CA 132 and CR J132

[Max Rockatansky]

Drove CA 132 from the Old Basso Bridge east to CA 49/J132 in Coulterville this morning. 

https://flic.kr/s/aHskBmQ5Mk

I didn't see any other threads about CA 132 so I figured this would be a decent catch-all.  The Old Basso Bridge has a cool over look of its replacement, really eastward there is a crap ton of old bridges to see on and off CA 132.  I've been through La Grange many times but I didn't realize how much I missed.  I found a very old alignment of CA 49 west of Coulterville which would have been the east terminus of CA 132, I'm somewhat surprised I haven't caught that one until now.

[Max Rockatansky]

Finished the blog entry/history of CA 132:

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2018/07/california-state-route-132-from-old.html

[sparker]

It was mentioned in a previous regional thread, but there's a freeway/expressway project slated to begin next year just west of CA 99 north of the current CA 132/108 interchange in downtown Modesto.  The basic grading for this project has been there since the CA 99 freeway opened in late 1965 -- this was the long-adopted route for the freeway heading west out of town parallel to and north of present CA 132.  Its historical significance is that prior to I-5 being relocated over the Westside Freeway in 1958, the future 99/132 interchange was the division point for I-5, originally located on US 99 through the Valley; I-5W turned west on then-SSR 132 to its terminus at SSR 33, then over new-terrain alignment approximating today's eastern end of I-580 to US 50 at Altamont (past that it simply traced today's I-580 into Emeryville and I-80).  I-5E followed US 99 north into Sacramento, before utilizing CA 16 NW out of town to Woodland and thence up US 99W; I-5W rejoined I-5E at the present I-5/505 interchange near Dunnigan.  But the south divergence point was in Modesto just north of downtown; it's ironic that 60 years after the Interstate was relocated, the facility is finally being built -- albeit to more modest standards (a 4 lane facility for about a mile and 2 lanes west of that).   

[TheStranger]

I-5E followed US 99 north into Sacramento, before utilizing CA 16 NW out of town to Woodland and thence up US 99W;

Do you have any planning maps that show this?  I had always presumed that the current I-5 between I Street in Sacramento and today's Exit 531 was the original proposed I-5E corridor, as opposed to 16 between those two points.

[sparker]

I-5E followed US 99 north into Sacramento, before utilizing CA 16 NW out of town to Woodland and thence up US 99W;

Do you have any planning maps that show this?  I had always presumed that the current I-5 between I Street in Sacramento and today's Exit 531 was the original proposed I-5E corridor, as opposed to 16 between those two points.

I was referring to the original publicly-available maps (such as the systemwide one distributed by the Portland Cement Ass'n back in '59 -- coincidentally, my first look as a 10-year-old at the system as a whole), which tended to show the nearest existing highway as the basic corridor.  Obviously, there was no serious thought to attempting to trace the original CA 16, which sat on the west Sacramento River levee before descending into the Yolo Bypass at ground level while heading west into Woodland.  But the current I-5 corridor was the final choice of actual routings north and northwest of Sacramento; one of the rejected alternates actually came a bit closer to CA 16; it crossed the Sacramento River south of Land Park, intersected (then) I-80 in West Sacramento near the Harbor Blvd. interchange, and re-crossed the river close to where I-80 (and the original I-880 before that) crosses today before veering north.  The current alignment from Natomas north, including the E-W section south of the airport and the Sacramento River bridge due west of there, was, IIRC, adopted in 1959 or 1960 after it was decided to move the city airport from its previous Freeport Blvd. location south of town to its present location; then I-5E was routed where it is to provide service to the airport.  The matter of the alignment through or around central Sacramento was frought with controversy; the West Sacramento "loop" was intended to provide an alternative to those who objected to a freeway along Sacramento's waterfront.  Eventually, the present alignment along the east side of the river but providing enough room for the "Old Town" development was selected (largely due to the expense of an extra high-level river bridge; a West Sac alignment would have obviated the need for the American River bridge north of downtown).  Again, IIRC, the final alignment in the central city was adopted in 1960 or 1961; I'd have to check the archived CH & PW for details.  But the alignment that exists today did save a bit of bridgework money; the sole I-5 high-level bridge required was the one between the new airport and Woodland; the American River, not being a commercial waterway, didn't require the clearance that any Sacramento River bridge did -- so the cost of structure and approaches was considerably less; with the cost of property acquisition in downtown Sacramento, saving elsewhere became a priority. 

If anyone's interested in the various alignments contemplated for I-5E/I-5 through the Sacramento area, just search for back issues of California Highways & Public Works from about 1957 to 1963; that should provide a comprehensive overview of the winnowing-down process that led to the present facility.

[TheStranger]

As I'm looking at the project maps on the CalTrans website for this...
http://www.dot.ca.gov/d10/x-project-sr132west.html

I happen upon this project map for the west terminus of the expressway, at Dakota Avenue:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/d10/project-docs/stanislaus/sr132west/alt/Docs/SR132Z_Caltrans_Web_Map_3-page_Alt1_1of3.pdf

A few thoughts on my mind:

- Will the expressway ever be extended west from Dakota Avenue towards I-5 (or at least a few more miles west overall)?

- The planned interchange at Carpenter Road appears to be a half-SPUI

- The stub end of Kansas Avenue (Needham Overpass) to the east of Route 99, how old is that section of road?  All the project maps have that tied into the upcoming Route 132 expressway

- Would this be the oldest preserved right of way so far in California that has resulted in an actual constructed project?  Another one in that vein that comes to mind is the Route 4 Bypass southeast of Antioch, where for decades Route 4 used the ramps to north 160 to connect to a surface street routing, before the bypass became reality in the last ten years.  Could argue that part of the west extension of the Route 4 freeway in Stockton fits this as well.

[sparker]

As I'm looking at the project maps on the CalTrans website for this...
http://www.dot.ca.gov/d10/x-project-sr132west.html

I happen upon this project map for the west terminus of the expressway, at Dakota Avenue:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/d10/project-docs/stanislaus/sr132west/alt/Docs/SR132Z_Caltrans_Web_Map_3-page_Alt1_1of3.pdf

A few thoughts on my mind:

- Will the expressway ever be extended west from Dakota Avenue towards I-5 (or at least a few more miles west overall)?

- The planned interchange at Carpenter Road appears to be a half-SPUI

- The stub end of Kansas Avenue (Needham Overpass) to the east of Route 99, how old is that section of road?  All the project maps have that tied into the upcoming Route 132 expressway

- Would this be the oldest preserved right of way so far in California that has resulted in an actual constructed project?  Another one in that vein that comes to mind is the Route 4 Bypass southeast of Antioch, where for decades Route 4 used the ramps to north 160 to connect to a surface street routing, before the bypass became reality in the last ten years.  Could argue that part of the west extension of the Route 4 freeway in Stockton fits this as well.

Well -- since the Gianturco administration at Caltrans ('75-'83) sold off most of the preserved ROW's during its tenure, this may well be a correct assumption.  The only other example -- but now no longer part of overall plans -- was the CA 152 southern bypass of Los Banos; the easement divergence from the existing route still exists east of town.  However, the most recent plans (back-burnered, of course) have the bypass configured as an wide but relatively short arc north of town; the old southern arc, abandoned for environmental reasons, was long but shallow (at its apex only about 8 blocks south of the present CA 152).  While plans are in place, the new bypass has yet to make it to the funding stage.   Since the old project with detritus in place is no longer active, the CA 132 easement west of CA 99 likely is one of the last -- if not the last -- set-asides that have accommodated an active project.

[TheStranger]

Modesto Bee article on the 132 project, which was originally linked to via Dan Faigin's updates at Cahighways:

https://www.modbee.com/opinion/article220231745.html

http://www.dot.ca.gov/d10/x-project-sr132dakotatogates.html

With a 2027 completion date for the westernmost segment (Gates Road to Dakota Avenue), that makes it what...approximately 68-69 years between this being proposed (in some form) as I-5W and being completed as realigned Route 132!

[Max Rockatansky]

Modesto Bee article on the 132 project, which was originally linked to via Dan Faigin's updates at Cahighways:

https://www.modbee.com/opinion/article220231745.html

http://www.dot.ca.gov/d10/x-project-sr132dakotatogates.html

With a 2027 completion date for the westernmost segment (Gates Road to Dakota Avenue), that makes it what...approximately 68-69 years between this being proposed (in some form) as I-5W and being completed as realigned Route 132!

Meanwhile in New York City:

[Max Rockatansky]

Completed the rest of CA 132 from I-580 east to J59 yesterday.  Should be interesting to rework all the I-5W stuff into the existing blog on CA 132:

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmwFum9E

[Max Rockatansky]

I made some substantial updates to the existing CA 132 to incorporate the entire highway.  I added a section regarding I-5W and a couple side destinations; namely the 1915 Southern Pacific Depot and 1999 Roberts Ferry Covered Bridge.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2018/07/california-state-route-132-from-old.html

[Max Rockatansky]

I recently drove the entirety of County Route J132 from CA 49/CA 132 in Coulterville east to CA 120.  That being the case I went back and updated the previous CA 132 to include it's County Route continuation of J132.  During the update I had an interesting find while looking at the August 1934 Department Public Works Guide.  When CA 132 was originally announced it included a multiplex with CA 49 south from Coulterville on Legislative Route 65 through the Merced River Canyon to CA 140 in Mariposa.  It doesn't appear CA 132 was ever signed south of Coulterville but the multiplex is spelled out clearly enough that it is something of an interesting oddity.  Regarding J132 it was originally approved as J20 in 1961.  CA 132 was shifted to the modern junction with CA 49 until 1963 which makes sense why the County Route east of Coulterville was signed as J20.  J20 was changed to J132 at an unknown point as an implied continuation of CA 132 east to CA 120.   

https://www.gribblenation.org/2018/07/california-state-route-132-from-old.html

[splashflash]

Modesto Bee video of a completed offramp of CA 99 to CA 132.  https://www.modbee.com/news/local/article245383435.html

[TheStranger]

Saw this in the Cahighways Monthly News Links thread but thought it needed to be posted here too: EIR discussion on the western half of the planned expressway/

https://www.facebook.com/CaltransDistrict10/photos/a.463760740343777/3736407363079082/

[Max Rockatansky]

I have a crap load of pictures of the 99/132 ramp construction but I keep forgetting to post them. 

https://www.flickr.com/gp/151828809@N08/16eC03

https://www.flickr.com/gp/151828809@N08/16eC03

[ClassicHasClass]

They should just put the whole thing on Kansas and make it a straight shot. Been cooped up on that stretch too many times trying to get from I-580 to CA 99.

[Max Rockatansky]

I want to say even this was planned as I-5W the freeway corridor would have jogged south towards Maze?

[sparker]

I want to say even this was planned as I-5W the freeway corridor would have jogged south towards Maze?

With different attitudes toward freeway placement back in 1957 compared with today, the I-5W freeway alignment could have literally gone anywhere.  But with DOH SOP for similar situations back then, at the outskirts of Modesto it would likely have merged with the Maze alignment and followed it tightly west well past SSR 33, the original west end of 132, before it assumed the alignment of present-day I-580 up to Altamont.   

[mrsman]

They should just put the whole thing on Kansas and make it a straight shot. Been cooped up on that stretch too many times trying to get from I-580 to CA 99.

Are there eventual plans for a freeway all the way to I-5?

As I looked at some of the maps in the area, I wonder why a totally new alignment for this highway is even necessary?  It seems that the developed part of town extends to about Carpenter Road, and then to the west of there, it is all farmland.  I can see the benefit of doing the 99/132 interchange near Kansas Ave, as it is outside of the downtown core of Modesto, but why not bring the roadbed down to Maze as soon as you clear the housing and then widen Maze itself to freeway width (or 4-lane divided highway width)?

Also, are there any plans with how 108 and 132 will be rerouted within Modesto?  It seems that the 132 freeway will default onto the Kansas ave bridge over the RR tracks.  It seems to make sense to have 108 along this bridge and then onto Needham and onto McHenry.  This will mean that 108 will terminate at the 132 fwy/99 junction.  132 will probably do some meandering on Downtown Modesto streets.  One possibility is that it will join 99 for a little and then exit to go along L-9th-D-Yosemite.  Other possibilities are G/H couplet-9th-D-Yosemite or G/H couplet-14th-Yosemite.  Whatever they do, they should add some traffic calming to La Loma, because it will definitely get a lot of cut through traffic between Yosemite Blvd and the new freeway.

[TheStranger]

Putting this news piece up on this thread (it was in Daniel's Monthly California Headlines thread as well) -

https://www.modbee.com/news/local/article250912359.html

[sparker]

Putting this news piece up on this thread (it was in Daniel's Monthly California Headlines thread as well) -

https://www.modbee.com/news/local/article250912359.html

IMO some additional data is needed before proceeding with a route/configuration selection.  The first data batch should be a vehicle breakdown re trucks (anything from a bobtail on up) as a percentage of the total traffic volume on that section of 132.  If it shows that there's a high percentage (in the semi-rural area under study, I'd put the figure at 25-30% or above), the straight/Kansas option, with interchanges, would be both the most efficient as well as the safest.  If it's below 15%, any of the other three would suffice; a figure in between 15 and 25% should eliminate the roundabout option, leaving the other three as satisfactory (I maintain reservations about higher-speed truck-heavy routes featuring roundabouts).   But I'm impressed that D10 had the wherewithal to include an option with interchanges; the agency as a whole seems to assiduously avoid -- or at least take a giant breath prior to considering -- any option that even remotely looks like a freeway.  However, I am sad to hear that the remainder of 132 west of the project under study isn't even on the radar for improvement.  Maybe D10, or the folks at Sacramento HQ, figure that most of the Bay Area-Modesto traffic, including the commercial variety, will simply utilize the present all-freeway 205/5/120/99 routing and that putting a lot of time and effort into the rural section of 132 is overkill. 

Also, are there any plans with how 108 and 132 will be rerouted within Modesto?  It seems that the 132 freeway will default onto the Kansas ave bridge over the RR tracks.  It seems to make sense to have 108 along this bridge and then onto Needham and onto McHenry.  This will mean that 108 will terminate at the 132 fwy/99 junction.  132 will probably do some meandering on Downtown Modesto streets.  One possibility is that it will join 99 for a little and then exit to go along L-9th-D-Yosemite.  Other possibilities are G/H couplet-9th-D-Yosemite or G/H couplet-14th-Yosemite.  Whatever they do, they should add some traffic calming to La Loma, because it will definitely get a lot of cut through traffic between Yosemite Blvd and the new freeway.

It's pretty likely, once completed, that the CA 108 expressway under current development and planned to intersect CA 99 near Salida will be signed as CA 108 despite the last few west-end miles actually replacing CA 219.  Equally likely: once this happens, CA 219 will be "retired" -- unless Modesto raises a fuss re loss of a signed route toward Riverbank and Oakdale, in which case CA 219 would shift to McHenry, becoming the connection from the new 108 expressway and central Modesto (and likely simply terminating at CA 132).   

[cahwyguy]

...in which case CA 219 would shift to McHenry, becoming the connection from the new 108 expressway and central Modesto (and likely simply terminating at CA 132).   

Although they weren't something at the level I capture in the highway pages, there were a few CTC actions related to McHenry. This was in January, an approval for future consideration of funding:

Published Date: January 15, 2021
Subject: Approval of Project for Future Consideration of Funding — Mitigated Negative Declaration for the McHenry Avenue Widening Project, Resolution E-21-14

Recommendation:

Staff recommends the California Transportation Commission (Commission), as a Responsible Agency, accept the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the McHenry Avenue Widening Project (Project) in Stanislaus County and approve the Project for future consideration of funding.

Issue:

Stanislaus County (County) is the California Environmental Quality Act lead agency for the Project. The Project will widen McHenry Avenue with two through lanes in each direction, add a left-turn median lane, and remove an existing bridge. The Project is located at the intersection of Ladd/Patterson Road and extends 0.25-mile south on McHenry Avenue to the East River Road intersection, Stanislaus County.

There was also a STIP allocation:

The California Department of Transportation recommends that the Commission approve an allocation of $6,988,000 for the locally-administered multi-funded SB 1 LPP (Competitive)/STIP McHenry Avenue Widening-Ladd Road/Patterson Road to south end of McHenry Bridge project (PPNO 3047), off the State Highway System, in Stanislaus County.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Well, if D10 is putting money into widening McHenry, that portends well for the retention of that street in the state highway system, despite the presence of the planned expressway funneling traffic directly to CA 99 north of Modesto itself.  At least in this case they appear to be avoiding the "relinquishment madness" pervading districts with significant remaining urban street mileage. 

[cahwyguy]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Well, if D10 is putting money into widening McHenry, that portends well for the retention of that street in the state highway system, despite the presence of the planned expressway funneling traffic directly to CA 99 north of Modesto itself.  At least in this case they appear to be avoiding the "relinquishment madness" pervading districts with significant remaining urban street mileage. 

However, note that where they are spending money is part of McHenry that is not in the state highway system (otherwise, I would have grabbed it for my pages).

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Well, if D10 is putting money into widening McHenry, that portends well for the retention of that street in the state highway system, despite the presence of the planned expressway funneling traffic directly to CA 99 north of Modesto itself.  At least in this case they appear to be avoiding the "relinquishment madness" pervading districts with significant remaining urban street mileage. 

However, note that where they are spending money is part of McHenry that is not in the state highway system (otherwise, I would have grabbed it for my pages).

Must be on the portion of McHenry that's north of where CA 108 turns east toward Riverbank.  The remainder south into downtown Modesto remains as part of CA 108 (at least from the info on Daniel's site).  However, a more detailed reading of the status of the proposed and/or UC expressway indicates that the western portion paralleling CA 219 is considered "future development"; this probably means that for the time being CA 108 will probably continue to turn south onto McHenry to access central Modesto -- and that 219 will stick around for a while longer.  Nevertheless, I'd put money down on the entire expressway being designated/signed as CA 108 once eventually completed west to CA 99.