Talk:U.S. Route 50 in California/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Unsigned comments

Isn't the Watt Avenue exit in Sacramento or at least on the border? BTW, the reason I asked is because I once lived near there and remember the city limit sign being at Watt Avenue. Teak the Kiwi 02:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the city limit is on Watt Avenue for some distance. Try looking on a city map to verify the exact city limits of Sacramento Mm555 18:22, 9 September 2007

History notes

Early roads east of Placerville

Information is from Sierra Crossing: First Roads to California and [1].

  • Johnson's Cut-off, open by summer 1852
    • East from Placerville to Bartlett's Bridge (near 38°45′58″N 120°31′01″W / 38.766°N 120.517°W / 38.766; -120.517), then across the bridge and along Vleck Creek Road and Peavine Ridge Road, continuing east along the ridge and then down Wrights Lake Road to the north bank of the river, then along the river (staying on the north bank??) and over Johnson Pass, then probably via Pioneer Trail and Genoa Peak Road?, then over Spooner Summit to Carson City
    • Main route soon moved to Luther Pass from Lake Tahoe, connecting with the older Carson Trail at Woodfords

[2] shows several, concentrating on the Pony Express route.

Another source: [3]

--NE2 19:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Bridge dates

  • 1967-68 under SR 51/SR 99
  • 1968 under Alhambra Boulevard
?
  • 1971 over 34th Street, Stockton Boulevard
  • 1971 over 39th Street
  • 1971 under 48th Street
  • 1971 under 51st Street
  • 1971 under 59th Street ramp
  • 1971 under 59th Street
  • 1971 over 65th Street
  • 1971 over Redding Avenue, RR
  • 1971 over Folsom Boulevard
  • 1971 over Hornet Drive
  • 1969 under SR 16
  • 1971 under Occidental Drive
  • 1971 under Watt Avenue
1973? Watt Avenue to Sunrise Boulevard
  • 1973 over Folsom Boulevard, RR
  • 1973 under Mayhew Road
  • 1973 under Bradshaw Road
  • 1973 under Routier Road
  • 1973 under RR
  • 1973 under Mather Field Road
  • 1973 under ped
  • 1973 under Zinfandel Drive
  • 1973 over RR, Folsom Boulevard
1962 Citrus Road to Folsom turnoff
  • 1962 under Sunrise Boulevard
  • 1962 over RR
  • 1962 over Buffalo Creek
  • 1971 over ped
  • 1971 over canal
  • 1994 under Hazel Avenue
  • 2000 under ped
  • 1948 over Alder Creek
  • 1962 over Folsom Boulevard, RR
?
  • 1998 under Prairie City Road
  • 2000 under Bidwell Street
  • 1965 over Placerville Road, RR
  • 1965 over Latrobe Road
  • 1965 over Silva Valley Parkway
  • 1939 over Carson Creek
  • 1966 over Bass Lake Road
1970 Bass Lake Road to Shingle Springs
  • 1970 under Cambridge Road
  • 1970 over Cameron Park Drive
1969 Shingle Springs to Missouri Flat Road
  • 1969 under Ponderosa Road
  • 1969 over Shingle Springs Drive
  • 1969 over Greenstone Road
  • 1969 under El Dorado Road
  • 1969 under Missouri Flat Road
1963 Perks Corner-West Placerville freeway
  • 1963 over Weber Creek
  • 1963 under Placerville Drive
  • 1997 under Ray Lawyer Drive
  • 1963 over Placerville Drive
1955 expressway through Placerville
  • 1955 under ped
  • 1955 under ped
  • 1955 over Clay Street
  • 1954 over Locust Avenue
  • 1954 over Mosquito Road
1961 Placerville to Newtown Road
  • 1961 under Carson Road
  • 1961 over Schnell School Road
  • 1961 over Smith Flat Road
  • 1961 over Point View Drive
  • 1961 under Smith Flat School Road
1957 Camino Bypass, Five Mile Terrace-Camino expressway
  • 1957 over Snows Road
1965-66 Pollock Pines-Camino Bypass
  • 1964 over Carson Road
  • 1964 over Ridgeway Drive
  • 1964 over Sly Park Road
~1960 four-laned between Pollock Pines and Riverton - this was the easternmost four lanes in 1963
  • 1946 over El Dorado Ditch
  • 1987 over South Fork American River (Riverton)
  • 1990 over South Fork American River
  • 1990 over South Fork American River
  • 1980 over Pyramid Creek
  • 1939 over Echo Summit sidehill viaduct
  • 1941 over Upper Truckee River
  • 1995 over Upper Truckee River
  • 1995 over Trout Creek
Old alignments
  • 1928 over RR
  • 1960 over Alder Creek
  • 1967 over Willow Creek
  • 1925 over Humbug Creek
  • 1930 over Willow Creek
  • 1950 over Carson Creek tributary
  • 1918 over Carson Creek
  • 1918 over Deer Creek
  • 1935 over Weber Creek (Forni Road)
  • 1930 over Hangtown Creek
  • 1933 over Hangtown Creek

--NE2 10:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

GA hold

There are some minor issues that I will go back and address myself instead of complicating matters through explanation. I have a two requests. First, WP:lead guidelines recommend that the intro be at least two paragraphs. Second, I think there needs to be a few sentences concerning the fact that the Sierra portion of the road is sometimes closed in the winter due to snow storms. (maybe I missed it in the text. If I did, please point it out to me.) Thanks.User:calbear22 (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the status of your revisions? --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
In terms of your second point, unless this is a regularly scheduled closure, this is not relevant to the article, as there are many roads frequently closed in the winter due to snowstorms. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Second paragraph of lead added.--Rschen7754 (T C) 06:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Pass GA

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Everything appears to be in order. Good job.User:calbear22 (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Two errors that have crept into this article over the years

FYI, I am making two corrections to this article. I don't think they are controversial, but you never know.

  1. (the bigger of the two) US-50 was one of two routings of the Lincoln Highway across the Sierra Nevada. The Lincoln Highway forked between Sacramento, California and near Fallon, Nevada. Although not all, most articles I've read on the Lincoln Highway imply the branch now known as US-50 was the secondary routing; the main is what is now known as Interstate 80.
  2. Only a small portion of this highway is a freeway; no portion of it is signed as the El Dorado Freeway. (I know this is a perennial problem with CA road articles, and I've about given up. ) Dave (talk) 23:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on U.S. Route 50 in 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 11:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on U.S. Route 50 in 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 14:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on U.S. Route 50 in 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:

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Nominate for A-Class

Because why not? Kevon kevono (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC) (What the hell is UTC?) 14:54 (PT)

If you want to nominate it, Kevon kevono, the directions and process are at WP:HWY/ACR. Imzadi 1979 → 06:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Citations

I scrubbed through the various citations with an eye towards consistency, completion and clean up. Many of these citations were woefully lacking. There were books without publishers or publication locations, some without authors, and all without applicable ISBN or OCLC numbers. I tried to look everything up that I could on http://www.worldcat.org to get complete information. Most of the maps weren't in {{cite map}} and didn't have a manually typed "[map]" indication. Authors weren't in last, first order. Almost all online sources have no access dates, or have a month and a year only. Some newspaper articles don't even have article titles or page numbers! (Reporter bylines are missing as well, but not every article in a paper gets a byline, so that's not as unpardonable as a missing article title.) Can someone with the access to the sources used please work on filling in the missing details? Can someone add access dates as appropriate? I've added some for things I looked up and radically overhauled, but there's work to be done at some point. Imzadi 1979 → 09:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

If there was such citations problems, I am curious how this ever passed GA, unless the problems happened after it got promoted,[4] or the criteria as it was back then[5] was more leniently interpreted. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Bus 80 overlap

We need some better citations regarding the current status of this. This source was recently added:

The problem is that these 2015 dated plans do not explicitly state that the BUS 80/US 50 overlap is now completely off the books. Because when I look at these two other sources from Caltrans:

  • http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/exit/docs/50.pdf - The Caltrans exit list for US 50 notes that this segment is a "Shared Alignment with Business Loop 80"
  • http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/structur/strmaint/brlog/logpdf/logd03.pdf - On the bridge logs (which currently posted is the most recent April 2018 version), it currently says on the Yolo County segment: "BET PM 0.0 & 3.16 IS SIGNED AS BUS LOOP 80". Then on Sacramento County segment, it says, "BET PM L0.0 & L2.48 IS SIGNED AS BUS. LOOP 80". (Note that these same bridge logs recognize the unsigned I-305 designation, along with SR 51)

Thus, it appears that that they just decided to now have Bus 80 unsigned along US 50. Otherwise, they should have also updated either bridge log or the exit number list by now. We cannot have conflicting Caltrans sources, nor can we have a WP:SYN situation where there is a conclusion that is not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

People on the AARoads board have discussed this issue in two threads: 2015 thread & 2018 thread. In summary, a conscious decision was made by Caltrans to remove BUS 80 signs along the highway section concurrent with US 50 during the resigning project, in order to simplify signage for drivers (apparently, locals tended to refer to this portion as just US 50 anyway).
It is likely that various logs likely have not been updated with respect to the resigning performed in the 2015 project. Also worth noting that, to my knowledge, Caltrans has not applied to AASHTO for removal of the BUS 80 designation—so the business route might not be signed along US 50 anymore, but BUS 80 technically still exists there. -- LJ ↗ 16:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
My $.02, this is a roadgeek squabble over technicalities. Let's not ruin two descent Wikipedia articles over it. Example, this paragraph recently added "The business loop's complicated history and signage has frequently led to its route's confusion." Really? People are confused? I have both family and friends in Sacramento and end up going there several times a year. I can tell you the general public is not confused and couldn't care less about this unsigned designation squabble. Wikipedia is intended for a general audience, not roadgeeks. This argument belongs on a site like AARoads, not here. So while it is fair to argue about this on the talk page, let's not trash the articles in the mean time until we come up with a resolution. Dave (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Legislatively, "Route 51 shall be signed as Interstate Business Loop 80." The legislation does not have the BL 80/US 50 overlap. (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=SHC&division=1.&title=&part=&chapter=2.&article=3) It can be confirmed using Google Maps Street View that the BL 80 signs have been removed from the former US 50 overlap in favor of US 50 signs. Richard Hendricks (talk) 04:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

These previous responses do not seem to really completely address my concerns, so let me put it this way: Which should be the option:

  • Option 1: Still treat these articles as if the BUS 80/US 50 concurrency still legally exists, but so now unsigned. As @Ljthefro: seems to imply, it may be still on AASHTO's books like the I-305 designation, even though Caltrans may no longer recognize it.
  • Option 2: The BUS 80/US 50 concurrency no longer exists, even if it may be still on AASHTO's books. (This would however contradict the current mentioning of I-305 however).

Zzyzx11 (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Option 3: note the discrepancy, à la I-96/I-275 in the Detroit area. In that situation, FHWA doesn't recognize the overlap, but MDOT does, and the department signs it. That signage is recognized by most cartographers, and the articles note the the situation. Imzadi 1979 → 16:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Option 3 seems the best. --Rschen7754 18:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Option 3 is what I have done in similar situations. I'll note that I've tended to limit mention of the discrepancy to the history section (if the discrepancy no longer exists) and route description if it is current. The only time I've mentioned a discrepancy in the lead with U.S. Route 163. In that case, prior to 2008 the discrepancy had significant coverage in the article and was visible on even countrywide scale maps of the USA, with different publishers following different definitions. Now that it has been resolved the content about it has been simplified to a single paragraph in the history section and I would not object if someone deleted that sentence from the lead. Dave (talk) 04:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Please provide a reference for the BUS 80/US 50 concurrency (still) being on AASHTO's books. Here's a link from the FHWA showing I-5, I-80, I-305, state route 51, and US 50 (and other state routes) in the Sacramento area: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/nhs_maps/northern_california/sacramento_ca.pdf Richard Hendricks (talk) 11:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
    • I just found AASHTO's US Route Numbering Application Database with Meeting Minutes and Application Results (excel file). At the 1980 Annual Meeting, when California submitted it's proposal to relocate I-80 onto the I-880 alignment (and to extend US 50 to the former I-80/I-880 split), California did not submit BUS 80 for recognition as a business route. Looking through the database, I find no evidence of AASHTO recognition of BUS 80. It appears BUS 80 is just an invention of the California State Legislature. Richard Hendricks (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Does this webpage count as a reliable source for what happened to the US 50/BUS 80 overlap? Richard Hendricks (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Interstate-guide.com is part of the AARoads family of websites, all of which are self-published, and therefore not considered reliable for our purposes. Imzadi 1979 → 22:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Does the current editions of the articles for US 50 and BUS 80 satisfy the current situation? We can demonstrate that Caltrans started to change the signs on the "former" US 50/BUS 80 overlap, but we cannot demonstrate that Caltrans finished the job (We can also demonstrate that no record of Caltrans submitting BUS 80 for AASHTO approval exists in the US Route Numbering Application Database with Meeting Minutes and Application Results). -Richard Hendricks (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

CA SR-50?

I saw something on a morning traffic report in Sacramento that looked like this. Could this mean a de-fedding of the route, or the error of a kyron typist? knoodelhed (talk) 02:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Legally, US 50 is defined in the Streets & Highways Code as "Route 50". It was likely a typo though. There's been no application to change the designation of the roadway with AASHTO. Imzadi 1979 → 04:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Official I-305 designation

The current content about the I-305 designation on here and on U.S. Route 50 in California seems to be inaccurate, particularly the western terminus of I-305. Given that Caltrans does not officially recognize the I-305 designation, I do not think we should rely on Caltrans bridge logs, exit lists and other Caltrans documents. Let's instead take a look at two of the FHWA sources:

The blue lines on the map indicating Interstate system routes show that the western terminus of I-305 should be at I-80 in West Sacramento, not I-5. And the distance from I-80 to SR 99 is 6 miles. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I didn't realize there were discrepancies, but what you're saying makes sense and it agrees with the AASHTO application in 1980. Also, now that we've found the Postmile Query Tool, which gives total route mileage, we should be retiring postmiles. –Fredddie™ 16:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
This is a fairly new development, until recently both articles read as you state, the western terminus of unsigned I-305 was at I-80 W. Sac, and that's what I always understood to be correct. I may be heading that way soon, I'll do a check on the postmiles to see what they say. I have friends in Sacramento, but they aren't roadgeeks, and don't even know I-305 exists, so wouldn't be of much help. ;) Checking Google maps, the few I could read in that stretch say US-50, but most were unreadable. Dave (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Until I hear otherwise, I have partially reverted and restored the articles back to a state where they say that I-305 begins in West Sacramento. I do not think that any postmile markers in the field that were put up by Caltrans would reference I-305, but based on the exit numbers that are signed and the distance on Google Maps it should be about 6 miles from I-80 to 99. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I-305 Shields in the infobox

Recently I-305 shields were added to the infobox. I contend this is Undue Weight and inappropriate. Here's my rationale:

  • The infobox is the briefest of summaries, i.e. "in 25 words or less what must I know about this route". We don't want to include details in the infobox that would lead a casual reader to look for signs that do not exist along the route; Wikipedia is to resolve confusion not add to it.
  • The unsigned designation is important to include in the thorough description of the road, as if someone stumbles on I-305 in federal documents they should be able to use Wikipedia as an aid to discover what it is. But that doesn't mean we should give I-305 so much inclusion in the article to imply a newcomer to Sacrament should look for an I-305 shield when deciding where to turn, as this will result in them getting lost.
  • In dozens of similar cases, what is usually done is unsigned designations are mentioned in the body of the article, and listed without shields in the exit list/intersections guide. If the shield for the unsigned designation is included at all in the article it is in a subheading that focuses on former or alternate designations. A nearly identical case is Interstate 595 (Maryland), which handles this correctly, IMHO. I'm open to alternative arguments and to changing my mind, if anyone disagrees.Dave (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:U.S._Route_50_in_California/Archive_1&oldid=1143984863"