Oakland to its eastern terminus at I-5 as I-64 (CA-64 was never built
or signed). Then rename I-238 as I-364. Problem Solved.
- Peter
Larry Sheldon
> On 2009-06-30, Larry Sheldon <lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Keith Keller wrote:
>>> Because it means losing federal funding for those interstate miles.
>> That is really interesting.
>>
>> Early in this thread I alleged that that was behind the decision
>> process, and was pretty much dumped on.
>
> I dunno about "dumped on", but you were talking about I-480 and I-238,
> to which your suggestion was not applicable.
My point then as now (exemplified by what happened to "I480" when I
lived there--according to news reports and such) the major interest in
"Interstate Mileage" is not rhyme or reason for routes, but funding.
Hatunen
<lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
My understanding is that federal 90-10 funds were for
construction, but once constructed the feds don't fund further
maintenance except for those funds like the fed funding for state
highways (most of which which have almost always gotten some
federal funding, including, of course, highways bearing federal
shields, e.g., US-50, which is just a state highway with a
federal shield and number). Interstates are state highways.
Larry Sheldon
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:25:26 -0500, Larry Sheldon
> <lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Keith Keller wrote:
>>> On 2009-06-30, Larry Sheldon <lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Keith Keller wrote:
>>>>> Because it means losing federal funding for those interstate miles.
>>>> That is really interesting.
>>>>
>>>> Early in this thread I alleged that that was behind the decision
>>>> process, and was pretty much dumped on.
>>> I dunno about "dumped on", but you were talking about I-480 and I-238,
>>> to which your suggestion was not applicable.
>> My point then as now (exemplified by what happened to "I480" when I
>> lived there--according to news reports and such) the major interest in
>> "Interstate Mileage" is not rhyme or reason for routes, but funding.
>
> My understanding is that federal 90-10 funds were for
> construction, but once constructed the feds don't fund further
> maintenance except for those funds like the fed funding for state
> highways (most of which which have almost always gotten some
> federal funding, including, of course, highways bearing federal
> shields, e.g., US-50, which is just a state highway with a
> federal shield and number). Interstates are state highways.
Is it fair to say, then, that moving of "I480" signs is a prley random
thing? When it was the Embarcadero Freeway, I don't think I80 came
across the bridge (was not marked, if it did), I280 was stopped short of
the bridge, and the Embarcadero didn't make a loop with anything.
Larry Sheldon
The mystery word is "purely" -- "... a purely random thing?"
Hatunen
<lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
I have no idea what you mean. I assume it became CA-480 once it
was clear the extension to the Golden Gate Bridge would never be
built. Retaining the "480" would not have erequired legislative
action to change the Streets and Highways Code description of the
route since only the route numbers appear there, not the nature
as interstate, US, or state highway.
>When it was the Embarcadero Freeway, I don't think I80 came
>across the bridge (was not marked, if it did), I280 was stopped short of
>the bridge, and the Embarcadero didn't make a loop with anything.
I-280 was intended to be the southern extension of I-480.
I believe I-80 came across the bridge once it existed as far as
the bridge, but thet would have been a long time ago. US-50 came
across the brdige once upon a time, and one time in the 1960s we
drove US-50 out to Altamont and got on I-5 which, at the time,
only went as far south as Los Banos. If I-480 was built before
I-80 extended to the bridge, what you say is entirely possible.
Larry Sheldon
> I have no idea what you mean. I assume it became CA-480 once it
> was clear the extension to the Golden Gate Bridge would never be
> built.
My recollection is that the Embarcadero was unnumbered (but I might be
wrong about that--certainly is was not commonly referred-to by number by
anybody. (And this was long after the successful no-more-never-again
movement doomed I280 to (pre Loma Prieta) eternity as miles of stubs
useful only for CHiPs TV filming.)
Then the I480 signs showed up.
Then they were replaced by the CA480 signs.
Then Loma Prieta.
Then I left California, but local spies reported (and in a visit I
subsequently verified) that the Embacadero Freeway had been torn down.
> I believe I-80 came across the bridge once it existed as far as
> the bridge, but thet would have been a long time ago.
I left the area in 1989, and I have no recall of any I80 signs west of
the Mac Arthur maze.
I don't remember any numbers at all for the part from the bridge to the
Central Freeway.
I just noticed that I280 by the train station is now called "Southern
Embacadero Freeway! What happened to John Foran?
Patrick Scheible
I'm sorry if you felt dumped on. I disagreed, but inteded to be civil
about it.
Of course funding is the main reason states are interested in having
interstate routes. If there weren't federal funding, there would just
be state routes. But the funding is also a mechanism to ensure that
the network as a whole makes sense, because the routes are approved by
state highway officials of other states.
The routes are intended to make sense, and mostly do. Yes, the
loop-spur distinction is sometimes ignored, especially when we run out
of numbers. Meeting the primary or another secondary off the same
primary is almost always honored, the only exception I know of being
I-238.
The idea of routing a loop through northeastern SF from the Bay Bridge
to the Golden Gate made sense from a roadbuilding point of view, so
the route was allocated as an interstate. Once finishing the route
was rejected, the interstate funding was moved to another highway that
was also needed and was less controversial. The stub of embarcadero
freeway still needed state maintenance and a number, so it was called
SR-480 until the ruins were demolished.
I don't really see the problem. It's messy to establish the route and
then take it away, but life in democratic countries is often messy.
-- Patrick
Patrick Scheible
The I-480 signs weren't moved, they were removed.
> When it was the Embarcadero Freeway, I don't think I80 came
> across the bridge (was not marked, if it did),
I-80 does cross the bridge. There have been several changes to its
western end. Prior to 1968, I-80 continued west along the Central
Freeway, to its end around Fell and Oak, and the mileposts suggest it
was intended as the route for the cancelled Panhandle Freeway. Now,
I-80 ends where it meets US-101 near 16th St. Even longer ago, I-80
continued south cosigned with US-101 to meet I-280 near Alemany Blvd.
> I280 was stopped short of the bridge,
Are you bothered that I-280 doesn't meet I-80? It used to, when I-80
extended south to Alemany Blvd. And even now, I-280 meets I-680 in
San Jose, so the number off of I-80 is still justified.
> and the Embarcadero didn't make a loop with anything.
It was planned to make a loop around to US-101 at the Golden Gate
Bridge approaches, but the completion was cancelled. After it was
demoted to a state route, it's no longer expected to make a loop.
-- Patrick
Patrick Scheible
To be more complete, I-480, I-280, and I-680 were planned as a large ring
around the bay from the southern approach to the Golden Gate Bridge
all the way around San Jose to meet I-80 again in Vallejo. (Note the
what is now I-780 from Benicia to Vallejo was originally part of
I-680.)
> I believe I-80 came across the bridge once it existed as far as
> the bridge, but thet would have been a long time ago. US-50 came
> across the brdige once upon a time, and one time in the 1960s we
> drove US-50 out to Altamont and got on I-5 which, at the time,
> only went as far south as Los Banos. If I-480 was built before
> I-80 extended to the bridge, what you say is entirely possible.
Prior to the bridge being I-80, it was jointly US-40 and US-50.
-- Patrick
Larry Sheldon
> I'm sorry if you felt dumped on. I disagreed, but inteded to be civil
> about it.
I might have gone a bit too far with "dumped on"--but I did feel strong
disagreement with my assertion that "Interstate" status is primarily a
funding issue, with most of the remaining arguments being rube salve.
I don't recall a lack of civility.
In any case, let's move on.
> The routes are intended to make sense, and mostly do. Yes, the
> loop-spur distinction is sometimes ignored, especially when we run out
> of numbers. Meeting the primary or another secondary off the same
> primary is almost always honored, the only exception I know of being
> I-238.
And my point there was (and is) that the only argument that makes that
make any sense at all is the funding argument.
> The idea of routing a loop through northeastern SF from the Bay Bridge
> to the Golden Gate made sense from a roadbuilding point of view, so
> the route was allocated as an interstate. Once finishing the route
> was rejected, the interstate funding was moved to another highway that
> was also needed and was less controversial. The stub of embarcadero
> freeway still needed state maintenance and a number, so it was called
> SR-480 until the ruins were demolished.
My only disagreement here is an undocumented belief that the
no-more-never-again legislation was passed before I480 signs were
posted. I worked at Spear and Howard (starting in the late 70's or
early 80's I think) for some years and often took the Embarcadero exit
off the James Lick and I remember seeing the I480 shield on a upper-deck
support as I drove off for what I believed then and now was the first
time after I had worked there for quite a while.
> I don't really see the problem. It's messy to establish the route and
> then take it away, but life in democratic countries is often messy.
It is the 'why was it moved' that I was poking at. The political moving
of things about for no apparent reason (the I480 turn here in Omaha
being one example of pointless waste of money, the I40 debacle in North
Caroline would be another (are they going to rip that out to make I40
the left exit again?), and some smaller ones like I74 in the Quad
Cities, I235/I35/I80 in Des Moines and I80 et al. in Sacramento.
And in the Los Angels area we have stuff that is beyond description, but
if funding gerrymander-like machinations don't explain it, then or
presumptions of intelligence are in deep trouble.
Patrick Scheible
> Patrick Scheible wrote:
> > Larry Sheldon <lfsh...@gmail.com> writes:
> >>
> >> And there is no other possible explanation for "I238" --it is not
> >> informative, it is not logical, it is not anything that makes sense
> >> other than ticket-punching for the Federal Dole.
> >
> > There was no available interstate spur number, so it kept its old
> > state route number. Not ideal, but what else could they have done?
>
> They could have done two other things.
>
> Option A: Rename the existing State Route CA-70 to another number (say
> CA-707), then rename I-580 (from its I-800/I-80 Junction in Oakland to
> its Junction with I-205) and the entire I-205 as I-70. Then the
> remaining portion of I-580 that connects to I-5 could be renamed I-570.
> The portion of I-580 that connects to San Rafael from I-80 would remain
> as I-580. Then I-238 could be renamed I-370.
There's already an I-70 elsewhere. Yes, there is another interstate
route that has two segments that don't meet (I-84), but it's against
the rules and AASHTO doesn't want even more cases of it.
> Option B: Just rename the portion of I-580 from its I-800/I-80 Junction
> in Oakland to its eastern terminus at I-5 as I-64 (CA-64 was never built
> or signed). Then rename I-238 as I-364. Problem Solved.
Both of these options require renumbering a very heavily travelled
route. While sometimes that's necessary, I'd hate to see it just to
solve the problem of I-238.
-- Patrick
Steve Pope
>Hatunen wrote:
>> I have no idea what you mean. I assume it became CA-480 once it
>> was clear the extension to the Golden Gate Bridge would never be
>> built.
>My recollection is that the Embarcadero was unnumbered (but I might be
>wrong about that--certainly is was not commonly referred-to by number by
>anybody.
Wrong and wrong. People would frequently say things like, "Take
480 to North Beach". Sure beat driving through Chinatown.
The usefulness of spur freeways seems to be forgotten; planners
now seem to think they all should connect to something.
Steve
Patrick Scheible
> Hatunen wrote:
>
> > I have no idea what you mean. I assume it became CA-480 once it
> > was clear the extension to the Golden Gate Bridge would never be
> > built.
>
> My recollection is that the Embarcadero was unnumbered (but I might be
> wrong about that--certainly is was not commonly referred-to by number by
> anybody.
My recollection is that it was more commonly referred to as the
Embarcadero Freeway, but it was also referred to as I-480 and then
SR-480. I remember seeing an old I-480 sign on it, even though it had
already been turned into SR-480 by then.
> (And this was long after the successful no-more-never-again
> movement doomed I280 to (pre Loma Prieta) eternity as miles of stubs
> useful only for CHiPs TV filming.)
What? I-280 was and is a very useful and heavily travelled highway.
It did take a while for it to connect with I-680 in San Jose --
mid-1970s, I think? But even before then, it was a good route to San
Jose, only a little longer and a lot more pleasant than Bayshore.
Loma Prieta didn't change it.
> Then the I480 signs showed up.
>
> Then they were replaced by the CA480 signs.
>
> Then Loma Prieta.
>
> Then I left California, but local spies reported (and in a visit I
> subsequently verified) that the Embacadero Freeway had been torn down.
>
> > I believe I-80 came across the bridge once it existed as far as
> > the bridge, but thet would have been a long time ago.
>
> I left the area in 1989, and I have no recall of any I80 signs west of
> the Mac Arthur maze.
They are there. The San Francisco stretch is very busy with
closely-spaced exits, so if you weren't looking for them specifically
you might have been too busy watching for your exit and merging to
notice.
> I don't remember any numbers at all for the part from the bridge to the
> Central Freeway.
>
> I just noticed that I280 by the train station is now called "Southern
> Embacadero Freeway! What happened to John Foran?
Who's John Foran?
-- Patrick
Larry Sheldon
Patrick Scheible wrote:
> The I-480 signs weren't moved, they were removed.
And installed in Sacramento, as I recall.
So Removed and installed elsewhere is not moved.
That's probably true. The old ones were probably thrown away and new
ones made.
But I was actually talking about the roadway definition or designation,
wasn't I?
Larry Sheldon
> Peter Lawrence <humm...@aol.com> writes:
>> Option A: Rename the existing State Route CA-70 to another number (say
>> CA-707), then rename I-580 (from its I-800/I-80 Junction in Oakland to
>> its Junction with I-205) and the entire I-205 as I-70. Then the
>> remaining portion of I-580 that connects to I-5 could be renamed I-570.
>> The portion of I-580 that connects to San Rafael from I-80 would remain
>> as I-580. Then I-238 could be renamed I-370.
>
> There's already an I-70 elsewhere. Yes, there is another interstate
> route that has two segments that don't meet (I-84), but it's against
> the rules and AASHTO doesn't want even more cases of it.
How would that be different from what happens to I76?
Patrick Scheible
> > The routes are intended to make sense, and mostly do. Yes, the
> > loop-spur distinction is sometimes ignored, especially when we run out
> > of numbers. Meeting the primary or another secondary off the same
> > primary is almost always honored, the only exception I know of being
> > I-238.
>
> And my point there was (and is) that the only argument that makes that
> make any sense at all is the funding argument.
California was entitled to a certain number of interstate miles. When
the Embarcadero Freeway and Panhandle Freeway were cancelled, they
were available somewhere else, so Caltrans went looking for other
heavily-travelled routes that would make good interstates. Sure, if
it weren't for funding I-980 would have stayed SR-24 and I-238 would
have stayed SR-238. But if it weren't for funding, the interstates
wouldn't have happened at all.
> > The idea of routing a loop through northeastern SF from the Bay Bridge
> > to the Golden Gate made sense from a roadbuilding point of view, so
> > the route was allocated as an interstate. Once finishing the route
> > was rejected, the interstate funding was moved to another highway that
> > was also needed and was less controversial. The stub of embarcadero
> > freeway still needed state maintenance and a number, so it was called
> > SR-480 until the ruins were demolished.
>
> My only disagreement here is an undocumented belief that the
> no-more-never-again legislation was passed before I480 signs were
> posted. I worked at Spear and Howard (starting in the late 70's or
> early 80's I think) for some years and often took the Embarcadero exit
> off the James Lick and I remember seeing the I480 shield on a upper-deck
> support as I drove off for what I believed then and now was the first
> time after I had worked there for quite a while.
If so, that would have been an error on Caltrans' part. The freeway
revolt was in the late 50s and most signs changed to SR-480 in the
1960s. My recollection is that the signs and structures were very
dirty and they did miss some I-480 signs. Maybe it was an old sign
that got washed, or was previously half-hidden behind a post? Or
maybe some Caltrans employee mistakenly posted an I-480 sign instead
of SR-480; it wouldn't be the first time.
> > I don't really see the problem. It's messy to establish the route and
> > then take it away, but life in democratic countries is often messy.
>
> It is the 'why was it moved' that I was poking at. The political moving
> of things about for no apparent reason (the I480 turn here in Omaha
> being one example of pointless waste of money, the I40 debacle in North
> Caroline would be another (are they going to rip that out to make I40
> the left exit again?), and some smaller ones like I74 in the Quad
> Cities, I235/I35/I80 in Des Moines
I don't know anything about those.
> and I80 et al. in Sacramento.
Yet each change had some reason for it.
-- Patrick
Hatunen
wrote:
>Larry Sheldon <lfsh...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Hatunen wrote:
>>
>> > I have no idea what you mean. I assume it became CA-480 once it
>> > was clear the extension to the Golden Gate Bridge would never be
>> > built.
>>
>> My recollection is that the Embarcadero was unnumbered (but I might be
>> wrong about that--certainly is was not commonly referred-to by number by
>> anybody.
>
>My recollection is that it was more commonly referred to as the
>Embarcadero Freeway, but it was also referred to as I-480 and then
>SR-480. I remember seeing an old I-480 sign on it, even though it had
>already been turned into SR-480 by then.
>
>> (And this was long after the successful no-more-never-again
>> movement doomed I280 to (pre Loma Prieta) eternity as miles of stubs
>> useful only for CHiPs TV filming.)
>
>What? I-280 was and is a very useful and heavily travelled highway.
>It did take a while for it to connect with I-680 in San Jose --
>mid-1970s, I think? But even before then, it was a good route to San
>Jose, only a little longer and a lot more pleasant than Bayshore.
>Loma Prieta didn't change it.
I drove I-280 to work in Palo Alto each day, first from Pacifica
1985-87, then from Daly City near Serramonte 1987-2001 except for
about a year and a half I tried using CalTrain. I-280 was plenty
busy, but it beat the Bayshore Freeway all to hell. I made the
mistake of taking the Bayshore a couple of times.
(Every time I drove along Crystal Springs Reservoir I'd cogitate
for a moment that I was on the North American Plate and the other
side of the lake was on the Pacific Plate. And what fun it would
be to see it take another 16-foot jump.)
Hatunen
wrote:
>Larry Sheldon <lfsh...@gmail.com> writes:
I always thought the Central Freeway was US-101 and I-80 ended at
the junction with US-101. I seem to recall that teh Highways and
Street Code defined it that way. Section 380.1 still says:
380. Route 80 is from:
(a) Route 101 near Division Street in San Francisco to Route 280
near First Street in San Francisco.
(b) Route 280 near First Street in San Francisco to the Nevada
state line near Verdi, Nevada, ...
[...]
>It was planned to make a loop around to US-101 at the Golden Gate
>Bridge approaches, but the completion was cancelled. After it was
>demoted to a state route, it's no longer expected to make a loop.
And the Embarcadero is a lot nicer since they tore the damn thing
down. Just think what it would have done to the Fishermans Wharf
area and Marina Green.
Hatunen
The Streets and Highways Code no longer defines a route 480, so
it's kind of moot.
Good grief! I jsut noticed that teh Code still defines I-380:
608. Route 380 is from:
(a) Route 1 near Pacifica to Route 280 in San Bruno.
(b) Route 280 in San Bruno to Route 101 in the vicinity of the San
Francisco International Airport.
Does anyone really beleive that a highway will ever be built from
the western stub end of 380 over the hill down to Route 1?
Patrick Scheible
Yes, that is now. When the Panhandle Freeway was planned, it was to
meet I-80/US-101 near Fell and Octavia. The section from Fell and
Octavia to the Sunset District was to be a continuation of I-80.
And even earlier, previously to the planning of the Panhandle Freeway,
I-80 continued south to meet I-280 near Alemany Blvd.
They used to be entirely too willing to change highway numbers
around. I'm glad they're somewhat more conservative now. It made it
very hard for people to navigate if their map was a few years old.
> >It was planned to make a loop around to US-101 at the Golden Gate
> >Bridge approaches, but the completion was cancelled. After it was
> >demoted to a state route, it's no longer expected to make a loop.
>
> And the Embarcadero is a lot nicer since they tore the damn thing
> down. Just think what it would have done to the Fishermans Wharf
> area and Marina Green.
Yes, I agree completely. The only shame is that it took an earthquake
to do what they should have done 30 years prior.
-- Patrick
Patrick Scheible
> This will be my last on the matter.
>
> Patrick Scheible wrote:
>
> > The I-480 signs weren't moved, they were removed.
>
> And installed in Sacramento, as I recall.
We just went through this. The bypass around Sacramento was never
480. It was I-880 from 1963 to 1981. After 1981, I-880 was moved
(yes, moved) to where it is now, former SR-17 from Oakland to
southwestern San Jose. See http://www.cahighways.org/780-980.html#880
If 480 was the bypass around Sacramento it would have duplicated
the number of the Embarcadero Freeway.
> So Removed and installed elsewhere is not moved.
>
> That's probably true. The old ones were probably thrown away and new
> ones made.
>
> But I was actually talking about the roadway definition or designation,
> wasn't I?
I'm not trying to get technical on you. Neither the signs nor the
route number were moved.
-- Patrick
Patrick Scheible
> Patrick Scheible wrote:
> > Peter Lawrence <humm...@aol.com> writes:
>
> >> Option A: Rename the existing State Route CA-70 to another number (say
> >> CA-707), then rename I-580 (from its I-800/I-80 Junction in Oakland to
> >> its Junction with I-205) and the entire I-205 as I-70. Then the
> >> remaining portion of I-580 that connects to I-5 could be renamed I-570.
> >> The portion of I-580 that connects to San Rafael from I-80 would remain
> >> as I-580. Then I-238 could be renamed I-370.
> >
> > There's already an I-70 elsewhere. Yes, there is another interstate
> > route that has two segments that don't meet (I-84), but it's against
> > the rules and AASHTO doesn't want even more cases of it.
>
> How would that be different from what happens to I76?
It looks the same. I still think AASHTO is trying avoid creating more
of these.
-- Patrick
Larry Sheldon
> Larry Sheldon <lfsh...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> This will be my last on the matter.
Well, almost.
>>> The I-480 signs weren't moved, they were removed.
>> And installed in Sacramento, as I recall.
I can not find any support for my contention, and the records dates
don't fit well with my memory, so I'll yield to the apparently superior
knowledge.
Larry Sheldon
OK.
But I will continue to argue that I76 would make marginally more sense
than I238 does.
Upon encountering "I76" I would assume (given the name conventions) that
it goes some where, and came from somewhere--and should get me to New
Jersey, but that is another problem, but not that it connects to anything.
When I see I2XX, I assume that I will find IXX if I follow it -- in
either direction.
Most of the X80s fail that to some degree or another. 580 is not a
spur, it is a long-haul route. At 80 miles, how does it compare to I17
or I8? 2, 6, and 880 don't form loops--and really are more like spurs.
( A loop would be like 680mis here, and 480 here almost is. Or I 275
(Cincinnati) or I 285 (Atlanta)
Patrick Scheible
I see. I don't try to navigate by the numbering conventions, but
maybe that's from growing up in the Bay Area, where they are often
honored in the breach.
Even starting from scratch, I think we'd quickly realize that in the
Bay Area, you'd have nothing but spur routes, due to geographic
obstacles.
> Most of the X80s fail that to some degree or another. 580 is not a
> spur, it is a long-haul route. At 80 miles, how does it compare to I17
> or I8? 2, 6, and 880 don't form loops--and really are more like spurs.
I see your point. I realize there are shorter interstates, but 80
miles still seems pretty short to be worth using a two-digit
interstate number.
-- Patrick
Hatunen
wrote:
>I see your point. I realize there are shorter interstates, but 80
>miles still seems pretty short to be worth using a two-digit
>interstate number.
I-19 south from Tucson to the Mexican border is only 100km long
(I use kilometers because that's how it's lollipopped.)
Larry Sheldon
> On 30 Jun 2009 17:06:00 -0700, Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net>
> wrote:
>
>> I see your point. I realize there are shorter interstates, but 80
>> miles still seems pretty short to be worth using a two-digit
>> interstate number.
>
> I-19 south from Tucson to the Mexican border is only 100km long
> (I use kilometers because that's how it's lollipopped.)
What is that in real miles for comparison with 80...nevermind...a nice
intuitive number: 62.137 119 224 miles --3/4 of California's I580 "spur".