Resolving an Issue with I-5W

[TheStranger]

First off, thanks so much for all the hard work on research from everyone here.  5W is probably one of the most fascinating routes (IIRC as a signed route it might be the shortest-lived Interstate in California, as 480 existed as an Interstate until its mile allocation was moved to I-105/Century Freeway in 1968) because of all the mysteries above and the fact most of its proposed length has been built out under other numbers.

That leads to an interesting followup thought:  Is the future 99/132 interchange in Modesto one of the few examples of something from the 1947 proposals that didn't make it to the 1958 Interstate system yet is eventually being built decades later?

[sparker]

First off, thanks so much for all the hard work on research from everyone here.  5W is probably one of the most fascinating routes (IIRC as a signed route it might be the shortest-lived Interstate in California, as 480 existed as an Interstate until its mile allocation was moved to I-105/Century Freeway in 1968) because of all the mysteries above and the fact most of its proposed length has been built out under other numbers.

That leads to an interesting followup thought:  Is the future 99/132 interchange in Modesto one of the few examples of something from the 1947 proposals that didn't make it to the 1958 Interstate system yet is eventually being built decades later?

The section of CA 99 freeway including the never-completed 132 (nee' I-5W) interchange wasn't opened until 1965, so the Division of Highways had ample time after the late '57 I-5 shift to the Westside alignment to alter their plans; they never did, probably figuring the plans for the original I-5E/I-5W split would also be appropriate for any future plans pertaining to CA 132.  That paid off; the preliminary grading that's now been in place for 53 years will be part of the relocated 99/132 interchange.     

[bugo]

Has everybody seen this? I have no idea who took it or where or when it was taken.

[cahwyguy]

See https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18341.msg2158170#msg2158170 . It is the MacArthur Freeway in Oakland. THis was posted to show the spot today: https://tinyurl.com/yd925329 It is from the August 1962 issue of CHPW: http://libraryarchives.metro.net/DPGTL/Californiahighways/chpw_1962_julaug.pdf

P.S.: As was just before the forum page break, the map that resulted from this discussion is at the bottom of the post. Updating my other pages to agree uncovered a mystery:  LRN 110 (Route 132) ended at LRN 41 (Route 33) until 1957, when it was extended to LRN 5 (I-580/I-205) junction. So here's the mystery: I-5W was proposed as two segments, Vacaville to Dunnigan (now I-505), and Oakland to Modesto (what became I-580) in 1947. But the route of Oakland to Modesto in 1947 was US 50 to Route 33 to Route 132 -- there was no connection between Route 132 (LRN 11) and US 50 (LRN 5). That didn't come until 1957, and I-5W/I-580 was cut back to near Tracy in 1958. Further, the stub extending LRN 110 along future I-580 between Route 132 and I-5 wasn't added to LRN 110 until 1959.

So what was the department thinking between 1947 and 1957? My best guess is: Nothing. They wanted a route from Oakland to Modesto, but didn't officially add it to the state highway system until it was near final approval in the 1957-1958 timeframe. At that time, they extended LRN 110 to provide the proposed freeway connection.

[doorknob60]

Has everybody seen this? I have no idea who took it or where or when it was taken.

I'm definitely no expert, but that I-5W sign looks photoshopped in to me.

[Zonie]

It's West I-5W(est) West!

[Kniwt]

I'm definitely no expert, but that I-5W sign looks photoshopped in to me.

It's (very) digitally enhanced, but the photo is legit -- from the July/August 1962 issue of California Highways & Public Works. Here's a direct link to the page with the photo:

https://archive.org/stream/cvol4142alifornia196263hiwacalirich#page/n245

It's West I-5W(est) West!

The other "West" is most likely for a missing US 50 shield that should be there.

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm definitely no expert, but that I-5W sign looks photoshopped in to me.

It's (very) digitally enhanced, but the photo is legit -- from the July/August 1962 issue of California Highways & Public Works. Here's a direct link to the page with the photo:

https://archive.org/stream/cvol4142alifornia196263hiwacalirich#page/n245

It's West I-5W(est) West!

The other "West" is most likely for a missing US 50 shield that should be there.

The illustration on page 245 even has a I-5W on it.  That's a hell of a find to get an actual photo.

[cahwyguy]

As I noted in my post above, you've got a cleaner version at http://libraryarchives.metro.net/DPGTL/Californiahighways/chpw_1962_julaug.pdf

[sparker]

Noticed that the map on pg. 245 also shows a I-5W hand-drawn shield on the Bay Bridge east approach at about the toll plaza; obviously an illustrator error (although LRN 5 did extend onto the bridge to the Alameda/S.F. county line about midway along the eastern span, at which point it became LRN 68).  Until the change to I-580/505 in late '63 (with a signage change in mid-'64), I-5W was intended to multiplex east on I-80 to Vacaville (about 47 miles); whether that would have been signed or silent hadn't been publicly discussed prior to the time of the change.   

[cahwyguy]

Maybe third time is the charm. Since we're talking changes in time, here's something I noted that I'd like thoughts on:

P.S.: [...] Updating my other pages to agree uncovered a mystery:  LRN 110 (Route 132) ended at LRN 41 (Route 33) until 1957, when it was extended to LRN 5 (I-580/I-205) junction. So here's the mystery: I-5W was proposed as two segments, Vacaville to Dunnigan (now I-505), and Oakland to Modesto (what became I-580) in 1947. But the route of Oakland to Modesto in 1947 was US 50 to Route 33 to Route 132 -- there was no connection between Route 132 (LRN 11) and US 50 (LRN 5). That didn't come until 1957, and I-5W/I-580 was cut back to near Tracy in 1958. Further, the stub extending LRN 110 along future I-580 between Route 132 and I-5 wasn't added to LRN 110 until 1959.

So what was the department thinking between 1947 and 1957? My best guess is: Nothing. They wanted a route from Oakland to Modesto, but didn't officially add it to the state highway system until it was near final approval in the 1957-1958 timeframe. At that time, they extended LRN 110 to provide the proposed freeway connection.

[sparker]

That's probably as good an assessment as any -- the Division of Highways had quite a bit on its plate circa 1958 or so -- compiling the first iteration of the state freeway & expressway system, integrating the new Interstate corridors into that system, and actually laying out the final path of the Westside Freeway (remember, it was simply an unadopted concept prior to the I-5 alignment switch).  Once the Westside alignment was finalized, the LRN 110 extension was simply blended into the overall project, becoming the SE>NW eastern end of I-580 as it exists today as well as the CA 132 extension west from CA 33 to I-580 (originally, of course, I-5W); that portion of current I-580 from I-5 NW to CA 132 was simply a legislative "spur" of LRN 110. 

As an aside -- I would have liked to have been the proverbial "fly on the wall" to gauge the reaction of the various cities arrayed along US 99 in the Valley to the announcement that I-5 would bypass them all on a new alignment intended to be a functional "beeline" between L.A. and the Bay Area.  Aside from any projected loss of "pass-through" revenues to those cities from the interregional traffic, the alignment shift meant that the then-guaranteed Federal funds that would have been directed to upgrading US 99 were to be deployed well to the west; the Valley's "main street" would be enhanced at a more "leisurely" pace.  The fact that CA 99 wasn't brought up to full freeway standards until 44 years after the Westside alignment opened to traffic speaks for itself and the state's overall priorities!

[bing101]

4. The only evidence we have for the signage of I-5W is on points E -- along US 50 near Oakland, along future I-505.

Was the MacArthur Freeway portion of what is now 580 (not 505, which I don't think had any construction on it pre-1964) signed as I-5W in its entirety, or only that short segment in Oakland near Grand Avenue?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4698383839

---

Not an official state map, but a 1963 Rand McNally snippet from the AARoads Interstate Guide, showing I-5W on future I-505 and on then-US 50 (now the I-580 corridor) near Altamont.  More interesting is I-5E being listed along County Route J8

Thats Interesting CA-24 used to Exist in the Sacramento area too and it takes areas that became CA-160. Even More interesting is that CA-24 goes to Downtown Sacramento where I-5 was later placed and it meets the current I-5/US-50 Interchange and the current I-80 @ I-5 interchange. Also CA-24 went through an area that is now known as CA-70.

[Max Rockatansky]

4. The only evidence we have for the signage of I-5W is on points E -- along US 50 near Oakland, along future I-505.

Was the MacArthur Freeway portion of what is now 580 (not 505, which I don't think had any construction on it pre-1964) signed as I-5W in its entirety, or only that short segment in Oakland near Grand Avenue?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4698383839

---

Not an official state map, but a 1963 Rand McNally snippet from the AARoads Interstate Guide, showing I-5W on future I-505 and on then-US 50 (now the I-580 corridor) near Altamont.  More interesting is I-5E being listed along County Route J8

Thats Interesting CA-24 used to Exist in the Sacramento area too and it takes areas that became CA-160. Even More interesting is that CA-24 goes to Downtown Sacramento where I-5 was later placed and it meets the current I-5/US-50 Interchange and the current I-80 @ I-5 interchange. Also CA-24 went through an area that is now known as CA-70.

24 I believe is the most truncated State Route after CA 7 was replaced by US 395 and 6. 

[sparker]

Let's see how many errors can be spotted in the map above:
(1) SSR 128 is shown as a state highway on the county road (Russell Rd.?) between Winters and Davis.
(2) Altamont Pass is shown as being between Livermore and Vasco Road (down in the valley before US 50 surmounted the hills east of Livermore).
(3) I-280's projected route takes it through Campbell (it always was intended to stay well north of there).
(4) US 50 is shown as intersecting US 99 at the SSR 8 interchange in east Stockton (it did so about a mile to the south and multiplexed with SSR 4 south of downtown.

But then, McNally's cartography wasn't always the most precise back then.  Saving grace: they did show SSR 84 in its first year of existence as a signed highway.

[Kniwt]

Let's see how many errors can be spotted in the map above:
(2) Altamont Pass is shown as being between Livermore and Vasco Road (down in the valley before US 50 surmounted the hills east of Livermore).

And for years, RMcN wrongly claimed "EL 2130" (not 1,009 feet) for the modern Altamont Pass.

[bing101]

Ca-21 later became I-680 and CA-5 in Daly City/ South San Francisco area later became I-280.
Or is CA-5 supposed to be near the current CA-82?

[Max Rockatansky]

Ca-21 later became I-680 and CA-5 in Daly City/ South San Francisco area later became I-280.
Or is CA-5 supposed to be near the current CA-82?

CA 5 became CA 35, Skyline is right next to the I-280 alignment at the foot of the Santa Cruz Range and multiplexes the Interstate a couple miles now.  The northern part of 9 became other routers like 85 and 237. 

[bing101]

Here's another interesting note the city of West Sacramento was known as Bryte at the time the map was made.

[sparker]

Here's another interesting note the city of West Sacramento was known as Bryte at the time the map was made.

There were two incorporated cities in east Yolo County in that area, Bryte and Broderick; both were absorbed into West Sacramento in the '80's in order to consolidate the area between the Yolo Bypass and the Sacramento River into one jurisdiction.

[TheStranger]

Let's see how many errors can be spotted in the map above:
(1) SSR 128 is shown as a state highway on the county road (Russell Rd.?) between Winters and Davis.

IIRC that has existed as part of the route definition (from 505 to 113) though has never been signed as 128.

(3) I-280's projected route takes it through Campbell (it always was intended to stay well north of there).

I wonder if this was their attempt (albeit extremely poor) at trying to show where 280 doubled back up 17 (today's 880) between 101 and the Santana Row area!  Wasn't that actually the first segment of 280 signed at all, a portion that is now a part of a completely different Interstate decades later?

[bing101]

4. The only evidence we have for the signage of I-5W is on points E -- along US 50 near Oakland, along future I-505.

Was the MacArthur Freeway portion of what is now 580 (not 505, which I don't think had any construction on it pre-1964) signed as I-5W in its entirety, or only that short segment in Oakland near Grand Avenue?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4698383839

---

Not an official state map, but a 1963 Rand McNally snippet from the AARoads Interstate Guide, showing I-5W on future I-505 and on then-US 50 (now the I-580 corridor) near Altamont.  More interesting is I-5E being listed along County Route J8

Thats Interesting CA-24 used to Exist in the Sacramento area too and it takes areas that became CA-160. Even More interesting is that CA-24 goes to Downtown Sacramento where I-5 was later placed and it meets the current I-5/US-50 Interchange and the current I-80 @ I-5 interchange. Also CA-24 went through an area that is now known as CA-70.

24 I believe is the most truncated State Route after CA 7 was replaced by US 395 and 6.

US-99E in Roseville that became the current CA-65 and there was always talks that CA-65 would be a bypass for CA-99(Proposed I-7/I-9) though

[sparker]

Let's see how many errors can be spotted in the map above:
(1) SSR 128 is shown as a state highway on the county road (Russell Rd.?) between Winters and Davis.

IIRC that has existed as part of the route definition (from 505 to 113) though has never been signed as 128.

(3) I-280's projected route takes it through Campbell (it always was intended to stay well north of there).

I wonder if this was their attempt (albeit extremely poor) at trying to show where 280 doubled back up 17 (today's 880) between 101 and the Santana Row area!  Wasn't that actually the first segment of 280 signed at all, a portion that is now a part of a completely different Interstate decades later?

From LRN 6 days, the stretch between Winters and Davis has always been an unadopted corridor concept.  The original traversable road was in fact Russell Road, which heads directly into downtown Davis.  Later, a connection was made to the parallel County Road E6, which eventually loops around Davis to I-80 east of town.  But neither road was ever adopted into the state highway system, although the current through E6 is at or above rural state highway standards. 

Prior to the first portion of the E-W I-280 (Junipero Serra) freeway being opened to traffic, I-280 was indeed signed concurrent with then-SSR 17 from Stevens Creek Blvd. north to US 101 Bypass (present US 101); I-680 took over co-signage from that point north.  The signage was removed by 1965, when the decision to reroute the Interstate corridor over the former CA 17 freeway around the east side of downtown (today's I-280/680 "loop") was made (utilizing mileage transferred from the deletion of most of the S.F. Interstate routes).  I came through the area in late 1965 on a high-school college tour; the bus came up US 101 and turned north on then-CA 17 toward Berkeley, our first Bay Area stop; the I-280 signs were gone from the NB BGS's for SB CA 17; but I-680 still remained signed with CA 17 north of the junction as far as its original Warm Springs "split".  It, too, was gone by my next trip through the area in early 1967. 

[bing101]

CA-48 is now known as CA-37.

The former CA-37 on this map became CA-121.

US-40W has to be an approximate area for CA-113 today.

[sparker]

CA-48 is now known as CA-37.

The former CA-37 on this map became CA-121.

US-40W has to be an approximate area for CA-113 today.

SSR 37 occupied the west end of present CA 37 (from US 101 to the present 37/121 junction) and all of present CA 121.  SSR 48 is now CA 37 from CA 121 to I-80.  Alternate US 40 used present CA 113 from I-80 to CA 99 (from Davis to Woodland it was multiplexed with US 99W), CA 99 north to CA 20, CA 20 east to CA 70, and CA 70 from Marysville to US 395 at Hallelujah Junction; it then multiplexed south on US 395 back to (then) US 40 at Reno.

Alternate US 40 was designated at the end of 1953 as a response to the severe winter of 1952-53 that saw US 40 over Donner Pass closed for much of the season -- and the passenger train City of San Francisco was trapped in a snowbank near Norden, just west of the summit, for several days.  The concept was to provide a continuously signed all-weather highway as a winter alternative; to that end, SSR 24 was cut back to Woodland and Alternate US 40 commissioned over the route north and east of there.  Ironically, this ended up being a case of "frying pan/fire"; while Alternate 40 worked as a detour during winter months, the fact that it ran at the bottom of the Feather River canyon for much of its length made it prone to spring flooding.  That designation was, of course, a casualty of the renumbering 11 years later, becoming a combination of CA 113, CA 99, and CA 70.