Cities adverse to 3dis

[sparker]

Fresno and Bakersfield, CA. This begs the question: What if I-5 were routed through them on Route 99 instead of to the west? We'll likely never know that now, but I don't think they'd have a chance back then either, as San Diego, Los Angeles and metropolitan Sacramento got top priority, as far as I-x05s went. We'll see if and when I-7/I-9 is finally designated.

I-305 and I-705 would have been available. At the time, I-105 was available also. I-705 still is. I-305 could be reclaimed from Sacramento as I-880 was. Perhaps, CASRs-58 and 41 would have received I-x05 designations. It is hard to know.

CA-51 should be in the running for CA-x07 or CA-x09 if I-7 or I-9 is approved for CA-99 though.

Wouldn't CA 51 need to be upgraded to Interstate standards?  Wasn't it grand fathered in as part of I-80 as a temporary alignment?

Yup. They were supposed to build a bypass to meet up with what is now a series of park and ride Metro stations but was once designed to be mainline I-80. I expect it to be a very cold day in hell when CA-51 ever gets anywhere near Interstate standards north of downtown.

From what I understand, I-7/I-9 is currently only expected to go as far north of Stockton, presumably heading over CA-4 to end at I-5 there. While CA-99 between Stockton and Sacramento is indeed substandard, it's not at all a stretch that it might eventually be improved to Interstate standards at some point, assuming anyone in Caltrans cares. Should that happen and I-7/I-9 indeed head to Sacto, I could envision a short x07 in Stockton over CA-4.

I always assumed that the I-7 (or I-9) designation would follow CA 99 North all the way to Sacramento, but I had failed to realize until now just how substandard CA 99 is between Stockton and Sacramento (for interstate standards). It will indeed be interesting to see if that ever changes in the future.

Since HPC #54, the 2005 "vehicle" containing the codicil that it's a future Interstate specifies the full CA 99 corridor as far north as Sacramento -- and since in the ensuing 14 years there has been additional population increases along both I-5 and CA 99 between Stockton and Sacramento, as time passes it's increasingly likely that any Interstate deployed along CA 99 will include the stretch between those two cities.  When the possibility of such a route was posited back around 2004, it was surmised that the myriad substandard features around eastern Stockton and between Lodi and Elk Grove wouldn't be considered in the corridor and that it would simply turn west in Stockton along the CA 4 freeway to terminate at I-5 to avoid that stretch of CA 99 north from there.  But several projects along CA 99 have brought much of that route up to or near Interstate standards; the major obstacles now are narrow bridges through Galt and the over/under grade separation over the UP tracks south of Elk Grove.  SB, the underpass is seriously low at only 14'5" clearance (a leftover from the original 2-lane US 99/LRN 4), while NB the overpass lacks shoulders.  But CA 99 has been improved, with Interstate-standard 4' inner and 10' outer paved shoulders north to Galt, where the substandard bridges over several creeks and channels remain -- although the interchanges in town have been revamped.  The Galt-Elk Grove section largely resembles the still-substandard CA 99 section farther south between Delano and Goshen.

But eventually all those segments will be addressed if only (at least in the case of the Elk Grove segment) because the population increase in that area and the corresponding traffic counts warrant such action.  Once concrete plans for upgrades are in place, there will be no specific obstacles to eventual Interstate signage if and when such is formally sought.  The Stockton "shunt" over to I-5 was a stop-gap arrangement proposed by some Interstate conversion backers, primarily from the Fresno area, about 15 years ago to expedite the changeover.  Clearly, that didn't happen -- and demographic circumstances since then will likely call for Interstate designation over the full route north to Sacramento.         

[FightingIrish]

Don't forget Wis 30 in Madison (I-39/90/94 to US 151) and Wis 119 in Milwaukee.

I think WIS 30 is actually a stub of the former highway that used to link Madison and Milwaukee before it was replaced with I-94. Since the 1960s (when that segment of I-94 was completed), it's been the shortest 2 digit state highway in Wisconsin. I also don't think either of the state highways you mentioned (as well as 441 and 172) were ever meant to be re-designated as interstates when they were built.

If they were to be re-designated as interstates, then I would make WIS 30 and 119 I-394 and 194 respectively. 441 would become I-441; I'm not sure about 172. That would have to depend on whether Wisconsin would designate 3dis that connect two interstates but don't connect with the original interstate with an odd or even first digit. There's no examples like that in Wisconsin, so this would be new.

WIS 119 converting to interstate will never happen. Especially since it was rebuilt a few years ago to have a sort of "parkway" feel (even though it's a freeway between I-94 and the airport). For many years, they didn't even sign it, but during the I-94 rebuild, they finally put up WIS 119 signs to aid navagation, since it was already on most maps.

I could see WIS 441 becoming an interstate someday. It was created long before I-41, but always functioned as a sort of 3di of US 41. Wisconsin is not as aggressive as, say, North Carolina or Texas about creating far-fetched interstate highways in their state. They pretty much just want to link some of the bigger metro areas to attract commercial development (I-39 and I-41) or to create convenient links between points in the system (I-43). However, I always thought WIS 29 would work as an Interstate corridor, linking Green Bay and Wausau directly to Minneapolis/St. Paul. Call it I-96.

[michravera]

Fresno and Bakersfield, CA. This begs the question: What if I-5 were routed through them on Route 99 instead of to the west? We'll likely never know that now, but I don't think they'd have a chance back then either, as San Diego, Los Angeles and metropolitan Sacramento got top priority, as far as I-x05s went. We'll see if and when I-7/I-9 is finally designated.

I-305 and I-705 would have been available. At the time, I-105 was available also. I-705 still is. I-305 could be reclaimed from Sacramento as I-880 was. Perhaps, CASRs-58 and 41 would have received I-x05 designations. It is hard to know.

CA-51 should be in the running for CA-x07 or CA-x09 if I-7 or I-9 is approved for CA-99 though.

Wouldn't CA 51 need to be upgraded to Interstate standards?  Wasn't it grand fathered in as part of I-80 as a temporary alignment?

Yup. They were supposed to build a bypass to meet up with what is now a series of park and ride Metro stations but was once designed to be mainline I-80. I expect it to be a very cold day in hell when CA-51 ever gets anywhere near Interstate standards north of downtown.

From what I understand, I-7/I-9 is currently only expected to go as far north of Stockton, presumably heading over CA-4 to end at I-5 there. While CA-99 between Stockton and Sacramento is indeed substandard, it's not at all a stretch that it might eventually be improved to Interstate standards at some point, assuming anyone in Caltrans cares. Should that happen and I-7/I-9 indeed head to Sacto, I could envision a short x07 in Stockton over CA-4.

I always assumed that the I-7 (or I-9) designation would follow CA 99 North all the way to Sacramento, but I had failed to realize until now just how substandard CA 99 is between Stockton and Sacramento (for interstate standards). It will indeed be interesting to see if that ever changes in the future.

Since HPC #54, the 2005 "vehicle" containing the codicil that it's a future Interstate specifies the full CA 99 corridor as far north as Sacramento -- and since in the ensuing 14 years there has been additional population increases along both I-5 and CA 99 between Stockton and Sacramento, as time passes it's increasingly likely that any Interstate deployed along CA 99 will include the stretch between those two cities.  When the possibility of such a route was posited back around 2004, it was surmised that the myriad substandard features around eastern Stockton and between Lodi and Elk Grove wouldn't be considered in the corridor and that it would simply turn west in Stockton along the CA 4 freeway to terminate at I-5 to avoid that stretch of CA 99 north from there.  But several projects along CA 99 have brought much of that route up to or near Interstate standards; the major obstacles now are narrow bridges through Galt and the over/under grade separation over the UP tracks south of Elk Grove.  SB, the underpass is seriously low at only 14'5" clearance (a leftover from the original 2-lane US 99/LRN 4), while NB the overpass lacks shoulders.  But CA 99 has been improved, with Interstate-standard 4' inner and 10' outer paved shoulders north to Galt, where the substandard bridges over several creeks and channels remain -- although the interchanges in town have been revamped.  The Galt-Elk Grove section largely resembles the still-substandard CA 99 section farther south between Delano and Goshen.

But eventually all those segments will be addressed if only (at least in the case of the Elk Grove segment) because the population increase in that area and the corresponding traffic counts warrant such action.  Once concrete plans for upgrades are in place, there will be no specific obstacles to eventual Interstate signage if and when such is formally sought.  The Stockton "shunt" over to I-5 was a stop-gap arrangement proposed by some Interstate conversion backers, primarily from the Fresno area, about 15 years ago to expedite the changeover.  Clearly, that didn't happen -- and demographic circumstances since then will likely call for Interstate designation over the full route north to Sacramento.       

Some of the exits between Galt and Elk Grove more resemble holes in the fence than freeway exits. Some Texas-style short exits to frontage roads might make things work. The problem is that most of the frontage roads at the moment are two-way.

[hobsini2]

Don't forget Wis 30 in Madison (I-39/90/94 to US 151) and Wis 119 in Milwaukee.

I think WIS 30 is actually a stub of the former highway that used to link Madison and Milwaukee before it was replaced with I-94. Since the 1960s (when that segment of I-94 was completed), it's been the shortest 2 digit state highway in Wisconsin. I also don't think either of the state highways you mentioned (as well as 441 and 172) were ever meant to be re-designated as interstates when they were built.

If they were to be re-designated as interstates, then I would make WIS 30 and 119 I-394 and 194 respectively. 441 would become I-441; I'm not sure about 172. That would have to depend on whether Wisconsin would designate 3dis that connect two interstates but don't connect with the original interstate with an odd or even first digit. There's no examples like that in Wisconsin, so this would be new.

WIS 119 converting to interstate will never happen. Especially since it was rebuilt a few years ago to have a sort of "parkway" feel (even though it's a freeway between I-94 and the airport). For many years, they didn't even sign it, but during the I-94 rebuild, they finally put up WIS 119 signs to aid navagation, since it was already on most maps.

I could see WIS 441 becoming an interstate someday. It was created long before I-41, but always functioned as a sort of 3di of US 41. Wisconsin is not as aggressive as, say, North Carolina or Texas about creating far-fetched interstate highways in their state. They pretty much just want to link some of the bigger metro areas to attract commercial development (I-39 and I-41) or to create convenient links between points in the system (I-43). However, I always thought WIS 29 would work as an Interstate corridor, linking Green Bay and Wausau directly to Minneapolis/St. Paul. Call it I-96.

Manty, yes I am aware that the current 30 corridor was what remains of the old Wis 30 between Milwaukee and Madison. It ran on what is now County T in Dane County.
Also, I would make Wis 172 become I-443 or I-343 since I-43 had existed before I-41 and neither number has ever been in use in Wisconsin.


Fighting Irish, That is true about Wis 119. It does have a parkway feel to it.  However, since it goes to the airport directly, it would not be the first interstate 3di to serve that purpose. See I-190 for O'Hare, I-195 for BWI and I-678 for JFK.  I do think that many of the freeways and parkways that lead into (or by) an airport should get an interstate spur designation.  For example, I also think that Pena Pkwy in Denver, International Pkwy in Dallas, Hardy Toll Road in Houston, FL 60 & 589 in Tampa, Anderson Beachline Expy in Orlando, Airport Expy in Miami would also be candidates of expressways that should get a 3di designation.

I am not one who is a stickler for "interstate standards" if it is a road that is an existing freeway.  We have grandfathered roads into the system before. Looking at you Penn Tpk.