Can you imagine CA-65 (Roseville area) as a future interstate?

[MrAndy1369]

Title says it all. Do you think, ultimately, CA-65 north of Roseville will become an interstate–perhaps an I-x80 heading up north to Yuba City or Chico...or be part of the larger CA-99/I-7 or whatever corridor?

Reason I ask is, CA-65 has seen a lot of growth and expansion in the past 10 years, widening and upgrading ultimately to freeway standards. It used to be a very short freeway stub from 80, but has expanded considerably.

[TheStranger]

California has not really added to the Interstate system since I-105 in the early 90s, even when there are 3 existing roads that were/are slated to receive the red-white-blue shield:

- Route 905
- Route 15 south of I-8
- Route 210 east of Route 57

While Wheatland is the only community left on the north part of Route 65 that needs to be bypassed, I don't know how high of a priority that is now that Lincoln and Sheridan have been.

[paulthemapguy]

We'd need to renumber some of the x80s in California (which I am so ready to do) before we added CA-65 as an Interstate, I think.  And I think the CA-113 freeway would qualify for Interstate status before the CA-65 freeway would.

[Max Rockatansky]

Really it would be great if that giant gap in the 65 segments was actually completed so there would be some alternate to 99 and I-5 that was somewhat rural.  At minimum it would be nice to have something that bypasses Stockton and Modesto. 

[MrAndy1369]

Really it would be great if that giant gap in the 65 segments was actually completed so there would be some alternate to 99 and I-5 that was somewhat rural.  At minimum it would be nice to have something that bypasses Stockton and Modesto.

Would you prefer the completed 65 be a freeway or expressway/rural road?

I was thinking that perhaps CA-99 could become I-5E, the current 5 be I-5W concurrently, anyway, for the segment south of Sacramento. Then, either 65 or 70/99 north of Sacramento could become I-5E once completed to Red Bluff, or at least near to it (I-5E could curve west to merge into I-5W near Proberta). Once that happens, CA-99 would probably disappear from the system, or be relocated.

As for 65, I'd either leave it as 65, close the gap with either a freeway, expressway, rural road, or a mix of all, or ultimately, down the road, designate 65 as an eastern interstate alternative to I-5W/E. However, dubbing it as an interstate would be tricky, as it'd be too long to be a 3di, and what would it be a 3di of, anyway..., but it'd be too short/intrastate to be a 2di/1di. Maybe US 99? Or it could become the substitute CA-99, and 65 could be removed.

Now that I'm thinking about it, California really could have planned their interstate system better. What we see now is a mess of 3dis, especially in the Bay Area, and most of the I-x05's are in Los Angeles/San Diego, which doesn't leave us with much options for Northern California. All I-x80's has been used up, with the exceptions of 180 (but that can't be used because of CA-180) and 480 (probably the only useable option). I-980? Is that even necessary? It's literally a very short strip. Why not, instead, use I-980 for CA-113 or CA-65 north of Roseville? Also, it's probably too late to close the gap as a straight highway for 65 south of Roseville, due to established neighborhoods blocking the path. I wish they had planned better for 65 when the whole area was rural, and had completed the gap, because now it may be too late.

I also find it disappointing that they didn't finish the 3 interstate designations - 210, 905, and 15 south of I-8. Also, CA-58 becoming I-40. What's stopping them?

I would love to see CA-65 become a full freeway, and potentially another full N/S corridor, but will it ever happen? At the pace we're taking, I wouldn't be surprised if I never see I-210 east of 57 in my lifetime.

I love California, but some of the planning of their road system has left me frustrated.

[TheStranger]

Also, it's probably too late to close the gap as a straight highway for 65 south of Roseville, due to established neighborhoods blocking the path. I wish they had planned better for 65 when the whole area was rural, and had completed the gap, because now it may be too late.

Sacramento County voting against several planned highways in the mid-1970s (65 along Sunrise, 143 as a reliever for Watt Avenue, 244 which would have allowed Folsom/South Lake Tahoe residents to bypass Sacramento going to 80 west, 148, 102 in its original routing paralleling Greenback Lane and Auburn-Folsom Road) is what led to the right of way disappearing for most of those corridors, except for a modified version of 148 that is now the Capitol Southeast Connector project.

[bing101]

Also, it's probably too late to close the gap as a straight highway for 65 south of Roseville, due to established neighborhoods blocking the path. I wish they had planned better for 65 when the whole area was rural, and had completed the gap, because now it may be too late.

Sacramento County voting against several planned highways in the mid-1970s (65 along Sunrise, 143 as a reliever for Watt Avenue, 244 which would have allowed Folsom/South Lake Tahoe residents to bypass Sacramento going to 80 west, 148, 102 in its original routing paralleling Greenback Lane and Auburn-Folsom Road) is what led to the right of way disappearing for most of those corridors, except for a modified version of 148 that is now the Capitol Southeast Connector project.

CA-244 was going to be the expanded edition of Beltline freeway though. What about the CA-84 gap and make CA-160 entirely freeway would that have alleviated I-5 and CA-99 and qualify as a possible 3di if that was built or the CA-84 gap that route would have alleviated I-680, I-80 and I-5 if that gap was done though and its a direct route from Menlo Park to Sacramento if the CA-84 gap was done though.

[TheStranger]

Also, it's probably too late to close the gap as a straight highway for 65 south of Roseville, due to established neighborhoods blocking the path. I wish they had planned better for 65 when the whole area was rural, and had completed the gap, because now it may be too late.

Sacramento County voting against several planned highways in the mid-1970s (65 along Sunrise, 143 as a reliever for Watt Avenue, 244 which would have allowed Folsom/South Lake Tahoe residents to bypass Sacramento going to 80 west, 148, 102 in its original routing paralleling Greenback Lane and Auburn-Folsom Road) is what led to the right of way disappearing for most of those corridors, except for a modified version of 148 that is now the Capitol Southeast Connector project.

CA-244 was going to be the expanded edition of Beltline freeway though. What about the CA-84 gap and make CA-160 entirely freeway would that have alleviated I-5 and CA-99 and qualify as a possible 3di if that was built or the CA-84 gap that route would have alleviated I-680, I-80 and I-5 if that gap was done though and its a direct route from Menlo Park to Sacramento if the CA-84 gap was done though.

84 and 160 in the Delta were never proposed as freeway routes. Having driven both multiple times over the last six years, there isn't the traffic count on either to make that a worthwhile concept, not even getting into the enivornmental issues of any upgrades on what are essentially levee roads.

SAMSUNG-SM-G930A

[Max Rockatansky]

To answer the question asked of me, personally I think most of CA 65 from Fresno towards Sacramento would be sufficient as a four-lane expressway akin to how CA 41 south of Fresno.  The Foothills region doesn't really start to see much in the way of population along the planned corridor until it gets close to Sacramento. 

[sparker]

To answer the question asked of me, personally I think most of CA 65 from Fresno towards Sacramento would be sufficient as a four-lane expressway akin to how CA 41 south of Fresno.  The Foothills region doesn't really start to see much in the way of population along the planned corridor until it gets close to Sacramento. 

Hell, most of the CA 65 corridor -- at least that section north of metro Fresno (NW of CA 41) could even be a 2-lane expressway with periodic passing lanes for the time being; I'm not seeing any pressing need for a N-S "relief route" just now.  And the observation upthread about the section between US 50 and I-80 being problematic because of development is probably true; extending CA 65 south from its current south end would put it between Granite Bay and Orangevale, both with much new housing -- and, in the case of Granite Bay, with likely NIMBY's with sufficient political resources to either stop a corridor in its tracks or, if they wanted to be particularly nasty, attempt to get it rerouted to the west through comparatively impoverished Orangevale.  Regardless, someone would be on the receiving end of a shitload of eminent domain proceedings -- which in CA often don't go particularly well for all parties.  Unless Caltrans elects at some point to redesignate the section of CA 65 north of I-80*, it'll continue to be a split route.  I could see a 65 expressway reaching the recently planned Grant Line diagonal between CA 99 and US 50 and dispersing traffic there;  I don't see it going any farther into metro Sacramento. 

I believe I've mentioned this previously, but a combination of specific planned routes:  CA 65 between CA 198 and the long-planned eastern extension of CA 152, effectively bypassing metro Fresno on the east, coupled with that 152 continuation, makes a fine eastern bypass of Fresno and environs.  That portion would warrant freeway treatment, at least between CA 180 and CA 41;  the 152 extension would be at least a divided expressway.  Since that's the general direction Fresno housing expansion is taking, IMO the concept is viable -- it's the sole section of unbuilt CA 65 that, save the deleted Sacramento County portion, has the potential for attracting significant traffic.