State Route 16

Click here for a key to the symbols used. An explanation of acronyms may be found at the bottom of the page.

Routing

1. Route 20 to Route 5 near Woodland via Rumsey and Woodland.

   Post 1964 Signage History

   This segment is as defined in 1963.

   Note that, in Woodland, Route 16 does not follow the historic Sign Route 16 routing to I-5 along Main Street. Instead, post-1964 Route 16 turns N at County Road 98 to proceed (as Route 16) to meet I-5. The segment of Route 16 from I-5 S to Main Street, and then along Main Street to I-5, is Business Route 5 (and was US 99W).

   Between I-5 near Woodland and US 50 near Perkins, Route 16 is discontinuous and unsigned. The connection between the two segment is primarily historical.

   Pre 1964 Signage History

   In 1934, Route 16 was signed from Jct. Route 20 near Wilbur Springs to Jackson via Sacramento. It was LRN 50. It ran between Route 20 (LRN 15) and US 99W (LRN 7). Circa 1935, Route 16 was under construction between Route 20 and Rumsey. The portion between Route 20 and Rumsey was added in the third bond issue in 1919; the portion between Rumsey and Woodland was added in 1933.

   The specific Yolo County chronology is as follows:

   • 1919. LRN 50 commissioned from Woodland to Sacramento. This would eventually be Route 16.The initial survey for the eventual route was conducted in 1915, with a bill in the legislature directing a survey “commencing at the town of Rumsey, in the county of Yolo and following generally the meanderings of Cache Ck…to the town of Lower Lake, in the county of Lake”.
   • 1920s. A route is shown on the 1920 state highway map, but does not correspond to the eventual roadway. The 1922 state highway map shows a slightly different proposed routing that tasks a more southern angle way from the confluence of Cache Creek/North Fork Cache Creek.. The 1926 state highway map shows the planned route realigned north of Lower Lake to LRN 15, following LRN 15 east to Wilbur Spring where it split southeast towards Rumsey. In 1929, the route between Wilbur Springs and Rumsey was described as not constructed, with a note that it would likely be built on a new grade that would not incorporate the existing road between Wilbur Springs and Rumsey.  
     (Source: Gribblenation Blog (Tom Fearer), “Western California State Route 16”, Jan 2021)
   • 1930s. In 1930, construction starts on the Rumsey-Clear Lake Highway in July, with only a short portion S of LRN 15 (Route 20) shown as constructed on the state highway map. The legislative definition of the route was extended E from Rumsey to Woodland in 1933. In Sacramento, US 99 and US 40 are routed west on the I Street Bridge into West Sacramento, before connecting via surface streets to West Capitol Avenue to Davis via the Yolo Causeway.
     (Partial Source: Gribblenation Blog (Tom Fearer), “Western California State Route 16”, Jan 2021)
   • 1934. Route 16 commissioned. On the western end of the route, the Rumsey-Clear Lake Highway was completed with an opening ceremony held on August 4^th, 1934.  In Sacramento, the routing includes Main Street in Woodland, County Road 22 through Conaway, Old River Road from the site of the current I-5 Elkhorn Viaduct to Bryte, Harbor Boulevard in Bryte, Sacramento Avenue through Broderick, 6^th Street and C Street through downtown West Sacramento over the I Street Bridge into Sacramento itself.
     (Partial Source: Gribblenation Blog (Tom Fearer), “Western California State Route 16”, Jan 2021)
   • 1935. Tower Bridge completed (replacing the old M Street Bridge; more information on Joel Windmiller's page); US 99 and US 40 moved to the new connection to West Capitol Avenue.
   • Late 1930s. Route 24 extended to Sacramento on Route 16's path from Woodland via West Sacramento and Bryte.
   • After 1955. Route 24 rerouted to Jiboom Street, Garden Highway, and El Centro Avenue (LRN 232) north of Sacramento; this is now Route 99 and Route 70. A short multiplex of Route 16 and 24 still existed in downtown.
   • 1957. LRN 238 was adopted as the planned route of I-5 between Bakersfield and Woodland.  Within the Sacramento Area, I-5/LRN 238 was planned to follow the eastern bank of the Sacramento River towards Woodland, whereas Route 16/Route 24/LRN 50 followed the western bank. By 1959, Route 24 had been rerouted off of Route 16 onto LRN 232 from Sacramento to Maryville.
     (Source: Gribblenation Blog (Tom Fearer), “Western California State Route 16”, Jan 2021)
   • 1964. Route 84 definition extended north along Jefferson Boulevard into West Sacramento; terminus is at I-80/ US 40/ US 99W (now US 50/ Business Route 80/I-305). As a temporary routing, Route 16 was rerouted from the Capitol Avenue corridor to the former routing of Route 24 via 3^rd/5^th Streets and Broadway. It is likely portions were signed as Temporary I-5. It is at this point that the current definition of the route is created, with two segments: one from Route 20 to I-5, and one from US 50 to Route 49.
   • 1965. Route 84 definition extended along Jefferson Boulevard north of current US 50, then west on Sacramento Avenue and Reed Avenue to I-880 (now I-80). As no changes to Route 16's definition are made at this time, an unacknowledged overlap is now present on Sacramento Avenue between Harbor Boulevard and Jefferson Boulevard for northbound Route 84 and westbound Route 16 (and vice versa).
   • 1967. US 99W removed on co-signed portion with Route 16 in Woodland (from East Street (former US 40A/US 99W, later former Route 113 which has now been bypassed by the freeway) west on Main Street to County Road 98).
   • 1968. I-5 completed from Sacramento County line northwest to East Main Street and from County Road 18 north to Colusa County line. Route 16 may have been placed on the freeway from Old River Road west to East Main Street (bypassing County Road 22 in Conaway). Also, the I-5/Route 16 interchange in downtown Sacramento is constructed; this forces the removal of several original ramps to the I Street Bridge but is functionally a freeway-to-freeway junction between Route 16 and I-5 for access to Old Town Sacramento.
   • Early 1970s. Due to the completion of I-5 in Sacramento, Jiboom Street and Garden Highway (as well as the portion of El Centro Avenue between Garden Highway and I-5) are all removed from the state highway system; post-1964 this routing had been Route 70 and Route 99. Thus, Route 70 and Route 99 had a small co-signage with Route 16 on I Street in Sacramento from 1964 to the early 70s. The state highway map in 1970 shows Route 16 partially multiplexing the completed I-5 east of Woodland, and splitting from I-5 towards Old Sacramento via the I Street Bridge.
   • 1973. Woodland bypass completed; Business Route 5 may have been established at this point, co-signed with Route 16 on Main Street.
   • 1975. A 1975 Caltrans map shows Route 16 being routed concurrent with I-5 between the I Street Bridge and Power Inn Road.
   • Mid-1970s. Due to a tough railroad grade crossing on Harbor Boulevard north of Sacramento Avenue, a new bypass for Route 16 is constructed from Harbor to Sacramento. It is current Sunset Avenue; which has a much gentler approach than Harbor; it is also still signed for Woodland.
   • 1984. As I-5 is now the primary route to Woodland, Route 16 is legislatively decommissioned between east of Conaway and Sacramento, removing the I Street Bridge from the state system. Route 16 references may have been removed from sign gantries at this time (evidence of this is at the junction of I and 4^th where several sign gantries have greenout, and more notably at Capitol Avenue eastbound after I-5, where a shield-out is evident next to Route 70 and Route 99 markers on an assembly.) Milemarkers are also removed; the existence of any on the old Woodland-Sacramento portion of Route 16 is highly unlikely - except for one on the I Street Bridge, as the photo at http://www.angelfire.com/stars4/streetlights/old_postmile_sr16.jpg demonstrates. However, Route 84 milemarkers are retained on Sacramento Avenue and Jefferson Boulevard, and the route still shows on the 1986 state highway map. As for Woodland, around this time, Route 16 was rerouted to bypass downtown entirely by following the northern third of Business Route 5 (see https://www.aaroads.com/interstate-guide/business/ir-005/ for details), which is County Road 98, Yolo County Sign Route E7, and former US 99/99W. The portion of former Route 16 in downtown Woodland is now solely Business Route 5, although it is not very well-signed at all.
   • Late 1980s/Early 1990s. Route 84 shield (with END sign) past the I-80 bypass on Reed Avenue westbound replaced with bike lane sign.
   • 2003. Route 84 up for relinquishment in West Sacramento; once approved, this would remove Sacramento Avenue from the state system entirely after 84 years.

   Nathan Edgars looked at traffic counts, and came up with the following:

   • 1964: Route 16: I Street Bridge, down 3^rd-5^th and over Broadway to Route 160, then a break until the split from US 50

     Route 80: Tower Bridge, over Capitol/N to 26^th-30^th, then a break to Broadway at 26^th-30^th and up 26^th-30^th

     Route 99: from the south to Broadway, then west on Broadway, then a break to the east end of the I Street Bridge and up Jibboom Street

   • By 1966: Another piece of Route 99 added along P and Q Streets between Route 160 and Route 16. The changes to Route 80 are unclear.
   • By 1968: Route 80 moved to the new route, with the west part becoming Route 275

     Route 16 cut back to I-5 at the east end of the I Street Bridge

     Route 99 removed from P and Q Streets and instead routed back west on Broadway, replacing Route 16, but only to Route 275, where it broke until Jibboom Street

   • By 1970: Route 99 removed from Jibboom Street etc.

   Note: The Gribblenation Blog, "Highways in and around Old Sacramento; US 40, US 99W, CA 16, CA 24, CA 70, CA 99, CA 275, and more" provides a detailed history of the various highways (US 40, US 99, Route 16, Route 24, Route 70, Route 99, Route 275, Route 51, I-5, and I-80 in the Old Sac area.

   I-Street Bridge

   The predecessor to the I Street Bridge at the Sacramento River was constructed by the California Pacific Railroad Company.  The structure was located just north of modern I Street and became functional on January 29, 1870, when the first train crossed. This structure only served trains. The Central Pacific Railroad was acquired by the Southern Pacific Railroad in 1885, but continued to operate as a leased line. The Southern Pacific Railroad, Yolo County and Sacramento County came to an agreement on construction of the I Street Bridge on February 14, 1910.  The project initially faced difficulties due to the hesitancy of Yolo County due to the lack of support by the Northern Electric Railroad.  The Southern Pacific eventually threatened not to construct an automotive road deck atop the structure which saw Yolo County relent.  Yolo County would officially endorse construction of a road deck atop the I Street Bridge on September 8, 1910.  Construction of the I Street had commenced on June 8, 1910.  The structure would be completed on April 29, 1912, at a cost of approximately $1,000,000.  Like the 1870-era railroad span the I Street Bridge retained a turntable swing design. 
   (Source: Gribblenation Blog (Tom Fearer), "I Street Bridge (former California State Route 16 the Sacramento River)", 10/24/2025)

   Originally, LRN 6 used the "I" Street Bridge. The I Street Bridge opened to traffic over the Sacramento River in 1912 as a swing span. It is  is owned by the Union Pacific Railroad.  The top deck of this 400-foot-long structure carries automotive traffic from I Street in Sacramento to C Street in West Sacramento.  The bottom deck carries the tracks of the Union Pacific Railroad. By 1917, LRN 6 departed Sacramento westward via the I Street Bridge to Washington (now West Sacramento). Prior to the construction of the Yolo Causeway, a primitive seasonal road known as "Tule Jake Road" could be utilized to traverse Yolo Basin by car between West Sacramento and Davis (seasonal, as the Yolo basin flooded six to eight months every year). After completion of the Yolo Causeway (then referred to as the Yolo Basin Trestle) between West Sacramento and Davis, LRN 6 was moved to the "M" Street Bridge, which eliminated a rail overpass from the alignment. In 1935, the "I" Street Bridge became part of LRN 50 as part of the 1935 codification of LRN 50 as "[LRN 15] to Sacramento via Rumsey and Woodland" (previously, LRN 50 had ended in Woodland); the "I" Street Bridge was then signed as part of Sign Route 16. The structure became part of Sign Route 24 when that highway was extended to Oakland in 1935. 
   (Source: Gribblenation Blog (Tom Fearer), "The history of Sacramento's Tower Bridge (Currently California State Route 275 and former US Routes 40/99W)", 10/8/2025;Gribblenation Blog (Tom Fearer), "I Street Bridge (former California State Route 16 the Sacramento River)", 10/24/2025)

   In 1935, the Jibboom Street Overhead was announced as a recommended project.  The proposed span would serve as a connection between Jibboom Street and the I Street Bridge.  Concepts of the Jibboom Street Overhead noted that the project was planned as a Federal cooperative and included a replacement for the original eastern approach to the I Street Bridge.  The original eastern approach landed at I Street just west of 2^nd Street.  The new approach was planned to be elongated towards 3^rd Street.  Jibboom Street originally connected to 2^nd Street via an at-grade crossing of the Southern Pacific Railroad. The Jibboom Street Overhead and realigned eastern approach to the I Street Bridge were dedicated by the Governor on October 1, 1937. In 1949, Legislative Chapter 1467 defined a duplicate LRN 207 as a new State Highway between Sacramento and Marysville; this highway incorporated the Jibboom Street Overhead branching north of the I Street Bridge.  The corridor was originally subject to the provisions of the Collier Burns Act of 1947 regarding maintenance.  The duplicate LRN 207 was renumbered as LRN 232 in 1951; the Collier Burns Act provision the highway was subject to was removed in 1955. Sign Route 24 would continue to use the I Street Bridge until it was realigned onto the Jibboom Street Bridge (LRN 232) in 1960.
   (Source: Gribblenation Blog (Tom Fearer), "I Street Bridge (former California State Route 16 the Sacramento River)", 10/24/2025)

   Over on AAroads, Scott Parker noted the following about the I-Street routing: The original LRN 232 (after 1958 signed as Route 24) diverged from LRN 50/Route 16 at the intersection of the I Street extension bridge immediately east of the Sacramento River swing-span (shared with UP/former SP tracks on the lower/ground level deck) and Jibboom Street (both are elevated over the RR tracks). It headed north on Jibboom over a through-truss bridge crossing the American River; the street ended at Garden Highway—atop the river levee—at which point LRN 232/Route 24 turned west. About a mile west of there, the state highway diverged from Garden Highway along a broad arc descending north from the levee onto El Centro Avenue, which it utilized north into Sutter County. LRN 232 and Route 24 terminated at LRN 3/US 99E at a diamond interchange in Olivehurst.

   After 1964, Route 99 was defined as running through Sacramento and Route 70 was originally signed to terminate at Capitol Mall.  Route 99 and Route 70 would initially use the eastern I Street Bridge approach to reach the Jibboom Street Overhead. These were temporary routings. In 1970, following the completion of I-5 north of downtown Sacramento during the late 1960s, both Route 99 and Route 70 were moved to I-5 and would multiplex the freeway.
   (Source: Gribblenation Blog (Tom Fearer), "I Street Bridge (former California State Route 16 the Sacramento River)", 10/24/2025)

   The I Street Bridge was removed as part of the State Highway System and as part of California State Route 16 in 1984.
   (Source: Gribblenation Blog (Tom Fearer), "I Street Bridge (former California State Route 16 the Sacramento River)", 10/24/2025)

   In October 2018, it was reported that the City of Sacramento and Caltrans have initiated a project that will replace the historic I-Street Bridge (for vehicular traffic) and the Jibboom Street approach to the bridge for a new vehicular continuation of Railyards Blvd. to C Street. The I Street Bridge is 100 years old (and is a former routing of Sign Route 16 and Sign Route 24 (as LRN 50)) and the lanes are too narrow to serve buses, there are no bicycle lanes, and sidewalks are too narrow to meet accessibility standards. The I Street Bridge and the four associated approach structures are on the eligible bridge list for federal funds for replacement and/or rehabilitation through the Highway Bridge Program (HBP). The I Street Bridge has been classified as functionally obsolete, and the existing approach structures have been classified as structurally deficient. The I Street Bridge Replacement project will include construction of a new bridge upstream of the existing I Street Bridge. The new bridge will cross the Sacramento River between the Sacramento Railyards and the West Sacramento Washington planned developments and provide a new bicycle, pedestrian, and automobile crossing. The existing I Street Bridge would continue to be used by the railroad. The approach viaducts to the existing I Street Bridge will be demolished, which should result in better access to the water front in both cities.
   (Source: City of Sacramento, I-Street Bridge Replacement)

   In November 2022, it was reported that there was progress on the plan to rework the I-Street Bridge. In October 2022, project planners filed its financial documents. In late October, the project (to turn the top level of the I Street Bridge into a pedestrian walkway and bike lane over the Sacramento River) was recommended for a $16 million grant through the state’s Active Transportation Program. This is all related to the the design of the future bridge between C Street in West Sacramento and the Railyards — a $260 million, 300-foot-long feat of architecture that will replace the I Street Bridge as the route cars take over the river. After the new bridge is built, the 111-year-old I Street Bridge will still be used for railroad traffic, which runs on the bottom deck of the bridge. The city of West Sacramento has spearheaded a plan to repair the bridge’s narrow sidewalk and turn the vehicle lanes into a bicycle track and walkway. The $16 million state grant still has to be formally approved by the state Transportation Commission. The Sacramento Area Council of Governments previously awarded the project $3.6 million to complete the final design and right-of-way phase. The total cost of planning and constructing the project is estimated at $22.6 million. After securing more than $19 million in outside funding, the city will pay the rest. Final planning should be complete and construction could be ready to begin in or before 2026 — but that will largely depend on the timing of the completion of the new Railyards bridge. The plan is to be ready so that as soon as the new bridge is cleared to start taking vehicle traffic, the deck conversion of the old bridge can start. The project should be finished by late 2027 or 2028.
   (Source: Sacramento Business Journal, 11/7/2022)

   In December 2022, it was reported that the CTC approved  $16 million for the I Street Bridge Deck Conversion Project. This project will repurpose and modernize the historic I Street Bridge to close an active transportation gap and foster economic development between low-income and disadvantaged neighborhoods in West Sacramento and Sacramento. The project will construct and connect new Americans with Disabilities Act compliant bicycle/pedestrian ramps on both sides of the Sacramento River and enhance the upper deck to facilitate and encourage active transportation between the two cities.
   (Source: Appeal Democrat, 12/9/2022)

   In December 2023, it was reported that Construction on a new bridge connecting West Sacramento and the Railyards is anticipated to begin in 2025. Currently, the I Street Bridge replacement project is not fully funded, and construction will begin once all financial support is secured. So far, officials have completed the environmental documentation, and are working through the permits, right-of-way acquisition and final design. Even after construction starts it’ll be a while before the new bridge graces the city. The project will take approximately four years to construct to comply with environmental mitigation and flood control work windows. If construction begins in 2025, the new bridge would be completed by 2029. The existing I Street Bridge is more than 110 years old; the nine-foot lanes are too narrow to serve buses, there are no bicycle lanes, and the sidewalks are too narrow to meet current accessibility standards. A new bridge will be built upstream from the current one and will cross the Sacramento River, connecting the Railyards to West Sacramento’s Washington neighborhood. The current bridge will remain and serve as a railroad crossing on the lower deck, the city said, while the upper deck may be used by pedestrians and bicyclists. The new vertical lift bridge will feature 6-foot bike lanes and 12-foot shared paths for pedestrians and bicyclists. It can also withstand more than 25,000 vehicles daily, according to the city’s 2020 news release. The bridge’s contemporary blueprint is bolstered by two curved green and white pillars on each side, which light up at night.
   (Source: Sacramento Bee, 12/15/2023)

   In October 2025, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding 03-Sacramento County. I Street Bridge Replacement Project. New two-lane bridge to replace existing two-lane vehicle crossing.  (FEIR) (PPNO 1809). The Project is located over the Sacramento River and within the City of Sacramento in Sacramento County and the City of West Sacramento in Yolo County. The existing I Street Bridge and approach work are located between 3^rd Street in Sacramento to 5^th Street in West Sacramento. The new bridge location would be approximately 1,000 feet north of the existing I Street Bridge. The Project would replace the two-lane vehicle crossing (that is currently accommodated by the existing I Street Bridge) with a two-lane bridge on a new alignment. The new bridge would be 860 feet long with a 330-foot-long vertical lift movable bridge center span. The new bridge would have Class II buffered bicycle lanes and sidewalks on both sides. The Project includes partial or full removal of five bridge approaches.  The Project is estimated to cost $334,738,000 and is funded through construction with Highway Bridge Program ($264,031,000), City of Sacramento local ($17,355,000), City of West Sacramento local ($17,352,000), Regional Surface Transportation Program  ($11,000,000), and Local Partnership Program ($25,000,000) funds. Construction for the Project began in Fiscal Year 2025-26.  For more details, see the full agenda item background.
   (Source: October 2025 CTC Agenda, Agenda Item 2.2c.(4))

   Sacramento Weir Widening Project

   This project is taking place on a section of former Route 16, circa 1968.

   In August 2023, it was reported that the United States Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE) contractor, Granite Construction, has begun work to widen the Sacramento Bypass flood control structure. The Sacramento Weir Widening Project is taking place along Old River Road, also known as County Road 22, just north of the City of West Sacramento city limits. This crucial step toward bolstering flood control measures along the Sacramento River aims to enhance flood stage management both upstream and downstream of the Sacramento Weir during high-flow events, thereby mitigating flood risks and safeguarding the areas adjoining the Sacramento River. A key element of the project entails the construction of a 1,500-foot-long extension of the Sacramento Weir, stretching northwest along Old River Road. This extension will be accompanied by essential improvements such as levee enhancements, roadway upgrades, utility enhancements, and fish passage improvements. To accommodate the construction of the weir extension, a section of approximately 1,000 feet of Old River Road will be temporarily removed. In its place, a detour route will be established. This detour is projected to be operational for an estimated two-year period during the course of the weir extension construction.
   (Source: Yolo County Press Release, 8/10/2023)

   In 1935, US 99W/LRN 7 north of Woodland followed modern Route 16/County Road 98 to County Road 99W at Yolo.  From Yolo, US 99W/LRN 7 northbound followed County Road 99W through Zamora and Dunnigan to the Colusa County Line.
   (Source: Gribblenation Blog (Tom Fearer), "Former US Route 99 West from West Sacramento to Red Bluff", August 2021)

   Status

   In March 2025, the CTC amended the following project in the 2024 SHOPP: 03-Yol-16 15.1/20.5. PPNO 03-8671; ProjID 0322000086; EA 2J670. Route 16 near Esparto, from 0.1 mile west of County Road 68 to 0.3 mile east of County Road 78A. Rehabilitate roadway and bring shoulders to standard, rehabilitate drainage systems, replace two bridges and widen one bridge, construct concrete barrier, and upgrade signs, facilities to Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards, and Transportation Management System (TMS) elements. Note: Project description inaccurately included ADA facility improvements and concrete barrier work, and did not include bridge replacements and widening work. No new scope has been added or deleted from the project. Allocation ($ × $1000) PA&ED $3,310; PS&E $3,340; R/W Sup $1,180; Con Sup $3,850; R/W Cap $1,530; Const Cap $28,800; TOTAL $42,010.
   (Source: March 2025 CTC Agenda, Agenda Item 2.1a.(1d) #14)

   Capay Widening (~ YOL 18.775 to YOL 31.846)

   According to the Sacramento Bee, Caltrans plans to raise a section of Route 16 near Madison (~ YOL 31.0), west of Woodland. It's part of a $48 million improvement project to Route 16 between the Capay Valley (~ YOL 25.571) and I-505 (~ YOL 31.846). The project, to begin in 2008, includes a handful of safety measures, including widening the shoulders and adding a 20-foot "recovery zone" beyond the shoulders. Caltrans' Jan Mendoza said the agency also plans to add some turn lanes to cut down on the number of rear-ender collisions and to smooth out some sharp curves.

   In February 2010, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding a project in Yolo County that would reconstruct a portion of Route 16 from County Road 78 near the town of Brooks (~ YOL 18.775) to the South Fork Willow Slough Bridge near the town of Madison (~ YOL 31.0). Reconstruction will bring this portion of Route 16 to current design standards resulting in improved safety. The project is fully funded in the 2008 State Highway Operation and Protection Program. The total estimated project cost is $77,392,000 for capital and support. Construction is estimated to begin in Fiscal Year 2011-12. The project required a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), for it will involve construction activities resulting in potential impacts to cultural and biological impacts, including removal of 317 native trees and as many as 1763 orchard trees. To address this removal, there is a revegitation plan. The removal of 21 elderberry bushes also impacts the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle, and it would permanantly impact about 38 acres of Swainson's Hawk foraging habitat (Caltrans is planning to replant bushes and buy credits to offset these). There is also community opposition to the project.

   In August 2011, a Sacramento judge requested that Caltrans rework the Capay project. Caltrans contends the narrow, twisting road is a danger and needs major upgrades to prevent accidents and ease emergency response. The department also wants to raise low-lying sections of roadway prone to flooding. The changes would affect an approximately 12-mile stretch of highway between I-505, near Madison, and the casino, near Brooks. Residents and farmers argue the project would destroy farmland and damage the valley's rural character. They say accidents have decreased in recent years and insist small-scale changes will help. They filed a lawsuit in January 2010 challenging Caltrans' December 2009 final environmental impact report on the Route 16 project. Sacramento Superior Court Judge Michael Kenny sided partly with the residents in a 42-page ruling issued in late July 2011. Kenny wrote that Caltrans had failed to provide sufficient accident data, including a breakdown of collisions by location, to show a need for the project. He also said the department had failed to adequately weigh options, such as the "spot improvements" and narrower shoulders favored by some residents. He directed Caltrans to rescind the project. Caltrans will likely draft a revised report, and obtain more public comment.
   (Source: Sacramento Bee)

   In August 2015, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding a project in Yolo County that will widen and pave the shoulders, provide recovery zones, install rumble strips, add a left turn pocket, and straighten curves on a portion of Route 16 near the communities of Madison and Esparto. The project is programmed in the 2014 State Highway Operation and Protection Program. The total estimated cost is $36,160,000 for capital and support. Construction is estimated to begin in Fiscal Year 2016-17. The scope, as described for the preferred alternative, is consistent with the project scope programmed by the Commission in the 2014 State Highway Operation and Protection Program.

   In March 2016, the CTC approved $1.61M in SHOPP funding a project on Route 16 near Capay, from 0.3 mile west of County Road 82B to County Road 82B (~ YOL 23.218 to YOL 23.518). Outcome/Output: Increase curve radius, widen shoulders, install rumble strips, flatten vertical curve, and modify drainage systems to improve safety and reduce the number and severity of collisions. Future Consideration of Funding approved under Resolution E-15-43; August 2015.

   In March 2018, the CTC approved $25,250,000 in SHOPP funding for Yolo 03-Yol-16 20.5/31.8 Route 16 Near Esparto, from 0.4 mile west to 0.4 mile east of County Road 79; also from 0.1 mile east of Plainfield Street to 0.1 mile east of County Road 90. Outcome/Output: Widen shoulders, improve curve, provide left-turn channelization, add signals, construct roundabout, and add two-way left-turn lanes to improve safety. This project will reduce the number and severity of collisions. The project was also included in the final adopted 2018 SHOPP in March 2018: PPNO 8655A. 03-Yolo-16 20.5/31.6. Route 16 Near Cadenasso, from 0.4 mile west of County Road 79 to 0.4 mile east of County Road 79; also from Esparto to 0.2 mile west of Route 505. Shoulder widening, curve correction, left-turn channelization, signalization and two-way left turn lanes. Begin Con: 5/16/2018. Total Project Cost: $37,299K.
   (Source: CTC Agenda, March 2018 Agenda Item 2.5f; final adopted 2018 SHOPP)

   In November 2019, it was reported that a ribbon-cutting ceremony was held for the Route 16 safety improvement project that first broke ground in the summer of 2018. The project is meant to make it easier for drivers coming off I-505 who are headed west toward the Capay Valley and who have previously found themselves in a two-mile traffic jam starting at Guy’s Corner — a four-way stop that leads to Esparto and Madison. The new route is widened and a roundabout replaces the four-way stop. Safety improvements between Esparto and I-505 included an eight-foot shoulder widening, curve corrections, two-way left-turn lanes, and left-turn pockets, traffic signals, and a constructed roundabout at the intersection of Route 16 and County Road 89 in Madison. The work is part of a $37.1 million construction project aimed at improving safety on a one-mile segment in the Cadenasso area between Brooks and Capay and a 3.5-mile-stretch between Esparto and the I-505 junction. The project is one of three for Route 16, the second one being a smoothing out of the entryway to downtown Esparto, where drivers have had to make a sharp right turn traveling into the community when headed west on Route 16. The third project is a similar straightening west of Capay where the road suddenly veers near County Road 85.
   (Source: Daily Democrat, 11/20/2019)

   In October 2024, the CTC approved amending the following project into the 2024 SHOPP: 03-Yol-16 21.2/21.9. PPNO 03-8679; ProjId 0323000285; EA 4J880. Route 16 Near Cadenasso, from 0.3 mile east of County Road 79 to 0.2 mile west of County Road 81. Construct 4-foot shoulders, rumble strips, and retaining wall,  rehabilitate drainage systems, and upgrade signs and guardrail. PA&ED: 3/31/2026. R/W: 3/19/2027. RTL: 3/31/2027. BC: 10/6/2027. Allocation ($ × $1000): PA&ED $1,150; PS&E $1,310; R/W Sup $280; Con Sup $1,770; R/W Cap $115; Const Cap: $4,900; TOTAL $9,525.Concurrent COS allocation under Resolution FP-24-28; October 2024.
   (Source: October 2024 CTC Agenda, Agenda Item 2.1a.(1a) #3)

   County Road 95 Intersection Improvements (03-Yol-16 37.524)

   In January 2024, the CTC amended the following project into the 2022 SHOPP: 03-Yol-16 37.524. PPNO 03-8672; ProjID 0323000088; EA 4J120. Route 16 Near Woodland, at the intersection with County Road 95. Construct intersection improvements. Allocation ($ × $1000) PA&ED $560; PS&E $620; R/W Sup $300; Con Sup $750; R/W Cap $70; Const Cap $3,590; TOTAL $5,890. FY25-26. Concurrent COS allocation under Resolution FP-23-65; January 2024. BC: 1/15/2026
   (Source: January 2024 CTC Agenda, Agenda Item 2.1a #8)

   In January 2024, the CTC approved the following pre-construction-phase SHOPP allocation: $560,000. 03-Yol-16 37.524. PPNO 03-8672; ProjID 0323000088; EA 4J120. Route 16 Near Woodland, at the intersection with County Road 95.  Construct intersection improvements. Concurrent Amendment under SHOPP Amendment 22H-016; January 2024. Programmed (Allocation, if different): PA&ED: $560,000.
   (Source: January 2024 CTC Agenda, Agenda Item 2.5b.(2a) #6)

   In June 2024, the CTC amended the following project already in the SHOPP: 03-Yol-16 37.524 37.315/37.729. PPNO 03-8672; ProjID 0323000088; EA 4J120. Route 16 Near Woodland, from 0.2 mile west to 0.2 mile east of at the intersection with County Road 95. Construct intersection improvements. Note: Update postmiles and description to accommodate placement of flashing beacons. No allocation changes.
   (Source: June 2024 CTC Minutes, Agenda Item 2.1a.(2d) #3)

   In August 2024, the CTC authorized the following pre-construction-phase allocation for the following SHOPP project: $920,000. 03-Yol-16 37.315/37.729. PPNO 03-8672; ProjID 0323000088; EA 4J120. Route 16 Near Woodland, from 0.2 mile west to 0.2 mile east of County Road 95.  Outcome/Outputs: Construct intersection improvements. Allocation (Programmed, if different): PS&E $620,000; RW Sup $300,000.
   (Source: August 2024 CTC Agenda, Agenda Item 2.5b.(2a) #9)

   In March 2026, it was reported that construction is underway on a left-turn lane project along Route 16 at the intersection with County Road 95, about three miles west of Woodland. According to Yolo County, construction began on March 9, 2026 and is expected to continue into the early summer months. The project will add left-turn lanes on Highway 16 at the County Road 95 intersection. Crews will also install warning signs and beacons intended to make the intersection more visible to drivers.
   (Source: ABC 10 News, 3/17/2026)

   County Road 97 Intersection Improvements (03-Yol-16 39.407/39.66)

   March 2026 review of the DRAFT 2026 SHOPP identified the following new project: 03-Yol-16 39.407/39.66. PPNO 03-8673; ProjID 0323000217; EA 4J630. Near Woodland, at intersection with County Road 97.  Construct roundabout, upgrade lighting, rehabilitate pavement and drainage systems, install Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) and advanced warning signs with beacon, and construct new curb ramps and driveway. Allocation ($ × 1,000): PA&ED $900; PS&E $1,020; R/W Sup $250; Con Sup $1,400; R/W Cap $440; Const Cap $6,900; TOTAL $10,910. Begin Const: 12/16/2029.
   (Source: Caltrans SHOPP Page: DRAFT 2026 SHOPP PROPOSED, State Highway Operation and Protection Program, Fiscal Years 2026-27 through 2029-30 (PDF), January 31, 2026; March 2026 CTC Agenda, Agenda Item 4.7)

   In March 2026, the CTC approved the following 2026 SHOPP pre-construction phase (environmental support) allocation: $900,000. 03-Yolo-16 39.407/39.66. PPNO 03-8673; ProjID 0323000217; EA 4J630. Route 16 Near Woodland, at intersection with County Road 97. Construct roundabout, upgrade lighting,rehabilitate pavement and drainage systems, install Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) and advanced warning signs with beacon, and construct new curb ramps and driveway. Pre-Construction Phase Allocation ($ × $1000): Budgeted (Actual, if different): PA&ED $900.
   (Source: March 2026 CTC Agenda, Agenda Item 2.5b.(3) #7)

   Naming

   The portion of Route 16 in Colusa County (~ COL 0.0 to COL 7.152) is designated as part of the National Purple Heart Trail in order to honor the men and women who have been wounded or killed in combat while serving in the United States Armed Forces. Designed by Assembly Concurrent Resolution (ACR) 191, Res. Chapter 163, Statutes of 2016, on September 1, 2016.

   The portion of this route from Route 20 to Rumsey (~ COL 0.0 to YOL 7.483) was named the "Yolo and Lake Highway" by Resolution Chapter 283 in 1915.

   The section of Route 16 in Yolo County between I-505 and County Road 98 (~ YOL 32.302 to YOL R40.572) is named the "CHP Officer Andrew "Andy" Stevens Memorial Highway". It was named in memory of California Highway Patrol (CHP) Officer Andrew "Andy" Todd Stevens, born in February 1968 in Sacramento, California. Andy Stevens attended Kohler Elementary School in North Highlands. He then attended Carmichael Baptist Academy where he graduated from high school in 1986. Following high school, he attended American River College and Sacramento City College where he studied criminal justice. Law enforcement was his career of choice. In May 1994, Andy Stevens was selected for the position of Cadet at the CHP Academy. Upon graduation, CHP Officer Stevens was assigned to road patrol in Baldwin Park. Later, he worked in San Jose, Golden Gate Communications Center, Golden Gate Division, and the Woodland area. In May 2002, he found his true calling and was assigned as a Commercial Officer in Valley Division, serving the Sacramento area. While working in Woodland, CHP Officer Stevens met an Emergency Medical Technician named Michelle, who was working for American Medical Response Ambulance Company. They were married on October 20, 2002, at Lake Tahoe. CHP Officer Stevens' life was packed with achievements. He was the Director of the Auburn Chapter of the Harley Owners Group and was instrumental in organizing and coordinating numerous charitable events. He was in his second year of organizing the Annual Toy Run in Auburn, which raises toys for over 1,000 disadvantaged children in the community. CHP Officer Stevens was killed on November 17, 2005, in a felonious assault while working road patrol near Route 16 in rural Yolo County. CHP Officer Stevens had initiated a traffic stop for a Vehicle Code violation and approached the violator's vehicle when he was suddenly and ruthlessly shot by the driver. The driver fled the scene and was apprehended less than 12 hours later. CHP Officer Stevens was laid to rest in Sacramento County after a ceremony attended by thousands of mourners, including his fellow officers, friends, and family. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution (ACR) 141, Resolution Chapter 137, on 9/5/2008.
   (Image source: Find a grave)

   Scenic Route

   [SHC 263.3] From Route 20 to Capay.

   Although this segment is eligible for Scenic Highway status, it has not yet met the criteria to be officially designated as Scenic Highway.

   National Trails

   The third iteration of the Lincoln Highway was routed out of Sacramento to the West along LRN 6 and LRN 7. The LRN 6 included a small portion of Sign Route 16 along N Street. It diverted to use Route 12 (LRN 8) and Route 29 (LRN 74) to return to LRN 7 near Vallejo, where it met LRN 14 to LRN 5, where it then crossed into San Francisco (originally via the Ferry, and later the Oakland Bay Bridge on LRN 68). The route originally terminated in Lincoln Park, six miles west of the ferry landing at the foot of Market Street. The Lincoln Highway ended opposite the Palace of the Legion of Honor at a small monument marking the spot. The last few miles (of the highway) were California Street.

   The portion of this route between Oakland and Sacramento (LRN 6, LRN 7 and LRN 14) part of the National Park to Park Highway.

   Freeway

   [SHC 253.2] From Route 505 to Route 5 near Woodland. Added to the Freeway and Expressway system in 1959.

   ---

2. From Route 50 near Perkins to Route 49 near Drytown.

   • (b) Upon a determination by the commission that it is in the best interests of the state to do so, the commission may, upon terms and conditions approved by it, relinquish to the City of Sacramento the portion of Route 16 that is located within the city limits of that city if the city agrees to accept it. The following conditions shall apply upon relinquishment: (this portion was relinquished in March 2016, see below)
     • (1) The relinquishment shall become effective on the date following the county recorder’s recordation of the relinquishment resolution containing the commission’s approval of the terms and conditions of the relinquishment.
     • (2) On and after the effective date of the relinquishment, the relinquished portion of Route 16 shall cease to be a state highway.
     • (3) The portion of Route 16 relinquished under this subdivision shall be ineligible for future adoption under Section 81.
     • (4) For the portion of Route 16 relinquished under this subdivision, the City of Sacramento shall apply for approval of a business route designation for the relinquished portion of the highway in accordance with Chapter 20, Topic 21, of the Highway Design Manual.
     • (5) For the portion of Route 16 relinquished under this subdivision, the City of Sacramento shall install and maintain within its jurisdiction signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 16 to the east.
     • (6) The City of Sacramento shall maintain the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) truck route designation for the portion of Route 16 relinquished that previously held that designation.
   • (c) (1)Upon a determination by the commission that it is in the best interests of the state to do so, the commission may, upon terms and conditions approved by it, relinquish to the County of Sacramento the portion of Route 16 that is located within the unincorporated area of that county, and between the general easterly city limits of the City of Sacramento, approximately post mile 3.3, and 0.2 miles east of Grant Line Road, approximately post mile 12.7, if the county agrees to accept it. (2) The following conditions shall apply upon relinquishment:
     • (A) The relinquishment shall become effective on the date following the county recorder’s recordation of the relinquishment resolution containing the commission’s approval of the terms and conditions of the relinquishment.
     • (B) On and after the effective date of the relinquishment, the relinquished portion of Route 16 shall cease to be a state highway.
     • (C) The portion of Route 16 relinquished under this subdivision shall be ineligible for future adoption under Section 81.
     • (D) For the portion of Route 16 relinquished under this subdivision, the County of Sacramento shall apply for approval of a business route designation for the relinquished portion of the highway in accordance with Chapter 20, Topic 21, of the Highway Design Manual.
     • (E) For the portion of Route 16 relinquished under this subdivision, the County of Sacramento shall install and maintain within its jurisdiction signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 16 to the east.
     • (F) The County of Sacramento shall maintain the STAA truck route designation for the portion of Route 16 relinquished that previously held that designation.
     • (G) The County of Sacramento shall ensure the continuity of traffic flow on the relinquished portion of Route 16 within its jurisdiction, including, but not limited to, any traffic signal progression.
     • (H) Any relinquishment agreement shall require that the County of Sacramento administer the operation and maintenance of the roadway in a manner that is consistent with professional traffic engineering standards.
     • (I) Any relinquishment agreement shall require the County of Sacramento to ensure that appropriate traffic studies or analyses will be performed to substantiate decisions affecting traffic on the roadway.
   • (d) Upon a determination by the commission that it is in the best interests of the state to do so, the commission may, upon terms and conditions approved by it, relinquish to the City of Rancho Cordova the portion of Route 16 that is within the city limits of the city between Sunrise Boulevard, approximately post mile 11.5, and Grant Line Road, approximately post mile 12.5, if the city agrees to accept it. The following conditions shall apply upon relinquishment:
     • (1) The relinquishment shall become effective on the date following the county recorder’s recordation of the relinquishment resolution containing the commission’s approval of the terms and conditions of the relinquishment.
     • (2) On and after the effective date of the relinquishment, the relinquished portion of Route 16 shall cease to be a state highway.
     • (3) The portion of Route 16 relinquished under this subdivision shall be ineligible for future adoption under Section 81.
     • (4) For the portion of Route 16 relinquished under this subdivision, the City of Rancho Cordova shall apply for approval of a business route designation for the relinquished portion of the highway in accordance with Chapter 20, Topic 21, of the Highway Design Manual.

   The vehicle code explicitly permits (21115.5) a golf cart or a low-speed vehicle to cross Route 16 at Murieta Drive and at Murieta South Parkway if the crossing is controlled by an official traffic control device and is at an angle of approximately 90 degrees to the direction of the highway. The Rancho Murieta Community Services District is permitted to take any reasonable measures within its jurisdiction that are necessary to ensure that golf carts and low-speed vehicles may cross safely and that highway traffic is not unreasonably impeded thereby. This is permitted only until January 1, 2007. (Permitted until 1/1/2006 by SB 612, Chapter 16, 6/24/2003; extended by AB 188, 6/30/2006, Chapter 26).

   Post 1964 Signage History

   In 1963, segment (b) was defined as "(b) Route 5 near Woodland to Sacramento", and there was a segment (c): "(c) Route 50 near Perkins to Route 49 near Drytown."

   In 1984, the original segment (b) was deleted by Chapter 409. The deleted segment was Level Road and Sacramento Avenue, and ran past the Yolo County offices. That segment was still LRN 50 (defined in 1933), and continued into downtown Sacramento. It was cosigned with Route 24. There was also a small portion between Route 160 and Route 99 near Sacramento via Broadway. This was defined in 1910 as part of LRN 4, and appears to have been removed from the system by 1975, although it was formally removed in 1984.

   In 1971, Route 16 was routed in Sacramento from Howe Avenue from the future US 50 freeway centerline to Folsom Boulevard, and Folsom Boulevard from Howe Avenue to Jackson Road (which had been primarily signed as US 50), were adopted as part of Route 16 in order to sustain a signed route connection from US 50 to Jackson Highway. Reasons to believe the adoption was successful include that the postmile range T1.658 to 2.530 was successfully assigned.

   In 2014, segment (2) was modified to authorize relinquishment in the City of Sacramento. Authorized by AB 1957, Chapter 335, 9/15/2014.

   In 2015, AB 652, Chapter 630, 10/08/15, revised the relinquishment authorization to apply to a specified portion of Route 16 that is located within the unincorporated area of the county, between the general easterly city limits of the City of Sacramento and near Grant Line Road, and imposed additional conditions on the relinquishment:

   (c) Upon a determination by the commission that it is in the best interests of the state to do so, the commission may, upon terms and conditions approved by it, relinquish to the County of Sacramento the portion of Route 16 that is located within the unincorporated area of that county, and between the general easterly city limits of the City of Sacramento, approximately post mile 3.3, and 0.2 miles east of Grant Line Road, approximately post mile 12.7, east of the City of Sacramento boundary and west of Watt Avenue, if the county agrees to accept it.

   Chapter 630 (2015) also added the following conditions to item (c):

   (G) The County of Sacramento shall ensure the continuity of traffic flow on the relinquished portion of Route 16 within its jurisdiction, including, but not limited to, any traffic signal progression.

   (H) Any relinquishment agreement shall require that the County of Sacramento administer the operation and maintenance of the roadway in a manner that is consistent with professional traffic engineering standards.

   (I) Any relinquishment agreement shall require the County of Sacramento to ensure that appropriate traffic studies or analyses will be performed to substantiate decisions affecting traffic on the roadway.

   Chapter 630 (2015) also authorized the commission to relinquish to the City of Rancho Cordova a specified portion of Route 16:

   (d) Upon a determination by the commission that it is in the best interests of the state to do so, the commission may, upon terms and conditions approved by it, relinquish to the City of Rancho Cordova the portion of Route 16 that is within the city limits of the city between Sunrise Boulevard, approximately post mile 11.5, and Grant Line Road, approximately post mile 12.5, if the city agrees to accept it. The following conditions shall apply upon relinquishment:

   (1) The relinquishment shall become effective on the date following the county recorder’s recordation of the relinquishment resolution containing the commission’s approval of the terms and conditions of the relinquishment.

   (2) On and after the effective date of the relinquishment, the relinquished portion of Route 16 shall cease to be a state highway.

   (3) The portion of Route 16 relinquished under this subdivision shall be ineligible for future adoption under Section 81.

   (4) For the portion of Route 16 relinquished under this subdivision, the City of Rancho Cordova shall apply for approval of a business route designation for the relinquished portion of the highway in accordance with Chapter 20, Topic 21, of the Highway Design Manual.

   In March 2016, the CTC authorized relinquishment of right of way in the city of Sacramento on Route 16 (Howe Avenue, Folsom Boulevard, and Jackson Road) from Route 50 to the general easterly city limits, under terms and conditions as stated in the relinquishment agreement dated February 10, 2016, determined to be in the best interest of the State. Authorized by Chapter 630, Statutes of 2015, which amended Section 316 of the Streets and Highways Code. Additionally, the CTC also authorized relinquishment of right of way in the county of Sacramento on Route 16 (Jackson Road) from the general easterly city limits of the city of Sacramento to South Watt Avenue, under terms and conditions as stated in the relinquishment agreement dated February 11, 2016, determined to be in the best interest of the State. Authorized by Chapter 630, Statutes of 2015, which amended Section 316 of the Streets and Highways Code.

   Pre 1964 Signage History

   In 1934, Sign Route 16 was signed from Jct. Route 20 near Wilbur Springs to Jackson via Sacramento. Sign Route 16 may have been signed along the portion of present-day Route 49 between Drytown and Jackson.

   In downtown Sacramento, Sign Route 16 (LRN 50) came in around I Street, and then down 3^rd/5^th Streets to N Street. As of 2007, there was still a Route 16 postmile on the I Street bridge at the Yolo-Sacramento county line, facing eastbound into Sacramento. Sign Route 16 the ran across N Street to 15^th Street signed as Route 16. Route 16 continued along Capitol Avenue as LRN 11, joining US 50 at 26^th/30^th Street. It continued as LRN 11, signed as US 50, along Folsom Blvd to Perkins, where it diverged from US 50.

   Actually, the N Street/Capitol Avenue (originally M Street in the 1940s) routing had been the following highways, in progression: US 40/US 99W and Route 16 in 1942, and just Route 16 by 1963. Sometime in the mid-1960s, Route 16 ran co-signed with US 99W and US 40 via P and Q Streets and returned to Capitol Avenue via 15^th and 16^th Streets (former US 40, current Route 160)—whether they were cosigned is unknown. After the construction of the WX Freeway (the unsigned I-305 segment), signage for Route 16 was removed from downtown Sacramento and may have followed I-5 south of the I Street Bridge and east via the Topple Alley ramp on current Business Route 80 to Perkins, which is now indistinguishable from the rest of Sacramento (but still retains mention in the legislative definition of Route 16). According to a late-1960s map of the Sacramento Valley present in UC Davis's Storer Hall, Route 16 was co-signed with I-5 from future Exit 537 (Main Street, former Route 16) to future exit 531 (County Road 22), where Route 16 then split off to follow the Sacramento River into West Sacramento and Bryte. Thus, County Road 22 was de-designated as part of Route 16 after the construction of I-5 in the area; but the route to I Street would not be removed immediately after I-5's arrival. From 1981 (when I-80 was moved off the WX and 29/30 routings that make up the Capital City Freeway/Business Route 80), Route 16's implied multiplex east of Topple Alley would be with US 50/Route 99/Business Route 80/I-305.
   (Source: Chris Sampang)

   In 1960, a 1.8 mi freeway corridor was adopted by the CHC. This proposal existed through the 1970s, where Sign Route 16 would be taken off of the surface roads west of Watt Avenue (Jackson Road, Folsom Boulevard (former US 50) and Power Inn Road) and given its own short freeway bypass connecting the Manlove district (where Watt Avenue and the El Dorado Freeway meet up) with the current junction of Watt and Jackson Road. This seems to approximate the county-constructed expressway on the Watt Avenue corridor. In 1975, Caltrans requested public comment on the abandonment of the corridor from Route 50 near Watt Ave to the existing Route 16 at Hedge Avenue.
   (Image source: Sacramento Bee, 11/25/1975, via Joel Windmiller 2/23/2023)

   From US 50, the current routing resumed. It was signed as Route 16, but was LRN 54, between the junction with US 50 (LRN 11) and Route 49 (LRN 65) near Drytown. The portion of LRN 54 between US 50 and the county line near Michigan Bar was defined in 1933; the remainder of the route between the county line and Route 49 near Drytown was defined in 1919 as "Michigan Bar to Drytown."

   In 1924, the highway was relocated to a new alignment between Drytown and Central House. During 1933, LRN 54 was extended west to LRN 11 (US 50) near Perkins in Sacramento County. This was signed as part of Sign Route 16 in 1934, and LRN 54 was codified in 1935 as  "LRN 11 near Perkins to Drytown passing near Michigan Bar and Huot's Ranch.". At that time, the route diverged from US 50/LRN 11 near Perkins at Folsom Boulevard onto Jackson Road.  The highway followed Jackson Road east from Perkins through Walsh, Twelvemile House, Sloughhouse, Cosumne, Bridge House and Live Oak to the Amador County line near Michigan Bar. It then continued east to a terminus at Sign Route 49 at Central House near the outskirts of Drytown.
   (Source: Gribblenation Blog (Tom Fearer), "Eastern California State Route 16", July 2024)

   In 1948, Sign Route 16/LRN 54 was reconstructed at Sloughhouse.  The old alignment passed over the flood prone Deer Creek Bridge at the heart of the community.  The new alignment was constructed north of Sloughhouse and would open in 1949. In 1952, a new bridge was constructed at the Cosumnes River near Bridge House.
   (Source: Gribblenation Blog (Tom Fearer), "Eastern California State Route 16", July 2024)

   Status

   Rancho Cordova Relinquishment

   In January 2026, the CTC amended the following project into the SHOPP: 03-Sac-16 4.165/12.74. PPNO 03-5992; ProjID 0316000146; EA 1H410. Route 16 In and near the cities of Sacramento and Rancho Cordova, from South Watt Avenue to 0.2 mile east of Grant Line Road. Relinquish roadway to County of Sacramento and City of Rancho Cordova. Concurrent COS allocation under Resolution FP-25-74; January 2026. Allocation ($ × $1000): PA&ED $1,340; PS&E $0; R/W Sup $0; Con Sup $0; R/W Cap $10; Const Cap $0; TOTAL $1,350. March 2026 Update: 2026 SHOPP Confirmed.
   (Source: January 2026 CTC Agenda, Agenda Item 2.1a.(1a) #24; March 2026 CTC Agenda, Agenda Item 4.7)

   In January 2026, the CTC approved the following pre-construction phase SHOPP or SHOPP SB1 allocation: $1,340,000. 03-Sac-16 4.165/12.74. PPNO 03-5992; ProjID 0316000146; EA 1H410. Route 16 In and near the cities of Sacramento and Rancho Cordova, from South Watt Avenue to 0.2 mile east of Grant Line Road. Relinquish roadway to County of Sacramento and City of Rancho Cordova. Concurrent Amendment under SHOPP Amendment 24H-017; January 2026. Pre-Construction Phase Allocation ($ × $1000): Budgeted (Actual, if different): PA&ED $1,340.
   (Source: January 2026 CTC Agenda, Agenda Item 2.5b.(2a) #7)

   In August 2008, the CTC authorized relinquishment of right of way along Route 16 in the county of Sacramento near Sloughhouse, from 100 feet west of Sunrise Boulevard to 300 feet east of Murieta Parkway (~ SAC R11.492 to SAC 19.471), consisting of reconstructed county road connections.

   In May 2008, the CTC considered relinquishment of right of way in the city of Rancho Cordova, at Grant Line Road (~ SAC 12.498), consisting of a reconstructed city street.

   In July 2017, it was reported that Sacramento County has asked Caltrans to give it control of 8 miles of Jackson Highways (Route 16) — currently a two-lane road — so the county can turn it into an urban arterial street that would function as the spine for up to 30,000 new homes in the coming decades, allowing the metropolitan area to march east as far as Grant Line Road (~ SAC 12.498). Amador County officials are crying foul, saying the highway will be just another major suburban road, jammed with stop-and-go traffic. That, they say, will make it harder for tourists to get to Amador’s wine region and historic towns like Sutter Creek, and harder for foothill country residents to get to valley jobs and medical appointments. Amador wants Caltrans and Sacramento to offer some neighborly consideration, such as minimizing traffic signals along the way. Caltrans, which has said it is willing to “relinquish” the highway west of Grant Line to the locals, is declining to place restrictions on Sacramento’s future management of the road. Gedney said the situation could lead to a lawsuit. The drive from historic Jackson to Sacramento, now an hour, could stretch to an hour and a half, and there really is no other route that isn’t a detour for Amador residents, officials there say. Sacramento County officials say they plan to increase the road to six lanes, reduce speeds from 55 mph to 45 mph, and increase the number of intersections with traffic signals from six to about 17. Those traffic signals would be sequenced to make traffic movement smoother. Express buses could share outside lanes with cars. Bike lanes or nearby bike paths will be added. The city of Rancho Cordova will control a slice of the road along its boundary. There are no plans to alter the highway east of Grant Line Road, which is outside of Sacramento’s designated urban growth boundary and will remain under Caltrans control. The state previously relinquished a 2-mile section of the highway west of South Watt Avenue to the city of Sacramento for development. By relinquishing the road, Caltrans will free itself of operations and maintenance costs, and future costs involved in making changes to the road. It is not unusual for Caltrans to give up ownership of older highways as they are absorbed into growing metropolitan areas. Caltrans relinquished the Freeport Boulevard section of Route 160 to the city of Sacramento and also turned over Route 275 to West Sacramento. Officials with Caltrans said they had planned to turn the highway over to local control this year, but last week announced a delay until late 2019. State officials said studies pertaining to cultural resources will take longer than was anticipated.
   (Source: Sacramento Bee, 7/7/2017)

   In December 2009, the CTC relinquished right of way in the county of Sacramento along Route 16 at Michigan Bar Road and Ione Road (~ SAC R22.568), consisting of reconstructed county road connections. The CTC also vacated right of way in the county of Sacramento along Route 16 from 0.1 mile west of Michigan Bar Road to the Amador County line, consisting of highway right of way no longer needed for State highway purposes.

   In August 2008, the CTC vacated right of way along Route 16 in the county of Sacramento near Sloughhouse, between 0.1 miles west and 0.2 miles east of the intersection with Latrobe Road (~ AMA R6.398), consisting of highway right of way no longer needed for State highway purposes.

   Naming

   The portion of this route from Dillard Road in Sacramento County and the Amador County line (~ SAC R16.014 to SAC 23.81) is named the "Stanley L. Van Vleck Memorial Highway". Stanley L. Van Vleck was born in 1920 near Placerville, California. A third-generation Californian, he grew up on his family's homestead that was established about 1850. He later moved to a rance in Sloughhouse, California. He had a long and distinguished career as a rancher in the Sacramento region, and served in many leadership positions in agricultural organizations at the local, state, and national level, including the California Cattlemen's Association, the California Farm Bureau, the National Flying Farmers, and the National Cattlemen's Association. He also allowed the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the California Air National Guard, the California Department of Forestry, the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department, the Sacramento City Police Department, and the Sacramento Life Flight Unit to train on his ranch. He spearheaded the creation of the Cosumnes River School District and served as the President of that district's governing board for many years. He also shared his ranch with the entire community by allowing tens of thousands of Boy Scouts, 4-H'ers, Future Farmers of America, local students, California Operating Engineers, recreationists, and families a chance to experience agriculture and open space on his ranch. He lost his life in an accident while working at his beloved Sloughhouse ranch on September 7, 2000. One article noted: For at least 40 years, the soft-spoken Van Vleck - a 1937 graduate of Elk Grove High School at age 16 - allowed Boy Scouts free access to 200 acres of his property to conduct activities. Since 1991, Van Vleck let the Andersons' Boy Scout troops use the property for its spring Camporee. He put a water well in solely for the Boy Scouts' use, according to Steve Anderson. Van Vleck also shared his land with 4-H clubs, Future Farmers of America, California Operating Engineers, Girl Scout troops, local students and families who wanted a chance to experience open space. He hosted training for the FBI, the Sacramento sheriff's and police departments, the California Air National Guard and the Department of Forestry. He also allowed the property to be used for a 2,000-person Civil War re-enactment and other activities. In the 1940s, Van Vleck spearheaded the creation of the Cosumnes River School District - even though he was not yet married and had no children at the time. He was the district's school board president for many years. Knowing that many young children were not attending school, he convinced parents to volunteer to help build an elementary school - Cosumnes River Elementary. It became part of the Elk Grove Unified School District in 1959. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 4, Resolution Chapter 61, filed June 7, 2001.
   (Addtional bio information: Van Vleck Ranch; Image sources: RanchoMurieta, RanchoMurieta)

   Other WWW Links

   • California @ AARoads: California 16
   • Historic California US Highways (Casey Cooper)
     • Finding US 50
     • Finding US 99
   • Gribblenation Blog (Tom Fearer):
     • Western California State Route 16
     • Highways in and around Old Sacramento; US 40, US 99W, CA 16, CA 24, CA 70, CA 99, CA 275, and more
     • I Street Bridge (former California State Route 16 the Sacramento River)
     • Former US Route 99 West from West Sacramento to Red Bluff
     • Eastern California State Route 16

   Freeway

   [SHC 253.2] From Route 50 near Perkins to Route 49 near Drytown. Added to the Freeway and Expressway system in 1959.

   Interregional Route

   [SHC 164.11] Between the east urban limits of Sacramento and Route 49.

   ---

Statistics

Pre 1964 Signage History

Pre-1964 Legislative Route

Acronyms and Explanations:

• "LRN" refers to the Pre-1964 Legislative Route Number. "US" refers to a US Shield signed route. "I" refers to an Eisenhower Interstate signed route. "Route" usually indicates a state shield signed route, but said route may be signed as US or I.
• Previous Federal Aid (pre-1992) categories: Federal Aid Interstate (FAI); Federal Aid Primary (FAP); Federal Aid Urban (FAU); and Federal Aid Secondary (FAS). Current Functional Classifications (used for aid purposes): Principal Arterial (PA); Minor Arterial (MA); Collector (Col); Rural Minor Collector/Local Road (RMC/LR). Note that ISTEA repealed the previous Federal-Aid System, effective in 1992, and established the functional classification system for all public roads.
• Other frequently used terms: California Transportation Commission (Commission or CTC), California Department of Transportation (Department or Caltrans), Regional Improvement Program (RIP), Interregional Improvement Program (IIP), State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP), Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP), Clean Air and Transportation Improvement Act of 1990 (Proposition 116), High Speed Passenger Train Bond Program (Proposition 1A), Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006 (Proposition 1B), Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA), State Route 99 Bond Program (RTE or SR 99), Local Bridge Seismic Retrofit Account (LBSRA), Trade Corridors Improvement Fund (TCIF), Highway-Railroad Crossing Safety Account (HRCSA), State-Local Partnership Program (SLPP), Environmental Phase (PA&ED), Design Phase (PS&E), Right of Way (R/W), Fiscal Year (FY), Active Transportation Program (ATP), Trade Corridor Enhancement Program (TCEP), Local Partnership Program (LPP), Local Streets and Roads Program (LSRP), Solutions for Congested Corridors Program (SCCP).

Route 15 Route 17

© 1996-2024 Daniel P. Faigin.
Maintained by: Daniel P. Faigin <webmaster@cahighways.org>.