CA 51/I-80 Business Loop

[Max Rockatansky]

Took CA 51 this morning (the I-80 Business Loop....) on a rare freeway side trip for me.  Nothing really took special here but it was kind of neat seeing an old section of I-80 and the weird I-80 Business Loop signage.  I started a new method of freeway photos, they seemed to come out better aside from the huge sun glare.

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmrqHxbn

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^
So it looks like the WB Biz 80 signage just peters out at the Oak Park interchange.  That in itself should be reason enough for Caltrans to throw in the towel and just sign the damn thing as CA 51!  The now-36-year-old experiment with a full-freeway business loop that just happens to make a sharp right-angle turn halfway through its length never really worked to begin with; better to just treat its northeasterly portion as the independent egress that it actually is. 

[Max Rockatansky]

^^^^^^^^
So it looks like the WB Biz 80 signage just peters out at the Oak Park interchange.  That in itself should be reason enough for Caltrans to throw in the towel and just sign the damn thing as CA 51!  The now-36-year-old experiment with a full-freeway business loop that just happens to make a sharp right-angle turn halfway through its length never really worked to begin with; better to just treat its northeasterly portion as the independent egress that it actually is.

Past the American River westbound I don't recall seeing any reassurance shields.  Really the purpose of the Business Loop shields is pretty laughable.  Really CA 51 is the ticket, I'm not even sure if the route meets current Interstate standards with that giant curve in the middle.

[TheStranger]

^^^^^^^^
So it looks like the WB Biz 80 signage just peters out at the Oak Park interchange.  That in itself should be reason enough for Caltrans to throw in the towel and just sign the damn thing as CA 51!  The now-36-year-old experiment with a full-freeway business loop that just happens to make a sharp right-angle turn halfway through its length never really worked to begin with; better to just treat its northeasterly portion as the independent egress that it actually is. 

Yeah, the change to that (removal of Business 80 signage on the US 50 segment) was actually covered in an earlier thread:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16501.0

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^
So it looks like the WB Biz 80 signage just peters out at the Oak Park interchange.  That in itself should be reason enough for Caltrans to throw in the towel and just sign the damn thing as CA 51!  The now-36-year-old experiment with a full-freeway business loop that just happens to make a sharp right-angle turn halfway through its length never really worked to begin with; better to just treat its northeasterly portion as the independent egress that it actually is.

Past the American River westbound I don't recall seeing any reassurance shields.  Really the purpose of the Business Loop shields is pretty laughable.  Really CA 51 is the ticket, I'm not even sure if the route meets current Interstate standards with that giant curve in the middle.

If you're talking about the sharp curve just north of the Marconi interchange, you're right; that's the substandard feature that prompted the aborted I-80 reroute planned in the '70's (the northern stub-end of which became a LR park-and-ride). 

[Max Rockatansky]

^^^^^^^^
So it looks like the WB Biz 80 signage just peters out at the Oak Park interchange.  That in itself should be reason enough for Caltrans to throw in the towel and just sign the damn thing as CA 51!  The now-36-year-old experiment with a full-freeway business loop that just happens to make a sharp right-angle turn halfway through its length never really worked to begin with; better to just treat its northeasterly portion as the independent egress that it actually is.

Past the American River westbound I don't recall seeing any reassurance shields.  Really the purpose of the Business Loop shields is pretty laughable.  Really CA 51 is the ticket, I'm not even sure if the route meets current Interstate standards with that giant curve in the middle.

If you're talking about the sharp curve just north of the Marconi interchange, you're right; that's the substandard feature that prompted the aborted I-80 reroute planned in the '70's (the northern stub-end of which became a LR park-and-ride).

That's the one; might try to track that stub down come December when I visit Sacramento again for a couple days. 

[sparker]

^^^^^^^
Easy to find -- just head west on I-80 past the Biz 80 split and look to your left; you can't miss it!

[TheStranger]

^^^^^^^
Easy to find -- just head west on I-80 past the Biz 80 split and look to your left; you can't miss it!

IIRC the stub is essentially one long access road to three light rail stations now (Watt/I-80, Watt/I-80 West, Roseville Road).

There was a 1995 police chase that got on the Worlds Wildest Police Videos which involved a car flipping at the end of the stub:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZORDLuY4ds

[bing101]

Wait CA-51 aka Business 80 has to be renamed either CA-480, or CA-x07 or CA-x09 once I-7 or I-9 is approved though and this has been talked about for some time.

[sparker]

Wait CA-51 aka Business 80 has to be renamed either CA-480, or CA-x07 or CA-x09 once I-7 or I-9 is approved though and this has been talked about for some time.

I think we're getting ahead of ourselves here; elevating CA 99 to Interstate status, while approved at the federal level via HPC #54, isn't high on anyone's priority list.  If CA 51 were to actually be signed with that number, it'd probably be at least 15-20 years until Interstate status of CA 99 were to happen -- so waiting to sign it as 51 just because of the possibility of change to an Interstate-related designation seems at best highly speculative and at worst just plain silly!  Besides -- even if a I-7 or I-9 were to be signed in the Valley, there's a good chance it won't extend north of Stockton and instead terminate at the present I-5/CA 4 freeway junction.

[roadfro]

Wait CA-51 aka Business 80 has to be renamed either CA-480, or CA-x07 or CA-x09 once I-7 or I-9 is approved though and this has been talked about for some time.

I think we're getting ahead of ourselves here; elevating CA 99 to Interstate status, while approved at the federal level via HPC #54, isn't high on anyone's priority list.  If CA 51 were to actually be signed with that number, it'd probably be at least 15-20 years until Interstate status of CA 99 were to happen -- so waiting to sign it as 51 just because of the possibility of change to an Interstate-related designation seems at best highly speculative and at worst just plain silly!  Besides -- even if a I-7 or I-9 were to be signed in the Valley, there's a good chance it won't extend north of Stockton and instead terminate at the present I-5/CA 4 freeway junction.

Ditto. California can number it's non-Interstate highways in any way it sees fit, and it need not change its numbering because an interstate comes through.

Also worth noting, per previous discussion, that CA 51 is numbered as I-80 Business because the highway code specifically says it must be signed that way. So the legislature will need to change the law before Caltrans can put any other number on it.

[mrsman]

Wait CA-51 aka Business 80 has to be renamed either CA-480, or CA-x07 or CA-x09 once I-7 or I-9 is approved though and this has been talked about for some time.

I think we're getting ahead of ourselves here; elevating CA 99 to Interstate status, while approved at the federal level via HPC #54, isn't high on anyone's priority list.  If CA 51 were to actually be signed with that number, it'd probably be at least 15-20 years until Interstate status of CA 99 were to happen -- so waiting to sign it as 51 just because of the possibility of change to an Interstate-related designation seems at best highly speculative and at worst just plain silly!  Besides -- even if a I-7 or I-9 were to be signed in the Valley, there's a good chance it won't extend north of Stockton and instead terminate at the present I-5/CA 4 freeway junction.

Ditto. California can number it's non-Interstate highways in any way it sees fit, and it need not change its numbering because an interstate comes through.

Also worth noting, per previous discussion, that CA 51 is numbered as I-80 Business because the highway code specifically says it must be signed that way. So the legislature will need to change the law before Caltrans can put any other number on it.

Well hopefully they will pass such a law.  Having two 80's is confusing and unnecessary.

[Max Rockatansky]

Wait CA-51 aka Business 80 has to be renamed either CA-480, or CA-x07 or CA-x09 once I-7 or I-9 is approved though and this has been talked about for some time.

I think we're getting ahead of ourselves here; elevating CA 99 to Interstate status, while approved at the federal level via HPC #54, isn't high on anyone's priority list.  If CA 51 were to actually be signed with that number, it'd probably be at least 15-20 years until Interstate status of CA 99 were to happen -- so waiting to sign it as 51 just because of the possibility of change to an Interstate-related designation seems at best highly speculative and at worst just plain silly!  Besides -- even if a I-7 or I-9 were to be signed in the Valley, there's a good chance it won't extend north of Stockton and instead terminate at the present I-5/CA 4 freeway junction.

Ditto. California can number it's non-Interstate highways in any way it sees fit, and it need not change its numbering because an interstate comes through.

Also worth noting, per previous discussion, that CA 51 is numbered as I-80 Business because the highway code specifically says it must be signed that way. So the legislature will need to change the law before Caltrans can put any other number on it.

Well hopefully they will pass such a law.  Having two 80's is confusing and unnecessary.

At this point it's probably not going to change unless there is some sort local political push. 

[michravera]

Wait CA-51 aka Business 80 has to be renamed either CA-480, or CA-x07 or CA-x09 once I-7 or I-9 is approved though and this has been talked about for some time.

I think we're getting ahead of ourselves here; elevating CA 99 to Interstate status, while approved at the federal level via HPC #54, isn't high on anyone's priority list.  If CA 51 were to actually be signed with that number, it'd probably be at least 15-20 years until Interstate status of CA 99 were to happen -- so waiting to sign it as 51 just because of the possibility of change to an Interstate-related designation seems at best highly speculative and at worst just plain silly!  Besides -- even if a I-7 or I-9 were to be signed in the Valley, there's a good chance it won't extend north of Stockton and instead terminate at the present I-5/CA 4 freeway junction.

Ditto. California can number it's non-Interstate highways in any way it sees fit, and it need not change its numbering because an interstate comes through.

Also worth noting, per previous discussion, that CA 51 is numbered as I-80 Business because the highway code specifically says it must be signed that way. So the legislature will need to change the law before Caltrans can put any other number on it.

Well hopefully they will pass such a law.  Having two 80's is confusing and unnecessary.

At this point it's probably not going to change unless there is some sort local political push.

I don't know about now, but the local political push was an effort to keep it as something-80 because "businesses depend upon it and it is just too difficult to get people to adjust". It's been CASR-51 now for longer than it was US-40. People need to adapt!

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^
With the present CA legislature, it shouldn't be too terribly difficult to convince one (or more) assemblyperson or state senator to slip in the appropriate deletion language regarding the CA 51 signage.  Or one could just write/email Caltrans (either Sacramento HQ or even D3) and see if they can talk to someone on the standing Transportation Committee about doing so (I might even get around to that myself if I can carve out a break from work -- this is my busy season!).  Put it this way:  effecting a change such as this isn't an impossible task -- unless someone with some level of clout within the city or county of Sacramento gets a bug up their ass about keeping the Biz 80 remnant -- and voices such objections.   As long as the control city elements on the former "loop" remain useful (delineating Downtown Sacramento as an option down to CA 160 and Roseville/Reno in the opposite direction), what it's signed (or not signed) as numerically isn't going to be of much consequence.  IMO, simply ending the Biz 80 "experiment" is the best way to go.

I don't know about now, but the local political push was an effort to keep it as something-80 because "businesses depend upon it and it is just too difficult to get people to adjust". It's been CASR-51 now for longer than it was US-40. People need to adapt!

That push was 36-37 years ago -- and the need to funnel folks to the central city  (for Kings games?!) can easily be taken care of by, as I stated earlier, posting relevant control points (especially now that Waze and other travel aids are in service) is more than enough to ensure that folks go where they intend.  Sporadically posted green Interstate shields aren't going to help that cause much.  The original idea was simply to emulate the original I-80 routing through town; with the growth/dissipation of the Sacramento metro area, the loop's alignment now functions more as integral parts of intraregional connectors than a I-80 "in-town" alternative.  Signing it as CA 51 is more than appropriate.

[TheStranger]

That push was 36-37 years ago -- and the need to funnel folks to the central city  (for Kings games?!) can easily be taken care of by, as I stated earlier, posting relevant control points (especially now that Waze and other travel aids are in service) is more than enough to ensure that folks go where they intend. 

That actually begs the question though:

From the Citrus Heights/Foothill Farms/North Highlands area, what is the better route to downtown Sacramento anyway - 80 west along the beltline in Natomas to 5/99 south, or Business 80 south/west to 160 south?  The latter actually seems much more suited for going to midtown, while the former pretty much gets you right into the Downtown Plaza/Golden 1 Center area via J Street exit.   (And with 160 no longer a state highway between the American River and essentially Cosumnes River Boulevard in Freeport, signage along 12th and 15th streets southbound in midtown is relegated to small, City of Sacramento-designed proprietary signage to key destinations)

(This ties into the "parallel routes to same destination" discussion from the control cities thread on this site, i.e. 101/170 vs. 5/110 in Los Angeles)

[sparker]

That push was 36-37 years ago -- and the need to funnel folks to the central city  (for Kings games?!) can easily be taken care of by, as I stated earlier, posting relevant control points (especially now that Waze and other travel aids are in service) is more than enough to ensure that folks go where they intend. 

That actually begs the question though:

From the Citrus Heights/Foothill Farms/North Highlands area, what is the better route to downtown Sacramento anyway - 80 west along the beltline in Natomas to 5/99 south, or Business 80 south/west to 160 south?  The latter actually seems much more suited for going to midtown, while the former pretty much gets you right into the Downtown Plaza/Golden 1 Center area via J Street exit.   (And with 160 no longer a state highway between the American River and essentially Cosumnes River Boulevard in Freeport, signage along 12th and 15th streets southbound in midtown is relegated to small, City of Sacramento-designed proprietary signage to key destinations)

(This ties into the "parallel routes to same destination" discussion from the control cities thread on this site, i.e. 101/170 vs. 5/110 in Los Angeles)

Depends -- if you're going to the Capitol neighborhood, the best bet is to use the "historic" route including the outflung part of CA 160 in North Sac; you'll eventually end up at 12th and L if you don't turn off before that (remember that the old US 40 and original CA 160 after that hung a left [east] on F back to 15th before turning south).  Now -- if you want to get directly to Old Town, the RR museum, the train station, or what's left of downtown, 80 to 5 might actually get you there -- but if you're looking for parking, there's more to be found just north of the Capitol than over by downtown -- especially during B-ball season anywhere around game time (unless, of course, you've purchased game-time parking at the arena facility).  But if you're going to most state agencies (except for the ones out on Capitol west of 9th) then 160 is still optimal (avoid backtracking).  Definitely 160 when trying to access Caltrans!

[mrsman]

In my view, 160/51 is usually faster than 5/80.  One benefit is that the first route only carries local traffic.  This is especially true when going from Downtown to the northeast than into Downtown.  This is all the more true as Natomas and other neighborhoods along I-5 get more developed.

Also, I don't see the two cases as being similar.  I don't see any argument for signing Sacramento for I-80 west from the 80/Biz 80 split.  It is much more direct to go by way of Biz 80/ 160.  Don't forget that I-80 was originally part of old 880, the bypass route around Sacramento.  Like most bypasses, the bypass will intersect with several radial routes that lead into the city -- it shouldn't make any sense to sign it as the way to the city though.

[Imagine as an example going south on 405 from the SFV.  At 101/405, the way to LA is signed by taking 101, but you can also (if you have a death wish) take 405 to 10 to reach Downtown, but it is much longer.  You are traveling further on the bypass only to hit another radial and taking much more distance.  So in no way does it make sense to sign southbound 405 as the way to LA.]

In the LA situation, both I-5 and the 170/101 are radial routes.  I-5 passes through the outskirts of Downtown, but 101/170 gets right to the center.  Both arguably should be signed to LA (and indeed they are at all points except right at the split).  101/170 is even shorter by distance to reach the heart of LA.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^
The westbound I-80/Biz 80(CA 51) split should simply retain the control cities of Sacramento (for CA 51) and San Francisco (for I-80); with secondary signage at that split indicating that CA 51 is used to reach CA 99 and Fresno.  When the 51/160 split is reached, the signage for CA 160 should stay "Downtown Sacramento", while the CA 51 signage should have the controls as follows:   CA 51 to CA 99, Stockton/Fresno on the BGS, with secondary side-of-road BGS along CA 51:  TO US 50, South Lake Tahoe/San Francisco, use CA 51.  Once at the south end of CA 51 at the Oak Park interchange, the signage for the main lanes leading to SB CA 99 should simply read: South CA 99, Stockton/Fresno.  EB US 50:  Rancho Cordova/South Lake Tahoe  WB US 50:  San Francisco, TO I-5.  That should take care of all contingencies while (for the first time) mentioning the largest suburb east of Sacramento along US 50.

[mrsman]

^^^^^^^^
The westbound I-80/Biz 80(CA 51) split should simply retain the control cities of Sacramento (for CA 51) and San Francisco (for I-80); with secondary signage at that split indicating that CA 51 is used to reach CA 99 and Fresno.  When the 51/160 split is reached, the signage for CA 160 should stay "Downtown Sacramento", while the CA 51 signage should have the controls as follows:   CA 51 to CA 99, Stockton/Fresno on the BGS, with secondary side-of-road BGS along CA 51:  TO US 50, South Lake Tahoe/San Francisco, use CA 51.  Once at the south end of CA 51 at the Oak Park interchange, the signage for the main lanes leading to SB CA 99 should simply read: South CA 99, Stockton/Fresno.  EB US 50:  Rancho Cordova/South Lake Tahoe  WB US 50:  San Francisco, TO I-5.  That should take care of all contingencies while (for the first time) mentioning the largest suburb east of Sacramento along US 50.

My general view with regard to control cities (and it certainly should apply in the Sac example) is that consistency is the key.  A  well-known long distance control should be used on pull through signage, mileage signs, and directional signs from surface streets at interchanges.  The same long distance control should be used in all circumstances until the center of the control city is reached.  To the extent that there is room on a pull through sign for a second control, a local control city (like a suburb) is fine to be used in addition to, but not instead of , the long distance control.

The current usage in Sac is generally OK.  I-80's controls and I-5's controls are exactly what they should be.   The main control for 51 south beginning at the 51/160 and 99 south beginning at Oak Park should be Fresno at all locations all the way to Fresno (including the on-ramps).  Let's leave LA for I-5.  The sole control for 99 north of town should be Yuba City (70 and Marysville should not be mentioned at all until the 99/70 split.)  All references to Placerville as a main control for US 50 should be eliminated in place of South Lake Tahoe.  To the extent there is room to add a secondary control, Stockton for 99 and Rancho Cordova or Placerville for 50 are fine.

[Max Rockatansky]

CA 51/I-80BL/Capitol City Freeway was the last in the Lake Tahoe trip blog series and a little outside normal swim lane given it is a freeway.  Suffice to say looking up the history behind the route was quite interesting considering it was part of US 40, US 99E, and ultimately a failed Interstate 80.  I snipped some State Highway Map City inserts for this one given that the designations changed so much over the years. 

https://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2018/10/california-state-route-51-failed.html

[Max Rockatansky]

Here are the maps I prepared for the above blog in full size:

1934Sacramento by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

1938Sacramento by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

1944Sacramento by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

1948Sacramento by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

1951Sacramento by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

1955Sacramento by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

1956Sacramento by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

1964Sacramento by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

1965Sacramento by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

1966Sacramento by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

1967Sacramento by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

1969Sacramento by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

1982Sacramento by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

1986Sacramento by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

[sparker]

The sequence shows some interesting tidbits:  the evolution of LRN 98 from a convoluted eastern bypass (I don't believe that the portion north of Folsom Blvd. received field signage) to the original US 99E "Elvas" alignment and finally part of the first I-80 routing.  Part of the original segmented concrete pavement for LRN 98 is still intact along the diagonal section of Fulton Ave. just north of Fair Oaks Blvd.; until recently, another short concrete stretch was on Elvas Ave. near 65th Street.  (Fun fact: the original Shakey's Pizza was tucked into one of the LRN 98 corners at 57th and J Street).  The temporary routing of US 40/99W/CA 16 along P and Q streets in the mid-to-late '60's was due to the desire to remove N Street, along the south side of Capitol Park, from the state system (too much traffic shoehorned into one narrow 4-lane street).  The P-Q alignment lasted all of 2 years until the spring 1967 completion of the Pioneer Bridge, at which time US 40 signage quickly was taken down all across its former statewide route.  Within the center city, the replacement through route, signed as "Temporary I-80", extended down Broadway multiplexed with CA 99 to the N-S CA 99 (to the south) and I-80 freeways (to the north) until mid-1969 when the W/X freeway (nicknamed after the streets flanking its viaduct) was opened to traffic, completing the original I-80 through metro Sacramento.

Curiously, both 5 and 16 are shown as "co-mingling" as legislated route numbers for I-5 between the American River and Sacramento River crossings in both the 1982 and 1986 map iterations; I can't recall Caltrans ever doing that with legislated route numbers elsewhere; the "one number, one route" credo was otherwise followed quite assiduously.               

[TheStranger]

The sequence shows some interesting tidbits:  the evolution of LRN 98 from a convoluted eastern bypass (I don't believe that the portion north of Folsom Blvd. received field signage) to the original US 99E "Elvas" alignment and finally part of the first I-80 routing.  Part of the original segmented concrete pavement for LRN 98 is still intact along the diagonal section of Fulton Ave. just north of Fair Oaks Blvd.; until recently, another short concrete stretch was on Elvas Ave. near 65th Street.

With regards to LRN 98, I feel like - can't confirm - that its primary existence north of the US 50/Bypass US 50 junction was to have an American River crossing (H Street Bridge) in the state system, as an alternative to the 16th Street Bridge (now Route 160, previously US 40/99E).   I don't think the Watt or Howe bridges existed until decades after the aforementioned crossings.

The temporary routing of US 40/99W/CA 16 along P and Q streets in the mid-to-late '60's was due to the desire to remove N Street, along the south side of Capitol Park, from the state system (too much traffic shoehorned into one narrow 4-lane street).  The P-Q alignment lasted all of 2 years until the spring 1967 completion of the Pioneer Bridge, at which time US 40 signage quickly was taken down all across its former statewide route. 

Within the center city, the replacement through route, signed as "Temporary I-80", extended down Broadway multiplexed with CA 99 to the N-S CA 99 (to the south) and I-80 freeways (to the north) until mid-1969 when the W/X freeway (nicknamed after the streets flanking its viaduct) was opened to traffic, completing the original I-80 through metro Sacramento.

The overhead sign gantry at 16th and P is probably the most evident artifact of the 1965-1967 40/99W/16 routing.

[Max Rockatansky]

I noticed LRN 98 evolving while putting together these maps and a couple other oddities around Sacramento.  I have to go back up to the city in December so I'm hoping I can track down some additional former alignments in field.  So far I'm looking at the US 50 Bypass/LRN 98, the Tower Bridge, and CA 244.  I have some older photos of the Tower Bridge but they aren't exactly what I would consider ideal.

What I find interesting is how all over the place highway alignments in Sacramento really were.  Obviously there is some huge constraints with the terrain with the American and Sacramento Rivers but US 50 sure took a wild swing before the Bypass Route was built.  Its easier to understand why US 50 originally ended in Sacramento in favor or US 48 looking at some of the older maps.