AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?  (Read 5406 times)

jrouse

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 232
  • Location: Sacramento, CA
  • Last Login: July 21, 2017, 08:55:03 PM
Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
« Reply #50 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
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1918
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:56:51 AM
Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
« Reply #51 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!
Logged

jrouse

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 232
  • Location: Sacramento, CA
  • Last Login: July 21, 2017, 08:55:03 PM
Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
« Reply #52 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
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1918
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:56:51 AM
Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
« Reply #53 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.   
Logged

bing101

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1164
  • Location: Sacramento
  • Last Login: July 24, 2017, 09:21:35 PM
Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
« Reply #54 on: August 29, 2016, 11:56:50 AM »

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.
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3092
  • Last Login: July 24, 2017, 02:41:00 PM
Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
« Reply #55 on: August 29, 2016, 12:17:02 PM »


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

Logged
Chris Sampang

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1634
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: July 24, 2017, 04:16:13 PM
Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
« Reply #56 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.
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3092
  • Last Login: July 24, 2017, 02:41:00 PM
Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
« Reply #57 on: August 29, 2016, 06:01:34 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)
« Last Edit: August 30, 2016, 12:16:26 PM by TheStranger »
Logged
Chris Sampang

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1918
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:56:51 AM
Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
« Reply #58 on: August 30, 2016, 03:50:07 AM »

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. 
Logged

Concrete Bob

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 42
  • Last Login: July 24, 2017, 11:16:19 PM
Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
« Reply #59 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. 
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3092
  • Last Login: July 24, 2017, 02:41:00 PM
Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
« Reply #60 on: August 30, 2016, 12:23:40 PM »

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.

Logged
Chris Sampang

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1918
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:56:51 AM
Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
« Reply #61 on: August 30, 2016, 03:46:36 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.
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3092
  • Last Login: July 24, 2017, 02:41:00 PM
Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
« Reply #62 on: August 30, 2016, 04:31:50 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).

Logged
Chris Sampang

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1918
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:56:51 AM
Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
« Reply #63 on: August 31, 2016, 05:48:58 AM »

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!
« Last Edit: August 31, 2016, 06:24:34 AM by sparker »
Logged

coatimundi

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 788
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Marina, CA
  • Last Login: May 12, 2017, 12:42:29 AM
Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
« Reply #64 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?
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3092
  • Last Login: July 24, 2017, 02:41:00 PM
Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
« Reply #65 on: August 31, 2016, 02:29:42 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).


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.
Logged
Chris Sampang

myosh_tino

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2543
  • Silicon Valley Roadgeek

  • Age: 43
  • Location: Cupertino, CA
  • Last Login: July 24, 2017, 04:30:01 PM
    • Silicon Valley Roads @ Markyville.com
Re: Why Sacramento does not have an freeway bypass around the city?
« Reply #66 on: August 31, 2016, 04:52:34 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.

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.

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.
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.

 


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.