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.
I-205 Extension and CA 120 improvements:
I once heard an idea from someone to extend I-205 along I-5 and CA 120. I think this is a good idea, as it creates an interstate link between the two major highways of the Central Valley. Plus, it will help direct tourist and truck traffic into the Bay Area from the Central Valley. But, CA 120 is widely recognized as one of the main highways into Yosemite, and the loss of this route number could confuse people even more. So, I suggest cosigning CA 120 between I-5 and CA 99 as I-205 AND CA 120. This creates the best of both worlds. Minimal additional signage is needed, and the past upgrade of the narrow, 2-lane freeway to a 4-lane freeway with a wide median and an additional interchange should be very compatible with interstate standards. My Proposal
In addition, I also want to support an old Caltrans proposal to extend the CA 120 freeway out towards Oakdale. For a little while, I was a bit reluctant to support this freeway, which also plays a prominent role in Andy Field's I-70 proposal, but the more I think about it the more it makes sense. While Oakdale is a relatively small town at about 15,000 people, it's increased in size by 3,000-4,000 residents between the 1990 census and 1995, and has pretty bad traffic. I once went through Oakdale on the way to Jamestown, and traffic through town on CA 120 was horrible. As Oakdale grows, traffic will only increase, and the need for a freeway bypass will also increase. Plus, many tourists, like myself, pass through town on their way to Yosemite, Jamestown, and Sonora for vacations and to the many ski areas and resorts along CA 108 above Sonora.
Many improvements have been made to the Highway
My proposal is to extend CA 120 as a freeway from the CA 99 interchange south of Manteca due east, parallel to the existing routing, out past Escalon. Possible interchanges could be at Jack Tone Road, Ripon Road, Carrolton Road, McHenry Avenue, and Santa Fe Avenue. The road would then turn southeast, crossing CA 108 at 2 to 3 miles west of downtown Oakdale. CA 108 would then be multiplexed with the CA 120 freeway bypass and would head southeast and then due east. The freeway would be positioned south of the Hershey chocolate factory and also the Oakdale Airport. After the airport, the freeway would head northeast and soon rejoin the current highway alignment near the vicinity of Lancaster Road. This segment of the highway is already a 4-lane divided expressway out towards the county line. Whether or not the I-205 designation would continue out past Manteca, and whether or not the freeway would be extended out to Sonora and beyond is up to Caltrans, Sonora, and Stanislaus and Tuolumne Counties. (See my I-70 page for more details on such an extension.) Oakdale Issues
Caltrans currently proposes to create a northerly bypass of Oakdale, connecting CA 120 at Valley Home Road with CA 108/CA 120 near Knights Ferry with a two-lane expressway on an ultimate four-lane right of way. This issue is dividing the city of Oakdale, pitting residents against developers against downtown merchants. Caltrans has proposed five different alternative routes for the bypass, all of which are north of downtown.
I feel that there are some problems with this proposal. The bypass helps direct some Yosemite traffic away from the city core, reducing traffic congestion and travel times. Some land owners along the proposed northerly bypass prefer it, as it opens up the area north of the Stanislaus River for future commercial and residential development. However, as some citizens have pointed out, it only diverts CA 120 traffic--CA 108 traffic must still traverse the city to reach the foothills. Therefore, I only see this bypass as a short-term improvement.
A more regional approach should be considered. The northern bypass will improve travel times around Oakdale on CA 120, but has no effect on other regional issues. The existing alignment will still need to be bypassed around Escalon in the coming years. In the long term, the existing alignment will need to be abandoned when it is eventually upgraded to freeway status, which may also require abandonment of any bypasses along the existing alignment. A bypass to the south or center of Oakdale will be more beneficial and economical in the long term, as it would provide short and long-term congestion relief for CA 120 and CA 108.
However, due to its regional nature, my plan would be much harder to implement. The primary barrier would be the coordinization required by all of the regional governmental agencies. My proposed alignment would traverse two counties and three cities. The Stanislaus and San Joaquin Councils of Governments must work together, as each only has control over the segments within each's boundary. I would expect primary opposition to come from the cities of Manteca and Escalon, which would be almost completely bypassed by such an alignment.
Note: Since I originally wrote this, I found out that Caltrans is working on plans for a 2-lane northerly expressway bypass of Oakdale from the intersection of Valley Home Road out to 3 miles east of Lancaster Road (near Knights Ferry). An interchange is also proposed somewhere along the route, presumably at Valley Home Road. If this proposal goes through, I'Il have to change my CA 120 freeway plans to reflect this, by having the freeway instead link up with the expressway at Valley Home Road and continuing along Caltrans' proposed route. The expressway would be built with enough right of way to allow for future upgrading to freeway status.
Comments? Questions? Corrections?
E-mail Jeff Waller (mapman@got.net)