AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Pacific Southwest => Topic started by: ACSCmapcollector on July 12, 2016, 08:40:50 PM

Title: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: ACSCmapcollector on July 12, 2016, 08:40:50 PM
What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?

What ever happened to the planning of splitting Interstate 5 into Interstate 5W and (&) 5E?  Is it the AASHTO decision to have Interstate 505 and Interstate 580 to replace that, or not? 

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: cahwyguy on July 12, 2016, 08:51:40 PM
As always, I do suggest you consult my pages first:

QuoteOriginally, there was also an I-5W. This routing dates back to the original definition of I-5 in 1947. At that time, I-5 was defined to run along the present-day Route 99 routing from N of Los Angeles to Sacramento. I-5W was defined to run along a routing that corresponds to present-day Route 120, I-205, I-580, I-80, and I-505. US 50 was multiplexed on the I-580 section. The route was resigned to the present-day route numbers in 1964 as part of the regularization of state and legislative route numbers. Note that the CalTrans history shows that I-505 and I-580 were approved as interstate the same time as I-5 in 1947, but that I-205 wasn't defined until 1957, when the West Tracy bypass was constructed. However, it appears the three-digit routes were not signed until 1965. Perhaps this was done to avoid confusing the travelling public, as the interstate signage was new (and before 1965, coexisted with the pre-1964 route signage). According to Calvin Sampang, one issue of California Highways and Public Works has a picture showing an I-5W shield on a segment of present-day I-580.

A proposal unearthed by Richard Moeur from the AASHTO files indicates that, at least in 1957 and 1958, there was at least a proposal for an I-5E. These proposal had I-5 running along the traditional alignment (Route 99 in 1957; "Westerly Alignment" in 1958) until either Modesto (1957) or Tracy (1958). The route then split, with I-5W going off as described above, and I-5E continuing along present Route 99 (1957)/I-5 (1958) into Sacramento. Evidently, AASHTO liked the routings, but didn't like I-5E, because that was never signed.


If you think about it, the suffixed routes could not survive the great renumbering, due to the way legislative routes were defined. This is why in 1964 they become 505 and 580.

As for the AASHTO decision, again, the information is on my pages from the history of the interstates in California, produced by Caltrans: http://www.cahighways.org/itypes.html

Routes submitted June 27, 1945
I-51:     Mexican border to Oregon state line (via Route 99)
Westside Freeway Relocation: May 1957

14-Aug-1957    I-5, I-5E Tentatively Approved
08-Nov-1957    Proposed as I-11
07-Aug-1958    Back to I-5
10-Nov-1958    Approved as I-5, I-5E (Sacramento)

1 Caltrans documents show this as being approved in 1947, although later documents the number having been approved as of October 1956. In a letter dated November 8, 1957, G.T. McCoy of the Department of Highways recommended that I-5 become I-11, to allow assignment of I-3 and I-5 to the Bay Area (for the San Francisco Bay circumferential routes, which later became I-280 and I-680). However, by August 1958, the Department of Highways had gone back to recommending I-5. Other letters objected to proposed I-5W through the Bay Area, because the suffix would be confusing. However, the original assignments did result in I-5 and I-5W, although some maps show I-5 and I-5E.

I-5054     I-80 to I-5, Vacaville to Dunnigan

14-Aug-1957    I-5W Tentatively Approved
08-Nov-1957    Proposed as I-7
01-Apr-1958    Proposed as I-115
07-Aug-1958    Proposed as I-5W
10-Nov-1958    Approved as I-5W
01-Jul-1964    Renumbered as I-505

I-5804     I-80 to I-5, Oakland to Modesto
(Oakland adjustment, MacArthur Freeway, Sept. 1995)
(Tracy adjustment, November 1957)

14-Aug-1957    I-5W Tentatively Approved
08-Nov-1957    Proposed as I-72
07-Aug-1958    Proposed as I-5W
10-Nov-1958    Approved as I-5W
01-Jul-1964    Renumbered as I-580

4 Originally, these routes were numbered as I-5W. In the map that accompanied the November 1957 letter proposing I-76, I-505 is shown proposed as I-7, and I-580 is shown as I-72.

Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: ACSCmapcollector on July 12, 2016, 08:58:37 PM
I always do that cahwyguy, go to your website on a frequent basis.  There is no questions about that,
but I enjoy your posts too on here.  Now someone else is going to post after you, I predict.

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: sparker on July 12, 2016, 10:08:05 PM
Another reason for the shift from 5E/5W suffixed numbers to the current scheme was directly related to one of the main rationales for the 1964 renumbering -- the "one road, one number" credo adopted by the Division of Highways at that time.  The multiplex with I-80 would have stretched some 48 miles, from the present 80/580/880 interchange in Emeryville north & northeast across the Carquinez Bridges to Vacaville, where 5W would have turned north along State Legislative Route 90, which, despite its longstanding use as a connector to north US 99W, had never received signage; the basic alignment is today's I-505.  Not wanting to cosign 5W and 80 for that distance, the Division, after exploring several numbering permutations, settled on 580 for the Oakland-Tracy segment and 505 for Vacaville-Dunnigan.  Except for short sections of freeway at the junctions of CA 128 and CA 16, 505 remained largely a 2-lane road for several years after its designation.  Expansion to a full freeway began in the mid-70's; it was completed circa 1980.  Prior to completion the road was signed as "Temporary I-505"; this signage extended to BGS's on I-80 and I-5.   Along today's I-580, 5W shields were indeed deployed from the Emeryville interchange east along the MacArthur Freeway, at the time co-signed with US 50.  That initial section of 5W only extended for a few miles east to Grand Ave. in eastern Oakland; it was the only stretch to receive signage as 5W.  I-580 signage was applied to that segment in early 1964 and further east as the freeway was completed.   
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: cahwyguy on July 12, 2016, 10:30:44 PM
Thanks. More information to try to remember to snarf for the next round of updates so it doesn't get lost :-) .
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: Quillz on July 12, 2016, 10:59:10 PM
So neither 5W or 5E were actually signed in terms of shields, right?

I was doing a fictional highway renumbering for California where 5W and 5E existed. 5W follows the same routing as the actual proposal, but I replaced I-280 with I-305 and I-680 with I-505.
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: myosh_tino on July 12, 2016, 11:37:20 PM
Quote from: Quillz on July 12, 2016, 10:59:10 PM
So neither 5W or 5E were actually signed in terms of shields, right?

I was doing a fictional highway renumbering for California where 5W and 5E existed. 5W follows the same routing as the actual proposal, but I replaced I-280 with I-305 and I-680 with I-505.

I-5E --- No, as far as I know.

I-5W --- Yes.  See the below photo from the AARoads Shield Gallery...
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19610051i1.jpg)

Note: it was this photo that inspired me to use an I-5W shield as my avatar (someone else began using a California I-5 shield even though I was first).
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: briantroutman on July 12, 2016, 11:48:48 PM
Missing below the black-on-white "WEST"  panel should be a US 50 shield, correct?

Kind of funny that I-5W is signed E/W as opposed to N/S, and with the extraneous panel below the shield, I could imagine someone reading the assembly aloud: "west five west west" .
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: myosh_tino on July 12, 2016, 11:52:07 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on July 12, 2016, 11:48:48 PM
Missing below the black-on-white "WEST"  panel should be a US 50 shield, correct?

Kind of funny that I-5W is signed E/W as opposed to N/S, and with the extraneous panel below the shield, I could imagine someone reading the assembly aloud: "west five west west" .

Correct.  There should have been a US 50 shield below the I-5W.  I can therefore conclude that this photo must be of what is now I-580 in the Oakland area.
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: briantroutman on July 13, 2016, 12:13:56 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on July 12, 2016, 11:52:07 PM
I can therefore conclude that this photo must be of what is now I-580 in the Oakland area.

Yes, more specifically, right here: https://goo.gl/maps/toTbwE1AAKE2
Note that the clock has been removed from the building at the left, but the framework that supported still outlines its former shape.

It's a bit odd that, despite the numerous changes to the landscape, the old photo feels familiar to me from my countless drives to my former home in Marin through that corridor.
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: AMLNet49 on July 13, 2016, 03:52:37 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on July 12, 2016, 11:37:20 PM
Quote from: Quillz on July 12, 2016, 10:59:10 PM
So neither 5W or 5E were actually signed in terms of shields, right?

I was doing a fictional highway renumbering for California where 5W and 5E existed. 5W follows the same routing as the actual proposal, but I replaced I-280 with I-305 and I-680 with I-505.

I-5E --- No, as far as I know.

I-5W --- Yes.  See the below photo from the AARoads Shield Gallery...
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19610051i1.jpg)

Note: it was this photo that inspired me to use an I-5W shield as my avatar (someone else began using a California I-5 shield even though I was first).

The shield in this picture looks Photoshopped. Pixels are much clearer around it and compare the text to the sign next to it.
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: briantroutman on July 13, 2016, 04:55:06 AM
The photo was scanned out of a book, and it looks like someone did some image manipulation to remove the halftoning from the printing process. But the image is genuine. Here's a non-manipulated copy of the scan:

(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7285/27999088620_7d40df07df_o.jpg)
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: AMLNet49 on July 13, 2016, 10:52:04 AM
Ah thank you that is awesome then, great pic of a great past designation. Shield was really well in proportion, which seemed to be very common back then.
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: sparker on July 13, 2016, 12:23:26 PM
That picture came from the pages of the late, great Division of Highways bimonthly publication "California Highways & Public Works".  Seminal reading for me as a kid (the local library stocked it in their periodical shelves); I was quite disappointed when it ceased publication at the beginning of 1967 (coincidentally, with the incoming Reagan gubernatorial administration) -- although, in its final year, it had morphed into something of a PR flack machine for the Division.  During its heyday (1924-65), however, it served as a model for what governmental informational publications should be!
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: cahwyguy on July 13, 2016, 01:45:03 PM
And, of course, it is no obligatory to note that most of the issues of CHPW have been scanned and are online at

http://libraryarchives.metro.net/DPGTL/Californiahighways/

I"ve found it a great resource.
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: Quillz on July 13, 2016, 03:24:43 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on July 13, 2016, 10:52:04 AM
Ah thank you that is awesome then, great pic of a great past designation. Shield was really well in proportion, which seemed to be very common back then.
'57 spec shield, I think. The thicker margins offer better aesthetics, I think, although the '70 spec shield is probably more legible due to the slightly thinner margins (.75'' vs. .5'', IIRC).
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 13, 2016, 05:09:51 PM
Interstate 5W and 5E were unnecessary in my opinion. Their present designations make a lot more sense.
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: sparker on August 09, 2016, 05:36:43 PM
The original 5E/5W split was, designation-wise, more of a political decision than one made at the planning level.  The 48.3K Interstate plan cited by Adam F. was one of the earlier more extensive plans to be proffered; the immediate postwar years under the Truman administration saw the Interstate concept opened up for input & comment from various states; the composite of what was proposed by 1952 was similar in scope to that "48.3" plan, but with about 900 less total miles; but one consistent similarity was 2 routes planned between L.A. and Northern California, one along US 101 and the other following US 99.  When the plans were retrenched to (more or less) the original MacDonald plan of '44, featuring a little under 40K miles, by the incoming Eisenhower administration in 1953, the US 101-based route was again eliminated from consideration.  Prior to 1958 there was a connector from US 99 in Modesto to Oakland via SSR 132, a new-terrain route extending 132 northwest from its terminus at SSR 33 to Altamont Pass, and thence west along US 50 to the east end of the Bay Bridge.  The original number proposed for that route was I-72, but complaints began rolling in from Bay Area political figures that such a designation didn't place the region on the Interstate north-south grid.  Thus, when the first "final" sets of numbers were established in 1958, the 5E/5W concept was put into place -- which would, of course, require a substantial multiplex from Emeryville to Vacaville (about 48 miles) with I-80.  In 1963 the Division of Highways issued the "one road/one number" credo that instigated the vast 1964 renumbering effort; at that time the 5E/5W split concept was discarded in favor of I-580 for the southern half of the independent former 5W routing, and I-505 for the much shorter northern portion; 5E (none of which had been constructed at the time) gave way to mainline I-5 via Sacramento.  But by this time anti-freeway grumblings were beginning to be heard from San Francisco and other Bay locations; the concept of the Bay Area being located on a major north-south Interstate axis was no longer of any importance.   
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: coatimundi on August 09, 2016, 05:43:31 PM
I have a '64 map that shows it routed into the Bay Area over Altamont Pass, but does not show it again until today's 505. Was it ever actually signed within the Bay Area on one of its multiplexes?

I can see the point here about wanting an interstate highway. I mean, why does New Orleans get to keep I-10 even though I-12 is the quicker route and thru traffic would logically only use that? If they were left with just their US highways, or a mess of 3dis like the Bay Area, they'd probably be a bit upset.
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: myosh_tino on August 09, 2016, 06:02:23 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on August 09, 2016, 05:43:31 PM
I have a '64 map that shows it routed into the Bay Area over Altamont Pass, but does not show it again until today's 505. Was it ever actually signed within the Bay Area on one of its multiplexes?

The answer to your question lies in the photos posted upthread by briantroutman and myself.
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: coatimundi on August 09, 2016, 06:06:41 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on August 09, 2016, 06:02:23 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on August 09, 2016, 05:43:31 PM
I have a '64 map that shows it routed into the Bay Area over Altamont Pass, but does not show it again until today's 505. Was it ever actually signed within the Bay Area on one of its multiplexes?

The answer to your question lies in the photos posted upthread by briantroutman and myself.

What about on I-80 since this isn't really a multiplex? I'm just curious if they let 5W traffic drop off, thinking they wouldn't use it as a thru route, or if they would sign it thru to Sac.
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: sparker on August 09, 2016, 10:22:07 PM
If you had one of the Rand McNally maps from the mid-60's, they plastered I-shields all over existing routes to show the basic alignment of the future route; I do remember seeing 5W yellow shields alongside the US 50 markers on the 1964 road atlas, which obviously went to print prior to the number change. 

Aside from that original stretch of the MacArthur Freeway between the first "Distribution Structure" and Grand Ave., there were no other I-5W shields posted in the field.  Despite being technically multiplexed along I-80 for 48 miles north from Oakland, no I-5W reassurance shields were ever posted along that route; the only mention of 5W was on the approach BGS's from I-80 -- and those lasted about as long as the shield shown in the pictures.  The I-80 interchange with the northern independent section of I-5W wasn't constructed until 1965, a year after the number change to I-505 occurred.     
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: SeriesE on August 10, 2016, 08:59:05 PM
How come the San Rafael Bridge section of CA-17 was renumbered to I-580 instead of I-880?
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: coatimundi on August 10, 2016, 09:31:25 PM
Quote from: SeriesE on August 10, 2016, 08:59:05 PM
How come the San Rafael Bridge section of CA-17 was renumbered to I-580 instead of I-880?

It was never 880. It was 180 for a while though.

The suffix routes - not just here but all around the country - seemed like they were just set up for failure. Not well signed, not really sensible, and only lasting a couple of years as a result. It seems like 5W was only briefly signed in an appeasement effort.
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: Kniwt on August 10, 2016, 11:32:30 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 09, 2016, 10:22:07 PM
If you had one of the Rand McNally maps from the mid-60's, they plastered I-shields all over existing routes to show the basic alignment of the future route.

Here's part of the page from the 1960 Rand McNally, showing both 5W and 5E (in a vastly different alignment than what finally happened):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FIfIdr9f.jpg&hash=98a693176f7ab54ce2ed614b8e6d4f8b13716101)
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: sparker on August 11, 2016, 02:44:49 AM
At that point (1960) the routing of (then) I-5E was still TBD; the Division of Highways was trying to juggle the desire of Sacramento interests who didn't want the freeway coming through the downtown district (which was then planned for renovation [read gentrification!]), so 5E was tentatively routed through West Sacramento, which had little political clout to oppose the routing.  But because of the location of the Yolo Bypass flood-control facility to the west, which north of Broderick was separated from the Sacramento River itself only by the levee on which SSR 16 and the Sacramento Northern railroad tracks were located, a West Sacramento routing would have meant three separate high-level crossings of the navigable Sacramento River -- a very expensive proposition.  In addition, the Division was trying to find a route between Sacramento and Stockton that was feasible to construct -- a problem because that area was mostly marshland immediately east of the Sacramento Delta.  The route preliminarily adjudged the most feasible followed the Western Pacific RR tracks, which were in turn closely followed by Franklin Blvd. (county road J8).  That is the road that Rand McNally utilized as the place to plop down the I-5E shield west of Lodi.  Eventually the constructed I-5 alignment did closely follow county J8 north of Stockton, but veered slightly west north of CA 12 before turning north again; this was to avoid the taking of valuable grape-growing tracts in the area (mostly table grapes then; now Lodi has evolved into a recognized wine-grape growing district), a politically charged phenomenon then as it would be today. 

The 5W shields are shown, one each, on the southern leg following US 50 (the expressway alignment that is today's eastbound I-580 carriageway) over Altamont Pass, the other on LRN 90, the unsigned connector between Vacaville and Dunnigan that formed the "cutoff" route from the Bay Area to US 99W (LRN 90 is now, of course, I-505).  I would speculate that the 1963-64 "one road/one number" policy promulgated by the Division of Highways resulted not only from the "sign salad" multiplexed-route nature of the various roads exiting the Los Angeles basin over Cajon and Beaumont passes but also from the awkward prospect of having to co-sign I-5W with I-80 for 48 miles, starting only a few miles east of the west I-80 terminus. 
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: coatimundi on August 11, 2016, 02:42:01 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 11, 2016, 02:44:49 AM
I would speculate that the 1963-64 "one road/one number" policy promulgated by the Division of Highways resulted not only from the "sign salad" multiplexed-route nature of the various roads exiting the Los Angeles basin over Cajon and Beaumont passes

I never thought about this, but that is definitely a reason not to multiplex. When you've got that many signs, it becomes a problem for drivers to even read them in a reasonable amount of time, and adding an I-15 to the mix of Cajon Pass would have just made things much worse.
Maybe there was some foresight there: if they kept allowing new routes to be bannered, then they'd end up with a mess. And that sort of defies the original purpose of having a numbered system: it was meant to supplant the named roads which, in many areas, had led to a mess of signs all promoting their roads and were confusing to drivers.
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: DTComposer on August 12, 2016, 10:14:39 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on August 10, 2016, 09:31:25 PM
Quote from: SeriesE on August 10, 2016, 08:59:05 PM
How come the San Rafael Bridge section of CA-17 was renumbered to I-580 instead of I-880?

It was never 880. It was 180 for a while though.

I think his question was: why was CA-17 "split" into I-880 (San Jose to Oakland) and an extension of I-580 (San Rafael Bridge)? Why wasn't the whole thing renumbered I-880? The multiplex section with I-80 would have been exactly the same.
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: jrouse on August 12, 2016, 10:20:07 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on August 12, 2016, 10:14:39 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on August 10, 2016, 09:31:25 PM
Quote from: SeriesE on August 10, 2016, 08:59:05 PM
How come the San Rafael Bridge section of CA-17 was renumbered to I-580 instead of I-880?

It was never 880. It was 180 for a while though.

I think his question was: why was CA-17 "split" into I-880 (San Jose to Oakland) and an extension of I-580 (San Rafael Bridge)? Why wasn't the whole thing renumbered I-880? The multiplex section with I-80 would have been exactly the same.

Because the Richmond-San Rafael segment would be an Interstate spur route, requiring an odd number.  Thus the 180 designation, then 580. 


iPhone
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: coatimundi on August 12, 2016, 11:49:02 PM
Right. Maybe once 980 goes away they'll reassign to that route. I don't know that anyone in the Bay Area actually calls it 580 anyway because it's confusing.
It's always sad when a 3di has to join its parent route. It's like moving back in with your parents somehow. Though I don't think 580 is signed along I-80, beyond where it joins and leaves.

Quote from: jrouse on August 12, 2016, 10:20:07 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on August 12, 2016, 10:14:39 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on August 10, 2016, 09:31:25 PM
Quote from: SeriesE on August 10, 2016, 08:59:05 PM
How come the San Rafael Bridge section of CA-17 was renumbered to I-580 instead of I-880?

It was never 880. It was 180 for a while though.

I think his question was: why was CA-17 "split" into I-880 (San Jose to Oakland) and an extension of I-580 (San Rafael Bridge)? Why wasn't the whole thing renumbered I-880? The multiplex section with I-80 would have been exactly the same.

Because the Richmond-San Rafael segment would be an Interstate spur route, requiring an odd number.  Thus the 180 designation, then 580. 


iPhone
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: jrouse on August 12, 2016, 11:56:23 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on August 12, 2016, 11:49:02 PM
Right. Maybe once 980 goes away they'll reassign to that route. I don't know that anyone in the Bay Area actually calls it 580 anyway because it's confusing.
It's always sad when a 3di has to join its parent route. It's like moving back in with your parents somehow. Though I don't think 580 is signed along I-80, beyond where it joins and leaves.


There's no plan to do away with 980, as far as I know.

580 is signed in several spots during its multiplex with 80.  There are the standard trailblazers after the interchanges, and it is marked on the onramps at Powell Street.  I don't know about the other interchanges but a quick check of Google Earth would answer that question.


iPhone
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: 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/
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: jrouse on August 13, 2016, 12:05:24 AM
One other observation:  if you have ever looked at the post miles on I-580, you might notice that they actually decrease as you head eastbound, rather than increase (the exit numbers increase, as expected).  That's a legacy from the I-5W designation.


iPhone
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: 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
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: flowmotion on August 19, 2016, 01:02:39 AM
I'm generally against most ill-thought-out freeway teardown proposals, but frankly I-980 itself could be boulevarded with very little impact. It has been a vital backup route in the past, but generally we don't build freeway systems with backup routes.

In the current configuration, I-880 has poor access to downtown Oakland, so downtown drivers are somewhat forced to take I-980. If the I-980 interchange was removed, one could directly get to Broadway/City Center/Jack London Square from I-880. Other traffic to downtown Oakland could hit a couple extra stoplights, big deal.

However, what that website doesn't mention is that the I-880/I-580/I-80 interchange would need to be enhanced so that one could go in all directions.  And the entire "Oakland maze" is at a breaking-point, so the I-580/I-980/CA-24 interchange would need major enhancements to provide direct connections to I-880. So you would need to pour at least billion dollars of new concrete to revitalize an area which currently doesn't seem to have much development potential. Maybe in twenty years.
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: sparker on August 19, 2016, 04:27:02 AM
I use I-880 regularly to get to a vendor in west Alameda (via the tubes); it is quite easy to get to downtown Oakland via the Broadway exit just before the I-980 divergence -- so access from I-880 is not an issue (while it is certainly busy, I've yet to encounter a significant backup on that ramp!).  If using one of the several bridges over I-980 is vexing to local residents, that portion of the facility would make an ideal place for "capping"; a park, a farmers' market, a series of bike paths -- there's a multitude of possibilities for usage of the top level of a cap.  That would, IMO, be the best -- and most cost-effective -- way of balancing local concerns with systemic efficiency.  I-980, as it is situated, constitutes the best way to get from Fremont and the other cities south of Oakland to the east side of Berkeley and, of course, the cities beyond the Caldecott Tunnel.

While a "cap" solution won't likely satisfy groups whose principal purpose is the excising of through routes in urban areas, at least it provides a place where locals can utilize a previously unusable swath of land rather than wait for the long and drawn-out process of deleting an Interstate route to run its course through the bureaucracy and, likely, the court system as well.  I'll probably get flack from several quarters for saying this, but -- is the (dubious) enjoyment of dancing on the grave of dead freeways worth the time and effort it takes to accomplish removal -- as well as the major disruption of regional traffic patterns?  And just who will be doing such "dancing" -- the purportedly put-upon locals, or the activists who seem to pop up from city to city with the same "solution", always in search of a problem that calls for their attention?  In the field of policy analysis, such action is termed the "garbage can" approach to a situation!
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: kkt on August 19, 2016, 12:25:11 PM
Enhancing the 880-80-580 interchange would require more land, which the city and residents are not going to be enthusiastic about granting.  980 serves an important purpose, which it wouldn't do as well as a boulevard.
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: sparker on August 19, 2016, 12:55:50 PM
The actual chances of a I-980 removal in the foreseeable future are slim & none, primarily because of the fiscal and geographical issues involved in deploying a workable substitute.  However, Oakland public officials have displayed a tendency to latch on to dubious concepts in order to show that they're "doing something" about the endemic problems related to that city; it would be a shame if they were to do so with the "freeway removal" roving movement, when such actions would hardly ameliorate, much less solve, Oakland's myriad troubles.
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: SeriesE on August 19, 2016, 04:17:21 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on August 12, 2016, 11:49:02 PM
Right. Maybe once 980 goes away they'll reassign to that route. I don't know that anyone in the Bay Area actually calls it 580 anyway because it's confusing.
It's always sad when a 3di has to join its parent route. It's like moving back in with your parents somehow. Though I don't think 580 is signed along I-80, beyond where it joins and leaves.
Both I-80 and I-580 are very well signed on the concurrent section, as trailblazers and on the freeway entrance signs on the local streets.

Quote from: jrouse on August 12, 2016, 10:20:07 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on August 12, 2016, 10:14:39 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on August 10, 2016, 09:31:25 PM
Quote from: SeriesE on August 10, 2016, 08:59:05 PM
How come the San Rafael Bridge section of CA-17 was renumbered to I-580 instead of I-880?

It was never 880. It was 180 for a while though.

I think his question was: why was CA-17 "split" into I-880 (San Jose to Oakland) and an extension of I-580 (San Rafael Bridge)? Why wasn't the whole thing renumbered I-880? The multiplex section with I-80 would have been exactly the same.

Because the Richmond-San Rafael segment would be an Interstate spur route, requiring an odd number.  Thus the 180 designation, then 580. 


iPhone
I see. Too bad there weren't any other options at the time, as extending I-580 created a wrong way concurrency problem that didn't exist before.
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: ACSCmapcollector on August 21, 2016, 04:03:44 PM
Quote from: Kniwt on August 10, 2016, 11:32:30 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 09, 2016, 10:22:07 PM
If you had one of the Rand McNally maps from the mid-60's, they plastered I-shields all over existing routes to show the basic alignment of the future route.

Here's part of the page from the 1960 Rand McNally, showing both 5W and 5E (in a vastly different alignment than what finally happened):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FIfIdr9f.jpg&hash=98a693176f7ab54ce2ed614b8e6d4f8b13716101)


I also have noticed that Stockton Blvd.'s Old U.S. 50 & 99 is green for freeway, when it should be red for divided highway.  In the Sacramento, CA inset to the left.
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: sparker on August 21, 2016, 04:40:46 PM
Numerous errors on that inset map: not only the freeway indicator for UC 50/99 on Stockton Blvd., but also showing US 99E as a freeway south to Capitol Ave. (US 50/CA 16); that wasn't completed (as original  I-80) until early 1967.  Also they showed El Centro Ave. heading north out of town as "CA 232"; that was not a signed route, it was simply that route's LRN.  SSR 24 had been routed over this alignment by 1958; this 1960 map should have reflected that; instead, it is shown as multiplexed with CA 16 NW from downtown Sacramento, the prior routing of SSR 24. 
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: coatimundi on August 21, 2016, 07:06:00 PM
The '66 Rand McNally shows the proposed I-5 line through Sacramento correctly, and shows a 505 shield instead of a floating 5W.
I noticed in looking at it that it shows a small section of I-5 between SR 152 & SR 33 completed. It's strange that they would build that first, but I think it may be a matter of it just barely jutting into another district, so that district just decided to build a connection.

What's sad about looking at these 60's maps to me is that the system in Yuba, Sutter and Butte Counties is pretty much the same as it was at that time, aside from a few isolated stretches of freeway around Yuba City/Marysville, and the newer SR 149 configuration. That whole region just needs one, continuous freeway.
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: kkt on August 21, 2016, 07:53:46 PM
It's interesting that on the Bay Area inset, I-5 E and W are shown... but Skyline Blvd. is still shown as CA 5.
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: sparker on August 21, 2016, 08:56:05 PM
The publication of RmcN atlases well prior to the issue's calendar year probably was responsible for the '66 atlas only showing the short I-5 segment west of Los Banos; I-5 was opened from 152 to the I-580 split -- and 580 from there to Altamont Pass around Thanksgiving 1965.  The entire route, at least north to Stockton, was open by the summer of 1972. 

The 1969 iteration of the California Freeway & Expressway plan indicated that CA 99 was intended to eventually be a full freeway from I-5 north of Sacramento to, again, I-5 south of Red Bluff; there was a proposed diagonal cutoff diverging from CA 99 near Los Molinos and intersecting I-5 near the town of Proberta.  Also, both CA 70 from the CA 99 split near Nicolaus to CA 149 was also intended to be a full freeway, as was 149; apparently at the time population growth projections showed both Yuba City and Marysville as growing well past their '60's levels, so each was to be served by its own north-south freeway facility (no one said the original 1959 plan and its revisions was not ambitious!)  Obviously those plans have been scaled down; the Los Molinos-Proberta routing was deleted in the mid-'90's.  Even if either the 99 or 70/149 corridors are expanded to at least expressway standard, it's likely that a multi-lane facility will not extend north of Chico any farther than already built. 
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: ACSCmapcollector on August 21, 2016, 09:04:02 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on August 21, 2016, 07:06:00 PM
The '66 Rand McNally shows the proposed I-5 line through Sacramento correctly, and shows a 505 shield instead of a floating 5W.
I noticed in looking at it that it shows a small section of I-5 between SR 152 & SR 33 completed. It's strange that they would build that first, but I think it may be a matter of it just barely jutting into another district, so that district just decided to build a connection.

What's sad about looking at these 60's maps to me is that the system in Yuba, Sutter and Butte Counties is pretty much the same as it was at that time, aside from a few isolated stretches of freeway around Yuba City/Marysville, and the newer SR 149 configuration. That whole region just needs one, continuous freeway.

I hope you can show that change, please in your 1966 Rand McNally Road Atlas.
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: ACSCmapcollector on August 22, 2016, 07:30:44 PM
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on August 21, 2016, 09:04:02 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on August 21, 2016, 07:06:00 PM
The '66 Rand McNally shows the proposed I-5 line through Sacramento correctly, and shows a 505 shield instead of a floating 5W.
I noticed in looking at it that it shows a small section of I-5 between SR 152 & SR 33 completed. It's strange that they would build that first, but I think it may be a matter of it just barely jutting into another district, so that district just decided to build a connection.

What's sad about looking at these 60's maps to me is that the system in Yuba, Sutter and Butte Counties is pretty much the same as it was at that time, aside from a few isolated stretches of freeway around Yuba City/Marysville, and the newer SR 149 configuration. That whole region just needs one, continuous freeway.

I hope you can show that change, please in your 1966 Rand McNally Road Atlas.

Look how many Interstate 5E bridges would have to be built compared with the chosen Interstate 5, Westside Freeway route (proposed).
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: coatimundi on August 23, 2016, 01:11:02 AM
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on August 21, 2016, 09:04:02 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on August 21, 2016, 07:06:00 PM
The '66 Rand McNally shows the proposed I-5 line through Sacramento correctly, and shows a 505 shield instead of a floating 5W.
I noticed in looking at it that it shows a small section of I-5 between SR 152 & SR 33 completed. It's strange that they would build that first, but I think it may be a matter of it just barely jutting into another district, so that district just decided to build a connection.

What's sad about looking at these 60's maps to me is that the system in Yuba, Sutter and Butte Counties is pretty much the same as it was at that time, aside from a few isolated stretches of freeway around Yuba City/Marysville, and the newer SR 149 configuration. That whole region just needs one, continuous freeway.

I hope you can show that change, please in your 1966 Rand McNally Road Atlas.

I'm not sure what you want me to show, if you are directing this at me. The routing for I-5 on the '66 Rand McNally is pretty much the exact routing that was constructed. So it's just a matter of looking at a current map and imagining a dashed line.
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: ACSCmapcollector on August 23, 2016, 04:29:49 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on August 23, 2016, 01:11:02 AM
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on August 21, 2016, 09:04:02 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on August 21, 2016, 07:06:00 PM
The '66 Rand McNally shows the proposed I-5 line through Sacramento correctly, and shows a 505 shield instead of a floating 5W.
I noticed in looking at it that it shows a small section of I-5 between SR 152 & SR 33 completed. It's strange that they would build that first, but I think it may be a matter of it just barely jutting into another district, so that district just decided to build a connection.

What's sad about looking at these 60's maps to me is that the system in Yuba, Sutter and Butte Counties is pretty much the same as it was at that time, aside from a few isolated stretches of freeway around Yuba City/Marysville, and the newer SR 149 configuration. That whole region just needs one, continuous freeway.

I hope you can show that change, please in your 1966 Rand McNally Road Atlas.

I'm not sure what you want me to show, if you are directing this at me. The routing for I-5 on the '66 Rand McNally is pretty much the exact routing that was constructed. So it's just a matter of looking at a current map and imagining a dashed line.

However my Sacramento, CA map from Goshua (H.M. Goshua) and from Chevron (Standard Oil of California) showed the Westside Freeway, Interstate 5 under construction from downtown Sacramento to the cut off line SE of the present day of the Sacramento International Airport during the year of 1967.  No one has asked for a view of this map as of now, either.  Goshua was more accurate than Rand McNally during those 1960s years into the 1970s.
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: sparker on August 24, 2016, 04:06:26 PM
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on August 23, 2016, 04:29:49 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on August 23, 2016, 01:11:02 AM
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on August 21, 2016, 09:04:02 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on August 21, 2016, 07:06:00 PM
The '66 Rand McNally shows the proposed I-5 line through Sacramento correctly, and shows a 505 shield instead of a floating 5W.
I noticed in looking at it that it shows a small section of I-5 between SR 152 & SR 33 completed. It's strange that they would build that first, but I think it may be a matter of it just barely jutting into another district, so that district just decided to build a connection.

What's sad about looking at these 60's maps to me is that the system in Yuba, Sutter and Butte Counties is pretty much the same as it was at that time, aside from a few isolated stretches of freeway around Yuba City/Marysville, and the newer SR 149 configuration. That whole region just needs one, continuous freeway.

I hope you can show that change, please in your 1966 Rand McNally Road Atlas.

I'm not sure what you want me to show, if you are directing this at me. The routing for I-5 on the '66 Rand McNally is pretty much the exact routing that was constructed. So it's just a matter of looking at a current map and imagining a dashed line.

However my Sacramento, CA map from Goshua (H.M. Goshua) and from Chevron (Standard Oil of California) showed the Westside Freeway, Interstate 5 under construction from downtown Sacramento to the cut off line SE of the present day of the Sacramento International Airport during the year of 1967.  No one has asked for a view of this map as of now, either.  Goshua was more accurate than Rand McNally during those 1960s years into the 1970s.



The first section of I-5 to be completed in the Sacramento area was the E-W segment west of El Centro Ave. (CA 99); 2 lanes of the eventual 4 (2 + 2) were constructed between El Centro and Garden Highway (at the Sacramento River) and opened to traffic in early 1967.  These became the eventual I-5 northbound lanes; the southbound side was grubbed by that time; grading & paving came later.  The initial berms for the Sacramento River bridge were under construction at that time as well. 

Since the Sacramento airport was also under construction immediately to the north, this initial 2-lane segment served as a construction access road to the airport site.  It saw little traffic until I-5 was completed both north and south of the segment.  I have personal memories of the road -- it was where my uncle taught me to drive a stick shift soon after it opened.   
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: ACSCmapcollector on August 24, 2016, 08:14:54 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 24, 2016, 04:06:26 PM
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on August 23, 2016, 04:29:49 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on August 23, 2016, 01:11:02 AM
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on August 21, 2016, 09:04:02 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on August 21, 2016, 07:06:00 PM
The '66 Rand McNally shows the proposed I-5 line through Sacramento correctly, and shows a 505 shield instead of a floating 5W.
I noticed in looking at it that it shows a small section of I-5 between SR 152 & SR 33 completed. It's strange that they would build that first, but I think it may be a matter of it just barely jutting into another district, so that district just decided to build a connection.

What's sad about looking at these 60's maps to me is that the system in Yuba, Sutter and Butte Counties is pretty much the same as it was at that time, aside from a few isolated stretches of freeway around Yuba City/Marysville, and the newer SR 149 configuration. That whole region just needs one, continuous freeway.

I hope you can show that change, please in your 1966 Rand McNally Road Atlas.

I'm not sure what you want me to show, if you are directing this at me. The routing for I-5 on the '66 Rand McNally is pretty much the exact routing that was constructed. So it's just a matter of looking at a current map and imagining a dashed line.

However my Sacramento, CA map from Goshua (H.M. Goshua) and from Chevron (Standard Oil of California) showed the Westside Freeway, Interstate 5 under construction from downtown Sacramento to the cut off line SE of the present day of the Sacramento International Airport during the year of 1967.  No one has asked for a view of this map as of now, either.  Goshua was more accurate than Rand McNally during those 1960s years into the 1970s.



The first section of I-5 to be completed in the Sacramento area was the E-W segment west of El Centro Ave. (CA 99); 2 lanes of the eventual 4 (2 + 2) were constructed between El Centro and Garden Highway (at the Sacramento River) and opened to traffic in early 1967.  These became the eventual I-5 northbound lanes; the southbound side was grubbed by that time; grading & paving came later.  The initial berms for the Sacramento River bridge were under construction at that time as well. 

Since the Sacramento airport was also under construction immediately to the north, this initial 2-lane segment served as a construction access road to the airport site.  It saw little traffic until I-5 was completed both north and south of the segment.  I have personal memories of the road -- it was where my uncle taught me to drive a stick shift soon after it opened.   

Then I question the southern portion of Interstate 5 from Downtown Sacramento to the city limits of Sacramento, what date, what year construction started and completed segment?
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: sdmichael on August 25, 2016, 01:22:45 AM
This might help - http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/structur/strmaint/brlog/logpdf/logd03.pdf (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/structur/strmaint/brlog/logpdf/logd03.pdf)
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: 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 (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.
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: 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 (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?
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: 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 (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".
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: ACSCmapcollector on August 26, 2016, 09:22:47 PM
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 (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:
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: Quillz on September 12, 2016, 06:53:28 PM
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.
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: 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?
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: kkt on September 12, 2016, 09:29:12 PM
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.

Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: Quillz on September 13, 2016, 12:07:10 AM
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.
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: sparker on September 13, 2016, 12:22:56 AM
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!   
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: kkt on September 13, 2016, 11:46:02 AM
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.

Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: TheStranger on September 13, 2016, 12:07:59 PM
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)

Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: coatimundi on September 13, 2016, 01:17:12 PM
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.
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: 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.

Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: TheStranger on September 14, 2016, 12:05:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: TheStranger on September 30, 2016, 12:25:02 AM
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

Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: kkt on September 30, 2016, 12:53:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: mrsman on September 30, 2016, 05:18:21 PM
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.

Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: kkt on September 30, 2016, 06:04:52 PM
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.

Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: coatimundi on September 30, 2016, 06:15:32 PM
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.
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: cahwyguy on September 30, 2016, 06:20:00 PM
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).
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: TheStranger on September 30, 2016, 10:28:24 PM
Quote from: mrsman on September 30, 2016, 05:18:21 PM

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.


NOt sure which existing rural roads you are thinking of - the two options that existed in the 1960s were US 99/US 99W and US 50 (I-5W)/Route 21/US 40 (I-80)/unsigned corridor that would later become I-505.  Other than that, the current I-5 is about the only way to get to Dunnigan from Vernalis.

Quote from: mrsman on September 30, 2016, 05:18:21 PM
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.



The Mid-State Tollway, which would have connected near the Antioch Bridge and would have incorporated the corridor for unbuilt Route 239 (a proposed connector from I-580/I-205 split northwest to today's Route 4/Vasco Road junction).
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: coatimundi on September 30, 2016, 10:46:35 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on September 30, 2016, 10:28:24 PM
Quote from: mrsman on September 30, 2016, 05:18:21 PM
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.

The Mid-State Tollway, which would have connected near the Antioch Bridge and would have incorporated the corridor for unbuilt Route 239 (a proposed connector from I-580/I-205 split northwest to today's Route 4/Vasco Road junction).

And, IIRC, that was proposed as part of the original state highway system, but then discussed again in the 90's, and is now back to bubbling up since 680 has gotten so bad, and Discovery Bay people have to sit in traffic. Is that right?
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: kkt on October 01, 2016, 12:35:16 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on September 30, 2016, 10:28:24 PM
Quote from: mrsman on September 30, 2016, 05:18:21 PM
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.
NOt sure which existing rural roads you are thinking of - the two options that existed in the 1960s were US 99/US 99W and US 50 (I-5W)/Route 21/US 40 (I-80)/unsigned corridor that would later become I-505.  Other than that, the current I-5 is about the only way to get to Dunnigan from Vernalis.

Referring to the 1960 California State Highway Map courtesy of David Ramsey,
From Stockton, CA 4 west to Antioch, 24 east (compass north) to Rio Vista, 12 west to unsigned legislative route 101 (now CA 113), north to Dixon, east on US 40, north on Alt US 40/99W, north on 99W to Dunnigan.

Quote
Quote from: mrsman on September 30, 2016, 05:18:21 PM
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.
The Mid-State Tollway, which would have connected near the Antioch Bridge and would have incorporated the corridor for unbuilt Route 239 (a proposed connector from I-580/I-205 split northwest to today's Route 4/Vasco Road junction).

I-5C?   :spin:
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: myosh_tino on October 01, 2016, 02:41:55 AM
Quote from: coatimundi on September 30, 2016, 10:46:35 PM
And, IIRC, that was proposed as part of the original state highway system, but then discussed again in the 90's, and is now back to bubbling up since 680 has gotten so bad, and Discovery Bay people have to sit in traffic. Is that right?

I haven't heard any new rumblings about the Mid-State Tollway.  I was under the impression that it's dead.  There's always chatter about improving Vasco Road to make commuting from Brentwood a little bit easier (and safer).
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: sparker on October 01, 2016, 01:22:16 PM
During the period (1957-63) that I-5W was an active designation (if only signed briefly in Oakland), most of I-80/US 40 between Vallejo and West Sacramento was still a 4-lane expressway with at-grade crossings; freeway segments were sporadic at best.  IIRC from driving on that route with my family back around 1963, freeway construction was going on in the Cordelia-Fairfield area, a bit around Vacaville, and in Davis east of the SPRR underpass (now a freeway overpass, of course).  The only continuous freeway segment at the time was from the "Distribution Structure" (now the 80/580/880 interchange) up through central Vallejo; it was co-signed as I-80/US 40.  It probably just didn't occur to the Division of Highways to erect I-5W signage along that section until more of the route along US 50 to the southeast -- as well as the N-S section north of Vacaville (now I-505) -- was completed or at least under construction.  However, the '64 renumbering rendered all that moot with the effective severing of the 5W concept. 

It's likely that the 5W/5E split was originally designated as such to ensure that the Bay Area was served by both E-W (I-80) and N-S (I-5W) corridors -- as much for political reasons as logistical; providing a continuous corridor between the L.A. and Bay Area metro regions within the I-5 "family" was probably part of that equation -- even with I-5's original pre-'57 routing along US 99, with the southern 5E/5W split occurring at Modesto.   
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: mrsman on October 02, 2016, 07:35:27 AM
Quote from: kkt on October 01, 2016, 12:35:16 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on September 30, 2016, 10:28:24 PM
Quote from: mrsman on September 30, 2016, 05:18:21 PM
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.
NOt sure which existing rural roads you are thinking of - the two options that existed in the 1960s were US 99/US 99W and US 50 (I-5W)/Route 21/US 40 (I-80)/unsigned corridor that would later become I-505.  Other than that, the current I-5 is about the only way to get to Dunnigan from Vernalis.

Referring to the 1960 California State Highway Map courtesy of David Ramsey,
From Stockton, CA 4 west to Antioch, 24 east (compass north) to Rio Vista, 12 west to unsigned legislative route 101 (now CA 113), north to Dixon, east on US 40, north on Alt US 40/99W, north on 99W to Dunnigan.


Thank you kkt, that was the route I was thinking about.  I didn't look into the history and didn't know what the old highway numbers were, but I knew that there  was an available routing west of Sacramento that was still not nearly as far as Oakland.  I was also concerned about whether the Antioch Bridge was available for crossing in the early days (or whether there was a .   It turns out that there was a bridge in that location since 1926 - the current bridge replacing the oringinal structure in 1978.

As all posting on this thread can attest, there is definitely a traffic need for the Mid-State Tollway.  Lets get the N-S thru traffic out of both the Bay Area and the Sacramento Valley and connect 580 to 505.
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: myosh_tino on October 02, 2016, 02:52:49 PM
Quote from: mrsman on October 02, 2016, 07:35:27 AM
As all posting on this thread can attest, there is definitely a traffic need for the Mid-State Tollway.  Lets get the N-S thru traffic out of both the Bay Area and the Sacramento Valley and connect 580 to 505.

Not me.

Quite frankly, I don't see a need for the Mid-State Tollway.  There isn't a ton of north-south through traffic passing through the Bay Area.  It's more of a destination/origination spot.  Those traveling from the Bay Area headed north aren't going to go the 20 or so miles out of their way to reach the Mid-State at the 580-205 interchange.  They'll continue to use 680 north and 80 east.

I suppose an argument can be made for the Mid-State being a good bypass of the Sacramento metro area but you're talking about building a highway through the Sacramento-San Joaquin River delta which will negatively impact the sensitive Sacramento-San Joaquin river delta region.  I'm not sure if building a highway there is worth the time and effort to mitigate all of the environmental issues.
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: kkt on October 02, 2016, 09:38:14 PM
I suspect it would be more of a way for traffic to avoid I-80 between Oakland and Vacaville, by heading east on 580 or 24, then north on the new bypass to the I-80/505 intersection.

Additional lanes on I-80 from Oakland to Sacramento and on I-5 throughout the central valley would be more valuable, I think.  A toll bypass would also have a hard time attracting toll customers if existing routes remain free.


Still, a bypass of Sacramento could be built in the nonarable land at the western foothills of Mt. Diablo to Vasco Rd., then Vasco Rd. to existing CA 4 freeway.  The Antioch Bridge would need to be doubled, and a new bridge built from Sherman Island across the Sacramento River to somewhere around Toland Landing on the north shore.  So, one complete freeway bridge, half of another, and about 35 miles of freeway that's new or upgraded from 2 lane.
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: sparker on October 02, 2016, 10:51:38 PM
Quote from: kkt on October 02, 2016, 09:38:14 PM
Still, a bypass of Sacramento could be built in the nonarable land at the western foothills of Mt. Diablo to Vasco Rd., then Vasco Rd. to existing CA 4 freeway.  The Antioch Bridge would need to be doubled, and a new bridge built from Sherman Island across the Sacramento River to somewhere around Toland Landing on the north shore.  So, one complete freeway bridge, half of another, and about 35 miles of freeway that's new or upgraded from 2 lane.


Essentially, the southern portion of this is on the books -- though an exact route has never been adopted -- as CA 239, which extends from the 580/205 interchange northwest to CA 4 at pretty much the location of the intersection of that highway with Vasco Rd.   The original Mid-State tollway proposal also followed much of the routing kkt cites; crossing CA 12 near the CA 113 junction, then heading northwest past Elmira before crossing I-80 a couple of miles east of I-505 and ending up merging with I-505 north of Vacaville.  IIRC from about 1992 or so, when the proposal was being actively shopped around Sacramento, there was even a more ambitious plan with an eastwardly diverging branch extending north to the I-80/CA 113 north junction near Davis.  While the overland portions in Solano County weren't, in a relative sense, overly costly, constructing a 2nd Antioch Bridge, plus another 4-6 lane structure over the navigable Sacramento River at Sherman Island was deemed, well, a "bridge too far" as far as deployment expenses were concerned.  It was also anticipated that tolling the route would simply result in shunpiking either over I-5 or the neighboring surface facilities.  AFAIK, plans for the portion of the facility north of Antioch are still on a shelf somewhere; revival seems unlikely given other regional priorities.  The CA 239 portion, although still officially unadopted, gets revisited on occasion, particularly when the growth patterns of eastern Contra Costa County (e.g., Brentwood, Discovery Bay) gain public notice.  Even with the improvements of the past few years, Vasco Road still sees LOS E or F on a daily/weekday basis -- and although regional policies in the Bay Area mitigate against large-scale intraregional limited-access road construction, IMO eventually push will come to shove and connecting facilities will be deployed (maybe not in my own lifetime, but in the long haul).
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: coatimundi on October 03, 2016, 12:53:57 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 02, 2016, 02:52:49 PM
Quote from: mrsman on October 02, 2016, 07:35:27 AM
As all posting on this thread can attest, there is definitely a traffic need for the Mid-State Tollway.  Lets get the N-S thru traffic out of both the Bay Area and the Sacramento Valley and connect 580 to 505.

Not me.

Quite frankly, I don't see a need for the Mid-State Tollway.  There isn't a ton of north-south through traffic passing through the Bay Area.  It's more of a destination/origination spot.  Those traveling from the Bay Area headed north aren't going to go the 20 or so miles out of their way to reach the Mid-State at the 580-205 interchange.  They'll continue to use 680 north and 80 east.

Totally agree with you. Thru traffic would continue to use the free I-5. Commuter traffic from Brentwood and Livermore would likely swell on it during rush hours, but you can't pay for a toll road through solely commuter traffic. That's been proven again and again.
I mean, I would be a potential customer for this. We don't go to Sonoma more often because it's such a pain in the butt to get through the Bay Area. You either have to slog through SF and sit through the northbound traffic on the Golden Gate approach (tourist traffic on the weekends all wanting to stop at the viewpoint at the other end), or roll the dice with I-880 (and you generally get casino odds). Having a toll option would be nice, but I don't think I would take it with the tolls that they would probably have to charge in order to adequately finance this thing.
And I'm not exactly in a large metropolitan area, and very few people from here are going to Sonoma.
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: DTComposer on October 03, 2016, 02:43:39 AM
Quote from: coatimundi on October 03, 2016, 12:53:57 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 02, 2016, 02:52:49 PM
Quote from: mrsman on October 02, 2016, 07:35:27 AM
As all posting on this thread can attest, there is definitely a traffic need for the Mid-State Tollway.  Lets get the N-S thru traffic out of both the Bay Area and the Sacramento Valley and connect 580 to 505.

Not me.

Quite frankly, I don't see a need for the Mid-State Tollway.  There isn't a ton of north-south through traffic passing through the Bay Area.  It's more of a destination/origination spot.  Those traveling from the Bay Area headed north aren't going to go the 20 or so miles out of their way to reach the Mid-State at the 580-205 interchange.  They'll continue to use 680 north and 80 east.

Totally agree with you. Thru traffic would continue to use the free I-5. Commuter traffic from Brentwood and Livermore would likely swell on it during rush hours, but you can't pay for a toll road through solely commuter traffic. That's been proven again and again.
I mean, I would be a potential customer for this. We don't go to Sonoma more often because it's such a pain in the butt to get through the Bay Area. You either have to slog through SF and sit through the northbound traffic on the Golden Gate approach (tourist traffic on the weekends all wanting to stop at the viewpoint at the other end), or roll the dice with I-880 (and you generally get casino odds). Having a toll option would be nice, but I don't think I would take it with the tolls that they would probably have to charge in order to adequately finance this thing.
And I'm not exactly in a large metropolitan area, and very few people from here are going to Sonoma.

Not sure what part of Sonoma you're going to, but why don't you take I-680 to CA-12? Especially on a weekend, I-680 has always been preferable to I-880 for my trips to that area.
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: coatimundi on October 03, 2016, 03:00:44 AM
Quote from: DTComposer on October 03, 2016, 02:43:39 AM
Quote from: coatimundi on October 03, 2016, 12:53:57 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 02, 2016, 02:52:49 PM
Quote from: mrsman on October 02, 2016, 07:35:27 AM
As all posting on this thread can attest, there is definitely a traffic need for the Mid-State Tollway.  Lets get the N-S thru traffic out of both the Bay Area and the Sacramento Valley and connect 580 to 505.

Not me.

Quite frankly, I don't see a need for the Mid-State Tollway.  There isn't a ton of north-south through traffic passing through the Bay Area.  It's more of a destination/origination spot.  Those traveling from the Bay Area headed north aren't going to go the 20 or so miles out of their way to reach the Mid-State at the 580-205 interchange.  They'll continue to use 680 north and 80 east.

Totally agree with you. Thru traffic would continue to use the free I-5. Commuter traffic from Brentwood and Livermore would likely swell on it during rush hours, but you can't pay for a toll road through solely commuter traffic. That's been proven again and again.
I mean, I would be a potential customer for this. We don't go to Sonoma more often because it's such a pain in the butt to get through the Bay Area. You either have to slog through SF and sit through the northbound traffic on the Golden Gate approach (tourist traffic on the weekends all wanting to stop at the viewpoint at the other end), or roll the dice with I-880 (and you generally get casino odds). Having a toll option would be nice, but I don't think I would take it with the tolls that they would probably have to charge in order to adequately finance this thing.
And I'm not exactly in a large metropolitan area, and very few people from here are going to Sonoma.

Not sure what part of Sonoma you're going to, but why don't you take I-680 to CA-12? Especially on a weekend, I-680 has always been preferable to I-880 for my trips to that area.

By "Sonoma," I meant Sonoma County, and not the town. We usually end up in Santa Rosa, Petaluma, or further up the coast.
I've always hit problems on 680 on the weekends, particularly around Mission Grade. That's also quite a detour if you're heading to something along 101. Still somewhat when going to the town of Sonoma, but not as bad.
Only plug for going through SF is avoiding the $5 toll.
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: TheStranger on October 03, 2016, 12:11:03 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on October 03, 2016, 12:53:57 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 02, 2016, 02:52:49 PM
Quote from: mrsman on October 02, 2016, 07:35:27 AM
As all posting on this thread can attest, there is definitely a traffic need for the Mid-State Tollway.  Lets get the N-S thru traffic out of both the Bay Area and the Sacramento Valley and connect 580 to 505.

Not me.

Quite frankly, I don't see a need for the Mid-State Tollway.  There isn't a ton of north-south through traffic passing through the Bay Area.  It's more of a destination/origination spot.  Those traveling from the Bay Area headed north aren't going to go the 20 or so miles out of their way to reach the Mid-State at the 580-205 interchange.  They'll continue to use 680 north and 80 east.

Totally agree with you. Thru traffic would continue to use the free I-5. Commuter traffic from Brentwood and Livermore would likely swell on it during rush hours, but you can't pay for a toll road through solely commuter traffic. That's been proven again and again.

I wonder how much of the long-distance truck traffic that currently has to use I-5 between I-580 and I-505 would find a Mid-State Tollway useful.  I don't know how bad Stockton's rush hour is but from having lived in Sacramento, I-5 from Sutterville Road in Land Park north to about Arena Boulevard in Natomas was always a bit of a mess.  (Southbound was problematic too from P Street towards Seamas Avenue/Fruitridge Road)

In an earlier post in the thread, a connector between the proposed tollway and the 113/80 junction in Davis was mentioned too - I could see that as an alternate to taking 99 into the Yuba City/Marysville region, though 99 north of 5 is not particularly overrun with traffic.
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: sparker on October 03, 2016, 01:49:10 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on October 03, 2016, 12:11:03 PM
I wonder how much of the long-distance truck traffic that currently has to use I-5 between I-580 and I-505 would find a Mid-State Tollway useful.  I don't know how bad Stockton's rush hour is but from having lived in Sacramento, I-5 from Sutterville Road in Land Park north to about Arena Boulevard in Natomas was always a bit of a mess.  (Southbound was problematic too from P Street towards Seamas Avenue/Fruitridge Road)

In an earlier post in the thread, a connector between the proposed tollway and the 113/80 junction in Davis was mentioned too - I could see that as an alternate to taking 99 into the Yuba City/Marysville region, though 99 north of 5 is not particularly overrun with traffic.

It seems like the present-day rationale for something resembling the "Mid-State" tollway concept is the avoidance of commute-time congestion in Stockton and, more so, Sacramento.  I use either I-5 or CA 99 between Manteca and Sacramento at least twice a month, and have found rush-hour Stockton traffic annoying but hardly a problem that requires a relief facility -- the dual/parallel 5 & 99 facillities already accomplish that to some extent.  Much of the I-5 problem, from CA 4 north to Hammer Lane, was for a long period due to the 2+2+ slip-lane configuration on that segment; it is being brought out to 6 lanes (8 closer to downtown); that should alleviate much of the problem (locals weaving in & out of through truck traffic).  Sacramento is another matter; its rush hour is starting to resemble that of I-680 in the East Bay:  congestion times extend from about 6 in the morning to 9-9:30, while outbound afternoon traffic starts piling up about 3 p.m. and often persists until after 7 p.m.  And the congested area extends all the way from the Freeport/CA 160 exit at the south side of the metro area (the famous "water tank" landmark) to the CA 99 north split near the airport. 

I'll beg your pardon for slipping a bit into the fictional realm, but a connector (yes, it'll require a couple of high-level bridges over the Sacramento River & the ship channel) from I-5 somewhere west of Elk Grove west to, say, the 80/113 interchange near U.C. Davis might be a more localized bypass consideration, using 113 north to Woodland to complete the routing.  Would satisfy the bypass function with relative ease, utilizing an existing route for half the bypass length.  If done, I'd simply designate it a western portion of the dormant CA 148.  Just a thought!
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: coatimundi on October 03, 2016, 02:37:52 PM
Quote from: sparker on October 03, 2016, 01:49:10 PM
I'll beg your pardon for slipping a bit into the fictional realm, but a connector (yes, it'll require a couple of high-level bridges over the Sacramento River & the ship channel) from I-5 somewhere west of Elk Grove west to, say, the 80/113 interchange near U.C. Davis might be a more localized bypass consideration, using 113 north to Woodland to complete the routing.  Would satisfy the bypass function with relative ease, utilizing an existing route for half the bypass length.  If done, I'd simply designate it a western portion of the dormant CA 148.  Just a thought!

Fictional is what makes it fun.
I like this southwestern bypass idea. That, I think could potentially be a feasible toll road. With all the bridges needed (not just over waterways, but also to mitigate environmental impacts on the wetlands) and new ROW, it would absolutely have to be a toll road.
I've been surprised by the amount of traffic coming north from Sacramento headed for Sutter County. I guess a lot of the people living up there work in the city.
The transit side of me says that this traffic could easily be cut down by better and more incentivized bus service. Putting in HOV lanes on that corridor is probably long overdue, and only the southern part of I-5 in the city is slated to get them.
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: TheStranger on October 03, 2016, 02:43:07 PM
Quote from: sparker on October 03, 2016, 01:49:10 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on October 03, 2016, 12:11:03 PM
I wonder how much of the long-distance truck traffic that currently has to use I-5 between I-580 and I-505 would find a Mid-State Tollway useful.  I don't know how bad Stockton's rush hour is but from having lived in Sacramento, I-5 from Sutterville Road in Land Park north to about Arena Boulevard in Natomas was always a bit of a mess.  (Southbound was problematic too from P Street towards Seamas Avenue/Fruitridge Road)

In an earlier post in the thread, a connector between the proposed tollway and the 113/80 junction in Davis was mentioned too - I could see that as an alternate to taking 99 into the Yuba City/Marysville region, though 99 north of 5 is not particularly overrun with traffic.

It seems like the present-day rationale for something resembling the "Mid-State" tollway concept is the avoidance of commute-time congestion in Stockton and, more so, Sacramento.  I use either I-5 or CA 99 between Manteca and Sacramento at least twice a month, and have found rush-hour Stockton traffic annoying but hardly a problem that requires a relief facility -- the dual/parallel 5 & 99 facillities already accomplish that to some extent.  Much of the I-5 problem, from CA 4 north to Hammer Lane, was for a long period due to the 2+2+ slip-lane configuration on that segment; it is being brought out to 6 lanes (8 closer to downtown); that should alleviate much of the problem (locals weaving in & out of through truck traffic).  Sacramento is another matter; its rush hour is starting to resemble that of I-680 in the East Bay:  congestion times extend from about 6 in the morning to 9-9:30, while outbound afternoon traffic starts piling up about 3 p.m. and often persists until after 7 p.m.  And the congested area extends all the way from the Freeport/CA 160 exit at the south side of the metro area (the famous "water tank" landmark) to the CA 99 north split near the airport. 

In that vein...I know that the 80/680 junction is being reconstructed (again) but is a lot better than it had been a decade ago; likewise, 580/680 is a choke point but a little better compared to the past.  Would the Mid-State routing provide any relief for people commuting from San Jose wishing to go to Sacramento or further north without having to use 680 (i.e. a routing of 680 out of SJ to 84 to 580 to the tollway to 113 or 505)?

---

Quote from: coatimundiI like this southwestern bypass idea.

I do too - it's crazy to think that the Sacramento area really only has two major east-west bridges over the Sacramento river (80, 50) with 5 really being more of a north-south corridor crossing east-west in Natomas.  Elk Grove, the current largest suburb of the region, really has few options to avoid urban traffic to get anywhere outside of the immediate area.
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: sparker on October 04, 2016, 04:17:46 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on October 03, 2016, 02:43:07 PM
Quote from: coatimundiI like this southwestern bypass idea.

I do too - it's crazy to think that the Sacramento area really only has two major east-west bridges over the Sacramento river (80, 50) with 5 really being more of a north-south corridor crossing east-west in Natomas.  Elk Grove, the current largest suburb of the region, really has few options to avoid urban traffic to get anywhere outside of the immediate area.
One of the things to consider re any southwest Sacramento bypass is another "bypass" of sorts -- the Yolo Bypass flood-diversion facility, which empties into the ship channel south of West Sacramento.  Any E-W (or, more precisely, SE-NW) facility will likely have to cross the ship channel downstream of where the Yolo Bypass empties -- which is actually the first 4-5 miles of the channel south of the West Sacramento turning basin.   Looking at GE/GSV, the most likely intersection point with I-5 would be just south of the Laguna West housing tract east of I-5, heading due west to the ship channel, turning northwest there, with a northward bend just south of the present I-80/CA 113 (north) interchange SW of Davis.  Any facility deployed north of there would have to be constructed on a causeway or series of causeways similar to that on I-80 and I-5 east of Woodland -- certainly not a cost-effective routing.


While the drought conditions of recent years have resulted in the Yolo Bypass remaining largely dry even during winter and early spring months, I can certainly remember the exceptionally wet El Nino years of 1982-83, when the Yolo Bypass was full from December until late April of both years -- driving on I-80 seemed like driving to Key West!  Common sense would dictate that the Bypass be itself bypassed rather than crossed by any new road facility.   
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: jrouse on October 04, 2016, 09:06:40 PM
The latest State Route 239 study was completed in 2014.  Details here:  http://trilink239.org

The proposed routing would be from the 205/580 split to approximately where the Brentwood Bypass portion of SR-4 meets Vasco Road. 

With regards to the proposed Mid-State Tollway, the routing, as has been noted, would have followed the proposed SR-239 alignment and then  roughly the same alignment as the SR-4 Brentwood Bypass.  It would have crossed the San Joaquin River west of the Antioch Bridge and the Sacramento River just past that.  The tollway would have ended at I-80 somewhere between Dixon and Vacaville.  A spur route would have connected to the junction of I-80 and I-505.  There was no plan, AFAIK, to tie it into SR-113 at Davis.   Local opposition killed the portion of the proposed tollway north of Antioch.


iPhone
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: jrouse on October 04, 2016, 09:09:51 PM
New item somewhat related to this thread...

I was looking at a study for planned HOT lanes on I-80 between Vacaville and Fairfield.  I noticed that there is a plan to realign I-505 and build a new interchange with I-80 between the existing junction and Leisure Town Road.  The existing 505/80 junction would be replaced by a new interchange serving Orange Drive.  I never even knew this was being proposed.  Was anyone else aware of this?


iPhone
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: myosh_tino on October 04, 2016, 11:15:13 PM
Quote from: jrouse on October 04, 2016, 09:09:51 PM
New item somewhat related to this thread...

I was looking at a study for planned HOT lanes on I-80 between Vacaville and Fairfield.  I noticed that there is a plan to realign I-505 and build a new interchange with I-80 between the existing junction and Leisure Town Road.  The existing 505/80 junction would be replaced by a new interchange serving Orange Drive.  I never even knew this was being proposed.  Was anyone else aware of this?


iPhone

No but isn't that pretty much what they're doing at the 80/680 interchange?  IIRC, as part of the I-80/CA-12 interchange improvement project, isn't the I-80/I-680 interchange going to be relocated a bit to the west of the existing one?  While I understand the need for the relocation (to help improve traffic flow between the 3 highways), I don't see any additional benefit to relocating the 80/505 interchange.
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: jrouse on October 05, 2016, 09:55:17 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 04, 2016, 11:15:13 PM
Quote from: jrouse on October 04, 2016, 09:09:51 PM
New item somewhat related to this thread...

I was looking at a study for planned HOT lanes on I-80 between Vacaville and Fairfield.  I noticed that there is a plan to realign I-505 and build a new interchange with I-80 between the existing junction and Leisure Town Road.  The existing 505/80 junction would be replaced by a new interchange serving Orange Drive.  I never even knew this was being proposed.  Was anyone else aware of this?


iPhone

No but isn't that pretty much what they're doing at the 80/680 interchange?  IIRC, as part of the I-80/CA-12 interchange improvement project, isn't the I-80/I-680 interchange going to be relocated a bit to the west of the existing one?  While I understand the need for the relocation (to help improve traffic flow between the 3 highways), I don't see any additional benefit to relocating the 80/505 interchange.

Yes, that is the plan for 80 and 680.  Basically 680 will swing to the west and tie in with SR-12.

I don't see the purpose for relocating the 80/505 junction.


iPhone
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: myosh_tino on October 05, 2016, 03:39:40 PM
Quote from: jrouse on October 05, 2016, 09:55:17 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 04, 2016, 11:15:13 PM
Quote from: jrouse on October 04, 2016, 09:09:51 PM
New item somewhat related to this thread...

I was looking at a study for planned HOT lanes on I-80 between Vacaville and Fairfield.  I noticed that there is a plan to realign I-505 and build a new interchange with I-80 between the existing junction and Leisure Town Road.  The existing 505/80 junction would be replaced by a new interchange serving Orange Drive.  I never even knew this was being proposed.  Was anyone else aware of this?


iPhone

No but isn't that pretty much what they're doing at the 80/680 interchange?  IIRC, as part of the I-80/CA-12 interchange improvement project, isn't the I-80/I-680 interchange going to be relocated a bit to the west of the existing one?  While I understand the need for the relocation (to help improve traffic flow between the 3 highways), I don't see any additional benefit to relocating the 80/505 interchange.

Yes, that is the plan for 80 and 680.  Basically 680 will swing to the west and tie in with SR-12.

I don't see the purpose for relocating the 80/505 junction.


iPhone

The only thing I can think of looking at a map of the interchange is replacing the rather tight "U" ramp that takes traffic from south 505 to east 80.  The proximity of Orange Drive immediately east of the interchange would make any replacement of the current ramp next to impossible.

With that said, I don't think it's worth the trouble (and cost) of acquiring property for the ROW for a realigned 505 and a new interchange at 80.
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: coatimundi on October 05, 2016, 04:45:01 PM
Quote from: jrouse on October 05, 2016, 09:55:17 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 04, 2016, 11:15:13 PM
Quote from: jrouse on October 04, 2016, 09:09:51 PM
New item somewhat related to this thread...

I was looking at a study for planned HOT lanes on I-80 between Vacaville and Fairfield.  I noticed that there is a plan to realign I-505 and build a new interchange with I-80 between the existing junction and Leisure Town Road.  The existing 505/80 junction would be replaced by a new interchange serving Orange Drive.  I never even knew this was being proposed.  Was anyone else aware of this?


iPhone

No but isn't that pretty much what they're doing at the 80/680 interchange?  IIRC, as part of the I-80/CA-12 interchange improvement project, isn't the I-80/I-680 interchange going to be relocated a bit to the west of the existing one?  While I understand the need for the relocation (to help improve traffic flow between the 3 highways), I don't see any additional benefit to relocating the 80/505 interchange.

Yes, that is the plan for 80 and 680.  Basically 680 will swing to the west and tie in with SR-12.

I don't see the purpose for relocating the 80/505 junction.


I'm not trying to call anyone out, but where did you see this? The documents for the project on the Caltrans site don't mention any extensive work required on the 80/505 interchange. Could it have been a proposal of a realignment that was later scrapped?
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: myosh_tino on October 05, 2016, 05:07:29 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on October 05, 2016, 04:45:01 PM
Quote from: jrouse on October 05, 2016, 09:55:17 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 04, 2016, 11:15:13 PM
Quote from: jrouse on October 04, 2016, 09:09:51 PM
New item somewhat related to this thread...

I was looking at a study for planned HOT lanes on I-80 between Vacaville and Fairfield.  I noticed that there is a plan to realign I-505 and build a new interchange with I-80 between the existing junction and Leisure Town Road.  The existing 505/80 junction would be replaced by a new interchange serving Orange Drive.  I never even knew this was being proposed.  Was anyone else aware of this?


iPhone

No but isn't that pretty much what they're doing at the 80/680 interchange?  IIRC, as part of the I-80/CA-12 interchange improvement project, isn't the I-80/I-680 interchange going to be relocated a bit to the west of the existing one?  While I understand the need for the relocation (to help improve traffic flow between the 3 highways), I don't see any additional benefit to relocating the 80/505 interchange.

Yes, that is the plan for 80 and 680.  Basically 680 will swing to the west and tie in with SR-12.

I don't see the purpose for relocating the 80/505 junction.


I'm not trying to call anyone out, but where did you see this? The documents for the project on the Caltrans site don't mention any extensive work required on the 80/505 interchange. Could it have been a proposal of a realignment that was later scrapped?

Joe (jrouse) works for Caltrans.  I did a quick Google search but turned up nothing.  It's entirely possible he was looking at an study that hasn't been released to the general public yet.
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: sparker on October 05, 2016, 05:22:17 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 05, 2016, 03:39:40 PM
Quote from: jrouse on October 05, 2016, 09:55:17 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 04, 2016, 11:15:13 PM
Quote from: jrouse on October 04, 2016, 09:09:51 PM
New item somewhat related to this thread...

I was looking at a study for planned HOT lanes on I-80 between Vacaville and Fairfield.  I noticed that there is a plan to realign I-505 and build a new interchange with I-80 between the existing junction and Leisure Town Road.  The existing 505/80 junction would be replaced by a new interchange serving Orange Drive.  I never even knew this was being proposed.  Was anyone else aware of this?


iPhone

No but isn't that pretty much what they're doing at the 80/680 interchange?  IIRC, as part of the I-80/CA-12 interchange improvement project, isn't the I-80/I-680 interchange going to be relocated a bit to the west of the existing one?  While I understand the need for the relocation (to help improve traffic flow between the 3 highways), I don't see any additional benefit to relocating the 80/505 interchange.

Yes, that is the plan for 80 and 680.  Basically 680 will swing to the west and tie in with SR-12.

I don't see the purpose for relocating the 80/505 junction.


iPhone

The only thing I can think of looking at a map of the interchange is replacing the rather tight "U" ramp that takes traffic from south 505 to east 80.  The proximity of Orange Drive immediately east of the interchange would make any replacement of the current ramp next to impossible.

With that said, I don't think it's worth the trouble (and cost) of acquiring property for the ROW for a realigned 505 and a new interchange at 80.

The only other rationale I can think of for an interchange relocation is the presence of folded-diamond ramps on either side of the interchange:  a set along the ramp from east I-80 to north I-505, with the onramp merging with the I-505 north ramp (there is a separate onramp to 80 east several hundred yards east), and a matching set on the south 505 to east 80 ramp.  Both serve the Nut Tree factory store complex as well as a retail complex on the north side of I-80 featuring a sizeable Lowe's facility; I have noticed periodic backups on the east 80 offramp (the one feeding into the outlet complex), particularly during the holiday shopping season; the one at the NW corner of the interchange has very tight turns but also light usage (that U-shaped ramp sees relatively sparse traffic).  It may be that the combination of periodic backups from the folded diamond onto the main 80>505 transition ramp, which does feature significant semi-truck traffic, plus the tight turns of the other set, may have provoked some lobbying on the part of either the city of Vacaville and/or the owners/developers of the businesses flanking the interchange to improve the situation -- in other words, institute a full separation of localized retail traffic from the higher-speed freeway-to-freeway transition.  Whether a full 80/505 interchange relocation is "overkill" may be subject to speculation, but there's little room with which to work for any significant modifications of the present interchange configuration.   
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: coatimundi on October 05, 2016, 06:16:42 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 05, 2016, 05:07:29 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on October 05, 2016, 04:45:01 PM
Quote from: jrouse on October 05, 2016, 09:55:17 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 04, 2016, 11:15:13 PM
Quote from: jrouse on October 04, 2016, 09:09:51 PM
New item somewhat related to this thread...

I was looking at a study for planned HOT lanes on I-80 between Vacaville and Fairfield.  I noticed that there is a plan to realign I-505 and build a new interchange with I-80 between the existing junction and Leisure Town Road.  The existing 505/80 junction would be replaced by a new interchange serving Orange Drive.  I never even knew this was being proposed.  Was anyone else aware of this?


iPhone

No but isn't that pretty much what they're doing at the 80/680 interchange?  IIRC, as part of the I-80/CA-12 interchange improvement project, isn't the I-80/I-680 interchange going to be relocated a bit to the west of the existing one?  While I understand the need for the relocation (to help improve traffic flow between the 3 highways), I don't see any additional benefit to relocating the 80/505 interchange.

Yes, that is the plan for 80 and 680.  Basically 680 will swing to the west and tie in with SR-12.

I don't see the purpose for relocating the 80/505 junction.


I'm not trying to call anyone out, but where did you see this? The documents for the project on the Caltrans site don't mention any extensive work required on the 80/505 interchange. Could it have been a proposal of a realignment that was later scrapped?

Joe (jrouse) works for Caltrans.  I did a quick Google search but turned up nothing.  It's entirely possible he was looking at an study that hasn't been released to the general public yet.

No, I know what that icon means, but all the estimates and EIR docs that are up and available right now have "FINAL" in the title. I saw some stuff about them realigning retaining walls for the ramps at that interchange, but it certainly didn't involve the expense necessary for actually relocating anything. Just trying to get some clarification.
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: myosh_tino on October 05, 2016, 06:56:01 PM
Quote from: sparker on October 05, 2016, 05:22:17 PM
Whether a full 80/505 interchange relocation is "overkill" may be subject to speculation, but there's little room with which to work for any significant modifications of the present interchange configuration.

And likewise, there is little room between the 505 and Leisure Town Rd interchanges on I-80 for a new 80/505 interchange without significant property acquisition.  To accommodate an interchange in that area, you'd have to buy out the various auto dealerships located on Orange Drive that back up to I-80 (cities are reluctant to shoo-away auto dealerships because they bring in much needed sales tax revenue).  Then there are the two office parks that would have to be dealt with.  One is the big Genentech campus located near the 505/Vaca Valley Pkwy interchange and the other being a smaller complex located on Horse Creek Drive that also backs up to I-505.
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: kkt on October 05, 2016, 07:51:39 PM
If they do relocate the 505-80 interchange, they should relocate it where 505 could continue south of I-80 either as a freeway or as an expressway with ROW to limit access in the future.
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: Occidental Tourist on October 05, 2016, 10:52:27 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 05, 2016, 06:56:01 PM
And likewise, there is little room between the 505 and Leisure Town Rd interchanges on I-80 for a new 80/505 interchange without significant property acquisition.

The curve in the new routing of 505 might be too severe, but if you shifted the 80 mainline to the north between the current interchange and Leisure Town Road, and threaded the new 505 approach to the interchange between the Genentech and SCIF campuses, you could pull off a realignment without taking any occupied land north or south of 80.
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: NE2 on October 05, 2016, 11:41:23 PM
Plans for I-680 relocation: http://www.sta.ca.gov/docManager/1000005572/Attach%20B%20-%20I80-I680-SR12%20Construction%20Packages%201-7.pdf

There's no similar map for I-505, and http://www.sta.ca.gov/docManager/1000005574/Attach%20D%20-%20I-80%20DPR%20Plan%20Sheet%20Attachments_HDR_2015-06-16-FINAL.pdf shows it staying the same.
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: coatimundi on October 06, 2016, 12:31:30 AM
Quote from: NE2 on October 05, 2016, 11:41:23 PM
Plans for I-680 relocation: http://www.sta.ca.gov/docManager/1000005572/Attach%20B%20-%20I80-I680-SR12%20Construction%20Packages%201-7.pdf

There's no similar map for I-505, and http://www.sta.ca.gov/docManager/1000005574/Attach%20D%20-%20I-80%20DPR%20Plan%20Sheet%20Attachments_HDR_2015-06-16-FINAL.pdf shows it staying the same.

I should emphasize the domain name on both of those links: STA.
I don't believe Caltrans has much, if any, involvement in the HOT lane project. MTC runs the other HOT or "express" (as they insist on calling them) lanes in the Bay Area, and they're the ones working with STA on this new project. Meanwhile, Caltrans is partnering with MTC and STA for the 80/680/12 interchange project, which includes the realignment.

I'm going to go ahead and say that this deserves its own thread. You could combine the HOT lane and interchange projects into one, but it definitely needs to get off of a thread discussing former I-5 routings.
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: compdude787 on October 06, 2016, 06:00:41 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on October 06, 2016, 12:31:30 AM

I'm going to go ahead and say that this deserves its own thread. You could combine the HOT lane and interchange projects into one, but it definitely needs to get off of a thread discussing former I-5 routings.

Agreed!

Those are interesting plans. It really makes sense that I-680 and CA-12 are going to be combined into one interchange with I-80.
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: jrouse on October 10, 2016, 12:34:11 PM
The figures that I saw came from a 2012 project study report on the I-80 express lanes.  I found it on an internal Caltrans website so I can't provide a link to it.  However, I have attached the schematics for you.  The figures also showed realignment and reconstruction of numerous interchanges in Vacaville.  I don't know if those were all going to be done as part of a separate project or if they were going to be part of the express lane project.  The drawings do not show where the new alignment of I-505 would have tied in with the old.  I could not find any other information on the realignment, so I assume it was just an early conceptual proposal that never moved forward.  It was interesting to see what they wanted to do though. 

As for the express lanes themselves, MTC/BATA has the legal authority to develop and operate the lanes.  They have arranged for STA to handle the development of this particular facility (probably in exchange for a portion of the toll revenues).  Caltrans will not operate the lanes but they are still part of the state highway system and as the owner/operator of the highway, Caltrans does and will continue to play a major role in their design and their operation.  This is how most, if not all express lanes do and will operate in California.

Here are the images of the proposed changes to the 505/80 interchange.
https://flic.kr/p/MU38sS - showing beginning of new Orange Drive I/C
https://flic.kr/p/M7xVMe - showing the Orange Drive I/C
https://flic.kr/p/N5dKnk - showing the western half of the new 505/80 I/C
https://flic.kr/p/MU3mWA - showing the eastern half of the new 505/80 I/C
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: myosh_tino on October 10, 2016, 05:48:42 PM
Quote from: jrouse on October 10, 2016, 12:34:11 PM
The figures that I saw came from a 2012 project study report on the I-80 express lanes.  I found it on an internal Caltrans website so I can't provide a link to it.  However, I have attached the schematics for you.  The figures also showed realignment and reconstruction of numerous interchanges in Vacaville.  I don't know if those were all going to be done as part of a separate project or if they were going to be part of the express lane project.  The drawings do not show where the new alignment of I-505 would have tied in with the old.  I could not find any other information on the realignment, so I assume it was just an early conceptual proposal that never moved forward.  It was interesting to see what they wanted to do though. 

Here are the images of the proposed changes to the 505/80 interchange.
https://flic.kr/p/MU38sS - showing beginning of new Orange Drive I/C
https://flic.kr/p/M7xVMe - showing the Orange Drive I/C
https://flic.kr/p/N5dKnk - showing the western half of the new 505/80 I/C
https://flic.kr/p/MU3mWA - showing the eastern half of the new 505/80 I/C

Interesting.

To pull off this project would require significant ROW acquisition.  If this proposal were to come to fruition, the impacts would be quite significant...

* Vacaville Outlets would lose the northern tip of their center including the Nike, Kay Jeweler and Timberland outlets
* The 50+ year old Black Oak restaurant and the Buick/GMC dealership would close to make way for a realigned Orange Dr.
* Lowes on the northside of I-80 would have to close to make way for a realigned Monte Vista Ave.
* All businesses located on Orange Dr between Orange Tree Cir and the Dodge/Chrysler dealership that butt up against I-80 would ultimately end up having to be closed and torn down to make way for a new 80/505 interchange.  This would include the Orange Tree Plaza and the Chevy, Hyundai and Nissan dealerships.  The Orange Tree Plaza would definitely need to be demolished because all of the buildings sit in the middle of the new ROW.  The auto dealerships have buildings that are way too close to the new ROW so they would need to be torn down and relocated to another part of their parcel.

If this project was killed off, I wouldn't be surprised if the city of Vacaville had a say in its demise.
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: coatimundi on October 10, 2016, 11:35:18 PM
First, I need to correct myself:

Quote from: coatimundi on September 30, 2016, 06:15:32 PM
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.

I don't think that it was ever actually signed as "Temp I-5".

Oh, but it was. I thought I had seen a "Temp I-5" shield on pre-freeway SR 113 on one of my 70's atlases, and I found it a few nights ago, on the '73 Rand McNally. There's also one on SR 99, right around Lodi.
Then I find this nice page that I had never seen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_Interstate_Highways

Second point: I've attempted to relocate the I-80 Express Lanes discussion to its own thread. Feel free to repost anything there, if you feel so inclined.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18998.0
Title: Re: What happened to Interstate 5W and 5E?
Post by: sparker on October 11, 2016, 02:59:04 AM
Quote from: coatimundi on October 10, 2016, 11:35:18 PM
First, I need to correct myself:

Quote from: coatimundi on September 30, 2016, 06:15:32 PM
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.

I don't think that it was ever actually signed as "Temp I-5".

Oh, but it was. I thought I had seen a "Temp I-5" shield on pre-freeway SR 113 on one of my 70's atlases, and I found it a few nights ago, on the '73 Rand McNally. There's also one on SR 99, right around Lodi.
Then I find this nice page that I had never seen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_Interstate_Highways

Second point: I've attempted to relocate the I-80 Express Lanes discussion to its own thread. Feel free to repost anything there, if you feel so inclined.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18998.0

Indeed, Temporary I-5 was signed, from 1972 to about 1976, from the present Charter Way (CA 4 WB) interchange in Stockton, east along CA 4 to CA 26 (old US 50), on CA 26 east to CA 99, then north on CA 99 north to I-80 (now Business 80/US 50) at the Oak Park interchange in Sacramento.  From there it was signed west on I-80 to CA 113, then north on CA 113 to CA 16, which at that time remained on its original E-W route through downtown Woodland.  It turned west on CA 16 to the old US 99W alignment northward to the present I-5 alignment (this currently is the eastern end of the western segment of CA 16), where it veered northwest along old US 99W, which was gradually being supplanted by I-5.  The reason why Temporary I-5 was not routed from Sacramento to Woodland along CA 16, the most direct route and the one closest to the nascent I-5 alignment was the same as that of the original US 99W:  CA 16 traversed the Yolo Bypass flood-control facility at ground level and was inundated during heavy rains, when the weirs along the Sacramento River were opened to avoid overflow in Sacramento.  I-80, and US 40/99W before it, crossed the Bypass on a bridge structure, so it remained open even when the bypass was flooded.  After 1976, when the I-5 bridge over the Bypass opened, completing that route north of Sacramento, the temporary section was truncated back to the (then) I-5/80 interchange in Sacramento, using CA 99 via Lodi until I-5 was opened between Stockton and Sacramento in 1981.