Problems with (lack of) Sacramento Freeways

[SacRoadGeek916]

Basic summary is we stop building freeways in the 70s when the population was half of what is it today and even in the 70s our freeway loops were inadequate. Anyone care to discuss/explain how this happened? Maybe some caltrans engineer can explain how all of these suburbs in the Sac metro built out with absolutely zero infrastructure spending?





I can keep going but you get the point. A total lack of freeway coverage in the eastern suburbs and a total lack of freeway connection between the south area and the east area.

[TheStranger]

This page mentions quite a few of the cancellations that have occurred over the years in the area:

http://www.indyroads.com/unbuilt2.htm

1970s county residents/politicians nixed such projects as 143 and 244 in the Arden/Carmichael areas...the only full freeway project still on the books (albeit far long-term) is 65.

[OCGuy81]

That's an interesting map.  So even those routes proposed back then wouldn't be part of the Interstate system?  CalTrans was going to build all of these? Hmm.

[TheStranger]

That's an interesting map.  So even those routes proposed back then wouldn't be part of the Interstate system?  CalTrans was going to build all of these? Hmm.

The only proposed Interstate in metro Sacramento - beyond what was built as Interstate in I-5, today's I-80 (originally I-880), and Business 80 from the Tower Bridge Gateway to E Street - was the cancelled realignment of I-80 from just past E Street to today's I-80/Longview Drive interchange along the railroad corridor.

102, 244, 143, 148, the 16 realignment, and 65 were all proposed as state route freeways, with 65 the only one remaining as an active proposal.

A road generally along the 148 corridor has been suggested in recent years, not sure if it'd be freeway if ever constructed.

[SacRoadGeek916]

It looks like 148 is consumnes river blvd and calvine rd.

Consumnes river blvd could still be 148 as the portion between I5 and 99 as it is largely unbuild and unpopulated. Calvine Rd is a nogo though as it is already urbanized between power inn and grant line. I think 148 between I5 and 99 is a good idea though.

102 may happen (unpopulated area), 244 and 143 will never happen (urbanized).

[TheStranger]

Consumnes river blvd could still be 148 as the portion between I5 and 99 as it is largely unbuild and unpopulated. Calvine Rd is a nogo though as it is already urbanized between power inn and grant line. I think 148 between I5 and 99 is a good idea though.

The Cosumnes Parkway project was mentioned here:
http://50corridor.com/archives/news/november104.asp

Not sure what became of it though.

[SacRoadGeek916]

Consumnes river blvd could still be 148 as the portion between I5 and 99 as it is largely unbuild and unpopulated. Calvine Rd is a nogo though as it is already urbanized between power inn and grant line. I think 148 between I5 and 99 is a good idea though.

The Cosumnes Parkway project was mentioned here:
http://50corridor.com/archives/news/november104.asp

Not sure what became of it though.

Yes I remember construction going on consumes river blvd quite a few years back (could have been around 2005) but work has been stopped on that for quite awhile. Don't know if it's ever been restarted. Screw the parkway though, go full freeway. There should be no right away or land acquisition necessary, so might as well do it now before its built out.

[SacRoadGeek916]

Just did a quick google search, yes it looks like it's still on hold but may be revived by a massive housing/shopping project:

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/print-edition/2011/12/09/i-5-deal-would-revive-massive-project.html

Looks like no parkway/freeway though, just a extension of the existing street. If this goes through and that area gets built up 148 will officially be dead.

[Alex]

A 1969 map scan Andy and I made years ago:

[SacRoadGeek916]

Wow interesting map, thanks for sharing! It looks like there were quite a few major alignment changes from 1969 roads. From this map is also seems as if the road engineers in Sacramento made some very strange decisions, especially in the south area.  One (of many) examples. Look at meadowview rd and gerber rd, then look at the placement of mack rd. WTF? Why not finish the street instead of putting mack rd in a random place?

It also seems like tons of roads just stop for no reason, which explains a lot of the stuff I see today (I was born in 83 so I have no idea what Sac looked like back then).

47th ave still to this day doesnt extend to I5

Explains why 14th ave/12th ave/sutterville rd has a weird alignment

Gerber Rd is missing from 99 and the mack rd on/off ramp is strange and has different entrances depending on what direction you want to go

I can go on for hours but seriously, were they drunk when they made the sacramento street map plan? Or just they just turn over the keys to suburban developers to draw the map?

[agentsteel53]

is US-50 shown as unbuilt at the Watt Ave interchange on that map, or am I reading it wrong?

the signs I referred to definitely have CA-67 stamp on the back.  was there such a long delay between manufacture and installation?

[SacRoadGeek916]

Perhaps, it looks like watt wasnt extended to elk grove-florin yet.

[TheStranger]

is US-50 shown as unbuilt at the Watt Ave interchange on that map, or am I reading it wrong?

the signs I referred to definitely have CA-67 stamp on the back.  was there such a long delay between manufacture and installation?

Most of the El Dorado Freeway did open up by 1972, but I'd have to check the Caltrans bridge log to verify.

Look at meadowview rd and gerber rd, then look at the placement of mack rd.

Meadowview and Mack were eventually connected in the 1980s, with Mack then continuing on east to Elsie Avenue.  I'm surprised Gerber was never extended west to 99...

47th ave still to this day doesnt extend to I5

That's because of Sacramento Executive Airport, which until 1967 was the primary airport of the city.  No way for 47 to continue on westward.

Gerber Rd is missing from 99 and the mack rd on/off ramp is strange and has different entrances depending on what direction you want to go

The ramps from NB 99 are configured the way they are because the original interchange in the area was the directional Y between Stockton Boulevard (the original US 50/99) and the South Sacramento Freeway.  I think the Mack ramps were built later than that, not sure though.

[SacRoadGeek916]

Meadowview and Mack were eventually connected in the 1980s, with Mack then continuing on east to Elsie Avenue.  I'm surprised Gerber was never extended west to 99...

I know, my point was the original design was stupid (and still is stupid). Mack rd makes a S turn to connect to Meadowview and connects to Elsie like you said instead of connecting to gerber. That way we'd have a interchange at gerber and wouldn't get so many disconnected streets and S turns.

That's because of Sacramento Executive Airport, which until 1967 was the primary airport of the city.  No way for 47 to continue on westward.

Thats right, that makes sense I guess. it just causes 47th to not run to I5 and 43rd to not run to 99. What is the reason 43th doesn't have both a North and South exit on I5?

The ramps from NB 99 are configured the way they are because the original interchange in the area was the directional Y between Stockton Boulevard (the original US 50/99) and the South Sacramento Freeway.  I think the Mack ramps were built later than that, not sure though.

That's my point again, the ORIGINAL design was stupid, therefore they had to do a makeshift addition at mack rd. I don't even understand why you would ever use a frontage rd (stockton blvd) as an entrance/exist to a freeway. They should have originally put mack rd in the right spot and put a real interchange in the first time.

[TheStranger]

Meadowview and Mack were eventually connected in the 1980s, with Mack then continuing on east to Elsie Avenue.  I'm surprised Gerber was never extended west to 99...

I know, my point was the original design was stupid (and still is stupid). Mack rd makes a S turn to connect to Meadowview and connects to Elsie like you said instead of connecting to gerber. That way we'd have a interchange at gerber and wouldn't get so many disconnected streets and S turns.

It looks like that area between the Brookfield/Meadowview intersection and Gerber Road was developed/filled in in the 1970s and 1980s...looking at Historicaerials.com though, Meadowview/Brookfield were originally one road in the 1960s.

There were some businesses at Gerber/Stockton in 1964 judging from the aerial photos, which might explain why the road was never extended westward to connect to Meadowview.

That's because of Sacramento Executive Airport, which until 1967 was the primary airport of the city.  No way for 47 to continue on westward.

Thats right, that makes sense I guess. it just causes 47th to not run to I5 and 43rd to not run to 99. What is the reason 43th doesn't have both a North and South exit on I5?

No right of way for northbound offramps from what I see in overhead photos.

The ramps from NB 99 are configured the way they are because the original interchange in the area was the directional Y between Stockton Boulevard (the original US 50/99) and the South Sacramento Freeway.  I think the Mack ramps were built later than that, not sure though.

That's my point again, the ORIGINAL design was stupid, therefore they had to do a makeshift addition at mack rd. I don't even understand why you would ever use a frontage rd (stockton blvd) as an entrance/exist to a freeway. They should have originally put mack rd in the right spot and put a real interchange in the first time.

The original design was a little different from the current configuration:

http://www.historicaerials.com/aerials.php?scale=1.6E-05&lat=38.4682701955988&lon=-121.41656498193&year=1964

Basically, at the time the South Sacramento Freeway was built, Florin Mall didn't exist and the primary arterial in the area was Stockton Boulevard, the original US 99.  So it made perfect sense to have a Y interchange there.

There are plenty of examples of frontage roads as freeway access points, nothing unusual or terrible about that.  The Mack Road ramps were constructed way too tightly even when the right of way was available in the 1960s, however.

[SacRoadGeek916]

It looks like that area between the Brookfield/Meadowview intersection and Gerber Road was developed/filled in in the 1970s and 1980s...looking at Historicaerials.com though, Meadowview/Brookfield were originally one road in the 1960s.

Streets are suppose to be planned/aligned BEFORE the development comes in right? Areas close to the central city was built up in the early 1800s yet maintains a perfect street grid with virtually no strangely aligned or disconnected arterial. South sac (and other far out suburbs) were VERY POORLY planned and we can still see/feel those effects today.

There were some businesses at Gerber/Stockton in 1964 judging from the aerial photos, which might explain why the road was never extended westward to connect to Meadowview.

So? A better question was why a business was zoned in right in the middle of a (planned) major arterial. And why wasn't this business eminent domain'ed away when gerber rd/meadowview rd/99 was paved.

Basically, I still contend that most of the areas outside of the city were planned very poorly compared to other cities of it's size. I actually nominate Sacramento the worst planned metro in the country.

[TheStranger]

It looks like that area between the Brookfield/Meadowview intersection and Gerber Road was developed/filled in in the 1970s and 1980s...looking at Historicaerials.com though, Meadowview/Brookfield were originally one road in the 1960s.

Streets are suppose to be planned/aligned BEFORE the development comes in right? Areas close to the central city was built up in the early 1800s yet maintains a perfect street grid with virtually no strangely aligned or disconnected arterial.

Within the 26x31 downtown/midtown grid, that is true....but in the first-ring neighborhoods outside of it (East Sacramento, Land Park, Curtis Park, Oak Park, Elmhurst) there are plenty of discontinuous streets that fit in with the street letter/number system yet are not continuous.

So? A better question was why a business was zoned in right in the middle of a (planned) major arterial. And why wasn't this business eminent domain'ed away when gerber rd/meadowview rd/99 was paved.

Basically, I still contend that most of the areas outside of the city were planned very poorly compared to other cities of it's size. I actually nominate Sacramento the worst planned metro in the country.

I suspect whatever was at Gerber/Stockton on the west side of the intersection was there before a freeway was ever planned for Route 99...

South Sacramento was primarily farmland prior to the 99 freeway and Florin Mall being constructed.

The Arden area DOES have its mile-square grid (the inventor-name streets i.e. Watt, Marconi, et al.) and I think that dates back to the 1940s or 1950s.  I do wonder why it was handled so differently there compared to South Sacramento...

[OCGuy81]

The only proposed Interstate in metro Sacramento - beyond what was built as Interstate in I-5, today's I-80 (originally I-880), and Business 80 from the Tower Bridge Gateway to E Street - was the cancelled realignment of I-80 from just past E Street to today's I-80/Longview Drive interchange along the railroad corridor.

102, 244, 143, 148, the 16 realignment, and 65 were all proposed as state route freeways, with 65 the only one remaining as an active proposal.

A road generally along the 148 corridor has been suggested in recent years, not sure if it'd be freeway if ever constructed

Is I-9 proposed to go as far north as Scaramento eventually?  I know it'll basically be the CA-99 corridor, but it's been a long time since I've been up that way and I can't recall if that part of 99 in Sacramento is interstate standard or not.

[TheStranger]

Is I-9 proposed to go as far north as Scaramento eventually?  I know it'll basically be the CA-99 corridor, but it's been a long time since I've been up that way and I can't recall if that part of 99 in Sacramento is interstate standard or not.

There's a couple of short merges around 12th Avenue but for the most part I'd say 99 from US 50 to Route 4 is Interstate standard.

Only section with at-grades left is around Merced somewhere.  No stoplights though.

[jrouse]

is US-50 shown as unbuilt at the Watt Ave interchange on that map, or am I reading it wrong?

the signs I referred to definitely have CA-67 stamp on the back.  was there such a long delay between manufacture and installation?

US-50 between the Business 80 junction and Watt Avenue was completed by 1971.  The portion between Watt and Sunrise opened in 1973. 

[Concrete Bob]

Actually US 50 opened to Folsom Boulevard, about a mile east of Watt Avenue in November 1971.  There was a temporary four lane surface-level entrance to the new US 50 freeway just a block or so to the west of La Riviera Drive. 

The stretch of US 50 freeway between Folsom Boulevard/La Riviera Drive and Sunrise Boulevard opened in April 1973. 

The 143/244/65/102 freeways were voted down by the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors in November 1974.  The vote was 3-2 to cancel the plans.  One of the Board Members had a developer brother in law who bought up the SR 143 ROW near American River Drive and Arden Way (along what is now known as Kensington Drive), and he built houses along the ROW. Caltrans under the Jerry Brown (Version 1.0) Administration sped up the remaining sales of rights of way along the 143, 244 and 65 corridors. 

By the time of the November 1974 cancellations, much of the ROW was acquired, the engineering was done and funding was in place for a significant portion of the plan.  Unfortunatelty, Sacramentans are stuck with a lot of commute via arterials with signal lights placed every quarter mile. 

Hopefully, Hazel Avenue will be upgraded to become a semi-expressway connector between US 50 and I 80.  Widening is underway between US 50 and Madison Avenue.  And, there are concept plans for grade separated intersections at Madison and Greenback Lane.  Whether they come to fruition is anyone's guess. 

[TheStranger]

Hopefully, Hazel Avenue will be upgraded to become a semi-expressway connector between US 50 and I 80.  Widening is underway between US 50 and Madison Avenue.  And, there are concept plans for grade separated intersections at Madison and Greenback Lane.  Whether they come to fruition is anyone's guess. 

Is this tied into the still-existing proposals for Route 65?  Or would that end up on a different (nearby) corridor?

[national highway 1]

Is there a locally-maintained connection between the two sections of CA 65?

[Concrete Bob]

The Hazel Avenue grade separations at Madison Avenue and Greenback Lane are not part of the Highway 65 gap closure.  There are no adopted routes to connect the two sections of CA 65 together.  There were some studies for route location in the Fresno area about 10 years ago, but the plans only went as far north as roughly Chowchilla and an eastern extension of CA 152.  Nothing ever came of those studies, and I suppose the studies will gather cyber dust for another couple of decades, and be re-studied again in the 2030s.  

The freeway section of CA 65 from I-80 to Lincoln has numbered exits, and the first exit past I-80 is numbered EXIT 307 (starting point near Bakersfield) .  So there is some concept at the state level to connect the two CA 65s together.  However, there is nothing under study at this time for any potential route location.  However, Hazel Avenue would be the most logical corridor.  The areas along Hazel Avenue are pretty much built up, and it isn't very easy to build freeways through developed areas nowadays.  

[SacRoadGeek916]

I think there needs to be a county wide buy-up of major corridors such as Hazel for 65 and some route for 143 to connect 99 and I-5 in the south area to demolish those corridors so freeways can be built.