Former US Route 99W Sacramento Valley

[Max Rockatansky]

I did some recent exploring of much of the corridor of US Route 99W through Sacramento Valley as an alternate to Interstate 5.  I actually found what is left of US 99W to be a fully functional frontage of I-5 and quite pleasant to travel through the numerous communities on.  This would have been mainline US 99 until the split corridor was created in 1928.

US 99W in Arbuckle
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmWr8E3K

US 99W in Williams-Maxwell
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmWr8Lnt

US 99W in Willowss-Bluegum-Artois-Orland
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmWr8Vzw

US 99W Corning to Red Bluff
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmWuTiFV

[jdbx]

I-5 through Arbuckle was always rather interesting to me, the way it narrows down and dips into the trench through the middle of town.  It's very reminiscent of sections of 99 through the San Joaquin Valley.  I am rather curious why they didn't bypass the middle of town like they did for other towns like Williams, Maxwell, or Willows.

[Max Rockatansky]

I-5 through Arbuckle was always rather interesting to me, the way it narrows down and dips into the trench through the middle of town.  It's very reminiscent of sections of 99 through the San Joaquin Valley.  I am rather curious why they didn't bypass the middle of town like they did for other towns like Williams, Maxwell, or Willows.

I haven't done my scans of the CHPWs yet but I believe said segment through Arbuckle was built 55-56.  It certainly would have fallen in line with the other "bypasses"  on US 99 being built to the south in San Joaquin from the same era.

[sparker]

I-5 through Arbuckle was always rather interesting to me, the way it narrows down and dips into the trench through the middle of town.  It's very reminiscent of sections of 99 through the San Joaquin Valley.  I am rather curious why they didn't bypass the middle of town like they did for other towns like Williams, Maxwell, or Willows.

I haven't done my scans of the CHPWs yet but I believe said segment through Arbuckle was built 55-56.  It certainly would have fallen in line with the other "bypasses"  on US 99 being built to the south in San Joaquin from the same era.

There was actually a very extensive article about the Arbuckle bypass in CHPW; IIRC it was probably 1957 (give or take a year).  The metal bridge railings seemed to be similar to those deployed for the US 99 Fresno freeway bypass, dating from that time as well (previous structures usually used cast concrete "archways" for the railings).  The Arbuckle bypass was touted as the first step in the upgrade of US 99W; obviously the advent of the Interstate system at that time advanced the progress of that effort immeasurably!

[Concrete Bob]

I believe the section of I-5 through Arbuckle was the first section of I-5 built in Northern California.  I have some old Triple-A regional maps showing that stretch of 99W as the only stretch of real freeway in the northern Central Valley.  The stretch had two interchanges and ran about 1.25 miles.

[sparker]

I believe the section of I-5 through Arbuckle was the first section of I-5 built in Northern California.  I have some old Triple-A regional maps showing that stretch of 99W as the only stretch of real freeway in the northern Central Valley.  The stretch had two interchanges and ran about 1.25 miles.

Correct on most counts; but it wasn't signed as I-5 until the new freeway alignments both south and north of the town were completed circa 1970-71.  And its connectivity configuration -- interchanges at either side of town but no interim access points -- were similar to parts of US 99 built earlier in Tulare County (Earlimart, Pixley) -- except they featured the older-style concrete railings on the overcrossing bridges. 

[Concrete Bob]

Yep, I-5 through Arbuckle has that classic late 50s railing.  IiiiiiiiiiiIiiiiiiiiii!iiiiiiiiii!iiiiiiiiii! I don't know what it is called, but I suppose "California Gothic is as good as descriptions get. I am sure someone will correct me in short order.

[Max Rockatansky]

FWIW, the I-5 bridge identification tags say 1957 on them:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0131585,-122.0556016,3a,15y,93.52h,87.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJ2_Gy1FL32gkQSTi-NRoxw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

[jdbx]

FWIW, the I-5 bridge identification tags say 1957 on them:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0131585,-122.0556016,3a,15y,93.52h,87.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJ2_Gy1FL32gkQSTi-NRoxw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

Also in that link you posted, those 1950's era bridge railings are in the process of being replaced by the most recent design.

I also have noticed that it seems like bridge ID tags are not nearly as visible as they once were.  I feel like 20-30 years ago you could find a date stamp for every structure on either a center column, railing, or abutment but now it seems very hit-or-miss.  It is kind of annoying when you are trying to figure out when a certain structure or section of roadway was built.

[Max Rockatansky]

FWIW, the I-5 bridge identification tags say 1957 on them:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0131585,-122.0556016,3a,15y,93.52h,87.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJ2_Gy1FL32gkQSTi-NRoxw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

Also in that link you posted, those 1950's era bridge railings are in the process of being replaced by the most recent design.

I also have noticed that it seems like bridge ID tags are not nearly as visible as they once were.  I feel like 20-30 years ago you could find a date stamp for every structure on either a center column, railing, or abutment but now it seems very hit-or-miss.  It is kind of annoying when you are trying to figure out when a certain structure or section of roadway was built.

Certain Caltrans districts have painted over the bridge IDs the last decade or so, I'm not sure why.  They certainly are handy for determining when particular segments of highway opened.  I tried to use the one on the CA 1 bypass in Half Moon Bay recently only to discover it had been similarly painted over. 

[sparker]

FWIW, the I-5 bridge identification tags say 1957 on them:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0131585,-122.0556016,3a,15y,93.52h,87.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJ2_Gy1FL32gkQSTi-NRoxw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

Also in that link you posted, those 1950's era bridge railings are in the process of being replaced by the most recent design.

I also have noticed that it seems like bridge ID tags are not nearly as visible as they once were.  I feel like 20-30 years ago you could find a date stamp for every structure on either a center column, railing, or abutment but now it seems very hit-or-miss.  It is kind of annoying when you are trying to figure out when a certain structure or section of roadway was built.

Certain Caltrans districts have painted over the bridge IDs the last decade or so, I'm not sure why.  They certainly are handy for determining when particular segments of highway opened.  I tried to use the one on the CA 1 bypass in Half Moon Bay recently only to discover it had been similarly painted over. 

That was one of the saving graces of the old concrete railings; the construction date was cast into the end structure. 

[jdbx]

FWIW, the I-5 bridge identification tags say 1957 on them:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0131585,-122.0556016,3a,15y,93.52h,87.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJ2_Gy1FL32gkQSTi-NRoxw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

Also in that link you posted, those 1950's era bridge railings are in the process of being replaced by the most recent design.

I also have noticed that it seems like bridge ID tags are not nearly as visible as they once were.  I feel like 20-30 years ago you could find a date stamp for every structure on either a center column, railing, or abutment but now it seems very hit-or-miss.  It is kind of annoying when you are trying to figure out when a certain structure or section of roadway was built.

Certain Caltrans districts have painted over the bridge IDs the last decade or so, I'm not sure why.  They certainly are handy for determining when particular segments of highway opened.  I tried to use the one on the CA 1 bypass in Half Moon Bay recently only to discover it had been similarly painted over. 

That was one of the saving graces of the old concrete railings; the construction date was cast into the end structure. 

I am happy that they are at least maintaining the practice of stenciling them onto *new* structures.  I'm not sure why no care or interest is given to maintaining the older structures.

Example out on the CA-4 bypass:

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.9433418,-121.7412531,3a,75y,98.01h,69.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-F9onxKNDjDquLNsuKLjqw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[Max Rockatansky]

Something I've noticed with the older concrete bridges is that the year stamping a lot of the time are getting covered by recent metal barrier installations.  I noticed this fairly recently on part of CA 1 in Big Sur which was hugely disappointed as someone who appreciates bridge aesthetics.

[sparker]

Something I've noticed with the older concrete bridges is that the year stamping a lot of the time are getting covered by recent metal barrier installations.  I noticed this fairly recently on part of CA 1 in Big Sur which was hugely disappointed as someone who appreciates bridge aesthetics.

Chalk that one up to Caltrans' legal department, which has essentially passed down a decree that states that no bridge abutment or railing header shall pose a collision danger, particularly on a 2-lane road.  So they put in railings (usually dual or thrie-beam) to effectively "funnel" any potential roadside problem back into the lanes -- sort of an ersatz "K-rail" concept for the sides of the bridge approach (those get used, too!).   In short -- don't leave anything for someone to run in to!

[Max Rockatansky]

Snippet from a 1958 CHPW showing the completed freeway in Arbuckle:

https://www.facebook.com/72868503020/posts/10158169705583021/?d=n

[Max Rockatansky]

Put this so blog format, only took nine chapters and 16 hours... 

US Route 99 from downtown Sacramento north through Sacramento Valley to the City of Red Bluff was once host to a East/West split alignment of US Route 99.  US Route 99 West was the original alignment of US Route 99 prior to 1928 and followed Legislative Route Number 7 over what had mostly been the Pacific Highway.  The blog cover features the original Yolo Causeway can be seen as featured in the 1916 California Highway Bulletin just after it opened.  The 1916 Yolo Causeway would later become part of US Route 99 West and US Route 40.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/08/former-us-route-99-west-from-west.html