The following are my many proposals and suggestions about the idea of extending I-70 from Utah into California. As always, your comments and corrections are always welcome. (Note: If you would like to follow my explanations of my routing, having a good map handy would be very helpful to you.)
I-70 Section Proposals:
There are really only a few possible alignments through Nevada, as I see it. As there will be mostly through traffic on I-70 in this section, to make it more of a viable freeway it must go near as many Nevada towns as possible. Thus, I feel that I-70 should be routed along the US 50 corridor.
I-70 would head due east from I-15, then curve around the south end of Sevier Lake, meeting US 6-US 50 just east of the Utah-Nevada border. It will then replace US-6 and US-50 out to Ely. The freeway would then bypass Ely, then reconnect up with US 50 west of town, and continue out along US 50 out to Falon, bypassing any small towns along the route.
Alignment #1: Short-term or Low-Cost Version
At Falon, I-70 would shift northwest along the ALT US 50 corridor out to I-80 near Fernley. This would be the alignment if either no extension into California is made, or as a temporary alignment until the freeways in and around Carson City are built.
Alignment #2: Falon to Carson City
At Falon, the previous segment from I-70 in Falon to I-80 near Fernley would be changed to I-270. I-70 would continue along the north end of Lahontan Reservoir, and then down into Carson City.
NOTES:
In Carson City, I prefer bringing I-70 southeast along US 50, then about 3 to 5 miles from downtown I would swing I-70 south of US 50, linking it up with I-11 (US 395 eastern bypass of downtown) southeast of the downtown area. I-70 would then continue along I-11 down towards the southern border of Carson City. If I-70 is sent along the US 6 corridor, then there will be no freeway heading east out of Carson City.
I-11 would become a freeway bypass along the east side of Downtown Carson City. It would connect back up with US 395 at either end of Downtown Carson City. The north end would most likely connect up with US 395 north of the existing extension of US 395 freeway near Washoe Lake, so US 395 will retain its name on that existing freeway portion. Thus, drivers will take US 395 to get into downtown, but if they're just passing through they would take I-11. If I-11 is not initially (or never) extended further south than Minden, the section south of the I-11/I-70 interchange would be signed I-70 and the upper segment towards Reno would be I-580. (US 395 and US 50 would retain their respective alignments through downtown.)
I am going to propose a different alignment between Carson City and Placerville, one that differs substantially from my past versions. I have proposed routes through South Lake Tahoe and Echo Summit, and also down CA 108/CA 120. This version, though, is much better than those alternatives. The person who originally came up with this idea was Joel Windmiller, who informed me of his proposal in response to my CA 108/CA120 alignment. Joel's proposal is the following.
I-70 would continue south along the US 395 corridor (perhaps cosigned with I-11) down to Minden. I-70 would then continue due south along NV 88 and into California. I-70 would then continue along CA 88 past CA 89 and over Carson Pass, eventually reaching Kirkwood. I-70 would then continue west to Kit Carson, at which point it would turn northwest along Iron Mountain Road and Sly Park Road (what was once ALT US 50 within California) until reaching US 50 outside of Polluck Pines. Once it hits US 50, I-70 would continue along the US 50 corridor westward towards Placerville.
This alignment does make a lot of sense, and by bypassing Echo Summit would help reduce the overall cost of the project. In addition, I have heard that the once-proposed South Lake Tahoe Bypass is now a dead issue, so a I-70 freeway can't go through there. I-70/CA 89 would also make for a quick alternate route to South Lake Tahoe (versus using US 50). I did have concerns over the height of Carson Pass, and Kirkwood's reputation for having the most snow of all the Tahoe ski resorts, but Joel says that the pass itself doesn't get as much snow as I would have thought. Plus, Carson Pass is not much higher than some of the passes through Nevada that I've proposed that I-70 would take on its journey east of Carson City.
This portion is the easiest section of US 50 to improve. From Polluck Pines to Sacramento, the entire US 50 highway is already freeway status, with the exception of a section through Placerville. Either a completion of a freeway along the existing alignment (probably best), or a bypass of Placerville (much harder) would be necessary. I do not know if any of the existing US 50 freeway is up to interstate standards, but if not, it must be upgraded. Personally, I would officially end US 50 at its intersection with I-70 in Polluck Pines, although US 50 could be returned to its original 2-lane alignment in the segments where it still exists.
As for 3di's and spur routes in the Sacramento area, I think that the Business 80 corridor should become an I-x80 loop, specifically I-480 (as it's the only I-x80 left). I-x70's are possible if other freeways are added. (Caltrans has proposed CA 143, CA 148, CA 102, CA 244, and a southerly extention of CA 65 for the Sacramento area, all of which could become I-x70's if built as freeways to interstate standards, or CA x70's if only expressways.) However, CA 170 and CA 270 already exist, so they are not viable numbers.
For many practical purposes, I-70 could simply be extended along US 50 all the way out to I-80 in West Sacramento, ending there. But, as long as it's already out there, it might be a good idea to extend I-70 down into the San Francisco Bay Area, which would be useful for adding other I-x70's to the East and South Bay areas. However there are many problems both with that and having I-70 in California in the first place. The main problem is that CA 70 already exists. CA 70 connects Sacramento, Marysville, Oroville, and many northern Sierra communities. Having both numbers in existance, and so close to one another would be confusing and against Caltrans protocol. One option is to rename CA 70. A possible number is CA 72, which is currently a route in the metropolitan Los Angeles area but one that Caltrans has planned to abandon at some point in the future. But, the cost of resigning CA 70 as CA 72, as well as the confusion such a number change would cause makes this option rather unrealistic. Another possibility would be to have I-70 end in Carson City, and have an I-x70, such as I-470, continue along my proposed I-70 route near Lake Tahoe and in Calfornia. But, this would mean any I-x70's in the Bay Area would be hooked off of I-470, meaning the state would be the first case in the country where it has spur routes of an interstate, but not the parent interstate.
This is why I have come up with a compromise route numbering. You may remember that I have made a couple of proposals for a change in numbering, such as changing I-70 between Carson City and the Bay Area into I-50 or I-60, or even using CA 31 and CA 50 as hidden route numbers for CA 70 (like CA 51 for the Business I-80 freeway in Sacramento). Now, my past I-50 and CA 50 ideas are not only strange and confusing, but also impossible, since my new I-70 alignment doesn't completely eliminate the presence of US 50 in California. So, that leaves my hair-brained I-60 idea. Or, perhaps something different. I have a new idea that combines some of my earlier ideas together while preserving the existing highway numbers. I propose making I-70 become California Legislative Route Number 70, while CA 70 will be signed CA 70 but legally California Legislative Route Number 70A. Thus, the post mile and call box signs will call it CA 70A, but it will continue to be signed CA 70. I feel this is a good compromise, because it allows both CA 70 and I-70 to be cosigned, and minimizes the difference between the signed number and the hidden route number for CA 70. Adding a letter to the legislative route number is setting a new and perhaps bad precedent, but as far as I know it's not illegal, and will hopefully not create too much confusion between CA 70 (I-70) and CA 70A (signed CA 70). Plus, road geeks will like the new CA 70A for its reference to ALT US 40, which was the old name for the current CA 70 (the letter "A" is for Alternate, boys and girls).
Now that I've established my I-70 plan, I'd like to describe my plans for an I-70 extension toward the Bay Area through the northern San Joaquin Valley. First off, I feel that for all of the major interstates along its route, I-70 should be cosigned with them, not replace them. Some of the state highway segments, however, could be resigned as I-70 or I-x70's. This will help lessen confusion and promote continuity of the highway system in California.
There are many possible routes. The one I like the best is the following:
From Sacramento, I-70 would extend south down CA 99 (my I-305) cosigned with CA 99 down to CA 120. The segment of Business 80/US 50 from CA 99/US 50 to I-80 in West Sacramento would be renumbered as I-480, and Business 80/CA 51 would become CA 480 (until upgraded to interstate standards, when it would become I-480). At the CA 99/westbound CA 120 interchange, I-70 would turn east along the southern edge of Manteca. CA 120 would be completely terminated between I-5 and CA 99. (Yosemite Avenue through Manteca could become Business I-70 if Manteca wanted it.) I-70 continues out to I-5, then cosigned with I-5 down to I-205. I-70 would then branch off of I-5 at I-205, heading west towards the Bay Area. I-205 would be eliminated between I-5 and I-580, freeing up the number for use elsewhere (perhaps as a replacement for CA 170 and CA 134 in Southern California?). Business I-205 (11th Street/Old US 50) would also be changed to Business I-70 through Tracy. I-70 and I-580 would be cosigned from I-205 out over the Altamont Pass towards Livermore.
I-70/I-580 from Livermore would continue along the existing I-580 west towards Oakland. At the I-580/CA 238/I-238 interchange, I-580 would continue north along its current routing. I-70 would continue west along I-238 out to I-880. I-238 would be eliminated. (Hear that? It's the sound of road geeks everywhere unformly screaming in joy over the end of I-238. Or was is just a blue jay squaking?) If ever upgraded to freeway status, the CA 238 expressway, could become an I-x70, such as I-370. The same goes for CA 92 between downtown Hayward and I-880.
I-70 would then continue south down I-880 as I-880/I-70 to CA 92. I-70 would then continue west over the Hayward-San Mateo Bridge along CA 92 out towards San Mateo. The new interstate would then continue along CA 92 past US 101 and out to I-280. This portions is most likely not up to interstate standards, which may require ending I-70 at US 101 instead. However, if that section is upgraded, CA 92 would be eliminated between I-280 and I-880. If the portion of CA 92 between CA 1 and I-280 is ever upgraded to freeway status, the interstate could continue out to Half Moon Bay.
Comments? Questions? Corrections?
E-mail Jeff Waller (mapman@got.net)