Talk:State highways in California/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This page is an archive of discussions. Please do not modify it. If you wish to discuss these matters then please make a new section on the main talk page.

Contents

Generally

Articles on numbered California state roads already exist under several articles entitled "California State Route n." -- knoodelhed 09:53, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

California many years ago adopted a road numbering policy for state-responsible highways, that (generally) allows for only one continuous road to have a given number - be it an interstate, a U.S. highway, or a California state route. An interstate and an SR can share a number (as with the 15 or the 110), as can a U.S. highway and an SR. An SR can inherit the number of a former U.S. highway it replaces (as with the 99 or the 66). This simplifies maintenance reporting procedures, allowing for example a caller to 800-427-road to get road safety information simply by inputting the number of the highway. -- knoodelhed 00:01, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It would be helpful to have a clear summary of this incorporated into the introduction of this article. It certainly cause me some confusion in trying to understand why a CA-SR had been in the article for Interstate 110. See Talk:California State Route 110 for the gory details of my groping about in the dark. Of course, I only looked at the 110 section below--if I had read knoodelhed's paragraph above it would have saved me figuring it out on my own. I'll take a shot at adding it to the intro. older≠wiser 13:58, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

110

Does anyone know if Interstate 110 the same as California State Highway 110? jengod 07:19, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

It should be, or one would be an extension of the other. IIRC the portion departing northward from San Pedro is an interstate (and many years ago was designated CA-11), and if there is a CA-110 it would be a minor northern portion, much as CA-15 in San Diego ends where I-15 begins. -- knoodelhed 09:53, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes, I happen to know. Interstate 110 is not the same as California State Highway 110. They connect at the four level interchange just northeast of downtown Los Angeles, but were built at different times and from different governmental funds.
  • CA SR 110, originally opened in 1940 as the Arroyo Seco Parkway and ran from Pasadena to just shy of downtown Los Angeles (currently ending at the four level interchange). It was built from local funding. I - 110, on the other hand, is nowadays a federally designated Interstate (intersecting with Interstate 10) and runs from the four level interchange to the Harbor district in San Pedro. It was fully completed in 1970, though the downtown LA portion was done by the mid - 1950s.
  • This same question could be asked about I-15/ CA-15, I-210/ CA-210, I-710/ CA-710, and I-238/ CA-238. --Rschen7754 04:54, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

A route shield/name rundown of these two freeways over the past decades:

Current CA SR 110/Pasadena Freeway

  • 1940: no route number/Arroyo Seco Parkway
  • 1966: U.S. Route 66/Pasadena Freeway
  • circa. 1970: CA SR 11/Pasadena Freeway
  • 1984: CA SR 110/Pasadena Freeway (number changed for number continuity to motorists when the Harbor Freeway won Interstate designation)

The Pasadena Freeway (CA SR 110) has been the 110 since 1984. It was CA SR 11, and the Long Beach Freeway (currently I-710) was CA SR 71. As far as I know, their numbers were changed when the Long Beach Freeway (now I-710) and the Harbor Freeway (now I-110) became part of the federal interstate system. The zero was added to the numbers because they are seen as branches of I-10 (the San Bernadino Freeway and the Santa Monica Freeway). These numbers were changed in 1984--NOT IN THE YEAR 2000. Just check your old Thomas Guides if you don't believe me.

These number changes unfortunately confused the numbering system of Los Angeles-area freeways; except for the 105 (completed in 1993), the 110, and the 710, the rest of the freeways follow a fairly consistent pattern: Even numbered freeways run east-west, and odd-numbered freeways run north-south. When they were still the 11 and the 71, this numbering system remained consistent. But because of federal interstate-highway rules, the local logic has been sacrificed to beauracratic inconsistency.

Another example of how inane the federal interstate-highway system is I-405. In Los Angeles, the 405 is known as the San Diego Freeway from its beginning in the San Fernando Valley until its termination into I-5 in Orange County (at which point the 5 becomes the San Diego Freeway). The next instance of I-405 is almost a thousand miles north in Portland, Oregon, where I-405 is a very short freeway that branches off of I-5. So the same interstate stops and then starts again--hundreds of miles away and in a different state.

Current I - 110/Harbor Freeway

  • 1952: unknown route number/Harbor Freeway
  • circa. 1970: CA SR 11/Harbor Freeway
  • 1984: I - 110/Harbor Freeway

As you can see, from after 1963, when California signed into law a bill simplifying route numbers in the state (Interstate, US, and CA routes), the route and highway shield of these two freeways were the same from for certain 1970 to circa. 2000: California SR 11. Because California State government was finally able to get U. S. federal dollars to maintain the Harbor Freeway portion, that portion had its highway shield and number change to conform with federal statutes - Interstate 110. (No more green and white shovel logo, now the red, white and blue Interstate logo) This caused the Pasadena Freeway portion of CA SR 11 to become CA SR "110" - to preserve the number continuity as an overall route.

In the Southern California area, they are still known by their directional word names: Pasadena Freeway and Harbor Freeway. Not the same name. Not built at the same time. But for the benefit of nonlocals - tourists and new residents - since around at least 1970 they have shared the same "number" designation only. Don't let the same number on (currently) different shields fool you into thinking they are one freeway. They aren't regarded as such. They are, though, two parts of the same overall route - a different thing altogether. Hope this sheds some light and perspective from a CalTrans point of view.

And yes, I've added this information and the distinction between particular named freeways - while acknowledging overall routes - to the "Interstate 110" article. My intent is to be useful, and use words with due care and precision. 209.221.223.140 20:27, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC) avnative

Maps

Does anyone know how to include a map of a highway in the article? Without violating copyright, of course. Looking at most of these, I don't see any maps, yet an article on a highway just cries out for a map. --Yath 11:30, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Proposal: titles only

This is a proposal to include only the title with each highway's article link. The descriptions, while small, are simply too much information to put on this page.

For example, this:

Should be changed to this:

I'm not saying every single entry should be changed, but most of them.

--Yath 18:32, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I wrote a majority of the descriptions, but please feel free to change them. Keep in mind that a number of highways don't really have a title. Zzyzx11 23:55, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't understamnd the reason for the proposal. Too much information? Is that a problem? Maybe a second article would be appropriate if someone wants to see a mere list of numbers and titles. I think that the additional descriptions add information which isn't readily available elsewhere. I vote to keep the article as it is. Cheers -Willmcw 05:20, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
I think the one-line descriptions are extremely useful, and I suggest keeping them. This way a reader has some idea of the location and significance of a highway without having to read each individual article. IMHO there aren't enough such annotated lists on Wikipedia. Antandrus 05:27, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What to do with the very short state highways?

What should be done with some of the very short state highways? When writing an ariticle on CA-61 (Which is rather short itself), I saw that one terminus was with a CA-260, and another was with a CA-112. CA-260 is only a few blocks long and runs through the tunnels between Alameda and Oakland and CA-112 runs along one street in Oakland and San Leandro. They seem too short to deserve an entire article to themselves, but there isn't a list of them anywhere or anything like that. Octoferret 05:09, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

  • CA-112 and CA-260 are "hidden" -- they may be listed on maps and in the legislative code, but in real practice, the roads are both signed as part of CA-61. [1] [2]. Zzyzx11 09:43, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I just added CA-112 and CA-260 into the CA-61 article. Unsigned routes like those should be merge and redirect. As for other short routes, I guess it will depend on the situation. Zzyzx11 10:30, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Here's what I believe:
    • (1) Legislative routes that are signed as others (Routes 260 and 112 signed as Route 61; Route 164 signed as Route 19) should merge and redirect towards the signing route (Route 61 and Route 19, respectively).
    • (2) We should be mindful of routes that are constructed (that is, the route is assigned to a traversable, state-maintained roadway) but are not signed at all. If they are spurs of relatively longer routes, they should merge and redirect to the route it spun off from. (Examples: Routes 114 and 109, spinoffs of Route 84.)
    • (3) Routes that are unconstructed in their entirety and are nowhere else signed should either (a) have a brief mention on the List of California State Routes and nothing else or (b) placed in a new article serving as a collection of information describing these routes.
    • (4) Deleted routes that have never again shown up (e.g. Route 176, Route 206) are iffy. Perhaps these should also be part of a single article describing deleted routes.
    • (5) The following routes should have their own articles: (a) constructed but partially signed routes, (b) partly constructed routes (e.g. Route 65), (c) Any entirely unconstructed, deleted, or unsigned routes with significant and sufficient information (such as histories or points of interest) warranting an article. Bennyp81, 17 Apr 2005

Terminal Island Freeway?

My Thomas Guide (©1997) show the Terminal Island Freeway as Route 103. Why isn't it in this list? (And as for the red-linked route article, why not create it as a redirect to the Terminal Island Freeway article?)BlankVerse ∅ 08:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • many, many routes are missing from this list. I've includded a new section under in which to put missing routes. Please put a descirption of the rout in as well so i when i re-do the lists it will make my job easier! ^^ Thanks --atanamir 12:20, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

MISSING ROUTES FROM THELIST

  • SR 109 - description here
  • SR 242 - description here
  • SR 31 - description here
  • SR 71 - description here
  • SR 77 - description here
  • SR 83 - description here
  • SR 109 - description here
  • SR 142 - description here
  • SR 164 - description here
  • SR 184 - description here
  • SR 185 - description here
  • SR 202 - description here
  • SR 242 - description here
  • SR 244 - description here
  • SR 249 - description here
  • SR 263 - description here
  • SR 210 - description here

--atanamir 22:58, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • UPDATE - all routes, former and current, are now included in the list. Do you think we should keep the former ones in the list? --atanamir 03:43, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Retired US Routes

Shouldn't retired US routes go on the Deleted CA routes page? --Rschen7754 03:00, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Interstates and US Highways?

Someone has done a lot of work on the US Highways and Interstate routes on this page, but I'm not sure its appropriate for this location. This is supposed to be a page about state routes. Perhaps this data can be moved to another page? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 06:40, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • In california, caltrans considers all numbered routes to be state routes regardless of interstate and U.S. Hgihway funding status. Hence, they've been included onto this page. I've noticed you've been taking off the other states' US Highway and Interstate listings as well. I won't go revert them because i don't know if the DOTs of the respective states differentiates between the US/Intrestate/State routes; but for california, they're all "state routes". atanamir 09:07, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Interesting, I didn't know that California didn't have that distinction. I've been removing the US Highways from pages that list "state highways" or "state routes". I havn't been removing them from pages that list "numbered highways" because that doesn't make a distinction between the source of the highway route/funding/maintenance. If you think these changes are widely inappropriate, feel free to revert them, but then I think the page title should be changed. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 18:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted/ unconstructed CASRs

Because we have the unconstructed CASRs in a separate article, should we delete them from this article? It is unlikely that an article will be started for each individual route until the route is constructed. --Rschen7754 04:02, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)