http://www.sacbee.com/2013/05/10/5409547/caltrans-plan-to-rebuild-the-wx.html
QuoteCaltrans will close a section of the elevated W-X freeway through central Sacramento in each direction for two months next spring for major repairs.
Highway officials — who call that freeway's bridge section the Camellia City Viaduct — intend to keep some traffic flowing in each direction, though, by switching eastbound traffic onto some westbound lanes for a month, then reversing the switch the following month.
QuoteThe construction zone will run from 14th to 26th streets, and officials warn that the resulting bottleneck could cause major traffic jams and a ripple effect on freeways for miles.
The W-X, so called because it runs between and parallel to W and X streets, acts as the hub of the region's freeway system, collecting a quarter-million drivers daily from Sacramento's major commute freeways that funnel in from the north, south, east and west.
QuoteProject work is expected to start in August. The two major closures are planned for spring 2014.
QuoteThe $46 million project may be the biggest fix ever on the busy crosstown freeway, which is 45 years old. Officials say inspections show the road surface on the elevated bridge section is cracking from years of traffic and water intrusion, and in need of a complete redo. Highway officials made a point of saying the freeway remains safe for travel.
Caltrans plans to add 4 inches of new road surface made out of concrete reinforced with shreds of steel. Caltrans officials say that will extend the freeway surface lifespan another 20 years.
The work includes widening all shoulders by 2.5 feet to meet modern width standards. Crews also will build new safety barriers on the viaduct's flanks. At the same time, Caltrans intends to reinforce an estimated 144 concrete bridge pillars with steel rods to make them more earthquake resistent.
I found it interesting how the article never mentioned that the WX Freeway is technically designated as Business Loop 80, U.S. 50, and the Capital City Freeway between I-5 and Calif 99. WX is an older name that predates the Capital City Fwy designation. I guess all Sacramento area drivers know this solely as the WX?
Regards,
Andy
The official Caltrans site on the Business 80 project is here: http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist3/Projects/00073/prjindex.htm
Relevant information quoted from the page follows below:
QuoteDESCRIPTION
The Camellia City Viaduct on US 50 lies between the 16th Street ramps on the west end, and the 50/51/99 interchange on the east. Its 2,530 foot-long structures carry six lanes of traffic over city streets, freight, and light rail lines in downtown Sacramento. Built in 1968, they have extensive cracking on the deck and are in need of rehabilitation in order to enhance safety, reduce recurring maintenance costs, and increase the life of the concrete decks. Caltrans repair strategy involves placing a 4-inch concrete deck on top of the existing and treating it with a protective coating of methacrylate, as well as steel column casings for seismic strenghthening.
PROJECT BENEFITS
The service life of the structure decks will be extended to about 20 years, which will significantly reduce maintenance expenditures. The completed project will also provide widening at the shoulders, new joint seals, new concrete barriers and railing, standard lighting, and enhanced safety.
FUNDING BREAKDOWN
Local - n/a
State - $46,205,000
Federal - included in State costs
Estimated Total Project Cost - $46,205,000 (capital and support)
PROJECT SCHEDULE
Environmental Document Completed -- August 2012
Right of Way Acquisition Completed -- n/a
Design Completed -- February 2013
Advertise -- May 2013
Begin Construction -- Summer 2013
Expected Construction -- Fall 2015
PARTNERSHIP
Caltrans, City of Sacramento, County of Sacramento, SACOG
PROJECT CONTACT
Rodney Murphy, Project Manager 530-741-5127 email: rodney-murphy@dot.ca.gov
Dennis Keaton, Public Information Officer (530) 741-4571 email: dennis_keaton@dot.ca.gov
Interesting how on the project map they signed the freeway with the concurrences that Caltrans removed from signage years ago - CA-99, and especially CA-16.
Quote from: andy3175 on May 10, 2013, 01:11:54 PM
I found it interesting how the article never mentioned that the WX Freeway is technically designated as Business Loop 80, U.S. 50, and the Capital City Freeway between I-5 and Calif 99. WX is an older name that predates the Capital City Fwy designation. I guess all Sacramento area drivers know this solely as the WX?
Regards,
Andy
And we can't forget I-305, but that is a secret designation anyway.
Quote from: DTComposer on May 12, 2013, 11:20:03 AM
Interesting how on the project map they signed the freeway with the concurrences that Caltrans removed from signage years ago - CA-99, and especially CA-16.
There's still enough 99 signage in certain spots approaching the WX freeway; I don't think 16 was ever signed on that freeway (though it has always been part of the implied connection).
The contract was advertised just this morning:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_ads_addenda/03/03-0F2304/
Some signing work is included and the sign panel detail sheets are pattern-accurate.
Quote from: DTComposer on May 12, 2013, 11:20:03 AM
Interesting how on the project map they signed the freeway with the concurrences that Caltrans removed from signage years ago - CA-99, and especially CA-16.
And it marks it as I-80, when it's been I-80 business for 30 years now. Well, US-50 is right. 1 out of 4, Caltrans??
Quote from: kkt on May 13, 2013, 11:42:05 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on May 12, 2013, 11:20:03 AM
Interesting how on the project map they signed the freeway with the concurrences that Caltrans removed from signage years ago - CA-99, and especially CA-16.
And it marks it as I-80, when it's been I-80 business for 30 years now. Well, US-50 is right. 1 out of 4, Caltrans??
I know of at least several spots - westbound on the WX Freeway at I-5, Fulton Avenue at Auburn Boulevard - where NEW red/white/blue I-80 signs have popped up for what is obviously Business 80.
Quote from: kkt on May 13, 2013, 11:42:05 PM
And it marks it as I-80, when it's been I-80 business for 30 years now. Well, US-50 is right. 1 out of 4, Caltrans??
Just saw a brand new (as of last week) red/white/blue Interstate 80 sign going westbound at the Jefferson Boulevard exit - this had been a button copy Business 80 shield from the very beginning until now.
Wonder how confusing it'll be for travelers to see "I-80 San Francisco" for several miles, then suddenly see an exit for "I-80 Reno" towards the foot of the Yolo Causeway.
---
An interesting aside, but relevant to this: Based on the FHWA map here (via http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/highwayhistory/data/page05.cfm), it seems as if I-305 DOES include the section of today's Route 51/former I-80 and US 99E that was built as an Interstate in the early 1960s between US 50 and E Street -
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/highwayhistory/data/images/map_ca_sac.gif
QuoteThe W-X, so called because it runs between and parallel to W and X streets
before I learned this fact, I always thought it was a shortening of "Western Expressway" or the like.
Quote from: TheStranger on September 03, 2013, 01:49:10 PM
Quote from: kkt on May 13, 2013, 11:42:05 PM
And it marks it as I-80, when it's been I-80 business for 30 years now. Well, US-50 is right. 1 out of 4, Caltrans??
Just saw a brand new (as of last week) red/white/blue Interstate 80 sign going westbound at the Jefferson Boulevard exit - this had been a button copy Business 80 shield from the very beginning until now.
Wonder how confusing it'll be for travelers to see "I-80 San Francisco" for several miles, then suddenly see an exit for "I-80 Reno" towards the foot of the Yolo Causeway.
---
An interesting aside, but relevant to this: Based on the FHWA map here (via http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/highwayhistory/data/page05.cfm), it seems as if I-305 DOES include the section of today's Route 51/former I-80 and US 99E that was built as an Interstate in the early 1960s between US 50 and E Street -
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/highwayhistory/data/images/map_ca_sac.gif
I've never liked business freeways, personally. Without delving too deep into Fictional Highways territory, I'd just take the plunge and renumber the whole thing I-305, as the designation seems to be creeping further east along Bus I-80 anyways. You lose the extraneous designations (CA-51 and US-50)* and still have a loop for I-80.^
*Of course, that would mean that US-50 loses about 5 or so miles.
^You know, since pretty much all I-x80s are used in California anyways. I-480, maybe?
Quote from: Rover_0 on September 03, 2013, 04:58:07 PM
I've never liked business freeways, personally. Without delving too deep into Fictional Highways territory, I'd just take the plunge and renumber the whole thing I-305, as the designation seems to be creeping further east along Bus I-80 anyways. You lose the extraneous designations (CA-51 and US-50)* and still have a loop for I-80.^
*Of course, that would mean that US-50 loses about 5 or so miles.
^You know, since pretty much all I-x80s are used in California anyways. I-480, maybe?
Except that US 50 is not an extraneous designation at all - that is what the WX Freeway and the segment west to West Sacramento has been called by most of the public post-1982.
Quote from: TheStranger on September 03, 2013, 05:09:21 PM
Quote from: Rover_0 on September 03, 2013, 04:58:07 PM
I've never liked business freeways, personally. Without delving too deep into Fictional Highways territory, I'd just take the plunge and renumber the whole thing I-305, as the designation seems to be creeping further east along Bus I-80 anyways. You lose the extraneous designations (CA-51 and US-50)* and still have a loop for I-80.^
*Of course, that would mean that US-50 loses about 5 or so miles.
^You know, since pretty much all I-x80s are used in California anyways. I-480, maybe?
Except that US 50 is not an extraneous designation at all - that is what the WX Freeway and the segment west to West Sacramento has been called by most of the public post-1982.
Oh. Well, then keep the US-50 designation, or reroute it.
Quote from: Rover_0 on September 03, 2013, 06:40:22 PM
Oh. Well, then keep the US-50 designation, or reroute it.
I think it's important to mention that 305 has never been signed, nor has it ever been an official California route number.
I've always been fine with the idea of getting rid of Business 80 entirely and signing 51 - which is more of a north-south than east-west route anyway. In any case, the decision to incorrectly sign US 50/Business 80 west of Route 99 as "Interstate 80" irks me, though I get that via CalTrans logic, the implied-but-unsigned TO usage is in play.
Now that all the National Highway System highways are treated the same, there's no reason to change a familiar US highway number to an unknown interstate number.
Quote from: TheStranger on September 03, 2013, 06:48:49 PM
Quote from: Rover_0 on September 03, 2013, 06:40:22 PM
Oh. Well, then keep the US-50 designation, or reroute it.
I think it's important to mention that 305 has never been signed, nor has it ever been an official California route number.
I've always been fine with the idea of getting rid of Business 80 entirely and signing 51 - which is more of a north-south than east-west route anyway. In any case, the decision to incorrectly sign US 50/Business 80 west of Route 99 as "Interstate 80" irks me, though I get that via CalTrans logic, the implied-but-unsigned TO usage is in play.
I find this to be rather humorous considering that in Los Angeles, Caltrans (District 7) went to great lengths to sign US 101 all the way to the bitter end where it merges into Interstate 5; previously, it had been signed as Interstate 5 along southbound as far north as the Four-Level.
Now Caltrans (District 3) is going the other way by having Business Loop 80 signed as Interstate 80 well before the actual merge point. I prefer the District 7 approach; to me, it's more honest and useful.
Regards,
Andy
Quote from: TheStranger on September 03, 2013, 01:49:10 PM
Quote from: kkt on May 13, 2013, 11:42:05 PM
And it marks it as I-80, when it's been I-80 business for 30 years now. Well, US-50 is right. 1 out of 4, Caltrans??
Just saw a brand new (as of last week) red/white/blue Interstate 80 sign going westbound at the Jefferson Boulevard exit - this had been a button copy Business 80 shield from the very beginning until now.
Wonder how confusing it'll be for travelers to see "I-80 San Francisco" for several miles, then suddenly see an exit for "I-80 Reno" towards the foot of the Yolo Causeway.
---
An interesting aside, but relevant to this: Based on the FHWA map here (via http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/highwayhistory/data/page05.cfm), it seems as if I-305 DOES include the section of today's Route 51/former I-80 and US 99E that was built as an Interstate in the early 1960s between US 50 and E Street -
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/highwayhistory/data/images/map_ca_sac.gif
I discovered this a few months ago while reviewing those FHWA cancelled Interstate files, and I updated the Business 80 Sacramento page to reflect this fact. The I-305 designation essentially extends as far northeast as the foot of the American River Bridge (or C Street as depicted on that map, which is just prior to the bridge approach). I'll have to include pictures of the new signs that were recently added on westbound near Jefferson.
https://www.aaroads.com/california/bl-080_ca.html
Regards,
Andy
Quote from: andy3175 on September 03, 2013, 11:49:42 PM
I find this to be rather humorous considering that in Los Angeles, Caltrans (District 7) went to great lengths to sign US 101 all the way to the bitter end where it merges into Interstate 5; previously, it had been signed as Interstate 5 along southbound as far north as the Four-Level.
Now Caltrans (District 3) is going the other way by having Business Loop 80 signed as Interstate 80 well before the actual merge point. I prefer the District 7 approach; to me, it's more honest and useful.
Regards,
Andy
Meanwhile, San Francisco seems to have taken an odd approach, though some of it is construction specific:
- the control city for the still-to-be-rebuilt/reopened ramp from 1 north to 101 south in the Presidio has "Marina Boulevard" as the only control city. Wonder if this will change as more of the Presidio Parkway upgrades are finished
- Pre-1989 or so, the San Francisco Skyway westbound was signed as 101/80 (I guess reflective of the pre-1968 concurrency on the Central Freeway of both routes). After that, it had been signed as "US 101 South - San Jose". Now, while the first few pullthroughs after the Bay Bridge still use that, the ones from about 5th Street onward more accurately identify US 101 South as "Exit 1A" from I-80, though there are still no I-80 pullthroughs on that stretch.
---
With regards to 50 west from 99 to 80...
- I'll have to see if any of the 99 TO 80/TO 5 pullthroughs are still up near 26th Street, ironically, the most accurate ones in the post-1982 signage.
- The red/white/blue Interstate 80 pullthrough at Jefferson replaced what was the last correct green Business 80 pullthrough on the westbound side. About a couple of years ago, the green Business 80 pullthrough at I-5 was removed and replaced with an I-80 pullthrough.
- Several "TO Interstate 80 (red white blue)" pullthroughs have existed since about 2009-2010 on the stretch of US 50 west of 59th Street. On the other hand, what had once been a sign along 65th Street to the westbound US 50 ramp, for "US 50/Route 99/Business 80"...now only lists US 50.
---
Minor correction to something on that Business 80 page you posted - the Route 51 section north of Route 160...wasn't that the "North Sacramento Freeway" to the Marconi Curve and the "Roseville Freeway" northeast of there?
Quote from: TheStranger on September 04, 2013, 01:04:05 AM
Minor correction to something on that Business 80 page you posted - the Route 51 section north of Route 160...wasn't that the "North Sacramento Freeway" to the Marconi Curve and the "Roseville Freeway" northeast of there?
On the Business 80 page (https://www.aaroads.com/california/bl-080_ca.html), I wrote:
"Prior to the Capital City Freeway designation, Business 80 had a host of names. In addition to the colloquial names listed above (WX, 29/30), the business loop was also known as the West Sacramento Freeway between Interstate 80 west and Interstate 5 and as the Elvas Freeway south of California 160. It was the State Freeway between California 160 and the Interstate 80/California 244 junction."
It might have been called the Roseville Freeway northeast of the Marconi Curve and as the North Sacramento Freeway southwest of there; I didn't encounter those names in my research, but that doesn't mean that those names were not in use. Like I wrote, the route has had quite a few names over time. I can add those two names to the list on the page, no problem.
Here's the revised text:
"Prior to the Capital City Freeway designation, Business 80 had a host of names. One of the most famous rush-hour traffic bottlenecks is a curving section of California 51 around the Marconi exit, known as the "Marconi Curve." The two major viaduct sections near downtown also have names: The "WX" is so named because the freeway overlays the block between W and X Streets (and is known to Caltrans as the Camellia City Viaduct), and the "29/30" is so named because the freeway overlays the block between 29th and 30th Streets. In addition to the colloquial names listed above (WX or Camellia City Viaduct and 29/30 Viaduct), the business loop was also known as the West Sacramento Freeway between Interstate 80 west and Interstate 5, as the North Sacramento Freeway between California 160 and the Marconi Curve, and as the Roseville Freeway between Marconi Curve and Interstate 80 east. The California 51 portion also shows on some maps as the Elvas Freeway south of California 160, and some early maps call it the State Freeway between California 160 and the Interstate 80/California 244 junction."
Regards,
Andy
Quote from: andy3175 on September 05, 2013, 10:20:07 PMI can add those two names to the list on the page, no problem.
Thanks, Andy!
It seems to me that of all the pre-1996 names those stretches of freeway had, only the "WX Freeway" moniker has remained in common usage, probably because of its key downtown location, and secondarily due to its importance funneling three major different routes - US 50, Business 80, and Route 99). I would say that "50" is the much more usual reference for that freeway though, aided by the through-lane setup at the Oak Park interchange with 99 and unsigned 51.
I remember long ago that there were plans to extend HOV lanes down US 50 from Sunrise Blvd to near 16th Street on the WX freeway. I wonder what happened to those plans.
Quote from: Indyroads on September 11, 2013, 12:23:05 PM
I remember long ago that there were plans to extend HOV lanes down US 50 from Sunrise Blvd to near 16th Street on the WX freeway. I wonder what happened to those plans.
The HOV lanes right now extend to Watt Avenue. There was some repaving/shoulder work over the last few years west of there, but no new lanes added yet beyond that point.
Quote from: Indyroads on September 11, 2013, 12:23:05 PM
I remember long ago that there were plans to extend HOV lanes down US 50 from Sunrise Blvd to near 16th Street on the WX freeway. I wonder what happened to those plans.
Those plans are still there. According to the Caltrans District 3 website, the project will add HOV lanes from Watt to the CA-99/BL-80/US 50 interchange and is partially funded ($11M of a needed $68M) with construction slated to begin in 2017 and complete in 2019.
Project Website... http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist3/Projects/00216/prjindex.htm
Quote from: myosh_tino on September 11, 2013, 03:56:18 PM
Quote from: Indyroads on September 11, 2013, 12:23:05 PM
I remember long ago that there were plans to extend HOV lanes down US 50 from Sunrise Blvd to near 16th Street on the WX freeway. I wonder what happened to those plans.
Those plans are still there. According to the Caltrans District 3 website, the project will add HOV lanes from Watt to the CA-99/BL-80/US 50 interchange and is partially funded ($11M of a needed $68M) with construction slated to begin in 2017 and complete in 2019.
Project Website... http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist3/Projects/00216/prjindex.htm
My hope is that they will add an HOV lane to the freeway, instead of taking an existing mixed use lane and turning it into a HOV lane like they did along I-80 near Vallejo. additionally HOV lanes could also be set to be operational 24 hours a day like they are in southern California. Also i wonder if it would be prudent to stripe off the HOV lane and limit access to the lane at specific points as in many metro areas including LA, ATL, MIA, etc
Quote from: Indyroads on September 12, 2013, 01:56:09 AM
additionally HOV lanes could also be set to be operational 24 hours a day like they are in southern California.
There are no examples of that in NorCal - not enough evening traffic to justify 24-hour HOV.
Most HOV lanes I can think of in Northern California follow commute hours (something like 6-10 AM and 3-7 PM), with the notable exception of the 101 HOV lanes north of the Golden Gate Bridge (southbound is morning only, northbound is evening only).
Quote from: TheStranger on September 12, 2013, 11:16:26 AM
Quote from: Indyroads on September 12, 2013, 01:56:09 AM
additionally HOV lanes could also be set to be operational 24 hours a day like they are in southern California.
There are no examples of that in NorCal - not enough evening traffic to justify 24-hour HOV.
Most HOV lanes I can think of in Northern California follow commute hours (something like 6-10 AM and 3-7 PM), with the notable exception of the 101 HOV lanes north of the Golden Gate Bridge (southbound is morning only, northbound is evening only).
I agree with TheStranger. There's isn't enough traffic during the non-commute hours to justify making the HOV lanes 24/7 and restricting access.
However, that may soon change as a number of agencies in the S.F. Bay Area are looking at converting HOV lanes into Express Lanes where solo drivers can pay a toll to use the lane. When that happens, drivers would only have access to the express lane at designated places. Tolls may not be collected 24/7 but restricting access would be (like the current setup on the I-680 Express Lane).
Quote from: Indyroads on September 12, 2013, 01:56:09 AM
My hope is that they will add an HOV lane to the freeway, instead of taking an existing mixed use lane and turning it into a HOV lane like they did along I-80 near Vallejo. additionally HOV lanes could also be set to be operational 24 hours a day like they are in southern California. Also i wonder if it would be prudent to stripe off the HOV lane and limit access to the lane at specific points as in many metro areas including LA, ATL, MIA, etc
Found this post over at SkyscraperCity by ChrisZwolle...
QuoteLegislation has been passed in California to open some of the HOV lanes in Los Angeles to solo drivers outside rush hours. Northern California already has such HOV restrictions. The reasoning is that traffic volumes are high outside the classic rush hours, but carpooling is low during that time. The plan makes better use of existing road space by providing an extra lane that would have otherwise been underutilized. Most Los Angeles area HOV lanes carry less than 1200 vehicles per hour during peak hours, and less outside peak hours.
Details have yet to be worked out. The first freeways in Los Angeles to abolish HOV restrictions outside rush hour are CA-134 and I-210 from Studio City to Glendora (33 miles of HOV lanes).
Video by ABC:
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?se...les&id=9244808
So it looks like some of L.A.'s HOV lanes are going to be more like the ones in Northern California, pending approval from Gov. Brown, with HOV restrictions only applicable during commute hours. Also, at least one Orange County freeway, CA-55, was switched from "limited-access" to "open-access" HOV lanes.
Quote from: myosh_tino on September 12, 2013, 03:21:24 PM
Also, at least one Orange County freeway, CA-55, was switched from "limited-access" to "open-access" HOV lanes.
A portion of the Interstate 5 HOV lanes were similarly switched in Orange County, primarily south of the 5/405 merge.
Regards,
Andy
Quote from: Indyroads on September 12, 2013, 01:56:09 AM
My hope is that they will add an HOV lane to the freeway, instead of taking an existing mixed use lane and turning it into a HOV lane like they did along I-80 near Vallejo. additionally HOV lanes could also be set to be operational 24 hours a day like they are in southern California. Also i wonder if it would be prudent to stripe off the HOV lane and limit access to the lane at specific points as in many metro areas including LA, ATL, MIA, etc
Caltrans, as a general rule, does not convert existing mixed flow lanes on freeways and convert them to HOV lanes. This practice dates back to the failed attempt to establish HOV lanes on I-10/Santa Monica Freeway in Los Angeles by converting an existing mixed flow lane. I am not aware of the example near Vallejo that you cite. There's no HOV lane through the city, although one starts at the Carquinez Bridge toll plaza. Perhaps you meant Fairfield?
Quote from: andy3175 on September 13, 2013, 12:06:21 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on September 12, 2013, 03:21:24 PM
Also, at least one Orange County freeway, CA-55, was switched from "limited-access" to "open-access" HOV lanes.
A portion of the Interstate 5 HOV lanes were similarly switched in Orange County, primarily south of the 5/405 merge.
Regards,
Andy
The plan is to convert all HOV lanes in Orange County to continuous access. The 91 Express Lanes will not be converted, and a conversion on I-405 between SR-73 and I-605 is pending depending on the improvements that are selected for that freeway.
Riverside and San Bernardino Counties are also looking to go to continuous access. Some HOV lanes in those counties have alreadt been converted.
LA County is still on the fence. It was considered as part of that bill that would convert some HOV lanes to part-time operation.
Quote from: jrouse on September 13, 2013, 10:29:46 AM
Quote from: Indyroads on September 12, 2013, 01:56:09 AM
My hope is that they will add an HOV lane to the freeway, instead of taking an existing mixed use lane and turning it into a HOV lane like they did along I-80 near Vallejo. additionally HOV lanes could also be set to be operational 24 hours a day like they are in southern California. Also i wonder if it would be prudent to stripe off the HOV lane and limit access to the lane at specific points as in many metro areas including LA, ATL, MIA, etc
Caltrans, as a general rule, does not convert existing mixed flow lanes on freeways and convert them to HOV lanes. This practice dates back to the failed attempt to establish HOV lanes on I-10/Santa Monica Freeway in Los Angeles by converting an existing mixed flow lane. I am not aware of the example near Vallejo that you cite. There's no HOV lane through the city, although one starts at the Carquinez Bridge toll plaza. Perhaps you meant Fairfield?
Actually i think they are the HOV lanes starting in Crockett thru Rodeo and Hercules that at one time there was just one HOV and two mixed use lanes. they have since added another mixed use lane to the right however.
Quote from: Indyroads on September 13, 2013, 11:36:18 AM
Actually i think they are the HOV lanes starting in Crockett thru Rodeo and Hercules that at one time there was just one HOV and two mixed use lanes. they have since added another mixed use lane to the right however.
I think you're mistaken. In 2011, Caltrans added an HOV lane to westbound I-80 from the Carquinez Bridge to CA-4, where is meets the existing HOV lane.
New Sacramento Bee article on the WX project, with specific dates:
http://www.sacbee.com/2014/01/23/6096170/caltrans-warns-major-freeway-construction.html
May 2 to 22, the westbound side will carry some eastbound traffic; May 28 to June 17, eastbound side will carry some westbound traffic.
The ramp that continues Route 99 northbound along the westbound WX and that continues Business 80 northeastward along unsigned Route 51 will be affected.
Quote from: andy3175 on September 03, 2013, 11:58:45 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on September 03, 2013, 01:49:10 PM
Quote from: kkt on May 13, 2013, 11:42:05 PM
And it marks it as I-80, when it's been I-80 business for 30 years now. Well, US-50 is right. 1 out of 4, Caltrans??
Just saw a brand new (as of last week) red/white/blue Interstate 80 sign going westbound at the Jefferson Boulevard exit - this had been a button copy Business 80 shield from the very beginning until now.
Wonder how confusing it'll be for travelers to see "I-80 San Francisco" for several miles, then suddenly see an exit for "I-80 Reno" towards the foot of the Yolo Causeway.
---
An interesting aside, but relevant to this: Based on the FHWA map here (via http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/highwayhistory/data/page05.cfm), it seems as if I-305 DOES include the section of today's Route 51/former I-80 and US 99E that was built as an Interstate in the early 1960s between US 50 and E Street -
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/highwayhistory/data/images/map_ca_sac.gif
I discovered this a few months ago while reviewing those FHWA cancelled Interstate files, and I updated the Business 80 Sacramento page to reflect this fact. The I-305 designation essentially extends as far northeast as the foot of the American River Bridge (or C Street as depicted on that map, which is just prior to the bridge approach). I'll have to include pictures of the new signs that were recently added on westbound near Jefferson.
https://www.aaroads.com/california/bl-080_ca.html
Regards,
Andy
That "bitter end" signage for US 101 was actually from a request by the then-Chief of Surveys for District 7. He was a pretty nice guy and had been with Caltrans for many years. The current Chief is also the district historian, a good friend of mine.
Quote from: sdmichael on January 23, 2014, 04:16:21 PM
That "bitter end" signage for US 101 was actually from a request by the then-Chief of Surveys for District 7. He was a pretty nice guy and had been with Caltrans for many years. The current Chief is also the district historian, a good friend of mine.
I'm confused. What are you talking about, and how does US 101 relate to Sacramento?
Sorry about that - quoted the wrong reply:
"I find this to be rather humorous considering that in Los Angeles, Caltrans (District 7) went to great lengths to sign US 101 all the way to the bitter end where it merges into Interstate 5; previously, it had been signed as Interstate 5 along southbound as far north as the Four-Level.
Now Caltrans (District 3) is going the other way by having Business Loop 80 signed as Interstate 80 well before the actual merge point. I prefer the District 7 approach; to me, it's more honest and useful.
Regards,
Andy"
That one was the one I had meant to quote.
Quote from: TheStranger on September 12, 2013, 11:16:26 AM
Quote from: Indyroads on September 12, 2013, 01:56:09 AM
additionally HOV lanes could also be set to be operational 24 hours a day like they are in southern California.
There are no examples of that in NorCal - not enough evening traffic to justify 24-hour HOV.
Most HOV lanes I can think of in Northern California follow commute hours (something like 6-10 AM and 3-7 PM), with the notable exception of the 101 HOV lanes north of the Golden Gate Bridge (southbound is morning only, northbound is evening only).
24-hour HOV is not justified, but I feel strongly that many carpool hours need to be extended later. For example, 101 in Santa Clara County's morning hours end at 9, and evening hours are 3-7. These days in the tech industry, 10-6 or even later is pretty commonplace. I think it would be reasonable for HOV hours to go until 10:30am, and at least 7:30pm in the evening.
Quote from: TheStranger on September 04, 2013, 01:04:05 AM
Meanwhile, San Francisco seems to have taken an odd approach, though some of it is construction specific:
- the control city for the still-to-be-rebuilt/reopened ramp from 1 north to 101 south in the Presidio has "Marina Boulevard" as the only control city. Wonder if this will change as more of the Presidio Parkway upgrades are finished
- Pre-1989 or so, the San Francisco Skyway westbound was signed as 101/80 (I guess reflective of the pre-1968 concurrency on the Central Freeway of both routes). After that, it had been signed as "US 101 South - San Jose". Now, while the first few pullthroughs after the Bay Bridge still use that, the ones from about 5th Street onward more accurately identify US 101 South as "Exit 1A" from I-80, though there are still no I-80 pullthroughs on that stretch.
The "FREEWAY ENTRANCE" signs at the ramps do all have 80 West assemblies, though. This includes the ramp from 7th St, which is the last onramp before the 101 interchange. Of course, labeling things as "101 South" is not that great, since the road will also take you to 101 north!
Quote from: citrus on January 23, 2014, 10:46:38 PM
The "FREEWAY ENTRANCE" signs at the ramps do all have 80 West assemblies, though. This includes the ramp from 7th St, which is the last onramp before the 101 interchange. Of course, labeling things as "101 South" is not that great, since the road will also take you to 101 north!
Especially when just down the Peninsula, a similar situation is handled entirely differently:
I-380 east from Route 82 is signed for "US 101" with no cardinal directions - and with no 380 shields!
The project website is fix50.com (http://markholtz.info/fix50).
Quote from: Rover_0 on September 03, 2013, 04:58:07 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on September 03, 2013, 01:49:10 PM
Quote from: kkt on May 13, 2013, 11:42:05 PM
And it marks it as I-80, when it's been I-80 business for 30 years now. Well, US-50 is right. 1 out of 4, Caltrans??
Just saw a brand new (as of last week) red/white/blue Interstate 80 sign going westbound at the Jefferson Boulevard exit - this had been a button copy Business 80 shield from the very beginning until now.
Wonder how confusing it'll be for travelers to see "I-80 San Francisco" for several miles, then suddenly see an exit for "I-80 Reno" towards the foot of the Yolo Causeway.
---
An interesting aside, but relevant to this: Based on the FHWA map here (via http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/highwayhistory/data/page05.cfm (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/highwayhistory/data/page05.cfm)), it seems as if I-305 DOES include the section of today's Route 51/former I-80 and US 99E that was built as an Interstate in the early 1960s between US 50 and E Street -
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/highwayhistory/data/images/map_ca_sac.gif (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/highwayhistory/data/images/map_ca_sac.gif)
I've never liked business freeways, personally. Without delving too deep into Fictional Highways territory, I'd just take the plunge and renumber the whole thing I-305, as the designation seems to be creeping further east along Bus I-80 anyways. You lose the extraneous designations (CA-51 and US-50)* and still have a loop for I-80.^
*Of course, that would mean that US-50 loses about 5 or so miles.
^You know, since pretty much all I-x80s are used in California anyways. I-480, maybe?
CA-480 for the CA-51 section?
Quote from: sdmichael on January 23, 2014, 04:55:16 PM
Sorry about that - quoted the wrong reply:
"I find this to be rather humorous considering that in Los Angeles, Caltrans (District 7) went to great lengths to sign US 101 all the way to the bitter end where it merges into Interstate 5; previously, it had been signed as Interstate 5 along southbound as far north as the Four-Level.
Now Caltrans (District 3) is going the other way by having Business Loop 80 signed as Interstate 80 well before the actual merge point. I prefer the District 7 approach; to me, it's more honest and useful.
Regards,
Andy"
That one was the one I had meant to quote.
This just shows the lack of consistency in Caltrans. Two wildly different approaches, because different districts in Caltrans behave like different state DOTs.
I believe that it's better to sign freeways to the bitter end, since it is more consistent with how maps can refer to the highway. I have never seen a road map refer to the 101 between the 110 and the E LA INterchange as anything other than the 101. The WX is never referred to on a map as red&blue 80.
The best approach is to have 101 to 10,60,5 and to also include CONTROL CITIES: San Bernardino, Santa Ana.
FOr Sacramento: Get rid of Biz-80. Sign SR-51 north to 80 Reno. SR-51 south to 99,80 Fresno San Francisco. :US 50 West to 80 San Francisco, or US 50 East to 80 Lake Tahoe Reno. Control cities and consistent signing practices are the key to removing the confusion.
Biz 80 has been called that for quite a while now. It's not the solution I'd have preferred, but it's not so bad as to require renumbering. I completely agree about the consistent signing and control cities, though.
Quote from: mrsman on January 26, 2014, 09:01:02 AM
FOr Sacramento: Get rid of Biz-80. Sign SR-51 north to 80 Reno. SR-51 south to 99,80 Fresno San Francisco. :US 50 West to 80 San Francisco, or US 50 East to 80 Lake Tahoe Reno. Control cities and consistent signing practices are the key to removing the confusion.
If you're going to the north side of Lake Tahoe, isn't I-80 to CA-89 the better route? I'd keep South Lake Tahoe as the control city despite the possible confusion with the direction.
Quote from: kkt on January 28, 2014, 01:55:16 PM
If you're going to the north side of Lake Tahoe, isn't I-80 to CA-89 the better route? I'd keep South Lake Tahoe as the control city despite the possible confusion with the direction.
Confusion with the direction aside, South Lake Tahoe *is* an actual city located on the south shore of Lake Tahoe and is an appropriate control city for US 50. You are also correct that I-80 to CA-89 is a better route to the north shore of Lake Tahoe. This is especially true in winter when CA-89, which rings the western side of Lake Tahoe, is closed for the season near Emerald Bay. The only way to get to the north shore is to take US 50 to NV-28 which turns into CA-28 at the stateline.
Quote from: kkt on January 28, 2014, 01:55:16 PM
Quote from: mrsman on January 26, 2014, 09:01:02 AM
FOr Sacramento: Get rid of Biz-80. Sign SR-51 north to 80 Reno. SR-51 south to 99,80 Fresno San Francisco. :US 50 West to 80 San Francisco, or US 50 East to 80 Lake Tahoe Reno. Control cities and consistent signing practices are the key to removing the confusion.
If you're going to the north side of Lake Tahoe, isn't I-80 to CA-89 the better route? I'd keep South Lake Tahoe as the control city despite the possible confusion with the direction.
Some of this thing goes back to when Sacramento had beltline freeway as I-880 before the North Section of CA-17 from Oakland to San Jose got the I-880 route and Beltline Freeway was renamed I-80 and CA-244 and East of Beltline became Alan S. Hart Freeway.
Quote from: bing101 on January 28, 2014, 02:42:42 PM
Quote from: kkt on January 28, 2014, 01:55:16 PM
Quote from: mrsman on January 26, 2014, 09:01:02 AM
FOr Sacramento: Get rid of Biz-80. Sign SR-51 north to 80 Reno. SR-51 south to 99,80 Fresno San Francisco. :US 50 West to 80 San Francisco, or US 50 East to 80 Lake Tahoe Reno. Control cities and consistent signing practices are the key to removing the confusion.
If you're going to the north side of Lake Tahoe, isn't I-80 to CA-89 the better route? I'd keep South Lake Tahoe as the control city despite the possible confusion with the direction.
Some of this thing goes back to when Sacramento had beltline freeway as I-880 before the North Section of CA-17 from Oakland to San Jose got the I-880 route and Beltline Freeway was renamed I-80 and CA-244 and East of Beltline became Alan S. Hart Freeway.
The removal of 880 in Sacramento (due to the cancellation of the I-80 realignment in North Sacramento) and the renumbering of Oakland's Route 17 to 880 (and a 580 extension) were two mutually exclusive events about 2-3 years apart.
Quote from: TheStranger on January 28, 2014, 04:58:48 PM
Quote from: bing101 on January 28, 2014, 02:42:42 PM
Quote from: kkt on January 28, 2014, 01:55:16 PM
Quote from: mrsman on January 26, 2014, 09:01:02 AM
FOr Sacramento: Get rid of Biz-80. Sign SR-51 north to 80 Reno. SR-51 south to 99,80 Fresno San Francisco. :US 50 West to 80 San Francisco, or US 50 East to 80 Lake Tahoe Reno. Control cities and consistent signing practices are the key to removing the confusion.
If you're going to the north side of Lake Tahoe, isn't I-80 to CA-89 the better route? I'd keep South Lake Tahoe as the control city despite the possible confusion with the direction.
Some of this thing goes back to when Sacramento had beltline freeway as I-880 before the North Section of CA-17 from Oakland to San Jose got the I-880 route and Beltline Freeway was renamed I-80 and CA-244 and East of Beltline became Alan S. Hart Freeway.
The removal of 880 in Sacramento (due to the cancellation of the I-80 realignment in North Sacramento) and the renumbering of Oakland's Route 17 to 880 (and a 580 extension) were two mutually exclusive events about 2-3 years apart.
If I am Not Mistaken I-880 Beltline became I-80 in 1980-1981 but CA-17 Oakland to San Jose became I-880 in 1983-1984 timeframe.
OK how about rename CA-51 as Elvas Parkway since its basically Sacramento's version of CA-110 Arroyo Seco Parkway and keep Cap City freeway for the West end of US-50 or Hidden I-305.
Quote from: bing101 on January 29, 2014, 04:07:39 PM
OK how about rename CA-51 as Elvas Parkway since its basically Sacramento's version of CA-110 Arroyo Seco Parkway and keep Cap City freeway for the West end of US-50 or Hidden I-305.
The Route 51 portion of Business 80 does accept trucks though (unlike the segment of 110 being referenced).
CA-51 does not look truck friendly in some places like marconi curve or some ramps such as howe ave have a 5-10 mph limit. Now i understand that the arden way at ca-51 section has an interstate look to it but thats about it.
I just thought of another problem with having two 80's in the same state, it's contrary to Caltrans practice.
It's a state law that there should be no two highways with the same number in California. Thus, because of the introduction of I-80, I-40, and I-10, California had to decommission US 80, US 40, and CA-10 got renumbered.
Furthermore, because of this law, you can have two alternative designations for the same highway, so long as they have the same number. Thus, as mentioned upthread, you can have a 110 corridor that has I-110 to designate the Interstate compliant portion and CA-110 to designate the non-Interstate compliant portions (Arroyo Seco Parkway and Gaffey St in San Pedro). This dual status exists in other areas of California as well: I-15 and CA-15 (the former 40th Street corridor needs AASHTO approval for interstate designation San Diego), I-210 and CA-210 (East of CA-57 has not yet been approved for Interstate designation by AASHTO). We also used to have I-215 and CA-215, but when the expressway between Riverside and Temecula became a full freeway CA-215 became I-215.
So we see a green 110 and a red/white/blue 110 as being two different parts of the same corridor. But for I-80, the green 80 is not an extension of 80, it is a separate corridor from 80. The designation of green 80 is just simply not helpful.
Quote from: mrsman on February 02, 2014, 10:21:08 PM
It's a state law that there should be no two highways with the same number in California.
Not really. It's just common practice that is overridden by the legislature in this case:
Quote351.1. Notwithstanding Section 640, Route 51 shall be signed Interstate Business Loop 80.
IIRC, a Business routing is a courtesy routing, not a official routing. If you go to the CHP Traffic Incident Information Page (http://markholtz.info/chptraffic), you will see the traffic incidents referred to as US-50 and CA-51, not Business 80, even though there is not one CA-51 highway marker on that route.
Quote from: NE2 on February 02, 2014, 10:38:14 PM
Quote from: mrsman on February 02, 2014, 10:21:08 PM
It's a state law that there should be no two highways with the same number in California.
Not really. It's just common practice that is overridden by the legislature in this case:
Quote351.1. Notwithstanding Section 640, Route 51 shall be signed Interstate Business Loop 80.
What's section 640? I'm not finding it in Findlaw, though I did find sections before and after it.
Quote from: kkt on February 03, 2014, 04:22:47 PM
What's section 640? I'm not finding it in Findlaw, though I did find sections before and after it.
Looks to have been repealed at some point.
Quote640. It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this article that the numbering of the state highway system be simplified and clarified and that signs placed on highways indicating the numbers thereof designate only one number for each highway wherever feasible. Therefore, the department is directed to take all steps necessary to conform signs designating numbers on the state highway system to the numbers given the routes in this article at the earliest practical time. The department is also directed to use the numbers in this article in designating numbers on highways in the future.
The Legislature recognizes that signs on certain routes on the federal interstate highway system in California should designate both U.S. sign numbers and the interstate numbers until such highways are substantially constructed to interstate standards, or until a later time if the department finds it necessary to properly guide motorists. Therefore, notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the department is directed, on any interstate highway it determines to be appropriate, to place or maintain the proper U.S. number thereon, together with the interstate number on the completed portions thereof, until the highway is substantially constructed to interstate standards, or until a later time if the department finds it necessary to properly guide motorists.
The legislature further recognizes that there are instances where one route of travel must coincide with another route of travel, and when this occurs for relatively short distances and notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the Department of Public Works is directed to place signs indicating two or more appropriate route numbers on the same highway where it determines that such is desirable to properly guide motorists.
http://fix50.com/project-map-schedule
http://fix50.com/alternate-routes
Stage 1: May 2 — 22, 2014: Eastbound Highway 50 (http://fix50.com/about)
- Two-way traffic will share the westbound lanes (3 lanes WB, 2 lanes EB)
- Ramp Closures:
- 11th Street On-Ramp
- 16th Street On-Ramp
- Southbound Highway 99 connector ramp from eastbound Highway 50
- Eastbound Business 80 connector ramp from eastbound Highway 50
Stage 2: May 28 — June 17, 2014 Westbound Highway 50 (http://fix50.com/about)
- Two-way traffic will share the eastbound lanes (3 lanes EB, 2 lanes WB)
- Ramp Closures:
- 16th Street Off-Ramp
- 10th Street Off-Ramp
- Connector Ramp from westbound Business 80 to westbound Highway 50
- Connector Ramp from northbound Highwat 99 to westbound Highway 50
Downtown Sacramento Area Hospitals Map (http://fix50.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Hospitals-Map.pdf)
Traffic Cameras (http://video.dot.ca.gov/)
Thanks Bing. There is already a thread on this topic:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9426.0
Thanks,
Andy
From CBS News 10-Sacramento, CA: West Sacramento City Leaders Worried About Crunch From Viaduct Work (http://markholtz.info/ph)
From Sacramento Bee:
Will Sacramento freeway closures cause a "˜Carmageddon'?QuoteIs Sacramento about to face a "Carmageddon" of clogged freeways and gridlocked surface streets this spring?
That's the rising fear among some local leaders who say the state Department of Transportation is not giving them enough information on its plans for a series of lane closures on several central Sacramento freeways in May and June.
FULL ARTICLE HERE (http://markholtz.info/pm)
New Sacramento Bee article on CalTrans adjusting its work schedule to try to have as few lanes closed as possible at any one time during the project:
http://www.sacbee.com/2014/03/27/6273204/caltrans-alters-w-x-freeway-project.html
Two more days until the two months of headaches begin.
And the lane closures have begun.
As the morning commute comes to a close on Day 1, here is a brief summary:
Eastbound Business 80/US-50 was congested most of the morning, as one would expect, with the backup extending into West Sacramento as far as the junction with I-80.
Many people decided to use the two other river crossings - the Tower Bridge, and the I Street Bridge, resulting in delays on those bridges and the surface streets approaching them. I noticed that many people who used the I Street Bridge turned north onto Jibboom Street, which feeds into Richards Blvd, and then headed down 7th or 12th Streets to get downtown.
Northbound 5 performed surprising well approaching US-50. No delays on the NB 5 - EB 50 connector at all. I did notice a bit more traffic at the J Street offramp.
I also noticed slightly more traffic on Business 80 and CA-160 as I headed into downtown this morning. I did see by looking at the traffic maps that both of those routes did get busier as the morning progressed.
Sacramento Regional Transit is reporting that several parking lots at the Gold Line light rail stations are full.
It will be very interesting to see how things go this afternoon.
(For the record, I carpool. I work at Caltrans HQ at 12th and N. My carpooler works at 1 Capitol Mall in Old Sacramento. We get on westbound Business 80 at Watt Avenue, then take CA-160 to Richards to Jibboom to I Street, then down 3rd to L to Capitol Mall. I then circle back to 3rd to Q to the Caltrans parking lot at 12th and Q.)
From Sacramento Bee:
Neighbors irate over Fix50 copter noise: It's like 'Apocalypse Now!'QuoteResidents near the Fix50 project site complain they suddenly feel like they're living in a war zone. But it's not swarming car traffic that's bothering them.
It's news helicopters.
In their zeal to get the word out about road conditions, local news media crews have taken to the skies above downtown neighborhoods the last two mornings, some as early as 5:30 a.m., circling above houses and apartments –and giving residents an unwanted early wake-up alarm.
FULL ARTICLE HERE (http://markholtz.info/sr) (Disable Javascript before clicking on link)
From KCRA:
Truck hits two-by-four at Fix 50 site; 3 workers injuredQuoteThree workers at the Fix 50 construction zone were injured when a tractor-trailer hit a two-by-four that was being moved in the area, California Highway Patrol officials said.
A worker was moving the 20-foot-long piece of lumber in the construction zone on the W/X Freeway about 11 a.m. Wednesday.
The driver of the tractor-trailer unknowingly hit the two-by-four when it was extended into traffic, resulting in the wreck, according to the CHP.
FULL ARTICLE HERE (http://markholtz.info/ss)
Dang I hope Cap City freeway does not end up like the fall out of the Bay Bridge in the Bay Area.
I found some live streaming of traffic cameras in and around the "Fix 50" area of the WX (Business 80) on the City of Sacramento webpage: http://portal.cityofsacramento.org/Fix50.
From Sacramento Bee:
Back-seat Driver: Why is the W-X freeway there?QuoteThe W-X portion of Highway 50 downtown is an old workhorse getting its first major repair job this month. But when and why was the massive elevated freeway built in the first place?
That question takes us back to 1950s Sacramento, a town with a traffic problem. There was one signature entrance to the city from the west, the Tower Bridge. Traffic on the bridge had doubled in the decade, giving Sacramento a reputation as one of the hardest cities in the state to drive through. One writer in The Bee bemoaned the plight of out-of-town drivers who found themselves stuck in a "monstrous, smog belching serpent."
"It is reaching the saturation point," City Councilman John O. Bronson told colleagues in 1959. "We must have another entrance to Sacramento."
FULL ARTICLE HERE (http://markholtz.info/tn)
From Sacramento Bee:
Fix50 gears back up: Westbound closures start TuesdayQuoteWhile Brandon has been dealing with noise from the ongoing project, including some night lane closures, commuters have benefited from the lack of daytime closures since crews finished repaving the eastbound lanes two weeks ago.
That break is now over. Tonight, state Transportation Department contractor Myers & Sons will begin blocking several lanes on the westbound side of the elevated freeway for what officials say could be the most intrusive phase so far of the two-month-long project.
FULL ARTICLE HERE (http://markholtz.info/ut)
From Sacramento Bee:
Latest Fix50 closures are more disruptiveQuoteDay one of westbound closures on the state's Fix50 freeway project Tuesday proved to be the most disruptive to date, causing half-hour delays for many, sending some commuters scurrying for alternate routes, causing some to clock in late to work and leaving more than a few asking:
Is this what it is going to be like for the next month?
FULL ARTICLE HERE (http://markholtz.info/v0)
Quote from: ZLoth on May 28, 2014, 03:11:18 AM
From Sacramento Bee:
Latest Fix50 closures are more disruptiveQuoteDay one of westbound closures on the state's Fix50 freeway project Tuesday proved to be the most disruptive to date, causing half-hour delays for many, sending some commuters scurrying for alternate routes, causing some to clock in late to work and leaving more than a few asking:
Is this what it is going to be like for the next month?
FULL ARTICLE HERE (http://markholtz.info/v0)
I think most people knew that the westbound closures were going to be worse than the eastbound. When I lived in the area, I always thought it was interesting how so much of the development pattern of Sacramento tended to follow the I-80 east, US 50 east, and CA-99/I-5 south corridors and very little build up in the other directions. (In other cities that I'm familiar with, Downtown was the commuting center, unless it was up against an impenetrable boundary like an ocean.) So only a relatively few people commute to Sacramento from Davis, as compared with those coming in from Roseville and Folsom. For the Folsom crowd, the eastbound closures meant that they would have to meander a little more in Downtown before reaching the on-ramp at 27th and X and then it's smooth sailing. The westbound closures, though will affect your entire morning commute.
I
Quote from: mrsman on June 01, 2014, 04:22:23 PM
I think most people knew that the westbound closures were going to be worse than the eastbound. When I lived in the area, I always thought it was interesting how so much of the development pattern of Sacramento tended to follow the I-80 east, US 50 east, and CA-99/I-5 south corridors and very little build up in the other directions. (In other cities that I'm familiar with, Downtown was the commuting center, unless it was up against an impenetrable boundary like an ocean.) So only a relatively few people commute to Sacramento from Davis, as compared with those coming in from Roseville and Folsom. For the Folsom crowd, the eastbound closures meant that they would have to meander a little more in Downtown before reaching the on-ramp at 27th and X and then it's smooth sailing. The westbound closures, though will affect your entire morning commute.
Davis and Woodland each being west of the Yolo Bypass flood control channel (where there is zero development) probably accounts for why there is little commute traffic from that portion of Yolo County into Sacramento. (Also explains why the transit options from those areas to Sacramento are limited compared to Elk Grove/Roseville, the two largest suburbs)
http://www.capradio.org/articles/2014/07/09/caltrans-to-inspect-fix-50-for-glare-and-lane-confusion/
Caltrans To Inspect FIX 50 For Glare and Lane Confusion
Well When I drive US-50/I-305/Business80/WX-Fwy/West Cap City Freeway
I can't see the lanes that well because of the sunlight in the way and the concrete and Paint are close to the same color in the afternoon.
I couldn't tell, and don't remember from my own travels, but are there Botts Dotts on that stretch?
Quote from: roadfro on July 12, 2014, 07:00:22 PM
I couldn't tell, and don't remember from my own travels, but are there Botts Dotts on that stretch?
Yes. I drove that stretch of Bus 80/US 50 last week on a trip to the Red Hawk Casino.
Quote from: Indyroads on September 12, 2013, 01:56:09 AM
My hope is that they will add an HOV lane to the freeway, instead of taking an existing mixed use lane and turning it into a HOV lane like they did along I-80 near Vallejo. additionally HOV lanes could also be set to be operational 24 hours a day like they are in southern California. Also i wonder if it would be prudent to stripe off the HOV lane and limit access to the lane at specific points as in many metro areas including LA, ATL, MIA, etc
It is a general practice for Caltrans to implement HOV lanes as a new lane, not through a conversion. This has been the practice since the 1976 "diamond lane" project on I-10 in Los Angeles where an existing lane in each direction was converted to HOV. The new HOV lane on US-50 would be a lane addition, not a takeaway. The HOV lanes on I-80 in the Bay Area were built as new lanes, not through a takeaway.
There is a short section of HOV lanes on Business 80 here in Sacramento that were a takeaway; that was due to the high costs and low benefits associated with widening the freeway in that section, which is composed of a lot of bridges.
There will be a somewhat lengthy takeaway occurring on I-5 in Stockton when HOV lanes open there in the next year or so. This is because much of the project involves adding a lane in each direction to a facility that currently is 6 lanes. That widened section ties into an 8-lane section of freeway at its southern end. That 8-lane section of freeway is relatively short, but it also includes a lot of structures, and so it would not be cost-effective to widen it to 10 lanes. So they decided to convert one lane in each direction to HOV. The traffic studies done for the project showed that there is a fairly high level of HOV-2 usage on that part of the freeway, so there would be some operational benefits with the takeaway.