Quick graphic of San Jose numbering changes, 1963 and 1965

Started by TheStranger, July 29, 2011, 11:57:35 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

TheStranger

Based on several posts in the "Pulling a Kentucky" thread, namely...

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4923.msg107240#msg107240
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4923.msg107278#msg107278
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4923.msg107447#msg107447

To clarify it in my mind (and hopefully for others) due to the sheer amount of changes enacted in a two-year period (the 1964 renumbering process that began in 1963, and the 1965 creation of today's I-680 east of US 101), I've created this helpful graphic of what was legislatively assigned at the time.

(NOTE 1: Route 87 not shown here for reasons of space)
(NOTE 2: None of this reflects what was signed in the field - my assumption is that 17 was ALWAYS signed on the Nimitz Freeway.  I have heard but have yet to confirm that the segment between 101 and 280 was "Temp 280" and the segment from 262 to 101 was "Temp 680")
(NOTE 3: Route 238 only mentioned in the second map along Oakland Road not because it existed legislatively 1965-1970 south of I-680, but because it was an acknowledged replacement for old surface street Route 17 by CalTrans until the 680 freeway was completed)

1963-1964:

By csampang at 2011-07-29

1965:

By csampang at 2011-07-29
Chris Sampang


NE2

1965's 680 south of 262 was legislatively equivalent to 1963's 17 from 680 south to 101. So 238 (1965-1970?) was not defined legislatively except as the temporary surface route of 680.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

TheStranger

#2
Quote from: NE2 on July 29, 2011, 12:45:06 PM
1965's 680 south of 262 was legislatively equivalent to 1963's 17 from 680 south to 101. So 238 (1965-1970?) was not defined legislatively except as the temporary surface route of 680.

Yeah, now that you mention that, I'll correct it in my post - thanks for the clarification.  (It WAS acknowledged on CalTrans maps during that time)  Seeing it on the graphic though does explain what happened to the 1963-1965 (and pre-Nimitz Freeway) Route 17 between San Jose and Milpitas/Warm Springs.
Chris Sampang

kurumi

Quote from: NE2 on July 29, 2011, 12:45:06 PM
1965's 680 south of 262 was legislatively equivalent to 1963's 17 from 680 south to 101. So 238 (1965-1970?) was not defined legislatively except as the temporary surface route of 680.

The Arcadia historical photo book for Milpitas (http://www.arcadiapublishing.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=VPROD&Product_Code=9780738529103) does have a photo on Main Street where the 237/238 intersection is signed. This would have to be at Serra Way and Main St. (I don't own the book, but have seen it at the bookstore.)

I have a photocopy of a planning map buried somewhere for the CA 262 corridor, which does show a proposed CA 17 following today's I-680 south toward Milpitas.

My first SF/horror short story collection is available: "Young Man, Open Your Winter Eye"

TheStranger

Quote from: kurumi on July 29, 2011, 08:43:27 PM

I have a photocopy of a planning map buried somewhere for the CA 262 corridor, which does show a proposed CA 17 following today's I-680 south toward Milpitas.



That's very intriguing, since the 1963 Department of Highways planning map shows nothing between 262 and 101 on today's 680 corridor (while 17 followed today's 280 between the current 17/280 junction and 101, as noted on the graphic to start the thread).  Wow!
Chris Sampang

Quillz

This is really quite off-topic, but the way I-280 literally turns into I-680 always struck me as unusual. There is no formal interchange between the two, you just continue on in either direction and suddenly the 280 becomes the 680 and vice versa. Is this the only example of two interstate highways merging in such a way? It always seemed to me like it would cause motorist confusion. I know there was a huge Interstate push in the Bay Area, but it certainly seems they could have retained CA-17, especially as it was well established within the area.

NE2

Quote from: Quillz on July 31, 2011, 06:09:25 AM
Is this the only example of two interstate highways merging in such a way?
I-494 and I-694. I-255 and I-270.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

Alps

I-395 and I-290, MA. For now, I-95 and I-295, NJ. Planned I-895 in RI-MA would have done it with existing I-295 as well.

TheStranger

#8
Quote from: Quillz on July 31, 2011, 06:09:25 AM
It always seemed to me like it would cause motorist confusion. I know there was a huge Interstate push in the Bay Area, but it certainly seems they could have retained CA-17, especially as it was well established within the area.

17 between 101 in San Rafael and 280 in San Jose was added to the Interstate system ca. 1984 as a push by legislator Glenn Anderson (namesake of the 105 in Los Angeles) due to the then-deteriorating condition of the Nimitz Freeway, as a way to get federal funds applied for improvements on the route.

Quote from: Steve on July 31, 2011, 01:20:42 PM
I-395 and I-290, MA. For now, I-95 and I-295, NJ. Planned I-895 in RI-MA would have done it with existing I-295 as well.

Speaking of Masachussetts, The current 495/195/MA 25 junction is similar to the 1963 concept of 280 and 680 having termini at the junction with Route 17 along perpendicular angles.
Chris Sampang

flowmotion

Quote from: Quillz on July 31, 2011, 06:09:25 AM
This is really quite off-topic, but the way I-280 literally turns into I-680 always struck me as unusual. There is no formal interchange between the two, you just continue on in either direction and suddenly the 280 becomes the 680 and vice versa. Is this the only example of two interstate highways merging in such a way? It always seemed to me like it would cause motorist confusion.

It might cause some minor confusion for local San Jose drivers. But two different route numbers is a whole lot less confusing for the Bay Area as a whole. As soon as someone says "280" or "680", you know which side of the bay they're referring to.

(As a side-note, I never cared much for the loop route that carry the same number all the way round. It seems like it would make it difficult to describe certain locations.)

Also, 280/680 isn't really a conventional bypass loop. Its more of a workaround for a region with 3 major cities and only one 2DI.  I-680 connects San Jose with Sacramento. I-280 connects central San Jose with the freeway network and is a scenic route connecting San Francisco with Silicon Valley.

TheStranger

Quote from: flowmotion on August 02, 2011, 12:38:10 AM


Also, 280/680 isn't really a conventional bypass loop. Its more of a workaround for a region with 3 major cities and only one 2DI.  I-680 connects San Jose with Sacramento. I-280 connects central San Jose with the freeway network and is a scenic route connecting San Francisco with Silicon Valley.

The 494/694 example brought up later in the thread actually serves as a good comparison point: in both cases, the routes very firmly run parallel east-west in a rectangular/oblong shape, as opposed to a traditional circular beltway, so it makes sense for the individual parallel legs to have their own numbers.

Had 280 been completed to its original planned terminus in the SF Presidio, and 480 completed beyond Broadway in downtown SF...280 would have become one of the few, if not only Interstates to end at perpendicular junctions with another 3di at each terminus!  It also would have had both termini at US 101, similar to today's I-140 in Wilmington having both termini at US 17 and being more of a bypass of the US route than a spur of the 2di.

280 in its earliest form (the Yellow Book map) seems as if its terminus would've been a good 5-7 miles north of today's 880/101 junction, making it originally a bypass of San Mateo County and downtown SF.  From 1965-1968 when it was extended into downtown San Jose, it had the interesting distinction of being a bypass on one end (from the Presidio to Cupertino) and then being a downtown freeway on its south end; once the Junipero Serra Freeway extension to Golden Gate Park was canceled, it now bypasses basically San Mateo County only with both ends in the downtowns of the Bay Area's largest cities.

As for 680...prior to 1976, the route looped back to Vallejo along what is now I-780; I do know that California did submit US 101 from the Presidio to today's Route 37 and today's Route 37 in its entirety to the Interstate system.  Had those submissions been accepted, 280/680 probably would have ended up being a true beltway, instead of the U-shaped route it now is.

Chris Sampang

DTComposer

Quote from: TheStranger on August 02, 2011, 01:00:16 AM
280 in its earliest form (the Yellow Book map) seems as if its terminus would've been a good 5-7 miles north of today's 880/101 junction, making it originally a bypass of San Mateo County and downtown SF.

I'm relatively sure that 280 on the Yellow Book map was simply an approximation of a route around the bottom of the bay and not an actual proposed routing.

I find this link to be very interesting:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/5240084641/in/photostream/

Although the poster refers to Interstate 280, it's not mentioned as such in the article, only as the Junipero Serra Freeway.
Each alternative had two forks: one that ended at US-101 and one that ended at CA-17. While Route B is what ultimately got built (as I-280 to CA-17, and as CA-85 to US-101), this map (and the history of LRN 239) makes me wonder if, as opined above, I-280 and 680 are different numbers because they were really serving two different purposes rather than one loop with two numbers.

This map also shows that the original intent of the Junipero Serra Freeway was to bypass San Jose completely, using the current CA-85 route (again, that lines up with the original route of LRN 239):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/5510423863/in/photostream/


jrouse

The old highway maps of San Jose that I had showed a Temporary I-280 following SR-17 until it crossed US-101.  It then became Temporary I-680 north from there.  This leads me to believe the transition from 280 to 680 has always occurred at the junction with 101 rather than at that 90-degree turn onto 17.

TheStranger

Quote from: jrouse on November 29, 2011, 12:01:26 AM
The old highway maps of San Jose that I had showed a Temporary I-280 following SR-17 until it crossed US-101.  It then became Temporary I-680 north from there.  This leads me to believe the transition from 280 to 680 has always occurred at the junction with 101 rather than at that 90-degree turn onto 17.

Prior to looking at those legislative definitions closely, I had assumed that too - but the Temp 680 reaching 101 seems to be entirely post-1965 (and thus in line with the section from 262 to today's 101/680/280 junction having already been created).
Chris Sampang



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.