I-7 East Valley Connector

[Voyager]

Didn't California have some kind of plan to build a freeway along the east side of the central valley that would connect the two sections of CA-65? For some reason I thought they were going to give it an Interstate designation.

[agentsteel53]

have never heard of it getting an I designation... would be interesting though if it were made I-7 because that would rule out the possibility of I-9 for the US-99 corridor between Wheeler Ridge and Sacramento, at least in terms of numbering.  I'd say go with I-11 for that corridor.  Or, since I'm not so opposed to suffixed routes as others, I-9E and I-9W?

[John]

I heard CA-99 was going to be I-7 or I-9. There haven't been plans to connect the 65s for years, especially because not many people live close to where the freeway would go (aka low traffic counts) and it would cost a ton of money and still not help anyone's commute or tourism.

[ComputerGuy]

I-7 in WA-OR-CA from ORoads:

http://www.angelfire.com/or3/oroads/like2see/i7/index.html

[big t]

Interesting, I had heard about the idea of I-7 through Oregon and Washington.

I-7 in WA-OR-CA from ORoads:

http://www.angelfire.com/or3/oroads/like2see/i7/index.html

[warderjack]

As interesting as it would be for Oregon/Washington to have a north-south freeway that paralleled I-5, it's just not going to happen. Certain sections of U.S. 97 near Bend/Redmond in Oregon are being upgraded to at least (somewhat) limited access and U.S. 395 from the Tri-Cities to Ritzville, WA is pretty much all freeway now.

[Tarkus]

Actually, it would kind of make sense to just take the existing I-82 and call it I-7 just as it is.  It is running north-south at both its termini.  Plus, since I-80N was renumbered as I-84, it doesn't make any sense number-wise.

I don't see the need for another interstate going north-south through Oregon that far in.  Besides, I don't want to see US 97 decommissioned.   

-Alex (Tarkus)

[Concrete Bob]

As all you fellow road geeks know, State Route 65 in California is divided into two sections.  The northern portion starts at i-80 in the Roseville/Rocklin area and heads up towards Marysville.  The first 10 miles or so are a freeway/expressway.  The exit signs are numbered.  The first exit off of I-80 is numbered as EXIT 307.  I think the State of California does intend to link the two SR 65s together, but it won't be in our collective lifetimes. 

In 1959, Caltrans (then known as the Department of Highways), in conjunction with lawmakers developed a 12,500 mile statewide network of freeways and expressways.  SR 65 was a part of that plan.  In Sacramento, the freeway would have run south of the existing I-80 along a path just west of Hazel Avenue.  Once the path got near the American River, it would have began running slightly southwest until it hit the existing US 50 freeway.  At that point, it would have ran south and parallelled Sunrise Boulevard roughly one-half mile to the east.  Once the route got to Grant Line Road, it would arc to the southeast and head down the Central Valley to Route 198 near Visalia. 

In the mid 1960s, Caltrans began to purchase much of the ROW for the freeway.  Much of the design and funding were in place.  Unfortunately, there was a small but vocal group of NIMBYs who were opposed to SR 65, and three other proposed freeways in the area. In 1974, the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors voted to shelve the plans.  In 1975, Jerry Brown became governor of California.  He appointed Adriana Gianturco as his transporatation secretary.  Gianturco was sucessful in dismantiling Boston's proposed freeway system, so Brown was very happy to hire her on. 

Between Sac County and the State of California, a "prefect storm" brewed for local freeway cancellations in the mid to late 1970s.  Within four years, all the rights of way for the freeway were sold off.  Development continued and congestion increased.  Nowadays, the area is served by four and six lane arterials with traffic lights every quarter mile or so.  The area is constantly congested. 

Local planners often talk about reviving plans for an I-80/US 50 Connector in the east area of Sacramento.  Most plans run along the Hazel Avenue corridor.  However, given the nature of our local planners, it will never be a true freeway.  Therefore it won't be an I-7 or I-9.  But, it could be a substandard parkway, signed as SR 65.  Given the mindset of our local politicians, even that would be a stretch.   

[Voyager]

Great explanation...isn't the other half of 65 a freeway too?

[Concrete Bob]

There are freeway and expressway portions on the south part of SR 65 near the town of Porterville.  Caltrans has plans in place to updgrade all the two lane sections of SR 65 to four lane expressway between SR 198 and SR 99.  I think it is all a matter of time and funding.

[TheStranger]

There are freeway and expressway portions on the south part of SR 65 near the town of Porterville.  Caltrans has plans in place to updgrade all the two lane sections of SR 65 to four lane expressway between SR 198 and SR 99.  I think it is all a matter of time and funding.

From what I remember seeing on Faigin's site, the preliminary plan to close the Roseville-Orosi gap would be to extend the southern segment of 65 up to Route 152, at which point the unbuilt connector segment of 152 between 65 and 99 in Chowcihlla would be constructed (as a temporary northern terminus, similar to how Route 52's temporary terminus was Route 125 in the San Diego area in recent years.)