News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?

Started by ACSCmapcollector, July 12, 2016, 08:40:50 PM

Previous topic - Next topic


coatimundi

Quote from: sdmichael on August 25, 2016, 01:22:45 AM
This might help - http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/structur/strmaint/brlog/logpdf/logd03.pdf

And, in another thread, I think it was sparker who had a delightfully detailed account of the trials and tribulations of the construction of I-5E south of Elk Grove as an explanation of the later dates in that corridor. It sat on maps as a dashed line for many years while this was worked out.

ACSCmapcollector

Quote from: coatimundi on August 25, 2016, 03:21:18 PM
Quote from: sdmichael on August 25, 2016, 01:22:45 AM
This might help - http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/structur/strmaint/brlog/logpdf/logd03.pdf

And, in another thread, I think it was sparker who had a delightfully detailed account of the trials and tribulations of the construction of I-5E south of Elk Grove as an explanation of the later dates in that corridor. It sat on maps as a dashed line for many years while this was worked out.

Where at?

sparker

Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on August 25, 2016, 08:23:06 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on August 25, 2016, 03:21:18 PM
Quote from: sdmichael on August 25, 2016, 01:22:45 AM
This might help - http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/structur/strmaint/brlog/logpdf/logd03.pdf

And, in another thread, I think it was sparker who had a delightfully detailed account of the trials and tribulations of the construction of I-5E south of Elk Grove as an explanation of the later dates in that corridor. It sat on maps as a dashed line for many years while this was worked out.

Where at?

I discussed this in two threads:  this one (the first post on page 2), and the one entitled "Temporary I-5 Shields on CA 99 between Stockton & Sacramento"; the latter is the one talking about the construction difficulties on that section of I-5; the former talks about the routing in relation to local highways and other things "on the ground".

ACSCmapcollector

Quote from: sparker on August 25, 2016, 09:11:12 PM
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on August 25, 2016, 08:23:06 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on August 25, 2016, 03:21:18 PM
Quote from: sdmichael on August 25, 2016, 01:22:45 AM
This might help - http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/structur/strmaint/brlog/logpdf/logd03.pdf

And, in another thread, I think it was sparker who had a delightfully detailed account of the trials and tribulations of the construction of I-5E south of Elk Grove as an explanation of the later dates in that corridor. It sat on maps as a dashed line for many years while this was worked out.

Where at?

I discussed this in two threads:  this one (the first post on page 2), and the one entitled "Temporary I-5 Shields on CA 99 between Stockton & Sacramento"; the latter is the one talking about the construction difficulties on that section of I-5; the former talks about the routing in relation to local highways and other things "on the ground".

Ok good  :clap:

Quillz

Quote from: jrouse on August 13, 2016, 12:32:26 AM
Quote from: coatimundi on August 13, 2016, 12:02:30 AM
Quote from: jrouse on August 12, 2016, 11:56:23 PM
There's no plan to do away with 980, as far as I know.

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

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

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


iPhone
If anything, 980 should be extended to take over all of 24.

cahwyguy

As I recall, the section of Route 24 from I-580 to I-680 is pretty old, and includes the Caldecott tunnels, which may not meet current requirements. It includes not only the route to I-680, but all the way out to Route 4 in Pittsburg.  Plus there would be the cost of resignage (which is substantial), and it is multi-county. Note that the signage impacts not only impact the Caltrans budget, but county and city budgets for directional signage to the route, plus costs to local businesses in their directions.

What is the benefit for that cost? Will it reduce accidents? Create significant jobs?

People here love to think "let's renumber this to that" for some form of perceived logical consistency. In the real world, everything has its cost, and those costs must be justified by the benefits. That resignage cost could be used elsewhere to resurface highways, improve guard rails and safety breakaway systems, add onramp metering. For the travelling consumer, which is a better use of the funds?
Daniel - California Highway Guy ● Highway Site: http://www.cahighways.org/ ●  Blog: http://blog.cahighways.org/ ● Podcast (CA Route by Route): http://caroutebyroute.org/ ● Follow California Highways on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cahighways

kkt

Probably just meant renumbering the 580 to 680 portion, not route 24 east of 680.  The old bores, now for eastbound traffic, certainly don't meet current standards for shoulder width, however the third bore probably does and the fourth bore certainly does.  The rest of 24 between 580 and 680 meets current standards I'm pretty sure.

A confusing highway network also has a cost, like routes changing number for no reason that's apparent to the casual driver.

I'd seriously consider renumbering 980 to 24.


cahwyguy

Truthfully, the casual driver doesn't think about the number changing. They are following directions to someplace, and simply know "Take X, it becomes Y, get off at exit Z". Serious drivers know their routes and don't care. The only people that care are folks like us, and not even all of us. As for me, I just report what is, and let those who balance the funding decide where they want to spend it.
Daniel - California Highway Guy ● Highway Site: http://www.cahighways.org/ ●  Blog: http://blog.cahighways.org/ ● Podcast (CA Route by Route): http://caroutebyroute.org/ ● Follow California Highways on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cahighways

Quillz

Quote from: cahwyguy on September 12, 2016, 08:26:06 PM
As I recall, the section of Route 24 from I-580 to I-680 is pretty old, and includes the Caldecott tunnels, which may not meet current requirements. It includes not only the route to I-680, but all the way out to Route 4 in Pittsburg.  Plus there would be the cost of resignage (which is substantial), and it is multi-county. Note that the signage impacts not only impact the Caltrans budget, but county and city budgets for directional signage to the route, plus costs to local businesses in their directions.

What is the benefit for that cost? Will it reduce accidents? Create significant jobs?

People here love to think "let's renumber this to that" for some form of perceived logical consistency. In the real world, everything has its cost, and those costs must be justified by the benefits. That resignage cost could be used elsewhere to resurface highways, improve guard rails and safety breakaway systems, add onramp metering. For the travelling consumer, which is a better use of the funds?

QuoteWill it reduce accidents?
If 980 was to actually take over 24 and be built up to interstate highway standards, I think it would. My understanding this was a large part of the reason for Caltrans' interstate push in the Bay Area during the 80s. And why 37 has been effectively been built up to freeway standards.

sparker

Quote from: cahwyguy on September 12, 2016, 08:26:06 PM
As I recall, the section of Route 24 from I-580 to I-680 is pretty old, and includes the Caldecott tunnels, which may not meet current requirements. It includes not only the route to I-680, but all the way out to Route 4 in Pittsburg.  Plus there would be the cost of resignage (which is substantial), and it is multi-county. Note that the signage impacts not only impact the Caltrans budget, but county and city budgets for directional signage to the route, plus costs to local businesses in their directions.

What is the benefit for that cost? Will it reduce accidents? Create significant jobs?

People here love to think "let's renumber this to that" for some form of perceived logical consistency. In the real world, everything has its cost, and those costs must be justified by the benefits. That resignage cost could be used elsewhere to resurface highways, improve guard rails and safety breakaway systems, add onramp metering. For the travelling consumer, which is a better use of the funds?

Quote from: cahwyguy on September 12, 2016, 09:48:09 PM
Truthfully, the casual driver doesn't think about the number changing. They are following directions to someplace, and simply know "Take X, it becomes Y, get off at exit Z". Serious drivers know their routes and don't care. The only people that care are folks like us, and not even all of us. As for me, I just report what is, and let those who balance the funding decide where they want to spend it.

I-980 has been around for 30+ years; CA 24, albeit with a few alignment changes, has been an East Bay fixture for 80+ years.  Is there a pressing need to spend $$ to change a bunch of signs -- much less try to get FHWA waivers for the EB Caldecott Tunnel?  At this point, I think not.  IMO, leave both 980 and 24 as they are; the number change doesn't seem to pose a navigation issue for drivers in general, who flock to -- and congest -- both numbered sections of the freeway on a daily basis!   

kkt

The Caldecott Tunnel is not so far from interstate standard.  Yes, on 2 or 3 of the bores, it doesn't meet current shoulder requirements, but the lanes are standard width, the sight lines are fine, the grades are gentle.  Most interstates constructed before the 1970s are similar or worse.
Caltrans posts it as a recommended long-distance truck route, except carrying inflammable materials is limited to 3:00-5:00 AM.

Quote from: Quillz on September 13, 2016, 12:07:10 AM
[Would making 24 an interstate reduce accidents?]

My understanding this was a large part of the reason for Caltrans' interstate push in the Bay Area during the 80s. And why 37 has been effectively been built up to freeway standards.

24's interchange with I-880 was incomplete and they didn't have state funds to build it.  With the cancellation of I-480 in San Francisco there were some interstate miles available to California and they used some of them to complete the 980 ramps and interchange with 880.  Caltrans didn't sign it as 980 for some years after it was complete, but since it was built with interstate funds they had to sign it, even though signing it is more to memorialize the funding source than to help drivers navigate.

It would be extremely problematic to widen the Caldecott tunnels, the bores are so close together.  And it would be another very expensive project that would add very little to safety.

37 is still a 2-lane road from route 121 to Mare Island, isn't it?  And has several at-grade intersections both in that section and between 101 and 121.  It's an expressway, nowhere near an interstate.


TheStranger

Quote from: cahwyguy on September 12, 2016, 08:26:06 PM
As I recall, the section of Route 24 from I-580 to I-680 is pretty old, and includes the Caldecott tunnels, which may not meet current requirements. It includes not only the route to I-680, but all the way out to Route 4 in Pittsburg. 


The Caldecott Tunnels do work a little differently now from 3 years ago, with four lanes in each direction at all times (as opposed to the shared center bore of the past).

24 past 680 hasn't been part of the route since 1990 or so, that segment in Concord is now Route 242 (though it was defined as such in 1964).

Quote from: kkt37 is still a 2-lane road from route 121 to Mare Island, isn't it?  And has several at-grade intersections both in that section and between 101 and 121.  It's an expressway, nowhere near an interstate.

From 121 to Mare Island, it is primarily a two-lane road with a Jersey barrier (after the old three lane configuration of the 1990s was a contributing factor to multiple collisions).  No stop signs or stop lights along that stretch but the lack of passing lanes does create problems when large trucks are on the road.  (There are indeed a few at-grades though they are extremely minor)

Chris Sampang

coatimundi

Quote from: TheStranger on September 13, 2016, 12:07:59 PM
Quote from: kkt37 is still a 2-lane road from route 121 to Mare Island, isn't it?  And has several at-grade intersections both in that section and between 101 and 121.  It's an expressway, nowhere near an interstate.

From 121 to Mare Island, it is primarily a two-lane road with a Jersey barrier (after the old three lane configuration of the 1990s was a contributing factor to multiple collisions).  No stop signs or stop lights along that stretch but the lack of passing lanes does create problems when large trucks are on the road.  (There are indeed a few at-grades though they are extremely minor)

Not even two weeks ago, I read about improvements at the Sears Point junction, with 121, and now I can't find anything on it. Maybe that's already been done?
That would be the first place to start on improving that road: interchange. But it's basically sitting on top of the wetlands, so I doubt that would be easy.

980 out to 680 does makes sense, I think, as it would aid the system as a whole. However, considering those little uptight communities along 24, the interstate designation alone - without any improvements - would bring fears of increased truck traffic.
And then the tunnels have that crazy small window for haz mat trucks. That doesn't necessarily preclude interstate designation, but it certainly doesn't help it.

cahwyguy

Quote24 past 680 hasn't been part of the route since 1990 or so, that segment in Concord is now Route 242 (though it was defined as such in 1964).

Look at the legislative definition. Yes, there is a route 242, but present day Route 24 does have a second segment that runs to Route 4 (see http://www.cahighways.org/017-024.html#024 ). It is distinct from 242. My notes show:

In 1963, this segment was defined as "Route 680 in Walnut Creek to Route 4 near Pittsburg." In 1981, Chapter 292 changed the wording to "near Walnut Creek", but it was changed back to "in Walnut Creek" by Chapter 1187 in 1990.

Planning maps have shown a routing that follows Willow Pass road from Walnut Creek to just outside of Antioch. Until 1991, Route 242 between Concord and Route 4 was signed as Route 24, but field reports indicate this is no longer the case. There is one map that shows Route 24 continuing northeast of Route 4 to Collinsville and then towards Route 160

In Concord, the freeway routing was constructed by 1992. The traversable routing that corresponds to the proposed bypass is Ygnacio Valley Road and Kirker Pass Road. The traversable routing was considered adequate in 1972, but local agencies have discouraged state adoption. The freeway route adoption was rescinded effective 4/16/1975.

Daniel - California Highway Guy ● Highway Site: http://www.cahighways.org/ ●  Blog: http://blog.cahighways.org/ ● Podcast (CA Route by Route): http://caroutebyroute.org/ ● Follow California Highways on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cahighways

TheStranger

Quote from: cahwyguy on September 13, 2016, 10:40:03 PM
Quote24 past 680 hasn't been part of the route since 1990 or so, that segment in Concord is now Route 242 (though it was defined as such in 1964).

Look at the legislative definition. Yes, there is a route 242, but present day Route 24 does have a second segment that runs to Route 4 (see http://www.cahighways.org/017-024.html#024 ). It is distinct from 242. My notes show:

In 1963, this segment was defined as "Route 680 in Walnut Creek to Route 4 near Pittsburg." In 1981, Chapter 292 changed the wording to "near Walnut Creek", but it was changed back to "in Walnut Creek" by Chapter 1187 in 1990.

Planning maps have shown a routing that follows Willow Pass road from Walnut Creek to just outside of Antioch. Until 1991, Route 242 between Concord and Route 4 was signed as Route 24, but field reports indicate this is no longer the case. There is one map that shows Route 24 continuing northeast of Route 4 to Collinsville and then towards Route 160

In Concord, the freeway routing was constructed by 1992. The traversable routing that corresponds to the proposed bypass is Ygnacio Valley Road and Kirker Pass Road. The traversable routing was considered adequate in 1972, but local agencies have discouraged state adoption. The freeway route adoption was rescinded effective 4/16/1975.



Ah, I completely misunderstood your initial post - when you said "24 from 580 to 680 was pretty old, which includes the section to Route 4" I thought you were referring either to the 1940s-1950s route to Sacramento, or the signed 1964-1990 Route 24 along 680 and 242. 

I have never seen the map that shows a proposed post-1964 24 going to Route 160 though.
Chris Sampang

PColumbus73

It would have made some sense to me if they had I-5 split the same way I-35 does. I don't see why the Bay Area AND Sacramento couldn't have a primary north-south Interstate connection.

TheStranger

Quote from: PColumbus73 on September 29, 2016, 09:31:22 PM
It would have made some sense to me if they had I-5 split the same way I-35 does. I don't see why the Bay Area AND Sacramento couldn't have a primary north-south Interstate connection.

While I always have found the idea of I-5W pretty cool...I think the huge difference between that and the 35 splits (and the old 15E in Riverside) is that 5W is not a remotely viable straight-through north-south corridor, unlike the ones that remained after 1980.

The current I-5 from Vernalis to Dunnigan via Sacramento is 107 miles; the I-5W routing between those two is 38 miles longer!  For comparison...

I-35W in Texas is 85 miles, I-35E is 97 miles
I-35W through Minneapolis is 42 miles, I-35E passing through St. Paul is 41 miles long
I-15 (along the former southern portion of Route 71 and the former Route 31) between Murrieta and Devore is 61 miles, while I-215 (encompassing the former I-15E) is 55 miles

Chris Sampang

coatimundi

This was discussed in another thread a couple of weeks ago, possibly in General Highway Talk, but I can't find it now.
There was a lot of discussion about the fact that, if the current 35 suffixes were removed, then there would be a hugely contentious fight on which side kept the 2di designation because of the competitive nature of both regions. For instance, in DFW, 35W is generally considered to be the best choice for thru traffic, both because of distance and because of lower traffic volumes, but Dallas would never let Fort Worth get something like that.

With 5W in California, I wonder if it was just something that was put on paper to placate Bay Area interests, but no one ever bothered to really properly sign it, and it was then mostly forgotten. Then, when the sweep-up of suffixes occurred, it was just removed.

kkt

Quote from: coatimundi on September 30, 2016, 12:30:01 PM
This was discussed in another thread a couple of weeks ago, possibly in General Highway Talk, but I can't find it now.
There was a lot of discussion about the fact that, if the current 35 suffixes were removed, then there would be a hugely contentious fight on which side kept the 2di designation because of the competitive nature of both regions. For instance, in DFW, 35W is generally considered to be the best choice for thru traffic, both because of distance and because of lower traffic volumes, but Dallas would never let Fort Worth get something like that.

With 5W in California, I wonder if it was just something that was put on paper to placate Bay Area interests, but no one ever bothered to really properly sign it, and it was then mostly forgotten. Then, when the sweep-up of suffixes occurred, it was just removed.

I-5W was signed, though.

myosh_tino

Quote from: coatimundi on September 30, 2016, 12:30:01 PM
With 5W in California, I wonder if it was just something that was put on paper to placate Bay Area interests, but no one ever bothered to really properly sign it, and it was then mostly forgotten. Then, when the sweep-up of suffixes occurred, it was just removed.

I don't think the S.F. Bay Area played much of a role in the I-5W designation (although if proven wrong, I will stand corrected).  Here's my thoughts as to why I-5W was created in the first place...

The last section of I-5 to be constructed was between Sacramento and Stockton.  This didn't open until 1979 so prior to that, there probably was a need to guide traffic between the northern and southern segments of I-5.  I suppose they could have directed this traffic onto Hwy 99 but I don't believe 99 was a full freeway at the time so that left (today's) 580 to 80 to (today's) 505 as the only viable option for traffic traveling between the two segments of I-5.  Using the TEMP I-5 designation for this routing probably didn't work because it was too far away from the planned route for I-5.

With that said, the I-5W designation was probably doomed from the start because of Caltrans' disdain for concurrencies.  While I-580 and I-505 would have been solely signed as I-5W, there would have been a 48-mile multiplex with I-80 from the MacArthur Maze to Vacaville.  Looking at Daniel Faigan's site, I-505 and I-580 replaced I-5W in 1964 which coincided with the Great Renumbering which did away with many of California's multiplexes.
Quote from: golden eagle
If I owned a dam and decided to donate it to charity, would I be giving a dam? I'm sure that might be a first because no one really gives a dam.

mrsman

Quote from: myosh_tino on September 30, 2016, 04:54:47 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on September 30, 2016, 12:30:01 PM
With 5W in California, I wonder if it was just something that was put on paper to placate Bay Area interests, but no one ever bothered to really properly sign it, and it was then mostly forgotten. Then, when the sweep-up of suffixes occurred, it was just removed.

I don't think the S.F. Bay Area played much of a role in the I-5W designation (although if proven wrong, I will stand corrected).  Here's my thoughts as to why I-5W was created in the first place...

The last section of I-5 to be constructed was between Sacramento and Stockton.  This didn't open until 1979 so prior to that, there probably was a need to guide traffic between the northern and southern segments of I-5.  I suppose they could have directed this traffic onto Hwy 99 but I don't believe 99 was a full freeway at the time so that left (today's) 580 to 80 to (today's) 505 as the only viable option for traffic traveling between the two segments of I-5.  Using the TEMP I-5 designation for this routing probably didn't work because it was too far away from the planned route for I-5.

With that said, the I-5W designation was probably doomed from the start because of Caltrans' disdain for concurrencies.  While I-580 and I-505 would have been solely signed as I-5W, there would have been a 48-mile multiplex with I-80 from the MacArthur Maze to Vacaville.  Looking at Daniel Faigan's site, I-505 and I-580 replaced I-5W in 1964 which coincided with the Great Renumbering which did away with many of California's multiplexes.

I don't know who would drive all the way to Oakland to go between 5/505 and 5/580, even if there was no freeway between Stockton and Sacramento.  Many of the existing rural roads would be better.  US 99 would also be better, even if there were some traffic signals along the way.

I know that there were plans for a Tracy-Antioch-Vacaville toll road that never came to fruition (I believe it was proposed in the 1990's).  If that were the routing for I-5, that would be an amazing highway.  Los Angeles to Oregon without encountering a major city.  Traffic for Bay Area, Stockton, and Sacramento can use I-580, I-80, and CA-99 as connectors, but the main road does not get slowed down.


kkt

Quote from: myosh_tino on September 30, 2016, 04:54:47 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on September 30, 2016, 12:30:01 PM
With 5W in California, I wonder if it was just something that was put on paper to placate Bay Area interests, but no one ever bothered to really properly sign it, and it was then mostly forgotten. Then, when the sweep-up of suffixes occurred, it was just removed.

I don't think the S.F. Bay Area played much of a role in the I-5W designation (although if proven wrong, I will stand corrected).  Here's my thoughts as to why I-5W was created in the first place...

The last section of I-5 to be constructed was between Sacramento and Stockton.  This didn't open until 1979 so prior to that, there probably was a need to guide traffic between the northern and southern segments of I-5.  I suppose they could have directed this traffic onto Hwy 99 but I don't believe 99 was a full freeway at the time so that left (today's) 580 to 80 to (today's) 505 as the only viable option for traffic traveling between the two segments of I-5.  Using the TEMP I-5 designation for this routing probably didn't work because it was too far away from the planned route for I-5.

With that said, the I-5W designation was probably doomed from the start because of Caltrans' disdain for concurrencies.  While I-580 and I-505 would have been solely signed as I-5W, there would have been a 48-mile multiplex with I-80 from the MacArthur Maze to Vacaville.  Looking at Daniel Faigan's site, I-505 and I-580 replaced I-5W in 1964 which coincided with the Great Renumbering which did away with many of California's multiplexes.

I, too, could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the Stockton-Sacramento temp I-5 was via 99.  Yes, it wasn't full freeway, but it was pretty good for the time, and much quicker in both mileage and traffic going via 580, 80, and 505.

Calling the Oakland route I-5W was more likely just because it made sense to connect the largest and second largest metro areas in the state with a single number.


coatimundi

Quote from: kkt on September 30, 2016, 12:53:59 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on September 30, 2016, 12:30:01 PM
With 5W in California, I wonder if it was just something that was put on paper to placate Bay Area interests, but no one ever bothered to really properly sign it, and it was then mostly forgotten. Then, when the sweep-up of suffixes occurred, it was just removed.

I-5W was signed, though.

That's why I qualified it with "really properly".
This was in another thread as well, on this board. Memory and accounts from others (I think mostly sparker) seemed to come to the consensus that I-5W was never signed along its section with I-80, which accounts for something like 1/3 of the total route. Not signing that portion was probably deliberate, and thus it was never meant to be a thru routing.

The then-US 99 freeway was completed between Sac and Stockton long before I-5. Early 60's, I believe. I-5 reached Lodi in something like the late 60's, but then that last portion through the marshlands in Sac County took a few years longer to construct. But I don't think that it was ever actually signed as "Temp I-5".
Again, this was discussed in another thread on this board, but I don't want to try and dig it up. One of the Bay Area folks that commented on it would probably remember the subject matter.

cahwyguy

I'll just quickly note that the historical aspects that were discussed were captured on my pages on I-5 in the latest round of updates (with appropriate credit, of course).
Daniel - California Highway Guy ● Highway Site: http://www.cahighways.org/ ●  Blog: http://blog.cahighways.org/ ● Podcast (CA Route by Route): http://caroutebyroute.org/ ● Follow California Highways on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cahighways



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.