AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: CA 51/I-80 Business Loop  (Read 1648 times)

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4632
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 07:34:19 PM
Re: CA 51/I-80 Business Loop
« Reply #25 on: October 19, 2018, 06:47:55 PM »

The sequence shows some interesting tidbits:  the evolution of LRN 98 from a convoluted eastern bypass (I don't believe that the portion north of Folsom Blvd. received field signage) to the original US 99E "Elvas" alignment and finally part of the first I-80 routing.  Part of the original segmented concrete pavement for LRN 98 is still intact along the diagonal section of Fulton Ave. just north of Fair Oaks Blvd.; until recently, another short concrete stretch was on Elvas Ave. near 65th Street.

With regards to LRN 98, I feel like - can't confirm - that its primary existence north of the US 50/Bypass US 50 junction was to have an American River crossing (H Street Bridge) in the state system, as an alternative to the 16th Street Bridge (now Route 160, previously US 40/99E).   I don't think the Watt or Howe bridges existed until decades after the aforementioned crossings.


 The temporary routing of US 40/99W/CA 16 along P and Q streets in the mid-to-late '60's was due to the desire to remove N Street, along the south side of Capitol Park, from the state system (too much traffic shoehorned into one narrow 4-lane street).  The P-Q alignment lasted all of 2 years until the spring 1967 completion of the Pioneer Bridge, at which time US 40 signage quickly was taken down all across its former statewide route. 

Within the center city, the replacement through route, signed as "Temporary I-80", extended down Broadway multiplexed with CA 99 to the N-S CA 99 (to the south) and I-80 freeways (to the north) until mid-1969 when the W/X freeway (nicknamed after the streets flanking its viaduct) was opened to traffic, completing the original I-80 through metro Sacramento.

The overhead sign gantry at 16th and P is probably the most evident artifact of the 1965-1967 40/99W/16 routing.

Until the completion of the "Elvas Freeway" US 99E/LRN 98 bridge (on current Biz 80/CA 51) there was only one American River crossing between the original US 40/LRN 3 bridge at 16th Street and the old Fair Oaks truss bridge near that town, and that was the H Street bridge, which became Fair Oaks Blvd. east of the crossing.  After about 1930 it was always part of the state highway system but unsigned; perhaps it would have become a "Bypass US 99E" if the freeway network had not evolved.  Sacramento had a well-signed "truck route" network designed to divert through commercial traffic away from central city streets; the final surface iteration of the eastern LRN 98, using 14th Avenue, 65th Street, Elvas Ave, 57th Street, H Street, Fair Oaks Blvd, and Fulton Avenue was fully signed as the truck route to Roseville northbound and Stockton southbound prior to US 99E being rerouted over the Elvas Freeway and the 29th/30th street couplet (the realigned LRN 98).  BTW, the present Sunrise Blvd. American River bridge, just west of the Fair Oaks truss structure, was opened in 1957, followed by Watt Ave. in 1961 and Howe Ave. in 1967.
 
I noticed LRN 98 evolving while putting together these maps and a couple other oddities around Sacramento.  I have to go back up to the city in December so I'm hoping I can track down some additional former alignments in field.  So far I'm looking at the US 50 Bypass/LRN 98, the Tower Bridge, and CA 244.  I have some older photos of the Tower Bridge but they aren't exactly what I would consider ideal.

What I find interesting is how all over the place highway alignments in Sacramento really were.  Obviously there is some huge constraints with the terrain with the American and Sacramento Rivers but US 50 sure took a wild swing before the Bypass Route was built.  Its easier to understand why US 50 originally ended in Sacramento in favor or US 48 looking at some of the older maps.
 

The "Bypass US 50" alignment along the former southern portion of LRN 98 (14th Ave. and 65th Street) was well signed during the period when US 50 used the original US 99 routing up Stockton all the way to Alhambra Blvd., then north to Folsom Blvd., where it turned east, or the revised -- and decidedly longer -- Broadway/15th-16th/L (later moved to M Street, which was renamed East Capitol Ave.) alignment.  After the original LRN 98, including the "Bypass US 50" segment", was relinquished in the early 50's when LRN 98 was moved to the final US 99E configuration, the "Bypass 50" signage remained for a while but was never really maintained; it was completely gone by the '64 renumbering -- although the city-erected truck route signage remained.     
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7465
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 11:15:35 PM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: CA 51/I-80 Business Loop
« Reply #26 on: October 19, 2018, 08:51:33 PM »

^^^

The irony is that moving US 99 off it's original alignment is really what seems to have created the need for the US 50 Bypass Route.  Wouldn't it have been more simple to route US 50 on the Bypass Route and just leave the rest as unsigned LRN 11 into downtown?  Granted I'm aware the logic at the time was to get as many US Highways to as many main locations like big cities and state capitols as possible but those alignments are a complete cluster fuck of nonsense regarding a viable through route.  Maybe I ought to do timeline maps for all the Routes in Sacramento just like I did for Fresno...sure seems like it would interesting with how much stuff jumps all over.

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4632
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 07:34:19 PM
Re: CA 51/I-80 Business Loop
« Reply #27 on: October 20, 2018, 03:00:45 AM »

^^^

The irony is that moving US 99 off it's original alignment is really what seems to have created the need for the US 50 Bypass Route.  Wouldn't it have been more simple to route US 50 on the Bypass Route and just leave the rest as unsigned LRN 11 into downtown?  Granted I'm aware the logic at the time was to get as many US Highways to as many main locations like big cities and state capitols as possible but those alignments are a complete cluster fuck of nonsense regarding a viable through route.  Maybe I ought to do timeline maps for all the Routes in Sacramento just like I did for Fresno...sure seems like it would interesting with how much stuff jumps all over.

In regards to Sacramento state highway routings, it's all been a matter of what the priorities were at any given time.  Obviously, one or another intersection along the east side of the Capitol grounds had been "point zero" for the old Division of Highways; three main LRN's: 3,4,and 6 -- all had their terminus at that location (with LRN 11 "just passing through"!).  Remember that before US 50 was extended south on US 99 to subsume the former US 48 into the Bay Area, it simply went on a "useless" multiplex on L Street with US 99 so it too could terminate near the Capitol.  They took that focal point very seriously back then (a lot more ceremonial aspects to governance in those days) and wanted all available through routes to converge there.  I'm also guessing that the City of Sacramento was none too happy about that arrangement, with intercity traffic schlepping down residential streets just so the state could show off.  Hence their elaborate system of designated truck routes around town -- some on the old LRN 98, another on Richards Blvd. and Jibboom Street north and west of the SP yards, and still another on Freeport and Sutterville Roads in the south part of town to bypass the downtown highway alignments.  Like with the convolutions of the US 101 and US 66 alignments down in L.A., getting as much traffic off narrow city streets and onto more suitable facilities was a goal of the cities that eventually -- and probably grudgingly -- became a goal of the Division of Highways once political pressure was applied.  The one-way couplets were a way to effectively double the capacity of the local streets -- but until the temporary 1965-67 P/Q street couplet, the concept had only been applied to N-S arterials.  The last of the state highway couplets, CA 160 (former US 40 north of the Capitol and US 99W south of it) on 16th (NB) and 15th and 12th (SB) was instituted right after WWII and lasted until 160 was relinquished on non-freeway facilities in the City of Sacramento a few years ago -- or about 60 years.  At their "peak" in the '50's, there were three highway couplets:  3rd/5th Streets (LRN 50 and signed as, respectively, CA 24, US 99W, and CA 99), 12th-15th/16th Streets (LRN 3 & LRN 4), originally hosting CA 24, but then US 50/99, US 99W, and CA 160 to the south and US 40/99E, US 40 alone, and eventually CA 160 pre-relinquishment, and 29th-30th Street, featuring US 99E and, partially, US 50.  Of those, only the last one became a freeway alignment between the couplet halves.   
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3352
  • Last Login: Today at 09:20:58 PM
Re: CA 51/I-80 Business Loop
« Reply #28 on: October 20, 2018, 04:17:05 AM »

At their "peak" in the '50's, there were three highway couplets:  3rd/5th Streets (LRN 50 and signed as, respectively, CA 24, US 99W, and CA 99), 12th-15th/16th Streets (LRN 3 & LRN 4), originally hosting CA 24, but then US 50/99, US 99W, and CA 160 to the south and US 40/99E, US 40 alone, and eventually CA 160 pre-relinquishment, and 29th-30th Street, featuring US 99E and, partially, US 50.  Of those, only the last one became a freeway alignment between the couplet halves.   

The 3rd/5th couplet was pretty much supplanted by the West Side Freeway wasn't it?  (Which is signed I-5 and sometimes signed Route 99, thus being a very direct analogue to how US 99E/LRN 98 went from using the 29th/30th surface street couplet in the early 50s, to the north-south segment of 1960s I-80/present Business 80/Route 51 that I THINK is part of unsigned I-305)
Logged
Chris Sampang

bing101

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2161
  • Last Login: Today at 07:52:45 PM
Re: CA 51/I-80 Business Loop
« Reply #29 on: October 20, 2018, 01:38:59 PM »

Wait CA-51 aka Business 80 has to be renamed either CA-480, or CA-x07 or CA-x09 once I-7 or I-9 is approved though and this has been talked about for some time.

I think we're getting ahead of ourselves here; elevating CA 99 to Interstate status, while approved at the federal level via HPC #54, isn't high on anyone's priority list.  If CA 51 were to actually be signed with that number, it'd probably be at least 15-20 years until Interstate status of CA 99 were to happen -- so waiting to sign it as 51 just because of the possibility of change to an Interstate-related designation seems at best highly speculative and at worst just plain silly!  Besides -- even if a I-7 or I-9 were to be signed in the Valley, there's a good chance it won't extend north of Stockton and instead terminate at the present I-5/CA 4 freeway junction.

Ditto. California can number it's non-Interstate highways in any way it sees fit, and it need not change its numbering because an interstate comes through.

Also worth noting, per previous discussion, that CA 51 is numbered as I-80 Business because the highway code specifically says it must be signed that way. So the legislature will need to change the law before Caltrans can put any other number on it.

Well hopefully they will pass such a law.  Having two 80's is confusing and unnecessary.

At this point itís probably not going to change unless there is some sort local political push.

I don't know about now, but the local political push was an effort to keep it as something-80 because "businesses depend upon it and it is just too difficult to get people to adjust". It's been CASR-51 now for longer than it was US-40. People need to adapt!

Come on here "Because Businesses depend on it"  I'm amazed that during the Fix US-50 Project only the Western Portion of Cap City Freeway had their Business 80 designation removed in 2016 and was fully renumbered US-50 only. Why can't CA-51 have their Business 80 designation removed for the CA-51 portion of Cap City Freeway.

Even US-50 the western part of Cap City Freeway had their Button Copy control city signs removed for newer ones during that project.
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7465
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 11:15:35 PM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: CA 51/I-80 Business Loop
« Reply #30 on: October 20, 2018, 01:50:18 PM »

Wait CA-51 aka Business 80 has to be renamed either CA-480, or CA-x07 or CA-x09 once I-7 or I-9 is approved though and this has been talked about for some time.

I think we're getting ahead of ourselves here; elevating CA 99 to Interstate status, while approved at the federal level via HPC #54, isn't high on anyone's priority list.  If CA 51 were to actually be signed with that number, it'd probably be at least 15-20 years until Interstate status of CA 99 were to happen -- so waiting to sign it as 51 just because of the possibility of change to an Interstate-related designation seems at best highly speculative and at worst just plain silly!  Besides -- even if a I-7 or I-9 were to be signed in the Valley, there's a good chance it won't extend north of Stockton and instead terminate at the present I-5/CA 4 freeway junction.

Ditto. California can number it's non-Interstate highways in any way it sees fit, and it need not change its numbering because an interstate comes through.

Also worth noting, per previous discussion, that CA 51 is numbered as I-80 Business because the highway code specifically says it must be signed that way. So the legislature will need to change the law before Caltrans can put any other number on it.

Well hopefully they will pass such a law.  Having two 80's is confusing and unnecessary.

At this point itís probably not going to change unless there is some sort local political push.

I don't know about now, but the local political push was an effort to keep it as something-80 because "businesses depend upon it and it is just too difficult to get people to adjust". It's been CASR-51 now for longer than it was US-40. People need to adapt!

Come on here "Because Businesses depend on it"  I'm amazed that during the Fix US-50 Project only the Western Portion of Cap City Freeway had their Business 80 designation removed in 2016 and was fully renumbered US-50 only. Why can't CA-51 have their Business 80 designation removed for the CA-51 portion of Cap City Freeway.

Even US-50 the western part of Cap City Freeway had their Button Copy control city signs removed for newer ones during that project.

At this point that arguement is pretty mute simply due to the progression of online and GPS technology makes it easier to find places.  Besides, there is no ďBusiness RouteĒ function to CA 51.  Sparked spelled out how to make a local push with petitioning political figures to get the route re-signed to CA 51.  Trouble is that I donít think a single one of us who has opined is actually from the Sacramento Area. 

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7465
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 11:15:35 PM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: CA 51/I-80 Business Loop
« Reply #31 on: October 20, 2018, 02:17:54 PM »

Hereís a thought, why not just consolidate 99 with 51 and make a push for it to be redesignated a US Route?   A I-80 to I-5 US 99 would just be slightly over 300 miles.  The section of CA 99 north of Sacramento could be mostly be transferred to; CA 70, CA 113, and CA 149.  My personal opinion is that the I-7/I-9 corridor is poorly conceived on paper and largest problem with existing Golden State Freeway is maintenance and a need for greater capacity...which can be achieved without Interstate standards.  The south terminus of CA 51 flows directly south onto CA 99/Golden State Freeway anyways.  Iíd gladly push something like that locally, I probably could throw in some other stuff like promoting tourism in the biggest cities in the Central Valley and maybe a historic US 99 signage corridor.  Probably would get shot down and wouldnít go anywhere but still. 

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4632
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 07:34:19 PM
Re: CA 51/I-80 Business Loop
« Reply #32 on: October 20, 2018, 02:45:10 PM »

Hereís a thought, why not just consolidate 99 with 51 and make a push for it to be redesignated a US Route?   A I-80 to I-5 US 99 would just be slightly over 300 miles.  The section of CA 99 north of Sacramento could be mostly be transferred to; CA 70, CA 113, and CA 149.  My personal opinion is that the I-7/I-9 corridor is poorly conceived on paper and largest problem with existing Golden State Freeway is maintenance and a need for greater capacity...which can be achieved without Interstate standards.  The south terminus of CA 51 flows directly south onto CA 99/Golden State Freeway anyways.  Iíd gladly push something like that locally, I probably could throw in some other stuff like promoting tourism in the biggest cities in the Central Valley and maybe a historic US 99 signage corridor.  Probably would get shot down and wouldnít go anywhere but still. 

Not going to happen anytime soon, but conversion of CA 99 to an Interstate will eventually occur -- via political machination (as outlined earlier) or simple economic pressure (large corporations, particularly those based overseas, generally prefer locating near an Interstate -- and a "functional substitute" won't do much to convince them otherwise).  A couple of years back I posited an idea -- sign the route as, say, I-9 -- but co-sign "historic US 99" signage underneath/adjacent to the Interstate signage -- and let the historic route serve as business loops through the various cities and towns.  Essentially, kill two birds with one stone!
 
The 3rd/5th couplet was pretty much supplanted by the West Side Freeway wasn't it?  (Which is signed I-5 and sometimes signed Route 99, thus being a very direct analogue to how US 99E/LRN 98 went from using the 29th/30th surface street couplet in the early 50s, to the north-south segment of 1960s I-80/present Business 80/Route 51 that I THINK is part of unsigned I-305)

The 3rd/5th couplet did function up to the time I-5 was completed through the central city; its last signage was CA 99 prior to that route's (mostly silent) relocation onto US 50 and I-5.  The unsigned (and unrecognized by Caltrans) I-305, essentially a "placeholder" for previously federally-funded portions of Biz 80, is federally designated as all of US 50 from I-80 east to CA 99 at the Oak Park interchange, and CA 51/Biz 80 north from there to the "C Street" overpass, near where the aborted I-80 bypass freeway would have diverged from the present alignment. 
Logged

bing101

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2161
  • Last Login: Today at 07:52:45 PM
Re: CA 51/I-80 Business Loop
« Reply #33 on: October 20, 2018, 02:59:19 PM »

Wait CA-51 aka Business 80 has to be renamed either CA-480, or CA-x07 or CA-x09 once I-7 or I-9 is approved though and this has been talked about for some time.

I think we're getting ahead of ourselves here; elevating CA 99 to Interstate status, while approved at the federal level via HPC #54, isn't high on anyone's priority list.  If CA 51 were to actually be signed with that number, it'd probably be at least 15-20 years until Interstate status of CA 99 were to happen -- so waiting to sign it as 51 just because of the possibility of change to an Interstate-related designation seems at best highly speculative and at worst just plain silly!  Besides -- even if a I-7 or I-9 were to be signed in the Valley, there's a good chance it won't extend north of Stockton and instead terminate at the present I-5/CA 4 freeway junction.

Ditto. California can number it's non-Interstate highways in any way it sees fit, and it need not change its numbering because an interstate comes through.

Also worth noting, per previous discussion, that CA 51 is numbered as I-80 Business because the highway code specifically says it must be signed that way. So the legislature will need to change the law before Caltrans can put any other number on it.

Well hopefully they will pass such a law.  Having two 80's is confusing and unnecessary.

At this point itís probably not going to change unless there is some sort local political push.

I don't know about now, but the local political push was an effort to keep it as something-80 because "businesses depend upon it and it is just too difficult to get people to adjust". It's been CASR-51 now for longer than it was US-40. People need to adapt!

Come on here "Because Businesses depend on it"  I'm amazed that during the Fix US-50 Project only the Western Portion of Cap City Freeway had their Business 80 designation removed in 2016 and was fully renumbered US-50 only. Why can't CA-51 have their Business 80 designation removed for the CA-51 portion of Cap City Freeway.

Even US-50 the western part of Cap City Freeway had their Button Copy control city signs removed for newer ones during that project.

At this point that arguement is pretty mute simply due to the progression of online and GPS technology makes it easier to find places.  Besides, there is no ďBusiness RouteĒ function to CA 51.  Sparked spelled out how to make a local push with petitioning political figures to get the route re-signed to CA 51.  Trouble is that I donít think a single one of us who has opined is actually from the Sacramento Area.


Well Im Speaking this as a former resident of Sacramento when the Fix 50 Project and the Beltline I-80 Freeway renovation was taking place from 2013-2017. Beltline Freeway was widened to increase capacity from the CA-51/CA-244 Interchange to West End of US-50 in the area. During that same time US-50/I-305 was renovated and had their Business 80 designations removed during that time.


I can't see why the Business 80 designations be removed and resigned as CA-51 though.
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7465
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 11:15:35 PM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: CA 51/I-80 Business Loop
« Reply #34 on: October 20, 2018, 03:32:02 PM »

Isnít I-305 still on the AASHTO books still as an Interstate but the Legislature officially recognizes it as US 50 alone?  Regardless Iíd double with anyone who wants to put some sort of serious push to give CA 51 a real field number that isnít I-80BL.  My take on it is that if any kind of push gets sent to local politicians it out to be somewhat locally sourced to have some legitimacy behind it. 

Speaking I-7/I-9, correct me if Iím wrong but doesnít the current plan have it ending at I-5 on the CA 4 Freeway?   Thatís part of the reason I find the plan somewhat dubious, if it was really serious the route would end at I-5 at current US 50 in Sacramento.  At least with CA 51 there is presadent to having it numbered 99 already with US 99E.  Granted CA 51 has the same issue with less than Interstate standards that the Golden State Freeway has. 

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4632
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 07:34:19 PM
Re: CA 51/I-80 Business Loop
« Reply #35 on: October 20, 2018, 03:49:12 PM »

^^^^^^^^
Right now, if the Biz 80 signage was taken off the section of CA 51 from the C street underpass to the I-80/CA 244 interchange, it wouldn't have any reassurance signage at all.  Interesting that you bring up the point that the Biz 80 signage was removed only from that portion of the loop carrying the I-305 federal designation -- that includes the 29th/30th street viaduct (which was, unlike the segment to the north, constructed with chargeable Interstate funds).  And, no, I don't think we're about to see a signed I-305 by any means -- but as the advance signage for the Oak Park/US 50/CA 99 interchange starts near the north end of the viaduct, lack of signage on that stretch may not be particularly problematic.  Perhaps removal of those Biz 80 shields and BGS references might just be the first shot across the bow marking the functional end of the business loop concept -- and hopefully replaced in part by CA 51 signage.

Isn’t I-305 still on the AASHTO books still as an Interstate but the Legislature officially recognizes it as US 50 alone?  Regardless I’d double with anyone who wants to put some sort of serious push to give CA 51 a real field number that isn’t I-80BL.  My take on it is that if any kind of push gets sent to local politicians it out to be somewhat locally sourced to have some legitimacy behind it. 

Speaking I-7/I-9, correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t the current plan have it ending at I-5 on the CA 4 Freeway?   That’s part of the reason I find the plan somewhat dubious, if it was really serious the route would end at I-5 at current US 50 in Sacramento.  At least with CA 51 there is presadent to having it numbered 99 already with US 99E.  Granted CA 51 has the same issue with less than Interstate standards that the Golden State Freeway has. 

Don't know about AASHTO, but I-305 is certainly on the FHWA books as a chargeable Interstate spur.  But as long as US 50 is considered to be the primary designation of the E-W portion of the loop, it's unlikely that there would be any push -- certainly not from within Caltrans -- to sign I-305 on its "L" shaped route only to have it technically end at an underpass; that would be a very pointless exercise indeed!  Re I-7 or 9 and the Stockton terminus -- the CA 4 "shunt" over to I-5 was floated early in the discussions about the route primarily because of a multitude of substandard features between Stockton and Sacramento on CA 99.  But since then -- specifically with the 2005 designation of the full "99" corridor between Wheeler Ridge and Sacramento as a future Interstate (via HPC #54), the exact northern terminus is pretty much undetermined.  If I had to venture an educated guess, any Interstate corridor would extend all the way to Sacramento, terminating at the aforementioned hidden-but-legal I-305; I-7/9 signage -- at least in prominent trailblazer form -- would likely be placed on US 50 between the I-5 and Oak Park interchanges simply to direct traffic to and from the new Interstate and I-5.     
Logged

michravera

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 257
  • Location: Northern California
  • Last Login: Today at 09:52:19 AM
Re: CA 51/I-80 Business Loop
« Reply #36 on: October 20, 2018, 06:22:09 PM »

^^^^^^^^
Right now, if the Biz 80 signage was taken off the section of CA 51 from the C street underpass to the I-80/CA 244 interchange, it wouldn't have any reassurance signage at all.  Interesting that you bring up the point that the Biz 80 signage was removed only from that portion of the loop carrying the I-305 federal designation -- that includes the 29th/30th street viaduct (which was, unlike the segment to the north, constructed with chargeable Interstate funds).  And, no, I don't think we're about to see a signed I-305 by any means -- but as the advance signage for the Oak Park/US 50/CA 99 interchange starts near the north end of the viaduct, lack of signage on that stretch may not be particularly problematic.  Perhaps removal of those Biz 80 shields and BGS references might just be the first shot across the bow marking the functional end of the business loop concept -- and hopefully replaced in part by CA 51 signage.

Isnít I-305 still on the AASHTO books still as an Interstate but the Legislature officially recognizes it as US 50 alone?  Regardless Iíd double with anyone who wants to put some sort of serious push to give CA 51 a real field number that isnít I-80BL.  My take on it is that if any kind of push gets sent to local politicians it out to be somewhat locally sourced to have some legitimacy behind it. 

Speaking I-7/I-9, correct me if Iím wrong but doesnít the current plan have it ending at I-5 on the CA 4 Freeway?   Thatís part of the reason I find the plan somewhat dubious, if it was really serious the route would end at I-5 at current US 50 in Sacramento.  At least with CA 51 there is presadent to having it numbered 99 already with US 99E.  Granted CA 51 has the same issue with less than Interstate standards that the Golden State Freeway has. 

Don't know about AASHTO, but I-305 is certainly on the FHWA books as a chargeable Interstate spur.  But as long as US 50 is considered to be the primary designation of the E-W portion of the loop, it's unlikely that there would be any push -- certainly not from within Caltrans -- to sign I-305 on its "L" shaped route only to have it technically end at an underpass; that would be a very pointless exercise indeed!  Re I-7 or 9 and the Stockton terminus -- the CA 4 "shunt" over to I-5 was floated early in the discussions about the route primarily because of a multitude of substandard features between Stockton and Sacramento on CA 99.  But since then -- specifically with the 2005 designation of the full "99" corridor between Wheeler Ridge and Sacramento as a future Interstate (via HPC #54), the exact northern terminus is pretty much undetermined.  If I had to venture an educated guess, any Interstate corridor would extend all the way to Sacramento, terminating at the aforementioned hidden-but-legal I-305; I-7/9 signage -- at least in prominent trailblazer form -- would likely be placed on US 50 between the I-5 and Oak Park interchanges simply to direct traffic to and from the new Interstate and I-5.   

Why not I-305 all of the way to Wheeler Ridge?!?!

All that would be needed is a slightly better connector from the current I-305 onto the current CASR-99. At the moment, the Beast is the turn from US-50/I-305 onto CASR-51. While they are about it, how about a better connector (maybe a flyover) from US-50/I-305 EB onto CASR-51?
 
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4632
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 07:34:19 PM
Re: CA 51/I-80 Business Loop
« Reply #37 on: October 20, 2018, 10:05:19 PM »

^^^^^^^^^^
Someone really likes long 3di's!  Not a fan; this isn't the US system; no US 281's in this arena!  For 13 years the "Beast" was used to carry EB through I-80 traffic; it's a turbine connector, and they're, generically, not the fastest connection around.  I suppose Caltrans expected through truck traffic to use the old I-880!  Without exercising eminent domain in that neck of the woods, an improved EB>NB connector wouldn't really be feasible (and in most urban environments, including Sacramento, doing so would raise one hell of an uproar).  Oak Park'll likely stay as it is for the foreseeable future.  If I-7 or 9 is dragged up CA 99 at some point, it'll either (a) simply terminate there with trailblazers to & from, (b) actually subsume I-305 west to I-80 in West Sac; it's already a legal Interstate, so no harm, no foul (the remaining segment north along CA 51 would be simply hidden), or (c) -- the least likely option -- replace CA 51, assuming an in situ rebuild of that facility; my feeling is that if that hasn't happened yet, it isn't likely to!   
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7465
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 11:15:35 PM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: CA 51/I-80 Business Loop
« Reply #38 on: October 20, 2018, 11:07:13 PM »

Not that I'm fan of monster sized 3d designations but I-305 is pretty much the only solution for an Interstate that wouldn't entail renumbering any state highways.   :-D

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4632
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 07:34:19 PM
Re: CA 51/I-80 Business Loop
« Reply #39 on: October 21, 2018, 01:04:31 AM »

Not that I'm fan of monster sized 3d designations but I-305 is pretty much the only solution for an Interstate that wouldn't entail renumbering any state highways.   :-D

Hey, this isn't NC, where their insistence on doing (or not doing) just that resulted in the misplaced I-87 -- or WI, where a similar proclivity merely fucked up the Midwest Interstate grid beyond repair.  The short and recently commissioned CA 7 could be renumbered without too many people outside Imperial Valley noticing; while CA 9 might have a few more issues, the reality is that it is but a small fraction of what it used to be (and could get "Historic CA 9" signage along with its new number -- I'd suggest the many-lived CA 117 for obvious reasons).  Nevertheless, the likelihood of red, white, and blue shields of any variety showing up on CA 99 in my lifetime are pretty slim indeed.  Caltrans would have to give a shit for anything new regarding designations being undertaken -- and currently that doesn't appear to be the case. 
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3352
  • Last Login: Today at 09:20:58 PM
Re: CA 51/I-80 Business Loop
« Reply #40 on: October 21, 2018, 04:44:52 AM »

assuming an in situ rebuild of that facility; my feeling is that if that hasn't happened yet, it isn't likely to!   

Isn't a new American River crossing proposed for Route 51/Business 80 - which was the whole point of the 1970s realignment project whose cancellation (which birthed Sacramento's light rail system) led us right to the entire topic of this thread in the first place!

Granted, building that crossing isn't by itself a full upgrade of every part of the route to Interstate standard, but I feel like some talk of widening the rest of the substandard (former 40/99E) freeway segments north of the American River has been out there too.

Could argue in a roundabout way that the domino effect of the I-80 realignment being canceled led to the Carolinas' eventual usage of "green Interstates" for similar reasons!
Logged
Chris Sampang

michravera

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 257
  • Location: Northern California
  • Last Login: Today at 09:52:19 AM
Re: CA 51/I-80 Business Loop
« Reply #41 on: October 21, 2018, 01:15:55 PM »

Not that I'm fan of monster sized 3d designations but I-305 is pretty much the only solution for an Interstate that wouldn't entail renumbering any state highways.   :-D

Well, I-705 is available. If you wanted to make a real stretch, run I-505 concurrent with I-80 to the current I-305 and thence to Wheeler Ridge. -OR- The whole works could be renumbered I-3 at the cost of renumbering CASR-3. I-3 and I-5 would cross, so it isn't technically out of grid.


Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4632
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 07:34:19 PM
Re: CA 51/I-80 Business Loop
« Reply #42 on: October 21, 2018, 01:23:24 PM »

^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^
The 1982-abandoned I-80 realignment was pretty comprehensive; it followed the SP (now UP) rail line all the way up through North Sac to the present I-80/CA 51/CA 244 (is there another major interchange in CA that involves two unsigned state routes?) interchange.  The present route would have become an extension of CA 160 north of the 51/160 split, while the present American River crossing would have been a "spur" ramp connecting the two facilities.  However, any future upgrades of CA 51 will pretty much need to be done right on the existing route -- although IIRC the prospect of "straightening out" the Marconi "curve", which would require some property acquisition within the present curve's arc, may be up for consideration.  The present American River crossing, originally 4 lanes but expanded to 6 back in the '70's, would be replaced by an improved facility -- but in the same basic location.  Any expansion would be prompted not by some push for Interstate-grade standards, but because the capacity of the route vis-a-vis the level of traffic it is currently carrying is itself substandard, due to the rapid growth of the Roseville/Lincoln/Rocklin exurbs in Placer County.  CA 51, in plain terms, is a bottleneck -- despite the push for infill growth, LR, and other urban transit methodologies, the area keeps expanding, with the crux of that being to the northeast.  And even with the presence of the I-80>I-5 composite route into the western part of the central city, 51 remains the most direct route into town, especially when heading to attractions/facilities in the eastern part of town, like Sac State!  With the demise of freeway plans along the CA 244 and 143 corridors, the nearly 70-year-old facility that comprises CA 51 continues to bear the commute brunt.  I guess we'll just have to see if relief plans come to pass!   
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7465
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 11:15:35 PM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: CA 51/I-80 Business Loop
« Reply #43 on: October 21, 2018, 02:00:54 PM »

Not that I'm fan of monster sized 3d designations but I-305 is pretty much the only solution for an Interstate that wouldn't entail renumbering any state highways.   :-D

Well, I-705 is available. If you wanted to make a real stretch, run I-505 concurrent with I-80 to the current I-305 and thence to Wheeler Ridge. -OR- The whole works could be renumbered I-3 at the cost of renumbering CASR-3. I-3 and I-5 would cross, so it isn't technically out of grid.

I was thinking legislative simplicity with the 305 numbering since itís available.  Given the length of CA 3 thatís something that probably ought to be avoided if at all possible.  To that end CA 7 probably is way easier to push through a legislative renumbering than CA 9 is.  CA 9 has been around since 1934 and it would be a shame to remember something that probably falls under the definition of classic state highway.

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7465
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 11:15:35 PM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: CA 51/I-80 Business Loop
« Reply #44 on: October 21, 2018, 02:04:43 PM »

^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^
The 1982-abandoned I-80 realignment was pretty comprehensive; it followed the SP (now UP) rail line all the way up through North Sac to the present I-80/CA 51/CA 244 (is there another major interchange in CA that involves two unsigned state routes?) interchange.  The present route would have become an extension of CA 160 north of the 51/160 split, while the present American River crossing would have been a "spur" ramp connecting the two facilities.  However, any future upgrades of CA 51 will pretty much need to be done right on the existing route -- although IIRC the prospect of "straightening out" the Marconi "curve", which would require some property acquisition within the present curve's arc, may be up for consideration.  The present American River crossing, originally 4 lanes but expanded to 6 back in the '70's, would be replaced by an improved facility -- but in the same basic location.  Any expansion would be prompted not by some push for Interstate-grade standards, but because the capacity of the route vis-a-vis the level of traffic it is currently carrying is itself substandard, due to the rapid growth of the Roseville/Lincoln/Rocklin exurbs in Placer County.  CA 51, in plain terms, is a bottleneck -- despite the push for infill growth, LR, and other urban transit methodologies, the area keeps expanding, with the crux of that being to the northeast.  And even with the presence of the I-80>I-5 composite route into the western part of the central city, 51 remains the most direct route into town, especially when heading to attractions/facilities in the eastern part of town, like Sac State!  With the demise of freeway plans along the CA 244 and 143 corridors, the nearly 70-year-old facility that comprises CA 51 continues to bear the commute brunt.  I guess we'll just have to see if relief plans come to pass!

To that end I can understand why the I-80 realignment was undesirable, thatís a lot of redundant Freeway in a single area.  Really the cancellations of the freeways surrounding Sacramento coupled with the substandard grades on 51 is what makes it a mess.  You can straighten the route out as much as possible with the current right-of-Way but it doesnít solve the issue of Sacramento ballooning out into a major city with a lack of road capacity.  There ought to be some sort of eastern bypass of I-80 to US 50 at minimum. 

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3352
  • Last Login: Today at 09:20:58 PM
Re: CA 51/I-80 Business Loop
« Reply #45 on: October 21, 2018, 02:30:06 PM »

^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^
The 1982-abandoned I-80 realignment was pretty comprehensive; it followed the SP (now UP) rail line all the way up through North Sac to the present I-80/CA 51/CA 244 (is there another major interchange in CA that involves two unsigned state routes?) interchange.  The present route would have become an extension of CA 160 north of the 51/160 split, while the present American River crossing would have been a "spur" ramp connecting the two facilities.  However, any future upgrades of CA 51 will pretty much need to be done right on the existing route -- although IIRC the prospect of "straightening out" the Marconi "curve", which would require some property acquisition within the present curve's arc, may be up for consideration.  The present American River crossing, originally 4 lanes but expanded to 6 back in the '70's, would be replaced by an improved facility -- but in the same basic location.  Any expansion would be prompted not by some push for Interstate-grade standards, but because the capacity of the route vis-a-vis the level of traffic it is currently carrying is itself substandard, due to the rapid growth of the Roseville/Lincoln/Rocklin exurbs in Placer County.  CA 51, in plain terms, is a bottleneck -- despite the push for infill growth, LR, and other urban transit methodologies, the area keeps expanding, with the crux of that being to the northeast.  And even with the presence of the I-80>I-5 composite route into the western part of the central city, 51 remains the most direct route into town, especially when heading to attractions/facilities in the eastern part of town, like Sac State!  With the demise of freeway plans along the CA 244 and 143 corridors, the nearly 70-year-old facility that comprises CA 51 continues to bear the commute brunt.  I guess we'll just have to see if relief plans come to pass!
Hmm I never knew that old 40/99E was to be retained along with the 1970s 80 alignment down the railroad tracks! I had always thought that it would be a teardown of the old route with new 80 through North Sacramento being the only corridor left, i.e. I-40 in Oklahoma City, I-195 in Providence, or the Cypress Freeway replacement in Oakland...as opposed to say new and old I-85 paralleling each other in Atlanta, or old and new I-15 in the Miramar area in San Diego.

SAMSUNG-SM-G930A

Logged
Chris Sampang

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4632
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 07:34:19 PM
Re: CA 51/I-80 Business Loop
« Reply #46 on: October 21, 2018, 09:19:31 PM »

^^^^^^^^^
Yeah -- the I-80 reroute would have been an "express" facility, with no interchanges between its north end at I-880/CA 244 and its merge with the original route south of the American River.  CA 160 traffic would have had to depart I-80 where Biz 80/CA 51 does today; the original I-80 facility would be primarily for local traffic access.   
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3352
  • Last Login: Today at 09:20:58 PM
Re: CA 51/I-80 Business Loop
« Reply #47 on: October 22, 2018, 03:13:02 AM »

^^^^^^^^^
Yeah -- the I-80 reroute would have been an "express" facility, with no interchanges between its north end at I-880/CA 244 and its merge with the original route south of the American River.  CA 160 traffic would have had to depart I-80 where Biz 80/CA 51 does today; the original I-80 facility would be primarily for local traffic access.   

I know you mentioned a few posts back that the segment of today's 51/Business 80 (historic 40/99E) between 160 and 244 would have been an extended 160 - do you have any planning maps that show this?  Makes me curious too about how the portion south of CalExpo between 160 and the American River would have been signed.

The fact the new 80 and old 80 would have connected to each other at both ends is a marked contrast from say how old 395/15 and new 15 in Miramar is set up (with one ramp to Route 163 (also old 395) but no other direct freeway-to-freeway linkage), but is kinda similar to the I-5 truck lanes in Sylmar (which are the older US 99 carriageways through that area).
Logged
Chris Sampang

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4632
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 07:34:19 PM
Re: CA 51/I-80 Business Loop
« Reply #48 on: October 22, 2018, 01:41:59 PM »

^^^^^^^^^^
IIRC, I saw the plans for the bypass, including a map that showed that the original I-80 would have been designated as a CA 160 extension in the San Francisco public library circa late 1976;  actually, I was looking for something else -- extension plans for then I-15E south of Riverside -- ended up going through pages of statewide plans.  This was a little over a year after Gianturco took the reins at Caltrans -- and I was trying to ascertain just how much of the proposed system was on her chopping block.  But getting back to Sacramento -- I don't remember seeing a number (generally those were in the familiar squares next to the mapped facility) assigned to the short section south of the 160 split.  Caltrans has always been a bit inconsistent when it comes to designations of short connectors -- some (e.g. CA 259 in San Bernardino) are assigned their own number, others (the I-10 extension west of I-5 on the San Bernardino Freeway; the Colorado St. connector from I-5 in Glendale) are considered "spurs".  I'm guessing that this would have been the latter.  Because the original I-80 route had served a populated area for decades, Caltrans would have been reluctant to simply raze that route, seeing as how the new "express" bypass had no local value.  From what I've heard from my cousin who was working for D3 at the time, Gianturco herself was livid about the "express" concept, considering it anathema to her anti-sprawl (and, in reality, anti-automobile) agenda; this was the principal reason for her resolve to delete it from the state system. 
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3352
  • Last Login: Today at 09:20:58 PM
Re: CA 51/I-80 Business Loop
« Reply #49 on: October 22, 2018, 02:27:59 PM »

^^^^^^^^^^
IIRC, I saw the plans for the bypass, including a map that showed that the original I-80 would have been designated as a CA 160 extension in the San Francisco public library circa late 1976;  actually, I was looking for something else -- extension plans for then I-15E south of Riverside -- ended up going through pages of statewide plans.  This was a little over a year after Gianturco took the reins at Caltrans -- and I was trying to ascertain just how much of the proposed system was on her chopping block.  But getting back to Sacramento -- I don't remember seeing a number (generally those were in the familiar squares next to the mapped facility) assigned to the short section south of the 160 split.  Caltrans has always been a bit inconsistent when it comes to designations of short connectors -- some (e.g. CA 259 in San Bernardino) are assigned their own number, others (the I-10 extension west of I-5 on the San Bernardino Freeway; the Colorado St. connector from I-5 in Glendale) are considered "spurs".  I'm guessing that this would have been the latter.  Because the original I-80 route had served a populated area for decades, Caltrans would have been reluctant to simply raze that route, seeing as how the new "express" bypass had no local value.  From what I've heard from my cousin who was working for D3 at the time, Gianturco herself was livid about the "express" concept, considering it anathema to her anti-sprawl (and, in reality, anti-automobile) agenda; this was the principal reason for her resolve to delete it from the state system. 

The interesting thought about the express bypass/I-80 realignment is how much of the right of way is actually still available - in part because of the 1970s construction of new road overpasses that spanned both the railroad tracks and the then-proposed freeway!  (Notable to me is the one for El Camino Avenue just east of North Sacramento, which resulted in the removal of a small portion of historic US 40/99E connecting El Camino with Auburn Boulevard)

Unlike the proposed 65, 143, 102, 244 suburban freeways, the 80 realignment was in a built up area that would have had very little new development spawned - especially when all the development through the 1950s and 1960s was near Business 80 (Arden Fair Mall and the Arden area in general).  Ironically, the area east of Business 80 and south of 80 where 65, 143, 102 and 244 were canceled...ended up having sprawl anyway, and CalTrans's instincts about traffic projections on what is now Business 80 (for that matter, even traffic on the Beltline/former 880 once Natomas got built out due to Arco Arena) were 100% correct.
Logged
Chris Sampang

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.