Business 80/Capital City Fwy/Calif SR 51 (29/30th & Elvas Fwy) Reconstruction

[andy3175]

Article from yesterday 12/25/15 on the proposed reconstruction of Capital City Freeway/Business 80, which follows SR 51 between US 50 and I-80 leading northeast away from downtown through midtown:

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article51634170.html

Caltrans has begun laying the groundwork for a $700 million freeway widening from midtown to the junction with Interstate 80. That includes widening the American River bridge to add a new multi-use lane in each direction, as well as building wider shoulders for stalled cars to pull over, a separate lane on the bridge for cyclists and pedestrians, and other improvements. The proposed project area is 8 miles long.

Caltrans officials say the project is so big and the funding sources so uncertain that it may not happen for a decade. That timeline is typical for major transportation projects in California.

But the region's population is expected to grow in that time, including new housing adjacent to the Capital City Freeway at McKinley Village, putting more pressure on an already failing freeway. That section of the Capital City Freeway accounts for one-third of the Sacramento Valley's freeway delays, which state highway data pegs at 3 million wasted hours.

Sacramento public works chief Jerry Way wants a more aggressive timeline. "That freeway goes right through our living room,"  he said. "We need to expedite this. We can get this done in less than 10 years."

Traffic analyses by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments indicate that unblocking the Capital City Freeway would have positive regional effects that reach beyond Sacramento County. "It is like the central artery,"  said SACOG planning official Matt Carpenter. "We realized how important improvements there would be. Finding a solution to that freeway will have a real impact (regionally)."

SACOG this month allocated $9 million to Caltrans for project planning. That includes defining the scope of the project, conducting environmental studies and obtaining permits and other approvals, then applying for grants when they become available. It also involves working with state, federal and local agencies, advocacy groups and private companies such as Union Pacific.

The state says it is looking at expanding in two phases. The first involves a variety of changes, most notably a new lane in each direction from J Street on the south end to Arden Way on the north side of the river. The second phase involves working from Arden Way east to Interstate 80.

Buses and carpools will have exclusive rights to the new lanes. Those high-occupancy vehicle, or HOV, lanes revert to "mixed flow"  for solo drivers to use during nonpeak hours.

Flournoy said the state is committed to making the rebuilt Capital City Freeway "multimodal,"  most notably by adding a bike and pedestrian travelway on the bridge over the river, separated from cars, to connect to existing bike trails on both sides of the river. The state also would change freeway ramps to make them more accessible for buses and safe to cross for cyclists and pedestrians.

"We want to think about the bigger picture on this corridor,"  Flournoy said. "Collectively, we decided we need to think about the long-term vision of how we want this corridor to behave."

Caltrans, meanwhile, plans to spend $137 million to scrape and replace the bridge deck and do other maintenance and repair work, much like it did on the Fix 50 project last year. That work is expected to occur in about five years and will help set the bridge up for the widening project to come later.

[noelbotevera]

Looks like a rush job for Caltrans. Seems unheard of, considering the fact that they can't even widen CA 58.

[myosh_tino]

Looks like a rush job for Caltrans. Seems unheard of, considering the fact that they can't even widen CA 58.

Except they are.  The Hinkley Bypass is currently under construction and should be open in about a year.  The Kramer Junction Bypass is still in the design phase but I expect it to open in 3-5 years.

See this thread I started last year... https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=13433.0

[TheStranger]

The big question I have:  would the widening finally lead to Interstate standards for Business 80 north of the river?  In order for that to happen, the 1940s-era right-on/right-off interchanges along Auburn Boulevard and the Marconi Curve would each need to be completely reworked, and given the narrow right of way that portion of the Capital City Freeway has, any widening makes drastic changes like that inevitable.

[Henry]

The big question I have:  would the widening finally lead to Interstate standards for Business 80 north of the river?  In order for that to happen, the 1940s-era right-on/right-off interchanges along Auburn Boulevard and the Marconi Curve would each need to be completely reworked, and given the narrow right of way that portion of the Capital City Freeway has, any widening makes drastic changes like that inevitable.

That sounds a lot like what was/is being done to I-40 Business in Winston-Salem.

Back to the subject at hand: It looks like Caltrans will be SOL when they complete the project on this part of I-80 Business. There are no more I-x80 or I-x05 even numbers available, so the best that could be done is I-705, as that's the only unused number that could be readily used. (I-180 can't be used because of the existence of CA 180.)

[TheStranger]

There are no more I-x80 or I-x05 even numbers available

480 is available (not that California is a state particularly in a hurry to get Interstate designations on everything, since 210 east of 57 and 15 south of 8 remain state highways for now).

[Henry]

There are no more I-x80 or I-x05 even numbers available

480 is available (not that California is a state particularly in a hurry to get Interstate designations on everything, since 210 east of 57 and 15 south of 8 remain state highways for now).

Yeah, I totally forgot about that one! It would complete a 32-year trade between the Bay Area, which started when I-880 was changed to I-80, only to be claimed by CA 17 in Oakland!

[DTComposer]

There are no more I-x80 or I-x05 even numbers available

480 is available (not that California is a state particularly in a hurry to get Interstate designations on everything, since 210 east of 57 and 15 south of 8 remain state highways for now).

Yeah, I totally forgot about that one! It would complete a 32-year trade between the Bay Area, which started when I-880 was changed to I-80, only to be claimed by CA 17 in Oakland!

Couldn't this section conceivably be the northernmost section of I-7 or I-9, should CA-99 be designated as such once the upgrades to that route are complete?

[Henry]

There are no more I-x80 or I-x05 even numbers available

480 is available (not that California is a state particularly in a hurry to get Interstate designations on everything, since 210 east of 57 and 15 south of 8 remain state highways for now).

Yeah, I totally forgot about that one! It would complete a 32-year trade between the Bay Area, which started when I-880 was changed to I-80, only to be claimed by CA 17 in Oakland!

Couldn't this section conceivably be the northernmost section of I-7 or I-9, should CA-99 be designated as such once the upgrades to that route are complete?

Yeah, it could be that, but remember, that should be discussed in Fictional Highways.

[DTComposer]

There are no more I-x80 or I-x05 even numbers available

480 is available (not that California is a state particularly in a hurry to get Interstate designations on everything, since 210 east of 57 and 15 south of 8 remain state highways for now).

Yeah, I totally forgot about that one! It would complete a 32-year trade between the Bay Area, which started when I-880 was changed to I-80, only to be claimed by CA 17 in Oakland!

Couldn't this section conceivably be the northernmost section of I-7 or I-9, should CA-99 be designated as such once the upgrades to that route are complete?

Yeah, it could be that, but remember, that should be discussed in Fictional Highways.

I certainly would not want to derail a thread in that manner, but I don't see how my comment is all that more Fictional than surmising what 3di might go on this section, considering that Caltrans has itself stated the probability of submitting CA-99 for Interstate designation.

If I wanted to hew more towards what might actually happen, then these seem most likely to me:
-Nothing. It will be continued to be signed as BR-80/Capital City Freeway
-The actual route designation (CA-51) rears its head and is signed
-I-305 rears its head, is extended onto this section and is signed

[cheungd]

There are no more I-x80 or I-x05 even numbers available

480 is available (not that California is a state particularly in a hurry to get Interstate designations on everything, since 210 east of 57 and 15 south of 8 remain state highways for now).

Yeah, I totally forgot about that one! It would complete a 32-year trade between the Bay Area, which started when I-880 was changed to I-80, only to be claimed by CA 17 in Oakland!

Couldn't this section conceivably be the northernmost section of I-7 or I-9, should CA-99 be designated as such once the upgrades to that route are complete?

Yeah, it could be that, but remember, that should be discussed in Fictional Highways.

I certainly would not want to derail a thread in that manner, but I don't see how my comment is all that more Fictional than surmising what 3di might go on this section, considering that Caltrans has itself stated the probability of submitting CA-99 for Interstate designation.

If I wanted to hew more towards what might actually happen, then these seem most likely to me:
-Nothing. It will be continued to be signed as BR-80/Capital City Freeway
-The actual route designation (CA-51) rears its head and is signed
-I-305 rears its head, is extended onto this section and is signed

Ideally, I think I-80 should be routed back onto the Capital City Freeway, with the Beltline Freeway getting the I-480 designation since the Bay Area doesn't seem to want it (and them using the I-880 designation now). Decommission CA-51 since it was never signed anyway (as well as I-305 since Caltrans also didn't want to deal with the number). Finally decommission the I-80 Business designation as it confused non-local motorists.

[Bickendan]

That'd certainly clear up the 80/Bus 80 nonsense, and 'clean up' that massive route overlap between I-5 and CA 51.
I-305 would be gone. I could see US 50 being formally pushed back to CA 51.
CA 51 itself would likely go away.
The W/X would only have I-80, CA 99 and CA 16 at that point, and CA 16 isn't even signed along I-5 or US 50 anyway.
I-305/Bus 80/US 50/CA 16/CA 99 -> I-80/CA 16/CA 99
There'd go the only quinplex in the states.

[mrsman]

There is a great benefit in having I-80 SF-Reno thru traffic avoiding Downtown Sacramento and transferring from W/X to 29/30 on the Oak Park Interchange. 

So I hope they don't move I-80, even if they redesignate the Biz-80.  Maybe the Biz-80 can become I-480.

By my own estimation, I-80 is actaully shorter between the two 80/Biz-80 interchanges.

[TheStranger]

The W/X would only have I-80, CA 99 and CA 16 at that point, and CA 16 isn't even signed along I-5 or US 50 anyway.

I've noticed that Route 16 in the city of Sacramento is slated for decommissioning -> transfer to local maintenance (if I remember the update on CAHighways correctly).  Honestly the two segments (Cache Creek/Woodland, Sacramento to Jackson) should be two different route numbers, given how far apart they are.

[Bickendan]

The W/X would only have I-80, CA 99 and CA 16 at that point, and CA 16 isn't even signed along I-5 or US 50 anyway.

I've noticed that Route 16 in the city of Sacramento is slated for decommissioning -> transfer to local maintenance (if I remember the update on CAHighways correctly).  Honestly the two segments (Cache Creek/Woodland, Sacramento to Jackson) should be two different route numbers, given how far apart they are.

Since it's never been signed along I-5 and US 50, I agree, it should be two different route numbers. If it had been signed... well, way to miss an opportunity, CalTrans.

[TheStranger]

Since it's never been signed along I-5 and US 50, I agree, it should be two different route numbers. If it had been signed... well, way to miss an opportunity, CalTrans.

The massive gap between Route 16 segments dates to 1984, when the surface road segment of Route 16 from Woodland to downtown Sacramento (through West Sacramento) was decommissioned due to the completion of the I-5 freeway between those two points...prior to that, Route 16 signage did exist a bit in downtown.

Having said that, prior to the freeways being built, US 50 and Route 16 were indeed cosigned from the capitol area to the College Greens neighborhood where the two routes split going eastward.  This wasn't continued once US 50 was moved onto the modern freeway alignment.

Considering that former Route 71 east of Temecula became Route 371 once the I-15 renumbering saga resulted in 71's truncation...there is plenty of precedent to give a disconnected segment of one route a new number.

[mrsman]

Since it's never been signed along I-5 and US 50, I agree, it should be two different route numbers. If it had been signed... well, way to miss an opportunity, CalTrans.

The massive gap between Route 16 segments dates to 1984, when the surface road segment of Route 16 from Woodland to downtown Sacramento (through West Sacramento) was decommissioned due to the completion of the I-5 freeway between those two points...prior to that, Route 16 signage did exist a bit in downtown.

Having said that, prior to the freeways being built, US 50 and Route 16 were indeed cosigned from the capitol area to the College Greens neighborhood where the two routes split going eastward.  This wasn't continued once US 50 was moved onto the modern freeway alignment.

Considering that former Route 71 east of Temecula became Route 371 once the I-15 renumbering saga resulted in 71's truncation...there is plenty of precedent to give a disconnected segment of one route a new number.

And as much as we roadgeeks may want to preserve historic routings, the real purpose of choosing a highway number is to ease motorist navigation.  So even if historically, CA 16 may have extended from Wilbur Springs to Jackson - this routing is no longer important and it would be better to have two separate routings: 16 from Woodland to Wilbur Springs and a new number (maybe 316) from US 50 at Power Inn to Jackson. 

{ I made a similar post about the break in US 422 in Pennsylvania on a different thread.  The short stub east of Hershey should be renumbered to a state highway.}

[The Ghostbuster]

I hope it will be upgraded to Interstate Standards. Although I think it should remain Business Route 80, since it was once part of Interstate 80. If it gets another number, Interstate 305 should be signposted on the existing east-west portion of Business 80.

[andy3175]

Improvements planned for Business 80 Capital City Freeway in Sacramento, with a new project webpage: http://www.dot.ca.gov/d3/capcitycorridor/ (shown as SR-51 rather than Bus 80 when describing the route number).

The Sacramento Bee summarized the proposals for the area around the American River bridge in an article dated 9/25/2017:

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/transportation/back-seat-driver/article175173696.html

State highway officials are laying plans for what may be the most expensive freeway expansion project in modern Sacramento history. The goal: To finally unclog what has been the region's biggest bottleneck for years.

The problem is the daily and weekend jam on the Capital City Freeway over the American River where traffic often comes to a halt in both directions, causing a ripple effect that sends cars onto other freeways and even through some neighborhoods.

Caltrans is looking at four project options. Three involve widening the existing bridge to add lanes. A fourth proposal is notably different. The state is considering building a new bridge a few hundred feet to the northwest.

The new bridge alignment would eliminate the tight freeway curve that exists on the south side of the river, a curve that is sharper than current freeway standards advise. But it would cut through land planned to be part of Sutter's Landing Regional Park.

Caltrans then likely would tear down the current bridge. But officials said there may be a scenario where that bridge would remain in place if, for instance, Sacramento officials felt they had some other use for it.

All four options could include a reversible lane, allowing cars to travel in different directions at different points during the day. The expansions also would include carpool lanes and a separate area on the bridge for bicyclists and pedestrians.

Environmentalists and American River Parkway advocates have expressed concerns about the project's impacts on the river and habitat around it, and say they are monitoring Caltrans' plans as the process moves forward.

The 3.4-mile work area would start at J Street on the south side of the river and run just beyond Arden Way on the north side.

The total cost of the project likely will top a half-billion dollars, Caltrans project manager Clark Peri said. ...

The project is so massive that the planning, environmental studies, engineering and fund-gathering process likely will take six years, Peri said. That means construction will not begin before 2023, and the project won't be finished for another four years after that.

Caltrans officials had for years shied away from committing to the project, partly because of the cost, but also because most policymakers and planners in the Sacramento region agree that widening freeways generally has the adverse effect of inviting people to drive more, which ends up causing more long commutes and more congestion in the long term.

But traffic analyses by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments indicate that unblocking the Capital City Freeway would have positive regional effects that reach beyond Sacramento County. "It is like the central artery,"  said SACOG planning official Matt Carpenter. His agency allocated some planning money. "We realized how important improvements there would be. Finding a solution to that freeway will have a real impact (regionally)."

Funding is not yet set. Caltrans and Sacramento planners say they expect state transportation funds to materialize over time, and more federal funds to be available for multimodal projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

[TheStranger]

Out of curiosity, is the new bridge routing proposed here pretty much similar to what was proposed from 1963-1979 as part of the canceled I-80 realignment?

[Occidental Tourist]

Out of curiosity, is the new bridge routing proposed here pretty much similar to what was proposed from 1963-1979 as part of the canceled I-80 realignment?

I thought the bigger issue with the canceled I-80 realignment was fixing the substandard Marconi curve by shifting the portion of the (now)CA-51 freeway north of the river to a more westerly alignment.  That would have included a new American River crossing.

[TheStranger]

Out of curiosity, is the new bridge routing proposed here pretty much similar to what was proposed from 1963-1979 as part of the canceled I-80 realignment?

I thought the bigger issue with the canceled I-80 realignment was fixing the substandard Marconi curve by shifting the portion of the (now)CA-51 freeway north of the river to a more westerly alignment.  That would have included a new American River crossing.

When I drove out there in August it fascinated me to see all the large road overpasses above the railroad and light rail lines between Arden Way and Marconi Avenue - all originally constructed for the realignment that never happened if I recall correctly.

SAMSUNG-SM-J327A

[Concrete Bob]

The realigned Interstate 80 was adopted in 1966, due to the sub-standard design of what is now SR 51/Business 80.  In 1979, the City of Sacramento decided to scrap the realigned Interstate 80, and re-direct the federal funds towards the LRT line running from Downtown Sacramento to Watt Avenue. 

The realigned I-80 would have stayed west of the railroad tracks and railroad bridge over the American River.  The alternative bridge being planned for the American River Crossing appears to cross over the railroad tracks and re-joins Business 80 just south of Exposition Boulevard. 

The overpasses at Arden Way, El Camino Avenue and Marconi Avenue were built after the realigned I-80 was cancelled in 1979, but before the LRT line was opened in 1987.  I believe they were constructed in between 1982 and 1986.  Arden, El Camino and Marconi Avenue are all major arterials, and their railroad crossings/underpasses were substandard, so the overpasses were a definite, needed improvement even without the realigned Interstate 80.

Should SR 51 finally get upgraded, I would hope the portion over the American River gets re-routed.  That curve before the river is very tight and there is no long distance line of sight around that curve.  I remember coming home from work back in 1985 going 65 through the curve, and suddenly seeing a line of cars not moving.  I had to slam on my brakes, and came within 30 feet of rear ending a car that was sitting in traffic.  It scared the $#!t outta me. 

[ZLoth]

I've lived in Sacramento since 1977. And, I swear, the alignment of Business-80/CA-51 and the number of lanes of the actual freeway has not changed since the construction in 1955.

The realigned Interstate 80 was adopted in 1966, due to the sub-standard design of what is now SR 51/Business 80.  In 1979, the City of Sacramento decided to scrap the realigned Interstate 80, and re-direct the federal funds towards the LRT line running from Downtown Sacramento to Watt Avenue.

I think this was a big mistake. Anyone want to celebrate 40 years of "the mistake"?

[Henry]

I've lived in Sacramento since 1977. And, I swear, the alignment of Business-80/CA-51 and the number of lanes of the actual freeway has not changed since the construction in 1955.

The realigned Interstate 80 was adopted in 1966, due to the sub-standard design of what is now SR 51/Business 80.  In 1979, the City of Sacramento decided to scrap the realigned Interstate 80, and re-direct the federal funds towards the LRT line running from Downtown Sacramento to Watt Avenue.

I think this was a big mistake. Anyone want to celebrate 40 years of "the mistake"?

We'll see in two more years! But yeah, it was a big mistake not building that part of I-80.