AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Author Topic: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?  (Read 7380 times)

sparker

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1171
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:57:11 PM
Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
« Reply #25 on: August 11, 2016, 02:44:49 AM »

At that point (1960) the routing of (then) I-5E was still TBD; the Division of Highways was trying to juggle the desire of Sacramento interests who didn't want the freeway coming through the downtown district (which was then planned for renovation [read gentrification!]), so 5E was tentatively routed through West Sacramento, which had little political clout to oppose the routing.  But because of the location of the Yolo Bypass flood-control facility to the west, which north of Broderick was separated from the Sacramento River itself only by the levee on which SSR 16 and the Sacramento Northern railroad tracks were located, a West Sacramento routing would have meant three separate high-level crossings of the navigable Sacramento River -- a very expensive proposition.  In addition, the Division was trying to find a route between Sacramento and Stockton that was feasible to construct -- a problem because that area was mostly marshland immediately east of the Sacramento Delta.  The route preliminarily adjudged the most feasible followed the Western Pacific RR tracks, which were in turn closely followed by Franklin Blvd. (county road J8).  That is the road that Rand McNally utilized as the place to plop down the I-5E shield west of Lodi.  Eventually the constructed I-5 alignment did closely follow county J8 north of Stockton, but veered slightly west north of CA 12 before turning north again; this was to avoid the taking of valuable grape-growing tracts in the area (mostly table grapes then; now Lodi has evolved into a recognized wine-grape growing district), a politically charged phenomenon then as it would be today. 

The 5W shields are shown, one each, on the southern leg following US 50 (the expressway alignment that is today's eastbound I-580 carriageway) over Altamont Pass, the other on LRN 90, the unsigned connector between Vacaville and Dunnigan that formed the "cutoff" route from the Bay Area to US 99W (LRN 90 is now, of course, I-505).  I would speculate that the 1963-64 "one road/one number" policy promulgated by the Division of Highways resulted not only from the "sign salad" multiplexed-route nature of the various roads exiting the Los Angeles basin over Cajon and Beaumont passes but also from the awkward prospect of having to co-sign I-5W with I-80 for 48 miles, starting only a few miles east of the west I-80 terminus. 
« Last Edit: August 11, 2016, 02:47:32 AM by sparker »
Logged

coatimundi

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 787
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Marina, CA
  • Last Login: March 22, 2017, 10:12:42 PM
Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
« Reply #26 on: August 11, 2016, 02:42:01 PM »

I would speculate that the 1963-64 "one road/one number" policy promulgated by the Division of Highways resulted not only from the "sign salad" multiplexed-route nature of the various roads exiting the Los Angeles basin over Cajon and Beaumont passes

I never thought about this, but that is definitely a reason not to multiplex. When you've got that many signs, it becomes a problem for drivers to even read them in a reasonable amount of time, and adding an I-15 to the mix of Cajon Pass would have just made things much worse.
Maybe there was some foresight there: if they kept allowing new routes to be bannered, then they'd end up with a mess. And that sort of defies the original purpose of having a numbered system: it was meant to supplant the named roads which, in many areas, had led to a mess of signs all promoting their roads and were confusing to drivers.
Logged

DTComposer

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 635
  • Location: San Jose
  • Last Login: Today at 02:08:34 AM
Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
« Reply #27 on: August 12, 2016, 10:14:39 PM »

How come the San Rafael Bridge section of CA-17 was renumbered to I-580 instead of I-880?

It was never 880. It was 180 for a while though.

I think his question was: why was CA-17 "split" into I-880 (San Jose to Oakland) and an extension of I-580 (San Rafael Bridge)? Why wasn't the whole thing renumbered I-880? The multiplex section with I-80 would have been exactly the same.
Logged

jrouse

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 231
  • Location: Sacramento, CA
  • Last Login: March 09, 2017, 12:30:19 AM
Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
« Reply #28 on: August 12, 2016, 10:20:07 PM »

How come the San Rafael Bridge section of CA-17 was renumbered to I-580 instead of I-880?

It was never 880. It was 180 for a while though.

I think his question was: why was CA-17 "split" into I-880 (San Jose to Oakland) and an extension of I-580 (San Rafael Bridge)? Why wasn't the whole thing renumbered I-880? The multiplex section with I-80 would have been exactly the same.

Because the Richmond-San Rafael segment would be an Interstate spur route, requiring an odd number.  Thus the 180 designation, then 580. 


iPhone
Logged

coatimundi

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 787
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Marina, CA
  • Last Login: March 22, 2017, 10:12:42 PM
Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
« Reply #29 on: August 12, 2016, 11:49:02 PM »

Right. Maybe once 980 goes away they'll reassign to that route. I don't know that anyone in the Bay Area actually calls it 580 anyway because it's confusing.
It's always sad when a 3di has to join its parent route. It's like moving back in with your parents somehow. Though I don't think 580 is signed along I-80, beyond where it joins and leaves.

How come the San Rafael Bridge section of CA-17 was renumbered to I-580 instead of I-880?

It was never 880. It was 180 for a while though.

I think his question was: why was CA-17 "split" into I-880 (San Jose to Oakland) and an extension of I-580 (San Rafael Bridge)? Why wasn't the whole thing renumbered I-880? The multiplex section with I-80 would have been exactly the same.

Because the Richmond-San Rafael segment would be an Interstate spur route, requiring an odd number.  Thus the 180 designation, then 580. 


iPhone
Logged

jrouse

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 231
  • Location: Sacramento, CA
  • Last Login: March 09, 2017, 12:30:19 AM
Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
« Reply #30 on: August 12, 2016, 11:56:23 PM »

Right. Maybe once 980 goes away they'll reassign to that route. I don't know that anyone in the Bay Area actually calls it 580 anyway because it's confusing.
It's always sad when a 3di has to join its parent route. It's like moving back in with your parents somehow. Though I don't think 580 is signed along I-80, beyond where it joins and leaves.


There's no plan to do away with 980, as far as I know.

580 is signed in several spots during its multiplex with 80.  There are the standard trailblazers after the interchanges, and it is marked on the onramps at Powell Street.  I don't know about the other interchanges but a quick check of Google Earth would answer that question.


iPhone
Logged

coatimundi

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 787
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Marina, CA
  • Last Login: March 22, 2017, 10:12:42 PM
Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
« Reply #31 on: August 13, 2016, 12:02:30 AM »

There's no plan to do away with 980, as far as I know.

I bet if they renamed the freeway after Elliott Smith, then this push wouldn't exist.
http://www.connectoakland.org/
Logged

jrouse

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 231
  • Location: Sacramento, CA
  • Last Login: March 09, 2017, 12:30:19 AM
Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
« Reply #32 on: August 13, 2016, 12:05:24 AM »

One other observation:  if you have ever looked at the post miles on I-580, you might notice that they actually decrease as you head eastbound, rather than increase (the exit numbers increase, as expected).  That's a legacy from the I-5W designation.


iPhone
Logged

jrouse

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 231
  • Location: Sacramento, CA
  • Last Login: March 09, 2017, 12:30:19 AM
Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
« Reply #33 on: August 13, 2016, 12:32:26 AM »

There's no plan to do away with 980, as far as I know.

I bet if they renamed the freeway after Elliott Smith, then this push wouldn't exist.
http://www.connectoakland.org/

I realize we're getting off topic here but I'll just make a couple of points.  I wasn't aware of this proposal to do away with 980.  I'm not a fan of this idea.   980 serves as an important connector between Oakland and central and northern Contra Costa County and a vital backup to 880.  It was the main detour route in the years after Loma Prieta and when the tanker truck fire buckled the connectors at the MacArthur Maze.  If you eliminate it and something happens like those incidents again, you're going to dump a whole bunch of traffic on local streets.

980 was designed to minimize the "tunnel effect" of these types of facilities.  There's a lot of interest in putting lids over them - 101 in downtown Los Angeles, I-5 here in Sacramento.  A lid might work here and I could see that happening.


iPhone
Logged

flowmotion

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 334
  • Last Login: January 02, 2017, 01:05:17 PM
Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
« Reply #34 on: August 19, 2016, 01:02:39 AM »

I'm generally against most ill-thought-out freeway teardown proposals, but frankly I-980 itself could be boulevarded with very little impact. It has been a vital backup route in the past, but generally we don't build freeway systems with backup routes.

In the current configuration, I-880 has poor access to downtown Oakland, so downtown drivers are somewhat forced to take I-980. If the I-980 interchange was removed, one could directly get to Broadway/City Center/Jack London Square from I-880. Other traffic to downtown Oakland could hit a couple extra stoplights, big deal.

However, what that website doesn't mention is that the I-880/I-580/I-80 interchange would need to be enhanced so that one could go in all directions.  And the entire "Oakland maze" is at a breaking-point, so the I-580/I-980/CA-24 interchange would need major enhancements to provide direct connections to I-880. So you would need to pour at least billion dollars of new concrete to revitalize an area which currently doesn't seem to have much development potential. Maybe in twenty years.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2016, 01:06:08 AM by flowmotion »
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1171
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:57:11 PM
Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
« Reply #35 on: August 19, 2016, 04:27:02 AM »

I use I-880 regularly to get to a vendor in west Alameda (via the tubes); it is quite easy to get to downtown Oakland via the Broadway exit just before the I-980 divergence -- so access from I-880 is not an issue (while it is certainly busy, I've yet to encounter a significant backup on that ramp!).  If using one of the several bridges over I-980 is vexing to local residents, that portion of the facility would make an ideal place for "capping"; a park, a farmers' market, a series of bike paths -- there's a multitude of possibilities for usage of the top level of a cap.  That would, IMO, be the best -- and most cost-effective -- way of balancing local concerns with systemic efficiency.  I-980, as it is situated, constitutes the best way to get from Fremont and the other cities south of Oakland to the east side of Berkeley and, of course, the cities beyond the Caldecott Tunnel.

While a "cap" solution won't likely satisfy groups whose principal purpose is the excising of through routes in urban areas, at least it provides a place where locals can utilize a previously unusable swath of land rather than wait for the long and drawn-out process of deleting an Interstate route to run its course through the bureaucracy and, likely, the court system as well.  I'll probably get flack from several quarters for saying this, but -- is the (dubious) enjoyment of dancing on the grave of dead freeways worth the time and effort it takes to accomplish removal -- as well as the major disruption of regional traffic patterns?  And just who will be doing such "dancing" -- the purportedly put-upon locals, or the activists who seem to pop up from city to city with the same "solution", always in search of a problem that calls for their attention?  In the field of policy analysis, such action is termed the "garbage can" approach to a situation!
Logged

kkt

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3171
  • Location: Seattle, Washington
  • Last Login: Today at 12:48:00 PM
Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
« Reply #36 on: August 19, 2016, 12:25:11 PM »

Enhancing the 880-80-580 interchange would require more land, which the city and residents are not going to be enthusiastic about granting.  980 serves an important purpose, which it wouldn't do as well as a boulevard.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1171
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:57:11 PM
Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
« Reply #37 on: August 19, 2016, 12:55:50 PM »

The actual chances of a I-980 removal in the foreseeable future are slim & none, primarily because of the fiscal and geographical issues involved in deploying a workable substitute.  However, Oakland public officials have displayed a tendency to latch on to dubious concepts in order to show that they're "doing something" about the endemic problems related to that city; it would be a shame if they were to do so with the "freeway removal" roving movement, when such actions would hardly ameliorate, much less solve, Oakland's myriad troubles.
Logged

SeriesE

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 28
  • Location: CA
  • Last Login: February 27, 2017, 10:25:54 PM
Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
« Reply #38 on: August 19, 2016, 04:17:21 PM »

Right. Maybe once 980 goes away they'll reassign to that route. I don't know that anyone in the Bay Area actually calls it 580 anyway because it's confusing.
It's always sad when a 3di has to join its parent route. It's like moving back in with your parents somehow. Though I don't think 580 is signed along I-80, beyond where it joins and leaves.
Both I-80 and I-580 are very well signed on the concurrent section, as trailblazers and on the freeway entrance signs on the local streets.

How come the San Rafael Bridge section of CA-17 was renumbered to I-580 instead of I-880?

It was never 880. It was 180 for a while though.

I think his question was: why was CA-17 "split" into I-880 (San Jose to Oakland) and an extension of I-580 (San Rafael Bridge)? Why wasn't the whole thing renumbered I-880? The multiplex section with I-80 would have been exactly the same.

Because the Richmond-San Rafael segment would be an Interstate spur route, requiring an odd number.  Thus the 180 designation, then 580. 


iPhone
I see. Too bad there weren't any other options at the time, as extending I-580 created a wrong way concurrency problem that didn't exist before.
Logged

ACSCmapcollector

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 366
  • Last Login: March 27, 2017, 10:13:01 PM
Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
« Reply #39 on: August 21, 2016, 04:03:44 PM »

If you had one of the Rand McNally maps from the mid-60's, they plastered I-shields all over existing routes to show the basic alignment of the future route.

Here's part of the page from the 1960 Rand McNally, showing both 5W and 5E (in a vastly different alignment than what finally happened):



I also have noticed that Stockton Blvd.'s Old U.S. 50 & 99 is green for freeway, when it should be red for divided highway.  In the Sacramento, CA inset to the left.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2016, 04:06:26 PM by ACSCmapcollector »
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1171
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:57:11 PM
Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
« Reply #40 on: August 21, 2016, 04:40:46 PM »

Numerous errors on that inset map: not only the freeway indicator for UC 50/99 on Stockton Blvd., but also showing US 99E as a freeway south to Capitol Ave. (US 50/CA 16); that wasn't completed (as original  I-80) until early 1967.  Also they showed El Centro Ave. heading north out of town as "CA 232"; that was not a signed route, it was simply that route's LRN.  SSR 24 had been routed over this alignment by 1958; this 1960 map should have reflected that; instead, it is shown as multiplexed with CA 16 NW from downtown Sacramento, the prior routing of SSR 24. 
Logged

coatimundi

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 787
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Marina, CA
  • Last Login: March 22, 2017, 10:12:42 PM
Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
« Reply #41 on: August 21, 2016, 07:06:00 PM »

The '66 Rand McNally shows the proposed I-5 line through Sacramento correctly, and shows a 505 shield instead of a floating 5W.
I noticed in looking at it that it shows a small section of I-5 between SR 152 & SR 33 completed. It's strange that they would build that first, but I think it may be a matter of it just barely jutting into another district, so that district just decided to build a connection.

What's sad about looking at these 60's maps to me is that the system in Yuba, Sutter and Butte Counties is pretty much the same as it was at that time, aside from a few isolated stretches of freeway around Yuba City/Marysville, and the newer SR 149 configuration. That whole region just needs one, continuous freeway.
Logged

kkt

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3171
  • Location: Seattle, Washington
  • Last Login: Today at 12:48:00 PM
Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
« Reply #42 on: August 21, 2016, 07:53:46 PM »

It's interesting that on the Bay Area inset, I-5 E and W are shown... but Skyline Blvd. is still shown as CA 5.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1171
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:57:11 PM
Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
« Reply #43 on: August 21, 2016, 08:56:05 PM »

The publication of RmcN atlases well prior to the issue's calendar year probably was responsible for the '66 atlas only showing the short I-5 segment west of Los Banos; I-5 was opened from 152 to the I-580 split -- and 580 from there to Altamont Pass around Thanksgiving 1965.  The entire route, at least north to Stockton, was open by the summer of 1972. 

The 1969 iteration of the California Freeway & Expressway plan indicated that CA 99 was intended to eventually be a full freeway from I-5 north of Sacramento to, again, I-5 south of Red Bluff; there was a proposed diagonal cutoff diverging from CA 99 near Los Molinos and intersecting I-5 near the town of Proberta.  Also, both CA 70 from the CA 99 split near Nicolaus to CA 149 was also intended to be a full freeway, as was 149; apparently at the time population growth projections showed both Yuba City and Marysville as growing well past their '60's levels, so each was to be served by its own north-south freeway facility (no one said the original 1959 plan and its revisions was not ambitious!)  Obviously those plans have been scaled down; the Los Molinos-Proberta routing was deleted in the mid-'90's.  Even if either the 99 or 70/149 corridors are expanded to at least expressway standard, it's likely that a multi-lane facility will not extend north of Chico any farther than already built. 
Logged

ACSCmapcollector

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 366
  • Last Login: March 27, 2017, 10:13:01 PM
Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
« Reply #44 on: August 21, 2016, 09:04:02 PM »

The '66 Rand McNally shows the proposed I-5 line through Sacramento correctly, and shows a 505 shield instead of a floating 5W.
I noticed in looking at it that it shows a small section of I-5 between SR 152 & SR 33 completed. It's strange that they would build that first, but I think it may be a matter of it just barely jutting into another district, so that district just decided to build a connection.

What's sad about looking at these 60's maps to me is that the system in Yuba, Sutter and Butte Counties is pretty much the same as it was at that time, aside from a few isolated stretches of freeway around Yuba City/Marysville, and the newer SR 149 configuration. That whole region just needs one, continuous freeway.

I hope you can show that change, please in your 1966 Rand McNally Road Atlas.
Logged

ACSCmapcollector

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 366
  • Last Login: March 27, 2017, 10:13:01 PM
Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
« Reply #45 on: August 22, 2016, 07:30:44 PM »

The '66 Rand McNally shows the proposed I-5 line through Sacramento correctly, and shows a 505 shield instead of a floating 5W.
I noticed in looking at it that it shows a small section of I-5 between SR 152 & SR 33 completed. It's strange that they would build that first, but I think it may be a matter of it just barely jutting into another district, so that district just decided to build a connection.

What's sad about looking at these 60's maps to me is that the system in Yuba, Sutter and Butte Counties is pretty much the same as it was at that time, aside from a few isolated stretches of freeway around Yuba City/Marysville, and the newer SR 149 configuration. That whole region just needs one, continuous freeway.

I hope you can show that change, please in your 1966 Rand McNally Road Atlas.

Look how many Interstate 5E bridges would have to be built compared with the chosen Interstate 5, Westside Freeway route (proposed).
Logged

coatimundi

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 787
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Marina, CA
  • Last Login: March 22, 2017, 10:12:42 PM
Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
« Reply #46 on: August 23, 2016, 01:11:02 AM »

The '66 Rand McNally shows the proposed I-5 line through Sacramento correctly, and shows a 505 shield instead of a floating 5W.
I noticed in looking at it that it shows a small section of I-5 between SR 152 & SR 33 completed. It's strange that they would build that first, but I think it may be a matter of it just barely jutting into another district, so that district just decided to build a connection.

What's sad about looking at these 60's maps to me is that the system in Yuba, Sutter and Butte Counties is pretty much the same as it was at that time, aside from a few isolated stretches of freeway around Yuba City/Marysville, and the newer SR 149 configuration. That whole region just needs one, continuous freeway.

I hope you can show that change, please in your 1966 Rand McNally Road Atlas.

I'm not sure what you want me to show, if you are directing this at me. The routing for I-5 on the '66 Rand McNally is pretty much the exact routing that was constructed. So it's just a matter of looking at a current map and imagining a dashed line.
Logged

ACSCmapcollector

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 366
  • Last Login: March 27, 2017, 10:13:01 PM
Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
« Reply #47 on: August 23, 2016, 04:29:49 PM »

The '66 Rand McNally shows the proposed I-5 line through Sacramento correctly, and shows a 505 shield instead of a floating 5W.
I noticed in looking at it that it shows a small section of I-5 between SR 152 & SR 33 completed. It's strange that they would build that first, but I think it may be a matter of it just barely jutting into another district, so that district just decided to build a connection.

What's sad about looking at these 60's maps to me is that the system in Yuba, Sutter and Butte Counties is pretty much the same as it was at that time, aside from a few isolated stretches of freeway around Yuba City/Marysville, and the newer SR 149 configuration. That whole region just needs one, continuous freeway.

I hope you can show that change, please in your 1966 Rand McNally Road Atlas.

I'm not sure what you want me to show, if you are directing this at me. The routing for I-5 on the '66 Rand McNally is pretty much the exact routing that was constructed. So it's just a matter of looking at a current map and imagining a dashed line.

However my Sacramento, CA map from Goshua (H.M. Goshua) and from Chevron (Standard Oil of California) showed the Westside Freeway, Interstate 5 under construction from downtown Sacramento to the cut off line SE of the present day of the Sacramento International Airport during the year of 1967.  No one has asked for a view of this map as of now, either.  Goshua was more accurate than Rand McNally during those 1960s years into the 1970s.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1171
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:57:11 PM
Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
« Reply #48 on: August 24, 2016, 04:06:26 PM »

The '66 Rand McNally shows the proposed I-5 line through Sacramento correctly, and shows a 505 shield instead of a floating 5W.
I noticed in looking at it that it shows a small section of I-5 between SR 152 & SR 33 completed. It's strange that they would build that first, but I think it may be a matter of it just barely jutting into another district, so that district just decided to build a connection.

What's sad about looking at these 60's maps to me is that the system in Yuba, Sutter and Butte Counties is pretty much the same as it was at that time, aside from a few isolated stretches of freeway around Yuba City/Marysville, and the newer SR 149 configuration. That whole region just needs one, continuous freeway.

I hope you can show that change, please in your 1966 Rand McNally Road Atlas.

I'm not sure what you want me to show, if you are directing this at me. The routing for I-5 on the '66 Rand McNally is pretty much the exact routing that was constructed. So it's just a matter of looking at a current map and imagining a dashed line.

However my Sacramento, CA map from Goshua (H.M. Goshua) and from Chevron (Standard Oil of California) showed the Westside Freeway, Interstate 5 under construction from downtown Sacramento to the cut off line SE of the present day of the Sacramento International Airport during the year of 1967.  No one has asked for a view of this map as of now, either.  Goshua was more accurate than Rand McNally during those 1960s years into the 1970s.



The first section of I-5 to be completed in the Sacramento area was the E-W segment west of El Centro Ave. (CA 99); 2 lanes of the eventual 4 (2 + 2) were constructed between El Centro and Garden Highway (at the Sacramento River) and opened to traffic in early 1967.  These became the eventual I-5 northbound lanes; the southbound side was grubbed by that time; grading & paving came later.  The initial berms for the Sacramento River bridge were under construction at that time as well. 

Since the Sacramento airport was also under construction immediately to the north, this initial 2-lane segment served as a construction access road to the airport site.  It saw little traffic until I-5 was completed both north and south of the segment.  I have personal memories of the road -- it was where my uncle taught me to drive a stick shift soon after it opened.   
Logged

ACSCmapcollector

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 366
  • Last Login: March 27, 2017, 10:13:01 PM
Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
« Reply #49 on: August 24, 2016, 08:14:54 PM »

The '66 Rand McNally shows the proposed I-5 line through Sacramento correctly, and shows a 505 shield instead of a floating 5W.
I noticed in looking at it that it shows a small section of I-5 between SR 152 & SR 33 completed. It's strange that they would build that first, but I think it may be a matter of it just barely jutting into another district, so that district just decided to build a connection.

What's sad about looking at these 60's maps to me is that the system in Yuba, Sutter and Butte Counties is pretty much the same as it was at that time, aside from a few isolated stretches of freeway around Yuba City/Marysville, and the newer SR 149 configuration. That whole region just needs one, continuous freeway.

I hope you can show that change, please in your 1966 Rand McNally Road Atlas.

I'm not sure what you want me to show, if you are directing this at me. The routing for I-5 on the '66 Rand McNally is pretty much the exact routing that was constructed. So it's just a matter of looking at a current map and imagining a dashed line.

However my Sacramento, CA map from Goshua (H.M. Goshua) and from Chevron (Standard Oil of California) showed the Westside Freeway, Interstate 5 under construction from downtown Sacramento to the cut off line SE of the present day of the Sacramento International Airport during the year of 1967.  No one has asked for a view of this map as of now, either.  Goshua was more accurate than Rand McNally during those 1960s years into the 1970s.



The first section of I-5 to be completed in the Sacramento area was the E-W segment west of El Centro Ave. (CA 99); 2 lanes of the eventual 4 (2 + 2) were constructed between El Centro and Garden Highway (at the Sacramento River) and opened to traffic in early 1967.  These became the eventual I-5 northbound lanes; the southbound side was grubbed by that time; grading & paving came later.  The initial berms for the Sacramento River bridge were under construction at that time as well. 

Since the Sacramento airport was also under construction immediately to the north, this initial 2-lane segment served as a construction access road to the airport site.  It saw little traffic until I-5 was completed both north and south of the segment.  I have personal memories of the road -- it was where my uncle taught me to drive a stick shift soon after it opened.   

Then I question the southern portion of Interstate 5 from Downtown Sacramento to the city limits of Sacramento, what date, what year construction started and completed segment?
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.