Talk:Foothill Freeway/Archive 1

Archive 1

There is an issue with California State Routes that are also Interstates

For those California State Route articles whose next links point to the Interstate part of itself, CA-15/I-15, CA-210/I-210, CA-238/I-238, those links are only pointing to the present article. Considering Interstate 80, California State Route 80 redirects to Interstate 80. But since 15, 210, and 238 already have state routes, there is an issue with coding routeboxes for them. You do not need to edit routeboxint in the Interstates' articles, their browse boxes are editable for the use of various states. 15, 210, and 238 will need custom written routeboxes, I suppose. This will be brought up in the WikiProject. --Geopgeop 18:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

(Addressed with the new infobox) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Old junction list

I said in my edit summary that I was going to move the old infobox here, but since the junction list is already here, I won't. When you're implementing the new infobox, please try to do a complete job whenever possible. -- NORTH ^talk 19:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware... I ran out of time and I've been so swamped with homework that it's been difficult... sorry about that. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Sorry if that came out a little meaner than I meant it to. I'm in the same boat (haven't been around as much in case you haven't noticed). -- NORTH ^talk 17:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

July 24,2007

The segment highlight in dot green on maps between I-15/215 opened yesterday. I thought they suppose to start changing green shields in I-210 ones. Because travelers from I-215 would be confused if the CA-30 shields were still there. Isnt it going to be done by now? Please let me know for answers. Freewayguy 23:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)HPShu789194

Come Play on the Freeway

Any chance noting this? It's not everyday that the public has a chance to play (walk, run, bike, park, etc.) on the freeway. Here's the link: http://www.playonthe210.org/ --Geopgeop (T) 04:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Extension over SR 210

With SR 210 complete, does anyone know what Caltrans is waiting for? The I-15 interchange? Or simply AASHTO's next meeting? --NE2 22:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought I-210 suppose to eventually take over I-210. I saw the green sign SR 210 and I-210 jct after the end of SR 57 Orange freeway as June 2006 going through northside of West Covina.--Freewayguy (meet) 21:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Here's an article from the San Bernardino County Sun, March 27, 2005, "Freeway's name tangled":

As completion of the Interstate 210 extension nears, transportation officials have to make a decision.

Should they ask the Federal Highway Administration to adopt the freeway and christen it Interstate 210 from San Dimas to Redlands?

Or should the leg remain a state route even though the western half of the freeway that starts in Sylmar has the federal designation?

"We are kind of on the fence," Caltrans spokeswoman Rose Melgoza said. "There are pros and cons to both."

On one hand, there's the possibility interstate status will make it easier to use federal funds for improvements and maintenance.

On the other, there's the reality that bringing the federal government into the picture will include a bigger bureaucracy than Caltrans in the picture.

"With interstate designation, you add another level of environmental hurdles," said Darren Kettle, the freeway construction director for San Bernardino Associated Governments, the county's transportation agency.

The federal agency also would have to sign off on any improvements such as revamping interchanges or adding lanes, which would have to meet a gamut of federal standards.

That means more red tape, more time and ultimately more money.

There's no guarantee interstate designation will mean more federal funds. California, as with all states, gets apportioned federal transportation dollars through an equation established by Congress, not by how many miles of road it has in the National Highway System, according to the Federal Highway Administration.

Federal money almost always has strings attached, and interstates sometimes get priority over state roads when it comes to spending those dollars. But just how much extra I-210 might get, and whether the added hassle would be worth it, is unclear.

Interstate 210 is expected to connect with what's now signed as Highway 30 in late 2007, creating a signal-free, east-west shot from Interstate 10 in Redlands to Interstate 5 in Sylmar.

Caltrans cannot apply for interstate status until the extension is complete.

The highway is an interstate from its western end to San Dimas where the extension project began in 1997. From there, the road is a state highway to its eastern end at Sierra Avenue in Fontana.

Construction crews are working on the final eight miles through Rialto and San Bernardino and recently began work at the junction with Interstate 215.

Meanwhile, Highway 30 has technically been part of I-210 since 1998 when state lawmakers passed legislation designating it as such. Caltrans has not changed the signs because of costs and the confusion factor for motorists.

And, from the Riverside Press-Enterprise, July 25, 2007, "Last stretch of I-210 project opens to motorists":

The entire span of the freeway stretches from Sylmar to Redlands. Most of it is designated Interstate 210, but from San Dimas east, it is a state highway.

San Bernardino Associated Governments has no plans to seek the interstate designation, which carries no advantage, agency spokeswoman Cheryl Donahue said. In fact, the federal designation would add another level of review by the Federal Highway Administration, which could add complexity and approval time to future freeway projects, she said.

SANBAG has plans to widen a section of the old Highway 30 through Redlands and Highland, which has only two lanes in each direction. The new freeway has three lanes plus a carpool lane.

--NE2 06:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

State Route 30

I recently drove this freeway out to Redlands, and I'm pretty much certain that the eastern part beyond the 215 is no longer signed as the 30, but has been changed to state route 210. Indeed, I definitely remember driving west on the 10 and seeing the sign at the interchange say "210". Therefore, I think this article is out-of-date now. I'm taking the 210 to Highland today, so I should be able to check and make sure I wasn't dreaming. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Update: I've confirmed that what I said is mostly true. It has largely been changed to State Route 210. A few signs still seem to say 30, though. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure?Then howcome from West Covina to Cherry Valley they still say take the SR 210 to SR 30 east. mapquest.com is last update on May 2008 I believe.--Freewayguy ^{Msg USC} 18:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Disagree about split

SR 210 and i-210 should be kept merge. Somebody try to put purple tag; telling us to split into 2 seperate articles. I disagree about doing that. i-210/SR-210 whole route is design as Foothill Frwy, and they have similar history. Caltrans plan to change from SR 210 to I-210. Even if they have no such plan to do that, SR 210 and I-210 should be kept merge. Those two routes is closely-connect, same thing as SR 110/I-110. I see poeple try to split them too.--Freewayguy ^{Msg USC} 21:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't SR 30 still have its own page?

SR 30 hasn't been completely removed/decommisioned, as it is still a state highway along parts of Highland Ave., 19th Street, and Baseline Rd. It does have a gap in it from Rialto to Rancho Cucamonga, but the point is that it still exists and should not merely be redirected to the I/SR 210 page. Angelsfreeek (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Since Caltrans does plan to get rid of this, I don't see the point in temporarily having a separate article. --NE2 09:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither should SR-210. NOt all east of SR 57 is SR-210. East of I-215 is SR-30 still. Eventually, all of it will be I-210. Somebody say its like 2010.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 15:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Glendora Curve

Never mind, we got enough sources Ben found.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 15:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Interstate 210 and State Route 210 (California)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Interstate 210 and State Route 210 (California)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "cahighways_org_30":

• From Deleted state highways in California: Faigin, Daniel. "Routes 25 through 32". Retrieved 2010-03-05.
• From California State Route 30: Route 25-32. CAHighway.org. Accessed: 03-05-2010.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Glendora Exits

Does anyone know where the reference for mileposts came from?

LA R44.20	Lone Hill Avenue
LA R44.40	to 57, 71 10

When eastbound, the exit for the 57 South transition road comes before the exit for Lone Hill off-ramp. When westbound, the merge from the 57 South transition road comes after the merge from Lone Hill on-ramp. I would expect the post for 57 to have a smaller number than the post for Lone Hill. Next time I'm stuck in the curve, I'll try to find the actual posts (if they are there).
John Rotunni 22:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Easy, the Caltrans route log: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/structur/strmaint/brlog2.htm. Should be District 7. --Geopgeop (T) 04:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The 57 exit does come before Lone Hill, Google Maps, http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=210+exit+57&sll=34.120483,-117.836142&sspn=0.002962,0.007725&ie=UTF8&split=1&filter=0&rq=1&ev=zo&radius=0.27&hq=210+exit+57&hnear=&layer=c&cbll=34.119539,-117.83866&panoid=owAzp1YPjgWHO8cftsPqCg&cbp=12,89.52,,0,5&ll=34.119768,-117.838073&spn=0.002944,0.005681&z=18 Hovru 08:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hovru (talk • contribs)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Interstate 210 and State Route 210 (California). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101006214104/http://www.sanbag.ca.gov/projects/mi_fwy_foothill_fly-overs.html to http://www.sanbag.ca.gov/projects/mi_fwy_foothill_fly-overs.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Interstate 210 and State Route 210 (California). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101224223611/http://www.arboretum.org/images/uploads/EARLY_CALIFORNIA_HISTORY(2).pdf to http://www.arboretum.org/images/uploads/EARLY_CALIFORNIA_HISTORY(2).pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Interstate 210 and State Route 210 (California). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121014034331/http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=shc&group=00001-01000&file=250-257 to http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=shc&group=00001-01000&file=250-257
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.arboretum.org/images/uploads/EARLY_CALIFORNIA_HISTORY%282%29.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608223235/http://www.ci.arcadia.ca.us/docs/caminosjul07.pdf to http://www.ci.arcadia.ca.us/docs/caminosjul07.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121014034335/http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tsip/hseb/products/Named_Freeways.pdf to http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tsip/hseb/products/Named_Freeways.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Interstate 210 and State Route 210 (California). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101103112619/http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=shc&group=00001-01000&file=260-284 to http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=shc&group=00001-01000&file=260-284
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091117042006/http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist8/projects/cmia/pdf/SBD-SR-210-%20I-215Connector.pdf to http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist8/projects/cmia/pdf/SBD-SR-210-%20I-215Connector.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050915074945/http://www.sanbag.ca.gov/projects/mi_fwy_foothill.html to http://www.sanbag.ca.gov/projects/mi_fwy_foothill.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Split Article

I propose to split this article into Interstate 210 (California) and California State Route 210. Both are different highway designations, similar to pairs such as:

• Interstate 390 and New York State Route 390.
• Interstate 590 and New York State Route 590.
• Interstate 481 and New York State Route 481.
• Interstate 690 and New York State Route 690.
• U.S. Route 222 and Pennsylvania Route 222.

Needforspeed888 (talk) 00:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see why we should split the article. Although Route 210 has both Interstate and state route designations, they still have the same number and are essentially the same highway (especially since a good chunk of State Route 210 is already up to Interstate standards). I'm pretty sure there were separate articles for Interstate 210 and State Route 210 at one time, but they've already been merged for this very reason. Additionally, to create separate articles for Interstate and State Route 210 means that we would also have to do this for Routes 15, 110, 280, 710, etc.

Pf1127 (talk)

No, oppose split. The situation is totally different in California, where the state government and a large part of the citizens treat the entire route as Route 210 (the Foothill Freeway). The two articles were merged back in 2008 because much of the content and history overlaps. And as it states in the history section, there is still a proposal to re-sign the entire state route as I-210. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I would oppose too for the same reasons. --Rschen7754 05:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

There’s no need; anyways, there are plans to sign the entire route as I-210 upon the completion of upgrades on the SR portion. However it’s going to be non-chargeable: [1] Fluffy89502 (talk) 05:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I would not split the article, because SR 210 would eventually become part of I-210, thus splitting the page would only work for the short-term. Besides, many people living in LA would treat SR 210 and I-210 as the same route, so we should keep the page together and not split. ActivBowser9177 (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose per Zzyzx11. I would add that as the speculation that some day the state route portion will be resigned I-210 in the future is the main factor for me. If those plans are cancelled, and this is permanently planned to have 2 designations I'd reconsider. It seems silly to create and article knowing it will be killed off in a few years. Dave (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Interstate 102 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Interstate 102. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 07:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)