# California roads and freeways.



## JeremyCastle (Dec 28, 2007)

Hey all,

If there's a thread on here that already focuses on California, let me know, and I'll delete the thread, but so far, after numerous searches, have yet to find one. Anything that has to do with California roads and freeways, lets discuss here, after all, why should the world's 8th largest economy not have it's own thread for its road network? 

A "few" things on my mind to help start the discussion:

1. Extending I-40 from Barstow to Bakersfield.
2. Have they ever smoothed I-80 through the Sierra? Last time I drive through there it was the worst Interstate I've ever driven on.
3. Upgrading those sections of the 99 in the Central Valley and the 101 in the Central Coast region to fully freeway status.
4. How much of the 395 through the Eastern Sierra is now 4 lanes?
5. It seems like there are certain places in California that could now be tunneled through,(I can only think of a few road tunnels in the entire state) now that earthquake "proofing" technology has greatly improved.
6. Roundabouts building by Cantrans. From what I've seen in the existing roundabouts, California drivers never use any turn signals at all, and the DMV manual doesn't tell people to signal either.
7. Staying right except to pass status in California.
8. Expansion/widening extension of existing roads/plans for new roads(New freeway from Orange County to I-15 in Riverside county for example).
9. Environmental damage of closing the freeway gap between the I-580 near Tracey to the I80/I505 near Vacaville. This would increase traffic flow along the I-505(which I think is the least traveled interstate/freeway in California) as well as eliminate long distance traffic between Tracey through Sacramento.

Ok, those are some of topics I thought of just off the top of my head. I'm excited to read people's thoughts/opinions about these and hopefully many other topics as well that affect our lovely State.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

1. Good idea, and not only to 99 in Bakersfield, but all the way to I-5 

2. According to some forum members (Alex von Königsberg), this section is still in awful condition.

3. Yep, and assign an Interstate number to it (I-7 or I-9). 

5. Tunneling should be no problem in an earthquake-sensitive area. Tokyo has completely underground expressways to begin with.


----------



## JeremyCastle (Dec 28, 2007)

I meant to say from the I-40/I-15 but think all the way to I-5 is an excellent idea. Hadn't thought of that!  I assume however, that the traffic flow between Barstow and Bakersfield would be much lower than between LA and LV. 

The list of existing tunnels that I can think of are:

1. Cal Freeway 24 near Berkeley.
2. Cal Freeway 110 near Chinatown LA
3. Cal Route 23 between Malibu and US 101.
4. Cal route 41 near Yosemite Valley
5. USA Route 101/1 just north of the Golden Gate bridge.
6. Cal Route 2/Angeles Crest highway in the mountains above LA metro.

Those are the tunnels I can think of right now(once again, off the top of my head).

Why I-7 or I-9. Are those not in use yet? And of course, it would have to be an off number.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

JeremyCastle said:


> I meant to say from the I-40/I-15 but think all the way to I-5 is an excellent idea. Hadn't thought of that!  I assume however, that the traffic flow between Barstow and Bakersfield would be much lower than between LA and LV.


Apart from local traffic, it would mainly serve long-distance traffic from San Francisco and the San Joaquin Valley agricultural region to points east along I-40, like Albuquerque, northern Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Tennessee and the Carolinas.


----------



## JeremyCastle (Dec 28, 2007)

My initial thought that the vast majority of traffic is between LA and LV(one of the last places I want to be on a Sunday evening is on I-15 heading south of LV). Any idea what the traffic percentage decrease is north of LV? I wonder if a traffic analysis, looking at the how traffic flow would be affected would be affected by having a new interstate from the I-5 to Barstow has been done?


----------



## Penn's Woods (Apr 8, 2010)

A separate thread for California?? Have you seceded?


----------



## Penn's Woods (Apr 8, 2010)

Abolish the so-called Interstate 238. It has no business having that number. There are a few x80s available. If I were a cartographer, I'd leave it off all maps, just on principle.

Edit: okay, there are *two* x80s available. Unless I'm forgetting anything. On the other hand, you only need one.


----------



## JeremyCastle (Dec 28, 2007)

Penn's Woods said:


> A separate thread for California?? Have you seceded?


Well, one of the moderators has already posted on this thread, so I'll take that as a good sign so far.


----------



## JeremyCastle (Dec 28, 2007)

Penn's Woods said:


> Abolish the so-called Interstate 238. It has no business having that number. There are a few x80s available. If I were a cartographer, I'd leave it off all maps, just on principle.
> 
> Edit: okay, there are *two* x80s available. Unless I'm forgetting anything. On the other hand, you only need one.


 Why do you think the I-238 has no business being labeled an Interstate? What would you label it? Do you think it should go back to its no label status?


----------



## Penn's Woods (Apr 8, 2010)

JeremyCastle said:


> Why do you think the I-238 has no business being labeled an Interstate? What would you label it? Do you think it should go back to its no label status?


Under the original rules for the Interstate numbering system, three-digit routes take their last two digits from their parent route. Which is why the Bay Area has all those -80s. I-238 is the only route in the country that breaks that rule (since there's no I-38), and they could perfectly easily call it 180 or 480. Or it could revert, not to no-label status (which is not what it was), but to being part of Cal. 238.


----------



## mgk920 (Apr 21, 2007)

I agree that this is already covered by the 'USA Interstate' and 'USA Non-Interstate' threads, but if anything, I would combine the two USA threads into one.

That said, in addition to the Tracey-Vacaville idea, I would also complete the CA 4 freeway between Antioch and Stockton.

Now, my really, totally wacked-out unbuildable thought :nuts: would be to extend I-70 west to the Fresno area/I-5 by tunneling under the Sierras by way of Bishop, CA. Yea, it would be the longest motorway tunnel in the World and raise the hackles of every enviro on the planet, but California does need another outlet to the east between I-80 and CA 58.

Mike


----------



## JeremyCastle (Dec 28, 2007)

Originally Posted by Penn's Woods 
A separate thread for California?? Have you seceded? 

Penn's Woods... I just got the joke... I thought you said succeeded, just noticed now that you actually said seceded.  Silly me. :-/

Well, I figured that California was large enough to have its own thread. My thinking is that it would hopefully allow us to talk about some specific California roads/issues more in depth. Otherwise they would be swallowed up and forgotten about inside the bowels of the two gigantic USA Interstate/Non Interstate threads.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

Ontario and Los Angeles have separate threads as well, although the latter is mostly inactive. Other countries/disputed territories have threads as well, although most of them are inactive as well. 

The main problem on SSC is that non-popular threads tend fall into oblivion quite fast. That's why most threads are organized by country.


----------



## henry1394 (Dec 7, 2008)

- They should change from SR-99 to I-9 (on section that have interstate standard of course)
- Change SR-15 to I-15 or build an extension where it can reach border ex: along SR-125, or a new route along the Colorado river. That way I- and I-15 are the 2 touches both borders.
- Extend I-14 from Barstow, to Bakersfield, to I-5 and ends at US 101 or San Louis Obsipo
- Change SR-24 to I-980
- Extend I-105 so it can reach I-5
- Replace those state routes that are freeways in LA and San Bernardino area into interstate routes


----------



## Nexis (Aug 7, 2007)

ChrisZwolle said:


> Ontario and Los Angeles have separate threads as well, although the latter is mostly inactive. Other countries/disputed territories have threads as well, although most of them are inactive as well.
> 
> The main problem on SSC is that non-popular threads tend fall into oblivion quite fast. That's why most threads are organized by country.


Maybe we should divide it up by Region's like , Northeast , Midwest , Southeast , Southwest , West Coast Interstates & Regional Roads.


----------



## JeremyCastle (Dec 28, 2007)

mgk920 said:


> I agree that this is already covered by the 'USA Interstate' and 'USA Non-Interstate' threads, but if anything, I would combine the two USA threads into one.
> 
> That said, in addition to the Tracey-Vacaville idea, I would also complete the CA 4 freeway between Antioch and Stockton.
> 
> ...


 I-70 from central Utah to Fresno?? Building a new Interstate across Central Nevada?...Yeah... I'm a hard core road enthusiast, but I'm afraid I can't support that one. 

I don't think current traffic flows would ever necessitate the building of a another outlet through the Sierra between I-80 and CA 58. Would it be possible to tunnel portions of the existing passes(108, 4, 88, 50, 80). Where can we find AADT information for these roads?

Why would environmentalists be opposed to tunneling? I would think they would welcome it.

Finishing the 4 in the Bay Area to Stockton is a great idea, the traffic flow through Brentwood trying to get to the 4 can be a nightmare but I think getting anything like that built through the Delta would also "Raise the hackles" of every environmentalists on the planet. If the environment fight was won, the 4 should also connect with a new freeway extension from Tracy joining up with the I-505, which would long distance traffic out of Stockton/Sacramento.


----------



## JeremyCastle (Dec 28, 2007)

henry1394 said:


> -
> - Extend I-14 from Barstow, to Bakersfield, to I-5 and ends at US 101 or San Louis Obsipo


 Does the AADT call for this? I assume this would mean that CA 58 over the Coast Ranges would be converted to a freeway/motorway?


----------



## Penn's Woods (Apr 8, 2010)

Nexis said:


> Maybe we should divide it up by Region's like , Northeast , Midwest , Southeast , Southwest , West Coast Interstates & Regional Roads.


Nah, then we'd start arguing about where regional boundaries fall....


----------



## Penn's Woods (Apr 8, 2010)

If you want a chuckle or two about the 238 problem....

http://www.gbcnet.com/roads/I-238/


----------



## jandeczentar (Aug 14, 2009)

I don't know whether this is the right thread to pose this question but I'll ask anyway. What were the planners thinking when they designed the interchange of the Artesia, Riverside and Santa Ana freeways in Orange County? They should've had 1 continuous road going east-west with some sort of 3-level stack between it and the 5. Instead, each of the incoming carriageways splits up into 3 separate roads, all of which need their own bridges. This must've cost a fortune; far more than it needed to. So I've got to know, is there a reason it was designed this way or was it just a bridge-mad city planner going wild?


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

There are three separate bridges because of the HOV-lane having it's own ramps and fly-overs. This adds significantly to the complexity of a freeway interchange. The third bridge handles HOV traffic in both directions by the way.


----------



## Penn's Woods (Apr 8, 2010)

jandeczentar said:


> I don't know whether this is the right thread to pose this question but I'll ask anyway. What were the planners thinking when they designed the interchange of the Artesia, Riverside and Santa Ana freeways in Orange County? They should've had 1 continuous road going east-west with some sort of 3-level stack between it and the 5. Instead, each of the incoming carriageways splits up into 3 separate roads, all of which need their own bridges. This must've cost a fortune; far more than it needed to. So I've got to know, is there a reason it was designed this way or was it just a bridge-mad city planner going wild?


I would imagine it wasn't planned that way: If the Santa Ana was built first, then the Riverside a decade later, then the Artesia a decade after that, they would have had to fit the Artesia into the existing interchange the best they could. (I don't know that that's the case; I'm just guessing. But the Santa Ana is certainly one of the earliest Los Angeles-area freeways and I expect the other two are newer.)

A non-highway analogy: the Washington Metro system was planned all at once (forgetting about some stretches at the outer ends of the system), even if construction was spread out over years. So the transfer stations downtown are all nice and compact...logically laid out and not requiring too much walking to change trains. Because even if only the Red Line was going to pass through Gallery Place at first, they knew that there'd eventually be Green/Yellow line service as well so they built the whole station. When I started college in Washington, Gallery Place was there with its unused lower level waiting for service to start (which it did the next year). After I got to know the Washington system well, what really struck me in other cities - London, Paris, New York - was the maze of long tunnels you sometimes had to walk through to change trains....

Edit: Okay, that and what Chris said.


----------



## JeremyCastle (Dec 28, 2007)

Penn's Woods said:


> Nah, then we'd start arguing about where regional boundaries fall....


Especially since California falls into multiple regions..


----------



## Nexis (Aug 7, 2007)

JeremyCastle said:


> Especially since California falls into multiple regions..


oh please , i think it would be better if we had different region's for the US. Abit more Organized.


----------



## Penn's Woods (Apr 8, 2010)

Nexis said:


> oh please , i think it would be better if we had different region's for the US. Abit more Organized.


Well, do we treat the Virginia suburbs of Washington as Southeast (because they're in Virginia) or Northeast (because it's suburban Washington)? Or do we avoid that problem by putting even Maryland in the South? Is Oklahoma South or Midwest? How about Kentucky? (I'm inclined not to count as Southern any state that didn't join the Confederacy). West Virginia? That's the sort of argument we'd be having.


----------



## Nexis (Aug 7, 2007)

Penn's Woods said:


> Well, do we treat the Virginia suburbs of Washington as Southeast (because they're in Virginia) or Northeast (because it's suburban Washington)? Or do we avoid that problem by putting even Maryland in the South? Is Oklahoma South or Midwest? How about Kentucky? (I'm inclined not to count as Southern any state that didn't join the Confederacy). West Virginia? That's the sort of argument we'd be having.


The New Northeast begins at DC & heads north. Virgina would be the Southeast.


----------



## just_a_guy (Feb 5, 2009)

JeremyCastle said:


> The list of existing tunnels that I can think of are:
> 
> 1. Cal Freeway 24 near Berkeley.
> 2. Cal Freeway 110 near Chinatown LA
> ...


US 101 has another tunnel between Santa Barbara and Santa Maria, right next to the beach.


----------



## henry1394 (Dec 7, 2008)

JeremyCastle said:


> Does the AADT call for this? I assume this would mean that CA 58 over the Coast Ranges would be converted to a freeway/motorway?


I meant I-40. It'd be nice if they could convert it to freeway standard. It would be a true coast to coast freeway like other interstates


----------



## pwalker (Feb 19, 2007)

I think a seperate CA thread is a good idea, since the state is huge and has always been at the forefront of highway construction. The OP's topics are all good ones, and although I don't have time to respond this evening, they all deserve attention and discussion. 

One issue is funding, and from that perspective things look bleak. However, initial potential planning is relatively inexpensive, and there is no harm to start looking at possible scenerios, which is really all this thread can do right now. Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## sonysnob (Dec 12, 2004)

I recently visited California for the first time. I was within the greater LA area for most of the trip.

The freeways are awesome, I was thoroughly impressed at the scale of the roads and interchanges.

I have put together a small collection of images that I took when I was there:

A few samples:



























The rest can be found here: http://www.asphaltplanet.ca/CA/index.html


----------



## JeremyCastle (Dec 28, 2007)

Penn's Woods said:


> Well, do we treat the Virginia suburbs of Washington as Southeast (because they're in Virginia) or Northeast (because it's suburban Washington)? Or do we avoid that problem by putting even Maryland in the South? Is Oklahoma South or Midwest? How about Kentucky? (I'm inclined not to count as Southern any state that didn't join the Confederacy). West Virginia? That's the sort of argument we'd be having.


 I agree. Much better to have someone just start a thread about a specific place(like I did.  ). If the thread keels over and dies after a short time, so be it. Much better than arguing about whether California should be in the Northwest, Southwest, or just West, or whether Missouri should be in the Midwest or South.

But this thread isn't about that.... so back on track now...


----------



## JeremyCastle (Dec 28, 2007)

just_a_guy said:


> US 101 has another tunnel between Santa Barbara and Santa Maria, right next to the beach.


 That's right, Driven through it many times, of course the tunnel is only one way(heading north).

After traveling to Switzerland many times and also Norway, I realized how few tunnels California has which on the face of it seems a little odd, as California geography for the most part(beyond the Central Valley) is quite rugged. The possible reasons for the lack of tunnels are:

1. The road infrastructure is a bit older than Western Europe's.

2. The fact that until recently, tunnels didn't make much sense in an earthquake prone environment.

3. Less sensitivity to Environmental factors compared to the Europeans.

4. Americans just not wanting to spend money for a high quality project.

5. All of the above.


It would take a butt load of money, but I would be all for rerouting some roads and freeways into tunnels. Some roads, like the I-210(Foothill Frwy) leaving Sunland heading up over the hills traveling east, is quite the eyesore! I think in Europe, they would have rerouted the freeway either along the side of the hills or built some elaborate tunnels, whereas I think US planners just say(or did in the past), "lets just save money and go cut straight right over the hills!"

Another example is I-5 leaving Castaic Lake. The cost to tunnel 8 lanes through the side of the hills would be alot, but that grade just seems abnormally steep, it really is tough on the engine.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

Another difference is that many European mountain ranges can be crossed with a single long tunnel. For example it's possible to cross the Alps with one tunnel (Gotthard, Mont Blanc, Fréjus, San Bernardino) without gaining a lot of altitude. Most Alpine tunnels have their portals at no more than maybe 4,000 feet. Compare this to the Eisenhower tunnel, which is over 11,000 feet high. You cannot cross the Rocky Mountains, or Sierra Nevada for that matter, with one tunnel of max 10 miles.


----------



## JeremyCastle (Dec 28, 2007)

sonysnob... that first photo of the I-105... building that light rail through the middle of it was an utter failure. Perhaps it's changed, but that line was plagued by extremely low ridership, both the ends of that line are in "nowhere" land, and instead of building the line so it stops under LAX, it "misses it" and instead one is forced to take a bus to the airport from the closest station. :/ I think the bus stops on the top of the reconstructed I-110 are/were considered a failure as well.

Anyway, not really a road thread topic(unless you talk about the I-110), but just thought I'd comment as I noticed your first photo was of the I-105.


----------



## JeremyCastle (Dec 28, 2007)

ChrisZwolle said:


> Another difference is that many European mountain ranges can be crossed with a single long tunnel. For example it's possible to cross the Alps with one tunnel (Gotthard, Mont Blanc, Fréjus, San Bernardino) without gaining a lot of altitude. Most Alpine tunnels have their portals at no more than maybe 4,000 feet. Compare this to the Eisenhower tunnel, which is over 11,000 feet high. You cannot cross the Rocky Mountains, or Sierra Nevada for that matter, with one tunnel of max 10 miles.


 I don't quite understand Chris, why couldn't portions of the I-80 or I-5 be tunneled as opposed to their European counterparts?


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

The purpose of a tunnel is to avoid gaining a lot of altitude. To avoid a lot of altitude difference on I-5 or I-80, such a tunnel would need to be dozens of miles long. 

Another issue is that in the Western United States the area was almost unpopulated when freeway construction began in rural areas. For example in Switzerland and Austria, the rural areas were dotted with villages. This means you cannot just build a freeway on the best alignment, but you need to add tunnels and tall viaducts.

Alpine valleys also tend to be very narrow and steep. If you want to bypass a village or town, you often need a tunnel instantly.


----------



## JeremyCastle (Dec 28, 2007)

henry1394 said:


> I meant I-40. It'd be nice if they could convert it to freeway standard. It would be a true coast to coast freeway like other interstates


 Yeah, I-40. but currently the road from Barstow all the way to SLO/Santa Margarita is labeled CAL 58. It is 4 lanes most of the way from Barstow to Bakersfield(especially with the "new" bypass through Mojave). But cutting through the lovely coast range and widening so that its a freeway from the I-5 to SLO would be quite the battle.


----------



## JeremyCastle (Dec 28, 2007)

sonysnob... I agree with you... in terms of capacity, California freeways are amazing, and they have to be, since there isn't a train/light rail network to help share the load.

It terms of looks, California freeways(and most US ones for that matter) look terrible compared to most Western European ones. Road quality is not the same either. For some reason, freeways in California are built with NOISY concrete, and when that finally cracks, they build over it with pretty smooth asphalt but which cracks and falls apart quite easily. It terms of quality and style, I would take Western European roads over anything in California, except for the capacity issue.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

Actually both the San Francisco and Los Angeles metropolitan areas rank among the bottom of U.S. metropolitan areas in terms of lane miles per capita. (similar to New York City) Only San Diego is performing good.


----------



## Penn's Woods (Apr 8, 2010)

ChrisZwolle said:


> Another difference is that many European mountain ranges can be crossed with a single long tunnel. For example it's possible to cross the Alps with one tunnel (Gotthard, Mont Blanc, Fréjus, San Bernardino) without gaining a lot of altitude. Most Alpine tunnels have their portals at no more than maybe 4,000 feet. Compare this to the Eisenhower tunnel, which is over 11,000 feet high. You cannot cross the Rocky Mountains, or Sierra Nevada for that matter, with one tunnel of max 10 miles.


The Pennsylvania Turnpike had quite a few tunnels (at least four) when it was built, and those mountains aren't all that high - 3000 feet/1000 meters or so. In fact, the tunnels were probably already there - the turnpike used the right-of-way of a never-finished late-19th-century railroad.

They've actually closed a tunnel or two since then by rerouting the road.

Edit: It had *seven* tunnels, Wikipedia tells me. All of which were two lanes, undivided. (Note to Europeans who are going to talk about how primitive American roads are: this was opened in 1940.) Which is the reason the road was eventually rebuilt to bypass them.


----------



## mgk920 (Apr 21, 2007)

henry1394 said:


> - They should change from SR-99 to I-9 (on section that have interstate standard of course)
> - Change SR-15 to I-15 or build an extension where it can reach border ex: along SR-125, or a new route along the Colorado river. That way I- and I-15 are the 2 touches both borders.
> - Extend I-14 from Barstow, to Bakersfield, to I-5 and ends at US 101 or San Louis Obsipo
> - Change SR-24 to I-980
> ...


I-105 is at its ultimate east end. OTOH, a useful connection could be made by updating the I-5/605 interchange to allow free-flow connections in that direction. OTOH, I-5 in that area is a very narrow 6 lanes and would require $$$$ ROW acquisition to upgrade. The existing two ramps that extend off of the east end of I-105 are a low-powered carpool access to the local neighborhood.

Mike


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

^^ The I-5 widening is planned.


----------



## sonysnob (Dec 12, 2004)

One of the things that really stuck with me from Southern California is just how much longevity they get out of their infrastructure. I drove the Pasadena Freeway, and some of those bridges, build in the 30s and 40s look better than some of the bridges in Ontario, Canada where i live that were built in the 80s. It's amazing to me just how much damage winter and salt do to concrete.

I often didn't find concrete in California to be all that loud. A lot of the roads had been whisper-grooved (where the concrete is machined to have longitudinal grooves), the only exception were some of the high-speed flyover structures -- I guess CalTrans is reluctant to run a diamond grinder overtop of a structure -- even if its just the deck.

:cheers:


----------



## myosh_tino (Apr 8, 2010)

Here are some insights from a lifelong northern Californian...



JeremyCastle said:


> 1. Extending I-40 from Barstow to Bakersfield.


Possible. Caltrans is studying options for converting the remaining 2-lane sections (Kramer's Junction/US 395 and just west of Barstow) into a minimum of a 4-lane expressway ('expressway' does not mean 'freeway'). They are also looking at a future freeway from Bakersfield to I-5.



JeremyCastle said:


> 2. Have they ever smoothed I-80 through the Sierra? Last time I drive through there it was the worst Interstate I've ever driven on.


The pavement on I-80 over the mountains is around 50 years old and Caltrans is currently repaving, repairing and upgrading I-80. Project website... http://www.getacross80.com/



JeremyCastle said:


> 3. Upgrading those sections of the 99 in the Central Valley and the 101 in the Central Coast region to fully freeway status.


Don't know about US 101 but there are studies underway for upgrading CA-99 to Interstate standards from I-5 near the Grapevine to Stockton. If the upgrades are built, it may get designated I-9 or I-7. My money is on I-7 because California state law forbids route number duplication and CA-9 is an important route from San Jose to Santa Cruz and costs to business owners and residents would be significant. CA-7, on the other hand, is a short highway connecting I-8 to the Mexican border.



JeremyCastle said:


> 9. Environmental damage of closing the freeway gap between the I-580 near Tracey to the I80/I505 near Vacaville. This would increase traffic flow along the I-505(which I think is the least traveled interstate/freeway in California) as well as eliminate long distance traffic between Tracey through Sacramento.


Given the fact that the Sacramento River delta is such an environmentally sensitive area, a freeway extension through this area is very, very unlikely.



Penn's Woods said:


> Abolish the so-called Interstate 238. It has no business having that number. There are a few x80s available. If I were a cartographer, I'd leave it off all maps, just on principle.
> 
> Edit: okay, there are *two* x80s available. Unless I'm forgetting anything. On the other hand, you only need one.


There may seem to be two x80's left but it's really one. Like I mentioned above, California law doesn't allow route number duplication. Since there already is a CA-180 (Fresno, Kings Canyon), that eliminates I-180. The only x80 left is I-480 which used to be the Embarcadero Frwy before it was torn down after the 1989 earthquake.



Nexis said:


> Maybe we should divide it up by Region's like , Northeast , Midwest , Southeast , Southwest , West Coast Interstates & Regional Roads.





Penn's Woods said:


> Nah, then we'd start arguing about where regional boundaries fall....


Check out the forums at AARoads.com (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/). They have the U.S. broken down into 11 regions.


----------



## Penn's Woods (Apr 8, 2010)

myosh_tino said:


> Here are some insights from a lifelong northern Californian...
> 
> 
> ('expressway' does not mean 'freeway').
> ...


As a 50-plus poster (which only took, like, a week), to someone in single digits at this writing, welcome!

Random reactions to particular points:

The expressway/freeway thing, we've been arguing about, either earlier on this thread or on another thread. Seems to be a regional thing: in official usage in Pennsylvania, they seem to be interchangeable. So to speak. (Find my post about the "Freeway Ends" on US 30 east of Lancaster and the "Expressway Ends" on US 1 near Kennett Square....) And I, as a lifelong Northeasterner, have always thought they meant the same thing; it was just that "freeway" was a word used in other parts of the country for what I call an expressway.

Did you know that the current I-710 used to be Cal. 7?

Maybe I-480 has bad memories associated it, but still, there's no excuse for a three-digit Interstate with a non-existent parent. Hmph.

I didn't know AA Roads had a forum. (I have visited the site to look at pictures, but not recently). That's just what I need....


----------



## myosh_tino (Apr 8, 2010)

Penn's Woods said:


> Did you know that the current I-710 used to be Cal. 7?


Although I'm from northern California, yes, I did know that CA-7 became I-710 sometime during the 80's.



Penn's Woods said:


> Maybe I-480 has bad memories associated it, but still, there's no excuse for a three-digit Interstate with a non-existent parent. Hmph.


Yeah, I know I-238 drives many a roadgeek crazy. There is a lengthy thread over at the Pacific Southwest Region Forum at AARoads (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=81.0) where there are sensible and not-so-sensible solutions to resolve the whole I-238 issue.



Penn's Woods said:


> As a 50-plus poster (which only took, like, a week), to someone in single digits at this writing, welcome!
> :
> :
> I didn't know AA Roads had a forum. (I have visited the site to look at pictures, but not recently). That's just what I need....


Thanks for the welcome Penn. Although I'm relatively new here, I've been a member of the AARoads Forums since February 2009. It was because of the AARoads Forums that I found this forum at SkyscraperCity.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

^^ I'm also a mod on AAroads


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

California's stack interchanges are crazy...I think that the only place that can compete on that front is Texas.


----------



## myosh_tino (Apr 8, 2010)

ChrisZwolle said:


> ^^ I'm also a mod on AAroads


You have the Texas 347 BGS as your avatar right? After joining here, I've noticed some other AARoads members have joined here (JN Winkler for one).


----------



## henry1394 (Dec 7, 2008)

http://www.cahighways.org/index.html


----------



## JeremyCastle (Dec 28, 2007)

henry1394 said:


> http://www.cahighways.org/index.html


 I briefly glanced at the above link, and it seems like the page is a remnant from 1996.  And it seems as if it has not been updated since 2004, if you look at the 'hosted info.'


----------



## myosh_tino (Apr 8, 2010)

JeremyCastle said:


> I briefly glanced at the above link, and it seems like the page is a remnant from 1996.  And it seems as if it has not been updated since 2004, if you look at the 'hosted info.'


And if you look to the left of the 'hosted' info, it says the site was last updated on April 29th, 2010. Daniel Faigin is the webmaster and he's continually updating the site about once every 3 months. Yeah the graphics look like they were made in the 90's (they probably are) but the information on the site is very well maintained and is full of information.


----------



## JeremyCastle (Dec 28, 2007)

myosh_tino said:


> And if you look to the left of the 'hosted' info, it says the site was last updated on April 29th, 2010. Daniel Faigin is the webmaster and he's continually updating the site about once every 3 months. Yeah the graphics look like they were made in the 90's (they probably are) but the information on the site is very well maintained and is full of information.


 Yeah, you're correct. Like I said, I only glanced briefly at it.


----------



## J N Winkler (May 14, 2007)

Xusein said:


> California's stack interchanges are crazy...I think that the only place that can compete on that front is Texas.


Actually, it is California which has to try to catch up with Texas. California has 9 stacks, while Texas has at least 25.


----------



## henry1394 (Dec 7, 2008)

mgk920 said:


> I-105 is at its ultimate east end. OTOH, a useful connection could be made by updating the I-5/605 interchange to allow free-flow connections in that direction. OTOH, I-5 in that area is a very narrow 6 lanes and would require $$$$ ROW acquisition to upgrade. The existing two ramps that extend off of the east end of I-105 are a low-powered carpool access to the local neighborhood.
> 
> Mike


well, they can pull a china and demolish buildings so to make it connect to I-5 LOL!

also they need to change SR-91 to an interstate.... like say I-910 ?


----------



## henry1394 (Dec 7, 2008)

JeremyCastle said:


> Yeah, you're correct. Like I said, I only glanced briefly at it.



i remember there is this web site that has pictures of all exits on every direction on every freeways in california. i don't know if it was the same website or not.... i forgot the address


----------



## soup or man (Nov 17, 2004)

Lol. Btw...people from SoCal NEVER refer to the freeways as I-whatever. It's always the 5, or the 101, or the 110. I think we are the only region that does that.


----------



## Feryuc (Apr 30, 2010)

Here's what I think Cal Trans should do...
1. Extend the I-710 and SR-110 to the I-210/Sr-134 interchange
2. Extend the Sr-14 to Malibu ( although i think that's not possible...)
3. Love if they extend the Sr-58 to Paso Robles(...oh wait...)at least upgrade it to a highway and rename the whole route as the I-40 extension.
4. RENAME I-238...( probably some dumbass named it insetead of an SR) better if named Sr 61 extension...:lol::nuts::nuts:


----------



## myosh_tino (Apr 8, 2010)

henry1394 said:


> i remember there is this web site that has pictures of all exits on every direction on every freeways in california. i don't know if it was the same website or not.... i forgot the address


It could have been at "California Highways @ AARoads" (http://www.aaroads.com/california/index.html). Their photographic coverage of California's highways is pretty extensive and covers most of the numbered routes within the state.


----------



## Penn's Woods (Apr 8, 2010)

soup or man said:


> Lol. Btw...people from SoCal NEVER refer to the freeways as I-whatever. It's always the 5, or the 101, or the 110. I think we are the only region that does that.


I've heard the the-with-route-number thing in Canada as well. Also in the Buffalo area (may be Canadian influence there). Never in the Boston-Washington corridor. If you wan't to annoy a person who is simultaneously (a) a road geek, (b) a language geek, and (c) a fan of your TV show, have a character who supposedly grew up in Connecticut say "the 95"....


----------

