If Interstate 70 was expanded from Utah to California, where would it end? (Fresno: cost, shop)

[MIKEETC]

Originally Posted by CurlyFries

If Interstate 70 was expanded from Utah to California, where would you want it end?

Near Bishop.

[at the interchange with the full four-lane freeway that US395 should be]

[kjnangre]

Originally Posted by expatCA

Please do not give the politicians another idea about how to waste money. The High Speed rail from nowhere to nowhere is bad enough.

HSR is going from San Francisco to Los Angeles, two of the most populated areas of the country. The initial funding from the Federal govt came with a condition that construction had to start within 18 months. Building new rail lines in urban areas requires a lot of planning which couldn't be completed on time so, in order to not lose the Federal funding, they had to start building in the Central Valley. Every project has to start somewhere. Try to see the big picture for a change.

[.highnlite]

Near Bishop.
[at the interchange with the full four-lane freeway that US395 should be]

Right, no reason why an interstate can't come right over the top of a 14,000 foot range..
no reason why the Owens Valley should not look like the San Fernando Valley, eh? wot?

[pch1013]

Originally Posted by .highnlite

Right, no reason why an interstate can't come right over the top of a 14,000 foot range..
no reason why the Owens Valley should not look like the San Fernando Valley, eh? wot?

Actually the pass would "only" be at 9500 feet or so... still higher than any other Interstate pass in California.

The idea of putting a major highway through there (Minaret Pass) was nixed by none other then Governor Ronald Reagan.

[.highnlite]

Originally Posted by pch1013

Actually the pass would "only" be at 9500 feet or so... still higher than any other Interstate pass in California.

The idea of putting a major highway through there (Minaret Pass) was nixed by none other then Governor Ronald Reagan.

I was being minorly facetious, Montgomery Pass would be the feasible pass at, 7,167.

Not even a Republican Congress is going to remove the wilderness protections in place in the Sierra. A new road will never happen.

[Howest2008]

the only plan that would work in the re-routing of interstate 70 into california would be..renaming interstate 80....(.interstate 70. ) , and building a brand new interstate 80 north of what is now the newly renamed interstate 70.The new interstate 80 would have to enter california in the extreme northern most parts/section of the state of california maybe ending in Redding or Mount Shasta or better yet terminating at the ocean near the California/Oregon border.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by kjnangre

HSR is going from San Francisco to Los Angeles, two of the most populated areas of the country. The initial funding from the Federal govt came with a condition that construction had to start within 18 months. Building new rail lines in urban areas requires a lot of planning which couldn't be completed on time so, in order to not lose the Federal funding, they had to start building in the Central Valley. Every project has to start somewhere. Try to see the big picture for a change.

Oh I see the big picture. Amtrack is a good example of rail use right now. Almost every Gov't project in recent history (Note not during Eisenhower's tenure long before most people in CA were born) has been less than promised. Remember the rail line to the Beach in LA. Well baring a major earth quake it will never be near the Beach.

[MIKEETC]

Originally Posted by .highnlite

Right, no reason why an interstate can't come right over the top of a 14,000 foot range..
no reason why the Owens Valley should not look like the San Fernando Valley, eh? wot?

If it terminates at US395 then there would be no need to go over, through, or under a mountain range.

[owens Valley will be safe from urbanization, in any event]

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Run it as noted along US-6 until you reach the Owens Valley. Then dog leg it down the US-395 alignment, popping through Tehachapi Pass and then into Bakersfield. Run it up the 99 alignment, then across to the coast along the 152/156 alignment. Then either up over 17 ending in SJ where 880 starts or up along 1, ending in SF. As a side bene this would address the embarrassing fact that there is still no direct Fwy connection between much of the City, the Peninsula and South Bay, and LA. 152 is a travesty.

[bradybunch63]

Originally Posted by CurlyFries

If Interstate 70 was expanded from Utah to California, where would you want it end?

To me the logical choice would be to build Interstate 70 Starting west to east using the existing U.S. 50 freeway leaving Interstate 80 west of Sacramento, CA. In Placerville, freeway upgrades would need to be made to eliminate those three annoying traffic lights and other non interstate standard access points that presently exist along U.S. 50 for about one mile until U.S. 50 once again becomes a freeway. Following U.S. 50 further east, I-70 would climb the Sierra Nevada mountain range by bringing U.S. 50 up to Interstate standards, including bypassing small towns where it would not be possible to widen U.S. 50 without destroying a whole town. This is expensive and an engineering challenge in some areas, but not impossible (I-70 construction across much of Utah and Colorado had similar engineering challenges). Continuing east near the area that U.S. 50 intersects CA 89 south of Lake Tahoe, I-70 would leave US 50 for a while to take on a new alignment bypassing South Lake Tahoe to the south of that city by turning northeast across the mountains (and tunneling where necessary) across the CA/NV state line intersecting US 395 south of Minden. I-70 would continue northeast through Yerington, NV and rejoin U.S. 50 a few miles west of NV 839 (Ryan Canyon Road). While this route bypasses the Carson City area, it would be inexpensive to acquire the real estate to build I-70 and to provide a more direct route to follow for interstate commerce.

If that is too upsetting or cost prohibitive to those concerned about building an Interstate highway across the Sierra Nevada range, then I-70 could begin east of California leaving I-80 at Fernley, NV following the route east along US 50 Alternate and with a bypass loop around Fallon and east following US 50 itself.

From there on I-70 should mostly follow US 50 east across Nevada into Utah looping around small towns along the way like Austin, Eureka and Ely, straightening the route along the way that US 50 currently follows. US 6 would be cosigned with I-70 and US 50 between Ely, NV and Delta, UT. East of Delta, UT, I-70 would take an almost due east route to I-15 bypassing the current routing of US 50 to Intersect I-15 where US 50 now leaves I-15 continuing east. This would shorten the route by a few miles and would eliminate the cosigning of US 50 and I-15 between Holden and Scipio, UT. From I-15, I-70 would follow US 50 south/southeast to Salina and join the existing I-70 just west of Salina, UT. where US 89 intersects I-70 coming out of the north.

This would leave open the question of what to renumber the existing I-70 between I-15 and Salina, UT. My personal desire would be to renumber the portion of I-70 that runs cosigned with US 89 to become I-17, and eventually extend I-17 between Sevier, UT and I-40 just east of Flagstaff, AZ roughly following US 89 to better connect Phoenix and Salt Lake City. The remaining 20 or so miles of the existing I-70 between I-15 and Sevier, UT would be renumbered as a 3 digit connecting interstate spur, such as I-115 for example.

While I never expect that any of this would ever happen, some Interstates have been built in places that make even less sense. I-99 in PA is a good example of that as is I-180 in IL. The entire western half of I-40 travels through equally sparsely areas and is employed as a major trucking corridor. It could also be argued that I-80 in Nevada takes on a longer serpentine route than is needed to cross that state, and building a straighter more direct route for I-70 to follow across Nevada to connect California to Denver and points east isn't really such a crazy idea. Good post, funny nobody else writing in has thought of this routing before me. I guess it is because I have driven US 50 more than a few times between Sacramento and I-70.