The following are issues relating to highway and interstate issues in California and beyond. The main focus is on San Francisco Bay Area and Santa Cruz-Monterey-San Benito County issues. As always, your comments and corrections are always welcome.
Bay Area:
San Francisco Bay Area Issues--I've got so much to say, I've created a special page for just the S.F. Bay Area.Monterey Bay Area:
Monterey Bay Area Highways--This one also gets a special page all to itself, pertaining to issues in Santa Cruz, Monterey, and San Benito Counties.Other Statewide Issues:
This is a new section that I have created to discuss I-11 and some new I-7 proposals. It incorperates my past I-11 comments with a new proposal for I-7. As these alignments are, as I propose them, highly interdependent, I felt it necessary to merge their discussions together.
According to Andy Field's Highway Home Page, the Oregon Department of Transportation is proposing the creation of an Interstate highway between Weed, California (junction of I-5 and US 97) and I-84/I-82 interchange. My personal preference for this routing would be to call it I-7, as it runs north-south, rather than I-82. The three proposed alignments are the following:
Once reaching I-84/I-82, I feel that the I-7 designation should continue up into Washington along I-82, I-182, and US 395 to I-90. The remainder of I-82, between I-90 and I-182, should either remain I-82 or be changed to an I-x07 or I-x90.
I have also reviewed Andy Field's comments on the proposed I-11 corridor, and wish to make my comments. I agree with the plan to link Reno and Phoenix, and it plays a prominent role in my ideas for I-70 and I-7. However, if I-7 is to be built in one of its currently proposed three alignments, having I-11 parallel it may become redundant. So, for the upper portion, I propose extending I-11 from Reno up US 395 to a connection with I-7 at one of two places, depending on the I-7 alignment Oregon DOT chooses. This alignment would bypass Honey Lake to the east (possibly entering Nevada again). Depending on the I-7 alignment, I-11 would follow US 395 up to one of the following places:
You might notice that this I-11 alignment doesn't allow a connection between Reno and Boise. My solution to fix that is to extend I-105 from Eugene, Oregon to Ontario, Oregon via Bend and Burns, thus linking I-5, I-7, and I-84 together in an east-west route. The alignment I chose would continue along OR 126 to Vida, then to US 20 near Cascadia. It would continue along US 20 to Bend, Burns, and Ontario. Those wishing to reach Boise would continue east on I-84.
More details on my proposals for I-11 through Reno and Carson City can be found on my I-70 page.
As for the southern section of I-11 through Nevada and Arizona, I have a better solution to the bridge over Hoover Dam. My plan would be to bring I-11 south along the US 395/I-580 corridor to Carson City (all of which is currently or soon to be freeway status), then along the US 95 corridor down to Las Vegas. Then I-11 would continue south on I-515 and then follow US 95 down into California, reaching I-40 in Needles. Thus, Hoover Dam is bypassed, saving much money. Plus, the section between Las Vegas and Needles would also attract Californians heading up for gambling in nearby Laughlin and Las Vegas. I-11 would then be co-signed with I-40 out to US 93, which it would follow down into Phoenix. I think this is a better routing than going over or near Hoover Dam, at it would be easier to build and less costly, although its less direct than the proposed routing. Plus, it doesn't enter Lake Mead National Recreation Area, avoiding all those related environmental issues.
Caltrans has proposed a Highway 65 extention between the Visalia area and the Sacramento/Roseville area. I think this is a good idea, as it creates another north-south highway in California. It would be a good agricultural and trucking route through the Central Valley. The main problem with this highway would be the routing. It could go over existing routes, but would be rather discontinuous. Thus, many portions, especially within Sacramento County, would have to be constructed from scratch, which would be very expensive, both for construction and for buying up the right-of-way for the highway. I'd like to also see the portion between I-80 and US 50 to become a freeway, which would be very helpful for the Sacramento area freeway network.
A parallel routing to the Highway 120/Proposed I-205 freeway, Highway 132 extends from I-580 just north of I-5 due east to Modesto, then continues out towards Yosemite. It is a pretty-much straight road, no big twisty curves whatsoever until reaching Modesto. It is a major trucking and commuter route for people and goods traveling between the Central Valley and the Bay Area. The area through which the highway travels is mostly farmland near the slough-like north end of the San Joaquin River. Converting it into a freeway makes lots of sense, as it has a lot of traffic, and it creates a direct freeway route between the Bay Area and Highway 99/Modesto. Interestingly, Modesto is quickly becoming a bedroom community for San Jose, as the job market in Silicon Valley continues to grow while the housing supply continues to decline and housing prices continue to skyrocket. In fact, the housing market continues to boom in Modesto, Tracy, Stockton, Lathrop, Manteca, and other areas in between as more and more people commute into the Bay Area and Sacramento. The hardest part about this project would be the interchange with CA 99, as the location where CA 132 currently connects up with CA 99 is cluttered with many interchanges closely spaced together. Probably the best routing would be somewhere north of downtown, in the vicinity of Modesto Junior College. Mike Ballard e-mailed me that the existing right-of-way and grading suggest that back when CA 132 was proposed as a freeway, it would have conected up with CA 99 at Kansas Street, which is right by Modesto Junior College.
Highway 152 Freeway and Interstate Status:
Highway 152, the Pacheco Pass, is one of the most heavily-traveled routes between the coast and the Central Valley. It is a major trucking route into the southern Bay Area/Central Coast and a vital connection between US 101 and I-5. I propose upgrading Highway 152 between US 101 and CA 99 to freeway status. There are very few cross streets that intersect the current highway between CA 156 and I-5, and most are state highways (CA 156 and CA 33).
The portion that needs the upgrade the most and would require the most work is the first section I'd upgrade, between CA 156 and US 101 near Gilroy. This portion is 2 lanes and is highly prone to accidents. The interchange at US 101 would need to be upgraded to a freeway-freeway interchange (probably a cloverleaf is most compatable with the existing interchange). With the proximity of the farms and buildings along this stretch, probably a completely new freeway would have to be built on a new alignment. Back in the 1980's, the proposed alignment for a CA 152 freeway was a several-mile multiplex with CA 25 south of Gilroy, then head east and northeast to CA 156 through northern San Benito County. This alignment died when San Benito County objected to paying for a freeway that it felt would have negligible benefits for its citizens.
The second section, the Pacheco Pass segment between CA 156 and I-5, would be much easier to upgrade. This segment is already a 4-lane divided expressway. The highway is a bit narrow in parts, with little median and shoulder space, but has very few cross streets and already has freeway-grade diamond and cloverleaf interchanges at CA 33 and I-5, respectively. A positive step in this direction was the construction of an overpass and diamond interchange at Casa De Fruta a few years ago. Most of the other at-grade intersections could be handled in the same way, with minor modified diamonds and frontage roads used for the remainder. I have heard rumors that in 2000 the California Transportation Commission also cited upgrading CA 152 to freeway status as a top priority in the next few years (at least according to misc.transport.roads newsgroup postings).
The third segment, from I-5 to CA 99, is also already a 4-lane divided expressway. In some sections, the median is so wide that anywhere between 1 and 3 lanes could be added to the highway! The area is primarily farm land, which means there is plenty of room for grade-separated interchanges and frontage roads for the numerous cross streets. Plus, grade-separated interchanges already exist for the majority of the highways CA 152 crosses, namely CA 33, CA 59, CA 233, and CA 99. The only non-expressway section of CA 152 in the Central Valley, through the city of Los Banos, Caltrans plans to eliminate with a Los Banos Bypass. Three possible alignments have been identified, all three of which include three interchanges. This could also be built as a freeway. Construction is set to begin in 2009. Caltrans has set up a webpage for the Los Banos Bypass discussing the three alternatives and the project's timeline.
Now, the real reason that I want CA 152 to be upgraded is so that CA 152 can become I-48. This highway is important enough to the transportation needs of Californians to be an interstate. For most of the route, upgrading to interstate standards will not be very hard. The segment between CA 1 in Watsonville and US 101 in Gilroy will remain CA 152. Caltrans also has proposed extending CA 152 east to their proposed CA 65. This segment, if ever built, would become CA 48. I realize that CA 48 already exists, but really only on paper. The only constructed segment, near Palmdale, is signed as CA 138. (Thanks to Daniel Faigin's California Highways Home Page for this information.) I-48 is a good number for CA 152, as it's at a good latitude for that number, especially when considering its location relative to I-40 and my proposed I-70 routing.
As for spur routes, one that catches my eye is CA 156. The segment through San Juan Bautista is already a divided, 4-lane expressway with one bridge, and could be easily converted to a freeway. (In fact, Caltrans has long planned for this segment to be upgraded to freeway status, although the conversion is not expected for another couple of decades.) The remaining segments from San Juan Bautista out to CA 152 also could easily become a freeway, including the new Hollister Bypass. It might also be possible to convert the segment bewteen Castroville and Prunedale into a freeway, thus giving the Monterey area an interstate and easy access to the rest of the state. My perferred numbering for the spur is I-348.
I once heard that there was a proposal to convert CA 99 to I-7. However, with the currently-proposed I-7 in Washington, the likelihood of CA 99 to become a single digit interstate is very small. So, I propose using one of the remaining I-x05's to replace CA 99. My choice is I-305. As the freeway that links all of the major Central Valley cities, it deserved to be an interstate. It could also fix the Business 80 problem in Sacramento, by taking over the portion between CA 99/US 50/BUS 80 and I-80 in East Sacramento (and by giving the remaining portion to US 50).
But, there are a lot of drawbacks. For one, the shear number of signs that would need to be changed would be astronomical. Plus, CA 99 is a well-know route to many Californians, and eliminating it would be very confusing. Plus, the majority of the highway would need to be upgraded to interstate standards. But, the Central Valley is the fastest-growing region of the state (as the freeway-building boom in Fresno is a testament to) and the infusion of funding for improvements will be helpful in upgrading and widening the route to accommodate the large amount of projected future traffic.
Comments? Questions? Corrections?
E-mail Jeff Waller (mapman@got.net)