News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?

Started by ACSCmapcollector, July 12, 2016, 08:40:50 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

TheStranger

Quote from: mrsman on September 30, 2016, 05:18:21 PM

I don't know who would drive all the way to Oakland to go between 5/505 and 5/580, even if there was no freeway between Stockton and Sacramento.  Many of the existing rural roads would be better.  US 99 would also be better, even if there were some traffic signals along the way.


NOt sure which existing rural roads you are thinking of - the two options that existed in the 1960s were US 99/US 99W and US 50 (I-5W)/Route 21/US 40 (I-80)/unsigned corridor that would later become I-505.  Other than that, the current I-5 is about the only way to get to Dunnigan from Vernalis.

Quote from: mrsman on September 30, 2016, 05:18:21 PM
I know that there were plans for a Tracy-Antioch-Vacaville toll road that never came to fruition (I believe it was proposed in the 1990's).  If that were the routing for I-5, that would be an amazing highway.  Los Angeles to Oregon without encountering a major city.  Traffic for Bay Area, Stockton, and Sacramento can use I-580, I-80, and CA-99 as connectors, but the main road does not get slowed down.



The Mid-State Tollway, which would have connected near the Antioch Bridge and would have incorporated the corridor for unbuilt Route 239 (a proposed connector from I-580/I-205 split northwest to today's Route 4/Vasco Road junction).
Chris Sampang


coatimundi

Quote from: TheStranger on September 30, 2016, 10:28:24 PM
Quote from: mrsman on September 30, 2016, 05:18:21 PM
I know that there were plans for a Tracy-Antioch-Vacaville toll road that never came to fruition (I believe it was proposed in the 1990's).  If that were the routing for I-5, that would be an amazing highway.  Los Angeles to Oregon without encountering a major city.  Traffic for Bay Area, Stockton, and Sacramento can use I-580, I-80, and CA-99 as connectors, but the main road does not get slowed down.

The Mid-State Tollway, which would have connected near the Antioch Bridge and would have incorporated the corridor for unbuilt Route 239 (a proposed connector from I-580/I-205 split northwest to today's Route 4/Vasco Road junction).

And, IIRC, that was proposed as part of the original state highway system, but then discussed again in the 90's, and is now back to bubbling up since 680 has gotten so bad, and Discovery Bay people have to sit in traffic. Is that right?

kkt

Quote from: TheStranger on September 30, 2016, 10:28:24 PM
Quote from: mrsman on September 30, 2016, 05:18:21 PM
I don't know who would drive all the way to Oakland to go between 5/505 and 5/580, even if there was no freeway between Stockton and Sacramento.  Many of the existing rural roads would be better.  US 99 would also be better, even if there were some traffic signals along the way.
NOt sure which existing rural roads you are thinking of - the two options that existed in the 1960s were US 99/US 99W and US 50 (I-5W)/Route 21/US 40 (I-80)/unsigned corridor that would later become I-505.  Other than that, the current I-5 is about the only way to get to Dunnigan from Vernalis.

Referring to the 1960 California State Highway Map courtesy of David Ramsey,
From Stockton, CA 4 west to Antioch, 24 east (compass north) to Rio Vista, 12 west to unsigned legislative route 101 (now CA 113), north to Dixon, east on US 40, north on Alt US 40/99W, north on 99W to Dunnigan.

Quote
Quote from: mrsman on September 30, 2016, 05:18:21 PM
I know that there were plans for a Tracy-Antioch-Vacaville toll road that never came to fruition (I believe it was proposed in the 1990's).  If that were the routing for I-5, that would be an amazing highway.  Los Angeles to Oregon without encountering a major city.  Traffic for Bay Area, Stockton, and Sacramento can use I-580, I-80, and CA-99 as connectors, but the main road does not get slowed down.
The Mid-State Tollway, which would have connected near the Antioch Bridge and would have incorporated the corridor for unbuilt Route 239 (a proposed connector from I-580/I-205 split northwest to today's Route 4/Vasco Road junction).

I-5C?   :spin:

myosh_tino

Quote from: coatimundi on September 30, 2016, 10:46:35 PM
And, IIRC, that was proposed as part of the original state highway system, but then discussed again in the 90's, and is now back to bubbling up since 680 has gotten so bad, and Discovery Bay people have to sit in traffic. Is that right?

I haven't heard any new rumblings about the Mid-State Tollway.  I was under the impression that it's dead.  There's always chatter about improving Vasco Road to make commuting from Brentwood a little bit easier (and safer).
Quote from: golden eagle
If I owned a dam and decided to donate it to charity, would I be giving a dam? I'm sure that might be a first because no one really gives a dam.

sparker

During the period (1957-63) that I-5W was an active designation (if only signed briefly in Oakland), most of I-80/US 40 between Vallejo and West Sacramento was still a 4-lane expressway with at-grade crossings; freeway segments were sporadic at best.  IIRC from driving on that route with my family back around 1963, freeway construction was going on in the Cordelia-Fairfield area, a bit around Vacaville, and in Davis east of the SPRR underpass (now a freeway overpass, of course).  The only continuous freeway segment at the time was from the "Distribution Structure" (now the 80/580/880 interchange) up through central Vallejo; it was co-signed as I-80/US 40.  It probably just didn't occur to the Division of Highways to erect I-5W signage along that section until more of the route along US 50 to the southeast -- as well as the N-S section north of Vacaville (now I-505) -- was completed or at least under construction.  However, the '64 renumbering rendered all that moot with the effective severing of the 5W concept. 

It's likely that the 5W/5E split was originally designated as such to ensure that the Bay Area was served by both E-W (I-80) and N-S (I-5W) corridors -- as much for political reasons as logistical; providing a continuous corridor between the L.A. and Bay Area metro regions within the I-5 "family" was probably part of that equation -- even with I-5's original pre-'57 routing along US 99, with the southern 5E/5W split occurring at Modesto.   

mrsman

Quote from: kkt on October 01, 2016, 12:35:16 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on September 30, 2016, 10:28:24 PM
Quote from: mrsman on September 30, 2016, 05:18:21 PM
I don't know who would drive all the way to Oakland to go between 5/505 and 5/580, even if there was no freeway between Stockton and Sacramento.  Many of the existing rural roads would be better.  US 99 would also be better, even if there were some traffic signals along the way.
NOt sure which existing rural roads you are thinking of - the two options that existed in the 1960s were US 99/US 99W and US 50 (I-5W)/Route 21/US 40 (I-80)/unsigned corridor that would later become I-505.  Other than that, the current I-5 is about the only way to get to Dunnigan from Vernalis.

Referring to the 1960 California State Highway Map courtesy of David Ramsey,
From Stockton, CA 4 west to Antioch, 24 east (compass north) to Rio Vista, 12 west to unsigned legislative route 101 (now CA 113), north to Dixon, east on US 40, north on Alt US 40/99W, north on 99W to Dunnigan.


Thank you kkt, that was the route I was thinking about.  I didn't look into the history and didn't know what the old highway numbers were, but I knew that there  was an available routing west of Sacramento that was still not nearly as far as Oakland.  I was also concerned about whether the Antioch Bridge was available for crossing in the early days (or whether there was a .   It turns out that there was a bridge in that location since 1926 - the current bridge replacing the oringinal structure in 1978.

As all posting on this thread can attest, there is definitely a traffic need for the Mid-State Tollway.  Lets get the N-S thru traffic out of both the Bay Area and the Sacramento Valley and connect 580 to 505.

myosh_tino

Quote from: mrsman on October 02, 2016, 07:35:27 AM
As all posting on this thread can attest, there is definitely a traffic need for the Mid-State Tollway.  Lets get the N-S thru traffic out of both the Bay Area and the Sacramento Valley and connect 580 to 505.

Not me.

Quite frankly, I don't see a need for the Mid-State Tollway.  There isn't a ton of north-south through traffic passing through the Bay Area.  It's more of a destination/origination spot.  Those traveling from the Bay Area headed north aren't going to go the 20 or so miles out of their way to reach the Mid-State at the 580-205 interchange.  They'll continue to use 680 north and 80 east.

I suppose an argument can be made for the Mid-State being a good bypass of the Sacramento metro area but you're talking about building a highway through the Sacramento-San Joaquin River delta which will negatively impact the sensitive Sacramento-San Joaquin river delta region.  I'm not sure if building a highway there is worth the time and effort to mitigate all of the environmental issues.
Quote from: golden eagle
If I owned a dam and decided to donate it to charity, would I be giving a dam? I'm sure that might be a first because no one really gives a dam.

kkt

I suspect it would be more of a way for traffic to avoid I-80 between Oakland and Vacaville, by heading east on 580 or 24, then north on the new bypass to the I-80/505 intersection.

Additional lanes on I-80 from Oakland to Sacramento and on I-5 throughout the central valley would be more valuable, I think.  A toll bypass would also have a hard time attracting toll customers if existing routes remain free.


Still, a bypass of Sacramento could be built in the nonarable land at the western foothills of Mt. Diablo to Vasco Rd., then Vasco Rd. to existing CA 4 freeway.  The Antioch Bridge would need to be doubled, and a new bridge built from Sherman Island across the Sacramento River to somewhere around Toland Landing on the north shore.  So, one complete freeway bridge, half of another, and about 35 miles of freeway that's new or upgraded from 2 lane.

sparker

#83
Quote from: kkt on October 02, 2016, 09:38:14 PM
Still, a bypass of Sacramento could be built in the nonarable land at the western foothills of Mt. Diablo to Vasco Rd., then Vasco Rd. to existing CA 4 freeway.  The Antioch Bridge would need to be doubled, and a new bridge built from Sherman Island across the Sacramento River to somewhere around Toland Landing on the north shore.  So, one complete freeway bridge, half of another, and about 35 miles of freeway that's new or upgraded from 2 lane.


Essentially, the southern portion of this is on the books -- though an exact route has never been adopted -- as CA 239, which extends from the 580/205 interchange northwest to CA 4 at pretty much the location of the intersection of that highway with Vasco Rd.   The original Mid-State tollway proposal also followed much of the routing kkt cites; crossing CA 12 near the CA 113 junction, then heading northwest past Elmira before crossing I-80 a couple of miles east of I-505 and ending up merging with I-505 north of Vacaville.  IIRC from about 1992 or so, when the proposal was being actively shopped around Sacramento, there was even a more ambitious plan with an eastwardly diverging branch extending north to the I-80/CA 113 north junction near Davis.  While the overland portions in Solano County weren't, in a relative sense, overly costly, constructing a 2nd Antioch Bridge, plus another 4-6 lane structure over the navigable Sacramento River at Sherman Island was deemed, well, a "bridge too far" as far as deployment expenses were concerned.  It was also anticipated that tolling the route would simply result in shunpiking either over I-5 or the neighboring surface facilities.  AFAIK, plans for the portion of the facility north of Antioch are still on a shelf somewhere; revival seems unlikely given other regional priorities.  The CA 239 portion, although still officially unadopted, gets revisited on occasion, particularly when the growth patterns of eastern Contra Costa County (e.g., Brentwood, Discovery Bay) gain public notice.  Even with the improvements of the past few years, Vasco Road still sees LOS E or F on a daily/weekday basis -- and although regional policies in the Bay Area mitigate against large-scale intraregional limited-access road construction, IMO eventually push will come to shove and connecting facilities will be deployed (maybe not in my own lifetime, but in the long haul).

coatimundi

Quote from: myosh_tino on October 02, 2016, 02:52:49 PM
Quote from: mrsman on October 02, 2016, 07:35:27 AM
As all posting on this thread can attest, there is definitely a traffic need for the Mid-State Tollway.  Lets get the N-S thru traffic out of both the Bay Area and the Sacramento Valley and connect 580 to 505.

Not me.

Quite frankly, I don't see a need for the Mid-State Tollway.  There isn't a ton of north-south through traffic passing through the Bay Area.  It's more of a destination/origination spot.  Those traveling from the Bay Area headed north aren't going to go the 20 or so miles out of their way to reach the Mid-State at the 580-205 interchange.  They'll continue to use 680 north and 80 east.

Totally agree with you. Thru traffic would continue to use the free I-5. Commuter traffic from Brentwood and Livermore would likely swell on it during rush hours, but you can't pay for a toll road through solely commuter traffic. That's been proven again and again.
I mean, I would be a potential customer for this. We don't go to Sonoma more often because it's such a pain in the butt to get through the Bay Area. You either have to slog through SF and sit through the northbound traffic on the Golden Gate approach (tourist traffic on the weekends all wanting to stop at the viewpoint at the other end), or roll the dice with I-880 (and you generally get casino odds). Having a toll option would be nice, but I don't think I would take it with the tolls that they would probably have to charge in order to adequately finance this thing.
And I'm not exactly in a large metropolitan area, and very few people from here are going to Sonoma.

DTComposer

Quote from: coatimundi on October 03, 2016, 12:53:57 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 02, 2016, 02:52:49 PM
Quote from: mrsman on October 02, 2016, 07:35:27 AM
As all posting on this thread can attest, there is definitely a traffic need for the Mid-State Tollway.  Lets get the N-S thru traffic out of both the Bay Area and the Sacramento Valley and connect 580 to 505.

Not me.

Quite frankly, I don't see a need for the Mid-State Tollway.  There isn't a ton of north-south through traffic passing through the Bay Area.  It's more of a destination/origination spot.  Those traveling from the Bay Area headed north aren't going to go the 20 or so miles out of their way to reach the Mid-State at the 580-205 interchange.  They'll continue to use 680 north and 80 east.

Totally agree with you. Thru traffic would continue to use the free I-5. Commuter traffic from Brentwood and Livermore would likely swell on it during rush hours, but you can't pay for a toll road through solely commuter traffic. That's been proven again and again.
I mean, I would be a potential customer for this. We don't go to Sonoma more often because it's such a pain in the butt to get through the Bay Area. You either have to slog through SF and sit through the northbound traffic on the Golden Gate approach (tourist traffic on the weekends all wanting to stop at the viewpoint at the other end), or roll the dice with I-880 (and you generally get casino odds). Having a toll option would be nice, but I don't think I would take it with the tolls that they would probably have to charge in order to adequately finance this thing.
And I'm not exactly in a large metropolitan area, and very few people from here are going to Sonoma.

Not sure what part of Sonoma you're going to, but why don't you take I-680 to CA-12? Especially on a weekend, I-680 has always been preferable to I-880 for my trips to that area.

coatimundi

Quote from: DTComposer on October 03, 2016, 02:43:39 AM
Quote from: coatimundi on October 03, 2016, 12:53:57 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 02, 2016, 02:52:49 PM
Quote from: mrsman on October 02, 2016, 07:35:27 AM
As all posting on this thread can attest, there is definitely a traffic need for the Mid-State Tollway.  Lets get the N-S thru traffic out of both the Bay Area and the Sacramento Valley and connect 580 to 505.

Not me.

Quite frankly, I don't see a need for the Mid-State Tollway.  There isn't a ton of north-south through traffic passing through the Bay Area.  It's more of a destination/origination spot.  Those traveling from the Bay Area headed north aren't going to go the 20 or so miles out of their way to reach the Mid-State at the 580-205 interchange.  They'll continue to use 680 north and 80 east.

Totally agree with you. Thru traffic would continue to use the free I-5. Commuter traffic from Brentwood and Livermore would likely swell on it during rush hours, but you can't pay for a toll road through solely commuter traffic. That's been proven again and again.
I mean, I would be a potential customer for this. We don't go to Sonoma more often because it's such a pain in the butt to get through the Bay Area. You either have to slog through SF and sit through the northbound traffic on the Golden Gate approach (tourist traffic on the weekends all wanting to stop at the viewpoint at the other end), or roll the dice with I-880 (and you generally get casino odds). Having a toll option would be nice, but I don't think I would take it with the tolls that they would probably have to charge in order to adequately finance this thing.
And I'm not exactly in a large metropolitan area, and very few people from here are going to Sonoma.

Not sure what part of Sonoma you're going to, but why don't you take I-680 to CA-12? Especially on a weekend, I-680 has always been preferable to I-880 for my trips to that area.

By "Sonoma," I meant Sonoma County, and not the town. We usually end up in Santa Rosa, Petaluma, or further up the coast.
I've always hit problems on 680 on the weekends, particularly around Mission Grade. That's also quite a detour if you're heading to something along 101. Still somewhat when going to the town of Sonoma, but not as bad.
Only plug for going through SF is avoiding the $5 toll.

TheStranger

Quote from: coatimundi on October 03, 2016, 12:53:57 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 02, 2016, 02:52:49 PM
Quote from: mrsman on October 02, 2016, 07:35:27 AM
As all posting on this thread can attest, there is definitely a traffic need for the Mid-State Tollway.  Lets get the N-S thru traffic out of both the Bay Area and the Sacramento Valley and connect 580 to 505.

Not me.

Quite frankly, I don't see a need for the Mid-State Tollway.  There isn't a ton of north-south through traffic passing through the Bay Area.  It's more of a destination/origination spot.  Those traveling from the Bay Area headed north aren't going to go the 20 or so miles out of their way to reach the Mid-State at the 580-205 interchange.  They'll continue to use 680 north and 80 east.

Totally agree with you. Thru traffic would continue to use the free I-5. Commuter traffic from Brentwood and Livermore would likely swell on it during rush hours, but you can't pay for a toll road through solely commuter traffic. That's been proven again and again.

I wonder how much of the long-distance truck traffic that currently has to use I-5 between I-580 and I-505 would find a Mid-State Tollway useful.  I don't know how bad Stockton's rush hour is but from having lived in Sacramento, I-5 from Sutterville Road in Land Park north to about Arena Boulevard in Natomas was always a bit of a mess.  (Southbound was problematic too from P Street towards Seamas Avenue/Fruitridge Road)

In an earlier post in the thread, a connector between the proposed tollway and the 113/80 junction in Davis was mentioned too - I could see that as an alternate to taking 99 into the Yuba City/Marysville region, though 99 north of 5 is not particularly overrun with traffic.
Chris Sampang

sparker

Quote from: TheStranger on October 03, 2016, 12:11:03 PM
I wonder how much of the long-distance truck traffic that currently has to use I-5 between I-580 and I-505 would find a Mid-State Tollway useful.  I don't know how bad Stockton's rush hour is but from having lived in Sacramento, I-5 from Sutterville Road in Land Park north to about Arena Boulevard in Natomas was always a bit of a mess.  (Southbound was problematic too from P Street towards Seamas Avenue/Fruitridge Road)

In an earlier post in the thread, a connector between the proposed tollway and the 113/80 junction in Davis was mentioned too - I could see that as an alternate to taking 99 into the Yuba City/Marysville region, though 99 north of 5 is not particularly overrun with traffic.

It seems like the present-day rationale for something resembling the "Mid-State" tollway concept is the avoidance of commute-time congestion in Stockton and, more so, Sacramento.  I use either I-5 or CA 99 between Manteca and Sacramento at least twice a month, and have found rush-hour Stockton traffic annoying but hardly a problem that requires a relief facility -- the dual/parallel 5 & 99 facillities already accomplish that to some extent.  Much of the I-5 problem, from CA 4 north to Hammer Lane, was for a long period due to the 2+2+ slip-lane configuration on that segment; it is being brought out to 6 lanes (8 closer to downtown); that should alleviate much of the problem (locals weaving in & out of through truck traffic).  Sacramento is another matter; its rush hour is starting to resemble that of I-680 in the East Bay:  congestion times extend from about 6 in the morning to 9-9:30, while outbound afternoon traffic starts piling up about 3 p.m. and often persists until after 7 p.m.  And the congested area extends all the way from the Freeport/CA 160 exit at the south side of the metro area (the famous "water tank" landmark) to the CA 99 north split near the airport. 

I'll beg your pardon for slipping a bit into the fictional realm, but a connector (yes, it'll require a couple of high-level bridges over the Sacramento River & the ship channel) from I-5 somewhere west of Elk Grove west to, say, the 80/113 interchange near U.C. Davis might be a more localized bypass consideration, using 113 north to Woodland to complete the routing.  Would satisfy the bypass function with relative ease, utilizing an existing route for half the bypass length.  If done, I'd simply designate it a western portion of the dormant CA 148.  Just a thought!

coatimundi

Quote from: sparker on October 03, 2016, 01:49:10 PM
I'll beg your pardon for slipping a bit into the fictional realm, but a connector (yes, it'll require a couple of high-level bridges over the Sacramento River & the ship channel) from I-5 somewhere west of Elk Grove west to, say, the 80/113 interchange near U.C. Davis might be a more localized bypass consideration, using 113 north to Woodland to complete the routing.  Would satisfy the bypass function with relative ease, utilizing an existing route for half the bypass length.  If done, I'd simply designate it a western portion of the dormant CA 148.  Just a thought!

Fictional is what makes it fun.
I like this southwestern bypass idea. That, I think could potentially be a feasible toll road. With all the bridges needed (not just over waterways, but also to mitigate environmental impacts on the wetlands) and new ROW, it would absolutely have to be a toll road.
I've been surprised by the amount of traffic coming north from Sacramento headed for Sutter County. I guess a lot of the people living up there work in the city.
The transit side of me says that this traffic could easily be cut down by better and more incentivized bus service. Putting in HOV lanes on that corridor is probably long overdue, and only the southern part of I-5 in the city is slated to get them.

TheStranger

Quote from: sparker on October 03, 2016, 01:49:10 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on October 03, 2016, 12:11:03 PM
I wonder how much of the long-distance truck traffic that currently has to use I-5 between I-580 and I-505 would find a Mid-State Tollway useful.  I don't know how bad Stockton's rush hour is but from having lived in Sacramento, I-5 from Sutterville Road in Land Park north to about Arena Boulevard in Natomas was always a bit of a mess.  (Southbound was problematic too from P Street towards Seamas Avenue/Fruitridge Road)

In an earlier post in the thread, a connector between the proposed tollway and the 113/80 junction in Davis was mentioned too - I could see that as an alternate to taking 99 into the Yuba City/Marysville region, though 99 north of 5 is not particularly overrun with traffic.

It seems like the present-day rationale for something resembling the "Mid-State" tollway concept is the avoidance of commute-time congestion in Stockton and, more so, Sacramento.  I use either I-5 or CA 99 between Manteca and Sacramento at least twice a month, and have found rush-hour Stockton traffic annoying but hardly a problem that requires a relief facility -- the dual/parallel 5 & 99 facillities already accomplish that to some extent.  Much of the I-5 problem, from CA 4 north to Hammer Lane, was for a long period due to the 2+2+ slip-lane configuration on that segment; it is being brought out to 6 lanes (8 closer to downtown); that should alleviate much of the problem (locals weaving in & out of through truck traffic).  Sacramento is another matter; its rush hour is starting to resemble that of I-680 in the East Bay:  congestion times extend from about 6 in the morning to 9-9:30, while outbound afternoon traffic starts piling up about 3 p.m. and often persists until after 7 p.m.  And the congested area extends all the way from the Freeport/CA 160 exit at the south side of the metro area (the famous "water tank" landmark) to the CA 99 north split near the airport. 

In that vein...I know that the 80/680 junction is being reconstructed (again) but is a lot better than it had been a decade ago; likewise, 580/680 is a choke point but a little better compared to the past.  Would the Mid-State routing provide any relief for people commuting from San Jose wishing to go to Sacramento or further north without having to use 680 (i.e. a routing of 680 out of SJ to 84 to 580 to the tollway to 113 or 505)?

---

Quote from: coatimundiI like this southwestern bypass idea.

I do too - it's crazy to think that the Sacramento area really only has two major east-west bridges over the Sacramento river (80, 50) with 5 really being more of a north-south corridor crossing east-west in Natomas.  Elk Grove, the current largest suburb of the region, really has few options to avoid urban traffic to get anywhere outside of the immediate area.
Chris Sampang

sparker

Quote from: TheStranger on October 03, 2016, 02:43:07 PM
Quote from: coatimundiI like this southwestern bypass idea.

I do too - it's crazy to think that the Sacramento area really only has two major east-west bridges over the Sacramento river (80, 50) with 5 really being more of a north-south corridor crossing east-west in Natomas.  Elk Grove, the current largest suburb of the region, really has few options to avoid urban traffic to get anywhere outside of the immediate area.
One of the things to consider re any southwest Sacramento bypass is another "bypass" of sorts -- the Yolo Bypass flood-diversion facility, which empties into the ship channel south of West Sacramento.  Any E-W (or, more precisely, SE-NW) facility will likely have to cross the ship channel downstream of where the Yolo Bypass empties -- which is actually the first 4-5 miles of the channel south of the West Sacramento turning basin.   Looking at GE/GSV, the most likely intersection point with I-5 would be just south of the Laguna West housing tract east of I-5, heading due west to the ship channel, turning northwest there, with a northward bend just south of the present I-80/CA 113 (north) interchange SW of Davis.  Any facility deployed north of there would have to be constructed on a causeway or series of causeways similar to that on I-80 and I-5 east of Woodland -- certainly not a cost-effective routing.


While the drought conditions of recent years have resulted in the Yolo Bypass remaining largely dry even during winter and early spring months, I can certainly remember the exceptionally wet El Nino years of 1982-83, when the Yolo Bypass was full from December until late April of both years -- driving on I-80 seemed like driving to Key West!  Common sense would dictate that the Bypass be itself bypassed rather than crossed by any new road facility.   

jrouse

The latest State Route 239 study was completed in 2014.  Details here:  http://trilink239.org

The proposed routing would be from the 205/580 split to approximately where the Brentwood Bypass portion of SR-4 meets Vasco Road. 

With regards to the proposed Mid-State Tollway, the routing, as has been noted, would have followed the proposed SR-239 alignment and then  roughly the same alignment as the SR-4 Brentwood Bypass.  It would have crossed the San Joaquin River west of the Antioch Bridge and the Sacramento River just past that.  The tollway would have ended at I-80 somewhere between Dixon and Vacaville.  A spur route would have connected to the junction of I-80 and I-505.  There was no plan, AFAIK, to tie it into SR-113 at Davis.   Local opposition killed the portion of the proposed tollway north of Antioch.


iPhone

jrouse

New item somewhat related to this thread...

I was looking at a study for planned HOT lanes on I-80 between Vacaville and Fairfield.  I noticed that there is a plan to realign I-505 and build a new interchange with I-80 between the existing junction and Leisure Town Road.  The existing 505/80 junction would be replaced by a new interchange serving Orange Drive.  I never even knew this was being proposed.  Was anyone else aware of this?


iPhone

myosh_tino

Quote from: jrouse on October 04, 2016, 09:09:51 PM
New item somewhat related to this thread...

I was looking at a study for planned HOT lanes on I-80 between Vacaville and Fairfield.  I noticed that there is a plan to realign I-505 and build a new interchange with I-80 between the existing junction and Leisure Town Road.  The existing 505/80 junction would be replaced by a new interchange serving Orange Drive.  I never even knew this was being proposed.  Was anyone else aware of this?


iPhone

No but isn't that pretty much what they're doing at the 80/680 interchange?  IIRC, as part of the I-80/CA-12 interchange improvement project, isn't the I-80/I-680 interchange going to be relocated a bit to the west of the existing one?  While I understand the need for the relocation (to help improve traffic flow between the 3 highways), I don't see any additional benefit to relocating the 80/505 interchange.
Quote from: golden eagle
If I owned a dam and decided to donate it to charity, would I be giving a dam? I'm sure that might be a first because no one really gives a dam.

jrouse

Quote from: myosh_tino on October 04, 2016, 11:15:13 PM
Quote from: jrouse on October 04, 2016, 09:09:51 PM
New item somewhat related to this thread...

I was looking at a study for planned HOT lanes on I-80 between Vacaville and Fairfield.  I noticed that there is a plan to realign I-505 and build a new interchange with I-80 between the existing junction and Leisure Town Road.  The existing 505/80 junction would be replaced by a new interchange serving Orange Drive.  I never even knew this was being proposed.  Was anyone else aware of this?


iPhone

No but isn't that pretty much what they're doing at the 80/680 interchange?  IIRC, as part of the I-80/CA-12 interchange improvement project, isn't the I-80/I-680 interchange going to be relocated a bit to the west of the existing one?  While I understand the need for the relocation (to help improve traffic flow between the 3 highways), I don't see any additional benefit to relocating the 80/505 interchange.

Yes, that is the plan for 80 and 680.  Basically 680 will swing to the west and tie in with SR-12.

I don't see the purpose for relocating the 80/505 junction.


iPhone

myosh_tino

Quote from: jrouse on October 05, 2016, 09:55:17 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 04, 2016, 11:15:13 PM
Quote from: jrouse on October 04, 2016, 09:09:51 PM
New item somewhat related to this thread...

I was looking at a study for planned HOT lanes on I-80 between Vacaville and Fairfield.  I noticed that there is a plan to realign I-505 and build a new interchange with I-80 between the existing junction and Leisure Town Road.  The existing 505/80 junction would be replaced by a new interchange serving Orange Drive.  I never even knew this was being proposed.  Was anyone else aware of this?


iPhone

No but isn't that pretty much what they're doing at the 80/680 interchange?  IIRC, as part of the I-80/CA-12 interchange improvement project, isn't the I-80/I-680 interchange going to be relocated a bit to the west of the existing one?  While I understand the need for the relocation (to help improve traffic flow between the 3 highways), I don't see any additional benefit to relocating the 80/505 interchange.

Yes, that is the plan for 80 and 680.  Basically 680 will swing to the west and tie in with SR-12.

I don't see the purpose for relocating the 80/505 junction.


iPhone

The only thing I can think of looking at a map of the interchange is replacing the rather tight "U" ramp that takes traffic from south 505 to east 80.  The proximity of Orange Drive immediately east of the interchange would make any replacement of the current ramp next to impossible.

With that said, I don't think it's worth the trouble (and cost) of acquiring property for the ROW for a realigned 505 and a new interchange at 80.
Quote from: golden eagle
If I owned a dam and decided to donate it to charity, would I be giving a dam? I'm sure that might be a first because no one really gives a dam.

coatimundi

Quote from: jrouse on October 05, 2016, 09:55:17 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 04, 2016, 11:15:13 PM
Quote from: jrouse on October 04, 2016, 09:09:51 PM
New item somewhat related to this thread...

I was looking at a study for planned HOT lanes on I-80 between Vacaville and Fairfield.  I noticed that there is a plan to realign I-505 and build a new interchange with I-80 between the existing junction and Leisure Town Road.  The existing 505/80 junction would be replaced by a new interchange serving Orange Drive.  I never even knew this was being proposed.  Was anyone else aware of this?


iPhone

No but isn't that pretty much what they're doing at the 80/680 interchange?  IIRC, as part of the I-80/CA-12 interchange improvement project, isn't the I-80/I-680 interchange going to be relocated a bit to the west of the existing one?  While I understand the need for the relocation (to help improve traffic flow between the 3 highways), I don't see any additional benefit to relocating the 80/505 interchange.

Yes, that is the plan for 80 and 680.  Basically 680 will swing to the west and tie in with SR-12.

I don't see the purpose for relocating the 80/505 junction.


I'm not trying to call anyone out, but where did you see this? The documents for the project on the Caltrans site don't mention any extensive work required on the 80/505 interchange. Could it have been a proposal of a realignment that was later scrapped?

myosh_tino

Quote from: coatimundi on October 05, 2016, 04:45:01 PM
Quote from: jrouse on October 05, 2016, 09:55:17 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 04, 2016, 11:15:13 PM
Quote from: jrouse on October 04, 2016, 09:09:51 PM
New item somewhat related to this thread...

I was looking at a study for planned HOT lanes on I-80 between Vacaville and Fairfield.  I noticed that there is a plan to realign I-505 and build a new interchange with I-80 between the existing junction and Leisure Town Road.  The existing 505/80 junction would be replaced by a new interchange serving Orange Drive.  I never even knew this was being proposed.  Was anyone else aware of this?


iPhone

No but isn't that pretty much what they're doing at the 80/680 interchange?  IIRC, as part of the I-80/CA-12 interchange improvement project, isn't the I-80/I-680 interchange going to be relocated a bit to the west of the existing one?  While I understand the need for the relocation (to help improve traffic flow between the 3 highways), I don't see any additional benefit to relocating the 80/505 interchange.

Yes, that is the plan for 80 and 680.  Basically 680 will swing to the west and tie in with SR-12.

I don't see the purpose for relocating the 80/505 junction.


I'm not trying to call anyone out, but where did you see this? The documents for the project on the Caltrans site don't mention any extensive work required on the 80/505 interchange. Could it have been a proposal of a realignment that was later scrapped?

Joe (jrouse) works for Caltrans.  I did a quick Google search but turned up nothing.  It's entirely possible he was looking at an study that hasn't been released to the general public yet.
Quote from: golden eagle
If I owned a dam and decided to donate it to charity, would I be giving a dam? I'm sure that might be a first because no one really gives a dam.

sparker

Quote from: myosh_tino on October 05, 2016, 03:39:40 PM
Quote from: jrouse on October 05, 2016, 09:55:17 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 04, 2016, 11:15:13 PM
Quote from: jrouse on October 04, 2016, 09:09:51 PM
New item somewhat related to this thread...

I was looking at a study for planned HOT lanes on I-80 between Vacaville and Fairfield.  I noticed that there is a plan to realign I-505 and build a new interchange with I-80 between the existing junction and Leisure Town Road.  The existing 505/80 junction would be replaced by a new interchange serving Orange Drive.  I never even knew this was being proposed.  Was anyone else aware of this?


iPhone

No but isn't that pretty much what they're doing at the 80/680 interchange?  IIRC, as part of the I-80/CA-12 interchange improvement project, isn't the I-80/I-680 interchange going to be relocated a bit to the west of the existing one?  While I understand the need for the relocation (to help improve traffic flow between the 3 highways), I don't see any additional benefit to relocating the 80/505 interchange.

Yes, that is the plan for 80 and 680.  Basically 680 will swing to the west and tie in with SR-12.

I don't see the purpose for relocating the 80/505 junction.


iPhone

The only thing I can think of looking at a map of the interchange is replacing the rather tight "U" ramp that takes traffic from south 505 to east 80.  The proximity of Orange Drive immediately east of the interchange would make any replacement of the current ramp next to impossible.

With that said, I don't think it's worth the trouble (and cost) of acquiring property for the ROW for a realigned 505 and a new interchange at 80.

The only other rationale I can think of for an interchange relocation is the presence of folded-diamond ramps on either side of the interchange:  a set along the ramp from east I-80 to north I-505, with the onramp merging with the I-505 north ramp (there is a separate onramp to 80 east several hundred yards east), and a matching set on the south 505 to east 80 ramp.  Both serve the Nut Tree factory store complex as well as a retail complex on the north side of I-80 featuring a sizeable Lowe's facility; I have noticed periodic backups on the east 80 offramp (the one feeding into the outlet complex), particularly during the holiday shopping season; the one at the NW corner of the interchange has very tight turns but also light usage (that U-shaped ramp sees relatively sparse traffic).  It may be that the combination of periodic backups from the folded diamond onto the main 80>505 transition ramp, which does feature significant semi-truck traffic, plus the tight turns of the other set, may have provoked some lobbying on the part of either the city of Vacaville and/or the owners/developers of the businesses flanking the interchange to improve the situation -- in other words, institute a full separation of localized retail traffic from the higher-speed freeway-to-freeway transition.  Whether a full 80/505 interchange relocation is "overkill" may be subject to speculation, but there's little room with which to work for any significant modifications of the present interchange configuration.   



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.