AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Pacific Southwest => Topic started by: ACSCmapcollector on July 10, 2016, 11:57:56 AM

Title: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: ACSCmapcollector on July 10, 2016, 11:57:56 AM
Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?

I wonder why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city, and no other Interstate to serve Sacramento and it neighboring suburbs, just curious as of now why they don't have a plan as of now to bring the city up to Interstate standards on the east side of Sacramento?

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: TheStranger on July 10, 2016, 12:28:30 PM
The Route 143 corridor (pretty much approximately Watt Avenue/Elk Grove-Florin Road from Elk Grove north to the edge of the Sacramento city limits near Foothill Farms at the 80/Business 80 split) has been proposed in years past but a 1970s regional vote that went against that and other proposals in the area (Route 102 along Elkhorn Boulevard, Route 244 connecting the 80/Business 80 split with US 50 in Rancho Cordova on a routing paralleling Winding Way) halted momentum for most new-build freeway construction, with the right of way being developed on in the years since.

A part of the planned Route 148 along the Sacramento/Elk Grove border has since been constructed as a non-state-maintained surface street, Cosumnes River Boulevard.  (The newest portion of this opened in 2015, from Freeport east across I-5 to Franklin Boulevard)
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: jrouse on July 10, 2016, 03:51:06 PM
Scott,
A lot of the questions you ask all pretty much have the same answer.

In 1959 the California Legislature authorized the development of a State Freeway & Expressway System, which would have resulted in an extensive network of controlled access highways around the state.  This included a number of freeways in the urban areas.  This system was supposed to have been completed by 1980, if I remember correctly, but it was not, and it probably never will be.  The reasons why include lack of funding, environmental concerns, and public opposition.  As a result, there are a number of routes in the State Highway System that will never be built or improved to higher standards.  This includes the routes mentioned in this thread, Route 380, and improvements to Route 133.   

I hope this explanation helps.


iPhone
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: sparker on July 10, 2016, 05:39:46 PM
Re 133 and 380 -- part of their proposed corridor was within the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission, which has historically opposed large-scale highway upgrades in their zone (just getting them to vet the Devils' Slide CA 1 bypass was like pulling teeth!).  Pretty much any freeway project extending into their area, which includes all of the coastal watershed draining directly into the ocean, is DOA -- which is why you'll probably never see a CA 1 freeway facility (or even a Super-2, for that matter!) between Santa Cruz and Half Moon Bay.   The only freeways existing within their jurisdiction were pre-existing, "grandfathered" in at the time of the Commission's establishment.
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: ACSCmapcollector on July 10, 2016, 06:14:09 PM
I don't think that Interstate 70 will ever be extended from Interstate 15 in Utah to be on U.S. 50 to Sacramento, CA ever through Nevada, maybe it is not needed either, if it did we would have an Interstate x70 bypass around Sacramento, CA.

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA

Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: Max Rockatansky on July 10, 2016, 09:39:03 PM
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on July 10, 2016, 06:14:09 PM
I don't think that Interstate 70 will ever be extended from Interstate 15 in Utah to be on U.S. 50 to Sacramento, CA ever through Nevada, maybe it is not needed either, if it did we would have an Interstate x70 bypass around Sacramento, CA.

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA

Don't tell that FritzOwl...  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: ACSCmapcollector on July 10, 2016, 09:52:40 PM
I wont...he would get some really dumb ideas.  I think.  Maybe Interstate 70 should be going to Fresno underneath the Sierra Nevada and from Fresno, to Monterey, CA. From the I-15/I-70 jct in Utah across to the desert to Nevada and into California.

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: Max Rockatansky on July 10, 2016, 09:57:00 PM
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on July 10, 2016, 09:52:40 PM
I wont...he would get some really dumb ideas.  I think.  Maybe Interstate 70 should be going to Fresno underneath the Sierra Nevada and from Fresno, to Monterey, CA. From the I-15/I-70 jct in Utah across to the desert to Nevada and into California.

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA

Wouldn't worry about it regardless, US 50 is going to be plenty adequate for the foreseeable future...or life times...but that's the crown jewel of Fritzy's "plans" is to get I-70 to Sacramento.  Basically once you get east of Fallon, NV that traffic count basically drops to nothing and doesn't pick up all that much until you hit I-15 in Utah...they don't call it the most lonely road in America for nothing.  At best I could see maybe some expansion of the expressway from from Carson to Fallon with some grade separation, with the Lake Tahoe area you're basically land locked which would mitigate almost any future improvement.  Hell even I-11 along US 95 to Reno is highly questionable given the current traffic counts.
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: sparker on July 10, 2016, 11:11:03 PM
What do you mean -- he'd really get some dumb ideas?  Scott, that ship sailed long ago -- Fritz' capacity for overblown ideas is pretty much at maximum; outside influences no longer required!
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: US 41 on July 10, 2016, 11:22:03 PM
I always thought I-80 was Sacramento's freeway bypass.
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: kkt on July 10, 2016, 11:35:45 PM
The Elvas Freeway was going to be a bypass around Sacramento on the east side.  It was cancelled due to the usual suspects - expense, takings, local opposition, not reserving a reasonable right of way until it was too late.
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: TheStranger on July 11, 2016, 01:01:32 AM
Quote from: kkt on July 10, 2016, 11:35:45 PM
The Elvas Freeway was going to be a bypass around Sacramento on the east side.  It was cancelled due to the usual suspects - expense, takings, local opposition, not reserving a reasonable right of way until it was too late.


The Elvas freeway is Business 80 between 160 and E Street.  Were you thinking of Route 244 (the Winding Way corridor)?

The Interstate-standards replacement for what is now Business 80 that was nixed by the City of Sacramento in 1979...that would have used still-extant right of way along the railroad tracks in North Sacramento, some of which was built up to the Roseville Road light rail station.  Funding for that freeway realignment project went to the light rail system instead.
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: ACSCmapcollector on July 11, 2016, 07:00:47 PM
I think FritzOwls's ideas are just outrageous, nothing to draw on paper and mechanical pencil with sharpened pencil, like I can do with my own drawn maps that are based on my imagination only, not for real, even not for fantasy.  I would like to have an Interstate 70 come through Fresno on California state route 180 anyhow, but I don't think that Fresno need an Interstate upgrade as of now. It is home to my ex-gf Vicki O'Connor.

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: Max Rockatansky on July 11, 2016, 10:40:56 PM
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on July 11, 2016, 07:00:47 PM
I think FritzOwls's ideas are just outrageous, nothing to draw on paper and mechanical pencil with sharpened pencil, like I can do with my own drawn maps that are based on my imagination only, not for real, even not for fantasy.  I would like to have an Interstate 70 come through Fresno on California state route 180 anyhow, but I don't think that Fresno need an Interstate upgrade as of now. It is home to my ex-gf Vicki O'Connor.

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay

It wouldn't be realistic with the terrain around Kings Canyon and the Sierra Ridge.  Probably the best avenue for a southern cut of the Sierras that has potential for a state highway would Sherman Pass.  If I recall correctly he mapped out 180 as an Interstate on his flight simulator if memory serves correct.
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: ACSCmapcollector on July 11, 2016, 10:44:18 PM
Where is Sherman Pass, Max?  Maybe I would Google it tomorrow.  Anyway Sherman Pass Road is a dangerous road.

http://www.dangerousroads.org/north-america/usa/3943-sherman-pass.html

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: Max Rockatansky on July 11, 2016, 10:59:01 PM
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on July 11, 2016, 10:44:18 PM
Where is Sherman Pass, Max?  Maybe I would Google it tomorrow.  Anyway Sherman Pass Road is a dangerous road.

http://www.dangerousroads.org/north-america/usa/3943-sherman-pass.html

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA

They have some pretty silly roads on that site that are more interesting than dangerous....at least so long as they aren't those unmaintained mine roads they got listed like crazy out of Colorado.  Basically Sherman Pass Road terminates at US 395 and if I recall correctly to Johnsondale?  Basically you can follow a couple paved mountain roadways out of Johnsondale north to the western CA 190.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Sherman+Pass/@35.9905005,-118.3834268,14z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x80c0390db1d7e185:0x26a85907522b24d2!8m2!3d35.9905023!4d-118.3659172?hl=en

Incidentally the Google car hasn't been over Sherman before, there are plenty of user photos though.  The pass isn't that bad in the summer time but I would expect typical County Route levels of bumpiness.
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: coatimundi on July 11, 2016, 11:56:23 PM
Kaiser Pass Road is paved yet Google SV hasn't made it up there yet. I haven't driven either, so I can't say if it's more or less dangerous than Sherman Pass Road.
Incidentally, CA 168 ends at its junction with Kaiser Pass Road. I would guess then there was another line over to the other 168, but there's not a really good way to do that. Italy Pass is mostly directly east of the end of Kaiser Pass Road and west of the end of eastern 168, but that's well above the treeline and it's a pretty absurd idea to put a road up there. Piute Pass would be another possibility for a routing, but that's also a stretch.
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: Max Rockatansky on July 12, 2016, 12:11:11 AM
Quote from: coatimundi on July 11, 2016, 11:56:23 PM
Kaiser Pass Road is paved yet Google SV hasn't made it up there yet. I haven't driven either, so I can't say if it's more or less dangerous than Sherman Pass Road.
Incidentally, CA 168 ends at its junction with Kaiser Pass Road. I would guess then there was another line over to the other 168, but there's not a really good way to do that. Italy Pass is mostly directly east of the end of Kaiser Pass Road and west of the end of eastern 168, but that's well above the treeline and it's a pretty absurd idea to put a road up there. Piute Pass would be another possibility for a routing, but that's also a stretch.


Found a brochure on Sequoia National Forest that has some decent map and road info for Sherman Pass on page 13/14:

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3801985.pdf

Given that Kaiser Pass Road is part of the whole Big Creek project I would suspect that it somewhat minimal in terms of road quality which would certainly increase the danger factor.  For what it's worth Sherman Pass Road is meant for all vehicles as a scenic byway...not bad for something out of the way for a 9,200 foot pass.  It looked like the Google car ran into a closed gate when it was up around Johnsondale.
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: ACSCmapcollector on July 12, 2016, 02:57:11 PM
Anyways, economically and enviromentally I would think there would NEVER be an Interstate 70 extension across central California, including the Sierra Nevada, Fresno and Monterey, CA.  No plans, no routing as of yet.  I don't see a movement to push that forward as of now.

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: ACSCmapcollector on July 12, 2016, 03:04:21 PM
Anyway when I do my own road and street maps with a mechanical pencil, sharpened pencil, colored pencils...it is just for the imagination and a gift from God.  The ruled paper is the canvas, the pencils are the brushes, and the color I add is the paint.  Anyhow I have been doing that for 39 years since I was a young pre-teenager of 11 years old.

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: Avalanchez71 on July 12, 2016, 03:14:09 PM
Who is going to pay for this road?  Remember that Sacramento is the capital of California and that it is a destination for those in power in the state.  They need to route roads to Sacramento.  Business needs customers.  No customers not business. 
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: myosh_tino on July 12, 2016, 03:41:00 PM
Any talk of extending I-70 over the Sierra Nevadas really should be confined to the Fictional Highways (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?board=20.0) board.
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: Avalanchez71 on July 12, 2016, 03:44:31 PM
The dirt people and the controllers of the purse would not allow that to happen.  Have you taken a look at a map and the protected areas along with the cost/benefit of such a route?
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: ACSCmapcollector on July 12, 2016, 03:46:10 PM
Maybe it should be DELETED as a route.  I don't think there is much of a need for Interstate 70 in California.

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: Max Rockatansky on July 12, 2016, 03:53:23 PM
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on July 12, 2016, 03:46:10 PM
Maybe it should be DELETED as a route.  I don't think there is much of a need for Interstate 70 in California.

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA

I don't think anyone in legislative session has even brought up the topic of I-70 in California.  It almost didn't happen at all west of Denver
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: myosh_tino on July 12, 2016, 03:53:52 PM
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on July 12, 2016, 03:46:10 PM
Maybe it should be DELETED as a route.  I don't think there is much of a need for Interstate 70 in California.

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA

You can't delete a route that never existed (unless I'm missing something here).  Besides, California already has a Route 70 that runs from near Oroville to US 395.
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: ACSCmapcollector on July 12, 2016, 03:58:36 PM
It probably won't even happen if that was the case, I believe.  No I-70 extension, no freeway, no nothing.

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: ACSCmapcollector on July 12, 2016, 04:01:14 PM
Here we go with the duplication rule, which I think should be thrown out of California for good!  It would be causing mass confusion too.  :confused: :poke:

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA
Morro Bay
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: kkt on July 12, 2016, 04:20:39 PM
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on July 12, 2016, 04:01:14 PM
Here we go with the duplication rule, which I think should be thrown out of California for good!  It would be causing mass confusion too.  :confused: :poke:

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA
Morro Bay

The no duplication rule should stay.  The same number on different routes is pointlessly confusing.

The idea that I-70 would ever be needed to cross empty Nevada desert and the Sierra at its highest, snowiest point is just silly.  Geography trumps making a grid on the map.
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: ACSCmapcollector on July 12, 2016, 04:39:02 PM
Is California the only state in the United States, with a duplication rule?  Maybe non duplication rule would work best, under the best circumstances.  I don't know any other state having duplication rules but that was created for the Great California Renumbering of 1964 as a whole.  Arizona, Oregon, Texas may not have that rule, etc.

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: kkt on July 12, 2016, 04:57:14 PM
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on July 12, 2016, 04:39:02 PM
Is California the only state in the United States, with a duplication rule?  Maybe non duplication rule would work best, under the best circumstances.  I don't know any other state having duplication rules but that was created for the Great California Renumbering of 1964 as a whole.  Arizona, Oregon, Texas may not have that rule, etc.

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA

I've started a topic in General Highways with the question of what other states have a nonduplication rule.  Thus leaving this topic free for discussion of the (lack of) Sacramento bypasses.
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: Bickendan on July 12, 2016, 05:02:58 PM
Oregon pretty much has a non-duplication rule, but for I-82/OR 82 and I-205/OR 205. And those two pairs don't bother anyone.
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: ACSCmapcollector on July 12, 2016, 05:26:33 PM
Where would I find that topic of discussion, kkt?

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: kkt on July 12, 2016, 06:35:48 PM
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on July 12, 2016, 05:26:33 PM
Where would I find that topic of discussion, kkt?

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18336.0
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: dvferyance on July 21, 2016, 04:51:38 PM
Simple answer it's not a big enough city for one.
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: Quillz on July 21, 2016, 05:40:49 PM
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on July 12, 2016, 04:01:14 PM
Here we go with the duplication rule, which I think should be thrown out of California for good!  It would be causing mass confusion too.  :confused: :poke:

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA
Morro Bay
I agree. I've no issues with route duplication, as long as it's done right.

With typical California nomenclature, where lots of people say "the #" or just "#," it won't work. But you condition people to always say something like "I-#" or "US-#," I think it can work fine.
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: Quillz on July 21, 2016, 05:42:05 PM
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on July 12, 2016, 04:39:02 PM
Is California the only state in the United States, with a duplication rule?  Maybe non duplication rule would work best, under the best circumstances.  I don't know any other state having duplication rules but that was created for the Great California Renumbering of 1964 as a whole.  Arizona, Oregon, Texas may not have that rule, etc.

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA
It actually wasn't. The "no duplication" rule goes back to the inception of California's state highway system in 1934, specifically to avoid having CA-40, CA-50, CA-60, etc. Notably, there was actually a CA-95 that was later deleted because US-95 was later extended into the state.
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: TheStranger on July 21, 2016, 06:39:08 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 21, 2016, 04:51:38 PM
Simple answer it's not a big enough city for one.

The Mid-State Tollway proposal from the 1990s - which would have approximated the unconstructed Route 239 corridor as well as an undefined route in the Vaca Valley - would have linked I-580 and I-505 with a toll route that would have effectively created a west bypass of Sacramento, via Altamont, Antioch, and Vacaville.  Never built though.
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: Max Rockatansky on July 21, 2016, 07:55:19 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 21, 2016, 04:51:38 PM
Simple answer it's not a big enough city for one.

You sure about that?  The Sacramento Metro area is 2.1 million residents.  I'm not saying that a bypass is needed but usually cities of that size have them.
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: Avalanchez71 on July 21, 2016, 08:15:16 PM
I would say otherwise but Nashville, TN now has SR 840 (unposted I-840) now. 
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: bing101 on July 22, 2016, 01:54:46 PM
Well there's CA-113 in Davis and I-505 they are bypasses but they are not in Sacramento City Proper though but they are within a 30 mile radius from Sacramento though.
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: Avalanchez71 on July 22, 2016, 02:02:27 PM
That is a similar situation to Nashville, TN as SR 840 is a good distance to the south, east and west of Nashville.  All of Davidson County is Nashville save the six small satellite cities in Davidson County.  However, Nashville is Davidson County inclusive of all of the six satellite cities.  At any rate SR 840 is well outside of Davidson County.
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: TheStranger on July 22, 2016, 06:10:10 PM
Quote from: bing101 on July 22, 2016, 01:54:46 PM
Well there's CA-113 in Davis and I-505 they are bypasses but they are not in Sacramento City Proper though but they are within a 30 mile radius from Sacramento though.

Of course (and I think mentioned earlier in the thread), I-80 in Natomas and Del Paso Heights (formerly I-880) is a bypass route for the older I-80 (now Business 80) routing along US 50 through West Sacramento, downtown, and midtown + unsigned Route 51 through midtown, Cal Expo, and the Arden-Arcade areas.

505 though is certainly a bypass route for Bay Area traffic trying to get to 5 north towards Redding and Oregon. (113 is more of a regional connector for Woodland and Davis)

Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: bing101 on July 23, 2016, 11:33:12 AM
CA-244, was supposed to be a bypass from what I seen though of old route proposals. Also CA-160 near CA-51 I'm not sure if it was intended as a bypass though. But more like a spur route.
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: sparker on July 23, 2016, 12:13:46 PM
There once was a CA 102 "dotted line on the map" route extending east from near the I-5/CA 99 interchange between Natomas and the airport, and paralleling Elkhorn Road and Greenback Way out to the Orangevale area, then turning north via Granite Bay, terminating at I-80 near Auburn.  Never more than a proposed corridor concept, later planning shifted it to a more northeastern trajectory from its west terminus, skirting Lincoln to the south and crossing CA 49 north of Auburn before turning east to intersect I-80 near Applegate, where 102 would terminate.  Explicitly intended to be a traffic reliever for I-80 in the Sacramento-Auburn corridor, it would have likely also prompted the decommissioning of the CA 193 segment from Lincoln to Newcastle.  Haven't heard much in the way of recent news about the fate of this route as a viable future facility; if anyone has updated info, it might contribute to this bypass discussion.

Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: jrouse on July 31, 2016, 01:00:40 AM
Quote from: sparker on July 23, 2016, 12:13:46 PM
There once was a CA 102 "dotted line on the map" route extending east from near the I-5/CA 99 interchange between Natomas and the airport, and paralleling Elkhorn Road and Greenback Way out to the Orangevale area, then turning north via Granite Bay, terminating at I-80 near Auburn.  Never more than a proposed corridor concept, later planning shifted it to a more northeastern trajectory from its west terminus, skirting Lincoln to the south and crossing CA 49 north of Auburn before turning east to intersect I-80 near Applegate, where 102 would terminate.  Explicitly intended to be a traffic reliever for I-80 in the Sacramento-Auburn corridor, it would have likely also prompted the decommissioning of the CA 193 segment from Lincoln to Newcastle.  Haven't heard much in the way of recent news about the fate of this route as a viable future facility; if anyone has updated info, it might contribute to this bypass discussion.

There is a proposal for what is known as Placer Parkway, which would connect CA-65 between Roseville and Lincoln with CA-99 north of Sacramento.  It would be a freeway with only a few local interchanges.  The intent is to serve as a reliever route for I-80.  This proposal came out of the aforementioned routing study for Route 102 which was  conducted in the 1980s and follows much of the recommended alignment that came out of that study.  The project is led by the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency. 

The City of Rocklin is nearly finished building an interchange on CA-65 (Whitney Ranch Parkway) that is intended to serve as the western terminus of Placer Parkway and Placer County is planning to build the first piece of the parkway which would run about 1-2 miles west from this interchange.

Placer County has a transportation sales tax on the November ballot which, if it passes, could also help pay for the remainder of the project.  I also seem to recall that it could be built as a toll road.

There's a thread on the Placer Parkway here:  https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=13819.0

More info on the first phase can be found here:
https://www.placer.ca.gov/departments/works/projects/placerparkway

Info on the Whitney Ranch Parkway interchange:
https://www.rocklin.ca.us/depts/ps/current_projects/65nwhitneyranch.asp



iPhone
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: coatimundi on July 31, 2016, 02:49:34 AM
Quote from: jrouse on July 31, 2016, 01:00:40 AM
The City of Rocklin is nearly finished building an interchange on CA-65 (Whitney Ranch Parkway) that is intended to serve as the western terminus of Placer Parkway and Placer County is planning to build the first piece of the parkway which would run about 1-2 miles west from this interchange.

If they're taking it to SR 99, wouldn't 65/Whitney Ranch Parkway be the eastern terminus?
I see that Whitney Ranch Parkway already exists east of 65. Is the plan to connect it to I-80?

I guess the whole Sacramento bypass concept comes down to "bypass of what"? I-80? Because building a straight line just to 65 would allow traffic coming from Reno to reach the Sacramento Valley without having to go through the city. But what's needed? A way for traffic to go thru to the Bay Area?
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: TheStranger on July 31, 2016, 03:05:20 AM
Quote from: coatimundi on July 31, 2016, 02:49:34 AM
But what's needed? A way for traffic to go thru to the Bay Area?

The 1980s proposals for Route 102 basically would have created this (note that Joe Rouse did mention that the Placer Parkway project came out of studies for that route) via connecting I-80 in Auburn with the Route 99/I-5 interchange near Sacramento International Airport. If that had been constructed, one could take 102 west to that area, then 5 north to Woodland, then 113 south to Davis to reconnect to 80 heading towards the Bay.

The earlier Route 102 proposal - more of a corridor from 99/5 at the airport east along Elkhorn Boulevard to Citrus Heights, then northeast along the Auburn-Folsom Road pathway - would have served Sunrise Mall and Orangevale and been a little bit less of a bypass route.  Still would have relieved 80 in Natomas.

Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: sparker on July 31, 2016, 04:06:25 AM
Looking at the plans that Joe R. supplied, I'm beginning to have my suspicions that the Placer Parkway was developed primarily to function as a localized server for the newer housing tracts between SE Sutter County and Lincoln rather than a true bypass -- or part of one -- of the greater Sacramento area.  While it looks as if it's going to be developed as a freeway facility, its connectivity is unclear -- or at least those plans are vague in their details.  Got some questions that Joe, or possibly others, might be able to answer that could shed a bit of light on the purpose of this project.

First question (or set of related questions):  While some of the ramps have been vaguely described in the documents supplied, the only graphics showed the location of the Whitney Ranch/CA 65 interchange, not the final configuration of the interchange.  Will it be developed as a basic diamond with an added SB-EB loop?  Or is what is described part of a full cloverleaf to be deployed in phases as the E-W facility develops?  Or will it be just another Caltrans fave: a parclo instead of a freeway-to-freeway connection (Caltrans is to parclos what TXDOT is to volleyball interchanges!).   Also:  what configuration will the CA 99 terminus assume?  The answers to these might shed a little light as to how all agencies involved define the Placer Parkway.

2nd question:  Once completed, will the Placer Parkway be signed as a state highway?....and, if so, what designation will it receive? (102, 193, a number TBD?).  Or will it remain an unsigned "county" facility:  a la the Richmond Parkway, but built out as a freeway?

Final question: Are there extension plans -- is the Placer the center or west section of a larger corridor concept?  Looking at the WRP development east of CA 65, it appears that if extended beyond the last housing tract that it serves, it would intersect Sierra College Blvd. about a mile and a half south of CA 193 -- more or less at the point where the UP eastbound main line tunnels under Sierra College.  That raises the question as to whether the facility is intended to intersect I-80 at some point (which would position it as an effective northern "bypass" -- which may be in itself contrary to its current role as a boundary server for the housing tracts laid out between Lincoln and Rocklin).  And will CA 99 be the ultimate western end of this facility, or will it eventually wrap around the north & west sides of Sacramento International and intersect I-5 somewhere around Garden Highway? 

So -- is this the first phase of a bypass, or simply what happens when COG's, developers, and a funding-starved Caltrans parse out a formerly straightforward bypass concept?   
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: coatimundi on July 31, 2016, 11:55:51 AM
Maybe it'll turn into something like the Grand Parkway in Houston: a freeway/tollway billed as a bypass loop but really an exurb-serving slice through rural landscapes built so that developers could place their tract housing subdivision entrances along its frontage road.

Maybe Sac can have a symbiosis of sorts though: the developers get their easy freeway access marketing and drivers get another facility.

I did understand the original proposal of 102, but this has it going to only 99 instead of the 5/99 interchange, which changes the game quite a bit.
Title: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: jrouse on July 31, 2016, 12:28:07 PM
First, yes, the CA-65 Whitney Ranch I/C will be the EASTERN end of the Placer Parkway.  It will be an L-9 parclo interchange.  There are no plans to extend Placer Parkway east of CA-65 or west of CA-99.

I thought I saw in one of the planning documents that the western terminus at CA-99 would have flyover connections, and not be a trumpet interchange.  It would tie in between Sankey and Riego Roads.

From what I recall reading in the studies, the proposal is to limit the number of interchanges on the Placer Parkway and have a wide right of way to minimize growth and sprawl. 

The project is being developed locally and it's unclear if the state would adopt it after completion.  If they did, it seems logical that it would be designated as Route 102.


iPhone
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: sparker on July 31, 2016, 04:31:17 PM
That does answer most of my questions -- thanks, Joe!  From the answers -- plus a G.E. look at the plethora of housing being developed in and around Lincoln, I'm guessing that an effective I-80 "reliever" bypass is essentially dead meat!  Even with direct freeway connections at CA 99, this route is, in simple terms, just another way to get to Lincoln (without having to slog up I-80 past Roseville).  As I've stated in previous posts, in CA the COG's seem to be calling the shots -- and providing relief for long-distance routes is way, way down their priority lists.  I suppose the area residents should consider themselves lucky to get the facility at all!  But a parclo at 65?  A couple of flyovers to and from NB 65 would help to expedite traffic flow.  But I forgot -- it's the Placer Parkway, not the Placer Freeway!  Through traffic will just have to wait like everyone else!
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: jrouse on August 08, 2016, 11:00:40 PM
One thing the Placer Parkway might be able to do is provide some traffic relief on Base Line Road/Riego Road.  There are a lot of commuters from south Placer County who use that road to get to and from downtown Sacramento via CA-99 and I-5 instead of using I-80 and Business 80. 


iPhone
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: sparker on August 08, 2016, 11:37:45 PM
I can certainly understand taking traffic off Riego; when my parents lived in Roseville from 1985 to 1990 before moving back to the L.A. area,  I used to use that road to get to their place when 80 showed signs of backing up; it was starting to see saturation-level traffic even back then.  A parallel freeway/parkway/whatever would certainly be an overdue improvement.   
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: bing101 on August 29, 2016, 11:56:50 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on July 22, 2016, 06:10:10 PM
Quote from: bing101 on July 22, 2016, 01:54:46 PM
Well there's CA-113 in Davis and I-505 they are bypasses but they are not in Sacramento City Proper though but they are within a 30 mile radius from Sacramento though.

Of course (and I think mentioned earlier in the thread), I-80 in Natomas and Del Paso Heights (formerly I-880) is a bypass route for the older I-80 (now Business 80) routing along US 50 through West Sacramento, downtown, and midtown + unsigned Route 51 through midtown, Cal Expo, and the Arden-Arcade areas.

505 though is certainly a bypass route for Bay Area traffic trying to get to 5 north towards Redding and Oregon. (113 is more of a regional connector for Woodland and Davis)

Well wouldn't the Bypass in the Sacramento area  have to be like the Santa Clara county type expressways here like "Capitol Expressway", "San Tomas Expressway" or other county routes in the area if they were thinking about doing road construction. Sacramento is one of a few places where bypass type freeways may not be possible for local opposition reasons.
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: TheStranger on August 29, 2016, 12:17:02 PM
Quote from: bing101 on August 29, 2016, 11:56:50 AM

Well wouldn't the Bypass in the Sacramento area  have to be like the Santa Clara county type expressways here like "Capitol Expressway", "San Tomas Expressway" or other county routes in the area if they were thinking about doing road construction. Sacramento is one of a few places where bypass type freeways may not be possible for local opposition reasons.

There was a proposal a few years ago for a regional expressway along portions of the planned Route 143 corridor, but nothing ever came of it as far as I know.

http://www.tomatopages.com/folsomforum/index.php?showtopic=1450

Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 29, 2016, 04:59:21 PM
Maybe the SR 244 freeway should have been built before they developed all the land in its path.
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: TheStranger on August 29, 2016, 06:01:34 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 29, 2016, 04:59:21 PM
Maybe the SR 244 freeway should have been built before they developed all the land in its path.

IIRC, there was a 1975 local measure covering routes 244, 143, 102, and 148 that failed due to residents and developers voting against it...by 1966 (looking at a Historic Aerials view) some houses existed along that Winding Way corridor that 244 would have paralleled, but not to the degree that the Fair Oaks/Carmichael area is filled in now.
EDIT: Concrete Bob has better details on this actually and how it was a closely contested local supervisory vote that nixed anything outside of the present freeway system (excluding the 1979 cancellation of the I-80 realignment along the current light rail corridor in North Sacramento/Arden)
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: sparker on August 30, 2016, 03:50:07 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 29, 2016, 06:01:34 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 29, 2016, 04:59:21 PM
Maybe the SR 244 freeway should have been built before they developed all the land in its path.

IIRC, there was a 1975 local measure covering routes 244, 143, 102, and 148 that failed due to residents and developers voting against it...by 1966 (looking at a Historic Aerials view) some houses existed along that Winding Way corridor that 244 would have paralleled, but not to the degree that the Fair Oaks/Carmichael area is filled in now.


Between 1970 and 1976 Sunrise Blvd. between CA 16 and US 50 was actually designated as CA 65; there were actually mileposts posted as such on the road, although no reassurance shields -- or any trailblazer signage on either of the intersecting highways -- was ever posted.  The Sunrise/US 50 interchange was a full cloverleaf at the time; plans were to reconstruct Sunrise Blvd. as the intial 2 lanes of an eventual 4-lane upgradeable expressway.  The failure of the 1975 local authorization ballot measure prompted the Caltrans leadership (at that time under the anti-freeway Adriana Gianturco) to decommission the Sunrise facility the following year -- although that route had not been included within the measure's language.  This was strictly a top-down policy decision, made when local seniment paralleled agency policy.  Most of the mileposts were gone by mid-1977, but a few near the US 50 interchange (now a parclo) remained until the mid-80's.  Reinstatement of that route was precluded by a redefinition of CA 65 as ending at CA 104 several miles to the south; there was a deliberate gap between CA 104 and the Placer County line.  Over the years, both state and local officials have stymied attempts to plan -- much less deploy -- any eastern Sacramento bypass -- and developers certainly haven't helped, placing housing tracts or commercial facilities over most of the available land area.  Such a bypass is effectively dead as of now. 
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: Concrete Bob on August 30, 2016, 07:39:38 AM
There was no ballot measure to cancel routes 65, 143 or 244.  The Sacramento Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 to kill those freeways.  This happened in November 1974.  Rights of way were acquired for those freeways, and construction was supposed to begin on portions of 143 and 244 in 1975. There was a lot of NIMBY-type opposition to the freeways.  About 20 years later, the Sacramento Bee published an article where two of the three supervisors who voted to suspend constuction admitted that they made a mistake with their vote.  The other supervisor had a brother-in-law developer who bought up a big swath of the 143 right of way and built housing. 

All the other Sacramento freeway cancellations fell in line with Jerry Brown/Adriana Gianturco coming into power in 1975. 
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: TheStranger on August 30, 2016, 12:23:40 PM
Quote from: Concrete Bob on August 30, 2016, 07:39:38 AM
There was no ballot measure to cancel routes 65, 143 or 244.  The Sacramento Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 to kill those freeways.  This happened in November 1974.  Rights of way were acquired for those freeways, and construction was supposed to begin on portions of 143 and 244 in 1975. There was a lot of NIMBY-type opposition to the freeways.  About 20 years later, the Sacramento Bee published an article where two of the three supervisors who voted to suspend constuction admitted that they made a mistake with their vote.  The other supervisor had a brother-in-law developer who bought up a big swath of the 143 right of way and built housing.

Thanks for the correction on my initial post!  I wasn't around back then so I was trying to go off of memory from previous threads.

The Sacramento cancelled freeway saga does highlight one thing about the area in retrospect that fascinates me: even when the infrastructure for road transportation was canceled, growth continued in spades in the Citrus Heights, Rancho Cordova, Carmichael and (especially from 2000 onwards) Elk Grove areas, only now there is a forced reliance on arterial roads in those areas that had never been intended.

Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: sparker on August 30, 2016, 03:46:36 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 30, 2016, 12:23:40 PM
The Sacramento cancelled freeway saga does highlight one thing about the area in retrospect that fascinates me: even when the infrastructure for road transportation was canceled, growth continued in spades in the Citrus Heights, Rancho Cordova, Carmichael and (especially from 2000 onwards) Elk Grove areas, only now there is a forced reliance on arterial roads in those areas that had never been intended.


While developers ideally would prefer close freeway access to the tracts they plan to build out, a series of high-capacity arterials serves as a strong alternative option -- and the arterial approach does offer increased potential to include a more diverse group of commercial zones or tracts that would be likely adjacent to a freeway (less gas stations, for instance, leaving corner lots for other enterprises).  Developers, as a breed, are highly adaptive; they roll with the punches and tweak their plans to accommodate whatever on-the-ground reality they encounter -- but rarely do they engage in a large-scale reconsideration of those plans as a whole.  Folsom, Orangevale, Granite Bay, and other East Sacramento suburbs/exurbs have thrived with only limited peripheral freeway service; commuters and other area drivers have adapted to spending much of their time on arterials and local streets.
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: TheStranger on August 30, 2016, 04:31:50 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 30, 2016, 03:46:36 PM
commuters and other area drivers have adapted to spending much of their time on arterials and local streets.

I lived in Sacramento between 2007 and 2014 and while that is absolutely true, it isn't exactly the most ideal situation (half hour drives along Watt between US 50 and I-80 were not uncommon at rush hour; Sunrise Boulevard from US 50 north through Fair Oaks was always highly congested as well).

To some degree the rush hour issues on Business 80 north of E Street were exacerbated by the double whammy of no other north-south freeway alternatives east of there (in an area where there are large gaps between river crossings, i.e. between Watt and Sunrise) and no widening around the Marconi Curve due to the limited right of way that was to have been bypassed by the canceled 1970s I-80 realignment.

From downtown to Watt, there are a decent number of river crossings (Interstate 5/Route 99, Route 160, Business 80, H Street, Howe Avenue) compared to east of Watt (Sunrise, Hazel, the two old town Folsom bridges, and the Folsom Lake Crossing).  I don't necessarily think there's much Placer County to Elk Grove traffic so much as traffic from US 50 to Hazel and Sunrise to get to these arterial-only suburbs like Fair Oaks.

Route 244 would have allowed drivers heading out towards Folsom, Rancho Cordova, and the South Lake Tahoe area to avoid driving through downtown, I think that would have been the one true bypass route of some utility and would have helped out with the Greenback Lane traffic to some degree. 

Interestingly, Sunrise Mall in Citrus Heights is located not far from where unbuilt route 102 and the unbuilt portion of Route 65 would have met up, I've always wondered if that development was originally planned around the freeway being there (in similar fashion to the effect the Beverly Hills Freeway might have had on Los Angeles's Century City area).

Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: sparker on August 31, 2016, 05:48:58 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 30, 2016, 04:31:50 PM
Route 244 would have allowed drivers heading out towards Folsom, Rancho Cordova, and the South Lake Tahoe area to avoid driving through downtown, I think that would have been the one true bypass route of some utility and would have helped out with the Greenback Lane traffic to some degree. 
Since 244 was an effective eastern extension of the original I-880 north Sacramento bypass (of course, now mainline I-80), it would have extended that bypass' function to include US 50 traffic with its eastern terminus between Rancho Cordova and Natomas.  Of all the now-deleted Sacramento freeway concepts (although some might argue 143 was equally important), I fully agree that 244 would have been the most useful.  It's too bad its adopted routing traversed numerous high-value residential areas around Carmichael and Fair Oaks -- prompting the NIMBY reaction that invariably led to the supervisors' movement for corridor deletion -- aided and abetted by the greed factor cited previously!
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: coatimundi on August 31, 2016, 01:45:11 PM
It's interesting the negative affect this carries over onto other areas. Like, when I've driven directly from here to Tahoe, I've typically taken 88 to 49, because I don't want to drive through central Sacramento.
I totally agree about the need for just the northeastern portion though simply because there is not enough capacity of American River bridge crossings in eastern Sacramento County, despite most of the population living to the east. Even another Sunrise Boulevard - wide divided street with a high speed limit - would have been effective with the right placement. And 244 would have gone in just the right place, it seems.

Slightly off-topic, but I always thought it funny that the control for 50 is South Lake Tahoe. I realize that that's the city there, and California likes to use real cities, but the "South" is mostly unnecessary, I think. Or is it necessary in that those going to the north shore should be taking 80 anyway?
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: TheStranger on August 31, 2016, 02:29:42 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on August 31, 2016, 01:45:11 PM
It's interesting the negative affect this carries over onto other areas. Like, when I've driven directly from here to Tahoe, I've typically taken 88 to 49, because I don't want to drive through central Sacramento.
I totally agree about the need for just the northeastern portion though simply because there is not enough capacity of American River bridge crossings in eastern Sacramento County, despite most of the population living to the east. Even another Sunrise Boulevard - wide divided street with a high speed limit - would have been effective with the right placement. And 244 would have gone in just the right place, it seems.

Hazel Avenue/Sierra College Boulevard is effectively the less-developed (though not all that much less developed) north-south corridor from Rancho Cordova north towards I-80 in Placer County; whenever I read about any attempt at completing 65 south of Rocklin, the Hazel route is usually what gets mentioned.

Having said that,  143, 244 and 65 were supposed to be additions to the rather sparse bridge network of Watt, Sunrise, and Hazel in a 13 mile stretch (keeping in mind the info earlier in the thread that at one point 65 would have used Sunrise in Rancho Cordova).


Quote from: coatimundi on August 31, 2016, 01:45:11 PM
Slightly off-topic, but I always thought it funny that the control for 50 is South Lake Tahoe. I realize that that's the city there, and California likes to use real cities, but the "South" is mostly unnecessary, I think. Or is it necessary in that those going to the north shore should be taking 80 anyway?

There is a sign for North Lake Tahoe/I-80 in West Sacramento.  I want to say there's one too along the WX Freeway/US 50 eastbound in midtown Sacramento but it's been a few months since I was in that area.
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: myosh_tino on August 31, 2016, 04:52:34 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on August 31, 2016, 01:45:11 PM
Slightly off-topic, but I always thought it funny that the control for 50 is South Lake Tahoe. I realize that that's the city there, and California likes to use real cities, but the "South" is mostly unnecessary, I think. Or is it necessary in that those going to the north shore should be taking 80 anyway?

I'm of the opinion that "South" is absolutely necessary because that's the name of the city, South Lake Tahoe.  I suppose an argument can be made that the control point should be Lake Tahoe but CA-89 around the westside is closed during winter.  The only way to access the north shore is to use US 50 to NV/CA-28.

Quote from: TheStranger on August 31, 2016, 02:29:42 PMThere is a sign for North Lake Tahoe/I-80 in West Sacramento.  I want to say there's one too along the WX Freeway/US 50 eastbound in midtown Sacramento but it's been a few months since I was in that area.

The sign on I-80 is still there.  It's located in between the two causeways and is the 2 1/4 mile advance guide sign for I-80 eastbound.  In this case, North Lake Tahoe is just a landmark as there are no cities with that name on shores of Lake Tahoe.  The two major cities on the north shore are Tahoe City and Kings Beach.

Looking at Google Maps, the sign on the WX Freeway is no longer there.  This probably happened when the viaduct from 18th Street to the 50/99/BL80 interchange was replaced a few years ago.
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: bing101 on June 07, 2019, 06:24:23 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 31, 2016, 02:29:42 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on August 31, 2016, 01:45:11 PM
It's interesting the negative affect this carries over onto other areas. Like, when I've driven directly from here to Tahoe, I've typically taken 88 to 49, because I don't want to drive through central Sacramento.
I totally agree about the need for just the northeastern portion though simply because there is not enough capacity of American River bridge crossings in eastern Sacramento County, despite most of the population living to the east. Even another Sunrise Boulevard - wide divided street with a high speed limit - would have been effective with the right placement. And 244 would have gone in just the right place, it seems.

Hazel Avenue/Sierra College Boulevard is effectively the less-developed (though not all that much less developed) north-south corridor from Rancho Cordova north towards I-80 in Placer County; whenever I read about any attempt at completing 65 south of Rocklin, the Hazel route is usually what gets mentioned.

Having said that,  143, 244 and 65 were supposed to be additions to the rather sparse bridge network of Watt, Sunrise, and Hazel in a 13 mile stretch (keeping in mind the info earlier in the thread that at one point 65 would have used Sunrise in Rancho Cordova).


Quote from: coatimundi on August 31, 2016, 01:45:11 PM
Slightly off-topic, but I always thought it funny that the control for 50 is South Lake Tahoe. I realize that that's the city there, and California likes to use real cities, but the "South" is mostly unnecessary, I think. Or is it necessary in that those going to the north shore should be taking 80 anyway?

There is a sign for North Lake Tahoe/I-80 in West Sacramento.  I want to say there's one too along the WX Freeway/US 50 eastbound in midtown Sacramento but it's been a few months since I was in that area.


North Lake Tahoe as a control city got removed back in 2016 when Caltrans was removing references to Business 80 on the US-50 Section.
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: Avalanchez71 on June 08, 2019, 02:17:09 PM
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on July 12, 2016, 03:46:10 PM
Maybe it should be DELETED as a route.  I don't think there is much of a need for Interstate 70 in California.

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA
Morro Bay isn't the town where the police chief slammed a journalist into the ground?
Title: Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
Post by: sparker on June 08, 2019, 04:59:00 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 08, 2019, 02:17:09 PM
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on July 12, 2016, 03:46:10 PM
Maybe it should be DELETED as a route.  I don't think there is much of a need for Interstate 70 in California.

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA
Morro Bay isn't the town where the police chief slammed a journalist into the ground?


That was a news item about a year and a half back (the chief resigned); unless there's some sort of connection to our poster, this comment/inference is gratuitous.