CA-58 and I-40

[Max Rockatansky]

I think it bothers people that an x0 Interstate doesn't make it all the way across the grid to I-5. I-20, I-30, and I-45 bother people too, except that there's no obvious way to extend 20 or 30 and 45 would depend on Oklahoma. But 40 has a logical extension point with a mostly-suitable road in place.

Neither does I-70

I-70 does not have a logical extension point, or have a mostly-suitable road in place.

And yet there was there three proposed corridors in California:

-  Minaret Summit
-  Sonora Pass (via a tunnel)
-  Echo Summit

To my knowledge the Sonora Pass idea is the only one that didn't go very far.  Minaret Summit was seriously studied during the late 1960s in advance of the 1968 Federal Highway Aid Act.  Echo Summit once had an adopted freeway alignment that would have utilized a tunnel.  The Echo Summit corridor was also heavily studied in advance of the 1973 Federal Highway Aid Act. 

[cl94]

Ironically, the Sonora Pass alignment is probably the easiest to construct, from both a technical and political standpoint. New construction at Tahoe has been a non-starter for 60 years at this point, ruling out Echo (and I'm not getting into that for many reasons, though I probably have access to docs about that study that most (if all) others in here haven't seen if I really wanted to dig into the archives). Minaret was just too high for a year-round alignment in the Sierra and the geology isn't exactly great for tunneling given that the pass is on the side of one of the most active volcanoes in the Lower 48. Sonora has both relatively minor tectonic activity and minimal regulatory hurdles, plus distance is low enough that a Euro-style tunnel is feasible with modern engineering.

This isn't to say that Caltrans hasn't pushed for a freeway alignment to Echo Summit (at least on the west side) in some capacity for the better part of the last 70 years. Didn't CA push for its inclusion in the Interstate system as early as the 50s? That pass is definitely better in the winter than Donner...

(personal opinion strongly emphasized)

[kkt]

Even a freeway across the Nevada desert would have been silly.

The elevation of Minaret Summit is 9175 feet

Echo Summit, where US 50 crosses the Sierra, 7377 feet

Donner Summit, where I-80 crosses the Sierra, 7239 feet

Above 4000 feet or so is where plowing is necessary, so every mile of road above there is a high operational cost.  Minaret Summit should have been dismissed after one envelope's worth of calculations.  Same with a tunnel when there are both Echo Summit and Donner Summit kept open pretty successfully all winter as well as the option of diverting around the high part of the mountains via (you guessed it) CA 58.

[Max Rockatansky]

Even a freeway across the Nevada desert would have been silly.

The elevation of Minaret Summit is 9175 feet

Echo Summit, where US 50 crosses the Sierra, 7377 feet

Donner Summit, where I-80 crosses the Sierra, 7239 feet

Above 4000 feet or so is where plowing is necessary, so every mile of road above there is a high operational cost.  Minaret Summit should have been dismissed after one envelope's worth of calculations.  Same with a tunnel when there are both Echo Summit and Donner Summit kept open pretty successfully all winter as well as the option of diverting around the high part of the mountains via (you guessed it) CA 58.

From a modern perspective we tend to forget that US 50/Echo Summit/Johnsons Pass were historically by far the favored highway over the Sierra Nevada.  It wasn't until I-80 started to get built that US 40 started seeing similar traffic numbers. 

With Minaret Summit the planners blew it by trying to get a freeway through there as a Chargeable Interstate.  A conventional road was pretty contentious for seven decades prior with Minaret Summit and Mammoth Pass.  It sucks because with how difficult Yosemite has been in recent years having Mammoth Pool Road extend to Minaret Summit would be super convenient. 

[pderocco]

I thought it was going to be one of those Cajon Pass off CA 138 vs Cajon Summit on I-15 type of deals lol

Kind of is.  The actual Cajon Pass is on Forest Road 3N45.  I-15 and all the US Routes used Cajon Summit.  It was only the National Old Trails Road that made it as a sign route over the original pass. 

And of course the Tejon Pass also moved to a very different location from where it was in the 19th century.

[Max Rockatansky]

I thought it was going to be one of those Cajon Pass off CA 138 vs Cajon Summit on I-15 type of deals lol

Kind of is.  The actual Cajon Pass is on Forest Road 3N45.  I-15 and all the US Routes used Cajon Summit.  It was only the National Old Trails Road that made it as a sign route over the original pass. 

And of course the Tejon Pass also moved to a very different location from where it was in the 19th century.

Old Tejon Pass fell out of favor even when the Stockton-Los Angeles Road was active.  Having a far lower elevation and access to Fort Tejon drew everyone west to Grapevine Canyon.

[FredAkbar]

I think it bothers people that an x0 Interstate doesn't make it all the way across the grid to I-5. I-20, I-30, and I-45 bother people too, except that there's no obvious way to extend 20 or 30 and 45 would depend on Oklahoma. But 40 has a logical extension point with a mostly-suitable road in place.

Neither does I-70

I-70 does not have a logical extension point, or have a mostly-suitable road in place.

Just upgrade US-50 to interstate standards and re-shield it as I-70 from I-15 to Sacramento

[pderocco]

I think it bothers people that an x0 Interstate doesn't make it all the way across the grid to I-5. I-20, I-30, and I-45 bother people too, except that there's no obvious way to extend 20 or 30 and 45 would depend on Oklahoma. But 40 has a logical extension point with a mostly-suitable road in place.

Neither does I-70

I-70 does not have a logical extension point, or have a mostly-suitable road in place.

Just upgrade US-50 to interstate standards and re-shield it as I-70 from I-15 to Sacramento

The loneliest interstate in America.

[Max Rockatansky]

I think it bothers people that an x0 Interstate doesn't make it all the way across the grid to I-5. I-20, I-30, and I-45 bother people too, except that there's no obvious way to extend 20 or 30 and 45 would depend on Oklahoma. But 40 has a logical extension point with a mostly-suitable road in place.

Neither does I-70

I-70 does not have a logical extension point, or have a mostly-suitable road in place.

Just upgrade US-50 to interstate standards and re-shield it as I-70 from I-15 to Sacramento

The loneliest interstate in America.

Which was originally conceived as following US 6 (the actual Loneliest) west of Ely. 

[elsmere241]

Which was originally conceived as following US 6 (the actual Loneliest) west of Ely. 

My last semester in college (the only one I had car, Fall 1996) and for a couple of months after that, I'd take off on the highways to blow some steam.  Once on a Friday afternoon, I came through Eureka, UT and saw a sign that said, "America's loveliest town, on America's loneliest road."  Eureka by then was just on US 6 - the road hadn't carried US 50 for a long time.

[dbz77]

I think it bothers people that an x0 Interstate doesn't make it all the way across the grid to I-5. I-20, I-30, and I-45 bother people too, except that there's no obvious way to extend 20 or 30 and 45 would depend on Oklahoma. But 40 has a logical extension point with a mostly-suitable road in place.

Too bad the shup sailed when the plans for a Lake Tahoe Freeway bypass was nixed.
Neither does I-70

I-70 does not have a logical extension point, or have a mostly-suitable road in place.

Just upgrade US-50 to interstate standards and re-shield it as I-70 from I-15 to Sacramento

[pderocco]

I think it bothers people that an x0 Interstate doesn't make it all the way across the grid to I-5. I-20, I-30, and I-45 bother people too, except that there's no obvious way to extend 20 or 30 and 45 would depend on Oklahoma. But 40 has a logical extension point with a mostly-suitable road in place.

Too bad the shup sailed when the plans for a Lake Tahoe Freeway bypass was nixed.
Neither does I-70

I-70 does not have a logical extension point, or have a mostly-suitable road in place.

Just upgrade US-50 to interstate standards and re-shield it as I-70 from I-15 to Sacramento

If you meant to add a comment, it got lost.

[FredAkbar]

Message-board version of a retweet.

[The Ghostbuster]

An eastern extension of unsigned Interstate 305 along US 50 between Sacramento and Placerville would be more logical (although just as unlikely) as a western extension of Interstate 70.

[Scott5114]

Message-board version of a retweet.

We would prefer you use the like button for that so as to not take up vertical space on the page with a no-new-content post.

[hotdogPi]

Message-board version of a retweet.

We would prefer you use the like button for that so as to not take up vertical space on the page with a no-new-content post.

This isn't what happened.

dbz77 was the one who made the post that looked like it had no new information. There was a new sentence, but it got buried in the middle of one of the quotes: "Too bad the shup sailed when the plans for a Lake Tahoe Freeway bypass was nixed."

FredAkbar was the one who said "Message-board version of a retweet.", which I assume was a guess since he wasn't the one who made the relevant post.

[Scott5114]

Message-board version of a retweet.

We would prefer you use the like button for that so as to not take up vertical space on the page with a no-new-content post.

This isn't what happened.

dbz77 was the one who made the post that looked like it had no new information. There was a new sentence, but it got buried in the middle of one of the quotes: "Too bad the shup sailed when the plans for a Lake Tahoe Freeway bypass was nixed."

FredAkbar was the one who said "Message-board version of a retweet.", which I assume was a guess since he wasn't the one who made the relevant post.

We would prefer whoever did whatever they did not do that. You can't just be up there and just doin' that like that. Do not do a whatever that was please.

[cahwyguy]

Message-board version of a retweet.

We would prefer you use the like button for that so as to not take up vertical space on the page with a no-new-content post.

This isn't what happened.

dbz77 was the one who made the post that looked like it had no new information. There was a new sentence, but it got buried in the middle of one of the quotes: "Too bad the shup sailed when the plans for a Lake Tahoe Freeway bypass was nixed."

FredAkbar was the one who said "Message-board version of a retweet.", which I assume was a guess since he wasn't the one who made the relevant post.

We would prefer whoever did whatever they did not do that. You can't just be up there and just doin' that like that. Do not do a whatever that was please.

I think the relevant takeaway is simple: PROOFREAD BEFORE POSTING. Especially when dealing with commenting on quote comments, with the current markup system, it is far too easy to comment within the quote instead of outside the quote. I know I've made that mistake many a time, and upon rereading my post, need to go back and edit it to fix where the quoting boundaries are.

[FredAkbar]

FWIW my comment was a joke. I think it's much more likely someone messed up while typing out / submitting the post. I agree we should not be quoting without a response as a form of endorsement.

[YLroadfan]

An eastern extension of unsigned Interstate 305 along US 50 between Sacramento and Placerville would be more logical (although just as unlikely) as a western extension of Interstate 70.

Or maybe that section of US 50 could just be designated as "I-50" for consistency of numbering? A longer I-50 would never be built, and it fits into the Interstate numbering scheme.  There are other instances in which numbers are maintained across designations (SR and I-15, SR and I-110 for example), and an I-50 designation might be even more meaningful for that area. But I know there are AASHTO considerations, so it probably wouldn't happen.

[Max Rockatansky]

An eastern extension of unsigned Interstate 305 along US 50 between Sacramento and Placerville would be more logical (although just as unlikely) as a western extension of Interstate 70.

Or maybe that section of US 50 could just be designated as "I-50" for consistency of numbering? A longer I-50 would never be built, and it fits into the Interstate numbering scheme.  There are other instances in which numbers are maintained across designations (SR and I-15, SR and I-110 for example), and an I-50 designation might be even more meaningful for that area. But I know there are AASHTO considerations, so it probably wouldn't happen.

I-305 is a FHWA designation which accounts for what was a chargeable corridor and the mileage which comprised it.  Approval from AASHTO was never sought because Caltrans had no interest in pursuing a legislatively defined Route 305. 

I do believe the US 50 does meet Interstate design standards though from I-80 east to the vicinity of Placerville.  In theory there isn't really anything AASHTO or the FHWA would object to if a a non-chargeable Interstate designation was sought.  Somehow I think they would find a way to object to "I-50" though. 

[gonealookin]

An eastern extension of unsigned Interstate 305 along US 50 between Sacramento and Placerville would be more logical (although just as unlikely) as a western extension of Interstate 70.

Or maybe that section of US 50 could just be designated as "I-50" for consistency of numbering? A longer I-50 would never be built, and it fits into the Interstate numbering scheme.  There are other instances in which numbers are maintained across designations (SR and I-15, SR and I-110 for example), and an I-50 designation might be even more meaningful for that area. But I know there are AASHTO considerations, so it probably wouldn't happen.

I-305 is a FHWA designation which accounts for what was a chargeable corridor and the mileage which comprised it.  Approval from AASHTO was never sought because Caltrans had no interest in pursuing a legislatively defined Route 305. 

I do believe the US 50 does meet Interstate design standards though from I-80 east to the vicinity of Placerville.  In theory there isn't really anything AASHTO or the FHWA would object to if a a non-chargeable Interstate designation was sought.  Somehow I think they would find a way to object to "I-50" though. 

The highway will not be upgraded east of where those Interstate design standards presently end, a short distance west of the signals in Placerville.  "Hangtown" would be an odd place to truncate US 50 at.  I'd say that suggestion is less logical than extending the I-40 designation west of Barstow.

[Max Rockatansky]

An eastern extension of unsigned Interstate 305 along US 50 between Sacramento and Placerville would be more logical (although just as unlikely) as a western extension of Interstate 70.

Or maybe that section of US 50 could just be designated as "I-50" for consistency of numbering? A longer I-50 would never be built, and it fits into the Interstate numbering scheme.  There are other instances in which numbers are maintained across designations (SR and I-15, SR and I-110 for example), and an I-50 designation might be even more meaningful for that area. But I know there are AASHTO considerations, so it probably wouldn't happen.

I-305 is a FHWA designation which accounts for what was a chargeable corridor and the mileage which comprised it.  Approval from AASHTO was never sought because Caltrans had no interest in pursuing a legislatively defined Route 305. 

I do believe the US 50 does meet Interstate design standards though from I-80 east to the vicinity of Placerville.  In theory there isn't really anything AASHTO or the FHWA would object to if a a non-chargeable Interstate designation was sought.  Somehow I think they would find a way to object to "I-50" though. 

The highway will not be upgraded east of where those Interstate design standards presently end, a short distance west of the signals in Placerville.  "Hangtown" would be an odd place to truncate US 50 at.  I'd say that suggestion is less logical than extending the I-40 designation west of Barstow.

To be clear, I don't think there is a need for any of this.  I like I-305 just fine as a weird entity only a couple dozen people even know about.   

[Tendies]

An eastern extension of unsigned Interstate 305 along US 50 between Sacramento and Placerville would be more logical (although just as unlikely) as a western extension of Interstate 70.

Or maybe that section of US 50 could just be designated as "I-50" for consistency of numbering? A longer I-50 would never be built, and it fits into the Interstate numbering scheme.  There are other instances in which numbers are maintained across designations (SR and I-15, SR and I-110 for example), and an I-50 designation might be even more meaningful for that area. But I know there are AASHTO considerations, so it probably wouldn't happen.

I-305 is a FHWA designation which accounts for what was a chargeable corridor and the mileage which comprised it.  Approval from AASHTO was never sought because Caltrans had no interest in pursuing a legislatively defined Route 305. 

I do believe the US 50 does meet Interstate design standards though from I-80 east to the vicinity of Placerville.  In theory there isn't really anything AASHTO or the FHWA would object to if a a non-chargeable Interstate designation was sought.  Somehow I think they would find a way to object to "I-50" though. 

The highway will not be upgraded east of where those Interstate design standards presently end, a short distance west of the signals in Placerville.  "Hangtown" would be an odd place to truncate US 50 at.  I'd say that suggestion is less logical than extending the I-40 designation west of Barstow.

To be clear, I don't think there is a need for any of this.  I like I-305 just fine as a weird entity only a couple dozen people even know about.   

I-305 appears on google maps when you zoom in close enough on US-50 near its western terminus, although google likes to make mistakes on route numbering

[Max Rockatansky]

An eastern extension of unsigned Interstate 305 along US 50 between Sacramento and Placerville would be more logical (although just as unlikely) as a western extension of Interstate 70.

Or maybe that section of US 50 could just be designated as "I-50" for consistency of numbering? A longer I-50 would never be built, and it fits into the Interstate numbering scheme.  There are other instances in which numbers are maintained across designations (SR and I-15, SR and I-110 for example), and an I-50 designation might be even more meaningful for that area. But I know there are AASHTO considerations, so it probably wouldn't happen.

I-305 is a FHWA designation which accounts for what was a chargeable corridor and the mileage which comprised it.  Approval from AASHTO was never sought because Caltrans had no interest in pursuing a legislatively defined Route 305. 

I do believe the US 50 does meet Interstate design standards though from I-80 east to the vicinity of Placerville.  In theory there isn't really anything AASHTO or the FHWA would object to if a a non-chargeable Interstate designation was sought.  Somehow I think they would find a way to object to "I-50" though. 

The highway will not be upgraded east of where those Interstate design standards presently end, a short distance west of the signals in Placerville.  "Hangtown" would be an odd place to truncate US 50 at.  I'd say that suggestion is less logical than extending the I-40 designation west of Barstow.

To be clear, I don't think there is a need for any of this.  I like I-305 just fine as a weird entity only a couple dozen people even know about.   

I-305 appears on google maps when you zoom in close enough on US-50 near its western terminus, although google likes to make mistakes on route numbering

Google Maps tends to obtain information recently discussed on social media I've noticed.