Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere in the forum but thought I'd share a link regarding the proposed Capital Southeast Connector outside Sacramento, CA.
http://www.connectorjpa.net/
QuoteThe Connector is being planned as a 35-mile parkway-style facility that will do more than just improve travel in the region. It will also enhance our quality of life, boost local and regional economies and even help the environment.
Spanning from Interstate 5, south of Elk Grove, to Highway 50 in El Dorado County, just east of El Dorado Hills, this vitally important piece of the region's future transportation network will bring a wide range of benefits to those who live, work and drive in the southeast county.
When completed, the Connector will have four to six traffic lanes with limited access points to keep traffic flow moving and minimize impacts to local roads. For a few segments, this configuration may be modified to accommodate community needs. The Connector will provide options for a variety of travel modes throughout the corridor, including transit, bicyclists, pedestrians and even equestrians. The Connector's design will seek to strike a balance between meeting regional transportation needs; preserving open space, habitat and agriculture; and maintaining the livability of neighboring communities.
Another article has additional information:
http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2013/03/08/jpa-southeast-connector-financing-approv.html?ana=e_du_pub&s=article_du&ed=2013-03-08&u=lQWE7PmkV4OqrrEJrmsSGmEOotT
Governments approve financing, design for Southeast Connector (dated 3/8/2013)
QuoteThe 35-mile route is expected to cost $463 million in 2012 dollars through 2035. About $118 million comes from a Sacramento County tax measure approved by voters in 2004.
Directors of the joint-powers agency that runs it –representing the counties of Sacramento and El Dorado, as well as the cities of Elk Grove, Folsom and Rancho Cordova – unanimously approved the project's financing and design plans. As early as this summer, the local governments could vote to commit funds to the project and empower the agency to take full responsibility.
Described as what would be the county's largest congestion-reducing road in decades, the project would link Interstate 5 and Highway 99 just south of Elk Grove, then run along Grant Line and White Rock roads skirting Rancho Cordova and Folsom, finally connecting to Highway 50 in El Dorado Hills. The expressway would consist of two to three lanes in each direction.
Regards,
Andy
Quote from: andy3175 on April 11, 2013, 11:40:26 PM
QuoteThe Connector is being planned as a 35-mile parkway-style facility that will do more than just improve travel in the region. It will also enhance our quality of life, boost local and regional economies and even help the environment.
Christ on a poop. whatever happened to common-sense justifications for roads, like "it lets you get to point B faster".
It's been years since I lived in Sacramento, but isn't this just connecting one suburban/exurban area to another? Is there really commuter traffic between Elk Grove and El Dorado Hills? Is there enough traffic from the south towards South Lake Tahoe?
That said, the fictional highways part of me could see it becoming part of a big loop, using CA-113 and the proposed Placer Parkway.
Rather than start a new topic, I decided to "bump" a thread that hasn't been hit upon since May 2013.
Earlier this week, the Joint Powers Authority responsible for developing the Capital Southeast Corridor released a Request for Proposal regarding accepting bids to develop/build the corridor. If you go to the URL below and go to PDF page 20 of 44, you can see a plan for the ultimate buildout of the corridor. Here's a link to the document:
http://www.connectorjpa.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Attachment-G-ROW-Cost-Study.pdf
Personally, I would have like to have seen grade-separated interchanges at Franklin Boulevard, Williard Parkway and Bruceville Road in Elk Grove.
Additionally, I would have also like to have seen grade-separated interchanges at Calvine Road, Eagles Nest Road, Rancho Cordova Parkway and Oak Avenue Parkway in Folsom. Since the area between Calvine Road in Wilton/Elk Grove and Oak Avenue Parkway is undeveloped, I think it would have been (and still be) easy to preserve ROW for interchanges at those points.
Also, I would like to see Hazel Avenue extended south to the point where White Rock Road meets up with the connector as some sort of stack/diamond interchange. The current long term plans just show a tight diamond where White Rock meets Grant Line. If Hazel Avenue is extended south to the connector, we could conceivably see a sort of half-beltway around the south and east sides of Sacramento. Imagine if it was tied into the Placer Parkway !!!
The four to six lane divided connector is supposed to be in operation by 2023 without interchanges. The nine interchanges shown in the plans are supposed to be added between 2023 and 2039, as revenue flow would allow.
Sometimes you have to bump a thread !!!
Update from the Sacramento Bee on the Capital Southeast Connector with the failure of Measure B in November ...
http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article123729844.html
QuoteFor years, leaders in east Sacramento County have been laying the groundwork for what they call the Capital SouthEast Connector, a 34-mile beltway that would carve through ranchlands behind Folsom and Rancho Cordova, serving as a commute alternative to Highways 50 and 99.
It's been a slow slog, beset by lawsuits, coordination issues, and most notably a lack of money.
The effort suffered a setback in November when voters rejected Measure B, the Sacramento County transportation half-cent sales tax that would have provided $125 million for the project — more than a third of the connector's estimated $335 million construction cost.
Despite that, proponents say they intend to get the massive project built. They just aren't sure when. ...
The planned connector would be a four-lane expressway with a center median and a bike trail, much of it an expansion of Grant Line Road and White Rock roads. It would connect to Highway 50 at the Silva Valley interchange in El Dorado County at its northeast end, as well as to Highway 99 in south Elk Grove and Interstate 5 south of Sacramento at its southwest terminus.
The connector joint powers board — made up of representatives from Sacramento and El Dorado counties, and from the cities of Folsom, Elk Grove and Rancho Cordova — will reconvene in January to discuss next steps. ...
it will take another several decades to get the expressway built. Even then, it will be a smaller road than first imagined. Previously, officials talked of building six lanes in some spots, with interchanges instead of intersections, with an estimated cost at one point of $700 million. ...
Eventually, when expected east county growth causes congestion on the new road, the connector could be turned into a full expressway by turning intersections into interchanges. ...
The group built an initial 2.2-mile section in 2012, expanding and straightening part of White Rock, from Grant Line to Prairie City Road. That section offers a preview of what the entire corridor will look like. Future sections are expected to have a bike trail separated from the roadway.
Despite the November ballot box setback, the connector project is far from financially bereft. It is in line to receive $118 million over the next two decades from the county's existing Measure A transportation sales tax, approved by voters in 2004. The connector group also will collect fees from developers who build housing projects near the connector corridor.
The group currently has $15 million it plans to use in 2018 to further widen another 2 miles of White Rock Road to four lanes between Prairie City Road and the northern branch of Scott Road. Planners said they had hoped to build a longer section all the way to Latrobe Road in El Dorado County but do not yet have the extra $24 million that would cost. ...
The Environmental Council of Sacramento, which advocates for more infill housing development in existing urban areas, sued the connector group in 2012. Connector officials settled that lawsuit, agreeing to spend some funds to buy land on the southeast side of the road for open space preservation and species habitat. How much land and at what cost is still uncertain.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 12, 2013, 09:58:01 AM
Quote from: andy3175 on April 11, 2013, 11:40:26 PM
QuoteThe Connector is being planned as a 35-mile parkway-style facility that will do more than just improve travel in the region. It will also enhance our quality of life, boost local and regional economies and even help the environment.
Christ on a poop. whatever happened to common-sense justifications for roads, like "it lets you get to point B faster".
==========
Shhhh...."freeway" in California is a bad word now. You can't say it. Call it a "Parkway", or an "Enhanced Arterial", and make up all kinds of garbage to apologize for building a controlled access highway. Just don't call it a freeway.
Don
A $20 million grant was secured earlier this year for the Capital Southeast Connector project:
http://www.folsomtelegraph.com/article/6/06/18/20m-grant-secured-capital-southeast-connector
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.folsomtelegraph.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2F1005a1map-web.jpg&hash=9ac4fa25876a2e1d96336c30eb03a085e98a6d38)
https://www.connectorjpa.net/ (https://www.connectorjpa.net/)
This is a proposed Expressway designed to be an alternative route to I-80 and US-50 that's is being discussed so far to be a 4 lane route from El Dorado Hills to Elk Grove. Total length of this route is 34 miles.
https://www.connectorjpa.net/overview.html (https://www.connectorjpa.net/overview.html)
Interesting. This sounds kind of like the SR 148 proposal from decades ago. I see that there's a Joint Powers Authority administering it. Maybe they're working like the State Route 4 Bypass Authority in eastern Contra Costa County -- upgrading the corridor independent of Caltrans or any other traditional jurisdiction.
Quote from: mapman on July 15, 2020, 12:58:34 AM
Interesting. This sounds kind of like the SR 148 proposal from decades ago. I see that there's a Joint Powers Authority administering it. Maybe they're working like the State Route 4 Bypass Authority in eastern Contra Costa County -- upgrading the corridor independent of Caltrans or any other traditional jurisdiction.
Physically, it's likely the corridor will use Caltrans templates for suburban/rural expressway in a similar fashion to Riverside County's deployment of the Domengoni Parkway in the Hemet/Menifee area a decade back. The concept then was to eventually reroute CA 74 over that facility and get it off State Street through Hemet. The Sacramento-area project doesn't replace any existing state facilities, though -- although eventually the CA 148 designation may be applied to the final product more for navigational purposes than anything (and it would get Caltrans off the fiscal hook as far as developing the long-dormant 148 corridor is concerned) -- although undoubtedly considerable state funds would be mixed into the project development. Ironically 74 x 2 = 148!
How about no? Don't build it unless it's a freeway. :-D :spin:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_SouthEast_Connector (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_SouthEast_Connector)
The Completion date is supposed to be sometime in 2022.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9243
Mod Note: Merged new 2020 thread into existing topic linked here. —Roadfro
The section of White Rock Road between Prairie City Road and East Bidwell/Scott Road in Folsom is about to get upgraded to expressway. Authorities have already moved the utility lines about 200 feet south of the existing roadway. Planning for the expressway was first announced in 2001. This is the third stretch of the expressway to be constructed. The first section, from Prairie City Road to the Grant Line Road-White Rock Road split was completed in 2014. The second section from SR 99 to Waterman Road was completed around 2016 or so. The next section of Grant Line Road that will be upgraded will be the section between Waterman Road and Bradshaw Road in Elk Grove.
The Capital Southeast Connector is the biggest planned highway project planned for the Sacramento region. Hopefully, the shovels will hit the earth for the Placer Parkway soon.
Just curious. Expressways in Wisconsin (where I was raised) are built with enough width to convert to freeways. Access along the highway is usually just major roads and an occasional farm or business, but it becomes limited access when converted. Does California follow the same idea or is it just a four lane highway with enough ROW to add more lanes?
I think that would depend on the jurisdiction responsible for building the expressway. Historically, I believe the State of California built expressways and purchased right of way with the intention of ultimately upgrading the route to freeway. During the period of 1947-1975, the State of California purchased rights of way for expressways with the ultimate goal of a freeway upgrade.
The Capital Southeast Expressway was first proposed in 2001 by local transportation planners. It is not a currently State Highway, and is planned to be a combination of expressway with grade separations and interchanges in undeveloped areas, and as a "thoroughfare" with grade crossings in established areas.
There's been some very notable progress on the Capital Southeast Connector in the past few weeks on the 2.5 mile section between Prairie City Road and East Bidwell Street in Folsom. Over this past weekend (4/23-4/25), the project contractor (Goodfellow Brothers) installed a detour on White Rock Road, where it crosses Alder Creek. About 50 feet to the south, the contractors installed dirt embankment on both sides of Alder Creek for the new connector. Dirt has been graded out for the new connector from East Bidwell Street to a point about 1.5 miles to the west. There are survey markers along the entire 2.5 mile corridor. All the electrical powerlines have been relocated to the south end of the corridor for the Capital Southeast Connector.
The section is expected to be completed and open to traffic sometime in 2022.
Quote from: Concrete Bob on April 26, 2021, 11:12:53 PM
There's been some very notable progress on the Capital Southeast Connector in the past few weeks on the 2.5 mile section between Prairie City Road and East Bidwell Street in Folsom. Over this past weekend (4/23-4/25), the project contractor (Goodfellow Brothers) installed a detour on White Rock Road, where it crosses Alder Creek. About 50 feet to the south, the contractors installed dirt embankment on both sides of Alder Creek for the new connector. Dirt has been graded out for the new connector from East Bidwell Street to a point about 1.5 miles to the west. There are survey markers along the entire 2.5 mile corridor. All the electrical powerlines have been relocated to the south end of the corridor for the Capital Southeast Connector.
The section is expected to be completed and open to traffic sometime in 2022.
Any chance of seeing a map showing the location of this construction?
https://www.connectorjpa.net/folsom-el-dorado-hills-d3-e1.html.
The section is noted as D-3(A) for actual construction, It is the first half of D-3 within Sacramento County. It is between the two north south running roads on the Sacramento County side of the Sacto/Eldorado County border.
Quote from: Concrete Bob on April 27, 2021, 03:10:15 AM
https://www.connectorjpa.net/folsom-el-dorado-hills-d3-e1.html.
The section is noted as D-3(A) for actual construction, It is the first half of D-3 within Sacramento County. It is between the two north south running roads on the Sacramento County side of the Sacto/Eldorado County border.
Wow; that was quick! Thanks for the map/illustration; will have to take a look at it the next time I'm up in that area.
I'm sure those people who at the ruins or Clarksville at the end of Old White Rock Road will love that. :rolleyes:
I'm pretty sure any historically-relevant artifacts and sites from Clarksville will be archived, preserved and relocated accordingly. The section of White Rock Road east of East Bidwell Street and the El Dorado County line is pretty treacherous, and carries a lot of inter-regional traffic. The upgraded connector will address a lot of growth issues in the region, and provide a bit of a relief valve for US 50, SR 99 and I-5.
I would have liked to have seen the Capital Southeast Corridor ultimately built as a freeway/expressway for its entire length (with a bypass of Wilton), along with a northern spur leading to Hazel Avenue (at White Rock Road) up to I-80 in Rocklin upgraded to a limited-access expressway with tight diamond interchanges at major east-west cross streets. That would cover some of the planned functions of the unbuilt sections of SR 148, SR 143 and SR 65. Sacramento County really "screwed the pooch" when they voted to abandon the Caltrans freeway plans for the region back in November 1974.
Nowadays, all major arterials in Northeast Sacramento County seem to have signal lights every quarter or half mile, and are the basis for much of the area's commute. When I need to get to Roseville from Folsom, it takes me a good 35 minutes. Had all the planned freeways been built, I could have got to my destinations within 15 or 20 minutes. The Capital Southeast Connector, as currently planned, while far from perfect, will provide something far better than a suburban arterial with a signal light every half mile for inter and intra-regional commuters. Mejor que nada !
Quote from: don1991 on March 25, 2017, 02:16:41 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 12, 2013, 09:58:01 AM
Quote from: andy3175 on April 11, 2013, 11:40:26 PM
QuoteThe Connector is being planned as a 35-mile parkway-style facility that will do more than just improve travel in the region. It will also enhance our quality of life, boost local and regional economies and even help the environment.
Christ on a poop. whatever happened to common-sense justifications for roads, like "it lets you get to point B faster".
==========
Shhhh...."freeway" in California is a bad word now. You can't say it. Call it a "Parkway", or an "Enhanced Arterial", and make up all kinds of garbage to apologize for building a controlled access highway. Just don't call it a freeway.
Don
You can call the SouthEast connector an Expressway in the same way some of Santa Clara county routes are called when they are in San Jose.
This logic of wanting parkways instead of freeways makes no sense to me. You're still going to accommodate cars yet just make quality of life worse of commuters by increasing their commute times and increasing emissions by adding stop lights? SMH
Quote from: Concrete Bob on April 28, 2021, 01:52:00 AM
I'm pretty sure any historically-relevant artifacts and sites from Clarksville will be archived, preserved and relocated accordingly. The section of White Rock Road east of East Bidwell Street and the El Dorado County line is pretty treacherous, and carries a lot of inter-regional traffic. The upgraded connector will address a lot of growth issues in the region, and provide a bit of a relief valve for US 50, SR 99 and I-5.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. The property owners are pretty aggressive in terms of asserting that Clarksville is private property. It might get rock of a slab of early Lincoln Highway concrete off of Old White Rock Road from the way I read the drawings though.
The key is to call them "parkways" , brand them as such, advertise them as such, everything, but ultimately still end up building a freeway.
Sits better with the public eye and could bring less opposition, and still ultimately get the same thing done.
Problem is, pretty sure this project does not involve a full freeway, and still has signalized intersections and lower speed limits than 65 mph.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 05, 2021, 04:42:29 PM
The key is to call them "parkways" , brand them as such, advertise them as such, everything, but ultimately still end up building a freeway.
That's pretty much what happened with US 101 in the SF Presidio when it was realigned from the old elevated Doyle Drive to the new surface-level (with 2 tunnels) Presidio Parkway about five years ago!
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 05, 2021, 04:42:29 PM
The key is to call them "parkways" , brand them as such, advertise them as such, everything, but ultimately still end up building a freeway.
Sits better with the public eye and could bring less opposition, and still ultimately get the same thing done.
Problem is, pretty sure this project does not involve a full freeway, and still has signalized intersections and lower speed limits than 65 mph.
Amusingly, the current Arroyo Seco Parkway (CA 110) in NE L.A. started out life with that name, was renamed the Pasadena Freeway when pushed through Elysian Park to the 4-level Interchange, with its parkway name re-established several years back -- but it's still technically a "freeway", albeit one with reduced speed because of reduced (or nonexistent) lines of sight and stop signs at the functionally RIRO ramps. But "parkway" seems to have caught on as a "non-threatening" catchall naming convention for a multitude of roadway configurations from simple 2-lane roads through actual parks to "near-freeways", often with narrow shoulders and medians in order to fit into a restricted ROW; a prime example is the US 97 "Bend Parkway" through Bend, OR, which functions as an urban freeway for portions, but with some commercial driveway access -- and physical curbs in places rather than flat shoulders -- presumably to make it look more like a "superstreet" than anything resembling a traditional freeway facility (and thus avoid the ire of the naysayers over in the Willamette Valley or PDX). Unfortunately, in some jurisdictions such quasi-subterfuge becomes necessary to get a project off the launching pad.
Quote from: sparker on May 05, 2021, 05:34:36 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 05, 2021, 04:42:29 PM
The key is to call them "parkways" , brand them as such, advertise them as such, everything, but ultimately still end up building a freeway.
Sits better with the public eye and could bring less opposition, and still ultimately get the same thing done.
Problem is, pretty sure this project does not involve a full freeway, and still has signalized intersections and lower speed limits than 65 mph.
Amusingly, the current Arroyo Seco Parkway (CA 110) in NE L.A. started out life with that name, was renamed the Pasadena Freeway when pushed through Elysian Park to the 4-level Interchange, with its parkway name re-established several years back -- but it's still technically a "freeway", albeit one with reduced speed because of reduced (or nonexistent) lines of sight and stop signs at the functionally RIRO ramps. But "parkway" seems to have caught on as a "non-threatening" catchall naming convention for a multitude of roadway configurations from simple 2-lane roads through actual parks to "near-freeways", often with narrow shoulders and medians in order to fit into a restricted ROW; a prime example is the US 97 "Bend Parkway" through Bend, OR, which functions as an urban freeway for portions, but with some commercial driveway access -- and physical curbs in places rather than flat shoulders -- presumably to make it look more like a "superstreet" than anything resembling a traditional freeway facility (and thus avoid the ire of the naysayers over in the Willamette Valley or PDX). Unfortunately, in some jurisdictions such quasi-subterfuge becomes necessary to get a project off the launching pad.
Parkways are already somewhat interchangeable in the lexicon with freeways east of the Rockies. The Baltimore-Washington Parkway, Connecticut's Merritt Parkway, and Nashville's Briley Parkway are all freeways. There are also parkways that are not freeways like the Blue Ridge Parkway and NOVA's George Washington Parkway. The distinction is more important to the community here than elsewhere.
Quote from: skluth on May 06, 2021, 12:08:56 PM
Quote from: sparker on May 05, 2021, 05:34:36 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 05, 2021, 04:42:29 PM
The key is to call them "parkways" , brand them as such, advertise them as such, everything, but ultimately still end up building a freeway.
Sits better with the public eye and could bring less opposition, and still ultimately get the same thing done.
Problem is, pretty sure this project does not involve a full freeway, and still has signalized intersections and lower speed limits than 65 mph.
Amusingly, the current Arroyo Seco Parkway (CA 110) in NE L.A. started out life with that name, was renamed the Pasadena Freeway when pushed through Elysian Park to the 4-level Interchange, with its parkway name re-established several years back -- but it's still technically a "freeway", albeit one with reduced speed because of reduced (or nonexistent) lines of sight and stop signs at the functionally RIRO ramps. But "parkway" seems to have caught on as a "non-threatening" catchall naming convention for a multitude of roadway configurations from simple 2-lane roads through actual parks to "near-freeways", often with narrow shoulders and medians in order to fit into a restricted ROW; a prime example is the US 97 "Bend Parkway" through Bend, OR, which functions as an urban freeway for portions, but with some commercial driveway access -- and physical curbs in places rather than flat shoulders -- presumably to make it look more like a "superstreet" than anything resembling a traditional freeway facility (and thus avoid the ire of the naysayers over in the Willamette Valley or PDX). Unfortunately, in some jurisdictions such quasi-subterfuge becomes necessary to get a project off the launching pad.
Parkways are already somewhat interchangeable in the lexicon with freeways east of the Rockies. The Baltimore-Washington Parkway, Connecticut's Merritt Parkway, and Nashville's Briley Parkway are all freeways. There are also parkways that are not freeways like the Blue Ridge Parkway and NOVA's George Washington Parkway. The distinction is more important to the community here than elsewhere.
The traditional East Coast usage of "Parkway" is not dissimilar to that for the Arroyo Seco: a freeway/expressway that does not accept trucks on it, i.e. the New York parkway system, or the Merritt Parkway as mentioned above.
Quote from: TheStranger on May 06, 2021, 06:59:14 PM
The traditional East Coast usage of "Parkway" is not dissimilar to that for the Arroyo Seco: a freeway/expressway that does not accept trucks on it, i.e. the New York parkway system, or the Merritt Parkway as mentioned above.
The two truck-restricted freeways in the Bay area: I-580 in east Oakland and CA 85 around the south side of San Jose, seem to have avoided the "parkway" label or name simply because they have been referred to as freeways for their entire existence. Also, the former has been known as the
MacArthur Freeway since its incipient I-5W days nearly 60 years ago, so any diminutive distinction like a descriptive "downgrade" to a parkway would simply and widely be ignored (I certainly couldn't see KCBS calling it a parkway in their every-10-minute radio traffic report!).
Quote from: sparker on May 07, 2021, 03:59:11 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on May 06, 2021, 06:59:14 PM
The traditional East Coast usage of "Parkway" is not dissimilar to that for the Arroyo Seco: a freeway/expressway that does not accept trucks on it, i.e. the New York parkway system, or the Merritt Parkway as mentioned above.
The two truck-restricted freeways in the Bay area: I-580 in east Oakland and CA 85 around the south side of San Jose, seem to have avoided the "parkway" label or name simply because they have been referred to as freeways for their entire existence. Also, the former has been known as the MacArthur Freeway since its incipient I-5W days nearly 60 years ago, so any diminutive distinction like a descriptive "downgrade" to a parkway would simply and widely be ignored (I certainly couldn't see KCBS calling it a parkway in their every-10-minute radio traffic report!).
In the case of 85 it isn't even a full truck ban either (essentially there is a size component to what is allowed on that road).
IIRC there are also off peak hours where 580 does allow truck usage. Interesting that that freeway was built entirely as Interstate (going back to 5W era) yet was able to maintain a truck ban, as opposed to 5W being routed on the modern truck route of 880 (then 17) and 238.
SM-G973U1
Quote from: TheStranger on May 07, 2021, 07:54:34 AM
Quote from: sparker on May 07, 2021, 03:59:11 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on May 06, 2021, 06:59:14 PM
The traditional East Coast usage of "Parkway" is not dissimilar to that for the Arroyo Seco: a freeway/expressway that does not accept trucks on it, i.e. the New York parkway system, or the Merritt Parkway as mentioned above.
The two truck-restricted freeways in the Bay area: I-580 in east Oakland and CA 85 around the south side of San Jose, seem to have avoided the "parkway" label or name simply because they have been referred to as freeways for their entire existence. Also, the former has been known as the MacArthur Freeway since its incipient I-5W days nearly 60 years ago, so any diminutive distinction like a descriptive "downgrade" to a parkway would simply and widely be ignored (I certainly couldn't see KCBS calling it a parkway in their every-10-minute radio traffic report!).
In the case of 85 it isn't even a full truck ban either (essentially there is a size component to what is allowed on that road).
IIRC there are also off peak hours where 580 does allow truck usage. Interesting that that freeway was built entirely as Interstate (going back to 5W era) yet was able to maintain a truck ban, as opposed to 5W being routed on the modern truck route of 880 (then 17) and 238.
SM-G973U1
580 has had a full-time truck ban since its construction. It is only applicable to the portion within Oakland City limits and has a tonnage max which allows for smaller panel type trucks but not large ones or semis, but effectively keeps them off the entire portion between 238 in Castro Valley and 980/24 in DT Oakland. Eastbound trucks must exit by Grand Avenue, westbound by Estudillo Ave in San Leandro. The only time the restriction is lifted is if 880 is effectively closed due to a sig-alert type event. The main reason for the restriction is that when it was constructed in sections from 1962-65 the neighborhoods it cut through were (are still) affluent and they fought for it.
In hindsight it was probably for the best considering the freeway is more serpentine than most and undulates more than typical as well, as opposed to 880 which is straight and flat so there aren't the impact of trucks slogging up hills creating plugs. OTOH, it makes 880 that much more of a parking lot. The other interesting thing is its demonstration of the impacts of trucks and other heavy vehicles to road surfaces compared with cars: nearly all of it still has its original concrete surface, now pushing 60 years old. There have been concrete patches and slab replacements here and there and there was a microgrinding over the last 5 years or so to smooth minor lifting at the slab joints but other than a couple short sections that got an AC overlay, for the rest you're driving on the original. Compare that to 880 which is 10 years older but has been repaved how many times???
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
One of the rationales back in 1984 for designation of then-CA 17 as I-880 and the freeway portion of CA 238 as I-238 was to secure Interstate designation for the default truck route from Hayward to the MacArthur Maze. It was apparently reasoned at the time that commercial drivers (and dispatchers) would be more comfortable sending their vehicles over a signed Interstate than on a series of state freeways -- also, the period this took place was prior to the ending of regularized federal support for maintenance of designated Interstate facilities.
This evening (8/16/21), I took a drive on White Rock Road adjacent to the section of the Capital Southeast Connector currently under construction between Prairie City Road and Scott Road in the south part of Folsom. A great deal of progress has occurred since I last drove in the area in early July 2021. Roughly 98 percent of the new eastbound carriageway west of Prairie City Road and Scott Road has been paved. There has been no paving done on the westbound carriageway. It appears as though few sections of the new westbound carriageway of the Capital City Connector will occupy the area of the existing two lane path of White Rock Road.
My unprofessional guess is the existing two lane White Rock Road will be shifted to the new eastbound carriageway by September or October. At that time, the existing old White Rock Road will be removed, and construction of the westbound carriage will begin. I think, if the weather is cooperative, the westbound carriageway will be completed and open to traffic by Spring or Summer of 2022. I am hoping for a very wet late fall/winter/early spring for 2021-2022, but if the drought remains for another year, I am hoping for a quick wrap-up for this section of the project.
Additionally, construction has started on an updated Prairie City Road/Scott Road/Capital City surface-level intersection. In phase two of the Capital Southeast Connector project, this new at-grade intersection will be replaced by a tight diamond interchange. That will probably occur by 2039 or so.
I took a ride on White Rock Road this evening (9/9/21). Both directions of traffic have been shifted to the new eastbound carriageway. The shoulders have been striped for the ultimate configuration of the dual roadway, with the eastbound shoulder being considerably wider than the westbound shoulder. The center has a double yellow stripe. The new road is much wider and smoother than the old road, and is a pleasure to drive. Traffic lights have been installed (but are not in use) at Prairie City Road, Oak Avenue Parkway and East Bidwell Street.
The construction zone speed limit is 40 MPH throughout the new stretch of road. But I felt comfortable driving 60 MPH. Once the section is totally completed, I think the road will have a 55 MPH speed limit.
Drone video of the project filmed on 9/24/2021. I am thinking this section of the project will be done and open to the public by late spring 2022.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SjK9t702MA
Quote from: Concrete Bob on August 17, 2021, 12:54:47 AM
Additionally, construction has started on an updated Prairie City Road/Scott Road/Capital City surface-level intersection. In phase two of the Capital Southeast Connector project, this new at-grade intersection will be replaced by a tight diamond interchange. That will probably occur by 2039 or so.
Tight diamonds have no reason to exist in a new terrain build roadway. It should've at least been a SPUI.
Looks like the upgrade of White Rock Road between Prairie City Road and East Bidwell Street could be completed by early December 2021.
https://www.folsom.ca.us/Home/Components/News/News/2658/211
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 05, 2021, 04:42:29 PM
The key is to call them "parkways" , brand them as such, advertise them as such, everything, but ultimately still end up building a freeway.
Sits better with the public eye and could bring less opposition, and still ultimately get the same thing done.
Problem is, pretty sure this project does not involve a full freeway, and still has signalized intersections and lower speed limits than 65 mph.
They are expressways by California standards it basically how San Jose and Santa Clara County got the Capital Expressway and Montague Expressway built. The Capital Southeast Connector is basically an expressway in the Sacramento Valley.
Quote from: bing101 on October 17, 2021, 01:52:12 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 05, 2021, 04:42:29 PM
The key is to call them "parkways" , brand them as such, advertise them as such, everything, but ultimately still end up building a freeway.
Sits better with the public eye and could bring less opposition, and still ultimately get the same thing done.
Problem is, pretty sure this project does not involve a full freeway, and still has signalized intersections and lower speed limits than 65 mph.
They are expressways by California standards it basically how San Jose and Santa Clara County got the Capital Expressway and Montague Expressway built. The Capital Southeast Connector is basically an expressway in the Sacramento Valley.
Even so, politicians sometimes still use the word "freeway." Here is some media coverage from the May 5, 2021 groundbreaking with a quote from Assemblymember Jim Cooper.
http://www.egcitizen.com/news/groundbreaking-held-for-34-mile-connector-expressway/article_bb60753a-b4dd-11eb-8621-13a3c1439789.html
QuoteAssembly Member Jim Cooper, D-Elk Grove, described the Connector as a benefit to the local economy.
"You look at the construction equipment out here, it has created jobs," he said. "They're going to help build this Connector. And I think also, you look at Folsom and Rancho Cordova, they're a job hub, a lot of tech jobs in Folsom. They've got a lot of jobs out here. And we do have Elk Grove residents that commute out here on a daily basis, using Highway 50, and at some point, they'll be able to bypass that. And that will take that burden off of Highway 99, I-5 and also (Highway) 50.
"Think about this: As far as a major, new freeway in the region, this is the first one in 40, 50, 60 years. I think everybody's excited. It's been a long time coming. I think this was originally talked about in 1993, so that tells you how far we've come."
The article goes on to describe the three segments of the Capital Southeast Corridor underway ... and this initial phase does not look like freeway standards to me:
- Grant Line Road widening from two to four lanes from Waterman to Bradshaw roads (with new traffic signals at Mosher and Bradshaw roads) - completion in spring 2022
- Kammerer Road reconstruction/development from Bruceville Road to Lotz Parkway - completion by end of 2021
- White Rock Road reconstruction/expansion from East Bidwell Road to Prairie City Road with four-lane expressway separated by a median - completion winter 2022
While I am fully in support of this project, I am rather disappointed that the section of the Capital Southeast Connector planned through the Wilton area could have up to six roundabouts in a 2.3 mile stretch:
https://www.connectorjpa.net/sheldon-wilton-c.html
Personally, I feel roundabouts are fine for residential areas and isolated rural areas. But they have no place on the main lanes of a regional expressway on the edge of a major urban area. Just my opinion, though.
Yesterday (12/15), I took a drive on the future Capital Southeast Connector between its current southwestern terminus at Bruceville Road (south of Elk Grove) and East Bidwell Road in Folsom. There has been significant progress at both ends of the route.
Kammerer Road has been upgraded to a two-lane divided road from Bruceville Road to just west of West Stockton Boulevard in Elk Grove. The authority responsible for constructing the connector will be adding an additional lane in each direction as funding and vehicle count direct. This section of the connector has a break in the center median where Kammerer Road has a group of driveways to about ten homes. A two-way left turn lane exists in this area. I am uncertain whether the houses will be purchased when the road is widened to four lanes. This section of the connector has a posted 55 MPH speed limit. This section of road is a little under three miles. It was completed in late November 2021.
The one-mile section of Grant Line Road between Waterman and Bradshaw Road is nearly complete. This portion of the connector has four lanes with a raised center median. All the traffic is currently using the northeast-bound carriageway. It appears contractors only need to complete the lane striping and activate the traffic signals at Grant Line, Mosher and Bradshaw Roads. Additionally, there is some sort of collector road to the right of the connector to provide access to the farms to the south of the connector. When I drove through the area yesterday, workers were making adjustments to the traffic signals at Bradshaw Road.
Finally, the section of White Rock Road between Prairie City Road and East Bidwell Street in South Folsom is also coming close to complete. The westbound lanes of the connector have been paved, but the surface appears to need some additional minor treatment before contractors can apply striping to the westbound roadbed. Google Streetview was updated recently to show images from November 2021 for this area of the connector. So, head on over there and take a good look if you want.
Quote from: sparker on May 07, 2021, 01:06:49 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
One of the rationales back in 1984 for designation of then-CA 17 as I-880 and the freeway portion of CA 238 as I-238 was to secure Interstate designation for the default truck route from Hayward to the MacArthur Maze. It was apparently reasoned at the time that commercial drivers (and dispatchers) would be more comfortable sending their vehicles over a signed Interstate than on a series of state freeways -- also, the period this took place was prior to the ending of regularized federal support for maintenance of designated Interstate facilities.
Also that was around the same time when CA-7 Long Beach Freeway was renamed I-710 (Alhambra to Long Beach part) and CA-710(Pasadena) to accommodate Truck Traffic to the Port of Long Beach.
Back to SouthEast Connector this is for now a county route as far as I am aware for now until Caltrans step in and put a designation like how Westside Parkway is waiting to be approved as CA-58 in Bakersfield.
Or SouthEast connector will be like Vasco Rd in the East Side of Contra Costa County as the Bay Area's most busiest road on a non Caltrans highway.
I took another trip on the Capital Southeast Connector this afternoon (3/2). The section between Waterman and Bradshaw Roads is complete, and traffic flows in each of the carriageways. There are three traffic lights on the stretch from Waterman to Bradshaw Roads. The road has a posted speed of 55 MPH. The traffic was flowing smoothly when I hit the stretch around 1:30 PM. The road tapers to a two-lane road just east of Bradshaw.
There hasn't been any progress on the upgrade of White Rock Road between Prairie City Road and East Bidwell Road in South Folsom. Apparently, all construction was suspended for the "Winter Season." Given the dry, warm conditions Sacramento has experienced during January and February, this stretch should and could be in operation. It appears as though the road simply needs to be striped and have the signal lights activated.
I believe the next stretch that will be upgraded will be between White Rock Road and Douglas Road.
This evening (5/20), I took another trip on the Capital Southeast Connector. There has been a good deal of progress. The westbound carriageway is fully opened and striped. The temporary "stripage" for the eastbound lanes have been removed, and is nothing but blacktop. All the new traffic lights have been installed, but they are not operational. Two of the three signal lights are being served by active traffic lights hung on adjacent electric lines (Prairie City Road/Oak Avenue Parkway), while the third (East Bidwell) is served by new lights flashing red signals. The eastbound carriage has the area for the right lane blocked off by traffic cones.
It looks like everything will be done and open to traffic by early June.
Last night (6/4), I took another drive along the Corridor. Both carriages are open, and all three new traffic lights are functioning. The only thing left to complete on the project is the realignment of Scott Road to tie in with the Prairie City Road intersection. The four-lane divided connector continues about 1,000 feet east of East Bidwell, where it tapers to the old two-lane configuration. The road has a posted speed of 55 MPH. There is also ample right of way set aside for future tight diamond interchanges at Prairie City Road and East Bidwell Street.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article262539167.html
Here is the current status on Capital SouthEast corridor.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/elk-grove-gets-millions-in-federal-funds-for-old-town-transportation-projects/ar-AAZPYbZ
Some of this will include more funding for the South East connector at White Rock Road portion of the project. Note this is ongoing here for Sacramento county.
https://www.sacbee.com/community/folsom-news/article267901932.html (https://www.sacbee.com/community/folsom-news/article267901932.html)
Update the Folsom portion of the Capital Southeast Connector gets a Ribbon cutting ceremony.
https://www.sacbee.com/community/folsom-news/article272576259.html
Here is more on the project and supposed reduction of traffic fatalities in the Folsom area.
From the FHWA:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-11-27/pdf/2023-26028.pdf page 82941
Quote
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Highway in California
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of limitation on claims for judicial review of actions by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
SUMMARY: The FHWA, on behalf of Caltrans, is issuing this notice to announce actions taken by Caltrans that are final. The actions relate to a proposed project, to connect State Route (SR) 99 to Interstate 5 (I–5) in an eastwest alignment, in unincorporated Sacramento County and a portion of the City of Elk Grove. Those actions grant licenses, permits, and approvals for the project.
DATES: By this notice, the FHWA, on behalf of Caltrans, is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). A claim seeking judicial review of the Federal agency actions on the highway project will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before April 25, 2024. If the Federal law that authorizes judicial review of a claim provides a time period of less than 150 days for filing such claim, then that shorter time period still applies.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
Caltrans: Thaleena Bhattal Acting Branch Chief, Caltrans Office of Environmental Management, M–1
California Department of Transportation—District 3, 703 B Street, Marysville, CA 95901.
Office Hours: 8:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m., Pacific Standard Time, telephone: (530) 821–8301 or
email at thaleena.bhattal@dot.ca.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Effective July 1, 2007, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) assigned, and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) assumed, environmental responsibilities for this project pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327. Notice is hereby given that the Caltrans have taken final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1) by issuing licenses, permits, and approvals for the following highway project in the State of California: The City of Elk Grove and Capital SouthEast Connector Joint Powers Authority (Connector JPA), in cooperation with the California Department of Transportation proposes to connect State Route (SR) 99 to Interstate 5 (I–5) in an east-west alignment. The project will replace an existing portion of Kammerer Road with a four-lane thoroughfare, construct a new four-lane expressway section to I–5 The actions by the Federal agencies, and the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the Final Environmental Assessment (FEA)/Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), approved on October 3, 2023, and in other documents in the Caltrans' project records. The FEA, FONSI, and other project records are available by contacting Caltrans at the addresses provided above. This notice applies to all Federal agency decisions as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken......
[\quote]