Business 80/Capital City Freeway: WX Freeway Rebuild

[myosh_tino]

additionally HOV lanes could also be set to be operational 24 hours a day like they are in southern California.

There are no examples of that in NorCal - not enough evening traffic to justify 24-hour HOV.

Most HOV lanes I can think of in Northern California follow commute hours (something like 6-10 AM and 3-7 PM), with the notable exception of the 101 HOV lanes north of the Golden Gate Bridge (southbound is morning only, northbound is evening only).

I agree with TheStranger.  There's isn't enough traffic during the non-commute hours to justify making the HOV lanes 24/7 and restricting access.

However, that may soon change as a number of agencies in the S.F. Bay Area are looking at converting HOV lanes into Express Lanes where solo drivers can pay a toll to use the lane.  When that happens, drivers would only have access to the express lane at designated places.  Tolls may not be collected 24/7 but restricting access would be (like the current setup on the I-680 Express Lane).

[myosh_tino]

My hope is that they will add an HOV lane to the freeway,  instead of taking an existing mixed use lane and turning it into a HOV lane like they did along I-80 near Vallejo. additionally HOV lanes could also be set to be operational 24 hours a day like they are in southern California. Also i wonder if it would be prudent to stripe off the HOV lane and limit access to the lane at specific points as in many metro areas including LA, ATL, MIA, etc

Found this post over at SkyscraperCity by ChrisZwolle...

Legislation has been passed in California to open some of the HOV lanes in Los Angeles to solo drivers outside rush hours. Northern California already has such HOV restrictions. The reasoning is that traffic volumes are high outside the classic rush hours, but carpooling is low during that time. The plan makes better use of existing road space by providing an extra lane that would have otherwise been underutilized. Most Los Angeles area HOV lanes carry less than 1200 vehicles per hour during peak hours, and less outside peak hours.

Details have yet to be worked out. The first freeways in Los Angeles to abolish HOV restrictions outside rush hour are CA-134 and I-210 from Studio City to Glendora (33 miles of HOV lanes).

Video by ABC:
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?se...les&id=9244808

So it looks like some of L.A.'s HOV lanes are going to be more like the ones in Northern California, pending approval from Gov. Brown, with HOV restrictions only applicable during commute hours.  Also, at least one Orange County freeway, CA-55, was switched from "limited-access" to "open-access" HOV lanes.

[andy3175]

Also, at least one Orange County freeway, CA-55, was switched from "limited-access" to "open-access" HOV lanes.

A portion of the Interstate 5 HOV lanes were similarly switched in Orange County, primarily south of the 5/405 merge.

Regards,
Andy

[jrouse]

My hope is that they will add an HOV lane to the freeway,  instead of taking an existing mixed use lane and turning it into a HOV lane like they did along I-80 near Vallejo. additionally HOV lanes could also be set to be operational 24 hours a day like they are in southern California. Also i wonder if it would be prudent to stripe off the HOV lane and limit access to the lane at specific points as in many metro areas including LA, ATL, MIA, etc

Caltrans, as a general rule, does not convert existing mixed flow lanes on freeways and convert them to HOV lanes.  This practice dates back to the failed attempt to establish HOV lanes on I-10/Santa Monica Freeway in Los Angeles by converting an existing mixed flow lane.   I am not aware of the example near Vallejo that you cite.  There's no HOV lane through the city, although one starts at the Carquinez Bridge toll plaza.  Perhaps you meant Fairfield?

[jrouse]

Also, at least one Orange County freeway, CA-55, was switched from "limited-access" to "open-access" HOV lanes.

A portion of the Interstate 5 HOV lanes were similarly switched in Orange County, primarily south of the 5/405 merge.

Regards,
Andy

The plan is to convert all HOV lanes in Orange County to continuous access.  The 91 Express Lanes will not be converted, and a conversion on I-405 between SR-73 and I-605 is pending depending on the improvements that are selected for that freeway.

Riverside and San Bernardino Counties are also looking to go to continuous access.  Some HOV lanes in those counties have alreadt been converted.

LA County is still on the fence.  It was considered as part of that bill that would convert some HOV lanes to part-time operation.

[Indyroads]

My hope is that they will add an HOV lane to the freeway,  instead of taking an existing mixed use lane and turning it into a HOV lane like they did along I-80 near Vallejo. additionally HOV lanes could also be set to be operational 24 hours a day like they are in southern California. Also i wonder if it would be prudent to stripe off the HOV lane and limit access to the lane at specific points as in many metro areas including LA, ATL, MIA, etc

Caltrans, as a general rule, does not convert existing mixed flow lanes on freeways and convert them to HOV lanes.  This practice dates back to the failed attempt to establish HOV lanes on I-10/Santa Monica Freeway in Los Angeles by converting an existing mixed flow lane.   I am not aware of the example near Vallejo that you cite.  There's no HOV lane through the city, although one starts at the Carquinez Bridge toll plaza.  Perhaps you meant Fairfield?

Actually i think they are the HOV lanes starting in Crockett thru Rodeo and Hercules that at one time there was just one HOV and two mixed use lanes. they have since added another mixed use lane to the right however.

[myosh_tino]

Actually i think they are the HOV lanes starting in Crockett thru Rodeo and Hercules that at one time there was just one HOV and two mixed use lanes. they have since added another mixed use lane to the right however.

I think you're mistaken.  In 2011, Caltrans added an HOV lane to westbound I-80 from the Carquinez Bridge to CA-4, where is meets the existing HOV lane.

[TheStranger]

New Sacramento Bee article on the WX project, with specific dates:

http://www.sacbee.com/2014/01/23/6096170/caltrans-warns-major-freeway-construction.html

May 2 to 22, the westbound side will carry some eastbound traffic; May 28 to June 17, eastbound side will carry some westbound traffic.

The ramp that continues Route 99 northbound along the westbound WX and that continues Business 80 northeastward along unsigned Route 51 will be affected.

[sdmichael]

And it marks it as I-80, when it's been I-80 business for 30 years now.  Well, US-50 is right. 1 out of 4, Caltrans??

Just saw a brand new (as of last week) red/white/blue Interstate 80 sign going westbound at the Jefferson Boulevard exit - this had been a button copy Business 80 shield from the very beginning until now.

Wonder how confusing it'll be for travelers to see "I-80 San Francisco" for several miles, then suddenly see an exit for "I-80 Reno" towards the foot of the Yolo Causeway.

---

An interesting aside, but relevant to this: Based on the FHWA map here (via http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/highwayhistory/data/page05.cfm), it seems as if I-305 DOES include the section of today's Route 51/former I-80 and US 99E that was built as an Interstate in the early 1960s between US 50 and E Street -

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/highwayhistory/data/images/map_ca_sac.gif

I discovered this a few months ago while reviewing those FHWA cancelled Interstate files, and I updated the Business 80 Sacramento page to reflect this fact. The I-305 designation essentially extends as far northeast as the foot of the American River Bridge (or C Street as depicted on that map, which is just prior to the bridge approach). I'll have to include pictures of the new signs that were recently added on westbound near Jefferson.

https://www.aaroads.com/california/bl-080_ca.html

Regards,
Andy

That "bitter end" signage for US 101 was actually from a request by the then-Chief of Surveys for District 7. He was a pretty nice guy and had been with Caltrans for many years. The current Chief is also the district historian, a good friend of mine.

[NE2]

That "bitter end" signage for US 101 was actually from a request by the then-Chief of Surveys for District 7. He was a pretty nice guy and had been with Caltrans for many years. The current Chief is also the district historian, a good friend of mine.

I'm confused. What are you talking about, and how does US 101 relate to Sacramento?

[sdmichael]

Sorry about that - quoted the wrong reply:

"I find this to be rather humorous considering that in Los Angeles, Caltrans (District 7) went to great lengths to sign US 101 all the way to the bitter end where it merges into Interstate 5; previously, it had been signed as Interstate 5 along southbound as far north as the Four-Level.

Now Caltrans (District 3) is going the other way by having Business Loop 80 signed as Interstate 80 well before the actual merge point. I prefer the District 7 approach; to me, it's more honest and useful.

Regards,
Andy"

That one was the one I had meant to quote.

[citrus]

additionally HOV lanes could also be set to be operational 24 hours a day like they are in southern California.

There are no examples of that in NorCal - not enough evening traffic to justify 24-hour HOV.

Most HOV lanes I can think of in Northern California follow commute hours (something like 6-10 AM and 3-7 PM), with the notable exception of the 101 HOV lanes north of the Golden Gate Bridge (southbound is morning only, northbound is evening only).

24-hour HOV is not justified, but I feel strongly that many carpool hours need to be extended later. For example, 101 in Santa Clara County's morning hours end at 9, and evening hours are 3-7. These days in the tech industry, 10-6 or even later is pretty commonplace. I think it would be reasonable for HOV hours to go until 10:30am, and at least 7:30pm in the evening.

Meanwhile, San Francisco seems to have taken an odd approach, though some of it is construction specific:

- the control city for the still-to-be-rebuilt/reopened ramp from 1 north to 101 south in the Presidio has "Marina Boulevard" as the only control city.  Wonder if this will change as more of the Presidio Parkway upgrades are finished

- Pre-1989 or so, the San Francisco Skyway westbound was signed as 101/80 (I guess reflective of the pre-1968 concurrency on the Central Freeway of both routes).  After that, it had been signed as "US 101 South - San Jose".  Now, while the first few pullthroughs after the Bay Bridge still use that, the ones from about 5th Street onward more accurately identify US 101 South as "Exit 1A" from I-80, though there are still no I-80 pullthroughs on that stretch.

The "FREEWAY ENTRANCE" signs at the ramps do all have 80 West assemblies, though. This includes the ramp from 7th St, which is the last onramp before the 101 interchange. Of course, labeling things as "101 South" is not that great, since the road will also take you to 101 north!

[TheStranger]

The "FREEWAY ENTRANCE" signs at the ramps do all have 80 West assemblies, though. This includes the ramp from 7th St, which is the last onramp before the 101 interchange. Of course, labeling things as "101 South" is not that great, since the road will also take you to 101 north!

Especially when just down the Peninsula, a similar situation is handled entirely differently:

I-380 east from Route 82 is signed for "US 101" with no cardinal directions - and with no 380 shields!

[ZLoth]

The project website is fix50.com.

[bing101]

And it marks it as I-80, when it's been I-80 business for 30 years now.  Well, US-50 is right. 1 out of 4, Caltrans??

Just saw a brand new (as of last week) red/white/blue Interstate 80 sign going westbound at the Jefferson Boulevard exit - this had been a button copy Business 80 shield from the very beginning until now.

Wonder how confusing it'll be for travelers to see "I-80 San Francisco" for several miles, then suddenly see an exit for "I-80 Reno" towards the foot of the Yolo Causeway.

---

An interesting aside, but relevant to this: Based on the FHWA map here (via http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/highwayhistory/data/page05.cfm), it seems as if I-305 DOES include the section of today's Route 51/former I-80 and US 99E that was built as an Interstate in the early 1960s between US 50 and E Street -

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/highwayhistory/data/images/map_ca_sac.gif

I've never liked business freeways, personally. Without delving too deep into Fictional Highways territory, I'd just take the plunge and renumber the whole thing I-305, as the designation seems to be creeping further east along Bus I-80 anyways. You lose the extraneous designations (CA-51 and US-50)* and still have a loop for I-80.^

*Of course, that would mean that US-50 loses about 5 or so miles.
^You know, since pretty much all I-x80s are used in California anyways. I-480, maybe?

CA-480 for the CA-51 section?

[mrsman]

Sorry about that - quoted the wrong reply:

"I find this to be rather humorous considering that in Los Angeles, Caltrans (District 7) went to great lengths to sign US 101 all the way to the bitter end where it merges into Interstate 5; previously, it had been signed as Interstate 5 along southbound as far north as the Four-Level.

Now Caltrans (District 3) is going the other way by having Business Loop 80 signed as Interstate 80 well before the actual merge point. I prefer the District 7 approach; to me, it's more honest and useful.

Regards,
Andy"

That one was the one I had meant to quote.

This just shows the lack of consistency in Caltrans.  Two wildly different approaches, because different districts in Caltrans behave like different state DOTs.

I believe that it's better to sign freeways to the bitter end, since it is more consistent with how maps can refer to the highway.  I have never seen a road map refer to the 101 between the 110 and the E LA INterchange as anything other than the 101.  The WX is never referred to on a map as red&blue 80.

The best approach is to have 101 to 10,60,5 and to also include CONTROL CITIES: San Bernardino, Santa Ana.

FOr Sacramento:  Get rid of Biz-80.  Sign SR-51 north to 80 Reno.  SR-51 south to 99,80 Fresno San Francisco.  :US 50 West to 80 San Francisco, or US 50 East to 80 Lake Tahoe Reno.  Control cities and consistent signing practices are the key to removing the confusion.

[kkt]

Biz 80 has been called that for quite a while now.  It's not the solution I'd have preferred, but it's not so bad as to require renumbering.  I completely agree about the consistent signing and control cities, though.

[kkt]

FOr Sacramento:  Get rid of Biz-80.  Sign SR-51 north to 80 Reno.  SR-51 south to 99,80 Fresno San Francisco.  :US 50 West to 80 San Francisco, or US 50 East to 80 Lake Tahoe Reno.  Control cities and consistent signing practices are the key to removing the confusion.

If you're going to the north side of Lake Tahoe, isn't I-80 to CA-89 the better route?  I'd keep South Lake Tahoe as the control city despite the possible confusion with the direction. 

[myosh_tino]

If you're going to the north side of Lake Tahoe, isn't I-80 to CA-89 the better route?  I'd keep South Lake Tahoe as the control city despite the possible confusion with the direction.

Confusion with the direction aside, South Lake Tahoe *is* an actual city located on the south shore of Lake Tahoe and is an appropriate control city for US 50.  You are also correct that I-80 to CA-89 is a better route to the north shore of Lake Tahoe.  This is especially true in winter when CA-89, which rings the western side of Lake Tahoe, is closed for the season near Emerald Bay.  The only way to get to the north shore is to take US 50 to NV-28 which turns into CA-28 at the stateline.

[bing101]

FOr Sacramento:  Get rid of Biz-80.  Sign SR-51 north to 80 Reno.  SR-51 south to 99,80 Fresno San Francisco.  :US 50 West to 80 San Francisco, or US 50 East to 80 Lake Tahoe Reno.  Control cities and consistent signing practices are the key to removing the confusion.

If you're going to the north side of Lake Tahoe, isn't I-80 to CA-89 the better route?  I'd keep South Lake Tahoe as the control city despite the possible confusion with the direction.

Some of this thing goes back to when Sacramento had beltline freeway as I-880  before the North Section of CA-17 from Oakland to San Jose got the I-880 route and Beltline Freeway was renamed I-80 and CA-244 and East of Beltline became Alan S. Hart Freeway.

[TheStranger]

FOr Sacramento:  Get rid of Biz-80.  Sign SR-51 north to 80 Reno.  SR-51 south to 99,80 Fresno San Francisco.  :US 50 West to 80 San Francisco, or US 50 East to 80 Lake Tahoe Reno.  Control cities and consistent signing practices are the key to removing the confusion.

If you're going to the north side of Lake Tahoe, isn't I-80 to CA-89 the better route?  I'd keep South Lake Tahoe as the control city despite the possible confusion with the direction.

Some of this thing goes back to when Sacramento had beltline freeway as I-880  before the North Section of CA-17 from Oakland to San Jose got the I-880 route and Beltline Freeway was renamed I-80 and CA-244 and East of Beltline became Alan S. Hart Freeway.

The removal of 880 in Sacramento (due to the cancellation of the I-80 realignment in North Sacramento) and the renumbering of Oakland's Route 17 to 880 (and a 580 extension) were two mutually exclusive events about 2-3 years apart.

[bing101]

FOr Sacramento:  Get rid of Biz-80.  Sign SR-51 north to 80 Reno.  SR-51 south to 99,80 Fresno San Francisco.  :US 50 West to 80 San Francisco, or US 50 East to 80 Lake Tahoe Reno.  Control cities and consistent signing practices are the key to removing the confusion.

If you're going to the north side of Lake Tahoe, isn't I-80 to CA-89 the better route?  I'd keep South Lake Tahoe as the control city despite the possible confusion with the direction.

Some of this thing goes back to when Sacramento had beltline freeway as I-880  before the North Section of CA-17 from Oakland to San Jose got the I-880 route and Beltline Freeway was renamed I-80 and CA-244 and East of Beltline became Alan S. Hart Freeway.

The removal of 880 in Sacramento (due to the cancellation of the I-80 realignment in North Sacramento) and the renumbering of Oakland's Route 17 to 880 (and a 580 extension) were two mutually exclusive events about 2-3 years apart.

If I am Not Mistaken I-880 Beltline became I-80 in 1980-1981 but CA-17 Oakland to San Jose became I-880 in 1983-1984 timeframe.

[bing101]

OK how about rename CA-51 as Elvas Parkway since its basically Sacramento's version of CA-110 Arroyo Seco Parkway and keep Cap City freeway for the West end of US-50 or Hidden I-305.

[TheStranger]

OK how about rename CA-51 as Elvas Parkway since its basically Sacramento's version of CA-110 Arroyo Seco Parkway and keep Cap City freeway for the West end of US-50 or Hidden I-305.

The Route 51 portion of Business 80 does accept trucks though (unlike the segment of 110 being referenced).

[bing101]

CA-51 does not look truck friendly in some places like marconi curve or some ramps such as howe ave have a 5-10 mph limit.  Now i understand that the arden way at ca-51 section has an interstate look to it but thats about it.