I-5 West Side Freeway

[Max Rockatansky]

One of my most frequented highways since I moved back to the west coast is the West Side Freeway segment of I-5.  I-5 in the 1947 draft of the Interstate System originally intended was to follow the corridor of US 99 to Modesto and branch off into I-5W/I-5E towards Woodland.  In the 1957 draft of the Interstate System I-5 was moved to the new corridor of Legislative Route 238 between Wheeler Ridge and Woodland.  I-5 was still planned to split into I-5W/I-5E near Tracy which would converge north of Sacramento at what is now I-505.  The 1964 State Highway Renumbering seems to be the primary driver of the elimination of I-5W/I-5E which led to mainline I-5 being routed on Legislative Route 238 from Wheeler Ridge north to Woodland.  While I-5 on the West Side Freeway is much maligned as a boring highway it is interesting to consider how much worse traffic in San Joaquin Valley would be if it stayed on the corridor of US 99.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/12/interstate-5-west-side-freeway.html

[nexus73]

One of my most frequented highways since I moved back to the west coast is the West Side Freeway segment of I-5.  I-5 in the 1947 draft of the Interstate System originally intended was to follow the corridor of US 99 to Modesto and branch off into I-5W/I-5E towards Woodland.  In the 1957 draft of the Interstate System I-5 was moved to the new corridor of Legislative Route 238 between Wheeler Ridge and Woodland.  I-5 was still planned to split into I-5W/I-5E near Tracy which would converge north of Sacramento at what is now I-505.  The 1964 State Highway Renumbering seems to be the primary driver of the elimination of I-5W/I-5E which led to mainline I-5 being routed on Legislative Route 238 from Wheeler Ridge north to Woodland.  While I-5 on the West Side Freeway is much maligned as a boring highway it is interesting to consider how much worse traffic in San Joaquin Valley would be if it stayed on the corridor of US 99.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/12/interstate-5-west-side-freeway.html

Eliminating the "boring" would be easy.  Autobahn I-5 from north of LA to the I-205 interchange!  There ya' go, all the excitement a fast driver could want and since the good ones will be paying attention to the road, who cares about the blah scenery? 

Oh okay. we'll have a speed limit, say 150 MPH...LOL!  Who needs high speed rail when a high speed freeway can fill the bill!

Rick

[Max Rockatansky]

One of my most frequented highways since I moved back to the west coast is the West Side Freeway segment of I-5.  I-5 in the 1947 draft of the Interstate System originally intended was to follow the corridor of US 99 to Modesto and branch off into I-5W/I-5E towards Woodland.  In the 1957 draft of the Interstate System I-5 was moved to the new corridor of Legislative Route 238 between Wheeler Ridge and Woodland.  I-5 was still planned to split into I-5W/I-5E near Tracy which would converge north of Sacramento at what is now I-505.  The 1964 State Highway Renumbering seems to be the primary driver of the elimination of I-5W/I-5E which led to mainline I-5 being routed on Legislative Route 238 from Wheeler Ridge north to Woodland.  While I-5 on the West Side Freeway is much maligned as a boring highway it is interesting to consider how much worse traffic in San Joaquin Valley would be if it stayed on the corridor of US 99.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/12/interstate-5-west-side-freeway.html

Eliminating the "boring" would be easy.  Autobahn I-5 from north of LA to the I-205 interchange!  There ya' go, all the excitement a fast driver could want and since the good ones will be paying attention to the road, who cares about the blah scenery? 

Oh okay. we'll have a speed limit, say 150 MPH...LOL!  Who needs high speed rail when a high speed freeway can fill the bill!

Rick

Personally I kind of dig the view of the Diablo Range that is present most of the way from Wheeler Ridge north to Tracy.  It seems that 85-90 MPH is kind of already tolerated on I-5, you definitely have to doing something extraordinary to get pulled over for speed.

[nexus73]

One of my most frequented highways since I moved back to the west coast is the West Side Freeway segment of I-5.  I-5 in the 1947 draft of the Interstate System originally intended was to follow the corridor of US 99 to Modesto and branch off into I-5W/I-5E towards Woodland.  In the 1957 draft of the Interstate System I-5 was moved to the new corridor of Legislative Route 238 between Wheeler Ridge and Woodland.  I-5 was still planned to split into I-5W/I-5E near Tracy which would converge north of Sacramento at what is now I-505.  The 1964 State Highway Renumbering seems to be the primary driver of the elimination of I-5W/I-5E which led to mainline I-5 being routed on Legislative Route 238 from Wheeler Ridge north to Woodland.  While I-5 on the West Side Freeway is much maligned as a boring highway it is interesting to consider how much worse traffic in San Joaquin Valley would be if it stayed on the corridor of US 99.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/12/interstate-5-west-side-freeway.html

Eliminating the "boring" would be easy.  Autobahn I-5 from north of LA to the I-205 interchange!  There ya' go, all the excitement a fast driver could want and since the good ones will be paying attention to the road, who cares about the blah scenery? 

Oh okay. we'll have a speed limit, say 150 MPH...LOL!  Who needs high speed rail when a high speed freeway can fill the bill!

Rick

Personally I kind of dig the view of the Diablo Range that is present most of the way from Wheeler Ridge north to Tracy.  It seems that 85-90 MPH is kind of already tolerated on I-5, you definitely have to doing something extraordinary to get pulled over for speed.

85 MPH seems to be the unofficial speed limit for that section of I-5.  One thing I noticed on I-5 between PDX and Salem lately was that it also moves about 10 MPH faster than the posted 65 MPH but once south of the capital, the traffic seems to obey the limit or be within 5 MPH although there was no law enforcement present anywhere. 

Going to Boise this past summer let me see a short stretch of I-84 with a speed limit of 80.  People were going 85 to 90.   Since a good part of the freeway has been modernized, that was a blast!

It must suck rutabagas to live where speed limits are strictly enforced on the freeways.

Rick

[Concrete Bob]

It would be wonderful to see a third, or even possibly fourth lane added on I-5 between the junction of I-5/I-580 in the north to the I-5/SR 99 at south end.  Before Caltrans had to remove all their Transportation Corridor Reports (TCRs) from their website, due to "accessibility issues," (which affected all State Agencies) the TCRs for Caltrans District 6 and 10 called for a six lane concept for the entire corridor by 2035, and an eight-lane corridor for the ultimate build-out.  There is enough traffic on the corridor for six lanes, currently.  And, if truck traffic was limited to the right two lanes for the corridor, a constant speed of 75-85 MPH throughout the corridor would be (in my opinion) reasonable and proper.

I think transportation funds would be far better spent on adding lanes to I-5 along that corridor than spending them on the High Speed Rail fiasco. 

I figure, all automobiles will be zero-emission, or run on clean alternative energy/fuels in the next fifty years, and investing in a widening of this corridor would be a very wise long-term investment.  Eighteen-wheel trucks might take a tad longer to evolve to a similar mode, but it will eventually happen, too.

Driving the corridor can be grueling, but if you have the right attitude, it is a total pleasure. Especially when you can safely drive 75 or 80 miles per hour, without trucks being in both lanes doing "elephant races" where one truck is trying to overtake another.

I would also like to see SR 99 widened and modernized as well.  And, while we are at it, having the State of California study building SR 65, and upgrading US 101 to freeway standards between Gaviota and Gilroy. The costs of the upgrades and studies would probably be less than the cost to build High Speed Rail, and accommodate more modes of transport and goods movement than High Speed Rail could ever help attain.   

[nexus73]

It would be wonderful to see a third, or even possibly fourth lane added on I-5 between the junction of I-5/I-580 in the north to the I-5/SR 99 at south end.  Before Caltrans had to remove all their Transportation Corridor Reports (TCRs) from their website, due to "accessibility issues," (which affected all State Agencies) the TCRs for Caltrans District 6 and 10 called for a six lane concept for the entire corridor by 2035, and an eight-lane corridor for the ultimate build-out.  There is enough traffic on the corridor for six lanes, currently.  And, if truck traffic was limited to the right two lanes for the corridor, a constant speed of 75-85 MPH throughout the corridor would be (in my opinion) reasonable and proper.

I think transportation funds would be far better spent on adding lanes to I-5 along that corridor than spending them on the High Speed Rail fiasco. 

I figure, all automobiles will be zero-emission, or run on clean alternative energy/fuels in the next fifty years, and investing in a widening of this corridor would be a very wise long-term investment.  Eighteen-wheel trucks might take a tad longer to evolve to a similar mode, but it will eventually happen, too.

Driving the corridor can be grueling, but if you have the right attitude, it is a total pleasure. Especially when you can safely drive 75 or 80 miles per hour, without trucks being in both lanes doing "elephant races" where one truck is trying to overtake another.

I would also like to see SR 99 widened and modernized as well.  And, while we are at it, having the State of California study building SR 65, and upgrading US 101 to freeway standards between Gaviota and Gilroy. The costs of the upgrades and studies would probably be less than the cost to build High Speed Rail, and accommodate more modes of transport and goods movement than High Speed Rail could ever help attain.   

You must be a hammer since you hit the nail on the head in so many ways!  One main N/S highway that you did not mention was US 395, which should be freeway/expressway all the way from I-15 to Reno.  As for I-15, it should be wide and high speed all the way to Vegas, then on to Mesquite and the Virgin River area before the terrain slows traffic down.

Then we'll start on the E/W routes.  Imagine I-10 turned autobahn from Phoenix to the Southland.  Add in I-40 and I-80 being like that through the empty West.  It will beat HSR for cost and utility in terms of moving people and goods between our distant from each other urban areas we have on this side of the Rockies.  Heck, maybe Max can find out just how fast his Challenger can go and for how long!  We won't need time lapse video at those speeds :-)

Rick

[Max Rockatansky]

It would be wonderful to see a third, or even possibly fourth lane added on I-5 between the junction of I-5/I-580 in the north to the I-5/SR 99 at south end.  Before Caltrans had to remove all their Transportation Corridor Reports (TCRs) from their website, due to "accessibility issues," (which affected all State Agencies) the TCRs for Caltrans District 6 and 10 called for a six lane concept for the entire corridor by 2035, and an eight-lane corridor for the ultimate build-out.  There is enough traffic on the corridor for six lanes, currently.  And, if truck traffic was limited to the right two lanes for the corridor, a constant speed of 75-85 MPH throughout the corridor would be (in my opinion) reasonable and proper.

I think transportation funds would be far better spent on adding lanes to I-5 along that corridor than spending them on the High Speed Rail fiasco. 

I figure, all automobiles will be zero-emission, or run on clean alternative energy/fuels in the next fifty years, and investing in a widening of this corridor would be a very wise long-term investment.  Eighteen-wheel trucks might take a tad longer to evolve to a similar mode, but it will eventually happen, too.

Driving the corridor can be grueling, but if you have the right attitude, it is a total pleasure. Especially when you can safely drive 75 or 80 miles per hour, without trucks being in both lanes doing "elephant races" where one truck is trying to overtake another.

I would also like to see SR 99 widened and modernized as well.  And, while we are at it, having the State of California study building SR 65, and upgrading US 101 to freeway standards between Gaviota and Gilroy. The costs of the upgrades and studies would probably be less than the cost to build High Speed Rail, and accommodate more modes of transport and goods movement than High Speed Rail could ever help attain.   

You must be a hammer since you hit the nail on the head in so many ways!  One main N/S highway that you did not mention was US 395, which should be freeway/expressway all the way from I-15 to Reno.  As for I-15, it should be wide and high speed all the way to Vegas, then on to Mesquite and the Virgin River area before the terrain slows traffic down.

Then we'll start on the E/W routes.  Imagine I-10 turned autobahn from Phoenix to the Southland.  Add in I-40 and I-80 being like that through the empty West.  It will beat HSR for cost and utility in terms of moving people and goods between our distant from each other urban areas we have on this side of the Rockies.  Heck, maybe Max can find out just how fast his Challenger can go and for how long!  We won't need time lapse video at those speeds :-)

Rick

Apparently the 2016 Challenger Scat Pack has been tested up to 182 MPH.  I have an idea what is realistic on I-10 west of Phoenix with my Camaro SS, but isn't something I prefer to brag about.  Regardless some of the rural Interstates like I-10, I-8, and I-40 in the deserts are capable of handling 100 MPH plus speeds without it being much a physical hazard.

[Concrete Bob]

Rick, I certainly agree about 395 being a full on expressway from I-15 north to Reno as well.  It is one of my favorite drives in California.  I would hope to see Bishop bypassed someday, and the road four-laned to above the Nevada border.  Upgrading 395 to a freeway north of I-15 to SR 58 would do a world of good as well, since the latest version of the LA Metropolitan Bypass has been shelved. The rest of 395 to the SR 14 split would work well as an expressway.  The 395 is an important corridor for commerce, tourism and regional connectivity. 

There are no commuter trains along the 395 corridor, so there is little excuse (other than funding) to upgrade this route. 

I've taken my Mustang up to about 105 on rural interstates, but anything over 90 makes me kind of uncomfortable.  But, that's just me.

[sparker]

One of my most frequented highways since I moved back to the west coast is the West Side Freeway segment of I-5.  I-5 in the 1947 draft of the Interstate System originally intended was to follow the corridor of US 99 to Modesto and branch off into I-5W/I-5E towards Woodland.  In the 1957 draft of the Interstate System I-5 was moved to the new corridor of Legislative Route 238 between Wheeler Ridge and Woodland.  I-5 was still planned to split into I-5W/I-5E near Tracy which would converge north of Sacramento at what is now I-505.  The 1964 State Highway Renumbering seems to be the primary driver of the elimination of I-5W/I-5E which led to mainline I-5 being routed on Legislative Route 238 from Wheeler Ridge north to Woodland.  While I-5 on the West Side Freeway is much maligned as a boring highway it is interesting to consider how much worse traffic in San Joaquin Valley would be if it stayed on the corridor of US 99.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/12/interstate-5-west-side-freeway.html

Since the late '63 renumbering of I-5E/5W (which preceded the general renumbering by about 6 months) was some 16-17 years prior to the "no-suffix" AASHTO/FHWA rule circa 1980, it could be readily stated that the driving force behind the renumbering was the 48-mile 5W multiplex with I-80 from Emeryville to Vacaville.  The DOH really didn't want to have to sign it with both numbers -- getting rid of the longer multiplexes statewide was one of the priorities of the following year's renumbering effort.  And since there were only about 6 miles of I-5W signed in west/central Oakland -- and I-5E was merely a paper concept at the time -- the renumbering was considered minimally disruptive.  But one thing it did lead to was the "Tracy Triangle" configuration of I-5, I-205, and I-580, with the actual routings adopted early in '63, IIRC.  Ironically, the presence of that conglomerated facility has resulted in the region becoming a major logistics "hub" -- Amazon centers their SW US distribution from a facility slightly SW of Tracy. 

[dbz77]

One of my most frequented highways since I moved back to the west coast is the West Side Freeway segment of I-5.  I-5 in the 1947 draft of the Interstate System originally intended was to follow the corridor of US 99 to Modesto and branch off into I-5W/I-5E towards Woodland.  In the 1957 draft of the Interstate System I-5 was moved to the new corridor of Legislative Route 238 between Wheeler Ridge and Woodland.  I-5 was still planned to split into I-5W/I-5E near Tracy which would converge north of Sacramento at what is now I-505.  The 1964 State Highway Renumbering seems to be the primary driver of the elimination of I-5W/I-5E which led to mainline I-5 being routed on Legislative Route 238 from Wheeler Ridge north to Woodland.  While I-5 on the West Side Freeway is much maligned as a boring highway it is interesting to consider how much worse traffic in San Joaquin Valley would be if it stayed on the corridor of US 99.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/12/interstate-5-west-side-freeway.html

I-5 in the Valley was built for a faster inland route to the San Francisco Bay Area, following the old route of the El Camino Viejo (which had been known to be a faster route to San Francisco than El Camino Real during the 18th centuryl, at least when there is no snow in the Grapevine.

According to Google Maps, the distance between the junction of Hollywood, Santa Ana, and Harbor Freeways, and the west endpoint of Interstate 80, is about 382 miles- about 20 miles shorter than using the 99.

I did use Google Maps to find the road distance between Sacramento and Los Angeles along the 5 as compared to the 99, and the distance difference is only miles! It is clear that traffic between the Bay Area and L.A. was the primary consideration is building I-5 on the west side- it would not have been done just to save two miles from the L.A.-Sacramento road trip!

Rick, I certainly agree about 395 being a full on expressway from I-15 north to Reno as well.  It is one of my favorite drives in California.  I would hope to see Bishop bypassed someday, and the road four-laned to above the Nevada border.  Upgrading 395 to a freeway north of I-15 to SR 58 would do a world of good as well, since the latest version of the LA Metropolitan Bypass has been shelved.

To build it to freeway all the way to I-15 would require condemning quite a lot of residential and retail areas in Victorville and Adelanto.

[sparker]

I-5 in the Valley was built for a faster inland route to the San Francisco Bay Area, following the old route of the El Camino Viejo (which had been known to be a faster route to San Francisco than El Camino Real during the 18th centuryl, at least when there is no snow in the Grapevine.

According to Google Maps, the distance between the junction of Hollywood, Santa Ana, and Harbor Freeways, and the west endpoint of Interstate 80, is about 382 miles- about 20 miles shorter than using the 99.

I did use Google Maps to find the road distance between Sacramento and Los Angeles along the 5 as compared to the 99, and the distance difference is only miles! It is clear that traffic between the Bay Area and L.A. was the primary consideration is building I-5 on the west side- it would not have been done just to save two miles from the L.A.-Sacramento road trip!

Rick, I certainly agree about 395 being a full on expressway from I-15 north to Reno as well.  It is one of my favorite drives in California.  I would hope to see Bishop bypassed someday, and the road four-laned to above the Nevada border.  Upgrading 395 to a freeway north of I-15 to SR 58 would do a world of good as well, since the latest version of the LA Metropolitan Bypass has been shelved.

To build it to freeway all the way to I-15 would require condemning quite a lot of residential and retail areas in Victorville and Adelanto.

The '57 decision to move I-5 off (then) US 99 onto LRN 238/Westside Highway was certainly not without controversy -- illustrating a conundrum with Interstate planners regarding connecting major metro areas but also serving communities over 50K population -- the criteria (often conflicting) of the original network.  At that time the only Valley cities that had reached that population goal were Bakersfield, Fresno, and Stockton; even Modesto was only about 35K (incorporated) back in the late '50's.  So that "trade-off" decision was reached in order to expedite L.A.-Bay Area traffic, as the above post posits.  But that decision is often cited by Valley interests, including at times the various cities themselves, as an example of the sociopolitical/socioeconomic isolation of the Valley vis-a-vis the coastal metro areas.  The push to upgrade CA 99 and sign it as an Interstate trunk is just one of the ameliorating measures emanating from the position that the Valley has, by and large, been the subject of relative neglect. 

Regarding US 395 through Victorville & Adelanto -- most plans I've seen don't overlay a freeway directly on the present US 395 alignment, but rather between a half-mile to a mile west of that roadway.   The various tracts that have been developed in western Victorville and Adelanto have left sufficient room to deploy a N-S freeway in that area.   It would return to existing 395 around the Main Street intersection in west Hesperia so its terminating interchange with I-15 would remain within the existing footprint.   

[mrsman]

I-5 in the Valley was built for a faster inland route to the San Francisco Bay Area, following the old route of the El Camino Viejo (which had been known to be a faster route to San Francisco than El Camino Real during the 18th centuryl, at least when there is no snow in the Grapevine.

According to Google Maps, the distance between the junction of Hollywood, Santa Ana, and Harbor Freeways, and the west endpoint of Interstate 80, is about 382 miles- about 20 miles shorter than using the 99.

I did use Google Maps to find the road distance between Sacramento and Los Angeles along the 5 as compared to the 99, and the distance difference is only miles! It is clear that traffic between the Bay Area and L.A. was the primary consideration is building I-5 on the west side- it would not have been done just to save two miles from the L.A.-Sacramento road trip!

Rick, I certainly agree about 395 being a full on expressway from I-15 north to Reno as well.  It is one of my favorite drives in California.  I would hope to see Bishop bypassed someday, and the road four-laned to above the Nevada border.  Upgrading 395 to a freeway north of I-15 to SR 58 would do a world of good as well, since the latest version of the LA Metropolitan Bypass has been shelved.

To build it to freeway all the way to I-15 would require condemning quite a lot of residential and retail areas in Victorville and Adelanto.

The '57 decision to move I-5 off (then) US 99 onto LRN 238/Westside Highway was certainly not without controversy -- illustrating a conundrum with Interstate planners regarding connecting major metro areas but also serving communities over 50K population -- the criteria (often conflicting) of the original network.  At that time the only Valley cities that had reached that population goal were Bakersfield, Fresno, and Stockton; even Modesto was only about 35K (incorporated) back in the late '50's.  So that "trade-off" decision was reached in order to expedite L.A.-Bay Area traffic, as the above post posits.  But that decision is often cited by Valley interests, including at times the various cities themselves, as an example of the sociopolitical/socioeconomic isolation of the Valley vis-a-vis the coastal metro areas.  The push to upgrade CA 99 and sign it as an Interstate trunk is just one of the ameliorating measures emanating from the position that the Valley has, by and large, been the subject of relative neglect. 

Regarding US 395 through Victorville & Adelanto -- most plans I've seen don't overlay a freeway directly on the present US 395 alignment, but rather between a half-mile to a mile west of that roadway.   The various tracts that have been developed in western Victorville and Adelanto have left sufficient room to deploy a N-S freeway in that area.   It would return to existing 395 around the Main Street intersection in west Hesperia so its terminating interchange with I-15 would remain within the existing footprint.

All in all, placing I-5 along the West Side corridor was indeed a boon for the state as a whole.  An express corridor linking L.A. to the Bay Area and/or Sacramento without getting congested through Bakersfeld and/or Fresno.  And given the super-express nature of I-5, the Central valley 99 and the Cenral Coast 101 have operated fine with high grade expressways - no signals, occasional cross-traffic, no businesses directly abutting the roadway, full freeway through bigger cities like Bakersfield and San Luis Obispo.

For a very long time, I assumed that I-5's purpose was LA to Sac, mainlly because of the controls.  As shown in the above thread, the real focus was LA to SF.  Yet, most of my old trips as a kid from LA to SF involved 101 - perhaps because my father found it more scenic than I-5, even though it seemed pretty obvious that I-5 was substantially faster.

One downside is that they never constructed the lnke from 580 to 505, as a full bypass of both the Sac area and the Bay.  Imagine LA to Oregon on an interstate quality freeway, straight as an arrow, without passing a major city.  That would be a dramatic improvement, especially if allowed to drive along the corridor at 80 MPH.

[nexus73]

One downside is that they never constructed the lnke from 580 to 505, as a full bypass of both the Sac area and the Bay.  Imagine LA to Oregon on an interstate quality freeway, straight as an arrow, without passing a major city.  That would be a dramatic improvement, especially if allowed to drive along the corridor at 80 MPH.

That is a great idea for a bypass!  Two metroplexes for the price of one so to speak, out of the way so through traffic can make headway.  If there was a High Desert Freeway doing its bypass duty, then we could add in Las Vegas as a destination for traffic coming from the north.

Truckers and tourists would love such an arrangement.

Rick

[Concrete Bob]

There were discussions of a Mid-State Tollway that would have put in such a road.  Those planes were put on the shelf by Caltrans in the mid 90s or so.  Vestiges have been built in the form of SR 4 near Brentwood. And there are talks about the state building route 239 between Brentwood and the junction of interstates 580 and 205.

[Max Rockatansky]

There were discussions of a Mid-State Tollway that would have put in such a road.  Those planes were put on the shelf by Caltrans in the mid 90s or so.  Vestiges have been built in the form of SR 4 near Brentwood. And there are talks about the state building route 239 between Brentwood and the junction of interstates 580 and 205.

I'd argue at this point CA 239 is needed to replace the obsolete County Route J4 which can't handle the traffic load anymore.  Regarding linking I-580 and I-505 while it sounds like a good idea it would meet huge resistance from those who don't want to see anymore development in the Sacramento River Delta. 

With CA 99/Old US 99 the corridor definitely grew beyond the capabilities of an expressway long ago which is why it is now completely a freeway between Wheeler Ridge and Sacramento.  This past Christmas Holiday also illustrates why US 101 should be continued to improved upon and built more towards full limited capacity as funding becomes available.  US 101 was completely overwhelmed by all the traffic that couldn't use I-5 or CA 58 to get to San Joaquin Valley. 

Regarding El Camino Viejo and it more or less being a precursor route to Legislative Route 238/I-5...kind of...  El Camino Viejo stuck more to the waterways and Tulare Lake Basin since reliable water was definitely at a premium in Spanish Las Californias.  CA 33 is a closer analog to El Camino Viejo than I-5.  Granted almost none of path of El Camino Viejo still exists aside from places like the Wind Wolves Preserve. 

[sparker]

One downside is that they never constructed the lnke from 580 to 505, as a full bypass of both the Sac area and the Bay.  Imagine LA to Oregon on an interstate quality freeway, straight as an arrow, without passing a major city.  That would be a dramatic improvement, especially if allowed to drive along the corridor at 80 MPH.

There were discussions of a Mid-State Tollway that would have put in such a road.  Those planes were put on the shelf by Caltrans in the mid 90s or so.  Vestiges have been built in the form of SR 4 near Brentwood. And there are talks about the state building route 239 between Brentwood and the junction of interstates 580 and 205.

That tollway would have utilized the path of the oft-considered CA 239, CA 4 between Byron and Antioch, the Antioch (CA 160) bridge, and diverged from CA 160 north of there to cross the Sacramento River.  It would have had terminating "splits" at both ends; a CA-84-based branch along Vasco Road, passing between Livermore and Pleasanton, and terminating at the CA 84 interchange with I-680 was to be a SW branch, while the main trunk, after crossing the Sacramento River, would have headed toward Elmira, where it would split into two branches, one intersecting I-505 about a mile or two north of I-80 (after crossing the latter freeway) and the other heading toward Dixon and the I-80/CA 113 freeway interchange between Dixon and Davis -- the CA 113 freeway would have been its functional extension.  The toll road idea, formulated in the late '80's and early '90's, would have required a doubling of the Antioch Bridge as well as a 4-lane high-level bridge (likely cable-stayed) across the Sacramento River north of there.  Even in 1992, the cost for doing the full project was projected at well over $2 billion; with the center section along CA 4 remaining a free facility (the present Antioch Bridge toll facility would have marked the southern end of the northern toll section).  The CA 84 branch was itself mired in controversy; in the '90's the development of the Brentwood area as an "overflow" housing region for Silicon Valley employment was in its initial stages; deploying a toll road to serve that commute traffic was seen as gratuitous money-grubbing and that a conventional freeway would be more appropriate.   But by 1998 the entire project was functionally scrapped because of the enormous cost; projected toll revenue was far too meager to even cover the initial construction -- likely due to the myriad opportunities for shunpiking as well as the perception that the northern section had limited commuter value and what revenue would accrue would come from commercial usage -- the most likely candidates to avoid the tolled facility! 

The recent incremental eastward extension of CA 4 is simply to provide enhanced service for Brentwood/Discovery Bay commuters; talk of a CA 239 extension to complete the project projects any action at least a decade away.   For the present, Contra Costa County views their expansion of Vasco Road to be a sufficient and cost-effective measure to address many of the sub-region's commuter issues (even though the improvements simply peter out at the Alameda County line, which has yet to address their section of the corridor).  But 239 is a separate entity intended to strike out southeast from Vasco a bit south of the CA 4 divergence at Marsh Creek Road and extend to the 580/205 interchange near Altamont -- and alignment that has never seen formal Caltrans adoption.  But at present neither Contra Costa nor San Joaquin counties' MPO's have pressed for any developmental activity for this corridor -- although plenty of new housing has cropped up along its likely path (e.g., Mountain House tracts).  But with the glacial pace of any new road projects in CA these days, nothing is likely to occur for years if not decades. 

[Max Rockatansky]

^^^

At minimum the developers in Mountain House seem to think some sort of development along J4/Byron Highway (the more or less projected path of CA 239) will take place at some point in the near future.  The bridge to nowhere carrying Central Parkway over Byron Highway seems to suggest at least the concept of a higher capacity road has been discussed.

IMG_3945 by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^i
In order to access the 580/205 interchange, any CA 239 alignment would have to be at least a couple of miles west of Byron Highway -- but roughly parallel to it.   The bridge shown above is likely configured for a twinning of Byron Hwy. when area development requires another higher-capacity arterial.  If a CA 239 full freeway is stalled in process, there's an outside (considering Caltrans' reluctance to do so) chance that Byron could be adopted as 239 (likely shunting over to the I-205 interchange in Tracy via Grant Line Road) as a conventional divided facility.   But it's more likely to be "all or nothing" when it comes to finishing the corridor -- IMO it'll be a freeway as described in my prior post;  any expansion of Byron Road as an alternative will be up to the two counties to work out. 

[Beltway]

One downside is that they never constructed the lnke from 580 to 505, as a full bypass of both the Sac area and the Bay.  Imagine LA to Oregon on an interstate quality freeway, straight as an arrow, without passing a major city.  That would be a dramatic improvement, especially if allowed to drive along the corridor at 80 MPH.

In lieu of that, why not build a western belt for Sacramento? 

I-5 goes thru the center of the city with no bypass.

That bypass would be about 18 miles long and could have been part of I-5, with the current city route being relegated to Business 5.

[Max Rockatansky]

One downside is that they never constructed the lnke from 580 to 505, as a full bypass of both the Sac area and the Bay.  Imagine LA to Oregon on an interstate quality freeway, straight as an arrow, without passing a major city.  That would be a dramatic improvement, especially if allowed to drive along the corridor at 80 MPH.

In lieu of that, why not build a western belt for Sacramento? 

I-5 goes thru the center of the city with no bypass.

That bypass would be about 18 miles long and could have been part of I-5, with the current city route being relegated to Business 5.

That's a can of worms, Sacramento kind of had it's chance at a full freeway system and blew it:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/07/california-state-route-244-and-un-built.html?m=1

https://www.cahighways.org/241-248.html#244

[Concrete Bob]

Sacramento blew it big time when the County Board of Supervisors voted to cancel three adopted freeway routes in November 1974 (65,143, 244) and kill the option for adopting Route 102. Much of the plan was expected to begin construction in the Spring of 1975. 

Most of the traffic in the Sacramento suburbs moves through arterials nowadays with traffic lights every quarter mile or so.  Going to a restaurant in Rocklin from Folsom takes a good hour or so to navigate.  If we had the freeways that were supposed to be built, it would have only taken about 20-25 minutes to get around the periphery.

As I have noted on this board before, the freeways were cancelled by a 3-2 vote by the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors.  Twenty years later two of those three supervisors regretted their vote.  The third supervisor had a developer brother in law who bought up one of the corridors and built a housing tract. 

I am looking forward to seeing Business 80/SR 51 get widened and modernized.  We all know about the parallel bypass that was supposed to go in.  We got LRT along that corridor instead, and it didn't alleviate the congestion on Business 80. I hope our greasy-haired Governor does not put the breaks on that project.       

[sparker]

Sacramento blew it big time when the County Board of Supervisors voted to cancel three adopted freeway routes in November 1974 (65,143, 244) and kill the option for adopting Route 102. Much of the plan was expected to begin construction in the Spring of 1975. 

Most of the traffic in the Sacramento suburbs moves through arterials nowadays with traffic lights every quarter mile or so.  Going to a restaurant in Rocklin from Folsom takes a good hour or so to navigate.  If we had the freeways that were supposed to be built, it would have only taken about 20-25 minutes to get around the periphery.

As I have noted on this board before, the freeways were cancelled by a 3-2 vote by the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors.  Twenty years later two of those three supervisors regretted their vote.  The third supervisor had a developer brother in law who bought up one of the corridors and built a housing tract. 

I am looking forward to seeing Business 80/SR 51 get widened and modernized.  We all know about the parallel bypass that was supposed to go in.  We got LRT along that corridor instead, and it didn't alleviate the congestion on Business 80. I hope our greasy-haired Governor does not put the breaks on that project.       

The CA 244 corridor was always under fire from two fronts:  the folks who wanted to delete everything (who subsequently prevailed!) and a very vocal contingent of well-to-do NIMBY's along Fair Oaks Blvd. between Manzanita and Sunrise (it would have uprooted more than a few substantial suburban properties).  But getting rid of 143 and 65 was short-sighted and gratuitous (and fraught with graft like the example cited above); it effectively relegated the suburban east side of metro Sacramento to perpetual gridlock.

There was, briefly circa 1990, an idea circulated after it was clear that the Mid-State tollway concept was going nowhere, for an effective western extension of the CA 148 trajectory west of Elk Grove across the river into Yolo and Solano counties, and curving up to the I-80/CA 113 interchange near Davis; it would have effectively created a west Sacramento bypass, with the Davis-Woodland section already a full freeway (CA 113).  But, like the Mid-State concept, it would have required two high-level bridges across navigable channels (Sacramento River and the Ship Channel), so the cost would not have been insignificant by any means; that concept also was largely ignored and effectively disappeared by about 1992, despite the presence of successive governors who didn't display negative attitudes toward road building.   

[TheStranger]

One downside is that they never constructed the lnke from 580 to 505, as a full bypass of both the Sac area and the Bay.  Imagine LA to Oregon on an interstate quality freeway, straight as an arrow, without passing a major city.  That would be a dramatic improvement, especially if allowed to drive along the corridor at 80 MPH.

In lieu of that, why not build a western belt for Sacramento? 

I-5 goes thru the center of the city with no bypass.

That bypass would be about 18 miles long and could have been part of I-5, with the current city route being relegated to Business 5.

That's a can of worms, Sacramento kind of had it's chance at a full freeway system and blew it:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/07/california-state-route-244-and-un-built.html?m=1

https://www.cahighways.org/241-248.html#244

One of the more interesting asides (since Beltway mentioned the idea of an I-5 west bypass) is how I-5 was originally planned not to go through Old Sacramento/downtown at all, but rather through West Sacramento.  IIRC what nixed that plan was the need to essentially have I-5 cross the Sacramento River twice in a short span, and that led instead to the modern partially-below-sea-level route (which also carries Route 99 north of US 50) that ended up actually creating the Old Sacramento tourist district as we know it today.

Between that and the issues that the 143/65 deletions in eastern Sacramento County created, I can see why the Capital Southeast Corridor project (effectively covering part of the Route 148 trajectory) has had positive momentum over the last few years:
https://connectorjpa.net/news.html

[Concrete Bob]

It would sure be nice if Capital Southeast Corridor project would move along.  I first found out about the project in 2001, and all that has been built is the two-mile stretch between Prairie City Road and the White Rock/Grant Line split, along with a railroad grade separation in Elk Grove.  The project is not controversial, and Sacramento voters passed an extension of their transportation sales tax back in 2004 with the promise that a significant portion of the revenue would be spent on the corridor.