Lack of a north/south freeway between 50 and 80 in east county (San Jose: homes, transfer)

[Majin]

And no, Watt Ave and Sunrise Blvd are not freeways.

Why has there been no political movement on this in the past 30-40 years? I know there were a bunch of freeway projects canceled by Jerry Brown in the 70s, but that was 40 years ago, why no revival since then?

Is there an SRO in the way of a freeway right-of-way that wburg doesn't want tore down or something?

[Rob98LS1]

I was actually trying to do some research on this recently as well after noticing the huge discrepancy in freeway infrastructure here compared to Phoenix. I can find very little info online on the matter. Anyone have any detailed info on what caused the 244 and 65 to be abandoned.

It seems the only things moving forward recently are the Placer Parkway project and the Capital SE connector.

[Mr. Ozo]

It would involve demolishing 1000's of homes and businesses and cost billions of dollars.

You can see where they planned it. The trunk line heads off of 80 to hit Auburn Blvd. you can see on Google maps that it looks way too big to be a normal Freeway offramp.

Back in the 80's the money that was planned for it was transferred to build Light Rail and the acquired right of way sold.

The last light station is built in the extra space that was planned for the Freeway Connector, so you'd have to demolish that as well.

I'd rather spend the billions of Freeway money we don't have rerouting 5 out of Downtown.

North Highlands to Rancho Cordova just doesn't seem Freeway worthy to me.

[wburg]

Lots of suburbanites in the way who would object to such a thing. The term "NIMBY" came from the suburbs, where people actually have backyards they don't want things to be in.

[NickB1967]

Originally Posted by Majin

And no, Watt Ave and Sunrise Blvd are not freeways.

Why has there been no political movement on this in the past 30-40 years? I know there were a bunch of freeway projects canceled by Jerry Brown in the 70s, but that was 40 years ago, why no revival since then?

Is there an SRO in the way of a freeway right-of-way that wburg doesn't want tore down or something?

Unfortunately, the rights of way for Proposed Routes 65, 143, and 244 (also known as Legislative Routes 249, 247, and 288 before "The Great Renumbering" of 1964) have been sold off and built over. Truly a shortsighted and foolish act.

http://www.cosmos-monitor.com/ca/map1961/sacto-tahoe-sierras.html
http://www.cahighways.org/maps-sac-fwy.html
http://www.cahighways.org/maps/1994sac.jpg
http://www.cosmos-monitor.com/ca/map1961/detail/sacramento.html

The state already owned the rights of way for those routes.

Sandy Smoley and two other County Supervisors of the time whose names escape me at the moment, who voted for selling off and against preserving the already existing rights-of-way for the 65, 143 and 244 freeways, should have been publicly stripped and flogged for that. Fresno had the sense to keep the rights of way for Routes 168 and 180 available even when the funding wasn't, and San Jose likewise for Routes 85 and 87.

And for those fools that think "Freeways cause sprawl", try looking at the maps--the sprawl came anyway.

I was hoping in the 1990's that Route 65 could have been extended south of where it ends at Interstate 80 near Roseville and Rocklin, to merge into Sierra College Blvd / Hazel Avenue, but further development along Secret Ravine Parkway put the kibosh on that.

In 1958, the Powers That Had Been adopted a comprehensive freeway network for California cities, that proposed a highway system to link all of the population, commercial and resource centers of the state with this remarkably efficient system – and to do so from existing gasoline tax dollars. This highway system was on schedule for completion in the 1980’s, until a climacteric changed everything: the election of Gov. Jerry Brown and his “era-of-limits” “small-is-beautiful” “don’t build things and people won’t come” new-age nonsense. The Oil shocks and stagflation of the 1970's didn't help either.

On top of those, the (then) very snooty Carmichael neighborhood was blocking freeway paths around it, and this is why there is only one American River Crossing between Watt and Hazel, namely Sunrise Boulevard.

[NickB1967]

Originally Posted by Mr. Ozo

It would involve demolishing 1000's of homes and businesses and cost billions of dollars.

Not back in the 1960's when they already had the land......

Originally Posted by Mr. Ozo

You can see where they planned it. The trunk line heads off of 80 to hit Auburn Blvd. you can see on Google maps that it looks way too big to be a normal Freeway offramp.

Back in the 80's the money that was planned for it was transferred to build Light Rail and the acquired right of way sold.

Which was a truly horrid decision.

Originally Posted by Mr. Ozo

The last light (rail) station is built in the extra space that was planned for the Freeway Connector, so you'd have to demolish that as well.

That portion--which would have been an "Improved Business 80", was not one of the proposed 80 to 50 connectors that Majin is asking about.

[CeJeH]

Just another in a long list of things that have been completely botched in the Sacramento area.

[NickB1967]

See also:
California Highways (www.cahighways.org): Routes 241 through 248
California Highways (www.cahighways.org): Routes 137 through 144

[caligirlz]

Originally Posted by Majin

And no, Watt Ave and Sunrise Blvd are not freeways.

But Hazel is?

Originally Posted by wburg

Lots of suburbanites in the way who would object to such a thing. The term "NIMBY" came from the suburbs, where people actually have backyards they don't want things to be in.

Typical response from the midtownie. From what I've read, it wasn't <ack> suburbanites, but developers & politicians.

There are old threads here on CD that discuss this subject.

[hydro]

This is the greatest infrastructure problem in greater sac area