Could be due to traffic volume, regional importance, physical route, etc.
I-4 Florida because of tourists to resorts in the Orlando area and I-8 because of San Diego area Traffic.
My first thought was I-94. Then I checked kurumi's list.
http://kurumi.com/roads/rank2di.html
i-H1, I-H2, I-H3, I-h201 Hawaii have to be important interstates due to all Honolulu Traffic.
I-238 Hayward, CA it's a shortcut from I-580 to I-880
I-81 and I-64
I-91. 'Cause I say so.
I-81 and I-78.
From both stats and personal experience, I'd have to say I-94, due to the sheer number of major metro areas served -- but with I-44 a damn close 2nd, if for nothing else than its status as part of the major freight corridor from L.A. and the rest of the Southwest to the Great Lakes states & the Northeast.
But having said that -- I-81 gains importance in winter months, when avoidance of the upper Great Plains and Great Lakes areas often becomes mandatory for commerce.
I-94. It's essentially an x0 but couldn't be numbered as such because they ran out of x0 numbers due to skipping 50 and 60.
Eastern I-76. Connects Philadelphia to the Midwest.
I-81
I-94
I'd have to say either I-94 or I-81.
I-94 or I-44 I'd say.
Quote from: 1 on August 30, 2017, 11:52:38 AM
My first thought was I-94. Then I checked kurumi's list.
http://kurumi.com/roads/rank2di.html
No weightings for total AADT or large truck AADT.
I seem to recall in other discussions that is what put I-81 to the top, as it is a "super bypass" that doesn't touch but bypasses the Northeast metros, and has Interstate connectors to each metro.
I-94 by a large margin because of the long length and huge transportation corridor in the Mid-West connecting to Ontario.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 31, 2017, 12:00:20 AM
I-94 by a large margin because of the long length and huge transportation corridor in the Mid-West connecting to Ontario.
Just rename it the NFC North Freeway (even tho it doesn't make it to Green Bay, it does connect the Twin Cities to Milwaukee to Chicago to Detroit, which is the concentration of the Fan Bases for the 4 teams in the Division!)
Its almost Football season...crossing Road Geek with NFL...
Going Fictional, could reroute I-94 so it does include Green Bay on its route, and also eliminate the I-90 and I-39 multiplex north of Madison...and decommission I-43 while I'm at it...I-94 takes over I-43 between Milwaukee and Green Bay, and then takes over WI 29 from Green Bay to Eau Claire, meeting backing up with current I-94 to get to the Twin Cities
I-94 just because it's long and connects lots of major metro areas, as said above.
I-81 because it's part of the best route from NYC to LA. (And as was said above, it has great connectivity with large metros without actually going through them.)
I-64 for its length and metro areas.
I-77 and I-44 are also quite important, but maybe not as much as the ones above.
I-26 because it links I-95 and I-77.
I-94 all the way!
Depends on what you mean by "important". If you are talking about commerce, I-81 is right at the top. If you are talking about tourists, then I-4. If you are talking about the military, then I-64, connecting many major bases and reserve centers to the largest military center in the world, Norfolk, is. If you are talking about public safety of a place likely to need evacutaion, I-26.
I-69 :bigass:
I-17.
Quote from: ColossalBlocks on August 31, 2017, 01:28:18 PM
I-17.
It's important but doesn't carry anywhere the volume of traffic bigger routes like 69, 26, 64, 81, and 94 do.
I-44
Linking the West Coast to Chicago and the midwest.
I-94, maybe I-64.
Karumi's list is good, but I'd rather weight traffic volume more heavily and number of spur routes less heavily
The Future I-7 or I-9 aka CA-99 because of agriculture traffic in the San Joaquin valley.
Also the future I-11 in the Las Vegas area due to Vegas Traffic.
Quote from: bing101 on August 31, 2017, 08:25:38 PM
The Future I-7 or I-9 aka CA-99 because of agriculture traffic in the San Joaquin valley.
Also the future I-11 in the Las Vegas area due to Vegas Traffic.
If they're more important than 44, 64, 81, 94, etc., then how come those exist, while I-7, I-9, and I-11 don't? Wouldn't the more important ones be a higher priority for creation?
Quote from: 1 on August 31, 2017, 08:33:15 PM
Quote from: bing101 on August 31, 2017, 08:25:38 PM
The Future I-7 or I-9 aka CA-99 because of agriculture traffic in the San Joaquin valley.
Also the future I-11 in the Las Vegas area due to Vegas Traffic.
If they're more important than 44, 64, 81, 94, etc., then how come those exist, while I-7, I-9, and I-11 don't? Wouldn't the more important ones be a higher priority for creation?
Probably funding. You'd have to worry about building an Interstate
and maintaining all the existing roads under your jurisdiction.
Quote from: bing101 on August 31, 2017, 08:25:38 PM
The Future I-7 or I-9 aka CA-99 because of Truck Traffic due to agriculture goods in the San Joaquin valley.
Also the future I-11 in the Las Vegas area due to Vegas Traffic.
If one looks as the commercial traffic data for CA 99 it clearly indicates that it's carrying more of that category of traffic than most segments of the Interstate system. While that alone technically qualifies it for consideration as a system addition, the fact that it was completed as a full freeway (regardless of I-standard compatibility)
absent chargeable Interstate funding poses a "mixed bag" to both Caltrans and the backers of Interstate conversion. On one hand, overall it's closer to Interstate standards than ever before -- since all the work done on the corridor since the end of the '60's has been to Interstate standard, but -- OTOH -- it's a fully functional freeway (albeit with deteriorating structure in some areas), and more or less a
fait accompli to Caltrans (if not for local promoters of the upgrade concept). Even though the corridor was declared a "future Interstate" within the HPC 54 language back in 2005, that elicits at best a shrug of the shoulders from Caltrans, who aren't about to lift a finger to shepherd that proposal through to fruition (despite the concurrent presence of their own "master plan" for CA 99 -- which actually exceeds Interstate standards). Any further action will likely have to go back to the Congressional level for instigation -- and after 12 years of inaction, it may be a bit stale right now.
As for I-11 -- if they can figure out just how to address Phoenix metro efficiently,
that corridor/project stands a bit better chance of near-term success.
Neither corridor, however, stands a chance in hell -- even if & when fully completed -- at supplanting such worthies as 94, 44, or 81 in terms of national importance.
Quote from: ColossalBlocks on August 31, 2017, 08:55:22 PM
Quote from: 1 on August 31, 2017, 08:33:15 PM
If they're more important than 44, 64, 81, 94, etc., then how come those exist, while I-7, I-9, and I-11 don't? Wouldn't the more important ones be a higher priority for creation?
Probably funding. You'd have to worry about building an Interstate and maintaining all the existing roads under your jurisdiction.
I'd also add:
* It was easier to build interstates back when 44, 64, 81 and 94 were being planned.
* Some of the cities in question, such as Las Vegas, were not as populated back when the original interstate system was being laid out. I'll speculate that had Las Vegas been more populated back in the 1940's and 1950's, I-17 may have been routed there instead of Flagstaff. I'm not sure this holds for the CA 99 corridor though - looks like there was enough population along CA 99 that I-5 should have been built along it.
Quote from: SP Cook on August 31, 2017, 11:03:47 AM
Depends on what you mean by "important". If you are talking about commerce, I-81 is right at the top. If you are talking about tourists, then I-4. If you are talking about the military, then I-64, connecting many major bases and reserve centers to the largest military center in the world, Norfolk, is. If you are talking about public safety of a place likely to need evacutaion, I-26.
All those routes have multiple functions. All except I-81 have important roles for hurricane evacuation. All handle various levels of tourist traffic. I-4 and I-26 serve major military bases. All Interstates handle considerable commerce, albeit I-64 doesn't carry nearly the commercial traffic as does I-81.
One of the factors with I-94 that would lessen its relative national importance to some degree, is the fact that much of it especially in the Midwestern major city corridor of Madison to Detroit, is paralleled in close proximity by I-90 which provides urban relief/alternative in some areas (Chicago and NW Indiana) and an outer bypass/alternative in other areas (Chicago to Madison).
Quote from: Revive 755 on August 31, 2017, 10:00:00 PM
Quote from: ColossalBlocks on August 31, 2017, 08:55:22 PM
Quote from: 1 on August 31, 2017, 08:33:15 PM
If they're more important than 44, 64, 81, 94, etc., then how come those exist, while I-7, I-9, and I-11 don't? Wouldn't the more important ones be a higher priority for creation?
Probably funding. You'd have to worry about building an Interstate and maintaining all the existing roads under your jurisdiction.
I'd also add:
* It was easier to build interstates back when 44, 64, 81 and 94 were being planned.
* Some of the cities in question, such as Las Vegas, were not as populated back when the original interstate system was being laid out. I'll speculate that had Las Vegas been more populated back in the 1940's and 1950's, I-17 may have been routed there instead of Flagstaff. I'm not sure this holds for the CA 99 corridor though - looks like there was enough population along CA 99 that I-5 should have been built along it.
My understanding was I-5 was deliberately intended to be a long-haul bypass of the major Central Valley population centers. It was only later that the planners realized that maybe that was a mistake, or that there was certainly a case for two interstates.
Quote from: Quillz on August 31, 2017, 11:20:14 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on August 31, 2017, 10:00:00 PM
Quote from: ColossalBlocks on August 31, 2017, 08:55:22 PM
Quote from: 1 on August 31, 2017, 08:33:15 PM
If they're more important than 44, 64, 81, 94, etc., then how come those exist, while I-7, I-9, and I-11 don't? Wouldn't the more important ones be a higher priority for creation?
Probably funding. You'd have to worry about building an Interstate and maintaining all the existing roads under your jurisdiction.
I'd also add:
* It was easier to build interstates back when 44, 64, 81 and 94 were being planned.
* Some of the cities in question, such as Las Vegas, were not as populated back when the original interstate system was being laid out. I'll speculate that had Las Vegas been more populated back in the 1940's and 1950's, I-17 may have been routed there instead of Flagstaff. I'm not sure this holds for the CA 99 corridor though - looks like there was enough population along CA 99 that I-5 should have been built along it.
My understanding was I-5 was deliberately intended to be a long-haul bypass of the major Central Valley population centers. It was only later that the planners realized that maybe that was a mistake, or that there was certainly a case for two interstates.
Bypassing the population centers, and also large sections of substandard highway. The thinking was, they'd build the west valley freeway, and it would serve as both a permanent better route for long distance traffic and a bypass route for 99 as they upgraded it bit by bit.
Quote from: kkt on September 01, 2017, 03:45:01 PM
Quote from: Quillz on August 31, 2017, 11:20:14 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on August 31, 2017, 10:00:00 PM
I'm not sure this holds for the CA 99 corridor though - looks like there was enough population along CA 99 that I-5 should have been built along it.
My understanding was I-5 was deliberately intended to be a long-haul bypass of the major Central Valley population centers. It was only later that the planners realized that maybe that was a mistake, or that there was certainly a case for two interstates.
Bypassing the population centers, and also large sections of substandard highway. The thinking was, they'd build the west valley freeway, and it would serve as both a permanent better route for long distance traffic and a bypass route for 99 as they upgraded it bit by bit.
Even today the I-5 "super bypass" goes thru areas of very little population that don't warrant an Interstate highway.
Why not route I-5 within a band of about 5 miles on either side of CA-99? That way it would take advantage of being a new location highway with the most modern design standards, being a bypass of CA-99, and being in relative proximity to the populated areas along CA-99.
Quote from: Beltway on September 01, 2017, 11:03:20 PM
Quote from: kkt on September 01, 2017, 03:45:01 PM
Quote from: Quillz on August 31, 2017, 11:20:14 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on August 31, 2017, 10:00:00 PM
I'm not sure this holds for the CA 99 corridor though - looks like there was enough population along CA 99 that I-5 should have been built along it.
My understanding was I-5 was deliberately intended to be a long-haul bypass of the major Central Valley population centers. It was only later that the planners realized that maybe that was a mistake, or that there was certainly a case for two interstates.
Bypassing the population centers, and also large sections of substandard highway. The thinking was, they'd build the west valley freeway, and it would serve as both a permanent better route for long distance traffic and a bypass route for 99 as they upgraded it bit by bit.
Even today the I-5 "super bypass" goes thru areas of very little population that don't warrant an Interstate highway.
Why not route I-5 within a band of about 5 miles on either side of CA-99? That way it would take advantage of being a new location highway with the most modern design standards, being a bypass of CA-99, and being in relative proximity to the populated areas along CA-99.
That idea might be technically feasible in the more rural areas (generally from Delano north to Tulare), but the S.J. Valley towns have undergone quite a bit of expansion. Eastward is generally out of the question no matter what; that is the principal direction of expansion for Tulare, the urbanized belt between Kingsburg and Madera (including Fresno), and all the "M" towns (Merced, Modesto, Manteca) north of there plus Turlock. You'd run into housing in all those areas; any close-in alternative would have to wind around like a vine around a post to avoid taking a lot of housing or businesses. However, while it may seem like something to the west would be easier pickings, much of that land is owned by major agribusinesses with attorneys at the ready.
The possibility of Caltrans ever considering a 3rd parallel corridor (the near-dead CA 65 foothill route notwithstanding) in the Valley is slim, none, and both of the above. Their projected "master" plan brings the entire route out to a minimum of 6 lanes, all along the present alignment (with miniscule variances to address some substandard lines of sight, particularly in Tulare County). [For references, see the CA 99 thread in Southwest]. But the probability of that plan advancing beyond a spot project here and there to correct some of the more egregious sections (including some sub-15-foot overheads) in the near term is very low; the route is viewed within the agency as being, in an overall sense, adequate -- particularly now that there's zero cross traffic on 99 from its southern terminus to Sacramento. It'll take concentrated political pressure from Valley politicos to change that situation -- and they seem to have had, at least in recent history, "bigger fish to fry" than CA 99.
In the long run, CA 99 -- whether as an Interstate or not --
will be at least brought up to current geometric standards if not fully expanded to 6+ lanes. But I certainly wouldn't hold my breath for any comprehensive corridor-length transformations in at least the next decade or two.
I-66 because of Washington D.C. Traffic.
Quote from: Beltway on September 01, 2017, 11:03:20 PM
Quote from: kkt on September 01, 2017, 03:45:01 PM
Quote from: Quillz on August 31, 2017, 11:20:14 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on August 31, 2017, 10:00:00 PM
I'm not sure this holds for the CA 99 corridor though - looks like there was enough population along CA 99 that I-5 should have been built along it.
My understanding was I-5 was deliberately intended to be a long-haul bypass of the major Central Valley population centers. It was only later that the planners realized that maybe that was a mistake, or that there was certainly a case for two interstates.
Bypassing the population centers, and also large sections of substandard highway. The thinking was, they'd build the west valley freeway, and it would serve as both a permanent better route for long distance traffic and a bypass route for 99 as they upgraded it bit by bit.
Even today the I-5 "super bypass" goes thru areas of very little population that don't warrant an Interstate highway.
Why not route I-5 within a band of about 5 miles on either side of CA-99? That way it would take advantage of being a new location highway with the most modern design standards, being a bypass of CA-99, and being in relative proximity to the populated areas along CA-99.
Even the relatively large central valley towns are still small compared to the metropolises of the S.F. Bay Area and greater L.A. I-5 is a shorter distance between them, so it would remain the preferred route for through traffic even in CA 99 were completely upgraded.
Six lanes is a pretty big reach for CA 99. It would be a lot more cost effective to make CA 99 four lanes with geometric design appropriate for an interstate, and instead upgrade I-5 to six lanes. Most of I-5 was designed with some growth space.
I - 19
Quote from: sparker on September 01, 2017, 11:45:57 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 01, 2017, 11:03:20 PM
Quote from: kkt on September 01, 2017, 03:45:01 PM
Quote from: Quillz on August 31, 2017, 11:20:14 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on August 31, 2017, 10:00:00 PM
I'm not sure this holds for the CA 99 corridor though - looks like there was enough population along CA 99 that I-5 should have been built along it.
My understanding was I-5 was deliberately intended to be a long-haul bypass of the major Central Valley population centers. It was only later that the planners realized that maybe that was a mistake, or that there was certainly a case for two interstates.
Bypassing the population centers, and also large sections of substandard highway. The thinking was, they'd build the west valley freeway, and it would serve as both a permanent better route for long distance traffic and a bypass route for 99 as they upgraded it bit by bit.
Even today the I-5 "super bypass" goes thru areas of very little population that don't warrant an Interstate highway.
Why not route I-5 within a band of about 5 miles on either side of CA-99? That way it would take advantage of being a new location highway with the most modern design standards, being a bypass of CA-99, and being in relative proximity to the populated areas along CA-99.
That idea might be technically feasible in the more rural areas (generally from Delano north to Tulare), but the S.J. Valley towns have undergone quite a bit of expansion. Eastward is generally out of the question no matter what; that is the principal direction of expansion for Tulare, the urbanized belt between Kingsburg and Madera (including Fresno), and all the "M" towns (Merced, Modesto, Manteca) north of there plus Turlock. You'd run into housing in all those areas; any close-in alternative would have to wind around like a vine around a post to avoid taking a lot of housing or businesses. However, while it may seem like something to the west would be easier pickings, much of that land is owned by major agribusinesses with attorneys at the ready.
The possibility of Caltrans ever considering a 3rd parallel corridor (the near-dead CA 65 foothill route notwithstanding) in the Valley is slim, none, and both of the above. Their projected "master" plan brings the entire route out to a minimum of 6 lanes, all along the present alignment (with miniscule variances to address some substandard lines of sight, particularly in Tulare County). [For references, see the CA 99 thread in Southwest]. But the probability of that plan advancing beyond a spot project here and there to correct some of the more egregious sections (including some sub-15-foot overheads) in the near term is very low; the route is viewed within the agency as being, in an overall sense, adequate -- particularly now that there's zero cross traffic on 99 from its southern terminus to Sacramento. It'll take concentrated political pressure from Valley politicos to change that situation -- and they seem to have had, at least in recent history, "bigger fish to fry" than CA 99.
In the long run, CA 99 -- whether as an Interstate or not -- will be at least brought up to current geometric standards if not fully expanded to 6+ lanes. But I certainly wouldn't hold my breath for any comprehensive corridor-length transformations in at least the next decade or two.
My comments weren't about a -current- rerouting of I-5, it was about previous comments about the -original- location of I-5, as to the question of why wasn't it routed within a band of about 5 miles on either side of CA-99.
Quote from: kkt on September 02, 2017, 03:37:36 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 01, 2017, 11:03:20 PM
Even today the I-5 "super bypass" goes thru areas of very little population that don't warrant an Interstate highway.
Why not route I-5 within a band of about 5 miles on either side of CA-99? That way it would take advantage of being a new location highway with the most modern design standards, being a bypass of CA-99, and being in relative proximity to the populated areas along CA-99.
Even the relatively large central valley towns are still small compared to the metropolises of the S.F. Bay Area and greater L.A. I-5 is a shorter distance between them, so it would remain the preferred route for through traffic even in CA 99 were completely upgraded.
Six lanes is a pretty big reach for CA 99. It would be a lot more cost effective to make CA 99 four lanes with geometric design appropriate for an interstate, and instead upgrade I-5 to six lanes. Most of I-5 was designed with some growth space.
Los Angeles to Sacramento is 386 miles via I-5 alone
Los Angeles to Sacramento is 388 miles via CA-99 north of Wheeler Ridge
Quote from: SP Cook on August 31, 2017, 11:03:47 AM
Depends on what you mean by "important". If you are talking about commerce, I-81 is right at the top. If you are talking about tourists, then I-4. If you are talking about the military, then I-64, connecting many major bases and reserve centers to the largest military center in the world, Norfolk, is. If you are talking about public safety of a place likely to need evacutaion, I-26.
I agree i4 is important for tourism, however i4 serves the 2nd and 3rd sized metro areas in the 3rd largest state in the country.
Much more than Disney in Florida
LGMS428
Quote from: jwolfer on September 02, 2017, 08:51:25 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on August 31, 2017, 11:03:47 AM
Depends on what you mean by "important". If you are talking about commerce, I-81 is right at the top. If you are talking about tourists, then I-4. If you are talking about the military, then I-64, connecting many major bases and reserve centers to the largest military center in the world, Norfolk, is. If you are talking about public safety of a place likely to need evacutaion, I-26.
I agree i4 is important for tourism, however i4 serves the 2nd and 3rd sized metro areas in the 3rd largest state in the country.
Much more than Disney in Florida
Military bases within the I-4 service area --
MacDill Air Force Base, approximately 7 miles south of Tampa.
Naval Air Warfare Center Training System Division, Florida (NAWCTSD) is located in Orlando.
Quote from: Beltway on September 02, 2017, 07:39:09 AM
Quote from: sparker on September 01, 2017, 11:45:57 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 01, 2017, 11:03:20 PM
Quote from: kkt on September 01, 2017, 03:45:01 PM
Quote from: Quillz on August 31, 2017, 11:20:14 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on August 31, 2017, 10:00:00 PM
I'm not sure this holds for the CA 99 corridor though - looks like there was enough population along CA 99 that I-5 should have been built along it.
My understanding was I-5 was deliberately intended to be a long-haul bypass of the major Central Valley population centers. It was only later that the planners realized that maybe that was a mistake, or that there was certainly a case for two interstates.
Bypassing the population centers, and also large sections of substandard highway. The thinking was, they'd build the west valley freeway, and it would serve as both a permanent better route for long distance traffic and a bypass route for 99 as they upgraded it bit by bit.
Even today the I-5 "super bypass" goes thru areas of very little population that don't warrant an Interstate highway.
Why not route I-5 within a band of about 5 miles on either side of CA-99? That way it would take advantage of being a new location highway with the most modern design standards, being a bypass of CA-99, and being in relative proximity to the populated areas along CA-99.
That idea might be technically feasible in the more rural areas (generally from Delano north to Tulare), but the S.J. Valley towns have undergone quite a bit of expansion. Eastward is generally out of the question no matter what; that is the principal direction of expansion for Tulare, the urbanized belt between Kingsburg and Madera (including Fresno), and all the "M" towns (Merced, Modesto, Manteca) north of there plus Turlock. You'd run into housing in all those areas; any close-in alternative would have to wind around like a vine around a post to avoid taking a lot of housing or businesses. However, while it may seem like something to the west would be easier pickings, much of that land is owned by major agribusinesses with attorneys at the ready.
The possibility of Caltrans ever considering a 3rd parallel corridor (the near-dead CA 65 foothill route notwithstanding) in the Valley is slim, none, and both of the above. Their projected "master" plan brings the entire route out to a minimum of 6 lanes, all along the present alignment (with miniscule variances to address some substandard lines of sight, particularly in Tulare County). [For references, see the CA 99 thread in Southwest]. But the probability of that plan advancing beyond a spot project here and there to correct some of the more egregious sections (including some sub-15-foot overheads) in the near term is very low; the route is viewed within the agency as being, in an overall sense, adequate -- particularly now that there's zero cross traffic on 99 from its southern terminus to Sacramento. It'll take concentrated political pressure from Valley politicos to change that situation -- and they seem to have had, at least in recent history, "bigger fish to fry" than CA 99.
In the long run, CA 99 -- whether as an Interstate or not -- will be at least brought up to current geometric standards if not fully expanded to 6+ lanes. But I certainly wouldn't hold my breath for any comprehensive corridor-length transformations in at least the next decade or two.
My comments weren't about a -current- rerouting of I-5, it was about previous comments about the -original- location of I-5, as to the question of why wasn't it routed within a band of about 5 miles on either side of CA-99.
Didn't realize your concept was retroactive to '57. In either case, the Westside Freeway (as it was conceptually called in pre-Interstate days) had been a longstanding Division of Highways concept (since at least the immediate postwar time frame) as an efficient conduit between L.A. and the Bay Area. US 99 through the major Valley cities & towns had been in a process of gradual upgrade since the late '30's, with full freeway sections through Galt, Manteca, Chowchilla, Tulare, and Delano fully deployed by the time the Interstate system was initiated in '56 (and the original Fresno freeway bypass was under construction as well). The original concept was to simply route I-5 up US 99, expanding on what was already in place, and splitting into I-5E and I-5W in Modesto (the grading for the "split" interchange is still in place today!). The Division of Highways saw the opportunity to get the direct LA-SF route built with 90% federal funds, so they petitioned to reroute I-5 over the Westside alignment, claiming that the projected AADT derived from interregional travel would at least offset that of the aggregate local and long-distance totals for the US 99 routing. Despite the original stated Interstate system concept of connecting cities over 50K (and the 1955 census estimates showed both Bakersfield and Fresno exceeding that number), FHWA elected to relocate I-5 to the Westside alignment, much to the consternation of officials along the US 99 corridor. The Division reassured these folks that even though the Interstate took the "beeline" metro-to-metro route to the west, they wouldn't be left out -- that US 99 would continue to be improved until it was itself a full freeway (which finally happened some 59 years later -- and 50 years after the U.S. shields were replaced!).
To the Division of Highways, the I-5 location was a stark choice -- continue with what they were already doing along US 99, or take the most direct route possible -- where I-5 is today. Although at that time there
was sufficient land, mostly to the west of the 99 alignment, to deploy a route such as was suggested in the prior post, it would simply be a way to avoid a lot of in-town freeway mileage through the various Valley cities -- but still maintaining the basic 99 trajectory, laid out as it was along the original Southern Pacific rail line -- it wouldn't have "solved" the issue of the conception of I-5 as the aforementioned inter-metropolitan "beeline", but merely recasting the US 99 alignment to a new-terrain route a few miles away. And that wasn't a choice even offered back in '57 -- it was 99 or the Westside -- period (this was 2 years prior to the conception of the omnibus California Freeway and Expressway system, which codified this and other statewide highway planning efforts).
Quote from: sparker on September 02, 2017, 02:43:27 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 02, 2017, 07:39:09 AM
My comments weren't about a -current- rerouting of I-5, it was about previous comments about the -original- location of I-5, as to the question of why wasn't it routed within a band of about 5 miles on either side of CA-99.
Didn't realize your concept was retroactive to '57. In either case, the Westside Freeway (as it was conceptually called in pre-Interstate days) had been a longstanding Division of Highways concept (since at least the immediate postwar time frame) as an efficient conduit between L.A. and the Bay Area. US 99 through the major Valley cities & towns had been in a process of gradual upgrade since the late '30's, with full freeway sections through Galt, Manteca, Chowchilla, Tulare, and Delano fully deployed by the time the Interstate system was initiated in '56 (and the original Fresno freeway bypass was under construction as well). The original concept was to simply route I-5 up US 99, expanding on what was already in place, and splitting into I-5E and I-5W in Modesto (the grading for the "split" interchange is still in place today!). The Division of Highways saw the opportunity to get the direct LA-SF route built with 90% federal funds, so they petitioned to reroute I-5 over the Westside alignment, claiming that the projected AADT derived from interregional travel would at least offset that of the aggregate local and long-distance totals for the US 99 routing. Despite the original stated Interstate system concept of connecting cities over 50K (and the 1955 census estimates showed both Bakersfield and Fresno exceeding that number), FHWA elected to relocate I-5 to the Westside alignment, much to the consternation of officials along the US 99 corridor. The Division reassured these folks that even though the Interstate took the "beeline" metro-to-metro route to the west, they wouldn't be left out -- that US 99 would continue to be improved until it was itself a full freeway (which finally happened some 59 years later -- and 50 years after the U.S. shields were replaced!).
To the Division of Highways, the I-5 location was a stark choice -- continue with what they were already doing along US 99, or take the most direct route possible -- where I-5 is today. Although at that time there was sufficient land, mostly to the west of the 99 alignment, to deploy a route such as was suggested in the prior post, it would simply be a way to avoid a lot of in-town freeway mileage through the various Valley cities -- but still maintaining the basic 99 trajectory, laid out as it was along the original Southern Pacific rail line -- it wouldn't have "solved" the issue of the conception of I-5 as the aforementioned inter-metropolitan "beeline", but merely recasting the US 99 alignment to a new-terrain route a few miles away. And that wasn't a choice even offered back in '57 -- it was 99 or the Westside -- period (this was 2 years prior to the conception of the omnibus California Freeway and Expressway system, which codified this and other statewide highway planning efforts).
Thanks for the detailed explanation, that is what I was looking for, as to how CalTrans made the decision in the late 1950s.
However, as I pointed out, the mileage savings is insignificant, 2 miles out of 388 miles. I-5 between Wheeler Ridge and Tracy goes thru areas of very low population, even today.
I-5 between Tracy and Sacramento is more of the idea that I had in mind, a new location routing within about 6 to 8 miles away from CA-99 that is a bypass but also close enough to provide access to the CA-99 corridor.
I just don't see the logic for how Caltrans routed I-5 between Wheeler Ridge and Tracy. The "Westside Freeway" concept from the 1940s just doesn't seem to have any advantages over the CA-99 corridor.
https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight_stats/docs/08factsfigures/images/fig3_5.jpg
I'd put I-81 ahead of I-94. While 94 might be longer and serve actual cities, 81 for much of its length is a major freight corridor.
76. It was built first for good reason.
Quote from: Beltway on September 02, 2017, 07:50:31 PM
Quote from: sparker on September 02, 2017, 02:43:27 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 02, 2017, 07:39:09 AM
My comments weren't about a -current- rerouting of I-5, it was about previous comments about the -original- location of I-5, as to the question of why wasn't it routed within a band of about 5 miles on either side of CA-99.
Didn't realize your concept was retroactive to '57. In either case, the Westside Freeway (as it was conceptually called in pre-Interstate days) had been a longstanding Division of Highways concept (since at least the immediate postwar time frame) as an efficient conduit between L.A. and the Bay Area. US 99 through the major Valley cities & towns had been in a process of gradual upgrade since the late '30's, with full freeway sections through Galt, Manteca, Chowchilla, Tulare, and Delano fully deployed by the time the Interstate system was initiated in '56 (and the original Fresno freeway bypass was under construction as well). The original concept was to simply route I-5 up US 99, expanding on what was already in place, and splitting into I-5E and I-5W in Modesto (the grading for the "split" interchange is still in place today!). The Division of Highways saw the opportunity to get the direct LA-SF route built with 90% federal funds, so they petitioned to reroute I-5 over the Westside alignment, claiming that the projected AADT derived from interregional travel would at least offset that of the aggregate local and long-distance totals for the US 99 routing. Despite the original stated Interstate system concept of connecting cities over 50K (and the 1955 census estimates showed both Bakersfield and Fresno exceeding that number), FHWA elected to relocate I-5 to the Westside alignment, much to the consternation of officials along the US 99 corridor. The Division reassured these folks that even though the Interstate took the "beeline" metro-to-metro route to the west, they wouldn't be left out -- that US 99 would continue to be improved until it was itself a full freeway (which finally happened some 59 years later -- and 50 years after the U.S. shields were replaced!).
To the Division of Highways, the I-5 location was a stark choice -- continue with what they were already doing along US 99, or take the most direct route possible -- where I-5 is today. Although at that time there was sufficient land, mostly to the west of the 99 alignment, to deploy a route such as was suggested in the prior post, it would simply be a way to avoid a lot of in-town freeway mileage through the various Valley cities -- but still maintaining the basic 99 trajectory, laid out as it was along the original Southern Pacific rail line -- it wouldn't have "solved" the issue of the conception of I-5 as the aforementioned inter-metropolitan "beeline", but merely recasting the US 99 alignment to a new-terrain route a few miles away. And that wasn't a choice even offered back in '57 -- it was 99 or the Westside -- period (this was 2 years prior to the conception of the omnibus California Freeway and Expressway system, which codified this and other statewide highway planning efforts).
Thanks for the detailed explanation, that is what I was looking for, as to how CalTrans made the decision in the late 1950s.
However, as I pointed out, the mileage savings is insignificant, 2 miles out of 388 miles. I-5 between Wheeler Ridge and Tracy goes thru areas of very low population, even today.
I-5 between Tracy and Sacramento is more of the idea that I had in mind, a new location routing within about 6 to 8 miles away from CA-99 that is a bypass but also close enough to provide access to the CA-99 corridor.
I just don't see the logic for how Caltrans routed I-5 between Wheeler Ridge and Tracy. The "Westside Freeway" concept from the 1940s just doesn't seem to have any advantages over the CA-99 corridor.
Yeah -- it's ironic that as a LA-Sacramento route, there's scant mileage difference between the full I-5 route and the I-5/CA 99 alternative via Bakersfield and Fresno. However, it
does cut off several miles from the L.A. to San Francisco "inland" route (as opposed to US 101), which was nominally a combination of US 99, CA 120, and US 50. In that context it must be noted that the original I-5 concept included service to and from the Bay Area (via the "split" of I-5W and I-5E); the selection of the Westside alignment was intended to emphasize
that particular priority. The decision to jettison the E/W designations in 1963 -- 17 years prior to AASHTO's policy change re suffixed Interstates -- was more due to the fact that this would have required a nearly 50-mile multiplex of I-80 and I-5W only a few miles from the west I-80 terminus; that was considered a bit awkward -- and happened at the same time that the Division of Highways was formulating plans to eliminate in-state multiplexes in general (as expressed in the next year's mass renumbering). The elimination of both the suffixed routes and the long Interstate multiplex was simply the "first shot across the bow" of that entire process.
Quote from: sparker on September 03, 2017, 02:17:37 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 02, 2017, 07:50:31 PM
Quote from: sparker on September 02, 2017, 02:43:27 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 02, 2017, 07:39:09 AM
My comments weren't about a -current- rerouting of I-5, it was about previous comments about the -original- location of I-5, as to the question of why wasn't it routed within a band of about 5 miles on either side of CA-99.
Didn't realize your concept was retroactive to '57. In either case, the Westside Freeway (as it was conceptually called in pre-Interstate days) had been a longstanding Division of Highways concept (since at least the immediate postwar time frame) as an efficient conduit between L.A. and the Bay Area. US 99 through the major Valley cities & towns had been in a process of gradual upgrade since the late '30's, with full freeway sections through Galt, Manteca, Chowchilla, Tulare, and Delano fully deployed by the time the Interstate system was initiated in '56 (and the original Fresno freeway bypass was under construction as well). The original concept was to simply route I-5 up US 99, expanding on what was already in place, and splitting into I-5E and I-5W in Modesto (the grading for the "split" interchange is still in place today!). The Division of Highways saw the opportunity to get the direct LA-SF route built with 90% federal funds, so they petitioned to reroute I-5 over the Westside alignment, claiming that the projected AADT derived from interregional travel would at least offset that of the aggregate local and long-distance totals for the US 99 routing. Despite the original stated Interstate system concept of connecting cities over 50K (and the 1955 census estimates showed both Bakersfield and Fresno exceeding that number), FHWA elected to relocate I-5 to the Westside alignment, much to the consternation of officials along the US 99 corridor. The Division reassured these folks that even though the Interstate took the "beeline" metro-to-metro route to the west, they wouldn't be left out -- that US 99 would continue to be improved until it was itself a full freeway (which finally happened some 59 years later -- and 50 years after the U.S. shields were replaced!).
To the Division of Highways, the I-5 location was a stark choice -- continue with what they were already doing along US 99, or take the most direct route possible -- where I-5 is today. Although at that time there was sufficient land, mostly to the west of the 99 alignment, to deploy a route such as was suggested in the prior post, it would simply be a way to avoid a lot of in-town freeway mileage through the various Valley cities -- but still maintaining the basic 99 trajectory, laid out as it was along the original Southern Pacific rail line -- it wouldn't have "solved" the issue of the conception of I-5 as the aforementioned inter-metropolitan "beeline", but merely recasting the US 99 alignment to a new-terrain route a few miles away. And that wasn't a choice even offered back in '57 -- it was 99 or the Westside -- period (this was 2 years prior to the conception of the omnibus California Freeway and Expressway system, which codified this and other statewide highway planning efforts).
Thanks for the detailed explanation, that is what I was looking for, as to how CalTrans made the decision in the late 1950s.
However, as I pointed out, the mileage savings is insignificant, 2 miles out of 388 miles. I-5 between Wheeler Ridge and Tracy goes thru areas of very low population, even today.
I-5 between Tracy and Sacramento is more of the idea that I had in mind, a new location routing within about 6 to 8 miles away from CA-99 that is a bypass but also close enough to provide access to the CA-99 corridor.
I just don't see the logic for how Caltrans routed I-5 between Wheeler Ridge and Tracy. The "Westside Freeway" concept from the 1940s just doesn't seem to have any advantages over the CA-99 corridor.
Yeah -- it's ironic that as a LA-Sacramento route, there's scant mileage difference between the full I-5 route and the I-5/CA 99 alternative via Bakersfield and Fresno. However, it does cut off several miles from the L.A. to San Francisco "inland" route (as opposed to US 101), which was nominally a combination of US 99, CA 120, and US 50. In that context it must be noted that the original I-5 concept included service to and from the Bay Area (via the "split" of I-5W and I-5E); the selection of the Westside alignment was intended to emphasize that particular priority. The decision to jettison the E/W designations in 1963 -- 17 years prior to AASHTO's policy change re suffixed Interstates -- was more due to the fact that this would have required a nearly 50-mile multiplex of I-80 and I-5W only a few miles from the west I-80 terminus; that was considered a bit awkward -- and happened at the same time that the Division of Highways was formulating plans to eliminate in-state multiplexes in general (as expressed in the next year's mass renumbering). The elimination of both the suffixed routes and the long Interstate multiplex was simply the "first shot across the bow" of that entire process.
Interesting to think how much more awful the 99 corridor would be if I-5 used it in the Central Valley and all you had was 33 as the quasi alternate. I-5 really does get a ton of truck/commuter off 99 already and its still congested as all hell. I couldn't fathom how many lanes it would take to handle the traffic of both 99 and I-5 in the Central Valley today onto one route.....maybe 8 from Bakersfield to Fresno?
Quote from: 1 on August 30, 2017, 11:52:38 AM
My first thought was I-94. Then I checked kurumi's list.
http://kurumi.com/roads/rank2di.html
Which confirms what you (and I) thought.
Judging by that list, 94 is even more important than the major 35, 15, 55, 20, 65, 85, 25, and especially 30.
Quote from: sparker on September 03, 2017, 02:17:37 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 02, 2017, 07:50:31 PM
Thanks for the detailed explanation, that is what I was looking for, as to how CalTrans made the decision in the late 1950s.
However, as I pointed out, the mileage savings is insignificant, 2 miles out of 388 miles. I-5 between Wheeler Ridge and Tracy goes thru areas of very low population, even today.
I-5 between Tracy and Sacramento is more of the idea that I had in mind, a new location routing within about 6 to 8 miles away from CA-99 that is a bypass but also close enough to provide access to the CA-99 corridor.
I just don't see the logic for how Caltrans routed I-5 between Wheeler Ridge and Tracy. The "Westside Freeway" concept from the 1940s just doesn't seem to have any advantages over the CA-99 corridor.
Yeah -- it's ironic that as a LA-Sacramento route, there's scant mileage difference between the full I-5 route and the I-5/CA 99 alternative via Bakersfield and Fresno. However, it does cut off several miles from the L.A. to San Francisco "inland" route (as opposed to US 101), which was nominally a combination of US 99, CA 120, and US 50. In that context it must be noted that the original I-5 concept included service to and from the Bay Area (via the "split" of I-5W and I-5E); the selection of the Westside alignment was intended to emphasize that particular priority. The decision to jettison the E/W designations in 1963 -- 17 years prior to AASHTO's policy change re suffixed Interstates -- was more due to the fact that this would have required a nearly 50-mile multiplex of I-80 and I-5W only a few miles from the west I-80 terminus; that was considered a bit awkward -- and happened at the same time that the Division of Highways was formulating plans to eliminate in-state multiplexes in general (as expressed in the next year's mass renumbering). The elimination of both the suffixed routes and the long Interstate multiplex was simply the "first shot across the bow" of that entire process.
The I-580 connection to I-5 might have needed to be moved 8 or 10 miles to the west, but the overall distance difference would have been insignificant. Maybe 10 miles longer than the current 383 miles between LA and SF.
I-69 in Texas, one of the busiest highways stretches in the country. Might not be long(for now), but does move a lot of traffic in Houston.
Quote from: cabiness42 on August 30, 2017, 04:57:12 PM
I-94. It's essentially an x0 but couldn't be numbered as such because they ran out of x0 numbers due to skipping 50 and 60.
Of Course, 94 should be 90, 90 from Gilette East should be 80, and extend to give Portland an x0.
I would say both 84s would qualify, as would 69, especially once it is completed.
Maybe not most important, but I-12 is pretty important down in Louisiana, carrying a lot of long-haul traffic that's bypassing New Orleans. For an 85-mile Interstate, it's an extremely vital one.
Quote from: Darkchylde on September 03, 2017, 11:54:05 AM
Maybe not most important, but I-12 is pretty important down in Louisiana, carrying a lot of long-haul traffic that's bypassing New Orleans. For an 85-mile Interstate, it's an extremely vital one.
Shoulda, Woulda, Coulda...
I-12 shouldn't exist. The Roadway should -- but it should either be an (even)10 3di, or it should be Mainline I-10, and the leg down to NOLA should be (even)10 3di -- but it is what it is. I-410 would be a just fine designation, for whichever segment one would choose to make the 3di
I-10 should stay on I-12, and the New Orleans segment of I-10 would make a nice I-6.
^ I have mixed feelings about I-10 running through New Orleans. On one hand I can see where the interstate should have as many major cities on its route as possible as it's an I-x0 cross country interstate. On the other hand it deviates from its overall route across Louisiana to serve the NO.. that city was already major well before the interstate system was even thought of and it could've been served by another number. I actually like that I-6 recommendation though
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 03, 2017, 08:22:13 AM
Quote from: sparker on September 03, 2017, 02:17:37 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 02, 2017, 07:50:31 PM
Quote from: sparker on September 02, 2017, 02:43:27 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 02, 2017, 07:39:09 AM
My comments weren't about a -current- rerouting of I-5, it was about previous comments about the -original- location of I-5, as to the question of why wasn't it routed within a band of about 5 miles on either side of CA-99.
Didn't realize your concept was retroactive to '57. In either case, the Westside Freeway (as it was conceptually called in pre-Interstate days) had been a longstanding Division of Highways concept (since at least the immediate postwar time frame) as an efficient conduit between L.A. and the Bay Area. US 99 through the major Valley cities & towns had been in a process of gradual upgrade since the late '30's, with full freeway sections through Galt, Manteca, Chowchilla, Tulare, and Delano fully deployed by the time the Interstate system was initiated in '56 (and the original Fresno freeway bypass was under construction as well). The original concept was to simply route I-5 up US 99, expanding on what was already in place, and splitting into I-5E and I-5W in Modesto (the grading for the "split" interchange is still in place today!). The Division of Highways saw the opportunity to get the direct LA-SF route built with 90% federal funds, so they petitioned to reroute I-5 over the Westside alignment, claiming that the projected AADT derived from interregional travel would at least offset that of the aggregate local and long-distance totals for the US 99 routing. Despite the original stated Interstate system concept of connecting cities over 50K (and the 1955 census estimates showed both Bakersfield and Fresno exceeding that number), FHWA elected to relocate I-5 to the Westside alignment, much to the consternation of officials along the US 99 corridor. The Division reassured these folks that even though the Interstate took the "beeline" metro-to-metro route to the west, they wouldn't be left out -- that US 99 would continue to be improved until it was itself a full freeway (which finally happened some 59 years later -- and 50 years after the U.S. shields were replaced!).
To the Division of Highways, the I-5 location was a stark choice -- continue with what they were already doing along US 99, or take the most direct route possible -- where I-5 is today. Although at that time there was sufficient land, mostly to the west of the 99 alignment, to deploy a route such as was suggested in the prior post, it would simply be a way to avoid a lot of in-town freeway mileage through the various Valley cities -- but still maintaining the basic 99 trajectory, laid out as it was along the original Southern Pacific rail line -- it wouldn't have "solved" the issue of the conception of I-5 as the aforementioned inter-metropolitan "beeline", but merely recasting the US 99 alignment to a new-terrain route a few miles away. And that wasn't a choice even offered back in '57 -- it was 99 or the Westside -- period (this was 2 years prior to the conception of the omnibus California Freeway and Expressway system, which codified this and other statewide highway planning efforts).
Thanks for the detailed explanation, that is what I was looking for, as to how CalTrans made the decision in the late 1950s.
However, as I pointed out, the mileage savings is insignificant, 2 miles out of 388 miles. I-5 between Wheeler Ridge and Tracy goes thru areas of very low population, even today.
I-5 between Tracy and Sacramento is more of the idea that I had in mind, a new location routing within about 6 to 8 miles away from CA-99 that is a bypass but also close enough to provide access to the CA-99 corridor.
I just don't see the logic for how Caltrans routed I-5 between Wheeler Ridge and Tracy. The "Westside Freeway" concept from the 1940s just doesn't seem to have any advantages over the CA-99 corridor.
Yeah -- it's ironic that as a LA-Sacramento route, there's scant mileage difference between the full I-5 route and the I-5/CA 99 alternative via Bakersfield and Fresno. However, it does cut off several miles from the L.A. to San Francisco "inland" route (as opposed to US 101), which was nominally a combination of US 99, CA 120, and US 50. In that context it must be noted that the original I-5 concept included service to and from the Bay Area (via the "split" of I-5W and I-5E); the selection of the Westside alignment was intended to emphasize that particular priority. The decision to jettison the E/W designations in 1963 -- 17 years prior to AASHTO's policy change re suffixed Interstates -- was more due to the fact that this would have required a nearly 50-mile multiplex of I-80 and I-5W only a few miles from the west I-80 terminus; that was considered a bit awkward -- and happened at the same time that the Division of Highways was formulating plans to eliminate in-state multiplexes in general (as expressed in the next year's mass renumbering). The elimination of both the suffixed routes and the long Interstate multiplex was simply the "first shot across the bow" of that entire process.
Interesting to think how much more awful the 99 corridor would be if I-5 used it in the Central Valley and all you had was 33 as the quasi alternate. I-5 really does get a ton of truck/commuter off 99 already and its still congested as all hell. I couldn't fathom how many lanes it would take to handle the traffic of both 99 and I-5 in the Central Valley today onto one route.....maybe 8 from Bakersfield to Fresno?
Exactamundo Max! If it was up to me, I-5 in the San Joaquin Valley would be 4 lanes in each direction with a top speed of 85 MPH between the I-5/99 split and the I-580 interchange.
Rick
I-84 from PDX to I-80 east of SLC is the most important E/W route for the northwestern section of the USA that meets the no 0/5 test.
Rick
Quote from: Beltway on September 03, 2017, 08:52:13 AM
Quote from: sparker on September 03, 2017, 02:17:37 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 02, 2017, 07:50:31 PM
Thanks for the detailed explanation, that is what I was looking for, as to how CalTrans made the decision in the late 1950s.
However, as I pointed out, the mileage savings is insignificant, 2 miles out of 388 miles. I-5 between Wheeler Ridge and Tracy goes thru areas of very low population, even today.
I-5 between Tracy and Sacramento is more of the idea that I had in mind, a new location routing within about 6 to 8 miles away from CA-99 that is a bypass but also close enough to provide access to the CA-99 corridor.
I just don't see the logic for how Caltrans routed I-5 between Wheeler Ridge and Tracy. The "Westside Freeway" concept from the 1940s just doesn't seem to have any advantages over the CA-99 corridor.
Yeah -- it's ironic that as a LA-Sacramento route, there's scant mileage difference between the full I-5 route and the I-5/CA 99 alternative via Bakersfield and Fresno. However, it does cut off several miles from the L.A. to San Francisco "inland" route (as opposed to US 101), which was nominally a combination of US 99, CA 120, and US 50. In that context it must be noted that the original I-5 concept included service to and from the Bay Area (via the "split" of I-5W and I-5E); the selection of the Westside alignment was intended to emphasize that particular priority. The decision to jettison the E/W designations in 1963 -- 17 years prior to AASHTO's policy change re suffixed Interstates -- was more due to the fact that this would have required a nearly 50-mile multiplex of I-80 and I-5W only a few miles from the west I-80 terminus; that was considered a bit awkward -- and happened at the same time that the Division of Highways was formulating plans to eliminate in-state multiplexes in general (as expressed in the next year's mass renumbering). The elimination of both the suffixed routes and the long Interstate multiplex was simply the "first shot across the bow" of that entire process.
The I-580 connection to I-5 might have needed to be moved 8 or 10 miles to the west, but the overall distance difference would have been insignificant. Maybe 10 miles longer than the current 383 miles between LA and SF.
As the diagonal part of I-580 just to the NW of the I-5 junction lies along the eastern fall line of the Coast Range, repositioning it west would have put it up into the mountains -- something Caltrans or its predecessor agency wouldn't do unless at the point of a gun; that would have required
two Interstates (I-205 as the other) heading up into the hills, with an interchange close to the top of the Altamont summit. The current triangular (5/580/205) arrangement around Tracy is probably the most optimal, considering the traffic patterns (most peak traffic coming EB on 580 remains eastbound on I-205, as that's the route that passes or leads to most of the areas than have become Bay Area commuter exurbs). One of the alternatives considered between '57 and '59, after the Westside alignment had been selected, was to run I-5 a little farther up what's now I-580 and then curve it north through the east side of Tracy to a directional "T" interchange which would serve as the split point for I-5E and I-5W. However, when the first iteration of the California Freeway & Expresway system was published in 1959, the current triangle was in place, including a continuation of the I-580 (then I-5W) trajectory as a future freeway (now CA 239). The southwest side of the triangle was legislatively LRN 110 (the designation also applied to CA 132, which was the original I-5W route prior to the Westside relocation).
Just as well -- a single Tracy-bound I-5 alignment would have added some 12 miles to the LA-SF trip and 7-8 miles to LA-Sacramento; it certainly would have posed problems for the commute situation decades later! With the mountains to the west and the San Joaquin Delta wetlands just to the north of Tracy, the "Tracy Triangle" is probably the best that any road-building agency could hope to do.
Quote from: sparker on September 03, 2017, 06:54:03 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 03, 2017, 08:52:13 AM
The I-580 connection to I-5 might have needed to be moved 8 or 10 miles to the west, but the overall distance difference would have been insignificant. Maybe 10 miles longer than the current 383 miles between LA and SF.
As the diagonal part of I-580 just to the NW of the I-5 junction lies along the eastern fall line of the Coast Range, repositioning it west would have put it up into the mountains -- something Caltrans or its predecessor agency wouldn't do unless at the point of a gun; that would have required two Interstates (I-205 as the other) heading up into the hills, with an interchange close to the top of the Altamont summit. The current triangular (5/580/205) arrangement around Tracy is probably the most optimal, considering the traffic patterns (most peak traffic coming EB on 580 remains eastbound on I-205, as that's the route that passes or leads to most of the areas than have become Bay Area commuter exurbs). One of the alternatives considered between '57 and '59, after the Westside alignment had been selected, was to run I-5 a little farther up what's now I-580 and then curve it north through the east side of Tracy to a directional "T" interchange which would serve as the split point for I-5E and I-5W. However, when the first iteration of the California Freeway & Expresway system was published in 1959, the current triangle was in place, including a continuation of the I-580 (then I-5W) trajectory as a future freeway (now CA 239). The southwest side of the triangle was legislatively LRN 110 (the designation also applied to CA 132, which was the original I-5W route prior to the Westside relocation).
Just as well -- a single Tracy-bound I-5 alignment would have added some 12 miles to the LA-SF trip and 7-8 miles to LA-Sacramento; it certainly would have posed problems for the commute situation decades later! With the mountains to the west and the San Joaquin Delta wetlands just to the north of Tracy, the "Tracy Triangle" is probably the best that any road-building agency could hope to do.
If I-5 could have been routed about 6 to 8 miles west of Modesto, then it would have connected to I-205 about 2 miles west of the current I-5/I-205 junction. It could be adjusted a bit due to topography, but we would be looking at 5 miles or so more for LA-SF and LA-Sac, which would not be significant for a ~388 mile trip.
I'm not really saying that anything is intrinsically wrong with the "super bypass" alignment, I just see no compelling reason for it, it is about 240 miles and 26 interchanges in an area with very little population.
Quote from: Beltway on September 02, 2017, 07:47:18 AM
Quote from: kkt on September 02, 2017, 03:37:36 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 01, 2017, 11:03:20 PM
Even today the I-5 "super bypass" goes thru areas of very little population that don't warrant an Interstate highway.
Why not route I-5 within a band of about 5 miles on either side of CA-99? That way it would take advantage of being a new location highway with the most modern design standards, being a bypass of CA-99, and being in relative proximity to the populated areas along CA-99.
Even the relatively large central valley towns are still small compared to the metropolises of the S.F. Bay Area and greater L.A. I-5 is a shorter distance between them, so it would remain the preferred route for through traffic even in CA 99 were completely upgraded.
Six lanes is a pretty big reach for CA 99. It would be a lot more cost effective to make CA 99 four lanes with geometric design appropriate for an interstate, and instead upgrade I-5 to six lanes. Most of I-5 was designed with some growth space.
Los Angeles to Sacramento is 386 miles via I-5 alone
Los Angeles to Sacramento is 388 miles via CA-99 north of Wheeler Ridge
Oakland to L.A. via I-580 and I-5: 372 miles
Oakland to L.A. via I-580, I-205, CA 120, CA 99, I-5: 396 miles
It's about a faster route between the major metropolises.
Quote from: kkt on September 03, 2017, 09:31:01 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 02, 2017, 07:47:18 AM
Los Angeles to Sacramento is 386 miles via I-5 alone
Los Angeles to Sacramento is 388 miles via CA-99 north of Wheeler Ridge
Oakland to L.A. via I-580 and I-5: 372 miles
Oakland to L.A. via I-580, I-205, CA 120, CA 99, I-5: 396 miles
It's about a faster route between the major metropolises.
I get 383 and 404 miles respectively between S.F. and L.A.
That is still only 5.1% difference.
There are significant direction changes on that segment of CA-99, so a straighter "near western" I-5 bypass of CA-99 could have been devised that might have cut 5 or 10 miles off of that 404 miles.
Quote from: Beltway on September 03, 2017, 11:38:26 PM
Quote from: kkt on September 03, 2017, 09:31:01 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 02, 2017, 07:47:18 AM
Los Angeles to Sacramento is 386 miles via I-5 alone
Los Angeles to Sacramento is 388 miles via CA-99 north of Wheeler Ridge
Oakland to L.A. via I-580 and I-5: 372 miles
Oakland to L.A. via I-580, I-205, CA 120, CA 99, I-5: 396 miles
It's about a faster route between the major metropolises.
I get 383 and 404 miles respectively between S.F. and L.A.
That is still only 5.1% difference.
There are significant direction changes on that segment of CA-99, so a straighter "near western" I-5 bypass of CA-99 could have been devised that might have cut 5 or 10 miles off of that 404 miles.
As they say,
true that!. The particular alignment of the Westside/I-5 freeway was selected to avoid much of the more valuable land owned by the various large-scale agribusinesses that dominate Valley commerce. An effective "straight-line" alignment avoiding the mountains and intersecting (then) US 50 west of Tracy would have passed east of Los Banos and Huron -- but it would also have cut through the historic Tulare Lake bed southwest of Corcoran (which essentially re-formed back during the 1997 regional flooding). It's more than likely that any "quasi-Westside" alignment in between the current I-5 route and the US/CA 99 corridor would have drawn considerable political opposition from very influential landowners; the basic Westside alignment was something that had been worked out in the postwar years; the advent of the Interstate system gave the Division of Highways the opportunity to deploy a "relief route" for 99, which was even then inundated with both agricultural and interregional commercial traffic. And while the actual mileages show only a marginal difference between the travel distances from
both Sacramento and San Francisco
vis-a-vis L.A., it was also conceived as an effective doubling of overall capacity regarding the N-S Valley arterials (there's a reason I-5 is mostly 8 lanes south of Wheeler Ridge!). The Westside -- as far as alignment is concerned -- was a "done deal" well prior to the granting of Interstate status. And since in 1957 Bakersfield, Kingsburg/Selma, Merced, Livingston, Turlock, and Modesto still lacked freeway or even expressway bypasses, the shift of I-5 to the west was a relatively easy sell to everyone who didn't reside or have business along the 99 corridor -- the fact that it went through a lot of nothing was in fact one of the great marketing points of the concept -- less likelihood that over time development would overtake the efficiency of the route.
Quote from: Beltway on September 03, 2017, 11:38:26 PM
Quote from: kkt on September 03, 2017, 09:31:01 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 02, 2017, 07:47:18 AM
Los Angeles to Sacramento is 386 miles via I-5 alone
Los Angeles to Sacramento is 388 miles via CA-99 north of Wheeler Ridge
Oakland to L.A. via I-580 and I-5: 372 miles
Oakland to L.A. via I-580, I-205, CA 120, CA 99, I-5: 396 miles
It's about a faster route between the major metropolises.
I get 383 and 404 miles respectively between S.F. and L.A.
That is still only 5.1% difference.
There are significant direction changes on that segment of CA-99, so a straighter "near western" I-5 bypass of CA-99 could have been devised that might have cut 5 or 10 miles off of that 404 miles.
I measured from Oakland, as the transportation and industrial center of the Bay Area.
Quote from: Darkchylde on September 03, 2017, 11:54:05 AM
Maybe not most important, but I-12 is pretty important down in Louisiana, carrying a lot of long-haul traffic that's bypassing New Orleans. For an 85-mile Interstate, it's an extremely vital one.
It could have very easily been a child of I-10.
Quote from: sparker on September 04, 2017, 12:32:07 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 03, 2017, 11:38:26 PM
I get 383 and 404 miles respectively between S.F. and L.A.
That is still only 5.1% difference.
There are significant direction changes on that segment of CA-99, so a straighter "near western" I-5 bypass of CA-99 could have been devised that might have cut 5 or 10 miles off of that 404 miles.
As they say, true that!. The particular alignment of the Westside/I-5 freeway was selected to avoid much of the more valuable land owned by the various large-scale agribusinesses that dominate Valley commerce. An effective "straight-line" alignment avoiding the mountains and intersecting (then) US 50 west of Tracy would have passed east of Los Banos and Huron -- but it would also have cut through the historic Tulare Lake bed southwest of Corcoran (which essentially re-formed back during the 1997 regional flooding). It's more than likely that any "quasi-Westside" alignment in between the current I-5 route and the US/CA 99 corridor would have drawn considerable political opposition from very influential landowners; the basic Westside alignment was something that had been worked out in the postwar years; the advent of the Interstate system gave the Division of Highways the opportunity to deploy a "relief route" for 99, which was even then inundated with both agricultural and interregional commercial traffic. And while the actual mileages show only a marginal difference between the travel distances from both Sacramento and San Francisco vis-a-vis L.A., it was also conceived as an effective doubling of overall capacity regarding the N-S Valley arterials (there's a reason I-5 is mostly 8 lanes south of Wheeler Ridge!). The Westside -- as far as alignment is concerned -- was a "done deal" well prior to the granting of Interstate status. And since in 1957 Bakersfield, Kingsburg/Selma, Merced, Livingston, Turlock, and Modesto still lacked freeway or even expressway bypasses, the shift of I-5 to the west was a relatively easy sell to everyone who didn't reside or have business along the 99 corridor -- the fact that it went through a lot of nothing was in fact one of the great marketing points of the concept -- less likelihood that over time development would overtake the efficiency of the route.
The late 1940s would still have been in the Interstate era, the first route approval package was in 1947 even though no funding was authorized then.
"On August 2, 1947, Commissioner MacDonald and Federal Works Administrator Philip B. Fleming announced selection of the first 37,700 miles. The routes had been proposed by the State highway agencies and reviewed by the Department of Defense. However, neither the 1944 act nor later legislation in the 1940's authorized funds specifically for the Interstate System. As a result, progress on construction was slow."
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/interstate.cfm
The entire CA-OR-WA I-5 corridor would undoubtedly have been included, even though numbers weren't assigned then.
Very little stood in the way of rural Interstate construction back in 1950s and 1960s, and with many Interstates they crossed to the other side of the pre-existing highway when needed to avoid something.
There is very little online about this alignment, and it would be interesting to see the official location report that the DOT would have produced back then.
"1963
Westside Freeway (1-5): The 321-miles-long Westside Freeway was the longest freeway project undertaken by the State at that time on entirely new alignment. In addition, due to coordination with the California Aqueduct Project, the project required a close collaboration and development of new engineering technologies with Department of Water Resources and the Federal Bureau of Reclamation."
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hwy50/
Definitely part of the appeal, at least to the Division of Highways, was the proximity of the 5/Westside freeway to the nascent California Aqueduct project; much of the northern third of the route is immediately adjacent to the canal. And as the two most prominent public-works contractors of the era, Atkinson and Teichert, were the principal contractors of both projects (Sacramento-based Teichert in the north and L.A.-based Atkinson for the southern reaches), some semblance of construction coordination was able to be reached (not that such translated into actual cost-cutting at the public funding level, but simply meant shared resources within the scope of the parallel projects).
From discussions with Division/Caltrans personnel (several of which are family members), there was an internal timetable within the agency as to just how quickly the main corridor (5 from Wheeler Ridge to the 580 split and 580 north from there to [then] US 50 at Altamont) could be built and opened. As it turned out, that was a bit over 12 years, from the beginning of grubbing in 1959 (the segment between CA 152 and US 50, not surprisingly the first to be opened to traffic six years later) to the final Westside segments being opened in early 1972. Even taking into consideration the chargeable funding availability then, it's difficult to imagine a 300+ mile new-terrain route going from unimproved land to full facility in that period of time today. The Division/Caltrans had no illusions about the timeframe of I-5 north of the Westside because of the San Joaquin/Sacramento delta wetlands that it encountered -- which it why it took an additional 9 years to finish off the remaining 70-odd miles into Sacramento.
Quote from: sparker on September 04, 2017, 02:13:52 PM
Definitely part of the appeal, at least to the Division of Highways, was the proximity of the 5/Westside freeway to the nascent California Aqueduct project; much of the northern third of the route is immediately adjacent to the canal. And as the two most prominent public-works contractors of the era, Atkinson and Teichert, were the principal contractors of both projects (Sacramento-based Teichert in the north and L.A.-based Atkinson for the southern reaches), some semblance of construction coordination was able to be reached (not that such translated into actual cost-cutting at the public funding level, but simply meant shared resources within the scope of the parallel projects).
If it was anything like most Interstate projects back then, there would have been many construction contracts averaging 5 miles or so in length, and many different prime contractors.
There are considerable differences in highway engineering and highway construction, as compared to canal aqueducts. I don't really understand the DOT's claim that there was a synergy between the two projects.
Quote from: sparker on September 04, 2017, 02:13:52 PM
From discussions with Division/Caltrans personnel (several of which are family members), there was an internal timetable within the agency as to just how quickly the main corridor (5 from Wheeler Ridge to the 580 split and 580 north from there to [then] US 50 at Altamont) could be built and opened. As it turned out, that was a bit over 12 years, from the beginning of grubbing in 1959 (the segment between CA 152 and US 50, not surprisingly the first to be opened to traffic six years later) to the final Westside segments being opened in early 1972. Even taking into consideration the chargeable funding availability then, it's difficult to imagine a 300+ mile new-terrain route going from unimproved land to full facility in that period of time today.
Many 300+ mile state Interstate corridors were built from scratch within 12 years back then. It was a function of the prevailing cost of new rural Interstate highways of about $1 million per mile, the amount of revenue generated by the 4 cent per gallon federal gasoline tax, the lower level of prevailing population densities back then for rural areas, and the lack of any requirement for an NEPA EIS study.
Quote from: sparker on September 04, 2017, 02:13:52 PM
The Division/Caltrans had no illusions about the timeframe of I-5 north of the Westside because of the San Joaquin/Sacramento delta wetlands that it encountered -- which it why it took an additional 9 years to finish off the remaining 70-odd miles into Sacramento.
Also took advantage of the fact CA-99 between Manteca and Sacramento was already a full freeway, thus lessoning the urgency as compared to south of there.
Quote from: Beltway on September 04, 2017, 02:36:09 PM
Quote from: sparker on September 04, 2017, 02:13:52 PM
Definitely part of the appeal, at least to the Division of Highways, was the proximity of the 5/Westside freeway to the nascent California Aqueduct project; much of the northern third of the route is immediately adjacent to the canal. And as the two most prominent public-works contractors of the era, Atkinson and Teichert, were the principal contractors of both projects (Sacramento-based Teichert in the north and L.A.-based Atkinson for the southern reaches), some semblance of construction coordination was able to be reached (not that such translated into actual cost-cutting at the public funding level, but simply meant shared resources within the scope of the parallel projects).
If it was anything like most Interstate projects back then, there would have been many construction contracts averaging 5 miles or so in length, and many different prime contractors.
There are considerable differences in highway engineering and highway construction, as compared to canal aqueducts. I don't really understand the DOT's claim that there was a synergy between the two projects.
Quote from: sparker on September 04, 2017, 02:13:52 PM
From discussions with Division/Caltrans personnel (several of which are family members), there was an internal timetable within the agency as to just how quickly the main corridor (5 from Wheeler Ridge to the 580 split and 580 north from there to [then] US 50 at Altamont) could be built and opened. As it turned out, that was a bit over 12 years, from the beginning of grubbing in 1959 (the segment between CA 152 and US 50, not surprisingly the first to be opened to traffic six years later) to the final Westside segments being opened in early 1972. Even taking into consideration the chargeable funding availability then, it's difficult to imagine a 300+ mile new-terrain route going from unimproved land to full facility in that period of time today.
Many 300+ mile state Interstate corridors were built from scratch within 12 years back then. It was a function of the prevailing cost of new rural Interstate highways of about $1 million per mile, the amount of revenue generated by the 4 cent per gallon federal gasoline tax, the lower level of prevailing population densities back then for rural areas, and the lack of any requirement for an NEPA EIS study.
Quote from: sparker on September 04, 2017, 02:13:52 PM
The Division/Caltrans had no illusions about the timeframe of I-5 north of the Westside because of the San Joaquin/Sacramento delta wetlands that it encountered -- which it why it took an additional 9 years to finish off the remaining 70-odd miles into Sacramento.
Also took advantage of the fact CA-99 between Manteca and Sacramento was already a full freeway, thus lessoning the urgency as compared to south of there.
California rural freeway contracts back in those days ('50's through the mid-70's) were a bit longer than 5-mile chunks; IIRC the average contract was between 15 and 20 miles for the I-5/Westside project, with some exceeding 40 miles (particularly the segment between CA 198 and CA 152, which was the most difficult to "stage", being the farthest from existing material/labor resource bases). South of the Coalinga area, much of I-5 (save the Kettleman Hills segment) fit neatly as a diagonal laid across the existing grid pattern of farm roads; access to the construction site(s) was a relatively simple matter. The portion north of CA 152 was sited right at the east Coast Range fall line parallel to existing CA 33; access was again thus simplified (a decent number of lateral roads). The "synergy" with the parallel construction of the aqueduct was simple equipment and "staging" redundancy; the field materiels and equipment yards could be sited adjacent to one another (particularly if the primary contractor was the same for both projects). Construction equipment could be shifted between the projects as needed -- saving the need to schlep stuff out from the corporate yards.
I-5 was completed north to Stockton in the summer of '72; Charter Way (CA 4 & CA 26 at the time) was signed as "Temporary I-5" over to CA 99, which was likewise signed from there to the (then) I-80/US 50 "Oak Park" interchange in Sacramento. The "W-X" section of the E-W freeway (then I-80, now US 50) also was signed as "Temporary I-5" over to the completed I-5 alignment east of the Sacramento River, completing the detour. This arrangement continued until early 1981, when I-5 was completed from Stockton to Sacramento (after multiple drainage-related delays).
Definitely I-94. Connects several of the mid-west's largest cities and continues onto I-90 to connect Seattle.
Quote from: sparker on September 05, 2017, 01:27:28 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 04, 2017, 02:36:09 PM
There are considerable differences in highway engineering and highway construction, as compared to canal aqueducts. I don't really understand the DOT's claim that there was a synergy between the two projects.
California rural freeway contracts back in those days ('50's through the mid-70's) were a bit longer than 5-mile chunks; IIRC the average contract was between 15 and 20 miles for the I-5/Westside project, with some exceeding 40 miles (particularly the segment between CA 198 and CA 152, which was the most difficult to "stage", being the farthest from existing material/labor resource bases). South of the Coalinga area, much of I-5 (save the Kettleman Hills segment) fit neatly as a diagonal laid across the existing grid pattern of farm roads; access to the construction site(s) was a relatively simple matter. The portion north of CA 152 was sited right at the east Coast Range fall line parallel to existing CA 33; access was again thus simplified (a decent number of lateral roads). The "synergy" with the parallel construction of the aqueduct was simple equipment and "staging" redundancy; the field materiels and equipment yards could be sited adjacent to one another (particularly if the primary contractor was the same for both projects). Construction equipment could be shifted between the projects as needed -- saving the need to schlep stuff out from the corporate yards.
The requirements for an optimum alignment for a particular highway, as compared to the optimum alignment for an aqueduct system, are not necessarily the same and can easily be quite different.
Locating this aqueduct system as far west in the valley as possible, put it in the most rural land and (I would surmise) took the best advantage of topography for the siting of reservoirs and for reducing channel grades and pumping station needs as much as possible.
A very different set of requirements than what would be the best place to put an Interstate highway, regardless of the issue of synergy between the two projects.
"Super bypass" Interstate highway routes are rare, I can think of only three, this segment of I-5, the entire I-57, and I-80 across PA and NJ.
In the case of I-80 a book was produced and I have a copy of it, _The Story of the Keystone Shortway_, by Keystone Shortway Association, 1970. It goes into a lot of detail about the decision process and benefits, in sum a major mileage reduction over the turnpikes in the New York/Chicago route, plus the fact that 10 rural counties in PA strongly lobbied for the route for economic development.
I don't know of anything in detail published about the I-5 westside route, it would be nice to have.
Quote from: Beltway on September 05, 2017, 12:14:25 PM
I don't know of anything in detail published about the I-5 westside route, it would be nice to have.
Try to access past copies of
California Highways & Public Works, the Division of Highways "house organ" journal published from the 1920's through the beginning of 1967 (and one of the first things cut by the incoming Reagan gubernatorial administration). Multiple articles regarding the selection of the alignment of the Westside Freeway and how it related to the (often) adjacent California Aqueduct project. Since publication ceased during the time period that I-5 was being constructed, the articles related to the construction project itself are limited; most of what saw print dealt with the preliminary planning phases and the first segments to be opened (those north of CA 152). But good reading for anyone interested in the whole process.
While it's true that aqueducts and freeways have their own individual criteria, the juxtaposition of I-5 and the CA aqueduct north of CA 152 was because the intake for the aqueduct was sited on a branch slough of the San Joaquin River north of Tracy, and the aqueduct's pathway coincidentally mimicked that of the freeway, since the aqueduct system included the San Luis reservoir directly south of CA 152 and a few miles west of I-5, which is part of the system that "siphoned" off some of the aqueduct's water to serve the far reaches of the South Bay (Gilroy, Hollister, San Juan Bautista, etc.) as well as providing a "holding tank" for excess water in rainy years. In order to serve that reservoir (water was emptied into the reservoir's "forebay" downgrade from the dam itself and pumped into the main reservoir as needed), the aqueduct path needed to stay as close to the mountain fall line as possible to remain elevated above the valley floor (to avoid having to install multiple pumping stations along the way -- since the water flow was south -- which in the SJ valley, meant slightly uphill). The initial segment of the aqueduct was some 350 feet above the valley floor; Delta water was pumped uphill to this facility, and the subsequent waterway was all slightly downhill to the San Luis forebay. The economics of the whole water project was predicated upon a minimum of pumping facilities -- just those needed to overcome mountainous topography. And since part of the I-5 design criteria took it off the valley floor in the northerly stretches, it was only natural that the facilities paralleled each other rather closely.
Quote from: sparker on September 05, 2017, 03:56:10 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 05, 2017, 12:14:25 PM
I don't know of anything in detail published about the I-5 westside route, it would be nice to have.
Try to access past copies of California Highways & Public Works, the Division of Highways "house organ" journal published from the 1920's through the beginning of 1967 (and one of the first things cut by the incoming Reagan gubernatorial administration). Multiple articles regarding the selection of the alignment of the Westside Freeway and how it related to the (often) adjacent California Aqueduct project. Since publication ceased during the time period that I-5 was being constructed, the articles related to the construction project itself are limited; most of what saw print dealt with the preliminary planning phases and the first segments to be opened (those north of CA 152). But good reading for anyone interested in the whole process.
Looks like they have been online since 2013 ... perhaps you could find the articles.
http://www.americanroads.us/forum/index.php?topic=249.0
Quote from: sparker on September 05, 2017, 03:56:10 PM
While it's true that aqueducts and freeways have their own individual criteria, the juxtaposition of I-5 and the CA aqueduct north of CA 152 was because the intake for the aqueduct was sited on a branch slough of the San Joaquin River north of Tracy, and the aqueduct's pathway coincidentally mimicked that of the freeway, since the aqueduct system included the San Luis reservoir directly south of CA 152 and a few miles west of I-5, which is part of the system that "siphoned" off some of the aqueduct's water to serve the far reaches of the South Bay (Gilroy, Hollister, San Juan Bautista, etc.) as well as providing a "holding tank" for excess water in rainy years. In order to serve that reservoir (water was emptied into the reservoir's "forebay" downgrade from the dam itself and pumped into the main reservoir as needed), the aqueduct path needed to stay as close to the mountain fall line as possible to remain elevated above the valley floor (to avoid having to install multiple pumping stations along the way -- since the water flow was south -- which in the SJ valley, meant slightly uphill). The initial segment of the aqueduct was some 350 feet above the valley floor; Delta water was pumped uphill to this facility, and the subsequent waterway was all slightly downhill to the San Luis forebay. The economics of the whole water project was predicated upon a minimum of pumping facilities -- just those needed to overcome mountainous topography. And since part of the I-5 design criteria took it off the valley floor in the northerly stretches, it was only natural that the facilities paralleled each other rather closely.
I much agree with all those design criteria up to the last sentence. Move the water toward the populated areas with as much natural flow as possible, reduce the need for pumping facilities as much as possible; IOW water does need to go "uphill" at certain points to clear higher areas, but reduce total elevation changes as much as possible.
However the routing of I-5 is no more directly related to that of the aqueduct system than the routing of CA-99 is directly related to that of the aqueduct system.
I-94 should have been the northernmost x0 (so I-90), but you know, that whole problem of having to dodge the US Highways in the middle of the country. The answer is I-94 thread over lol
QC Prov. HWY 15 and I-87. Essentially connects Montreal to the East Coast.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on September 05, 2017, 06:42:00 PM
I-94 should have been the northernmost x0 (so I-90), but you know, that whole problem of having to dodge the US Highways in the middle of the country. The answer is I-94 thread over lol
If I-50 and I-60 were allowed, I would expect that I-94 would have been I-90 (and, likewise, I-90 west of Chicago would have been I-80 and east of Chicago would have been I-70; I-80 would have been I-60 and I-70 I-50).
Quote from: Beltway on September 05, 2017, 05:26:31 PM
Quote from: sparker on September 05, 2017, 03:56:10 PM
Try to access past copies of California Highways & Public Works, the Division of Highways "house organ" journal published from the 1920's through the beginning of 1967 (and one of the first things cut by the incoming Reagan gubernatorial administration). Multiple articles regarding the selection of the alignment of the Westside Freeway and how it related to the (often) adjacent California Aqueduct project. Since publication ceased during the time period that I-5 was being constructed, the articles related to the construction project itself are limited; most of what saw print dealt with the preliminary planning phases and the first segments to be opened (those north of CA 152). But good reading for anyone interested in the whole process.
Looks like they have been online since 2013 ... perhaps you could find the articles.
http://www.americanroads.us/forum/index.php?topic=249.0
I have found two articles so far, they add value although they don't go to the original details of planning. These issues --
Sept. - Oct. 1960
Sept. - Oct. 1962
Quote from: Beltway on September 05, 2017, 05:26:31 PM
I much agree with all those design criteria up to the last sentence. Move the water toward the populated areas with as much natural flow as possible, reduce the need for pumping facilities as much as possible; IOW water does need to go "uphill" at certain points to clear higher areas, but reduce total elevation changes as much as possible.
However the routing of I-5 is no more directly related to that of the aqueduct system than the routing of CA-99 is directly related to that of the aqueduct system.
That last sentence referring to the proximity of the aqueduct to I-5 wasn't meant to suggest any form of project coordination -- except, of course, to ensure avoidance of any conflict between the two. Any construction-related efficiencies, particularly in regards to projects utilizing the same general contractor, were likely
ad hoc in nature rather than in accordance with some inter-agency "master plan". The plain fact is that they
are very close to one another along much of the northern stretches of each facility: I-5 is where it is (a) to shorten the overall L.A.-Bay Area mileage, all while (b) staying out of the valuable farmlands on the valley floor as much as possible; the aqueduct is where it is because (a) of the location of the original source, and (b) it's the shortest route to the San Luis reservoir complex. It
is a narrow stretch of land that both projects had available, so any overall project "coordination" probably involved just staying out of each others' way (unless they had to borrow a backhoe or something from the other project!).
But seriously -- have fun reading CH & PW -- I started poring through the articles when I was about 9 years old (the local library shelved the journal). It answers a lot of questions regarding CA highway history (and, ironically, about what was planned but later either deleted or shelved!). :D
Quote from: sparker on September 06, 2017, 01:08:43 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 05, 2017, 05:26:31 PM
I much agree with all those design criteria up to the last sentence. Move the water toward the populated areas with as much natural flow as possible, reduce the need for pumping facilities as much as possible; IOW water does need to go "uphill" at certain points to clear higher areas, but reduce total elevation changes as much as possible.
However the routing of I-5 is no more directly related to that of the aqueduct system than the routing of CA-99 is directly related to that of the aqueduct system.
That last sentence referring to the proximity of the aqueduct to I-5 wasn't meant to suggest any form of project coordination -- except, of course, to ensure avoidance of any conflict between the two. Any construction-related efficiencies, particularly in regards to projects utilizing the same general contractor, were likely ad hoc in nature rather than in accordance with some inter-agency "master plan". The plain fact is that they are very close to one another along much of the northern stretches of each facility: I-5 is where it is (a) to shorten the overall L.A.-Bay Area mileage, all while (b) staying out of the valuable farmlands on the valley floor as much as possible; the aqueduct is where it is because (a) of the location of the original source, and (b) it's the shortest route to the San Luis reservoir complex. It is a narrow stretch of land that both projects had available, so any overall project "coordination" probably involved just staying out of each others' way (unless they had to borrow a backhoe or something from the other project!).
As I pointed out the distance savings LA-SF is only 5%. The Central Valley is a vast area, and Interstate highways all over the country were routed thru farmlands. As far as routing, I can see on Google Maps Satellite View that in few places the aqueduct and highway are in immediate proximity, in most places they are several miles or more apart.
One article did point out that there were many places where the highway design and construction needed large amounts of borrow excavation material (that obtained outside of the highway's right-of-way) to sufficiently raise the highway grade above flat terrain so that the highway will drain properly, and that material could be obtained from the canal construction several miles away.
Borrow excavation typically costs twice as much per cubic yard as does regular excavation (that moved within the highway's right-of-way), because the obtaining of borrow pits usually have to be negotiated between the contractor and a private landowner. If the borrow material is in another public works project a few miles away that needs to have large amounts of material removed and disposed of somewhere else, that would considerably reduce the cost of it, both for the highway project and for the canal project.
Quote from: Beltway on September 06, 2017, 06:27:37 AM
Quote from: sparker on September 06, 2017, 01:08:43 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 05, 2017, 05:26:31 PM
I much agree with all those design criteria up to the last sentence. Move the water toward the populated areas with as much natural flow as possible, reduce the need for pumping facilities as much as possible; IOW water does need to go "uphill" at certain points to clear higher areas, but reduce total elevation changes as much as possible.
However the routing of I-5 is no more directly related to that of the aqueduct system than the routing of CA-99 is directly related to that of the aqueduct system.
That last sentence referring to the proximity of the aqueduct to I-5 wasn't meant to suggest any form of project coordination -- except, of course, to ensure avoidance of any conflict between the two. Any construction-related efficiencies, particularly in regards to projects utilizing the same general contractor, were likely ad hoc in nature rather than in accordance with some inter-agency "master plan". The plain fact is that they are very close to one another along much of the northern stretches of each facility: I-5 is where it is (a) to shorten the overall L.A.-Bay Area mileage, all while (b) staying out of the valuable farmlands on the valley floor as much as possible; the aqueduct is where it is because (a) of the location of the original source, and (b) it's the shortest route to the San Luis reservoir complex. It is a narrow stretch of land that both projects had available, so any overall project "coordination" probably involved just staying out of each others' way (unless they had to borrow a backhoe or something from the other project!).
As I pointed out the distance savings LA-SF is only 5%. The Central Valley is a vast area, and Interstate highways all over the country were routed thru farmlands. As far as routing, I can see on Google Maps Satellite View that in few places the aqueduct and highway are in immediate proximity, in most places they are several miles or more apart.
One article did point out that there were many places where the highway design and construction needed large amounts of borrow excavation material (that obtained outside of the highway's right-of-way) to sufficiently raise the highway grade above flat terrain so that the highway will drain properly, and that material could be obtained from the canal construction several miles away.
Borrow excavation typically costs twice as much per cubic yard as does regular excavation (that moved within the highway's right-of-way), because the obtaining of borrow pits usually have to be negotiated between the contractor and a private landowner. If the borrow material is in another public works project a few miles away that needs to have large amounts of material removed and disposed of somewhere else, that would considerably reduce the cost of it, both for the highway project and for the canal project.
That's a more than reasonable assumption; and almost certainly one that was utilized back in the early '60's during construction of the initial phases of both parallel projects. In the process of skirting the fall line of the hills to the west, there was a lot of "cut and fill" across the various drainages on I-5 as well as I-580, and much of the material removed from the cuts was deemed substandard for fill purposes (more rubble than dirt, according to my cousin, who was on the Division inspection team for that phase of the Westside project); the material removed from the somewhat downslope location of the aqueduct canal was deemed better suited for that usage (would pack down better).
Quote from: sparker on September 06, 2017, 05:19:32 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 06, 2017, 06:27:37 AM
As I pointed out the distance savings LA-SF is only 5%. The Central Valley is a vast area, and Interstate highways all over the country were routed thru farmlands. As far as routing, I can see on Google Maps Satellite View that in few places the aqueduct and highway are in immediate proximity, in most places they are several miles or more apart.
One article did point out that there were many places where the highway design and construction needed large amounts of borrow excavation material (that obtained outside of the highway's right-of-way) to sufficiently raise the highway grade above flat terrain so that the highway will drain properly, and that material could be obtained from the canal construction several miles away.
Borrow excavation typically costs twice as much per cubic yard as does regular excavation (that moved within the highway's right-of-way), because the obtaining of borrow pits usually have to be negotiated between the contractor and a private landowner. If the borrow material is in another public works project a few miles away that needs to have large amounts of material removed and disposed of somewhere else, that would considerably reduce the cost of it, both for the highway project and for the canal project.
That's a more than reasonable assumption; and almost certainly one that was utilized back in the early '60's during construction of the initial phases of both parallel projects. In the process of skirting the fall line of the hills to the west, there was a lot of "cut and fill" across the various drainages on I-5 as well as I-580, and much of the material removed from the cuts was deemed substandard for fill purposes (more rubble than dirt, according to my cousin, who was on the Division inspection team for that phase of the Westside project); the material removed from the somewhat downslope location of the aqueduct canal was deemed better suited for that usage (would pack down better).
Not sure how 'rubble' is defined there, but rocks and stones and pebbles are not in and of themselves a problem, but there are certain types of soil that make a solid highway subgrade, and there are other soils that do not have the needed load bearing capacity. Most any highway right-of-way corridor will have both types and it is the job of the designers and construction engineers to ensure that only the right types are utilized.
Highly organic soils and topsoil are unsuitable and are removed and disposed of or saved for other uses where topsoil is needed.
Here is a good overview --
"Many different types of soils may be suitable for use in the construction of an embankment or fill, ranging from granular soils (sand and gravel), which are highly desirable, to the more finely sized soils (silt and clay), which are usually somewhat less desirable. Certain types of soils (such as saturated clays and highly organic soils) are considered unsuitable for use as materials in embankment or fill construction. Regardless of the type(s) of soil(s) used to construct embankments or fills, the material should be well graded, capable of being well compacted, be within a proper range of moisture to optimize compaction, and be free of unsuitable or deleterious materials, such as tree roots, branches, stumps, sludge, metal, or trash."
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/infrastructure/structures/97148/app4.cfm
....
In cut sections it is still necessary to have enough depth of suitable material, and in some areas undercut excavation is needed to remove unsuitable material, which is then backfilled with material that has been deemed suitable.
Quote from: vdeane on September 05, 2017, 08:00:10 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on September 05, 2017, 06:42:00 PM
I-94 should have been the northernmost x0 (so I-90), but you know, that whole problem of having to dodge the US Highways in the middle of the country. The answer is I-94 thread over lol
If I-50 and I-60 were allowed, I would expect that I-94 would have been I-90 (and, likewise, I-90 west of Chicago would have been I-80 and east of Chicago would have been I-70; I-80 would have been I-60 and I-70 I-50).
Certainly could have solved the issue of I-82 being north of I-84 after I-80N was renumbered.
Quote from: Bickendan on September 07, 2017, 02:21:52 AM
Quote from: vdeane on September 05, 2017, 08:00:10 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on September 05, 2017, 06:42:00 PM
I-94 should have been the northernmost x0 (so I-90), but you know, that whole problem of having to dodge the US Highways in the middle of the country. The answer is I-94 thread over lol
If I-50 and I-60 were allowed, I would expect that I-94 would have been I-90 (and, likewise, I-90 west of Chicago would have been I-80 and east of Chicago would have been I-70; I-80 would have been I-60 and I-70 I-50).
Certainly could have solved the issue of I-82 being north of I-84 after I-80N was renumbered.
It would have been informative -- not to mention fun -- to have been the proverbial "fly on the wall" during the initial numbering scheme determination process back circa '56-'57 -- especially when feedback from the state DOT's came into play! With all the long suffixed routes and convoluted alignments to slide the more northerly cross-country major routes around the Great Lakes -- and still keep the more vocal political types in the various states and metro areas reasonably happy -- I'll venture the numbering scheme went through several more iterations that the ones periodically forwarded and published. For instance, the first system draft appeared to show that what was to become I-90 across the southern tier of Minnesota actually dipped down to follow IA 9 before dipping down even further at the east end of the state to cross into Wisconsin somewhere around Prairie du Chien before following US 18 east through Madison all the way to Milwaukee (shadowing current I-94 between the two cities). Unless they "elbowed" the routes at Madison, it's unclear how those routes would have been numbered; my guess is 90 would have stayed on the Twin Cities route and the uninterrupted Buffalo, WY - Milwaukee route would have been 84 or 86 (if the former, the New England iteration of 84 might have been 86!). 94 would have been confined to a cross-Michigan role, likely in the same capacity as the original 92/94 plan for that state ca. 1957. Trying to please everyone while staying at or close to Eisenhower's 40/41K limitations likely would prove a daunting if not harrowing task!
I-h1, I-h2, I-h201. All interstates in Hawaii.
Quote from: bing101 on September 14, 2017, 12:32:03 PM
I-h1, I-h2, I-h201. All interstates in Hawaii.
I just read where Oahu is building an $8 billion light rail line. This is enough to make you feel like blowing upchuck.
"A contentious special session of the Hawaii Legislature has averted the latest crisis for Honolulu's controversial light-rail project, enacting a $2.4-billion financial bridge that backers hope will carry construction of the planned 20-mile, $8-billion system to completion in 2025. Already six years behind schedule, the state's largest public-works effort still faces an uncertain future."
http://www.enr.com/articles/42730-funding-boost-shores-up-troubled-honolulu-rail-project
I know this is now a nearly 5 year old thread, but I found it in a search recently and wanted to weigh in/possibly revive it...
To me, I-81, I-84 (west), I-94, and I would maybe add I-59 (as an extension of I-81) as currently almost as important as an x0 or x5 route...
However, once I-69 is complete from Mexico to Canada, I think it will surpass all the others...and even be more deserving of an x5 than I-45 or I-85.
Fictional territory here, but that is why I would honestly prefer IH 69 to be renumbered IH 45 and our current IH 45 can be IH 47
Quote from: achilles765 on January 09, 2022, 01:41:45 AM
I know this is now a nearly 5 year old thread, but I found it in a search recently and wanted to weigh in/possibly revive it...
To me, I-81, I-84 (west), I-94, and I would maybe add I-59 (as an extension of I-81) as currently almost as important as an x0 or x5 route...
However, once I-69 is complete from Mexico to Canada, I think it will surpass all the others...and even be more deserving of an x5 than I-45 or I-85.
Fictional territory here, but that is why I would honestly prefer IH 69 to be renumbered IH 45 and our current IH 45 can be IH 47
I tried to find the length of a completed I-69 a while ago. Counting a completed I-69 with it's longest branch (69E), it'll beat I-94 as the longest non x0 or x5 interstate, also beating all the x5 except I-75 and I-95 in length. If all the branches are counted, it'll be longer than I-75, but still fall a bit short below I-95.
I think that I-71 is a rather important route. It connects the three largest cities in Ohio and is also a good way to switch cross country routes. For example, driving from Boston to Los Angeles can be shaved off significantly. It might be north south, but it almost functions as an east west route. And we can't forget about I-44. It's a lengthy east west route that connects St Louis and Wichita Falls. South of OKC, it's sort of questionable, but it was part of old Route 66, so that makes it even more important.