Interstate 3 Proposal (US-101 Corridor)
AlbertC79
It is just compelling in my opinion to take a look at US-101 across California
and see it as a great candidate for an interstate highway. I would say at
least a good 80% of it is up to freeway standards, with the remaining 20%
miscellaneous pockets that could easily be upgraded all the same.
Thereby, I am making the following proposal for an interstate highway which
would run north and south between Los Angeles along the western coast of
California via US-101 most of the way up into Oregon. It could be called
Interstates 1 or 3, but I like to use Interstate 3 because it looks nicer, plus
it's directly west of Interstate 5.
Interstate 3 would start at US-101's souther terminus at Interstates 5 & 10 and
run through Los Angeles and up along US-101 through most of the way up the
state of California to Crescent City near the CA/OR border, where from there it
could run along (or parallel to) US-199 to Grants Pass, where it would join up
with I-5 once again. I like the idea of running it along US-199 into Grants
Pass, OR because in Grants Pass, I-5 makes a sharp curve to the east before
gradually curving southward again, and if I-3 follows the US-199 corridor, it
would go the other direction, making a somewhat WSW curve before moving
southward again. This would provide for drivers traveling on I-5 south from
Seattle or Portland great interstate access to the Caloifornia Coastline.
The only tricky part in my opinion would be running the highway through central
San Francisco, where US-101 treks through, before leaving across the Golden
Gate Bridge to points north. Once would suggest simply upgrading US-101
through here, but chances are you will encounter the same fierce local
opposition as they did when the I-480 Embarcadero Freeway was proposed to
connect the Golden Gate and Bay Bridges. However there is no need for panic
yet. I have a few ideas to solve this problem:
1. Re-route I-3 near San Jose along CA-17 to I-880, then bring it up along
the entire length of I-880 to I-80, then have it merge with it for a short time
till you get to I-580, then bring it up along I-580 west to San Rafael, where
it would meet up US-101 once again. This has the following advantage. If I-3
runs along I-880 like this, it would COMPLETELY absorb I-880 altogheter, which
would free up that designation. With a freed up 3di designation, this means it
could replace I-238 for good! Also another solution would be that if I-3
follows this corridor, it will come in direct contact with I-238, so this means
that I-238 could easily become
I-203 as well! However this would also present the following disadvantage. It
would leave the remaining freeway section of US-101 from San Jose to San
Francisco open, and I would love to see that become an interstate. I guess a
quick fix for that problem would be to make that stretch into I-103, and the
other stretch from I-580 in San Rafael to the Golden Gate Bridge could become
I-303.
2. Bring I-3 up along US-101 to I-80 in San Francisco, but then reroute it
across the Bay Bridge, merging it with I-80 across the bay, and then with I-580
also through Berkeley into Richmond. Then at the I-80/580 split, bring I-3
west along I-580 to San Rafael to US-101 once again. The remaining stretch of
US-101from I-580 in San Rafael to the Golden Gate Bridge could become I-103.
The disadvantage here is that if I-3 follows this corridor, no part of it will
come in contact with I-238 nor would it free up any 3di designations like it
would in the first idea , so that eyesore would remain. I guess what you could
do here is you could redesignate I-380 as I-203, and that would free that up,
and it can replace I-238.
Any one of these options can be utilized, but there's also the possibility I-3
would just terminate at San Francisco's front door near I-80's western
terminus, but I would hate to see that happen, because it would so be a waste
to the remaining northern half of US-101 that is just beckoning to become an
interstate.
Feel free to post feedback on my idea, I'd love to hear people's opinions on
this.
Emi Melissa Briet
> 2. Bring I-3 up along US-101 to I-80 in San Francisco, but then reroute it
> across the Bay Bridge, merging it with I-80 across the bay, and then with I-580
> also through Berkeley into Richmond. Then at the I-80/580 split, bring I-3
> west along I-580 to San Rafael to US-101 once again. The remaining stretch of
> US-101from I-580 in San Rafael to the Golden Gate Bridge could become I-103.
> The disadvantage here is that if I-3 follows this corridor, no part of it will
> come in contact with I-238 nor would it free up any 3di designations like it
> would in the first idea , so that eyesore would remain. I guess what you could
> do here is you could redesignate I-380 as I-203, and that would free that up,
> and it can replace I-238.
I like this idea best, because it would take I-3 through the heart of
the city, but I'll do ya one better: terminate I-80 at Oakland (what
would be the northern intersection of I-80 and I-3 (580) to get rid of
the "useless" multiplex that would be created.
Pluses:
SF still has a 2di running through town
SJ has a 2di running through town
Oakland gains a second 2di
CalTrans will finally have to replace a good many BGS's! ;)
We finally get an I-3 on the USA map! ;)
San Rafael, a rapidly growing city, gets a 2di of its own!
I-280 will have to become I-203 and I-380 will have to become I-303,
freeing the designations for I-238.
Minuses:
People will bitch about the Bay Bridge not being I-80 anymore
People will bitch about the Richmond bridge not being I-580 anymore
PEOPLE WILL BITCH!!!
Just my 2 cents
--Emi-chan
Warren S.
of the expressway sections are built where there isn't room to add a bridge
and an interchange. The traffic does not warrant it to be upgraded. In
SoCal the only area of 101 that the traffic does warrant a full freeway is
from Santa Barbara and south, through Santa Maria, and through Pismo
Beach/SLO. These areas are already to freeway standards anyways.
Warren
"AlbertC79" <albe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010622103238...@ng-fk1.aol.com...
William Lynch
Emi Melissa Briet wrote:
> AlbertC79 wrote:
>
> > 2. Bring I-3 up along US-101 to I-80 in San Francisco, but then reroute it
> > across the Bay Bridge, merging it with I-80 across the bay, and then with I-580
> > also through Berkeley into Richmond. Then at the I-80/580 split, bring I-3
> > west along I-580 to San Rafael to US-101 once again. The remaining stretch of
> > US-101from I-580 in San Rafael to the Golden Gate Bridge could become I-103.
> > The disadvantage here is that if I-3 follows this corridor, no part of it will
> > come in contact with I-238 nor would it free up any 3di designations like it
> > would in the first idea , so that eyesore would remain. I guess what you could
> > do here is you could redesignate I-380 as I-203, and that would free that up,
> > and it can replace I-238.
>
> I like this idea best, because it would take I-3 through the heart of
> the city, but I'll do ya one better: terminate I-80 at Oakland (what
> would be the northern intersection of I-80 and I-3 (580) to get rid of
> the "useless" multiplex that would be created.
Why terminate I-80 at Oakland? Continue the I-80 ROW to SJ,
where it would stop at I-280. I-580 just goes due west, over what
is now I-238, and terminates at the new I-80. The newly-freed
I-880 designation could then be used to cover the old I-580 north
of Castro Valley, and whatever gets built through Hayward. No
more goofy right angles.
>
>
> Pluses:
> SF still has a 2di running through town
> SJ has a 2di running through town
> Oakland gains a second 2di
> CalTrans will finally have to replace a good many BGS's! ;)
> We finally get an I-3 on the USA map! ;)
> San Rafael, a rapidly growing city, gets a 2di of its own!
> I-280 will have to become I-203 and I-380 will have to become I-303,
> freeing the designations for I-238.
>
> Minuses:
> People will bitch about the Bay Bridge not being I-80 anymore
> People will bitch about the Richmond bridge not being I-580 anymore
> PEOPLE WILL BITCH!!!
As long as they will bitch, let's *really* earn it.
BTW, If you have ever visited ba.transportation, you should know
that bitching is one of our favorite pastimes. If you haven't, do so
with caution. Not a friendly place.
William Lynch
AlbertC79 wrote:
How would the I-3 routing get to CA-17 from 101?
> This has the following advantage. If I-3
> runs along I-880 like this, it would COMPLETELY absorb I-880 altogheter, which
> would free up that designation. With a freed up 3di designation, this means it
> could replace I-238 for good! Also another solution would be that if I-3
> follows this corridor, it will come in direct contact with I-238, so this means
> that I-238 could easily become
> I-203 as well! However this would also present the following disadvantage. It
> would leave the remaining freeway section of US-101 from San Jose to San
> Francisco open, and I would love to see that become an interstate. I guess a
> quick fix for that problem would be to make that stretch into I-103, and the
> other stretch from I-580 in San Rafael to the Golden Gate Bridge could become
> I-303.
Keep I-3 on 101 all the way into San Francisco, then over the Bay Bridge.
Change I-80 so that it goes south to San Jose to I-280. I-580 goes due
west to new I-80. I-880 gets used to cover missing spots.
>
>
> 2. Bring I-3 up along US-101 to I-80 in San Francisco, but then reroute it
> across the Bay Bridge, merging it with I-80 across the bay, and then with I-580
> also through Berkeley into Richmond. Then at the I-80/580 split, bring I-3
> west along I-580 to San Rafael to US-101 once again. The remaining stretch of
> US-101from I-580 in San Rafael to the Golden Gate Bridge could become I-103.
> The disadvantage here is that if I-3 follows this corridor, no part of it will
> come in contact with I-238 nor would it free up any 3di designations like it
> would in the first idea , so that eyesore would remain. I guess what you could
> do here is you could redesignate I-380 as I-203, and that would free that up,
> and it can replace I-238.
>
> Any one of these options can be utilized, but there's also the possibility I-3
> would just terminate at San Francisco's front door near I-80's western
> terminus, but I would hate to see that happen, because it would so be a waste
> to the remaining northern half of US-101 that is just beckoning to become an
> interstate.
>
> Feel free to post feedback on my idea, I'd love to hear people's opinions on
> this.
The problem is that while there are no *signals* per se on 101, there
are a lot of level crossings. Off the top of my head, you have problems
between Gilroy and Salinas, again south of Salinas almost to King City,
and Santa Maria to Santa Barbara. There are probably others, and this
is just south of the Bay Area. Quite an undertaking.
Ben Collins
<e...@emiofbrie.com> wrote:
Another idea: terminate I-80 at what is now I-505 in Vacaville. Resign I-505
as I-3, then resign I-80 across the Bay Bridge to the current US-101. Then
I-80 wouldn't serve San Francisco OR New York City.
========================
Ben Collins
szy...@worldnet.att.net
========================
George W. Bush Quote of the Week:
"It's very important for folks to understand that when there's more trade,
there's more commerce."
(4/21/2001)
Daniel
> It would be very expensive to upgrade all of 101 to freeway standards. Many
> of the expressway sections are built where there isn't room to add a bridge
> and an interchange. The traffic does not warrant it to be upgraded.
The only three areas where it would be difficult to upgrade would be:
-Between Gilroy and Salinas, where an alternate route has already been
studied;
-The Cuesta Grade north of SLO; which should be upgraded for safety
reasons;
-Between Buellton and Gaviota.
All of these sections carry traffic to and from rapidly growing areas
(Gilroy/Hollister/Salinas; Paso Robles/Atascadero; Santa Maria).
The only section where traffic might not warrant an interstate is
between King City and Paso Robles, which is already freeway (and I
would assume interstate standard, since the limit is 70 MPH on that
stretch).
> In SoCal the only area of 101 that the traffic does warrant a full freeway is
> from Santa Barbara and south, through Santa Maria,
Having an improved and faster connection between Santa Barbara and
Santa Maria might help improve relations between north and south SB
County (never mind, that's a pipe dream...)
> > "AlbertC79" <albe...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20010622103238...@ng-fk1.aol.com...
> > Interstate 3 would start at US-101's souther terminus at Interstates 5 & 10
> > and run through Los Angeles and up along US-101 through most of the way up
> > the state of California to Crescent City near the CA/OR border, where from
> > there it could run along (or parallel to) US-199 to Grants Pass, where it
> > would join up with I-5 once again.
I do question whether traffic north of Santa Rosa warrants an
interstate, althought I have not traveled that section enough to
opine.
> > (several Bay Area routing ideas snipped)
Not that I advocate mass renumbering (although it's been almost 40
years since the last one, we must be due :) ), but how about one of
these:
Option One:
The northern end of I-3 is the I-5/I-505 junction near Dunnigan.
Run I-3 down I-505 and I-80, over the Bay Bridge, then south on US-101
to San Jose. I-3 then serves all three Bay Area cities. I-80 ends at
Vacaville.
Most of the current I-x80's become I-x03's, plus some additions:
I-103: Saved for Southern California.
I-203: Former I-280 AND I-680 (It's all really one big loop).
I-303: Former I-380.
I-403: CA-85.
I-503: Only the San Rafael-Richmond Bridge section of I-580.
I-603: The MacArthur Freeway section of I-580, plus whatever part of
the Foothill Freeway (CA-238) gets built.
I-703: Former I-780.
I-803: Former I-880.
I-903: Former I-980 AND CA-24.
I-505: having been freed up, gets used for I-238 and the remaining
I-580 (i.e., San Leandro to Vernalis).
This does leave the Bay Area with only one 2di, so the presumed
shortage of 3di continues, so here's an alternate addition:
Multiplex I-80 and I-3 to Fairfield, then extend I-80 along a new
freeway (either along the CA-12 or CA-37 corridors) west to Petlauma
or Novato. You could end I-80 there, with I-280 taking US-101 south
over the Golden Gate Bridge, tunnel the freeway under 19th Street, and
so on, or just turn I-80 itself southward.
Option Two:
I-3 begins at I-5/I-505, goes down I-505 and I-80 to Fairfield, then
takes I-680 south to San Jose. I-80 keeps its current route. US-101
between San Jose and San Francisco gets a I-x03. Assign I-x03's and
I-x80's willy-nilly.
(pause for reflection)
This is a lot work. Just run I-3 from downtown LA to downtown SF and
be done with it. Add I-103's as needed. Give US-101 back as much of
the old surface routing as possible.
-Daniel
AlbertC79
element. What about the stretch of US-101 from San Rafael up to Crescent City
in northern CA? My idea was to have that included in the I-3 proposal. I am
hearing lots of ideas about ending I-3 along I-505 and all that good stuff, but
the problem there is it leaves US-101 north of San Francisco open.
William Lynch
AlbertC79 wrote:
I think that everyone got a little bit spooked when confronted with
the enormity of the task in punching a freeway through San Francisco,
and the trillions that it would cost when all is said and done.
So let's just assume that a tunnel has magically appeared roughly
from Candlestick Park to Doyle Drive. The drive north through
Marin is wide, scenic and choked. But, what the hey. The area
around Santa Rosa, including Petaluma and Rohnert Park, will
need a 3di loop/bypass in addition to widening from four lanes.
The road is OK through Healdsburg, but then all bets are off.
101 is mostly highway beyond this. There even are stretches of
two lane roads when you get amongst the redwoods, and creation
of a true four-lane divided road would involve the destruction of
a lot of acreage in national and state parks. Not an acceptable
option.
I think that raising 101 to interstate status north of the Bay
Area is both harmful and unnecessary.
robert cruickshank
William Lynch wrote:
>
> AlbertC79 wrote:
>
> > People people, I love all your ideas, but most you are leaving out a critical
> > element. What about the stretch of US-101 from San Rafael up to Crescent City
> > in northern CA? My idea was to have that included in the I-3 proposal. I am
> > hearing lots of ideas about ending I-3 along I-505 and all that good stuff, but
> > the problem there is it leaves US-101 north of San Francisco open.
>
> I think that everyone got a little bit spooked when confronted with
> the enormity of the task in punching a freeway through San Francisco,
> and the trillions that it would cost when all is said and done.
Which will never happen. Don't bet on any new freeways being built in
SF, unless they're tunnels, and even then a lot of people will fight it.
> So let's just assume that a tunnel has magically appeared roughly
> from Candlestick Park to Doyle Drive. The drive north through
> Marin is wide, scenic and choked. But, what the hey. The area
> around Santa Rosa, including Petaluma and Rohnert Park, will
> need a 3di loop/bypass in addition to widening from four lanes.
> The road is OK through Healdsburg, but then all bets are off.
> 101 is mostly highway beyond this. There even are stretches of
> two lane roads when you get amongst the redwoods, and creation
> of a true four-lane divided road would involve the destruction of
> a lot of acreage in national and state parks. Not an acceptable
> option.
Well, funny thing about those parks. Caltrans can simply build around
many of them. In the largest park, Humboldt Redwoods State Park, US-101
is already freeway throughout the entire thing, so the damage has
already been done there. I've never been north of Eureka but I do know
that they bypassed Prairie Creek and could build through the part of
Redwood National that hugs the coast with minimal disruption. In fact I
don't even know that you'd need to go beyond Eureka.
I do think that the traffic between Eureka and SF would justify a
freeway. I believe the Humboldy Bay region will experience some growth
in the coming years and as trucks head up 101, it'd be useful to have it
be four lanes.
Caltrans had a plan to bypass Richardson Grove State Park. I posted
about it a few months ago, but realize now that I never followed up on
it. Well here, ya go. The organization I worked for, Save-the-Redwoods
League, wrote a letter to Caltrans favoring the bypass, which would take
traffic out of the heart of the park (US-101 is currently two lanes
through the park).
Well, we heard a few weeks later that Caltrans decided against the
project, as it would have been too costly to go around it (the Eel River
presents an engineering issue). And they probably wouldn't be able to
get approval to go through the park, nor should they.
If you were to make 101 an interstate, definitely go with I-3. That way
we wouldn't have to renumber CA-1. Go all the way up to San Jose, than
route I-3 up 880 to the Richmond Bridge. Send it over the bay and up to
Eureka. Or, run it up to downtown SF. I-3 would more or less suddenly
become I-80, but whatever.
Personally I'd like to leave US-101 alone. All California's other US
routes have been butchered, so let's leave this guy alone. And besides,
I think the time for renumberings has come and gone. Californians are
used to the route numbers, they've been around for 40 years, leave it
alone.
--
Robert I. Cruickshank
roagdeek, historian, progressive
Big Nick
>US-101 and Interstate 3
>
<big-ass snip>
The Only part I agree with, is the routing from the North end of the GG
Bridge to Arcata, not Crecent City and Grants Pass.
The section from SF to Humboldy Bay is needed, as it is the closest
deep-water port to San Francisco.
South of the Gate, I'd use I-3 to ram the Park Presidio and Junipero
Serra freeways down the throats of the NIMBY's in SF. I'd even toss in
the Westren Freeway to make it a set. When I was a kid, growing up in
the Sunset District in the '60's _I LOOKED FORWARD_ to freeways going
through the neighborhood.
US-101 is kind of substandard in many places, especially around Hospital
Curve in S.F., so, I'd route I-3 along the Junipero Serra, all the way
to SJ, replacing 280 all the way to its end, Then, follow 101 to
Hollister. Southward extension from there wiuld be put on "hold",
building I-68 from Hollister to Fresno, where it would meet I-7.
3DI's:
CA-85 Could be named I-803
CA-87 Could be named I-703
I-380 would rightly be named I-303
I-803, the "Earnhardt Memorial Parkway" would replace CA-37, and serve
Sears Point Raceway. "Unmarked" I-903 would extend along CA-121 and
terminate at Schellville. Was at Sears Point last weekend. Needs it.
I-503, known already as the "Luther Burbank Highway", would extend from
just outside Sebastopol, run through Santa Rosa, OVER SPRING LAKE AS
INTENDED WHEN THE LAKE WAS BUILT, and end at the Sonoma Highway near
Kenwood.
-NK
Mark Roberts
|
| South of the Gate, I'd use I-3 to ram the Park Presidio and Junipero
| Serra freeways down the throats of the NIMBY's in SF.
The land as it is used today is too commercially valuable to use as
a freeway. The acquisition costs alone would bankrupt Caltrans.
Remainder of the same old tired arguments plonked.
--
Mark Roberts | "...most voters think the President is a decent enough fellow.
Oakland, Cal.| But substantial majorities of them don't think he cares about
| the issues which matter to them, or doesn't understand them."
| -- Joshua Micah Marshall, _Talking Points Memo_, 6-21-2001
Big Nick
wrote:
>Big Nick <ra...@hormel.makes.the.best.SPAMkarels.org> had written:
>|
>| South of the Gate, I'd use I-3 to ram the Park Presidio and Junipero
>| Serra freeways down the throats of the NIMBY's in SF.
>
>The land as it is used today is too commercially valuable to use as
>a freeway. The acquisition costs alone would bankrupt Caltrans.
>
<plonked his plonking>
Just think.. we could have our own Big Pig, er, I mean "Big Dig" - bothe
the Western and JS freeways should be underground!
-NK
David & Julie Toney
The people here would never let the roads go through.
Remember - it was the early 90s before US-101 was even Freeway all the
way through here.
My biggest complaint (and the reason I avoid going to Ventura/Oxnard
on Sundays) - right after downtown Santa Barbara, US-101 goes from
three lanes to two lanes. And there's a ton of traffic.
My parents came to town, from Palm Springs, a few weeks ago, for a
cousin's UCSB graduation. The trip usually takes my wife and I 3 1/2
hours from SB to Palm Springs on a Friday night or Saturday morning.
It took my parents 5 1/2 hours, mostly because they couldn't get out
of Santa Barbara. And there is NO desire to fix that here. (Funny
how it goes to two lanes right as it hits Monticito - the "expensive"
neighborhood).
Ah, well. I chose to live here, right? =)
David
---------------------
David and Julie Toney
dt...@ix.netcom.com
---------------------