Took CA 51 this morning (the I-80 Business Loop....) on a rare freeway side trip for me. Nothing really took special here but it was kind of neat seeing an old section of I-80 and the weird I-80 Business Loop signage. I started a new method of freeway photos, they seemed to come out better aside from the huge sun glare.
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmrqHxbn
^^^^^^^^
So it looks like the WB Biz 80 signage just peters out at the Oak Park interchange. That in itself should be reason enough for Caltrans to throw in the towel and just sign the damn thing as CA 51! The now-36-year-old experiment with a full-freeway business loop that just happens to make a sharp right-angle turn halfway through its length never really worked to begin with; better to just treat its northeasterly portion as the independent egress that it actually is.
Quote from: sparker on October 10, 2018, 03:45:22 AM
^^^^^^^^
So it looks like the WB Biz 80 signage just peters out at the Oak Park interchange. That in itself should be reason enough for Caltrans to throw in the towel and just sign the damn thing as CA 51! The now-36-year-old experiment with a full-freeway business loop that just happens to make a sharp right-angle turn halfway through its length never really worked to begin with; better to just treat its northeasterly portion as the independent egress that it actually is.
Past the American River westbound I don't recall seeing any reassurance shields. Really the purpose of the Business Loop shields is pretty laughable. Really CA 51 is the ticket, I'm not even sure if the route meets current Interstate standards with that giant curve in the middle.
Quote from: sparker on October 10, 2018, 03:45:22 AM
^^^^^^^^
So it looks like the WB Biz 80 signage just peters out at the Oak Park interchange. That in itself should be reason enough for Caltrans to throw in the towel and just sign the damn thing as CA 51! The now-36-year-old experiment with a full-freeway business loop that just happens to make a sharp right-angle turn halfway through its length never really worked to begin with; better to just treat its northeasterly portion as the independent egress that it actually is.
Yeah, the change to that (removal of Business 80 signage on the US 50 segment) was actually covered in an earlier thread:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16501.0
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 10, 2018, 01:28:23 PM
Quote from: sparker on October 10, 2018, 03:45:22 AM
^^^^^^^^
So it looks like the WB Biz 80 signage just peters out at the Oak Park interchange. That in itself should be reason enough for Caltrans to throw in the towel and just sign the damn thing as CA 51! The now-36-year-old experiment with a full-freeway business loop that just happens to make a sharp right-angle turn halfway through its length never really worked to begin with; better to just treat its northeasterly portion as the independent egress that it actually is.
Past the American River westbound I don't recall seeing any reassurance shields. Really the purpose of the Business Loop shields is pretty laughable. Really CA 51 is the ticket, I'm not even sure if the route meets current Interstate standards with that giant curve in the middle.
If you're talking about the sharp curve just north of the Marconi interchange, you're right; that's the substandard feature that prompted the aborted I-80 reroute planned in the '70's (the northern stub-end of which became a LR park-and-ride).
Quote from: sparker on October 10, 2018, 04:57:01 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 10, 2018, 01:28:23 PM
Quote from: sparker on October 10, 2018, 03:45:22 AM
^^^^^^^^
So it looks like the WB Biz 80 signage just peters out at the Oak Park interchange. That in itself should be reason enough for Caltrans to throw in the towel and just sign the damn thing as CA 51! The now-36-year-old experiment with a full-freeway business loop that just happens to make a sharp right-angle turn halfway through its length never really worked to begin with; better to just treat its northeasterly portion as the independent egress that it actually is.
Past the American River westbound I don't recall seeing any reassurance shields. Really the purpose of the Business Loop shields is pretty laughable. Really CA 51 is the ticket, I'm not even sure if the route meets current Interstate standards with that giant curve in the middle.
If you're talking about the sharp curve just north of the Marconi interchange, you're right; that's the substandard feature that prompted the aborted I-80 reroute planned in the '70's (the northern stub-end of which became a LR park-and-ride).
That's the one; might try to track that stub down come December when I visit Sacramento again for a couple days.
^^^^^^^
Easy to find -- just head west on I-80 past the Biz 80 split and look to your left; you can't miss it!
Quote from: sparker on October 11, 2018, 12:56:45 AM
^^^^^^^
Easy to find -- just head west on I-80 past the Biz 80 split and look to your left; you can't miss it!
IIRC the stub is essentially one long access road to three light rail stations now (Watt/I-80, Watt/I-80 West, Roseville Road).
There was a 1995 police chase that got on the Worlds Wildest Police Videos which involved a car flipping at the end of the stub:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZORDLuY4ds
Wait CA-51 aka Business 80 has to be renamed either CA-480, or CA-x07 or CA-x09 once I-7 or I-9 is approved though and this has been talked about for some time.
Quote from: bing101 on October 11, 2018, 11:11:01 PM
Wait CA-51 aka Business 80 has to be renamed either CA-480, or CA-x07 or CA-x09 once I-7 or I-9 is approved though and this has been talked about for some time.
I think we're getting ahead of ourselves here; elevating CA 99 to Interstate status, while approved at the federal level via HPC #54, isn't high on anyone's priority list. If CA 51 were to actually be signed with that number, it'd probably be at least 15-20 years until Interstate status of CA 99 were to happen -- so waiting to sign it as 51 just because of the possibility of change to an Interstate-related designation seems at best highly speculative and at worst just plain silly! Besides -- even if a I-7 or I-9 were to be signed in the Valley, there's a good chance it won't extend north of Stockton and instead terminate at the present I-5/CA 4 freeway junction.
Quote from: sparker on October 12, 2018, 01:29:30 AM
Quote from: bing101 on October 11, 2018, 11:11:01 PM
Wait CA-51 aka Business 80 has to be renamed either CA-480, or CA-x07 or CA-x09 once I-7 or I-9 is approved though and this has been talked about for some time.
I think we're getting ahead of ourselves here; elevating CA 99 to Interstate status, while approved at the federal level via HPC #54, isn't high on anyone's priority list. If CA 51 were to actually be signed with that number, it'd probably be at least 15-20 years until Interstate status of CA 99 were to happen -- so waiting to sign it as 51 just because of the possibility of change to an Interstate-related designation seems at best highly speculative and at worst just plain silly! Besides -- even if a I-7 or I-9 were to be signed in the Valley, there's a good chance it won't extend north of Stockton and instead terminate at the present I-5/CA 4 freeway junction.
Ditto. California can number it's non-Interstate highways in any way it sees fit, and it need not change its numbering because an interstate comes through.
Also worth noting, per previous discussion, that CA 51 is numbered as I-80 Business because the highway code specifically says it must be signed that way. So the legislature will need to change the law before Caltrans can put any other number on it.
Quote from: roadfro on October 12, 2018, 10:17:46 AM
Quote from: sparker on October 12, 2018, 01:29:30 AM
Quote from: bing101 on October 11, 2018, 11:11:01 PM
Wait CA-51 aka Business 80 has to be renamed either CA-480, or CA-x07 or CA-x09 once I-7 or I-9 is approved though and this has been talked about for some time.
I think we're getting ahead of ourselves here; elevating CA 99 to Interstate status, while approved at the federal level via HPC #54, isn't high on anyone's priority list. If CA 51 were to actually be signed with that number, it'd probably be at least 15-20 years until Interstate status of CA 99 were to happen -- so waiting to sign it as 51 just because of the possibility of change to an Interstate-related designation seems at best highly speculative and at worst just plain silly! Besides -- even if a I-7 or I-9 were to be signed in the Valley, there's a good chance it won't extend north of Stockton and instead terminate at the present I-5/CA 4 freeway junction.
Ditto. California can number it's non-Interstate highways in any way it sees fit, and it need not change its numbering because an interstate comes through.
Also worth noting, per previous discussion, that CA 51 is numbered as I-80 Business because the highway code specifically says it must be signed that way. So the legislature will need to change the law before Caltrans can put any other number on it.
Well hopefully they will pass such a law. Having two 80's is confusing and unnecessary.
Quote from: mrsman on October 12, 2018, 02:09:26 PM
Quote from: roadfro on October 12, 2018, 10:17:46 AM
Quote from: sparker on October 12, 2018, 01:29:30 AM
Quote from: bing101 on October 11, 2018, 11:11:01 PM
Wait CA-51 aka Business 80 has to be renamed either CA-480, or CA-x07 or CA-x09 once I-7 or I-9 is approved though and this has been talked about for some time.
I think we're getting ahead of ourselves here; elevating CA 99 to Interstate status, while approved at the federal level via HPC #54, isn't high on anyone's priority list. If CA 51 were to actually be signed with that number, it'd probably be at least 15-20 years until Interstate status of CA 99 were to happen -- so waiting to sign it as 51 just because of the possibility of change to an Interstate-related designation seems at best highly speculative and at worst just plain silly! Besides -- even if a I-7 or I-9 were to be signed in the Valley, there's a good chance it won't extend north of Stockton and instead terminate at the present I-5/CA 4 freeway junction.
Ditto. California can number it's non-Interstate highways in any way it sees fit, and it need not change its numbering because an interstate comes through.
Also worth noting, per previous discussion, that CA 51 is numbered as I-80 Business because the highway code specifically says it must be signed that way. So the legislature will need to change the law before Caltrans can put any other number on it.
Well hopefully they will pass such a law. Having two 80's is confusing and unnecessary.
At this point it's probably not going to change unless there is some sort local political push.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 12, 2018, 03:30:52 PM
Quote from: mrsman on October 12, 2018, 02:09:26 PM
Quote from: roadfro on October 12, 2018, 10:17:46 AM
Quote from: sparker on October 12, 2018, 01:29:30 AM
Quote from: bing101 on October 11, 2018, 11:11:01 PM
Wait CA-51 aka Business 80 has to be renamed either CA-480, or CA-x07 or CA-x09 once I-7 or I-9 is approved though and this has been talked about for some time.
I think we're getting ahead of ourselves here; elevating CA 99 to Interstate status, while approved at the federal level via HPC #54, isn't high on anyone's priority list. If CA 51 were to actually be signed with that number, it'd probably be at least 15-20 years until Interstate status of CA 99 were to happen -- so waiting to sign it as 51 just because of the possibility of change to an Interstate-related designation seems at best highly speculative and at worst just plain silly! Besides -- even if a I-7 or I-9 were to be signed in the Valley, there's a good chance it won't extend north of Stockton and instead terminate at the present I-5/CA 4 freeway junction.
Ditto. California can number it's non-Interstate highways in any way it sees fit, and it need not change its numbering because an interstate comes through.
Also worth noting, per previous discussion, that CA 51 is numbered as I-80 Business because the highway code specifically says it must be signed that way. So the legislature will need to change the law before Caltrans can put any other number on it.
Well hopefully they will pass such a law. Having two 80's is confusing and unnecessary.
At this point it's probably not going to change unless there is some sort local political push.
I don't know about now, but the local political push was an effort to keep it as something-80 because "businesses depend upon it and it is just too difficult to get people to adjust". It's been CASR-51 now for longer than it was US-40. People need to adapt!
^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^
With the present CA legislature, it shouldn't be too terribly difficult to convince one (or more) assemblyperson or state senator to slip in the appropriate deletion language regarding the CA 51 signage. Or one could just write/email Caltrans (either Sacramento HQ or even D3) and see if they can talk to someone on the standing Transportation Committee about doing so (I might even get around to that myself if I can carve out a break from work -- this is my busy season!). Put it this way: effecting a change such as this isn't an impossible task -- unless someone with some level of clout within the city or county of Sacramento gets a bug up their ass about keeping the Biz 80 remnant -- and voices such objections. As long as the control city elements on the former "loop" remain useful (delineating Downtown Sacramento as an option down to CA 160 and Roseville/Reno in the opposite direction), what it's signed (or not signed) as numerically isn't going to be of much consequence. IMO, simply ending the Biz 80 "experiment" is the best way to go.
Quote from: michravera on October 12, 2018, 04:43:38 PM
I don't know about now, but the local political push was an effort to keep it as something-80 because "businesses depend upon it and it is just too difficult to get people to adjust". It's been CASR-51 now for longer than it was US-40. People need to adapt!
That push was 36-37 years ago -- and the need to funnel folks to the central city (for Kings games?!) can easily be taken care of by, as I stated earlier, posting relevant control points (especially now that Waze and other travel aids are in service) is more than enough to ensure that folks go where they intend. Sporadically posted green Interstate shields aren't going to help that cause much. The original idea was simply to emulate the original I-80 routing through town; with the growth/dissipation of the Sacramento metro area, the loop's alignment now functions more as integral parts of intraregional connectors than a I-80 "in-town" alternative. Signing it as CA 51 is more than appropriate.
Quote from: sparker on October 12, 2018, 05:09:39 PM
That push was 36-37 years ago -- and the need to funnel folks to the central city (for Kings games?!) can easily be taken care of by, as I stated earlier, posting relevant control points (especially now that Waze and other travel aids are in service) is more than enough to ensure that folks go where they intend.
That actually begs the question though:
From the Citrus Heights/Foothill Farms/North Highlands area, what is the better route to downtown Sacramento anyway - 80 west along the beltline in Natomas to 5/99 south, or Business 80 south/west to 160 south? The latter actually seems much more suited for going to midtown, while the former pretty much gets you right into the Downtown Plaza/Golden 1 Center area via J Street exit. (And with 160 no longer a state highway between the American River and essentially Cosumnes River Boulevard in Freeport, signage along 12th and 15th streets southbound in midtown is relegated to small, City of Sacramento-designed proprietary signage to key destinations)
(This ties into the "parallel routes to same destination" discussion from the control cities thread on this site, i.e. 101/170 vs. 5/110 in Los Angeles)
Quote from: TheStranger on October 13, 2018, 11:13:49 AM
Quote from: sparker on October 12, 2018, 05:09:39 PM
That push was 36-37 years ago -- and the need to funnel folks to the central city (for Kings games?!) can easily be taken care of by, as I stated earlier, posting relevant control points (especially now that Waze and other travel aids are in service) is more than enough to ensure that folks go where they intend.
That actually begs the question though:
From the Citrus Heights/Foothill Farms/North Highlands area, what is the better route to downtown Sacramento anyway - 80 west along the beltline in Natomas to 5/99 south, or Business 80 south/west to 160 south? The latter actually seems much more suited for going to midtown, while the former pretty much gets you right into the Downtown Plaza/Golden 1 Center area via J Street exit. (And with 160 no longer a state highway between the American River and essentially Cosumnes River Boulevard in Freeport, signage along 12th and 15th streets southbound in midtown is relegated to small, City of Sacramento-designed proprietary signage to key destinations)
(This ties into the "parallel routes to same destination" discussion from the control cities thread on this site, i.e. 101/170 vs. 5/110 in Los Angeles)
Depends -- if you're going to the Capitol neighborhood, the best bet is to use the "historic" route including the outflung part of CA 160 in North Sac; you'll eventually end up at 12th and L if you don't turn off before that (remember that the old US 40 and original CA 160 after that hung a left [east] on F back to 15th before turning south). Now -- if you want to get directly to Old Town, the RR museum, the train station, or what's left of downtown, 80 to 5 might actually get you there -- but if you're looking for parking, there's more to be found just north of the Capitol than over by downtown -- especially during B-ball season anywhere around game time (unless, of course, you've purchased game-time parking at the arena facility). But if you're going to most state agencies (except for the ones out on Capitol west of 9th) then 160 is still optimal (avoid backtracking). Definitely 160 when trying to access Caltrans!
In my view, 160/51 is usually faster than 5/80. One benefit is that the first route only carries local traffic. This is especially true when going from Downtown to the northeast than into Downtown. This is all the more true as Natomas and other neighborhoods along I-5 get more developed.
Also, I don't see the two cases as being similar. I don't see any argument for signing Sacramento for I-80 west from the 80/Biz 80 split. It is much more direct to go by way of Biz 80/ 160. Don't forget that I-80 was originally part of old 880, the bypass route around Sacramento. Like most bypasses, the bypass will intersect with several radial routes that lead into the city -- it shouldn't make any sense to sign it as the way to the city though.
[Imagine as an example going south on 405 from the SFV. At 101/405, the way to LA is signed by taking 101, but you can also (if you have a death wish) take 405 to 10 to reach Downtown, but it is much longer. You are traveling further on the bypass only to hit another radial and taking much more distance. So in no way does it make sense to sign southbound 405 as the way to LA.]
In the LA situation, both I-5 and the 170/101 are radial routes. I-5 passes through the outskirts of Downtown, but 101/170 gets right to the center. Both arguably should be signed to LA (and indeed they are at all points except right at the split). 101/170 is even shorter by distance to reach the heart of LA.
^^^^^^^^
The westbound I-80/Biz 80(CA 51) split should simply retain the control cities of Sacramento (for CA 51) and San Francisco (for I-80); with secondary signage at that split indicating that CA 51 is used to reach CA 99 and Fresno. When the 51/160 split is reached, the signage for CA 160 should stay "Downtown Sacramento", while the CA 51 signage should have the controls as follows: CA 51 to CA 99, Stockton/Fresno on the BGS, with secondary side-of-road BGS along CA 51: TO US 50, South Lake Tahoe/San Francisco, use CA 51. Once at the south end of CA 51 at the Oak Park interchange, the signage for the main lanes leading to SB CA 99 should simply read: South CA 99, Stockton/Fresno. EB US 50: Rancho Cordova/South Lake Tahoe WB US 50: San Francisco, TO I-5. That should take care of all contingencies while (for the first time) mentioning the largest suburb east of Sacramento along US 50.
Quote from: sparker on October 14, 2018, 01:56:13 AM
^^^^^^^^
The westbound I-80/Biz 80(CA 51) split should simply retain the control cities of Sacramento (for CA 51) and San Francisco (for I-80); with secondary signage at that split indicating that CA 51 is used to reach CA 99 and Fresno. When the 51/160 split is reached, the signage for CA 160 should stay "Downtown Sacramento", while the CA 51 signage should have the controls as follows: CA 51 to CA 99, Stockton/Fresno on the BGS, with secondary side-of-road BGS along CA 51: TO US 50, South Lake Tahoe/San Francisco, use CA 51. Once at the south end of CA 51 at the Oak Park interchange, the signage for the main lanes leading to SB CA 99 should simply read: South CA 99, Stockton/Fresno. EB US 50: Rancho Cordova/South Lake Tahoe WB US 50: San Francisco, TO I-5. That should take care of all contingencies while (for the first time) mentioning the largest suburb east of Sacramento along US 50.
My general view with regard to control cities (and it certainly should apply in the Sac example) is that consistency is the key. A well-known long distance control should be used on pull through signage, mileage signs, and directional signs from surface streets at interchanges. The same long distance control should be used in all circumstances until the center of the control city is reached. To the extent that there is room on a pull through sign for a second control, a local control city (like a suburb) is fine to be used in addition to, but not instead of , the long distance control.
The current usage in Sac is generally OK. I-80's controls and I-5's controls are exactly what they should be. The main control for 51 south beginning at the 51/160 and 99 south beginning at Oak Park should be Fresno at all locations all the way to Fresno (including the on-ramps). Let's leave LA for I-5. The sole control for 99 north of town should be Yuba City (70 and Marysville should not be mentioned at all until the 99/70 split.) All references to Placerville as a main control for US 50 should be eliminated in place of South Lake Tahoe. To the extent there is room to add a secondary control, Stockton for 99 and Rancho Cordova or Placerville for 50 are fine.
CA 51/I-80BL/Capitol City Freeway was the last in the Lake Tahoe trip blog series and a little outside normal swim lane given it is a freeway. Suffice to say looking up the history behind the route was quite interesting considering it was part of US 40, US 99E, and ultimately a failed Interstate 80. I snipped some State Highway Map City inserts for this one given that the designations changed so much over the years.
https://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2018/10/california-state-route-51-failed.html
Here are the maps I prepared for the above blog in full size:
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1904/45418236021_63cf52d2b1_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ccskdR)1934Sacramento (https://flic.kr/p/2ccskdR) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1958/45418235871_63068b9e0e_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ccskbg)1938Sacramento (https://flic.kr/p/2ccskbg) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1970/45418234811_b3b406b40a_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ccsjRZ)1944Sacramento (https://flic.kr/p/2ccsjRZ) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1925/30477759217_11f4774a43_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/NrdtZc)1948Sacramento (https://flic.kr/p/NrdtZc) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1960/45418234671_60e2d46b3b_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ccsjPz)1951Sacramento (https://flic.kr/p/2ccsjPz) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1975/30477758937_f13e4b182b_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/NrdtUn)1955Sacramento (https://flic.kr/p/NrdtUn) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1963/45418234491_316f8a9132_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ccsjLt)1956Sacramento (https://flic.kr/p/2ccsjLt) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1978/30477758777_6bec714714_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/NrdtRB)1964Sacramento (https://flic.kr/p/NrdtRB) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1945/45418234351_a186930a5d_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ccsjJ4)1965Sacramento (https://flic.kr/p/2ccsjJ4) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1954/45418234211_d11906bb9e_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ccsjFD)1966Sacramento (https://flic.kr/p/2ccsjFD) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1934/30477758457_351240c920_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/NrdtL6)1967Sacramento (https://flic.kr/p/NrdtL6) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1941/45418233991_c5b2356fc3_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ccsjBR)1969Sacramento (https://flic.kr/p/2ccsjBR) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1920/30477758247_6bcfde0dc6_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/NrdtGt)1982Sacramento (https://flic.kr/p/NrdtGt) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1975/45418233841_d5ce0884be_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ccsjzg)1986Sacramento (https://flic.kr/p/2ccsjzg) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
The sequence shows some interesting tidbits: the evolution of LRN 98 from a convoluted eastern bypass (I don't believe that the portion north of Folsom Blvd. received field signage) to the original US 99E "Elvas" alignment and finally part of the first I-80 routing. Part of the original segmented concrete pavement for LRN 98 is still intact along the diagonal section of Fulton Ave. just north of Fair Oaks Blvd.; until recently, another short concrete stretch was on Elvas Ave. near 65th Street. (Fun fact: the original Shakey's Pizza was tucked into one of the LRN 98 corners at 57th and J Street). The temporary routing of US 40/99W/CA 16 along P and Q streets in the mid-to-late '60's was due to the desire to remove N Street, along the south side of Capitol Park, from the state system (too much traffic shoehorned into one narrow 4-lane street). The P-Q alignment lasted all of 2 years until the spring 1967 completion of the Pioneer Bridge, at which time US 40 signage quickly was taken down all across its former statewide route. Within the center city, the replacement through route, signed as "Temporary I-80", extended down Broadway multiplexed with CA 99 to the N-S CA 99 (to the south) and I-80 freeways (to the north) until mid-1969 when the W/X freeway (nicknamed after the streets flanking its viaduct) was opened to traffic, completing the original I-80 through metro Sacramento.
Curiously, both 5 and 16 are shown as "co-mingling" as legislated route numbers for I-5 between the American River and Sacramento River crossings in both the 1982 and 1986 map iterations; I can't recall Caltrans ever doing that with legislated route numbers elsewhere; the "one number, one route" credo was otherwise followed quite assiduously.
Quote from: sparker on October 19, 2018, 02:46:25 AM
The sequence shows some interesting tidbits: the evolution of LRN 98 from a convoluted eastern bypass (I don't believe that the portion north of Folsom Blvd. received field signage) to the original US 99E "Elvas" alignment and finally part of the first I-80 routing. Part of the original segmented concrete pavement for LRN 98 is still intact along the diagonal section of Fulton Ave. just north of Fair Oaks Blvd.; until recently, another short concrete stretch was on Elvas Ave. near 65th Street.
With regards to LRN 98, I feel like - can't confirm - that its primary existence north of the US 50/Bypass US 50 junction was to have an American River crossing (H Street Bridge) in the state system, as an alternative to the 16th Street Bridge (now Route 160, previously US 40/99E). I don't think the Watt or Howe bridges existed until decades after the aforementioned crossings.
Quote from: sparker on October 19, 2018, 02:46:25 AM
The temporary routing of US 40/99W/CA 16 along P and Q streets in the mid-to-late '60's was due to the desire to remove N Street, along the south side of Capitol Park, from the state system (too much traffic shoehorned into one narrow 4-lane street). The P-Q alignment lasted all of 2 years until the spring 1967 completion of the Pioneer Bridge, at which time US 40 signage quickly was taken down all across its former statewide route.
Within the center city, the replacement through route, signed as "Temporary I-80", extended down Broadway multiplexed with CA 99 to the N-S CA 99 (to the south) and I-80 freeways (to the north) until mid-1969 when the W/X freeway (nicknamed after the streets flanking its viaduct) was opened to traffic, completing the original I-80 through metro Sacramento.
The overhead sign gantry at 16th and P is probably the most evident artifact of the 1965-1967 40/99W/16 routing.
I noticed LRN 98 evolving while putting together these maps and a couple other oddities around Sacramento. I have to go back up to the city in December so I'm hoping I can track down some additional former alignments in field. So far I'm looking at the US 50 Bypass/LRN 98, the Tower Bridge, and CA 244. I have some older photos of the Tower Bridge but they aren't exactly what I would consider ideal.
What I find interesting is how all over the place highway alignments in Sacramento really were. Obviously there is some huge constraints with the terrain with the American and Sacramento Rivers but US 50 sure took a wild swing before the Bypass Route was built. Its easier to understand why US 50 originally ended in Sacramento in favor or US 48 looking at some of the older maps.
Quote from: TheStranger on October 19, 2018, 12:44:35 PM
Quote from: sparker on October 19, 2018, 02:46:25 AM
The sequence shows some interesting tidbits: the evolution of LRN 98 from a convoluted eastern bypass (I don't believe that the portion north of Folsom Blvd. received field signage) to the original US 99E "Elvas" alignment and finally part of the first I-80 routing. Part of the original segmented concrete pavement for LRN 98 is still intact along the diagonal section of Fulton Ave. just north of Fair Oaks Blvd.; until recently, another short concrete stretch was on Elvas Ave. near 65th Street.
With regards to LRN 98, I feel like - can't confirm - that its primary existence north of the US 50/Bypass US 50 junction was to have an American River crossing (H Street Bridge) in the state system, as an alternative to the 16th Street Bridge (now Route 160, previously US 40/99E). I don't think the Watt or Howe bridges existed until decades after the aforementioned crossings.
Quote from: sparker on October 19, 2018, 02:46:25 AM
The temporary routing of US 40/99W/CA 16 along P and Q streets in the mid-to-late '60's was due to the desire to remove N Street, along the south side of Capitol Park, from the state system (too much traffic shoehorned into one narrow 4-lane street). The P-Q alignment lasted all of 2 years until the spring 1967 completion of the Pioneer Bridge, at which time US 40 signage quickly was taken down all across its former statewide route.
Within the center city, the replacement through route, signed as "Temporary I-80", extended down Broadway multiplexed with CA 99 to the N-S CA 99 (to the south) and I-80 freeways (to the north) until mid-1969 when the W/X freeway (nicknamed after the streets flanking its viaduct) was opened to traffic, completing the original I-80 through metro Sacramento.
The overhead sign gantry at 16th and P is probably the most evident artifact of the 1965-1967 40/99W/16 routing.
Until the completion of the "Elvas Freeway" US 99E/LRN 98 bridge (on current Biz 80/CA 51) there was only one American River crossing between the original US 40/LRN 3 bridge at 16th Street and the old Fair Oaks truss bridge near that town, and that was the H Street bridge, which became Fair Oaks Blvd. east of the crossing. After about 1930 it was always part of the state highway system but unsigned; perhaps it would have become a "Bypass US 99E" if the freeway network had not evolved. Sacramento had a well-signed "truck route" network designed to divert through commercial traffic away from central city streets; the final surface iteration of the eastern LRN 98, using 14th Avenue, 65th Street, Elvas Ave, 57th Street, H Street, Fair Oaks Blvd, and Fulton Avenue was fully signed as the truck route to Roseville northbound and Stockton southbound prior to US 99E being rerouted over the Elvas Freeway and the 29th/30th street couplet (the realigned LRN 98). BTW, the present Sunrise Blvd. American River bridge, just west of the Fair Oaks truss structure, was opened in 1957, followed by Watt Ave. in 1961 and Howe Ave. in 1967.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 19, 2018, 01:57:35 PM
I noticed LRN 98 evolving while putting together these maps and a couple other oddities around Sacramento. I have to go back up to the city in December so I'm hoping I can track down some additional former alignments in field. So far I'm looking at the US 50 Bypass/LRN 98, the Tower Bridge, and CA 244. I have some older photos of the Tower Bridge but they aren't exactly what I would consider ideal.
What I find interesting is how all over the place highway alignments in Sacramento really were. Obviously there is some huge constraints with the terrain with the American and Sacramento Rivers but US 50 sure took a wild swing before the Bypass Route was built. Its easier to understand why US 50 originally ended in Sacramento in favor or US 48 looking at some of the older maps.
The "Bypass US 50" alignment along the former southern portion of LRN 98 (14th Ave. and 65th Street) was well signed during the period when US 50 used the original US 99 routing up Stockton all the way to Alhambra Blvd., then north to Folsom Blvd., where it turned east, or the revised -- and decidedly longer -- Broadway/15th-16th/L (later moved to M Street, which was renamed East Capitol Ave.) alignment. After the original LRN 98, including the "Bypass US 50" segment", was relinquished in the early 50's when LRN 98 was moved to the final US 99E configuration, the "Bypass 50" signage remained for a while but was never really maintained; it was completely gone by the '64 renumbering -- although the city-erected truck route signage remained.
^^^
The irony is that moving US 99 off it's original alignment is really what seems to have created the need for the US 50 Bypass Route. Wouldn't it have been more simple to route US 50 on the Bypass Route and just leave the rest as unsigned LRN 11 into downtown? Granted I'm aware the logic at the time was to get as many US Highways to as many main locations like big cities and state capitols as possible but those alignments are a complete cluster fuck of nonsense regarding a viable through route. Maybe I ought to do timeline maps for all the Routes in Sacramento just like I did for Fresno...sure seems like it would interesting with how much stuff jumps all over.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 19, 2018, 08:51:33 PM
^^^
The irony is that moving US 99 off it's original alignment is really what seems to have created the need for the US 50 Bypass Route. Wouldn't it have been more simple to route US 50 on the Bypass Route and just leave the rest as unsigned LRN 11 into downtown? Granted I'm aware the logic at the time was to get as many US Highways to as many main locations like big cities and state capitols as possible but those alignments are a complete cluster fuck of nonsense regarding a viable through route. Maybe I ought to do timeline maps for all the Routes in Sacramento just like I did for Fresno...sure seems like it would interesting with how much stuff jumps all over.
In regards to Sacramento state highway routings, it's all been a matter of what the priorities were at any given time. Obviously, one or another intersection along the east side of the Capitol grounds had been "point zero" for the old Division of Highways; three main LRN's: 3,4,and 6 -- all had their terminus at that location (with LRN 11 "just passing through"!). Remember that before US 50 was extended south on US 99 to subsume the former US 48 into the Bay Area, it simply went on a "useless" multiplex on L Street with US 99 so it too could terminate near the Capitol. They took that focal point
very seriously back then (a lot more ceremonial aspects to governance in those days) and wanted all available through routes to converge there. I'm also guessing that the City of Sacramento was none too happy about that arrangement, with intercity traffic schlepping down residential streets just so the state could show off. Hence their elaborate system of designated truck routes around town -- some on the old LRN 98, another on Richards Blvd. and Jibboom Street north and west of the SP yards, and still another on Freeport and Sutterville Roads in the south part of town to bypass the downtown highway alignments. Like with the convolutions of the US 101 and US 66 alignments down in L.A., getting as much traffic off narrow city streets and onto more suitable facilities was a goal of the cities that eventually -- and probably grudgingly -- became a goal of the Division of Highways once political pressure was applied. The one-way couplets were a way to effectively double the capacity of the local streets -- but until the temporary 1965-67 P/Q street couplet, the concept had only been applied to N-S arterials. The last of the state highway couplets, CA 160 (former US 40 north of the Capitol and US 99W south of it) on 16th (NB) and 15th and 12th (SB) was instituted right after WWII and lasted until 160 was relinquished on non-freeway facilities in the City of Sacramento a few years ago -- or about 60 years. At their "peak" in the '50's, there were three highway couplets: 3rd/5th Streets (LRN 50 and signed as, respectively, CA 24, US 99W, and CA 99), 12th-15th/16th Streets (LRN 3 & LRN 4), originally hosting CA 24, but then US 50/99, US 99W, and CA 160 to the south and US 40/99E, US 40 alone, and eventually CA 160 pre-relinquishment, and 29th-30th Street, featuring US 99E and, partially, US 50. Of those, only the last one became a freeway alignment between the couplet halves.
Quote from: sparker on October 20, 2018, 03:00:45 AM
At their "peak" in the '50's, there were three highway couplets: 3rd/5th Streets (LRN 50 and signed as, respectively, CA 24, US 99W, and CA 99), 12th-15th/16th Streets (LRN 3 & LRN 4), originally hosting CA 24, but then US 50/99, US 99W, and CA 160 to the south and US 40/99E, US 40 alone, and eventually CA 160 pre-relinquishment, and 29th-30th Street, featuring US 99E and, partially, US 50. Of those, only the last one became a freeway alignment between the couplet halves.
The 3rd/5th couplet was pretty much supplanted by the West Side Freeway wasn't it? (Which is signed I-5 and sometimes signed Route 99, thus being a very direct analogue to how US 99E/LRN 98 went from using the 29th/30th surface street couplet in the early 50s, to the north-south segment of 1960s I-80/present Business 80/Route 51 that I THINK is part of unsigned I-305)
Quote from: michravera on October 12, 2018, 04:43:38 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 12, 2018, 03:30:52 PM
Quote from: mrsman on October 12, 2018, 02:09:26 PM
Quote from: roadfro on October 12, 2018, 10:17:46 AM
Quote from: sparker on October 12, 2018, 01:29:30 AM
Quote from: bing101 on October 11, 2018, 11:11:01 PM
Wait CA-51 aka Business 80 has to be renamed either CA-480, or CA-x07 or CA-x09 once I-7 or I-9 is approved though and this has been talked about for some time.
I think we're getting ahead of ourselves here; elevating CA 99 to Interstate status, while approved at the federal level via HPC #54, isn't high on anyone's priority list. If CA 51 were to actually be signed with that number, it'd probably be at least 15-20 years until Interstate status of CA 99 were to happen -- so waiting to sign it as 51 just because of the possibility of change to an Interstate-related designation seems at best highly speculative and at worst just plain silly! Besides -- even if a I-7 or I-9 were to be signed in the Valley, there's a good chance it won't extend north of Stockton and instead terminate at the present I-5/CA 4 freeway junction.
Ditto. California can number it's non-Interstate highways in any way it sees fit, and it need not change its numbering because an interstate comes through.
Also worth noting, per previous discussion, that CA 51 is numbered as I-80 Business because the highway code specifically says it must be signed that way. So the legislature will need to change the law before Caltrans can put any other number on it.
Well hopefully they will pass such a law. Having two 80's is confusing and unnecessary.
At this point it's probably not going to change unless there is some sort local political push.
I don't know about now, but the local political push was an effort to keep it as something-80 because "businesses depend upon it and it is just too difficult to get people to adjust". It's been CASR-51 now for longer than it was US-40. People need to adapt!
Come on here "Because Businesses depend on it" I'm amazed that during the Fix US-50 Project only the Western Portion of Cap City Freeway had their Business 80 designation removed in 2016 and was fully renumbered US-50 only. Why can't CA-51 have their Business 80 designation removed for the CA-51 portion of Cap City Freeway.
Even US-50 the western part of Cap City Freeway had their Button Copy control city signs removed for newer ones during that project.
Quote from: bing101 on October 20, 2018, 01:38:59 PM
Quote from: michravera on October 12, 2018, 04:43:38 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 12, 2018, 03:30:52 PM
Quote from: mrsman on October 12, 2018, 02:09:26 PM
Quote from: roadfro on October 12, 2018, 10:17:46 AM
Quote from: sparker on October 12, 2018, 01:29:30 AM
Quote from: bing101 on October 11, 2018, 11:11:01 PM
Wait CA-51 aka Business 80 has to be renamed either CA-480, or CA-x07 or CA-x09 once I-7 or I-9 is approved though and this has been talked about for some time.
I think we're getting ahead of ourselves here; elevating CA 99 to Interstate status, while approved at the federal level via HPC #54, isn't high on anyone's priority list. If CA 51 were to actually be signed with that number, it'd probably be at least 15-20 years until Interstate status of CA 99 were to happen -- so waiting to sign it as 51 just because of the possibility of change to an Interstate-related designation seems at best highly speculative and at worst just plain silly! Besides -- even if a I-7 or I-9 were to be signed in the Valley, there's a good chance it won't extend north of Stockton and instead terminate at the present I-5/CA 4 freeway junction.
Ditto. California can number it's non-Interstate highways in any way it sees fit, and it need not change its numbering because an interstate comes through.
Also worth noting, per previous discussion, that CA 51 is numbered as I-80 Business because the highway code specifically says it must be signed that way. So the legislature will need to change the law before Caltrans can put any other number on it.
Well hopefully they will pass such a law. Having two 80's is confusing and unnecessary.
At this point it's probably not going to change unless there is some sort local political push.
I don't know about now, but the local political push was an effort to keep it as something-80 because "businesses depend upon it and it is just too difficult to get people to adjust". It's been CASR-51 now for longer than it was US-40. People need to adapt!
Come on here "Because Businesses depend on it" I'm amazed that during the Fix US-50 Project only the Western Portion of Cap City Freeway had their Business 80 designation removed in 2016 and was fully renumbered US-50 only. Why can't CA-51 have their Business 80 designation removed for the CA-51 portion of Cap City Freeway.
Even US-50 the western part of Cap City Freeway had their Button Copy control city signs removed for newer ones during that project.
At this point that arguement is pretty mute simply due to the progression of online and GPS technology makes it easier to find places. Besides, there is no "Business Route" function to CA 51. Sparked spelled out how to make a local push with petitioning political figures to get the route re-signed to CA 51. Trouble is that I don't think a single one of us who has opined is actually from the Sacramento Area.
Here's a thought, why not just consolidate 99 with 51 and make a push for it to be redesignated a US Route? A I-80 to I-5 US 99 would just be slightly over 300 miles. The section of CA 99 north of Sacramento could be mostly be transferred to; CA 70, CA 113, and CA 149. My personal opinion is that the I-7/I-9 corridor is poorly conceived on paper and largest problem with existing Golden State Freeway is maintenance and a need for greater capacity...which can be achieved without Interstate standards. The south terminus of CA 51 flows directly south onto CA 99/Golden State Freeway anyways. I'd gladly push something like that locally, I probably could throw in some other stuff like promoting tourism in the biggest cities in the Central Valley and maybe a historic US 99 signage corridor. Probably would get shot down and wouldn't go anywhere but still.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 20, 2018, 02:17:54 PM
Here's a thought, why not just consolidate 99 with 51 and make a push for it to be redesignated a US Route? A I-80 to I-5 US 99 would just be slightly over 300 miles. The section of CA 99 north of Sacramento could be mostly be transferred to; CA 70, CA 113, and CA 149. My personal opinion is that the I-7/I-9 corridor is poorly conceived on paper and largest problem with existing Golden State Freeway is maintenance and a need for greater capacity...which can be achieved without Interstate standards. The south terminus of CA 51 flows directly south onto CA 99/Golden State Freeway anyways. I'd gladly push something like that locally, I probably could throw in some other stuff like promoting tourism in the biggest cities in the Central Valley and maybe a historic US 99 signage corridor. Probably would get shot down and wouldn't go anywhere but still.
Not going to happen anytime soon, but conversion of CA 99 to an Interstate will eventually occur -- via political machination (as outlined earlier) or simple economic pressure (large corporations, particularly those based overseas, generally prefer locating near an Interstate -- and a "functional substitute" won't do much to convince them otherwise). A couple of years back I posited an idea -- sign the route as, say, I-9 -- but co-sign "historic US 99" signage underneath/adjacent to the Interstate signage -- and let the historic route serve as business loops through the various cities and towns. Essentially, kill two birds with one stone!
Quote from: TheStranger on October 20, 2018, 04:17:05 AM
The 3rd/5th couplet was pretty much supplanted by the West Side Freeway wasn't it? (Which is signed I-5 and sometimes signed Route 99, thus being a very direct analogue to how US 99E/LRN 98 went from using the 29th/30th surface street couplet in the early 50s, to the north-south segment of 1960s I-80/present Business 80/Route 51 that I THINK is part of unsigned I-305)
The 3rd/5th couplet did function up to the time I-5 was completed through the central city; its last signage was CA 99 prior to that route's (mostly silent) relocation onto US 50 and I-5. The unsigned (and unrecognized by Caltrans) I-305, essentially a "placeholder" for previously federally-funded portions of Biz 80, is federally designated as all of US 50 from I-80 east to CA 99 at the Oak Park interchange, and CA 51/Biz 80 north from there to the "C Street" overpass, near where the aborted I-80 bypass freeway would have diverged from the present alignment.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 20, 2018, 01:50:18 PM
Quote from: bing101 on October 20, 2018, 01:38:59 PM
Quote from: michravera on October 12, 2018, 04:43:38 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 12, 2018, 03:30:52 PM
Quote from: mrsman on October 12, 2018, 02:09:26 PM
Quote from: roadfro on October 12, 2018, 10:17:46 AM
Quote from: sparker on October 12, 2018, 01:29:30 AM
Quote from: bing101 on October 11, 2018, 11:11:01 PM
Wait CA-51 aka Business 80 has to be renamed either CA-480, or CA-x07 or CA-x09 once I-7 or I-9 is approved though and this has been talked about for some time.
I think we're getting ahead of ourselves here; elevating CA 99 to Interstate status, while approved at the federal level via HPC #54, isn't high on anyone's priority list. If CA 51 were to actually be signed with that number, it'd probably be at least 15-20 years until Interstate status of CA 99 were to happen -- so waiting to sign it as 51 just because of the possibility of change to an Interstate-related designation seems at best highly speculative and at worst just plain silly! Besides -- even if a I-7 or I-9 were to be signed in the Valley, there's a good chance it won't extend north of Stockton and instead terminate at the present I-5/CA 4 freeway junction.
Ditto. California can number it's non-Interstate highways in any way it sees fit, and it need not change its numbering because an interstate comes through.
Also worth noting, per previous discussion, that CA 51 is numbered as I-80 Business because the highway code specifically says it must be signed that way. So the legislature will need to change the law before Caltrans can put any other number on it.
Well hopefully they will pass such a law. Having two 80's is confusing and unnecessary.
At this point it's probably not going to change unless there is some sort local political push.
I don't know about now, but the local political push was an effort to keep it as something-80 because "businesses depend upon it and it is just too difficult to get people to adjust". It's been CASR-51 now for longer than it was US-40. People need to adapt!
Come on here "Because Businesses depend on it" I'm amazed that during the Fix US-50 Project only the Western Portion of Cap City Freeway had their Business 80 designation removed in 2016 and was fully renumbered US-50 only. Why can't CA-51 have their Business 80 designation removed for the CA-51 portion of Cap City Freeway.
Even US-50 the western part of Cap City Freeway had their Button Copy control city signs removed for newer ones during that project.
At this point that arguement is pretty mute simply due to the progression of online and GPS technology makes it easier to find places. Besides, there is no "Business Route" function to CA 51. Sparked spelled out how to make a local push with petitioning political figures to get the route re-signed to CA 51. Trouble is that I don't think a single one of us who has opined is actually from the Sacramento Area.
Well Im Speaking this as a former resident of Sacramento when the Fix 50 Project and the Beltline I-80 Freeway renovation was taking place from 2013-2017. Beltline Freeway was widened to increase capacity from the CA-51/CA-244 Interchange to West End of US-50 in the area. During that same time US-50/I-305 was renovated and had their Business 80 designations removed during that time.
I can't see why the Business 80 designations be removed and resigned as CA-51 though.
Isn't I-305 still on the AASHTO books still as an Interstate but the Legislature officially recognizes it as US 50 alone? Regardless I'd double with anyone who wants to put some sort of serious push to give CA 51 a real field number that isn't I-80BL. My take on it is that if any kind of push gets sent to local politicians it out to be somewhat locally sourced to have some legitimacy behind it.
Speaking I-7/I-9, correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the current plan have it ending at I-5 on the CA 4 Freeway? That's part of the reason I find the plan somewhat dubious, if it was really serious the route would end at I-5 at current US 50 in Sacramento. At least with CA 51 there is presadent to having it numbered 99 already with US 99E. Granted CA 51 has the same issue with less than Interstate standards that the Golden State Freeway has.
^^^^^^^^
Right now, if the Biz 80 signage was taken off the section of CA 51 from the C street underpass to the I-80/CA 244 interchange, it wouldn't have any reassurance signage at all. Interesting that you bring up the point that the Biz 80 signage was removed
only from that portion of the loop carrying the I-305 federal designation -- that includes the 29th/30th street viaduct (which was, unlike the segment to the north, constructed with chargeable Interstate funds). And, no, I don't think we're about to see a signed I-305 by any means -- but as the advance signage for the Oak Park/US 50/CA 99 interchange starts near the north end of the viaduct, lack of signage on that stretch may not be particularly problematic. Perhaps removal of those Biz 80 shields and BGS references might just be the first shot across the bow marking the functional end of the business loop concept -- and hopefully replaced in part by CA 51 signage.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 20, 2018, 03:32:02 PM
Isn’t I-305 still on the AASHTO books still as an Interstate but the Legislature officially recognizes it as US 50 alone? Regardless I’d double with anyone who wants to put some sort of serious push to give CA 51 a real field number that isn’t I-80BL. My take on it is that if any kind of push gets sent to local politicians it out to be somewhat locally sourced to have some legitimacy behind it.
Speaking I-7/I-9, correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t the current plan have it ending at I-5 on the CA 4 Freeway? That’s part of the reason I find the plan somewhat dubious, if it was really serious the route would end at I-5 at current US 50 in Sacramento. At least with CA 51 there is presadent to having it numbered 99 already with US 99E. Granted CA 51 has the same issue with less than Interstate standards that the Golden State Freeway has.
Don't know about AASHTO, but I-305 is certainly on the FHWA books as a chargeable Interstate spur. But as long as US 50 is considered to be the primary designation of the E-W portion of the loop, it's unlikely that there would be any push -- certainly not from within Caltrans -- to sign I-305 on its "L" shaped route only to have it technically end at an underpass; that would be a very pointless exercise indeed! Re I-7 or 9 and the Stockton terminus -- the CA 4 "shunt" over to I-5 was floated early in the discussions about the route primarily because of a multitude of substandard features between Stockton and Sacramento on CA 99. But since then -- specifically with the 2005 designation of the full "99" corridor between Wheeler Ridge and Sacramento as a future Interstate (via HPC #54), the exact northern terminus is pretty much undetermined. If I had to venture an educated guess, any Interstate corridor would extend all the way to Sacramento, terminating at the aforementioned hidden-but-legal I-305; I-7/9 signage -- at least in prominent trailblazer form -- would likely be placed on US 50 between the I-5 and Oak Park interchanges simply to direct traffic to and from the new Interstate and I-5.
Quote from: sparker on October 20, 2018, 03:49:12 PM
^^^^^^^^
Right now, if the Biz 80 signage was taken off the section of CA 51 from the C street underpass to the I-80/CA 244 interchange, it wouldn't have any reassurance signage at all. Interesting that you bring up the point that the Biz 80 signage was removed only from that portion of the loop carrying the I-305 federal designation -- that includes the 29th/30th street viaduct (which was, unlike the segment to the north, constructed with chargeable Interstate funds). And, no, I don't think we're about to see a signed I-305 by any means -- but as the advance signage for the Oak Park/US 50/CA 99 interchange starts near the north end of the viaduct, lack of signage on that stretch may not be particularly problematic. Perhaps removal of those Biz 80 shields and BGS references might just be the first shot across the bow marking the functional end of the business loop concept -- and hopefully replaced in part by CA 51 signage.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 20, 2018, 03:32:02 PM
Isn't I-305 still on the AASHTO books still as an Interstate but the Legislature officially recognizes it as US 50 alone? Regardless I'd double with anyone who wants to put some sort of serious push to give CA 51 a real field number that isn't I-80BL. My take on it is that if any kind of push gets sent to local politicians it out to be somewhat locally sourced to have some legitimacy behind it.
Speaking I-7/I-9, correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the current plan have it ending at I-5 on the CA 4 Freeway? That's part of the reason I find the plan somewhat dubious, if it was really serious the route would end at I-5 at current US 50 in Sacramento. At least with CA 51 there is presadent to having it numbered 99 already with US 99E. Granted CA 51 has the same issue with less than Interstate standards that the Golden State Freeway has.
Don't know about AASHTO, but I-305 is certainly on the FHWA books as a chargeable Interstate spur. But as long as US 50 is considered to be the primary designation of the E-W portion of the loop, it's unlikely that there would be any push -- certainly not from within Caltrans -- to sign I-305 on its "L" shaped route only to have it technically end at an underpass; that would be a very pointless exercise indeed! Re I-7 or 9 and the Stockton terminus -- the CA 4 "shunt" over to I-5 was floated early in the discussions about the route primarily because of a multitude of substandard features between Stockton and Sacramento on CA 99. But since then -- specifically with the 2005 designation of the full "99" corridor between Wheeler Ridge and Sacramento as a future Interstate (via HPC #54), the exact northern terminus is pretty much undetermined. If I had to venture an educated guess, any Interstate corridor would extend all the way to Sacramento, terminating at the aforementioned hidden-but-legal I-305; I-7/9 signage -- at least in prominent trailblazer form -- would likely be placed on US 50 between the I-5 and Oak Park interchanges simply to direct traffic to and from the new Interstate and I-5.
Why not I-305 all of the way to Wheeler Ridge?!?!
All that would be needed is a slightly better connector from the current I-305 onto the current CASR-99. At the moment, the Beast is the turn from US-50/I-305 onto CASR-51. While they are about it, how about a better connector (maybe a flyover) from US-50/I-305 EB onto CASR-51?
^^^^^^^^^^
Someone really likes long 3di's! Not a fan; this isn't the US system; no US 281's in this arena! For 13 years the "Beast" was used to carry EB through I-80 traffic; it's a turbine connector, and they're, generically, not the fastest connection around. I suppose Caltrans expected through truck traffic to use the old I-880! Without exercising eminent domain in that neck of the woods, an improved EB>NB connector wouldn't really be feasible (and in most urban environments, including Sacramento, doing so would raise one hell of an uproar). Oak Park'll likely stay as it is for the foreseeable future. If I-7 or 9 is dragged up CA 99 at some point, it'll either (a) simply terminate there with trailblazers to & from, (b) actually subsume I-305 west to I-80 in West Sac; it's already a legal Interstate, so no harm, no foul (the remaining segment north along CA 51 would be simply hidden), or (c) -- the least likely option -- replace CA 51, assuming an in situ rebuild of that facility; my feeling is that if that hasn't happened yet, it isn't likely to!
Not that I'm fan of monster sized 3d designations but I-305 is pretty much the only solution for an Interstate that wouldn't entail renumbering any state highways. :-D
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 20, 2018, 11:07:13 PM
Not that I'm fan of monster sized 3d designations but I-305 is pretty much the only solution for an Interstate that wouldn't entail renumbering any state highways. :-D
Hey, this isn't NC, where their insistence on doing (or
not doing) just that resulted in the misplaced I-87 -- or WI, where a similar proclivity merely fucked up the Midwest Interstate grid beyond repair. The short and recently commissioned CA 7 could be renumbered without too many people outside Imperial Valley noticing; while CA 9 might have a few more issues, the reality is that it is but a small fraction of what it used to be (and could get "Historic CA 9" signage along with its new number -- I'd suggest the many-lived CA 117 for obvious reasons). Nevertheless, the likelihood of red, white, and blue shields of any variety showing up on CA 99 in my lifetime are pretty slim indeed. Caltrans would have to give a shit for anything new regarding designations being undertaken -- and currently that doesn't appear to be the case.
Quote from: sparker on October 20, 2018, 10:05:19 PM
assuming an in situ rebuild of that facility; my feeling is that if that hasn't happened yet, it isn't likely to!
Isn't a new American River crossing proposed for Route 51/Business 80 - which was the whole point of the 1970s realignment project whose cancellation (which birthed Sacramento's light rail system) led us right to the entire topic of this thread in the first place!
Granted, building that crossing isn't by itself a full upgrade of every part of the route to Interstate standard, but I feel like some talk of widening the rest of the substandard (former 40/99E) freeway segments north of the American River has been out there too.
Could argue in a roundabout way that the domino effect of the I-80 realignment being canceled led to the Carolinas' eventual usage of "green Interstates" for similar reasons!
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 20, 2018, 11:07:13 PM
Not that I'm fan of monster sized 3d designations but I-305 is pretty much the only solution for an Interstate that wouldn't entail renumbering any state highways. :-D
Well, I-705 is available. If you wanted to make a real stretch, run I-505 concurrent with I-80 to the current I-305 and thence to Wheeler Ridge. -OR- The whole works could be renumbered I-3 at the cost of renumbering CASR-3. I-3 and I-5 would cross, so it isn't technically out of grid.
^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^
The 1982-abandoned I-80 realignment was pretty comprehensive; it followed the SP (now UP) rail line all the way up through North Sac to the present I-80/CA 51/CA 244 (is there another major interchange in CA that involves two unsigned state routes?) interchange. The present route would have become an extension of CA 160 north of the 51/160 split, while the present American River crossing would have been a "spur" ramp connecting the two facilities. However, any future upgrades of CA 51 will pretty much need to be done right on the existing route -- although IIRC the prospect of "straightening out" the Marconi "curve", which would require some property acquisition within the present curve's arc, may be up for consideration. The present American River crossing, originally 4 lanes but expanded to 6 back in the '70's, would be replaced by an improved facility -- but in the same basic location. Any expansion would be prompted not by some push for Interstate-grade standards, but because the capacity of the route vis-a-vis the level of traffic it is currently carrying is itself substandard, due to the rapid growth of the Roseville/Lincoln/Rocklin exurbs in Placer County. CA 51, in plain terms, is a bottleneck -- despite the push for infill growth, LR, and other urban transit methodologies, the area keeps expanding, with the crux of that being to the northeast. And even with the presence of the I-80>I-5 composite route into the western part of the central city, 51 remains the most direct route into town, especially when heading to attractions/facilities in the eastern part of town, like Sac State! With the demise of freeway plans along the CA 244 and 143 corridors, the nearly 70-year-old facility that comprises CA 51 continues to bear the commute brunt. I guess we'll just have to see if relief plans come to pass!
Quote from: michravera on October 21, 2018, 01:15:55 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 20, 2018, 11:07:13 PM
Not that I'm fan of monster sized 3d designations but I-305 is pretty much the only solution for an Interstate that wouldn't entail renumbering any state highways. :-D
Well, I-705 is available. If you wanted to make a real stretch, run I-505 concurrent with I-80 to the current I-305 and thence to Wheeler Ridge. -OR- The whole works could be renumbered I-3 at the cost of renumbering CASR-3. I-3 and I-5 would cross, so it isn't technically out of grid.
I was thinking legislative simplicity with the 305 numbering since it's available. Given the length of CA 3 that's something that probably ought to be avoided if at all possible. To that end CA 7 probably is way easier to push through a legislative renumbering than CA 9 is. CA 9 has been around since 1934 and it would be a shame to remember something that probably falls under the definition of classic state highway.
Quote from: sparker on October 21, 2018, 01:23:24 PM
^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^
The 1982-abandoned I-80 realignment was pretty comprehensive; it followed the SP (now UP) rail line all the way up through North Sac to the present I-80/CA 51/CA 244 (is there another major interchange in CA that involves two unsigned state routes?) interchange. The present route would have become an extension of CA 160 north of the 51/160 split, while the present American River crossing would have been a "spur" ramp connecting the two facilities. However, any future upgrades of CA 51 will pretty much need to be done right on the existing route -- although IIRC the prospect of "straightening out" the Marconi "curve", which would require some property acquisition within the present curve's arc, may be up for consideration. The present American River crossing, originally 4 lanes but expanded to 6 back in the '70's, would be replaced by an improved facility -- but in the same basic location. Any expansion would be prompted not by some push for Interstate-grade standards, but because the capacity of the route vis-a-vis the level of traffic it is currently carrying is itself substandard, due to the rapid growth of the Roseville/Lincoln/Rocklin exurbs in Placer County. CA 51, in plain terms, is a bottleneck -- despite the push for infill growth, LR, and other urban transit methodologies, the area keeps expanding, with the crux of that being to the northeast. And even with the presence of the I-80>I-5 composite route into the western part of the central city, 51 remains the most direct route into town, especially when heading to attractions/facilities in the eastern part of town, like Sac State! With the demise of freeway plans along the CA 244 and 143 corridors, the nearly 70-year-old facility that comprises CA 51 continues to bear the commute brunt. I guess we'll just have to see if relief plans come to pass!
To that end I can understand why the I-80 realignment was undesirable, that's a lot of redundant Freeway in a single area. Really the cancellations of the freeways surrounding Sacramento coupled with the substandard grades on 51 is what makes it a mess. You can straighten the route out as much as possible with the current right-of-Way but it doesn't solve the issue of Sacramento ballooning out into a major city with a lack of road capacity. There ought to be some sort of eastern bypass of I-80 to US 50 at minimum.
Quote from: sparker on October 21, 2018, 01:23:24 PM
^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^
The 1982-abandoned I-80 realignment was pretty comprehensive; it followed the SP (now UP) rail line all the way up through North Sac to the present I-80/CA 51/CA 244 (is there another major interchange in CA that involves two unsigned state routes?) interchange. The present route would have become an extension of CA 160 north of the 51/160 split, while the present American River crossing would have been a "spur" ramp connecting the two facilities. However, any future upgrades of CA 51 will pretty much need to be done right on the existing route -- although IIRC the prospect of "straightening out" the Marconi "curve", which would require some property acquisition within the present curve's arc, may be up for consideration. The present American River crossing, originally 4 lanes but expanded to 6 back in the '70's, would be replaced by an improved facility -- but in the same basic location. Any expansion would be prompted not by some push for Interstate-grade standards, but because the capacity of the route vis-a-vis the level of traffic it is currently carrying is itself substandard, due to the rapid growth of the Roseville/Lincoln/Rocklin exurbs in Placer County. CA 51, in plain terms, is a bottleneck -- despite the push for infill growth, LR, and other urban transit methodologies, the area keeps expanding, with the crux of that being to the northeast. And even with the presence of the I-80>I-5 composite route into the western part of the central city, 51 remains the most direct route into town, especially when heading to attractions/facilities in the eastern part of town, like Sac State! With the demise of freeway plans along the CA 244 and 143 corridors, the nearly 70-year-old facility that comprises CA 51 continues to bear the commute brunt. I guess we'll just have to see if relief plans come to pass!
Hmm I never knew that old 40/99E was to be retained along with the 1970s 80 alignment down the railroad tracks! I had always thought that it would be a teardown of the old route with new 80 through North Sacramento being the only corridor left, i.e. I-40 in Oklahoma City, I-195 in Providence, or the Cypress Freeway replacement in Oakland...as opposed to say new and old I-85 paralleling each other in Atlanta, or old and new I-15 in the Miramar area in San Diego.
SAMSUNG-SM-G930A
^^^^^^^^^
Yeah -- the I-80 reroute would have been an "express" facility, with no interchanges between its north end at I-880/CA 244 and its merge with the original route south of the American River. CA 160 traffic would have had to depart I-80 where Biz 80/CA 51 does today; the original I-80 facility would be primarily for local traffic access.
Quote from: sparker on October 21, 2018, 09:19:31 PM
^^^^^^^^^
Yeah -- the I-80 reroute would have been an "express" facility, with no interchanges between its north end at I-880/CA 244 and its merge with the original route south of the American River. CA 160 traffic would have had to depart I-80 where Biz 80/CA 51 does today; the original I-80 facility would be primarily for local traffic access.
I know you mentioned a few posts back that the segment of today's 51/Business 80 (historic 40/99E) between 160 and 244 would have been an extended 160 - do you have any planning maps that show this? Makes me curious too about how the portion south of CalExpo between 160 and the American River would have been signed.
The fact the new 80 and old 80 would have connected to each other at both ends is a marked contrast from say how old 395/15 and new 15 in Miramar is set up (with one ramp to Route 163 (also old 395) but no other direct freeway-to-freeway linkage), but is kinda similar to the I-5 truck lanes in Sylmar (which are the older US 99 carriageways through that area).
^^^^^^^^^^
IIRC, I saw the plans for the bypass, including a map that showed that the original I-80 would have been designated as a CA 160 extension in the San Francisco public library circa late 1976; actually, I was looking for something else -- extension plans for then I-15E south of Riverside -- ended up going through pages of statewide plans. This was a little over a year after Gianturco took the reins at Caltrans -- and I was trying to ascertain just how much of the proposed system was on her chopping block. But getting back to Sacramento -- I don't remember seeing a number (generally those were in the familiar squares next to the mapped facility) assigned to the short section south of the 160 split. Caltrans has always been a bit inconsistent when it comes to designations of short connectors -- some (e.g. CA 259 in San Bernardino) are assigned their own number, others (the I-10 extension west of I-5 on the San Bernardino Freeway; the Colorado St. connector from I-5 in Glendale) are considered "spurs". I'm guessing that this would have been the latter. Because the original I-80 route had served a populated area for decades, Caltrans would have been reluctant to simply raze that route, seeing as how the new "express" bypass had no local value. From what I've heard from my cousin who was working for D3 at the time, Gianturco herself was livid about the "express" concept, considering it anathema to her anti-sprawl (and, in reality, anti-automobile) agenda; this was the principal reason for her resolve to delete it from the state system.
Quote from: sparker on October 22, 2018, 01:41:59 PM
^^^^^^^^^^
IIRC, I saw the plans for the bypass, including a map that showed that the original I-80 would have been designated as a CA 160 extension in the San Francisco public library circa late 1976; actually, I was looking for something else -- extension plans for then I-15E south of Riverside -- ended up going through pages of statewide plans. This was a little over a year after Gianturco took the reins at Caltrans -- and I was trying to ascertain just how much of the proposed system was on her chopping block. But getting back to Sacramento -- I don't remember seeing a number (generally those were in the familiar squares next to the mapped facility) assigned to the short section south of the 160 split. Caltrans has always been a bit inconsistent when it comes to designations of short connectors -- some (e.g. CA 259 in San Bernardino) are assigned their own number, others (the I-10 extension west of I-5 on the San Bernardino Freeway; the Colorado St. connector from I-5 in Glendale) are considered "spurs". I'm guessing that this would have been the latter. Because the original I-80 route had served a populated area for decades, Caltrans would have been reluctant to simply raze that route, seeing as how the new "express" bypass had no local value. From what I've heard from my cousin who was working for D3 at the time, Gianturco herself was livid about the "express" concept, considering it anathema to her anti-sprawl (and, in reality, anti-automobile) agenda; this was the principal reason for her resolve to delete it from the state system.
The interesting thought about the express bypass/I-80 realignment is how much of the right of way is actually still available - in part because of the 1970s construction of new road overpasses that spanned both the railroad tracks and the then-proposed freeway! (Notable to me is the one for El Camino Avenue just east of North Sacramento, which resulted in the removal of a small portion of historic US 40/99E connecting El Camino with Auburn Boulevard)
Unlike the proposed 65, 143, 102, 244 suburban freeways, the 80 realignment was in a built up area that would have had very little new development spawned - especially when all the development through the 1950s and 1960s was near Business 80 (Arden Fair Mall and the Arden area in general). Ironically, the area east of Business 80 and south of 80 where 65, 143, 102 and 244 were canceled...ended up having sprawl anyway, and CalTrans's instincts about traffic projections on what is now Business 80 (for that matter, even traffic on the Beltline/former 880 once Natomas got built out due to Arco Arena) were 100% correct.
Figured I would add my few cents worth to the conversation:
Re: the I-80 bypass. The plans that I was familiar with showed an interchange at Marconi Avenue. There would have also been a connection to SB 160 and from NB 160 and an interchange at a proposed extension of Exposition Blvd under the SP tracks (the interchange with 160 would have eliminated the buttonhook ramps and horseshoe bridge on 160 at Royal Oaks Drive. At the junction with the old 80, there would have been collector/distributor ramps down to E Street. Arden, El Camino, and Marconi would all have been reconfigured onto new overpasses over the SP railroad and the new freeway. All 3 bridges were eventually built on those proposed alignments in the early 80s in preparation for the light rail system.
Re: Business 80 upgrades. There are plans to widen Business 80 between E Street and roughly Arden Way. This proposal came as a result of a study to close the E Street ontamp to eastbound Business 80 and extend the 4th lane that currently drops around F Street up to the American River Bridge. This lane drop is the worst bottleneck on the State highways in the city. Analysis showed that this modification would not help traffic flow and the City of Sacramento pushed for a broader study on improvements to the whole SR-51 corridor. It led to a proposal to widen SR-51 over its entire length but the focus eventually was reduced to the portion between E Street and Arden Way, with the portion between Arden and I-80 to be looked at later. These improvements include a new bridge over the American River. The early study looked at widening the existing bridge but there are substantial deck repairs needed to that hurdle and so I think they came to the conclusion that it was more cost effective to replace it. The new bridge would sit between he SP railroad bridge and the existing bridge and would cross over the railroad tracks, eliminating the narrow Elvas Junction underpass. The new alignment would include HOV lanes, and an HOV flyover would be just through the Arden interchange to avoid conflict with the Arden onramp to westbound Business 80, which is a left hand entrance.
Re: Business 80 renumbering to SR-51. As others have pointed out, this would require legislative action as the Business Loop 80 designation is written into the Streets and Highways Code. Caltrans occasionally puts together omnibus bills to make minor fixes in the code and this could certainly be handled that way. I think you could also designate the route as a Business Spur since it functions that way now.
Recently there were a number of signs on Business 80, State Route 160, and cross streets as part of Caltrans' broader efforts to install new retro reflective sign panels. Several of the upgraded signs include the Capital City Freeway name with the Business 80 shield. The new signs on Arden Way eliminate the control cities altogether. The new signs on State Route 160 also eliminates the old "Roseville/Reno" pull through signs at the Northgate Blvd and Del paso Blvd offramps. They now have the Business 80 shield and a control city of Reno even though it is still about 2.5-3 miles to Business 80. I don't know why they chose to put up a Business 80 shield instead of a SR-160 shield.
Quote from: jrouse on October 23, 2018, 12:46:57 AM
The new signs on State Route 160 also eliminates the old "Roseville/Reno" pull through signs at the Northgate Blvd and Del paso Blvd offramps. They now have the Business 80 shield and a control city of Reno even though it is still about 2.5-3 miles to Business 80. I don't know why they chose to put up a Business 80 shield instead of a SR-160 shield.
This seems to fit the tendency I've seen statewide for "TO" to be eschewed in favor of signing the upcoming route as the pullthrough control. Most famous example near me is the "US 101 San Jose" signage on westbound I-80 in San Francisco (which was not the original pullthrough - there's a 1980s video of the Skyway showing US 101/I-80 as the pullthrough routes, probably reflective of the pre-1968 I-80 proposal to Golden Gate Park that was stopped due to heavy opposition), but it can be found elsewhere i.e. US 101 south past I-10 in Los Angeles, and the San Bernardino Freeway spur from I-10 west to US 101.
Even Sacramento has this - IIRC there is one "I-80 San Francisco" sign along US 50 west (Business 80 west) past the Pioneer bridge, which was installed ca. 2009 but reflects a designation that hasn't been accurate since 1982!
^^^^^^^^^
Those bridges, on Arden Way and El Camino Real, ended up, after the recission of the 80 Bypass, being a functional gift from Caltrans to the City of Sacramento -- having been constructed to accommodate both the railroad and the proposed freeway. On Arden Way, they replaced a grade crossing where the gates were down about as much as they were up -- that rail line connected Elvas Junction, where the SP lines from Southern California (via Fresno & Stockton) and the Bay Area converged, to the destination of most manifest (non-container) trains: the sprawling Roseville Yard, then the largest in the SP system. The city had long sought an overpass; because the planned Bypass 80 facility followed that rail line, Caltrans started construction on this by 1973, prior to Adriana Gianturco taking the reins at the agency. To the immediate north, El Camino Real (old US 40/99E and part of LRN 3) ducked under the tracks on a narrow 2-lane underpass that had long outlived its configuration; once again, construction began about '74, a year before Gianturco's administration. Both bridges had spans that were designed to accommodate the parallel double-track rail line plus 8 lanes of freeway. And Chris is correct -- the original alignment of LRN 3 turned north from El Camino Real on a broad curve leading to Auburn Blvd. right at the east end of the original narrow underpass; this was covered up by the berm of the new bridge, requiring traffic wishing to access Auburn Blvd. to go a couple of blocks east and then north on a local street.
Suburban sprawl had happened quite early in this area (known loosely as Arden/Arcade). My late uncle had his home near the corner of Howe and El Camino (in one of the early Eichler tracts that dotted the Sacramento area); I spent partial summers there from 1957 through 1967 -- and the housing areas were continuous from the North Sacramento (US 40/99E and later I-80) freeway east through Carmichael by 1959 (my cousin and I would regularly play miniature golf at a place at the corner of Manzanita and Fair Oaks Blvd.) The housing was pretty much continuous from the American River north to well past Madison Ave. by that time; both the freeway and Fair Oaks Blvd., which followed the north bank of the American River, served as the major commute routes, with the intervening area laid out in a basic grid pattern. Of course, the expansion east and northeast continued unabated into the Citrus Heights and Orangevale areas, eventually absorbing Roseville into the developmental continuum. It had been planned, ever since the first iteration of the California Freeway & Expressway System in 1959, for at least a few freeways to criss-cross the area in order to convey commuter traffic down to US 50 or over to I-80 or I-880. It never happened, largely due to the efforts of Gianturco; she actually sold off the property acquired for CA 143 and the west end of 244 before she left office, most of it in the Carmichael area.
Quote from: jrouse on October 23, 2018, 12:46:57 AM
Re: the I-80 bypass. The plans that I was familiar with showed an interchange at Marconi Avenue. There would have also been a connection to SB 160 and from NB 160 and an interchange at a proposed extension of Exposition Blvd under the SP tracks (the interchange with 160 would have eliminated the buttonhook ramps and horseshoe bridge on 160 at Royal Oaks Drive.
It led to a proposal to widen SR-51 over its entire length but the focus eventually was reduced to the portion between E Street and Arden Way, with the portion between Arden and I-80 to be looked at later. These improvements include a new bridge over the American River. The early study looked at widening the existing bridge but there are substantial deck repairs needed to that hurdle and so I think they came to the conclusion that it was more cost effective to replace it. The new bridge would sit between he SP railroad bridge and the existing bridge and would cross over the railroad tracks, eliminating the narrow Elvas Junction underpass. The new alignment would include HOV lanes, and an HOV flyover would be just through the Arden interchange to avoid conflict with the Arden onramp to westbound Business 80, which is a left hand entrance.
I think you could also designate the route as a Business Spur since it functions that way now.
I don't know why they chose to put up a Business 80 shield instead of a SR-160 shield.
The plans I saw in '76 eliminated all those interchanges eliminated; the only feature described above that remained were WB off and EB on ramps to Marconi; these were part of the then 80/880/244 interchange complex now including the LR park-and-ride on the former approach lanes to the deleted bypass. I think it was apparent that attempting to site the new CA 51 American River bridge directly atop the existing facility would make a bad situation much worse over the construction period; simply relocating the roadway to the immediate west of the existing freeway and bypassing the original RR underpass is a much better method that'll allow traffic to continue to use the existing road during much of the process (cutting in the new route will likely require a temporary shutdown, however).
I think that once the CA 51 alignment modification has been completed, the "business" aspect of the route will have gone by the wayside, and that signing it as a business spur would be pointless -- a simple signage as CA 51 would be more appropriate. Also, since the North Sacramento section of CA 160 is an essential "orphan" route disconnected from the main trunk of the route in the Sacramento Delta, Caltrans is doing all they can to avoid referencing the number NB (EB), while retaining it in the opposite direction more as a long-recognized corridor than a functional through route.
Just saw in the Historic US 99 group on Facebook this 1968 photo (courtesy Joel Windmiller) of the northbound Route 160 American River bridge at 16th being constructed - a rare look at the old 40/99E configuration at Del Paso Boulevard when the freeway used the original 16th Street Bridge span in both directions. This project was contemporaneous with what was then Interstate 80 (now US 50 and Business 80/route 51) a few miles away in midtown
A few posts ago I saw some mention of a reconfigured Exposition Boulevard exit from 160 that was slated to be built had the 80 realignment gone through. Was the twin span here the only upgrade along 160 that ever went through before the late 70s purge of most Sacramento area freeway projects?
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181023/29b137d3f46739e89ea79b77ab687479.jpg)
SAMSUNG-SM-G930A
Quote from: sparker on October 23, 2018, 03:45:10 AM
^^^^^^^^^
Those bridges, on Arden Way and El Camino Real, ended up, after the recission of the 80 Bypass, being a functional gift from Caltrans to the City of Sacramento -- having been constructed to accommodate both the railroad and the proposed freeway. On Arden Way, they replaced a grade crossing where the gates were down about as much as they were up -- that rail line connected Elvas Junction, where the SP lines from Southern California (via Fresno & Stockton) and the Bay Area converged, to the destination of most manifest (non-container) trains: the sprawling Roseville Yard, then the largest in the SP system. The city had long sought an overpass; because the planned Bypass 80 facility followed that rail line, Caltrans started construction on this by 1973, prior to Adriana Gianturco taking the reins at the agency. To the immediate north, El Camino Real (old US 40/99E and part of LRN 3) ducked under the tracks on a narrow 2-lane underpass that had long outlived its configuration; once again, construction began about '74, a year before Gianturco's administration. Both bridges had spans that were designed to accommodate the parallel double-track rail line plus 8 lanes of freeway. And Chris is correct -- the original alignment of LRN 3 turned north from El Camino Real on a broad curve leading to Auburn Blvd. right at the east end of the original narrow underpass; this was covered up by the berm of the new bridge, requiring traffic wishing to access Auburn Blvd. to go a couple of blocks east and then north on a local street.
I'm very familiar with all 3 of those bridges as I grew up in that part of Sacramento and watched all of them get built. The planning for them may have started in the 70s but they weren't actually built until 1983-84. I drive the old US-40/99E alignment and the El Camino bridge every day on my way to and from the light rail station between El Camino and Arden. There's still some of the old concrete pavement in place there on Auburn Blvd between Van Ness Street (the connector to El Camino) and the El Camino overpass.
^^^^^^^^
Wasn't in Sacramento a lot during 1975-1986 period (lived in Roseville '86-'90). But if jrouse states the 3 bridges originally slated as overpasses for the aborted I-80 alignment didn't get constructed until 1983 or so, that would actually make more sense than early '70's construction (with the exception of Arden Way in order to get rid of the rail grade crossing) -- many of the projects cancelled or delayed in the Gianturco administration at Caltrans were revived once Deukmejian became governor in '83 and things started getting built again (but still eked out slowly; the "Duke" was a notorious penny-pincher). These bridges were likely among the first group of projects out of the gate back then.
A couple of photos from the Historic US 99 group on Facebook courtesy Kathy Stricklin, of the current Business 80 bridge across the American River as it was being built (https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181029/f4d06a408bd021fdd135e4803d89fc15.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181029/5c569016b5c679cd4e33c3fd821cd068.jpg)
SAMSUNG-SM-G930A
Quote from: TheStranger on October 23, 2018, 02:13:46 AM
Quote from: jrouse on October 23, 2018, 12:46:57 AM
The new signs on State Route 160 also eliminates the old "Roseville/Reno" pull through signs at the Northgate Blvd and Del paso Blvd offramps. They now have the Business 80 shield and a control city of Reno even though it is still about 2.5-3 miles to Business 80. I don't know why they chose to put up a Business 80 shield instead of a SR-160 shield.
This seems to fit the tendency I've seen statewide for "TO" to be eschewed in favor of signing the upcoming route as the pullthrough control. Most famous example near me is the "US 101 San Jose" signage on westbound I-80 in San Francisco (which was not the original pullthrough - there's a 1980s video of the Skyway showing US 101/I-80 as the pullthrough routes, probably reflective of the pre-1968 I-80 proposal to Golden Gate Park that was stopped due to heavy opposition), but it can be found elsewhere i.e. US 101 south past I-10 in Los Angeles, and the San Bernardino Freeway spur from I-10 west to US 101.
Even Sacramento has this - IIRC there is one "I-80 San Francisco" sign along US 50 west (Business 80 west) past the Pioneer bridge, which was installed ca. 2009 but reflects a designation that hasn't been accurate since 1982!
But US-50 West is no longer signed as Business 80.
In 2016 the Control signs on West Bound US-50 became (West US-50 to I-80 San Francisco) due to the Business 80 removal. But theres also one sign near the Sacramento State University Campus where a sign said "US-50 West San Francisco" on the 65th street intersection with US-50.
Quote from: bing101 on October 30, 2018, 08:53:40 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on October 23, 2018, 02:13:46 AM
Quote from: jrouse on October 23, 2018, 12:46:57 AM
The new signs on State Route 160 also eliminates the old "Roseville/Reno" pull through signs at the Northgate Blvd and Del paso Blvd offramps. They now have the Business 80 shield and a control city of Reno even though it is still about 2.5-3 miles to Business 80. I don't know why they chose to put up a Business 80 shield instead of a SR-160 shield.
This seems to fit the tendency I've seen statewide for "TO" to be eschewed in favor of signing the upcoming route as the pullthrough control. Most famous example near me is the "US 101 San Jose" signage on westbound I-80 in San Francisco (which was not the original pullthrough - there's a 1980s video of the Skyway showing US 101/I-80 as the pullthrough routes, probably reflective of the pre-1968 I-80 proposal to Golden Gate Park that was stopped due to heavy opposition), but it can be found elsewhere i.e. US 101 south past I-10 in Los Angeles, and the San Bernardino Freeway spur from I-10 west to US 101.
Even Sacramento has this - IIRC there is one "I-80 San Francisco" sign along US 50 west (Business 80 west) past the Pioneer bridge, which was installed ca. 2009 but reflects a designation that hasn't been accurate since 1982!
But US-50 West is no longer signed as Business 80.
In 2016 the Control signs on West Bound US-50 became (West US-50 to I-80 San Francisco) due to the Business 80 removal. But theres also one sign near the Sacramento State University Campus where a sign said "US-50 West San Francisco" on the 65th street intersection with US-50.
The "US 50 to I-80 West" sign at Jefferson Boulevard is pretty new (I haven't driven down that stretch of US 50 or I-80 in over a year) -
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.5737212,-121.5183079,3a,39.5y,322.4h,101.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sruvxgKPe0bQFaqoryHG2Jg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Earliest it shows up in Google Street View is December 2016.
For comparison, this is a 2015 photo showing it signed as "I-80 San Francisco" (no TO) -
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.5736998,-121.5182913,3a,43.7y,325.38h,96.31t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s-kOAITlsvx82e9k6Bt5oDg!2e0!5s20150601T000000!7i13312!8i6656
In 2012 this was signed as "Business 80 San Francisco" -
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.5736612,-121.5182947,3a,38y,331.25h,90.52t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1so2685pWXF0z8Ow5MotSlow!2e0!5s20121001T000000!7i13312!8i6656
---
As for the "US 50 - San Francisco" signage near Sacramento State, that has been there for over a decade - it was there when I lived in Sacramento from 2007 to 2014 and predates the 2009 exit numbering project in the area.
The "To I-80 West" sign at US 50 westbound approaching Business 80 east is still there, as opposed to "US 50 to I-80 West":
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.5602687,-121.4666659,3a,17.6y,249h,89.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssyTs20G6Wclztvyp25CKGg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
IIRC there was a button copy To I-80 West sign there in the 80s and 90s.
Right where the ramp for 99 south is, there had been a "Route 99 - To I-80/To I-5" sign (which I thought was really neat, given that 99 does run on 50 west's mainline for a mile or two) as late as 2016:
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.5592241,-121.4707756,3a,75y,275.45h,93.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4eptFMr-3AJqbQs_pW-44Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I suspect it was signed that way in part because this was US 50's west terminus from approximately 1968 to 1982.
It is now signed as "US 50 to I-80"
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.559119,-121.4697197,3a,15y,272.23h,89.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRbcRQXp2_D3vuwyUtQVK1A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
The big pullthrough on 50 west at I-5 has evolved over the years. In 2018, it is signed US 50 to I-80 San Francisco
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.5666373,-121.5036779,3a,17.6y,289.18h,92.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBIo1Su3F3waACeHFqscQSQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
August 2008 on Google Street View shows it as Business 80 San Francisco (with Business 80 trailblazer shields covering up where the I-80 shields had been pre-1982), and apparently this sign remained up until early 2016.
I am liking the US 50 west to I-80 San Francisco signs. It clearly denotes that people are on US 50. It helps people know that they need to get on I-80 to reach San Francisco. And it also is somewhat helpful for those with old maps who may still be looking for Biz 80 signs on this stretch. Most importantly, it keeps SF as a control city. (Dist. 7 has US 101 to I-5 and I-10 and CA 60 signs in LA but removed the Santa Ana and San Bernardino controls that have been there for many years.)
As I've said before, we need equivalent signage the other way: CA-51 north to I-80 Reno.
As part of working on the highway page updates, I just read through all of this. My 2c on the signage:
First, as Route 51 has never been signed, the motoring public has no attraction to that number. It provides no useful numbering guidance. I really wouldn't use it. Instead, I'd suggest one of the following:
1. Do what has been done on Route 110, Route 15, and Route 210: Make the official I-305 section I-305, and make the Route 51 section into CA 305.
2. Number Route 51 as an x50 route, probably CA 350. You could probably convince people in a number of years that it was once US 350, a spur to US 50.
3. Number Route 51 as an x80 route; only CA 480 would be available for reuse.
4. Number Route 51 as a continuation of Route 99, but to eliminate confusion with the northern segment of Route 99 and the lack of connection, make it an x99. Given that 199 and 299 are used, and 399 has historical significance, I'd suggest CA 599 (which has the nice parallel of both the 5 and the 99).
In short, there are many ways to give the route a number that signifies to the driving public its connection to either 50, 99, 80, or even 5, and has more meaning than 51 ever would (who among you has made the connection between 50 and 51?).
Quote from: cahwyguy on November 23, 2018, 11:22:00 AM
As part of working on the highway page updates, I just read through all of this. My 2c on the signage:
First, as Route 51 has never been signed, the motoring public has no attraction to that number. It provides no useful numbering guidance. I really wouldn't use it. Instead, I'd suggest one of the following:
1. Do what has been done on Route 110, Route 15, and Route 210: Make the official I-305 section I-305, and make the Route 51 section into CA 305.
2. Number Route 51 as an x50 route, probably CA 350. You could probably convince people in a number of years that it was once US 350, a spur to US 50.
3. Number Route 51 as an x80 route; only CA 480 would be available for reuse.
4. Number Route 51 as a continuation of Route 99, but to eliminate confusion with the northern segment of Route 99 and the lack of connection, make it an x99. Given that 199 and 299 are used, and 399 has historical significance, I'd suggest CA 599 (which has the nice parallel of both the 5 and the 99).
In short, there are many ways to give the route a number that signifies to the driving public its connection to either 50, 99, 80, or even 5, and has more meaning than 51 ever would (who among you has made the connection between 50 and 51?).
First -- Caltrans needs to be convinced that designating & signing I-305 would be a worthwhile venture; they haven't in the 36 years since I-80 was rerouted around town and it's doubtful they would today (given their recent track record about signage in general).
Second -- it's questionable whether the driving public maintains a vested interest in actual designations (unless they're pretty damn egregious!); a 3-digit number connected to any of the three highways mentioned as "parents" (50,80,99) likely wouldn't have any significant meaning and/or be of assistance for navigational purposes.
Third -- the concept of the continuation of CA 99 north through the Oak Park interchange onto WB US 50 has been downgraded by removal from overhead BGS at the E-W ramp split (while mentioned on mainline NB 99 prior to the interchange, it just disappears while on the initial segment of the ramp). Caltrans needs to prioritize this issue before tackling what to call the remaining Biz 80/hidden CA 51 segment.
Fourth -- While the full Biz 80 loop concept has long outlived its expiration date, given the fact that there's no other recognized continuation route that utilizes the CA 51 corridor -- or can readily be deployed save dragging Caltrans kicking & screaming into the I-305 concept (including signage under the "C" street bridge indicating "End I-305/Begin CA 305" -- and vice-versa) -- which would completely upset their newfound interest in prioritizing the US 50 designation for the E-W portion by either co-signage or replacement signage. IMO, if they have to do something, CA 51 is the best of a poor lot. Otherwise, they could wait for an I-7 or I-9 to show up on the CA 99 corridor and then rethink the connection (possibly a state highway version of either of the above!). As far as I'm concerned, when Sacramento interests requested that the original I-80 be preserved as an in-town loop, Caltrans pulled the Biz 80 concept out of their hats (or a rearward-facing orifice!) for want of a better plan; with the US 50 prioritization over half of the original loop, they're clearly having long-delayed second thoughts. Maybe short-sightedness just isn't a dish enjoyed cold!
Quote from: cahwyguy on November 23, 2018, 11:22:00 AM
As part of working on the highway page updates, I just read through all of this. My 2c on the signage:
First, as Route 51 has never been signed, the motoring public has no attraction to that number. It provides no useful numbering guidance. I really wouldn't use it. Instead, I'd suggest one of the following:
1. Do what has been done on Route 110, Route 15, and Route 210: Make the official I-305 section I-305, and make the Route 51 section into CA 305.
2. Number Route 51 as an x50 route, probably CA 350. You could probably convince people in a number of years that it was once US 350, a spur to US 50.
3. Number Route 51 as an x80 route; only CA 480 would be available for reuse.
4. Number Route 51 as a continuation of Route 99, but to eliminate confusion with the northern segment of Route 99 and the lack of connection, make it an x99. Given that 199 and 299 are used, and 399 has historical significance, I'd suggest CA 599 (which has the nice parallel of both the 5 and the 99).
In short, there are many ways to give the route a number that signifies to the driving public its connection to either 50, 99, 80, or even 5, and has more meaning than 51 ever would (who among you has made the connection between 50 and 51?).
I-305 will never be signed mainly because Caltrans only signs the WX Freeway as US-50.
Quote from: bing101 on November 23, 2018, 06:34:04 PM
Quote from: cahwyguy on November 23, 2018, 11:22:00 AM
As part of working on the highway page updates, I just read through all of this. My 2c on the signage:
First, as Route 51 has never been signed, the motoring public has no attraction to that number. It provides no useful numbering guidance. I really wouldn't use it. Instead, I'd suggest one of the following:
1. Do what has been done on Route 110, Route 15, and Route 210: Make the official I-305 section I-305, and make the Route 51 section into CA 305.
2. Number Route 51 as an x50 route, probably CA 350. You could probably convince people in a number of years that it was once US 350, a spur to US 50.
3. Number Route 51 as an x80 route; only CA 480 would be available for reuse.
4. Number Route 51 as a continuation of Route 99, but to eliminate confusion with the northern segment of Route 99 and the lack of connection, make it an x99. Given that 199 and 299 are used, and 399 has historical significance, I'd suggest CA 599 (which has the nice parallel of both the 5 and the 99).
In short, there are many ways to give the route a number that signifies to the driving public its connection to either 50, 99, 80, or even 5, and has more meaning than 51 ever would (who among you has made the connection between 50 and 51?).
I-305 will never be signed mainly because Caltrans only signs the WX Freeway as US-50.
Personally my preference would be option 4 from the above list, it would also do something with the weird 99 segment north of Sacramento.
Make CA-51 as CA-480 or keep the CA-51 designation. But then again the CA-x07 and CA-x09 could be used if I-7 and I-9 were to take the CA-99 spot.
Quote from: bing101 on November 24, 2018, 12:41:45 AM
Make CA-51 as CA-480 or keep the CA-51 designation. But then again the CA-x07 and CA-x09 could be used if I-7 and I-9 were to take the CA-99 spot.
Trouble there is that 107 and 207 are already in use. 307 would be acceptable I suppose.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 24, 2018, 10:21:55 PM
Quote from: bing101 on November 24, 2018, 12:41:45 AM
Make CA-51 as CA-480 or keep the CA-51 designation. But then again the CA-x07 and CA-x09 could be used if I-7 and I-9 were to take the CA-99 spot.
Trouble there is that 107 and 207 are already in use. 307 would be acceptable I suppose.
And if I-9 were to be selected (when & if the designation change happens), CA 109 or CA 209 aren't beyond the realm of possibility; CA 109 is unsigned and barely recognized (and thus could be renumbered with ease) and CA 209 was relinquished years ago. Personally, I'd choose the latter since if the substandard segments regarding the Marconi Curve are addressed, it could conceivably become an Interstate of the same number (and it would connect I-9 and I-80 on either end).
Quote from: bing101 on November 24, 2018, 12:41:45 AM
Make CA-51 as CA-480 or keep the CA-51 designation. But then again the CA-x07 and CA-x09 could be used if I-7 and I-9 were to take the CA-99 spot.
If they are going to do anything before the late '20s, they should just <blasphemes and expletives> sign it as CASR-51. It just takes an act of the legislature that they could slip into a funding bill (technically they would just have to remove the requirement to sign it as BR-80). They could have the whole route re-signed in about one shift. Remember that Cal-Trans got the 70MPH signs (and the "TRUCK 55") signs up on I-5 in about a day back in 1995 (and 1987). It might have taken a couple of crews and overtime might have been involved, but they did it!
My hunch is that most of the motoring public would barely notice!
Quote from: michravera on November 26, 2018, 10:08:48 AM
Quote from: bing101 on November 24, 2018, 12:41:45 AM
Make CA-51 as CA-480 or keep the CA-51 designation. But then again the CA-x07 and CA-x09 could be used if I-7 and I-9 were to take the CA-99 spot.
If they are going to do anything before the late '20s, they should just <blasphemes and expletives> sign it as CASR-51. It just takes an act of the legislature that they could slip into a funding bill (technically they would just have to remove the requirement to sign it as BR-80). They could have the whole route re-signed in about one shift. Remember that Cal-Trans got the 70MPH signs (and the "TRUCK 55") signs up on I-5 in about a day back in 1995 (and 1987). It might haver taken a couple of crews and overtime might have been involved, but they did it!
My hunch is that most of the motoring public would barely notice!
Quite right; all they'd need besides some premade CA 51 reassurance shields are big squares of greenout with a CA 51 outline on them to put over the Biz 80 overhead and roadside BGS's. And if Caltrans decides it wants a modicum of publicity for the change, call the
Bee and have them send a stringer over with a camera and take pictures of the changeover process. Channels 3, 10, and 13 probably wouldn't consider it earthshaking enough to dispatch a talking head/crew, so the public would have to depend upon still photos.
And unless they read the local pages of the
Bee, much of the driving public
wouldn't discern the difference!
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 24, 2018, 10:21:55 PM
Quote from: bing101 on November 24, 2018, 12:41:45 AM
Make CA-51 as CA-480 or keep the CA-51 designation. But then again the CA-x07 and CA-x09 could be used if I-7 and I-9 were to take the CA-99 spot.
Trouble there is that 107 and 207 are already in use. 307 would be acceptable I suppose.
It wouldn't be too hard to use 107 and 207. 207 is a two-lane that is less than two miles long. 107 is an urban arterial in the South Bay, is fairly poorly signed, and is due to be relinquished at some point. Neither one would be big losses.
The bigger question is whether renumbering current state Route 7 is more or less of a hassle than renumbering current state Route 9. 7 seems easy given its length, location, and nascency. I don't know about 9 because I haven't been to the Santa Cruz area in 20 years.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on November 27, 2018, 10:56:18 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 24, 2018, 10:21:55 PM
Quote from: bing101 on November 24, 2018, 12:41:45 AM
Make CA-51 as CA-480 or keep the CA-51 designation. But then again the CA-x07 and CA-x09 could be used if I-7 and I-9 were to take the CA-99 spot.
Trouble there is that 107 and 207 are already in use. 307 would be acceptable I suppose.
It wouldn't be too hard to use 107 and 207. 207 is a two-lane that is less than two miles long. 107 is an urban arterial in the South Bay, is fairly poorly signed, and is due to be relinquished at some point. Neither one would be big losses.
The bigger question is whether renumbering current state Route 7 is more or less of a hassle than renumbering current state Route 9. 7 seems easy given its length, location, and nascency. I don't know about 9 because I haven't been to the Santa Cruz area in 20 years.
7 would be way easier not only is the distance shorter but the 9 corridor is one of the original state highways and is well signed. From a historical context I'd rather leave 9 alone.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 27, 2018, 11:01:03 AM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on November 27, 2018, 10:56:18 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 24, 2018, 10:21:55 PM
Quote from: bing101 on November 24, 2018, 12:41:45 AM
Make CA-51 as CA-480 or keep the CA-51 designation. But then again the CA-x07 and CA-x09 could be used if I-7 and I-9 were to take the CA-99 spot.
Trouble there is that 107 and 207 are already in use. 307 would be acceptable I suppose.
It wouldn't be too hard to use 107 and 207. 207 is a two-lane that is less than two miles long. 107 is an urban arterial in the South Bay, is fairly poorly signed, and is due to be relinquished at some point. Neither one would be big losses.
The bigger question is whether renumbering current state Route 7 is more or less of a hassle than renumbering current state Route 9. 7 seems easy given its length, location, and nascency. I don't know about 9 because I haven't been to the Santa Cruz area in 20 years.
7 would be way easier not only is the distance shorter but the 9 corridor is one of the original state highways and is well signed. From a historical context I'd rather leave 9 alone.
107 was effectively toast once the Torrance-Harbor City-Long Beach freeway (a combination of CA 107 and CA 1) was rescinded back around 1976 or so during the Gianturco regime at Caltrans. Originally (prewar) the southern end of SSR 7, about the only reason it stuck around as long as it did (cut back to south of I-405 in Lawndale ca. 1982) was that (a) Lawndale and Torrance didn't want to assume maintenance expenses, and (b) at least three major shopping malls were arrayed along its length, and the politically-connected owners wanted a state highway through their midst.
But I certainly agree that if and when an Interstate designation is selected for the CA 99 corridor, the choice of I-7 would make life simpler for Caltrans; current CA 7 hasn't been around long enough to amass historical significance; and while CA 9 is but a shadow of its former self, what
is left still has significant lore attached, particularly in the Boulder Creek-Santa Cruz area, where a number of businesses describe themselves as located on "Highway 9"! However, when the choice need to be made, it'll come down to the practicality of the "7" number versus potential Valley-based sentiment toward retention of the integer "9" for that particular corridor. At this juncture, there's no telling which will prevail.
Quote from: sparker on November 27, 2018, 12:50:08 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 27, 2018, 11:01:03 AM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on November 27, 2018, 10:56:18 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 24, 2018, 10:21:55 PM
Quote from: bing101 on November 24, 2018, 12:41:45 AM
Make CA-51 as CA-480 or keep the CA-51 designation. But then again the CA-x07 and CA-x09 could be used if I-7 and I-9 were to take the CA-99 spot.
Trouble there is that 107 and 207 are already in use. 307 would be acceptable I suppose.
It wouldn't be too hard to use 107 and 207. 207 is a two-lane that is less than two miles long. 107 is an urban arterial in the South Bay, is fairly poorly signed, and is due to be relinquished at some point. Neither one would be big losses.
The bigger question is whether renumbering current state Route 7 is more or less of a hassle than renumbering current state Route 9. 7 seems easy given its length, location, and nascency. I don't know about 9 because I haven't been to the Santa Cruz area in 20 years.
7 would be way easier not only is the distance shorter but the 9 corridor is one of the original state highways and is well signed. From a historical context I'd rather leave 9 alone.
107 was effectively toast once the Torrance-Harbor City-Long Beach freeway (a combination of CA 107 and CA 1) was rescinded back around 1976 or so during the Gianturco regime at Caltrans. Originally (prewar) the southern end of SSR 7, about the only reason it stuck around as long as it did (cut back to south of I-405 in Lawndale ca. 1982) was that (a) Lawndale and Torrance didn't want to assume maintenance expenses, and (b) at least three major shopping malls were arrayed along its length, and the politically-connected owners wanted a state highway through their midst.
But I certainly agree that if and when an Interstate designation is selected for the CA 99 corridor, the choice of I-7 would make life simpler for Caltrans; current CA 7 hasn't been around long enough to amass historical significance; and while CA 9 is but a shadow of its former self, what is left still has significant lore attached, particularly in the Boulder Creek-Santa Cruz area, where a number of businesses describe themselves as located on "Highway 9"! However, when the choice need to be made, it'll come down to the practicality of the "7" number versus potential Valley-based sentiment toward retention of the integer "9" for that particular corridor. At this juncture, there's no telling which will prevail.
Nah! Just route I-305 all of the way down to Wheeler Ridge!
^^^^^^^^
Yecch! Don't like super-long 3di's; this ain't the US system (US 281, I'm looking at you!). When the time comes, either I-7 or I-9 would work; we've already discussed the pros & cons of either selection at length. Still many years away for any action toward an I-designation.
A thought that would make every roadgeek vomit, but would also probably result in the least friction from local communities and Caltrans: Take a page out of Bud Shuster's book and number it I-99. We already have I-238 that upsets so many, and the precedent of duplicate 2-dis already exists (I-76, I-84, etc...).
Quote from: jdbx on November 28, 2018, 04:58:56 PM
A thought that would make every roadgeek vomit, but would also probably result in the least friction from local communities and Caltrans: Take a page out of Bud Shuster's book and number it I-99. We already have I-238 that upsets so many, and the precedent of duplicate 2-dis already exists (I-76, I-84, etc...).
Or I-538 <duck!>
Quote from: michravera on November 28, 2018, 06:18:44 PM
Quote from: jdbx on November 28, 2018, 04:58:56 PM
A thought that would make every roadgeek vomit, but would also probably result in the least friction from local communities and Caltrans: Take a page out of Bud Shuster's book and number it I-99. We already have I-238 that upsets so many, and the precedent of duplicate 2-dis already exists (I-76, I-84, etc...).
Or I-538 <duck!>
I think that from both a practical -- and roadgeek -- standpoint, I-7 would be the optimal choice for the CA 99 corridor. It's grid appropriate --
the most so -- it causes the least P.R. problems for Caltrans, since present CA 7 has virtually no history, lore, or any other issues surrounding its presence in the system, and could be renumbered with ease (Caltrans could potentially eliminate the E-W segment of CA 115, run it down to the 8/7 interchange, and then continue south to the border over the current alignment). The number could be either Congressionally established (any number of Congressfolks from the valley, including the new kids or possibly even McCarthy, the pending minority leader, could shepherd such legislative language through the process) or go the SCOURN route, which would necessarily involve a submission from Caltrans. However, given their historic disinterest/disdain, that would be the trickiest approach (the issue might be put into "study" mode indefinitely!). But I-7 as a designation wouldn't be problematic at the federal level, whereas a second out-of-place I-99 might raise more objections than eyebrows; if SCOURN were involved, they'd probably toss that idea out in a hot N.Y. second -- remember, they got grid-consciously pissy when NC suggested I-36 for the US 70 corridor because it was technically north of I-40. IMO, no one out here should get gratuitously stupid when it comes to the numbering issue; pick the least objectionable
appropriate number and run with it.
Quote from: michravera on November 27, 2018, 04:02:31 PM
Nah! Just route I-305 all of the way down to Wheeler Ridge!
You joke, but you could always take I-205 off the Tracy Bypass and stick it on 99 from Wheeler Ridge to at least Stockton.
I agree with Max that it would be a long-ass 3di.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on November 28, 2018, 11:29:27 PM
Quote from: michravera on November 27, 2018, 04:02:31 PM
Nah! Just route I-305 all of the way down to Wheeler Ridge!
You joke, but you could always take I-205 off the Tracy Bypass and stick it on 99 from Wheeler Ridge to at least Stockton.
I agree with Max that it would be a long-ass 3di.
My point is that numbering the whole damned thing I-305 would:
1) Violate NOTHING
2) Be a continuations (although through a 90 degree turn) of an existing route. Who cares if CalTrans ever signs the existing portion or not? It might be better, if they didn't.
3) Give the route an I- designation. Only Road Geeks would feel slighted that it is "only a 3di".
4) Not require renumbering ANYTHING ELSE
5) Be done incrementally and with "FUTURE" or CASR-305 signs until all of the problems are eliminated or waivers obtained.
6) Is similar to what was done with US-395 between Carson City and Reno. They didn't want to waste "I-9" on such a short route, but they wanted an Interstate designation so I-580 made sense
7) Even kind of makes sense since this is a Spur Route INTO a city. OK, so it is a couple dozen cities, what does it matter?
8) Stay completely within a state's boundaries (and NOT just technically)
9) Not be confusing to anyone (and anyone who did get confused could fix themselves through some of the cross routes of which there are teens)
10) Not open up a bunch of I-x0Y routes with which Road Geeks or politicians could tamper.
11) Enable contemporaneous display of "Historic US 99" signs at appropriate places.
If the only drawback is the length of the 3di, I humbly suggest that we get over ourselves.
The only real alternative that does all 11 of the things that I enumerated above is to revive the "I-5E" designation and no one really wants a split route at all, least of all of this kind of distance, and especially no one wants to renumber the existing I-5 as "I-5W" or "I-3" or "I-1".
Yeah, Yeah, Yeah. I-7 would sort of work with only a little fuss, but I-305/CASR-305 could be done TODAY with only a small change to the California Highway Code. Once we get the Feds to go along, the rest gets done. Also, if we got busy on CASR-305, it would look like the Feds were dragging their feet and not the other way around (which *IS* the truth).
6) Is similar to what was done with US-395 between Carson City and Reno. They didn't want to waste "I-9" on such a short route, but they wanted an Interstate designation so I-580 made sense
Not to veer too off point, but how come it was made I-580, not I-180? As there is no other x80 3di interstates in Nevada.
Quote from: MrAndy1369 on November 29, 2018, 03:07:53 PM
6) Is similar to what was done with US-395 between Carson City and Reno. They didn't want to waste "I-9" on such a short route, but they wanted an Interstate designation so I-580 made sense
Not to veer too off point, but how come it was made I-580, not I-180? As there is no other x80 3di interstates in Nevada.
My thinking is that Nevada has 1xx, 2xx, 3xx, and 4xx in use for various types of routes and it was known that I-580 wouldn't conflict with any of those. You will notice that they use I-515 in southern Nevada (ok, so they use I-215 also, but it is short, stays close to I-15, and maybe the 21xs aren't used with the other 2xxs route types {or maybe 215 fits the pattern}.)
Quote from: michravera on November 29, 2018, 10:17:55 AM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on November 28, 2018, 11:29:27 PM
Quote from: michravera on November 27, 2018, 04:02:31 PM
Nah! Just route I-305 all of the way down to Wheeler Ridge!
You joke, but you could always take I-205 off the Tracy Bypass and stick it on 99 from Wheeler Ridge to at least Stockton.
I agree with Max that it would be a long-ass 3di.
My point is that numbering the whole damned thing I-305 would:
1) Violate NOTHING
2) Be a continuations (although through a 90 degree turn) of an existing route. Who cares if CalTrans ever signs the existing portion or not? It might be better, if they didn't.
3) Give the route an I- designation. Only Road Geeks would feel slighted that it is "only a 3di".
4) Not require renumbering ANYTHING ELSE
5) Be done incrementally and with "FUTURE" or CASR-305 signs until all of the problems are eliminated or waivers obtained.
6) Is similar to what was done with US-395 between Carson City and Reno. They didn't want to waste "I-9" on such a short route, but they wanted an Interstate designation so I-580 made sense
7) Even kind of makes sense since this is a Spur Route INTO a city. OK, so it is a couple dozen cities, what does it matter?
8) Stay completely within a state's boundaries (and NOT just technically)
9) Not be confusing to anyone (and anyone who did get confused could fix themselves through some of the cross routes of which there are teens)
10) Not open up a bunch of I-x0Y routes with which Road Geeks or politicians could tamper.
11) Enable contemporaneous display of "Historic US 99" signs at appropriate places.
If the only drawback is the length of the 3di, I humbly suggest that we get over ourselves.
The only real alternative that does all 11 of the things that I enumerated above is to revive the "I-5E" designation and no one really wants a split route at all, least of all of this kind of distance, and especially no one wants to renumber the existing I-5 as "I-5W" or "I-3" or "I-1".
Yeah, Yeah, Yeah. I-7 would sort of work with only a little fuss, but I-305/CASR-305 could be done TODAY with only a small change to the California Highway Code. Once we get the Feds to go along, the rest gets done. Also, if we got busy on CASR-305, it would look like the Feds were dragging their feet and not the other way around (which *IS* the truth).
(point by point)(1) Not true; the definition of CA I-305 in Title 23/139 code would have to be changed to include CA 99, which would leave a "spur" along the CA 51 portion from the Oak Park/US 50 interchange north to the "C" street overpass, the end of the chargeable Interstate portion of the biz loop; that would have to be addressed in any change to the present route definition.
(2) See (1) above.
(3) CA 99 from Wheeler Ridge to US 50 is already a "future" Interstate per the 2005 designation of HPC #54 as such; any numbering consideration was kicked down the road at that time. So any number acceptable to the various parties (save an arbitrary Congressional selection) could be considered. But in addition, see (1) above.
(4) The selection of 7 over 9 was intended to make that process as painless as possible for all parties involved. Also, see (1) above.
(5) That process would be applicable to
any number selected.
(6) The NV I-580 designation has been around for about 37 years but unsigned until a significant portion of the route was constructed. There's no indication that I-9 was in serious consideration at any time (if Roadfro or any other poster has any information to indicate otherwise, please chime in!).
(7) Gimme a fucking break! A 300-mile spur is really stretching the limits of systemic credibility.
(8) Pointless point. Only valid to those who whine about intrastate 2dis; this would be longer than any of TX's intrastate Interstates.
(9) Huh? :confused:
(10) I-380 (functional spur of I-280) and I-980 (connecting 580 & 880) say hello. There's still 705 available in the state; someone in the Valley would probably think of applying it somewhere along the corridor (maybe into Visalia?).
(11) Could be done regardless of Interstate designation.
And no, some of us reserve the right to get righteously pissed about really egregious and unnecessarily dumb designation selections. Yeah, we care -- and aren't going to give up caring about such things.
And regardless of what number is selected, it'll still require vetting at both state and federal levels; because of (1) above, I-305 would actually require multiple processes -- considerably more than a SCOURN submission and a
lot more than getting a Congressperson to slip in some authorizing language into the yearly budget (which is how I-22, I-11, I-14, and I-42 were born). Since there's already a corridor ready and waiting, adding a numerical designation would be a relatively straightforward process with ample precedent. Now -- getting appropriations for the upgrades is another story altogether -- but that situation would pertain regardless of numerical designation.
Something I put together for the original CA 51 which was a former segment of US 101 in Orange:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2024/03/the-original-california-state-route-51.html?m=1
Maybe if they ever decide to decommission Business 80 in Sacramento, they should just sign the north-south segment as CA 51. After all, a number of overhead signs on the Business 80/US 50 duplex are signed as US 50 only (although there are plenty of Business 80 markers along the corridor). However, I view the prospect of Sacramento decommissioning Business 80 to be very unlikely.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 01, 2024, 01:13:33 PM
Maybe if they ever decide to decommission Business 80 in Sacramento, they should just sign the north-south segment as CA 51. After all, a number of overhead signs on the Business 80/US 50 duplex are signed as US 50 only (although there are plenty of Business 80 markers along the corridor). However, I view the prospect of Sacramento decommissioning Business 80 to be very unlikely.
Not up to Sacramento (the city). CA 51 being signed as I-80BL is due to the State Highway Code (351.1 specifically) mandating it.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 01, 2024, 01:30:57 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 01, 2024, 01:13:33 PM
Maybe if they ever decide to decommission Business 80 in Sacramento, they should just sign the north-south segment as CA 51. After all, a number of overhead signs on the Business 80/US 50 duplex are signed as US 50 only (although there are plenty of Business 80 markers along the corridor). However, I view the prospect of Sacramento decommissioning Business 80 to be very unlikely.
Not up to Sacramento (the city). CA 51 being signed as I-80BL is due to the State Highway Code (351.1 specifically) mandating it.
And IIRC, Caltrans took the opportunity to remove some BL 80 signs along the stretch concurrent with US 50 during the "Fix 50" project a little while back (or at least didn't replace them), since that stretch is
not mandated to be signed as BL 80 in the State Highway Code.
Seems to me like it would make sense to remove BL 80 from the code and let the highway just be signed as SR 51 (it could even retain the "Capital City Freeway" name). Let BL 80 be applied to an appropriate surface alignment instead.
Mostly yes, I did find a couple left over reassurance shields on US 50 after that project.
Quote from: roadfro on March 03, 2024, 01:53:59 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 01, 2024, 01:30:57 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 01, 2024, 01:13:33 PM
Maybe if they ever decide to decommission Business 80 in Sacramento, they should just sign the north-south segment as CA 51. After all, a number of overhead signs on the Business 80/US 50 duplex are signed as US 50 only (although there are plenty of Business 80 markers along the corridor). However, I view the prospect of Sacramento decommissioning Business 80 to be very unlikely.
Not up to Sacramento (the city). CA 51 being signed as I-80BL is due to the State Highway Code (351.1 specifically) mandating it.
And IIRC, Caltrans took the opportunity to remove some BL 80 signs along the stretch concurrent with US 50 during the "Fix 50" project a little while back (or at least didn't replace them), since that stretch is not mandated to be signed as BL 80 in the State Highway Code.
Seems to me like it would make sense to remove BL 80 from the code and let the highway just be signed as SR 51 (it could even retain the "Capital City Freeway" name). Let BL 80 be applied to an appropriate surface alignment instead.
I totally agree with this approach. For CA, business routes generally mean the old surface alignment with gas stations, restaurants, and other businesses. A freeway biz route is a little confusing.
Also, when I lived in the area, it seemed confusing to a lot of newcomers (like CSUS or UCD students who weren't from the area) to explain directions when there were two 80 freeways in the town. Directions from Davis to Arden Fair Mall would be to take 80 and not take the exit for 80 to Reno before hitting Downtown Sacramento but then taking the second 80 to Reno with the green signs.
CA generally is a place where highways are distinguished by the different numbering, not by the shield. (E.g. CA-210 and I-210 are the same highway referred to as the 210, independent of what is actually signed.)
The Biz-80 freeway had its place when they renumbered the existing 80 that followed that path to the I-880 bypass freeway. But at this point in time, it doesn't seem to do any good. Thru traffic between Bay Area and Nevada are using the 80 bypass (signed for Reno or San Francisco) and traffic into Sacramento will follow the signs along US 50 or CA-51. It is a distinct freeway from I-80, all we need are the signs to state it as such.
Quote from: roadfro on March 03, 2024, 01:53:59 PM
Seems to me like it would make sense to remove BL 80 from the code and let the highway just be signed as SR 51 (it could even retain the "Capital City Freeway" name). Let BL 80 be applied to an appropriate surface alignment instead.
If this is the case (and presumably, if you live in California), then make a case to a State Assembly or State Senate critter to introduce a bill to do just that. Make the case that the designation is no longer necessary for continuity and the public. However, you'll probably need to do a cost analysis of the resigning costs, both for the signs on the freeway itself (reassurance markers, transition signs ... both of which would need to add Route 51 signage) and for all the off-freeway directional signage pointing motorists to on/off ramps. My guess is that you would likely be talking 1.5 million (simply because that's a good minimum cost for any government change), and the benefits wouldn't justify the costs. Another approach would simply be to remove the legislative line, but let it continue to be marked as BL 80. Not sure that's better.
Cost is likely the sole reason why Caltrans hasn't pushed a bill to change the legal definition. They've likely got better places to spend the money.
ETA: Personally, I'd be happier if CA 51 was renumbered as part of CA 99, and the legislative definition of 99 was just changed to end at I-80. If you're going to renumber, that's a much better number to make visible, and actually might help the public. But there's no cost justification for that either.
Quote from: cahwyguy on March 10, 2024, 10:27:43 AM
Quote from: roadfro on March 03, 2024, 01:53:59 PM
Seems to me like it would make sense to remove BL 80 from the code and let the highway just be signed as SR 51 (it could even retain the "Capital City Freeway" name). Let BL 80 be applied to an appropriate surface alignment instead.
If this is the case (and presumably, if you live in California), then make a case to a State Assembly or State Senate critter to introduce a bill to do just that. Make the case that the designation is no longer necessary for continuity and the public. However, you'll probably need to do a cost analysis of the resigning costs, both for the signs on the freeway itself (reassurance markers, transition signs ... both of which would need to add Route 51 signage) and for all the off-freeway directional signage pointing motorists to on/off ramps. My guess is that you would likely be talking 1.5 million (simply because that's a good minimum cost for any government change), and the benefits wouldn't justify the costs. Another approach would simply be to remove the legislative line, but let it continue to be marked as BL 80. Not sure that's better.
Cost is likely the sole reason why Caltrans hasn't pushed a bill to change the legal definition. They've likely got better places to spend the money.
ETA: Personally, I'd be happier if CA 51 was renumbered as part of CA 99, and the legislative definition of 99 was just changed to end at I-80. If you're going to renumber, that's a much better number to make visible, and actually might help the public. But there's no cost justification for that either.
... but cost didn't stop them resigning it back in the 1980s!
The problem with signing it as CASR-99 is that someone trying to follow CASR-99 further north ends up diverted further away from the continuation. They end up on I-80, probably headed east, and would have to go west to pick up CASR-99, so there would have to be "TO CASR-99" signs or, contravening CalTrans's usual practice, a Multiplex.
Quote from: michravera on March 10, 2024, 03:30:40 PM
(a) ... but cost didn't stop them resigning it back in the 1980s!
9b) The problem with signing it as CASR-99 is that someone trying to follow CASR-99 further north ends up diverted further away from the continuation. They end up on I-80, probably headed east, and would have to go west to pick up CASR-99, so there would have to be "TO CASR-99" signs or, contravening CalTrans's usual practice, a Multiplex.
Re: (a) The budget situation was very different then, and they were trying to promote BL 80 as a loop after I-80 was pulled off to the new routing.
Re: (b) They don't currently have signs pointing to the rest of CA 99, which doesn't begin again until near the airport.
There is CA 99 reassurance signage on US 50 and I-5. Enough at least that while there is a gap in the route definition, getting to the rest of 99 is fairly clear.
Heh. Budget situation was very different for all states in the 1980s when it came to Interstates. :D
Quote from: michravera on March 10, 2024, 03:30:40 PM
Quote from: cahwyguy on March 10, 2024, 10:27:43 AM
Quote from: roadfro on March 03, 2024, 01:53:59 PM
Seems to me like it would make sense to remove BL 80 from the code and let the highway just be signed as SR 51 (it could even retain the "Capital City Freeway" name). Let BL 80 be applied to an appropriate surface alignment instead.
If this is the case (and presumably, if you live in California), then make a case to a State Assembly or State Senate critter to introduce a bill to do just that. Make the case that the designation is no longer necessary for continuity and the public. However, you'll probably need to do a cost analysis of the resigning costs, both for the signs on the freeway itself (reassurance markers, transition signs ... both of which would need to add Route 51 signage) and for all the off-freeway directional signage pointing motorists to on/off ramps. My guess is that you would likely be talking 1.5 million (simply because that's a good minimum cost for any government change), and the benefits wouldn't justify the costs. Another approach would simply be to remove the legislative line, but let it continue to be marked as BL 80. Not sure that's better.
Cost is likely the sole reason why Caltrans hasn't pushed a bill to change the legal definition. They've likely got better places to spend the money.
ETA: Personally, I'd be happier if CA 51 was renumbered as part of CA 99, and the legislative definition of 99 was just changed to end at I-80. If you're going to renumber, that's a much better number to make visible, and actually might help the public. But there's no cost justification for that either.
... but cost didn't stop them resigning it back in the 1980s!
The problem with signing it as CASR-99 is that someone trying to follow CASR-99 further north ends up diverted further away from the continuation. They end up on I-80, probably headed east, and would have to go west to pick up CASR-99, so there would have to be "TO CASR-99" signs or, contravening CalTrans's usual practice, a Multiplex.
If 99 were headed to 80, then there would be an impossible way to stay on route as there are no ramps from current Biz-80 EB to I-80 WB. IMO, it would only make sense for this to be 99 if a) the old US 99E were revived as CA-99, meaning a multiplex along I-80 and then CA-99 would follow CA-65, CA-70, and CA-149 via Marysville and then rejoin CA-99 before Chico, with existing parts of CA-99 in Yuba City area and CA-70 south of Marysville being renumbered to other numbers or b) if the entire CA-99 north of Sacramento Airport were renumbered to a new highway, so as to sever CA-99 north of Sacramento from CA-99 south of Sacramento.
It seems better to not adjust CA-99's routing at all, and to only focus on the numbering of Biz-80. Several options: a) Existing Biz-80, b) CA-51 its legislative identity, c) CA-244 which ties in with the stub to Auburn Blvd, d) CA-899, a number that hints to the highway being a connection between 80 and 99.
Quote from: mrsman on March 11, 2024, 03:41:31 PM
IMO, it would only make sense for this to be 99 if a) the old US 99E were revived as CA-99, meaning a multiplex along I-80 and then CA-99 would follow CA-65, CA-70, and CA-149 via Marysville and then rejoin CA-99 before Chico...
Yeah, that's what was going through my head; I completely forgot where 99 joined I-5. Side effect of being mostly down in Southern California.
I've never understood the signing issues that Sacramento gave itself because of the cancelled Capital City Freeway project causing 80 to not be interstate standards around Marconi Ave (80 is also not interstate standards in a lot of CA but apparently this was too big of a no-no). But just in general, why did they go with the business loop when there are several interstate 5 designations still available (or there were at that time)? I know the x80 was filled up because 80 took over 880 to move it to the Bay Area, but there was still 105 (century freeway hadn't been built yet).
Quote from: Voyager on March 15, 2024, 03:48:14 PM
I've never understood the signing issues that Sacramento gave itself because of the cancelled Capital City Freeway project causing 80 to not be interstate standards around Marconi Ave (80 is also not interstate standards in a lot of CA but apparently this was too big of a no-no). But just in general, why did they go with the business loop when there are several interstate 5 designations still available (or there were at that time)? I know the x80 was filled up because 80 took over 880 to move it to the Bay Area, but there was still 105 (century freeway hadn't been built yet).
I-305 indeed is the FHWA-only designation for the section that was primarily built as I-80 (specifically from the old 80/880 junction in West Sacramento, now 80/50, to around E Street in Midtown Sacramento), but has never been signed nor has it ever been a California legislative route.
Since the route had been Interstate 80 from around 1962-1982, I suspect the number was retained for continuity (at the time), back in this pre-GPS/pre-Internet era.
As for the remaining I-5 based options:
I-105 was literally being built or proposed by the mid-1980s with land clearance activities going on. (That route designation was first codified in 1968)
I-305 ended up being the hidden number FHWA assigned to the Interstate-quality portion of US 50/Business 80.
I-705 has never been proposed in California. Route 905 (the future I-905) ended up being designated sometime in the mid-1980s.
Quote from: Voyager on March 15, 2024, 03:48:14 PM
But just in general, why did they go with the business loop when there are several interstate 5 designations still available (or there were at that time)? I know the x80 was filled up because 80 took over 880 to move it to the Bay Area, but there was still 105 (century freeway hadn't been built yet).
Probably for the same reason they didn't keep it I-80: If it wasn't suitable interstate quality for I-80, it wouldn't be interstate quality for I-x05. Further, if there were no plans to make it current interstate quality, there was no need to use a state-shield x05.
Is there any law or regulation that prohibits a 4di?
Quote from: pderocco on March 15, 2024, 11:08:35 PM
Is there any law or regulation that prohibits a 4di?
I don't think there necessarily is, but the FHWA / MUTCD specified Interstate shield that is 30" x 24" is intended for 3 numerals. So you may be constrained by that definition.
Quote from: Alps on March 16, 2024, 05:56:17 PM
Quote from: pderocco on March 15, 2024, 11:08:35 PM
Is there any law or regulation that prohibits a 4di?
I don't think there necessarily is, but the FHWA / MUTCD specified Interstate shield that is 30" x 24" is intended for 3 numerals. So you may be constrained by that definition.
Not that Route 51 should be an x05, but... so how do they fit H201 (which is effectively 4 numerals) into that shield. Must be a tight fit.
Quote from: cahwyguy on March 16, 2024, 06:22:20 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 16, 2024, 05:56:17 PM
Quote from: pderocco on March 15, 2024, 11:08:35 PM
Is there any law or regulation that prohibits a 4di?
I don't think there necessarily is, but the FHWA / MUTCD specified Interstate shield that is 30" x 24" is intended for 3 numerals. So you may be constrained by that definition.
Not that Route 51 should be an x05, but... so how do they fit H201 (which is effectively 4 numerals) into that shield. Must be a tight fit.
Like this:
https://flic.kr/p/2mHbjRq
Quote from: pderocco on March 15, 2024, 11:08:35 PM
Is there any law or regulation that prohibits a 4di?
No numbering mechanism is available to create one, but nothing prohibits one either. I've suggested several short I-xx80s in the Bay Area, if ever made full freeway connectors. A couple of I-xx05s wouldn't be bad for Fresno or Bakersfield. Of course, if CASR-99 is ever fully upgraded and renumbered, or CASR-65 is ever completed as anything besides a line on the map, more connectors would be needed.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 16, 2024, 06:37:03 PM
Quote from: cahwyguy on March 16, 2024, 06:22:20 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 16, 2024, 05:56:17 PM
Quote from: pderocco on March 15, 2024, 11:08:35 PM
Is there any law or regulation that prohibits a 4di?
I don't think there necessarily is, but the FHWA / MUTCD specified Interstate shield that is 30" x 24" is intended for 3 numerals. So you may be constrained by that definition.
Not that Route 51 should be an x05, but... so how do they fit H201 (which is effectively 4 numerals) into that shield. Must be a tight fit.
Like this:
https://flic.kr/p/2mHbjRq
Since there are so few Interstate routes in Hawaii (or Alaska), they could have used two digits for the loops and spurs instead of three.
Quote from: Alps on March 16, 2024, 05:56:17 PM
Quote from: pderocco on March 15, 2024, 11:08:35 PM
Is there any law or regulation that prohibits a 4di?
I don't think there necessarily is, but the FHWA / MUTCD specified Interstate shield that is 30" x 24" is intended for 3 numerals. So you may be constrained by that definition.
If the first two digits were 11, it wouldn't be so hard.
Watching the above video reminded me of a certain point. While the general trend in CA is to remove the freeway names from the BGSes, it seems that at least at the Biz-80/CA-160 interchange, the signage for the Capital City Fwy still remains. See timestamp 3:45. IMO, it would be better to replace "Capital City Fwy" with Fresno and San Francisco (the most likely traffic controls for traffic heading in this direction, Fresno continues straight, San Francisco follows the historic routing of Biz-80).
Quote from: cahwyguy on March 16, 2024, 06:22:20 PMQuote from: Alps on March 16, 2024, 05:56:17 PMQuote from: pderocco on March 15, 2024, 11:08:35 PMIs there any law or regulation that prohibits a 4di?
I don't think there necessarily is, but the FHWA / MUTCD specified Interstate shield that is 30" x 24" is intended for 3 numerals. So you may be constrained by that definition.
Not that Route 51 should be an x05, but... so how do they fit H201 (which is effectively 4 numerals) into that shield. Must be a tight fit.
Can be done with Series B. If using something like Illustrator, you can set the maximum horizontal distance and then have the height adjusted proportionally. Not sure what software is used to create shields/BGS, but no doubt it has a similar feature.
Quote from: TheStranger on March 15, 2024, 04:12:36 PMI-305 indeed is the FHWA-only designation for the section that was primarily built as I-80 (specifically from the old 80/880 junction in West Sacramento, now 80/50, to around E Street in Midtown Sacramento), but has never been signed nor has it ever been a California legislative route.
So this would mean that the route of I-305 includes not just the US 50 portion but also the first mile or so of California SR 51 between US 50 and E Street. The non-Interstate portion of SR 51/BL 80 is from the American River northward to I-80, which includes the substandard American River bridge and Marconi Curve, among other issues. A project is pending to upgrade this section (not sure if this was mentioned upthread):
https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-3/d3-projects/d3-cap-city-corridor
QuoteThe Cap City Corridor (State Route 51 and adjacent streets) is the most congested corridor in the region. In 2016, SR 51/Cap City experienced over 2,050,000 vehicle hours of delay at a $27.5 million cost to users and had five of the region's top 10 bottlenecks. As the region continues to grow, conditions in the SR 51/Cap City Corridor are expected to worsen by 2035. To address the issues in the corridor and better meet the needs of drivers, transit riders, freight drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians, Caltrans initiated the Capital City (Cap City) Corridor Project: A collaborative, interagency planning process that coordinates and prioritizes potential multimodal projects in the corridor. There is no single project that will solve all the issues. Instead, it will require a suite of short-, medium- and long-term multimodal projects with planning and funding from multiple agencies (including):
- HOV lanes
- A multi-use Class I path across the American River
- Neighborhood bike infrastructure
- Improved pedestrian infrastructure
- Transit projects and improved connectivity to transit stations
The project page does not refer to this road as BL 80. As noted by others, at some point, it may be of interest to make the legislative change to delete the BL 80 reference for SR 51.
Quote from: andy3175 on April 21, 2024, 10:48:21 PMQuote from: TheStranger on March 15, 2024, 04:12:36 PMI-305 indeed is the FHWA-only designation for the section that was primarily built as I-80 (specifically from the old 80/880 junction in West Sacramento, now 80/50, to around E Street in Midtown Sacramento), but has never been signed nor has it ever been a California legislative route.
So this would mean that the route of I-305 includes not just the US 50 portion but also the first mile or so of California SR 51 between US 50 and E Street. The non-Interstate portion of SR 51/BL 80 is from the American River northward to I-80, which includes the substandard American River bridge and Marconi Curve, among other issues. A project is pending to upgrade this section (not sure if this was mentioned upthread):
https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-3/d3-projects/d3-cap-city-corridor
QuoteThe Cap City Corridor (State Route 51 and adjacent streets) is the most congested corridor in the region. In 2016, SR 51/Cap City experienced over 2,050,000 vehicle hours of delay at a $27.5 million cost to users and had five of the region's top 10 bottlenecks. As the region continues to grow, conditions in the SR 51/Cap City Corridor are expected to worsen by 2035. To address the issues in the corridor and better meet the needs of drivers, transit riders, freight drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians, Caltrans initiated the Capital City (Cap City) Corridor Project: A collaborative, interagency planning process that coordinates and prioritizes potential multimodal projects in the corridor. There is no single project that will solve all the issues. Instead, it will require a suite of short-, medium- and long-term multimodal projects with planning and funding from multiple agencies (including):
- HOV lanes
- A multi-use Class I path across the American River
- Neighborhood bike infrastructure
- Improved pedestrian infrastructure
- Transit projects and improved connectivity to transit stations
The project page does not refer to this road as BL 80. As noted by others, at some point, it may be of interest to make the legislative change to delete the BL 80 reference for SR 51.
The current Sacramento Light Rail crossing of the American River - the only one in fact at this time - uses the North Sacramento Freeway/Route 160 right of way, rather than Business 80.
In fact, I don't think there is any pedestrian infrastructure for Biz 80, unlike 160 or the next few bridges over (H Street and Howe Avenue bridges)
I have biked across the American River ca. 2004 on an old railroad bridge approximately north of 19th Street, a little bit east of the 160 bridge.
---
Pre-1979, when the I-80 upgrade project was still on the table in Arden, the plan was to route the new freeway lanes along the railroad right of way (which got taken over by the light rail line instead) and some overpasses were specifically built in anticipation of the freeway that never happened (notably, El Camino Avenue/former US 40 was severed from its historic link to Auburn Boulevard as a result). I do recall someone in one of the threads here stated that the original plan was to have both today's Business 80 and the new lanes parallel to the tracks operational at the same time! I mention this because this would have meant that the Marconi Curve would have stayed in the freeway system, and I'm not sure that any plan for straightening it or realigning it has emerged.
When the Interstate 80 realignment project was still active, how would upgrading the existing Interstate 80 (present-day Business 80) alignment to Interstate Standards rather than construct a new alignment have been? Would it have been too impractical or difficult?
It would have required a bunch of new right of way that the state was just not willing to invest in. Straightening the
Elvas Freeway and Ben Ali Freeway was much of the problem.
While Ben Ali is a neighborhood in Sacramento (I just learned that from Wikipedia), I don't remember seeing any of Business 80 being named after the neighborhood. It is likely a moot point since all of Business 80 has been named the Capital City Freeway since 1996.
I'm just using the names the freeway segments originally had. I tend to find they are better at describing where things are on CA 51. But yes, Ben Ali was one of many communities which has been annexed into Sacramento.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 23, 2024, 11:28:52 AMI'm just using the names the freeway segments originally had. I tend to find they are better at describing where things are on CA 51. But yes, Ben Ali was one of many communities which has been annexed into Sacramento.
If I'm remembering correctly, the names used were:
29/30 Freeway for the section built as I-80/US 99E in the early 1960s (and likely part of I-305 based on FHWA's mileage count), a local moniker and not an official name I think
Elvas Freeway (IIRC, built first as US 99E in the late 1950s) for the section from E Street across the American River (near Elvas Avenue) to Route 160
North Sacramento Freeway (former US 40/99E)) as continuation of that name from the Route 160 freeway, to Marconi Curve
Ben Ali-Roseville Freeway (former US 40/99E) from Marconi Curve northeast past today's 80/Business 80 interchange, to Roseville itself around the Riverside Avenue left exit
Don't forget the W-X.
I've heard of the Roseville Freeway name, but not the Ben Ali name. I had also heard of the other names listed as well.
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on Today at 06:50:03 PMDon't forget the W-X.
I think WX Freeway is the only one of the 1950s-1960s Sacramento-area freeway names that actually has become common usage! Here are some recent news clips in the last few years that refer to the moniker:
It's also mentioned in this CBS local writeup:
https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/caltrans-hwy-50-project-nearly-75-percent-done-but-drivers-can-expect-more-changes/
I think the fact that the WX segment had the old triple concurrency of 50/Business 80/99 - and serves to connect 99 directly to 5 - has kept it prominently in the public consciousness.