AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Author Topic: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?  (Read 3696 times)

myosh_tino

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2498
  • Silicon Valley Roadgeek

  • Age: 43
  • Location: Cupertino, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:53:04 AM
    • Silicon Valley Roads @ Markyville.com
Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
« Reply #25 on: July 12, 2016, 03:53:52 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.
Logged
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.

ACSCmapcollector

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 366
  • Last Login: March 27, 2017, 10:13:01 PM
Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
« Reply #26 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
Logged

ACSCmapcollector

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 366
  • Last Login: March 27, 2017, 10:13:01 PM
Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
« Reply #27 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
Logged

kkt

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3170
  • Location: Seattle, Washington
  • Last Login: March 27, 2017, 10:40:40 PM
Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
« Reply #28 on: July 12, 2016, 04:20:39 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.
Logged

ACSCmapcollector

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 366
  • Last Login: March 27, 2017, 10:13:01 PM
Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
« Reply #29 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
Logged

kkt

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3170
  • Location: Seattle, Washington
  • Last Login: March 27, 2017, 10:40:40 PM
Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
« Reply #30 on: July 12, 2016, 04:57:14 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.
Logged

Bickendan

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1999
  • Last Login: Today at 02:46:39 AM
Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
« Reply #31 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.
Logged

ACSCmapcollector

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 366
  • Last Login: March 27, 2017, 10:13:01 PM
Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
« Reply #32 on: July 12, 2016, 05:26:33 PM »

Where would I find that topic of discussion, kkt?

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA
Logged

kkt

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3170
  • Location: Seattle, Washington
  • Last Login: March 27, 2017, 10:40:40 PM
Logged

dvferyance

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 517
  • Location: New Berlin WI
  • Last Login: March 24, 2017, 03:11:12 PM
Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
« Reply #34 on: July 21, 2016, 04:51:38 PM »

Simple answer it's not a big enough city for one.
Logged

Quillz

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2376
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Last Login: March 27, 2017, 02:03:57 PM
Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
« Reply #35 on: July 21, 2016, 05:40:49 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.
Logged
US Highways: 1 / 2 / 6 / 12 / 14 / 16 / 18 / 20 / 26 / 30 / 50 / 64 / 66 / 84 / 85 / 87 / 91 / 93 / 95 / 97 / 99 / 101 / 189 / 191 / 201 / 285 / 287 / 385 / 395
Interstate Highways: 5 / 10 / 15 / 17 / 25 / 40 / 45 / 70 / 80 / 84 / 89 / 90 / 93 / 95

Quillz

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2376
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Last Login: March 27, 2017, 02:03:57 PM
Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
« Reply #36 on: July 21, 2016, 05:42:05 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.
Logged
US Highways: 1 / 2 / 6 / 12 / 14 / 16 / 18 / 20 / 26 / 30 / 50 / 64 / 66 / 84 / 85 / 87 / 91 / 93 / 95 / 97 / 99 / 101 / 189 / 191 / 201 / 285 / 287 / 385 / 395
Interstate Highways: 5 / 10 / 15 / 17 / 25 / 40 / 45 / 70 / 80 / 84 / 89 / 90 / 93 / 95

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3084
  • Last Login: Today at 01:44:36 AM
Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
« Reply #37 on: July 21, 2016, 06:39:08 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.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2016, 07:09:19 PM by TheStranger »
Logged
Chris Sampang

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3470
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:47:18 AM
Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
« Reply #38 on: July 21, 2016, 07:55:19 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.
Logged

Avalanchez71

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 821
  • Location: Middle Tennessee
  • Last Login: March 26, 2017, 10:57:04 PM
Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
« Reply #39 on: July 21, 2016, 08:15:16 PM »

I would say otherwise but Nashville, TN now has SR 840 (unposted I-840) now. 
Logged

bing101

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1063
  • Location: Sacramento
  • Last Login: March 27, 2017, 11:05:44 PM
Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
« Reply #40 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.
Logged

Avalanchez71

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 821
  • Location: Middle Tennessee
  • Last Login: March 26, 2017, 10:57:04 PM
Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
« Reply #41 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.
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3084
  • Last Login: Today at 01:44:36 AM
Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
« Reply #42 on: July 22, 2016, 06:10:10 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)

Logged
Chris Sampang

bing101

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1063
  • Location: Sacramento
  • Last Login: March 27, 2017, 11:05:44 PM
Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
« Reply #43 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.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1167
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 04:32:00 AM
Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
« Reply #44 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.

Logged

jrouse

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 231
  • Location: Sacramento, CA
  • Last Login: March 09, 2017, 12:30:19 AM
Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
« Reply #45 on: July 31, 2016, 01:00:40 AM »

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:  http://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
Logged

coatimundi

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 787
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Marina, CA
  • Last Login: March 22, 2017, 10:12:42 PM
Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
« Reply #46 on: July 31, 2016, 02:49:34 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?
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3084
  • Last Login: Today at 01:44:36 AM
Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
« Reply #47 on: July 31, 2016, 03:05:20 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.

Logged
Chris Sampang

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1167
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 04:32:00 AM
Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
« Reply #48 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?   
Logged

coatimundi

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 787
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Marina, CA
  • Last Login: March 22, 2017, 10:12:42 PM
Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
« Reply #49 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.
Logged

 


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.