AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Pacific Southwest => Topic started by: Voyager on January 20, 2009, 01:59:56 AM

Title: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: Voyager on January 20, 2009, 01:59:56 AM
What does everyone think Caltrans should do with this freeway? Personally, I think it should be renumbered to Interstate 480, but I guess Caltrans thinks otherwise.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 20, 2009, 02:09:37 AM
the main problem with it is that it is signed as north-south while it is almost due east-west.  If it were made the head of CA-238 then it would be a more sensible direction.  I know I always get hideously confused... "okay just gotta take 238 west... which is, screw, which one is it again???"

either call it CA-238, or sign it east-west.  And give it a new number while we're at it, but it's not nearly as hideously malnumbered as I-99.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: John on January 20, 2009, 10:56:22 AM
Just change it back to CA-238. Although, everyone hates I-480, so maybe is they call it that, the horrendous traffic problems they always have on it will go away.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: Chris on January 20, 2009, 10:59:23 AM
Does the I-238 makes more sense than the also really short I-980 in Oakland? Maybe they should renumber I-980 to SR-24 too... Just a quick thought  :colorful:
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 20, 2009, 03:30:35 PM
I've never seen the purpose of 980; it just makes it confusing since essentially it's the last mile or so of 24 that is signed as that, as opposed to an independent freeway.

maybe they should sign a quarter-mile of the CA-4 freeway as I-139.  Hey, why the Hell not?
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: Voyager on January 20, 2009, 05:57:57 PM
They want the Interstate funding though...
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 20, 2009, 06:02:37 PM
there are plenty of highways with interstate funding and no shields...
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: Voyager on January 20, 2009, 06:11:46 PM
Ah, I didn't know about that...that's the only reason I had heard that it was originally upgraded to an Interstate.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 20, 2009, 06:15:37 PM
I don't know the exact rules; I think you may be on to something with some routes needing shields and others allowed to remain invisible.  For example, US-395 in Reno, NV is I-580 and originally it was signed, but then they took the signs down ...
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on January 20, 2009, 06:22:59 PM
Change it back to CA 238. They don't have to have interstate signs up to get funding, just look at I-595 in MD and I-878 in NY.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: vdeane on January 20, 2009, 07:26:26 PM
I think they should change it to I-480 as a secret designation and sign it as CA 238 (actually, it's small enough that they could just sign it a TO: I-580 heading east and TO: I-880 heading west).
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on January 20, 2009, 07:42:32 PM
I think they should change it to I-480 as a secret designation and sign it as CA 238 (actually, it's small enough that they could just sign it a TO: I-580 heading east and TO: I-880 heading west).

This is a pretty good idea. No one (well, in the general public, anyway) HAS to know the route is an interstate.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: John on January 21, 2009, 12:30:26 AM
Yeah I agree. Hidden interstates are everywhere, just renumber I-238 and end the whole mess.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: Voyager on January 21, 2009, 12:53:28 AM
Considering they just finished widening the entire freeway, that would have been a great time to change all the signage on it.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: andy3175 on January 21, 2009, 01:36:12 AM
For my fictional renumbering, I would renumber I-580 as I-58, then change I-238 to I-258.... as CA 58 would become I-40.

Andy
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: Voyager on January 21, 2009, 01:48:40 AM
Now that's a stretch! :-D
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 21, 2009, 01:50:36 AM
Now that's a stretch! :-D

it's about right ... if Maryland is allowed I-97 then surely California could be allowed I-58!
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: Voyager on January 22, 2009, 10:23:26 AM
Well, yeah, but then that would probably anger a bunch of people even more who didn't like the Interstate 238 designation in the first place, so that wouldn't help anything. :ded:
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: Alex on January 22, 2009, 01:18:06 PM
Interstate 99 and 238 don't bother me anymore.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: SimMoonXP on January 23, 2009, 05:33:38 PM
Yeah, Andy.. I-58 is good one but close call. The closest west-east interstate for I-238 is I-80. There are many different interstate options. as could be between I-42 to I-78 as general clue.
Potential alignment between I-42 to I-78 placement
1) I-238 alignment - between I-880 to CA-238 (force I-230 renumber between I-42 to I-78)
2) I-580 alignment - between CA-238 to I-205 (force I-580 renumber between I-42 to I-78)
3) I-205 alignment - between I-580 to I-5 (force I-205 renumber between I-42 to I-78)
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: mrivera1 on February 02, 2009, 06:48:53 PM
Interstate 238...I have no qualms against this freeway number even though it is a serious breach of numbering code.  I think that the AASHTO should consider introducing 4 digit interstate route numbers.  Just make a wider interstate shield, shorten the numbers, and it would be fine.  That way, a given interstate would have 20 auxiliary routes available, perfect for large population centers such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, or the Northeast Corridor.  I-1080 would be better than any unassociated route number (like I-238 or I-58).
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: warderjack on February 03, 2009, 09:27:42 PM
I think they should change it to I-480 as a secret designation and sign it as CA 238 (actually, it's small enough that they could just sign it a TO: I-580 heading east and TO: I-880 heading west).

This is a pretty good idea. No one (well, in the general public, anyway) HAS to know the route is an interstate.

I agree with this, having a different designation for such a short stretch of road is probably more confusing to the average motorist than anything else.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: Revive 755 on February 04, 2009, 10:11:25 PM
Maybe it should be a secret spur 580, like the I-270 spur near DC.

My problem with I-238 is how California is allowed to blatantly violate interstate number rules, but Missouri isn't allowed to for MO 370 (per http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/i370.html (http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/i370.html)).  California should have had to use I-180 for I-238, regardless if there's also a CA 180.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: FreewayDan on February 05, 2009, 10:58:17 PM
My idea to get rid of I-238 violation would be to realign I-205 onto I-580, starting at I-5 and continuing westward toward CA 238.  Voila, I-238 becomes I-205.  The present-day I-205 could be renumbered to US 6; CA 120 would be replaced by US 6.  The orphan section of US 6 that would go to US 395 in Bishop could become California 306.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: John on February 05, 2009, 11:00:31 PM
That is a wild plan, but it could work. Of course, that wouldn't happen because the higher ups seem to hate US highways, so creating a new one is a no-no.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: corco on February 05, 2009, 11:33:35 PM
My idea is to renumber I-238, I-580 from I-238 to I-205, and then the length of I-205 all as I-705. Renumber the remaining stretch of I-580 from Tracy to I-5 as I-205. Voila. It's fixed.

Or you could even make it simpler and just renumber I-238 and then I-580 from I-238 all the way to I-5 as I-705
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: Concrete Bob on February 06, 2009, 02:20:15 PM
If it was up to me, I would do the following:

(1) Connect SR 4's Brentwood Bypass to the current junction of I-205 and I-580 as a full-fledged freeway (existing planned CA 239). Then, renumber all of SR 4 from Hercules to Tracy as I 480.  Renumber the stretch of 580 from 1-5 to to I-205 as 480 as well. The new 480 would run from I-5 to I-80 and serve as a "Northern Arc" of the East Bay.

(2) Renumber I-205 and the existing I-580 from Tracy to San Lorenzo at I-880 as I -305. Extend the corridor across the San Francisco Bay (Southern Crossing) to connect with the existing I-380.  Extend 380 over to Pacifica as was originally planned. Renumber the entire corridor as I-305 from Pacifica to I-5.

(3) Renumber the stretch of the existing I-580 from I-80 to the newly renumbered I-305 (former I-580/I-238) interchange as I -380. 

(4) I-580 would remained as signed from El Cerrito/Richmond to San Rafael.

Then, the I-205 designation would remain available for a western bypass of Sacramento, connecting from an area south of Elk Grove to the junction of I-80 and SR 113 near Davis.  The existing SR 113 between Davis and Woodland and Davis could be renumbered as I-205. 

Yeah, it will never happen.  But, I can dream !!!  All that just to get rid of an oddly numbered interstate !!!  I-238 only stands out to us roadgeeks !!!   




 
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: Voyager on February 06, 2009, 02:30:18 PM
Yikes, if that would happen then commuters would never remember where they were going!
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: Concrete Bob on February 06, 2009, 02:35:32 PM
They'd learn.....quickly!!!  :sombrero:
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: geoking111 on February 09, 2009, 09:22:57 PM
I also have an idea to fix this horrible I-238. I would create an I-3 and route it mostly along US 101 between the Los Angeles and San Francisco metro areas. In the Bay Area, I-3 would take over I-880's entire route and I-580's route from the Maze to its western terminus.

I would then create an I-503, which would take over all of I-238's route and I-580 between I-238 and I-5. The remainder of I-580 (between the Maze and I-238) could then be renumbered to I-403. This would be a costly option, but at least it would wipe out I-238.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: John on February 09, 2009, 09:34:23 PM
What about 580 from the Maze to San Rafael?
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: geoking111 on February 09, 2009, 09:41:09 PM
What about 580 from the Maze to San Rafael?

I-580 from the Maze to San Rafael would be part of I-3. This could be the northern terminus of I-3. If needed in the future, I-3 could be further extended to the north, possibly all the way back to I-5 at Grants Pass, OR.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: roadfro on February 24, 2009, 05:57:43 PM
The easiest thing to do would be to resign it as CA 238.  It makes sense, and it isn't an inconvenience to the travelling public as a massive I-x80 renumbering would be.

I don't know the exact rules; I think you may be on to something with some routes needing shields and others allowed to remain invisible.  For example, US-395 in Reno, NV is I-580 and originally it was signed, but then they took the signs down ...

From what I've read, the Interstate shield need not be posted for a highway to be designated an interstate and receive federal funding.  I think posting of shields is up to the discretion of the states, at least as far as 3di's are concerened.  What eventually became I-515 in Las Vegas wasn't actually posted as an Interstate until the entire freeway was completed around 1994, 15-17 years after the first segments were constructed. 

Only part of US 395 in Reno is actually designated as I-580 (according to the NDOT route log), although all of it is mileposted as I-580 (even north of I-80 where it ultimately will not be signed).  From what I've read, I-580 was never actually signed on the interstate itself; however, it did appear on some maps in the 1980s and there is evidence of shields having been posted on some adjacent streets.  Once the extension is complete south of Reno, the I-580 shields are likely to go up.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: Alps on February 24, 2009, 07:54:34 PM
The easiest thing to do would be to resign it as CA 238.  It makes sense, and it isn't an inconvenience to the travelling public as a massive I-x80 renumbering would be.

I don't know the exact rules; I think you may be on to something with some routes needing shields and others allowed to remain invisible.  For example, US-395 in Reno, NV is I-580 and originally it was signed, but then they took the signs down ...

From what I've read, the Interstate shield need not be posted for a highway to be designated an interstate and receive federal funding.  I think posting of shields is up to the discretion of the states, at least as far as 3di's are concerened.  What eventually became I-515 in Las Vegas wasn't actually posted as an Interstate until the entire freeway was completed around 1994, 15-17 years after the first segments were constructed. 

Only part of US 395 in Reno is actually designated as I-580 (according to the NDOT route log), although all of it is mileposted as I-580 (even north of I-80 where it ultimately will not be signed).  From what I've read, I-580 was never actually signed on the interstate itself; however, it did appear on some maps in the 1980s and there is evidence of shields having been posted on some adjacent streets.  Once the extension is complete south of Reno, the I-580 shields are likely to go up.

The issue with 238 is nothing but funding.  All the x5's are used, all the x80's are used, and there aren't any other Interstates.  If you want to get rid of the number, call it I-580 SPUR.  New York set that precedent by having I-295 SPUR for decades until they got it renumbered I-695 officially (had already been signed that way).
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: Tarkus on February 24, 2009, 08:49:49 PM
The directional orientation of CA-238 is already screwy.  The freeway portion runs East-West, but the rest of the highway runs north-south.  The non-freeway portion ought to be renumbered as well.

Of course, I-180 and now I-480 are not taken in California--one of those could do the trick, I think.

Also, I-680 is pretty darn long and runs north-south . . . I'd almost think that an Interstate 3 designation for it might make sense.  Then make I-238 into I-103 or something.

-Alex (Tarkus)
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: yanksfan6129 on February 24, 2009, 08:51:27 PM
I know, its a violation of the numbering convention, but at this point its become so well established that maybe its just better to leave it alone.

People in the area know its I-238. So what?
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: TheStranger on February 25, 2009, 01:07:42 AM
There's an expensive way to fix this (in the far future) - build an I-380 bridge east from San Bruno to Hayward (as has been proposed not too long ago), and 380 can then be extended east!
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: John on February 26, 2009, 07:01:22 PM
Of course, I-180 and now I-480 are not taken in California--one of those could do the trick, I think.

Also, I-680 is pretty darn long and runs north-south . . . I'd almost think that an Interstate 3 designation for it might make sense.  Then make I-238 into I-103 or something.

-Alex (Tarkus)
I-680 is long, but it is still only 50-60 miles long. Forget interstate, it isn't even interregional. As for 180 and 480, we already have CA-180, although it is way out in the Central Valley, and as I explained, 480 is more hated than 13 or 666 in the Bay Area.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: vdeane on February 26, 2009, 07:34:34 PM
The designation doesn't have to be signed.  If it's hidden nobody (outside the DOT and roadgeeks) would even know.

And why does CA care so much if an I-180 existed just because of CA 180?  In NY, there are state routes 81, 88, 90, 190, 290, among others, that are unrelated to the interstates with the same number.  NY 90 even crosses I-90 (there is no interchange though).
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: Alex on February 26, 2009, 07:36:05 PM
The designation doesn't have to be signed.  If it's hidden nobody (outside the DOT and roadgeeks) would even know.

And why does CA care so much if an I-180 existed just because of CA 180?  In NY, there are state routes 81, 88, 90, 190, 290, among others, that are unrelated to the interstates with the same number.  NY 90 even crosses I-90 (there is no interchange though).

I believe its written into the state law, wrt the duplicate numbering restriction.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: John on February 27, 2009, 10:01:22 AM
Yes it is. Either that, or Caltrans is just a huge group of stubburn hard asses.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: travelinmiles on February 28, 2009, 11:14:59 AM
Why is I-480 hated? Is it because of it being the Embarcadero and the canceled SF Loop?
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: Voyager on February 28, 2009, 03:50:44 PM
Exactly.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: Alex on February 28, 2009, 11:20:08 PM
Does anyone care about the 480 number anymore? I think its been enough years for that number to be buried in history now.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: Voyager on February 28, 2009, 11:38:05 PM
You know I was thinking the same thing. Most people in SF now probably don't even remember the Embarcadero Freeway, let alone the number they gave it.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: Alex on February 28, 2009, 11:45:42 PM
You know I was thinking the same thing. Most people in SF now probably don't even remember the Embarcadero Freeway, let alone the number they gave it.

I saw the Embacardero Freeway in 1991 and it wasn't too long after that that it was torn down. Being so long ago, I wonder if I-238 was renumbered I-480, how much flack Caltrans would get. But to echo the sentiment expresssed above, at this point, I-238, like I-99, has been around so long, I've come to accept it and really don't see a need to change it.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: flowmotion on March 09, 2009, 05:03:51 AM
Four digit numbers would be the best solution, because there's a number of other places in CA which could use additional x80 routes.

I-1080 -> Replaces Business 80 in Sacto. Singing a full freeway with a green sign is inconsistent, even if the freeway isn't 100% interstate grade.

I-2380 -> Replace I-238. Could be extended down I-880 and over the CA-92 San Mateo Bridge to I-280 even.

I-1580 -> Replace I-580 between Richmond and San Rafael. Get rid of the confusing wrong-way multiplex on I-80.

Potentially CA 85 and CA 237 could also be an I-x80 number too, if San Jose really wanted their own ring route.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: vdeane on March 09, 2009, 05:29:56 PM
I don't think a 4di number fits on signs.  Perhaps states could instead get to sign I-x00 routes as spurs in emergencies?
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: Alex on March 11, 2009, 11:19:17 PM
I don't think a 4di number fits on signs.  Perhaps states could instead get to sign I-x00 routes as spurs in emergencies?

If one of the numbers is one, it can be done, ala Interstate H201.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: timhomer2009 on March 28, 2009, 04:08:44 AM
What exactly was it about the Embarcadero Freeway that was such an issue?

As for I-3, is it likely that people would confuse it with I-H3 in Hawaii?
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: Voyager on March 28, 2009, 04:31:45 AM
Nobody liked the Embarcadero Freeway to begin with. It was incredibly ugly.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: Terry Shea on March 29, 2009, 10:11:52 PM
I don't think a 4di number fits on signs.  Perhaps states could instead get to sign I-x00 routes as spurs in emergencies?

If one of the numbers is one, it can be done, ala Interstate H201.
You know I never though about this before until I just saw your post.  Why doesn't Hawaii have an Interstate H2O?  That would be a natural.   :spin:

Sorry for drifting off topic.  I couldn't help myself.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: Sykotyk on March 30, 2009, 12:06:09 AM
I personally believe I-H201 to be completely absurd. If the state is going to have its own numbering convention, assuming it is the 4th such freeway (as it's not just a spur), it could've just been the H4.

And to drift into your topic, I wonder if any native calls it the "Interstate Water One".

Sykotyk
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: Scott5114 on March 30, 2009, 02:42:41 AM
I-99W!  :poke:
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: 74/171FAN on April 17, 2009, 09:26:57 AM
Quote
I-99W! 
   :-D :-D  I could see CA 99W in a strange way though or historic US 99W ;-)  Seriously CA 238 is fine for me or for four digits I-2380 :D
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: Voyager on April 17, 2009, 08:41:54 PM
Why add another digit?
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: 74/171FAN on April 17, 2009, 08:48:43 PM
To make everyone happy for those California residents that know it as I-238 and for those like us who think it should be an I-x80. ;-)
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: mapman on April 18, 2009, 12:41:32 AM
Are there any AASHTO rules that specifically forbid a four-digit interstate number?
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: Fcexpress80 on April 23, 2009, 06:59:28 PM
The solution is simple.  Hawaii has a four alpha-numeric interstate.  Why not name it I-1080?
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: mrivera1 on April 23, 2009, 07:53:08 PM
Hopefully this will work, but I posted a potential 4di Interstate 2380 shield on Flickr.  It looks like it would work, however, it would require some fixing to ensure that it isn't too disproportionate.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/8359404@N02/3469774390/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/8359404@N02/3469774390/)
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: mightyace on April 23, 2009, 07:57:40 PM
It looks good to me.  But, would AASHTO buy it?
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: Sykotyk on April 23, 2009, 11:36:32 PM
If H201 can work, 2380 can work.

Sykotyk
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: vdeane on April 24, 2009, 01:53:03 PM
Personally, I don't think saying "4dis are valid because Hawaii does it when you count the H as a digit" is a valid argument (especially when you count Alaska and Puerto Rico, especially since the latter could have 5dis were it to create spurs when you count digits like this).  There are plenty of ways to fix I-238 without resorting to 4dis.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: Sykotyk on April 24, 2009, 03:44:58 PM
I just meant that the spacing on the sign would work. Plus, H201 is incredibly 'packed' onto the sign, at least the '2380' sign shown here seems to be rather legible.

Sykotyk
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: flowmotion on May 05, 2009, 11:58:55 AM
Hmm. On second thought, maybe "Twenty-Three Eighty" is too much of a mouthful. And that sign does look crowded.

I still think 4dis could work for more compact numbers like say I-1080 or I-1180. The SF Bay Area is in a somewhat unique situation because it's a major metropolitan area with only one 2DI, and we could use some more I routes.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: Sykotyk on May 05, 2009, 11:05:02 PM
I was looking at this yesterday (I was in San Jose).

Three suggestions:

1. Renumber I-280 as a continuation of I-680. And then make I-238 into I-280.
2. Relabel I-238 as I-380. That way the west and east side of the bay would have one (slightly non-conventional)
3. Remove the I-238 shield, and put up green "TRUCK I-580" (US 19 north of Pittsburgh has a Truck 19 route.

Anyways, the first one makes the most sense. Why wasn't I-280 part of I-680? They have a direct right-of-way into eachother at the 101.

Sykotyk
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: 74/171FAN on May 05, 2009, 11:13:25 PM
Quote
I was looking at this yesterday (I was in San Jose).

Three suggestions:

1. Renumber I-280 as a continuation of I-680. And then make I-238 into I-280.
2. Relabel I-238 as I-380. That way the west and east side of the bay would have one (slightly non-conventional)
3. Remove the I-238 shield, and put up green "TRUCK I-580" (US 19 north of Pittsburgh has a Truck 19 route.

Anyways, the first one makes the most sense. Why wasn't I-280 part of I-680? They have a direct right-of-way into eachother at the 101.

Sykotyk
  Making it "TRUCK I-580" would probably confuse people over there.  I'd still prefer CA 238(unsigned I-480) or the infamous I-2380.  Also Truck US Routes exist all over the place but a Truck interstate would also probably not receive federal funding like an interstate business loop(that's why I-40 was put back on its former alignment through Greensboro
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: TheStranger on May 12, 2009, 02:09:59 PM
Sykotyk: I-280 and I-680 are seperate numbered routes for the same reason I-494 and I-694 are in Minneapolis/St. Paul - elongated beltway that doesn't form a perfect circle/square but rather two loops each using the same cardinal direction.

Had the original plans for I-280 (the Route 1 Junipero Serra Freeway extension from Font Boulevard north to Golden Gate Park, and then north to the Presidio where it would follow the existing Route 1 tunnels to US 101) been completed, it would have had a second similar intersection, with I-480 at the Route 1/US 101 junction.  (US 101 east of Route 1 was slated to be I-480)  This is more similar to I-495 and I-195 ending at each other in Massachussetts, however.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: Sykotyk on May 12, 2009, 04:14:12 PM
I understand, but if an exception could be made to allow "I-238", wouldn't the easier exception be to simply allow I-280 to be labeled as I-680 (or vice versa).

Sykotyk
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: TheStranger on May 22, 2009, 04:08:46 PM
Sykotyk:  Condensing previous thoughts on the matter...

- 280 and 680 do not form a ciruclar beltway around the bay area, but two equal halves of a "paperclip," with no east-west segment for 680, and a very brief one (from 101 to 85) for 280
- Only one existing route (Route 70) has a directional change as far as I know, though Route 18 technically would be in the same manner.  California generally wants a single route number to go in one plane (north-south or east-west)
- If 280/680 were to receive one #, the anomaly of two seperate exits for two "I-280 North" routings (or "I-680 north") at US 101 would be extremely confusing
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: agentsteel53 on May 22, 2009, 04:58:36 PM
how about we make 80/280/680 all I-80.

if I-64 can start in a circular loop, so can I-80.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: TheStranger on May 23, 2009, 07:03:59 AM
how about we make 80/280/680 all I-80.

if I-64 can start in a circular loop, so can I-80.

Ironically...

Had the plans for the Junipero Serra Freeway's north end ever been completed in San Francisco - as well as the Western Freeway - I-80 would have ended at Route 1/I-280 (and potentially I-480) in Golden Gate Park!
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: Hellfighter on May 23, 2009, 11:10:51 PM
I have a simple solution...I-1!?
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: AZDude on May 23, 2009, 11:58:22 PM
I have a simple solution...I-1!?

Leave that for U.S. 101.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: Scott5114 on May 24, 2009, 04:57:09 AM
I do hereby propose that it be resigned as Interstate Ã….
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: Hellfighter on May 24, 2009, 02:40:22 PM
What about I-980?
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: Sykotyk on May 25, 2009, 11:46:02 PM
I understand that about the directional loops, but 3dis all over the country change direction mid-route.

Plus, if you want to get technical, I-280 never touches its parent directly, so it's entire designation is a farce.

But since we're dealing with a limited number of x80s, it would make sense to try to limit them.

Plus, the "East" and "West" would primarily be from US 101. Once on the road simply dual-sign "East" and "North" on the same signpost for I-680 (or I-280).

After just a mile or two, reassurance signs simply listing North and "San Francisco" or North and "Oakland" should suffice.

Same as southbound simply stating "San Jose". When you reach US 101 heading south, simply include "I-280 East" and "Oakland" or "I-280 West" and "San Francisco" at the US-101 exits.

It's not rocket science. And I doubt not even one person would be confused as long as the BGSs were signed well.

Sykotyk
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: TheStranger on May 26, 2009, 02:23:05 PM
I understand that about the directional loops, but 3dis all over the country change direction mid-route.

Plus, if you want to get technical, I-280 never touches its parent directly, so it's entire designation is a farce.

But since we're dealing with a limited number of x80s, it would make sense to try to limit them.

Plus, the "East" and "West" would primarily be from US 101. Once on the road simply dual-sign "East" and "North" on the same signpost for I-680 (or I-280).

After just a mile or two, reassurance signs simply listing North and "San Francisco" or North and "Oakland" should suffice.

Same as southbound simply stating "San Jose". When you reach US 101 heading south, simply include "I-280 East" and "Oakland" or "I-280 West" and "San Francisco" at the US-101 exits.

It's not rocket science. And I doubt not even one person would be confused as long as the BGSs were signed well.

Sykotyk

280 was supposed to touch I-80 in two different incarnations, neither ever built: as I-80's terminus in Golden Gate Park, and later, at the Bay Bridge ramps.  The number designation was likely assigned before anti-road politics took hold in SF.  (I-635 in the Dallas area is more egregious in this regard as it was extended well away from being a loop years after its original routing was completed)

As noted earlier, I-680 does not have a single east-west section, and I-280's segment is less than 10 miles long.   (And I-680 does NOT go to Oakland at all.)

Really, in this example, I just don't see the need for giving the whole route one number - especially when those two routes have had their respective numbers for nearly five decades, and most Bay Area residents can tell the difference and are not confused by it.  I-880/Route 17 - just a few miles down from the 280/680/101 junction - has multiple numbers for essentially one long carriageway from Oakland to Santa Cruz; CalTrans didn't renumber the section south of I-280 as "State Route 880" for continuity.

As for "x80 preservation," I-480 is available with the Embarcadero Freeway now 17 years off the books, and the Bay Area is unlikely to ever receive much in the way of new freeway miles in the future.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: Hellfighter on May 26, 2009, 10:49:20 PM
Okay, so we've exausted all the x80's, so let's go another route. Remove the I-580 designation and when you get near the interchange, you see "I-78 East, Stockton".
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: TheStranger on May 30, 2009, 03:24:27 PM
Okay, so we've exausted all the x80's, so let's go another route. Remove the I-580 designation and when you get near the interchange, you see "I-78 East, Stockton".

As noted earlier, I-480 is still available...
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: flowmotion on June 15, 2009, 04:06:58 AM
Okay, so we've exausted all the x80's, so let's go another route. Remove the I-580 designation and when you get near the interchange, you see "I-78 East, Stockton".

Not really a bad idea. I know roadgeeks hate reusing I-route numbers, but this freeway is more important than a few other 2DIs which have been designated. Then I-238 becomes I-278.

But, "Stockton" should have never been the control city on I-580, that's left over from US50, and not signed near Tracy. The signs in Oakland should read "Los Angeles".
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: Hellfighter on June 15, 2009, 11:26:21 AM
Instead of I-78, we could make it I-70... ;-)
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: mapman on June 16, 2009, 12:53:34 AM
But, "Stockton" should have never been the control city on I-580, that's left over from US50, and not signed near Tracy. The signs in Oakland should read "Los Angeles".

I disagree.  Just as many people (if not more) use I-580 to connect to I-205 and other locations in the Central Valley and Sierras.  That's how my family usually gets into the mid-Sierras (i.e. between Lake Tahoe and Yosemite). 

Stockton works as a control city because there are so many state routes that connect to I-5 and/or CA-99 in San Joaquin County, including many of the the major east-west routes into the mid-Sierra -- CA 4, CA 12, CA 26, CA 88, CA 120, and CA 132.

Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: leifvanderwall on August 19, 2009, 04:11:49 PM
I've never been to the Bay Area, but from looking at the map, the freeway system is a mess. You have spur routes such as I-980, I-780, I-205, I-380 that only have one or two exits at the most and you have state shield freeways that should be Interstates. I-238 is the least of the problems. This is what needs to be done:
US 101 should be I-7 (or I-3 whichever you prefer) and the road that is not freeway should be built to a freeway. Under my plan, I-7 would be split into 7E & 7W, removing I-880 and US 101 in the Bay Area.
I-680 should be I-11 and I have I-11 extended to be built on the CA 12/29/128 corridor to end at my proposed new I-7.
Then I will introduce I-509 and the designation will be used to replace the CA 120 expressway segment 'tween my proposed I-9 & I-5, I-205, I-580, I-238 and the CA 92 bridge.
The remaining I-580 from I-238 to Oakland would be designated as CA 185 or I-309 and I-7 will use the I-580 Richmond bridge.
I-280 will be my I-207 and my proposed I-78 will be built along the CA 88/4 corridor from my proposed I-13 to I-80.
For more details, read my entries at "if you controlled the highway system" on Fictional Highways.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: myosh_tino on August 19, 2009, 08:36:24 PM
^^--- Gah!  Too many numbers but I digress  :biggrin:.

Replacing US 101 with I-7 and I-680 with I-11 will cause just as much uproar as I-238 because both of these freeways are located WEST of I-5 and violate the Interstate numbering system.  The only numbers available are I-1 and I-3.

I-9 is a distinct possibility when CA-99 is upgraded to freeway and interstate standards but it's number will likely be I-7 because there is a law in California that forbids the duplication of route numbers.  In other words, if there is an I-5, then there cannot be a U.S. 5 or CA-5.  CA-9 is a lengthy mountain highway that connects Los Gatos to Santa Cruz and is an alternative to CA-17 and it passes through some populated areas which would make changing the route number an expensive proposition.  CA-7 is a short highway connecting I-8 to Mexico in the deserts east of San Diego.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: vdeane on August 19, 2009, 10:26:10 PM
Will CA ever figure out that they could just renumber their highway to remove the conflict?
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 19, 2009, 11:24:12 PM
yes, to CA-238 as the rest of it is signed.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 19, 2009, 11:28:07 PM
Quote
What about I-980?

another useless number.  Revert it to CA-24.  880 should be CA-17, as it once was, and then 17 should continue all the way up to San Rafael along 580.  580 can remain the number of the section from the MacLaurin Maze to Tracy.  That elegantly gets rid of that tragically demented I-80/I-580 reverse multiplex.  There have been times when I have stopped on the on-ramp, wondering if "east/west" or "west/east" is the correct synonym for "south".

I-380 I suppose can stay; it's short and harms no one with its presence.  Same with I-780. 
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: leifvanderwall on August 20, 2009, 08:16:53 AM
As far as California's law about not duplicating highway numbers is concerned, they can always change those state roads down by San Diego and Santa Cruz. If the nation is so concerned about not violating the Interstate rule we would not have I-69 extended to Texas and I-99 would not be well west of I-95.
US 101 really should be the I-1 corridor, but I don't think California would ever change where CA 1 is especially since it spans from south of LA to north of SF. When many of these numbering rules were first formed the highway system was still in its infancy, now the traffic volume has increased so much that more roads need to be built. The old system really does not work anymore.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: TheStranger on September 02, 2009, 05:17:28 PM
I wonder if the 980 designation will ever be extended once the Caldecott's fourth bore is built (whenever that is)...Probably not, but it'd make sense as the rest of Route 24 is Interstate-standard.

California's refusal to duplicate numbers is exactly why they truncated so many routes in 1964, i.e. US 40.  (Several state routes were notably renumbered as well as a result of the Interstates' arrival - then-Route 15 became Route 7, now I-710; then-route 5 is now Route 35; what was Route 8 is now Route 26; and what had been Route 10 became Route 42.)

Since California is not exactly a state known for new highway construction anymore, I don't think adding new Interstate numbers (beyond an upgrade of Route 99) will be an issue any time soon.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: vdeane on September 03, 2009, 05:09:02 PM
If they renumbered so many routes when the interstates came in, why didn't they renumber CA 180?
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 03, 2009, 06:31:36 PM
they didn't think they'd need it.  The very first CA plan had only 280, 480, 580, 680, 780, 880 (in Sacramento).  They figured they could use 380 or 980 if they needed another spur route.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: andy3175 on November 12, 2009, 11:00:38 PM
fwiw, I am partial to I-580 becoming I-58, and there there's all sort of new numbers available elsewhere. As part that strategy, I-205 can also be I-58, and CA 132 could be part of I-258.

Andy
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: english si on November 13, 2009, 12:30:24 PM
It's really far north of I-40, but why not have I-580 south of I-80 as I-38?
Better yet, solve the Las Vegas-Phoenix interstate number problem as well by rerouting I-40 to Vegas and have Pheonix-Oakland (via what's currently I-40, CA58, CA99, CA120, I-205 and I-580). Current CA38 is a short route in SoCal, and could be renumbered easily...  ;-)

I-5W should have been I-3, or I-505, I-80, I-705 (shame I-805 was in San Diego - an excellent number for the whole thing). Then I-238, which by English rules is basically CA238(I) and really not a bad number, could have been an I-x03 (ditto a lot of freeways in the Bay Area) or an I-x05. It was a big mistake to go for I-580 to head out to Modesto county.

One easy-ish way to kill the number and keep it an interstate is extend I-380 down US101, across the San Mateo-Hayward toll bridge and then up I-880 for a short while.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: Brandon on November 13, 2009, 01:09:40 PM
fwiw, I am partial to I-580 becoming I-58, and there there's all sort of new numbers available elsewhere. As part that strategy, I-205 can also be I-58, and CA 132 could be part of I-258.

Andy

I concur, I-580 should become I-58, with I-238 becoming I-258.  This frees up I-580 for use somewhere else.  The stretch of I-580 south of I-205 becomes I-205.  In addition, I would also say that I-505 and I-680 should also get a primary number.  I would suggest I-3, giving San Jose a primary interstate (also freeing up I-505 and I-680 for use).  Why the Bay Area has to rely on I-80 as its only primary interstate number is beyond me.  They had US-40, US-50 (formerly US-48, IIRC), and US-101, why not three primary interstates (I-3, I-58, and I-80)?
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: TheStranger on November 14, 2009, 07:09:32 AM
I concur, I-580 should become I-58, with I-238 becoming I-258.  This frees up I-580 for use somewhere else.  The stretch of I-580 south of I-205 becomes I-205.  In addition, I would also say that I-505 and I-680 should also get a primary number.  I would suggest I-3, giving San Jose a primary interstate (also freeing up I-505 and I-680 for use).  Why the Bay Area has to rely on I-80 as its only primary interstate number is beyond me.  They had US-40, US-50 (formerly US-48, IIRC), and US-101, why not three primary interstates (I-3, I-58, and I-80)?

IIRC, I-580 was originally submitted to AASHTO as I-72 (before it was I-5W) and US 101 from Los Angeles to Novato (presumably including the never-constructed northern segment of the Central Freeway) was also submitted for potential inclusion in the system ca. 1947, only to be rejected. 

http://www.cahighways.org/itypes.html (http://www.cahighways.org/itypes.html)

Given the way that 280 and 680 were originally planned (the latter incorporating modern day I-780, the former incorporating Route 1 between the Golden Gate Bridge and Daly City), I have always speculated that 280/680 was supposed to be a full, not partial, SF beltway that would have continued into Novato via the Golden Gate Bridge and Route 37.  Having said that, the original 1960s 280/680 routing also involved a convoluted multiplex with Route 17/modern I-880 (via Route 262) that would have avoided Downtown San Jose, yet been far from logical, with "southbound" I-280 continuing north up northbound Route 17/modern day I-880 to US 101.

Now, had the 1947 proposal for 101 between Los Angeles and Novato been approved as interstate, I could see that route being an I-3, with 280 (as originally proposed going through the Sunset and Richmond) being an I-203 instead of a branch off of I-80; 680 and modern 880 both probably could have been more logically designated branches of this hypothetical route as well, due to their north-south orientation.  (In a pipe dream world with no EIS documents needed and no NIMBYs, I-3 would encompass 101 between Los Angeles and Crescent City, and then the entirety of US 199.)

That by itself would have freed up 2-4 numbers for use for I-80, alone!  (Maybe in that case, the proposed-but-unbuilt Sacramento beltway routes other than what was once I-880 would have also been able to get 3di numbers and Interstate funding as well, particularly the 244 bypass that would have been an extension of then-880 to Rancho Cordova.)

Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: City on November 27, 2009, 12:47:41 AM
I want to share my ideas about renumbering Interstate 238 with everyone. Comes with maps! :) I have thought up of two ideas: Plan A and Plan B.

Plan A

(http://lh3.ggpht.com/_XCc_wh3g2E0/Sw9g_u8hslI/AAAAAAAAFjA/fjAUPmwUTBg/s800/Interstate%20238%20Renumbering%20Plan%20A.png)

Plan A is, in a nutshell, extending Interstate 205, truncating Interstate 580 to the current Interstate 238 interchange. To delve deeper into the idea, I will give an explanation for each route that is modified.

Interstate 580
As it was said in the introduction, Interstate 580 would be truncated to Interstate 205 (currently Interstate 238). The segment that spurs south of Tracy will be signed either State Route 501 or Business Loop 205 (if the current one is decommissioned). That will be explained later.

Interstate 205
Interstate 205 would get a nice extension across Interstate 580 from its current terminus to Interstate 880, via current I-580 and I-238. Since I-205 is taking the path of I-238, it will decommission it in its entirety.

California 501 or Business Loop 205
CA-501/BL 205 would cover the southern spur of Interstate 580 south of Tracy. The number of CA-501 was based off a system of auxiliary routes (signed as state highways) based off of a main route (For example, Washington has a system like this.). (In case you were wondering exactly how the number was made, the 5 is standing for Interstate 5, and the 1 is standing for the first state highway auxillary route.) If it were signed as BL 205, the current one in Downtown Tracy would have to be decommissioned entirely.

Current Business Loop 205 (maybe)
If the southern spur of I-580 was signed as BL 205, this route would have to be decommissioned in its entirety.

Plan B

(http://lh4.ggpht.com/_XCc_wh3g2E0/Sw9g_o1CuQI/AAAAAAAAFjE/pb7d7747iaU/s800/Interstate%20238%20Renumbering%20Plan%20B.png)

This idea is very similar to Plan A. The big difference is that Interstate 580 is not truncated and that it and Interstate 205 run together (Hey, if Ohio does it, so can California.).

Interstate 580
The only difference from the current freeway is that it is multiplexed with Interstate 205.

Interstate 205
Interstate 205 gets extended similar to how it was extended in Plan A. It is cosigned with Interstate 580 until it reaches the Interstate 238 interchange, where it leaves and follows current Interstate 238 in its entirety.


Anyways, these plans don't add on to the amount of interstates the Bay Area has, requires only sign modifications (no construction required!), are simple to understand, and fulfill the wish that some of us want to come true; remove Interstate 238.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 27, 2009, 12:08:33 PM
no no no, no full freeways as business loops!

can we have the south branch be I-205, and the north branch just be an extension of CA-120?

the simplest plan is to just make I-238 as CA-238.  Most people will just shrug it off as a signing goof and no one will think much of it.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: vdeane on November 27, 2009, 12:24:55 PM
I like the second better because it doesn't involve the removal of many interstate miles but don't like the long multiplex; probably not much of a better way, though.

Or I-580 could just be renumbered I-38....  :-D
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: myosh_tino on November 27, 2009, 06:11:42 PM
Between the two proposals made by City, I like Plan A but BL-205/CA-501 should become I-705, the last available I-x05 in California.  I agree with Agentsteel that Business Loop freeways are a bad idea and given the highest numbered state highway is CA-371 (CA-905 doesn't count as it will become I-905 once it's upgraded to freeway standards), CA-501 would look out of place.

I don't like Plan B because of the long multiplex of I-580 and I-205 and California is not really hot on multiplexing routes, especially Interstates.

I also don't care for Agentsteel's suggestion to route CA-120 along the current I-205 because those 13 miles are currently "Chargable Interstate Mileage" and would be lost if the route was "downgraded" to state route status.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 27, 2009, 06:23:52 PM
I also don't care for Agentsteel's suggestion to route CA-120 along the current I-205 because those 13 miles are currently "Chargable Interstate Mileage" and would be lost if the route was "downgraded" to state route status.

it's a renumbering scheme, not a 'split the nose-hairs of vagueries of federal law, just so Arnie can have more money to burn' scheme.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: myosh_tino on November 27, 2009, 06:32:10 PM
I also don't care for Agentsteel's suggestion to route CA-120 along the current I-205 because those 13 miles are currently "Chargable Interstate Mileage" and would be lost if the route was "downgraded" to state route status.

it's a renumbering scheme, not a 'split the nose-hairs of vagueries of federal law, just so Arnie can have more money to burn' scheme.
I understand that but I'm being realistic.  No state, in their right mind, is going to give back chargeable interstate mileage (turning down Federal highway dollars) for the sake of renumbering.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 27, 2009, 06:32:33 PM

it's a renumbering scheme, not a 'split the nose-hairs of vagueries of federal law, just so Arnie can have more money to burn' scheme.

speaking of which, the easiest way to solve the I-238 problem is if the Hayward Fault spontaneously eats it.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 27, 2009, 06:33:32 PM
I'm being realistic.

such a notion is explicitly forbidden in highway renumbering threads!  :sombrero:
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: myosh_tino on November 27, 2009, 06:46:11 PM

it's a renumbering scheme, not a 'split the nose-hairs of vagueries of federal law, just so Arnie can have more money to burn' scheme.

speaking of which, the easiest way to solve the I-238 problem is if the Hayward Fault spontaneously eats it.
If there's a major quake on the Hayward fault it will probably wipe out most of I-580 from I-238 to I-80 in Oakland.  Then again, damaged/destroyed freeways may be the least of our worries in the event of the "big one".
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: english si on November 27, 2009, 07:56:29 PM
I also don't care for Agentsteel's suggestion to route CA-120 along the current I-205 because those 13 miles are currently "Chargable Interstate Mileage" and would be lost if the route was "downgraded" to state route status.
I-120 ? At least there is an I-20 to be it's parent!

I'll get my coat...
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 27, 2009, 08:17:08 PM
If there's a major quake on the Hayward fault it will probably wipe out most of I-580 from I-238 to I-80 in Oakland.  Then again, damaged/destroyed freeways may be the least of our worries in the event of the "big one".

this would never happen if the freeway were US-50 as God intended!
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: Bickendan on November 28, 2009, 03:59:50 AM
The frequency of biggish quakes in California will probably prevent the Big One along the San Andreas and its related faults. The Pacific Northwest won't be so lucky.

Here's an alternative to the renumbering:
I-205: Left as is (extend it east on CA 120! (http://bickenland.lonaf.com/phpBB2/images/smiles/meh.gif)).
I-238: Eliminated.
I-580: Replaces I-238.
I-705: Takes the entirety of the old I-580 route.

Reasoning: I-580 acts as the major Los Angeles-Bay connection. It's also functions more of a x05 than an x80. By routing I-705 along the length of I-580, I-5 now has the direct access to the Bay area it had as I-5W, especially as the route directly serves Oakland and more importantly, the Bay Bridge. This also puts an x05 into the North Bay area and into Richmond. This also gives I-238 an x80 number without shuffling CA 180 around to another route number, which isn't likely to happen, and doesn't return the 'hated' I-480 designation.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: Scott5114 on November 28, 2009, 06:11:06 PM
I also don't care for Agentsteel's suggestion to route CA-120 along the current I-205 because those 13 miles are currently "Chargable Interstate Mileage" and would be lost if the route was "downgraded" to state route status.

it's a renumbering scheme, not a 'split the nose-hairs of vagueries of federal law, just so Arnie can have more money to burn' scheme.
I understand that but I'm being realistic.  No state, in their right mind, is going to give back chargeable interstate mileage (turning down Federal highway dollars) for the sake of renumbering.

It could still be assigned an unsigned I-number. Works for Tulsa. But then again roadgeeks hate those too.

Honestly the best idea would have been for AASHTO to play hardball and force Caltrans to use I-180 and tell them where they can shove their anti-number-duplication rule. If the choice is between keeping CA-180 and losing out on federal funds for 238, or to make 238 into I-180 and renumber CA-180, do you really think they'd give Fresno's route number history a second thought?
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 28, 2009, 06:24:46 PM

Honestly the best idea would have been for AASHTO to play hardball and force Caltrans to use I-180 and tell them where they can shove their anti-number-duplication rule. If the choice is between keeping CA-180 and losing out on federal funds for 238, or to make 238 into I-180 and renumber CA-180, do you really think they'd give Fresno's route number history a second thought?

CA-180 could become CA-186 easily, and people would not think much beyond it being a typo.  Screw that 6 foot long road down to the Mexican border at Andrade.  
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: Riverside Frwy on November 30, 2009, 12:35:27 AM
1)They renumber it Interstate 480.
2)introduce 4 digit numbers, using an oversized shield and name it "2380" or "1080"
3)Or do like what they did with I-210 with CA 57, sign it back as CA 238 but keep part of the Interstate Highway system.There are many unsigned interstates, so I don't see this as something that would be hard to do.




Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 30, 2009, 12:46:11 AM
"2380"

when I was first in the east bay in 1998 and discovered I-238, I really did think it was short for "I-2380".  Having seen enough x80s, I figured they ran out of numbers and internally they called it 2380 but didn't bother to sign it as such.

that said, 1180 would be a number that would fit extant three-digit sign designs. 
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: mapman on November 30, 2009, 01:07:28 AM
Quote
Honestly the best idea would have been for AASHTO to play hardball and force Caltrans to use I-180 and tell them where they can shove their anti-number-duplication rule. If the choice is between keeping CA-180 and losing out on federal funds for 238, or to make 238 into I-180 and renumber CA-180, do you really think they'd give Fresno's route number history a second thought?

It may not be that easy.  Much of Caltrans' design department is headquartered in Fresno, so they may put up a fight about giving "180" to the Bay Area.  (They're probably still bitter about the loss of I-880.)   :angry:

Although.... given Fresno's desire for an interstate freeway, maybe the CA 180 switch could work, if somehow coupled with the upgrade of CA 99 to I-7?  Or maybe just extend I-180 out to Fresno?   ;-)
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: Brandon on November 30, 2009, 11:46:01 AM
Honestly the best idea would have been for AASHTO to play hardball and force Caltrans to use I-180 and tell them where they can shove their anti-number-duplication rule.

Agreed.  Other states (Illinois, Michigan, Indiana, etc) have no problem with duplicating numbers.  Shoot, Illinois has both I-24 and US-24.  Personally, I think duplicating numbers would help, not hurt Caltrans.  I have noticed fewer route shield mistakes in states that duplicate versus states that don't duplicate (yes, I'm looking at you, WisDOT!).
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 30, 2009, 12:27:36 PM
and I am looking at you, Georgia and Florida.  I just know that sometime US-27 will intersect itself in Georgia, as will US-17, US-17, and US-17 in Florida.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: Rover_0 on November 30, 2009, 08:45:14 PM
I always wondered why there was no I-180 in the Bay Area.  Yea, I say that number needs to be used soon.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: Hellfighter on December 01, 2009, 12:36:52 AM
Wonder if you can run out of 3di interstates in one state...
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: english si on December 01, 2009, 05:49:57 AM
CA has a long way to go to use all it's numbers - the following interstates would need to be added:
I-705
I-108, I-208, I-308, I-408, I-508, I-608, I-708, I-808, I-908
I-310, I-410, I-510, I-610, I-810
I-115, I-315, I-415, I-515, I-615, I-715, I-815, I-915
I-140, I-240, I-340, I-440, I-540, I-640, I-740, I-840, I-940
I-180, I-480
add to this I-9 and that's 43 more 3dis you'd need.

and given you can have I-238, doesn't that mean you'd need 900 3dis to run out?

NY's exhausted all its I-x90s. I-5 in CA is next closest, and after that it's I-40 in NC or something.

Theoretically possible, practically impossible.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: TheStranger on December 01, 2009, 01:16:49 PM
CA has a long way to go to use all it's numbers - the following interstates would need to be added:
I-705
I-108, I-208, I-308, I-408, I-508, I-608, I-708, I-808, I-908
I-310, I-410, I-510, I-610, I-810
I-115, I-315, I-415, I-515, I-615, I-715, I-815, I-915
I-140, I-240, I-340, I-440, I-540, I-640, I-740, I-840, I-940
I-180, I-480
add to this I-9 and that's 43 more 3dis you'd need.

and given you can have I-238, doesn't that mean you'd need 900 3dis to run out?

NY's exhausted all its I-x90s. I-5 in CA is next closest, and after that it's I-40 in NC or something.

Theoretically possible, practically impossible.

Maryland has 195, 295, 395, 495, 595 (unsigned), 695, 795, 895...so that's another one that's cutting close.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: myosh_tino on December 01, 2009, 05:10:05 PM
CA has a long way to go to use all it's numbers - the following interstates would need to be added:
I-705
I-108, I-208, I-308, I-408, I-508, I-608, I-708, I-808, I-908
I-310, I-410, I-510, I-610, I-810
I-115, I-315, I-415, I-515, I-615, I-715, I-815, I-915
I-140, I-240, I-340, I-440, I-540, I-640, I-740, I-840, I-940
I-180, I-480
add to this I-9 and that's 43 more 3dis you'd need.

and given you can have I-238, doesn't that mean you'd need 900 3dis to run out?

NY's exhausted all its I-x90s. I-5 in CA is next closest, and after that it's I-40 in NC or something.

Theoretically possible, practically impossible.
You'll need to add I-910 to your list.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: Alps on December 01, 2009, 06:52:38 PM
Wonder if you can run out of 3di interstates in one state...
Maine probably comes closest - it uses the first four out of a possible 9 Interstates.  Then again, if things got too dire, it could commission 92 or 98 and work with that.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: national highway 1 on April 11, 2010, 06:20:43 PM
What if the Southern Bay Crossing ever became real and you connected I-980 to I-380? I-380 would sucumb to I-980 and you could give I-380 to I-238!!
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: KEK Inc. on April 12, 2010, 04:51:21 AM
They should have I-238, I-580 (between Castro Valley and the W. terminus for I-205), I-205, and CA-120 be I-52.  I-580 between I-205 and I-5 could be I-252 and CA-152 can be I-152 with a few upgrades.  Hell, duplex I-52 with I-880 to CA-92 and route that bugger all the way to I-280!

One Caltran official also thought this was a great idea.   :sombrero:

(http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/pics/photo-i152.jpg)
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: TheStranger on April 12, 2010, 12:04:05 PM
What if the Southern Bay Crossing ever became real and you connected I-980 to I-380? I-380 would sucumb to I-980 and you could give I-380 to I-238!!

Funny enough, IIRC the 2003 Southern Crossing study looked at a direct 238-380 connection.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: myosh_tino on April 12, 2010, 01:40:52 PM
What if the Southern Bay Crossing ever became real and you connected I-980 to I-380? I-380 would sucumb to I-980 and you could give I-380 to I-238!!

Funny enough, IIRC the 2003 Southern Crossing study looked at a direct 238-380 connection.
That would be the most logical place for a new bridge across San Francisco Bay and it would solve the whole I-238 mess that has caused such an uproar among roadgeeks.  Unfortunately, that new bridge would have to span the bay at it's widest point and would have to be a low-level causeway to keep from interfering with air traffic from San Francisco International.  I think the reality is, while the Southern Crossing would help alleviate traffic on the Bay Bridge, it probably won't be built in our lifetimes.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: national highway 1 on April 14, 2010, 04:01:57 AM
What if the Southern Bay Crossing ever became real and you connected I-980 to I-380? I-380 would sucumb to I-980 and you could give I-380 to I-238!!

Funny enough, IIRC the 2003 Southern Crossing study looked at a direct 238-380 connection.
That would be the most logical place for a new bridge across San Francisco Bay and it would solve the whole I-238 mess that has caused such an uproar among roadgeeks.  Unfortunately, that new bridge would have to span the bay at it's widest point and would have to be a low-level causeway to keep from interfering with air traffic from San Francisco International.  I think the reality is, while the Southern Crossing would help alleviate traffic on the Bay Bridge, it probably won't be built in our lifetimes.
No, I meant connecting I-980 to I-380. I-380 would *become* part of 980, while 238 would become 380
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: The Premier on April 18, 2010, 08:07:04 PM
Hasn't I-480 been scratched off the list of interstates in California? :hmmm:
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: agentsteel53 on April 18, 2010, 08:15:00 PM
Hasn't I-480 been scratched off the list of interstates in California? :hmmm:

not in popular memory.  I-480 was the Dismay by the Bay as recently as 1989.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: TheStranger on April 18, 2010, 11:18:07 PM
Hasn't I-480 been scratched off the list of interstates in California? :hmmm:

not in popular memory.  I-480 was the Dismay by the Bay as recently as 1989.

Though it had been State Route 480 for approximately 21 years at that point...I'm not sure what the purpose of de-designating the route as an interstate actually served (considering that today's I-280 - built with Interstate funds save for parts of the Southern Freeway - also peters out on city streets), though that's moot.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: national highway 1 on April 19, 2010, 12:44:36 AM
i don't know why in 1964, CA downgraded I-480 into CA 480. What was the purpose of that?
Maybe I-480 was incomplete and they decided to temporarily sign it as a state route until it was fully complete (never happened). Notable examples: I-215, CA 905 & I-210/CA 210
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: agentsteel53 on April 19, 2010, 01:15:07 AM
I have never seen a stand-alone I-480 shield, just this green sign.  The photo was taken in 1968, so it looks like some shields survived the change.  Not exactly out of character for Cal Division of Highways!

(http://www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19584801i1.jpg)
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: national highway 1 on April 19, 2010, 01:20:21 AM
where, exactly, was this photo taken
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: TheStranger on April 19, 2010, 12:15:36 PM
where, exactly, was this photo taken

Interstate 80 westbound at the foot of the Bay Bridge.  Here's a more modern photo from this very site:
https://www.aaroads.com/california/images080/i-080_wb_exit_002c_16b.jpg
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: national highway 1 on April 22, 2010, 02:17:39 AM
ok, now why are we suddenly talking about dead I-480? Isn't this topic supposed to be on I-238?
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: Bickendan on April 22, 2010, 03:10:17 AM
Yeah, but who wants to talk about I-238?
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: roadfro on April 23, 2010, 12:17:25 AM
^ Whoever started this topic...  :-P
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: subzeroepsilon on May 27, 2010, 12:42:30 AM
Long time lurker, first time poster...

As a hapless Bay Area commuter that has to drive this road on a daily basis from the Tri-Valley to Hayward and back, I think I came up with a logical way of dealing with this problem that folds into some of the other proposals I have seen here repeatedly:

1)  Renumber the length of I-580 as I-58 (except for the leg of the "Tracy Triangle" -- see Note 7). I know this might break a few rules regarding interstate numbering. The Richmond-San Rafael extension will theoretically exist north of I-80, but this belongs better as I-180 anyways, but I digress. The total length of this route would round out around 85 miles, 10 longer than its current routing.

2)  Renumber CA-58 as CA-40/CA-178. Since CalTrans does not like to duplicate route numbers, even of different types, CA-58 cannot exist simultaneously with I-58. The portion of CA-58 between Bakersfield and Barstow would get the designation CA-40 (a logical westward extension of I-40 that is often discussed here). West of CA-99/Future I-9, CA-58 would become CA-178, since it is unlikely that this alignment would be chosen as a continuation to I-5 or US-101.

3)  I-238 (freeway portion) renumbered as I-258 and extended west. The freeway portion of I-238 would be renumbered as I-258 between I-880 and I-58. From I-880 it would multiplex between exits 31 and 27. I-258 then would continue west over the CA-92 freeway and the San Mateo Bridge, terminating at I-280. Total length of this freeway would be approx 25 miles.

4)  Decommissioning CA-92 through Hayward. This is suggested to eliminate the need for a split-definition of CA-92. The CA-1 to I-280 portion would remain intact. In addition it conforms to the phenomenon of converting surface routings of state highways to local control in urban areas.
4a) Jackson St. portion of CA-92 converted to Business Loop 258 through Hayward. If for some reason, CalTrans wants to keep the surface portion of CA-92 through Hayward under state control they could sign it as Business Loop 258 (akin to Business Loop 205 though Tracy CA, the only other 3di Business Loop in the system) and route it along Jackson St through downtown and northward onto Foothill Blvd (CA-13 extension -- seen next note) to the I-58/I-258/CA-13 interchange.

5)  Renumber surface portion of CA-238 as southern extension of CA-13. This is merely a housekeeping measure to completely scrub 238 in all its forms from the books as 480 had done to it. Not just to eliminate confusion but for spiritual cleansing. CA-13 would multiplex with I-58 for approx 8 miles between exits 26 and 34.

6)  Renumber I-205 as I-58 and extend over CA-120 freeway to CA-99/Future I-9. With all the "affordable" Bay Area housing that has sprouted up along the CA-99 corridor in the northern San Joaquin Valley (Stockton-Manteca-Modesto), it makes sense to have a consistent route number for those commuters that have to endure 2-3 hour commutes in the name of cheap home ownership.

7)  Renumber the western leg of the "Tracy Triangle" as I-558. Since most traffic heading east over the Altamont, opts to stay on current I-205 and most westbound traffic is coming from Tracy and Stockton, it makes sense that those motorists get the main route. In addition the interchange configuration is more logical if the routes are aligned as such. For the Lost Angeles-bound and returning travelers,"TO I-58 WEST" reassurance markers can be placed westbound at major exits and on roadsigns (with "TO I-5 SOUTH" along the eastbound lanes) to alert the driver they are on the correct road. This is already done for southbound I-5 drivers exiting at current I-205.

------
I am sure there are things I am overlooking in this list of ideas but I figured that if this were to come to the table, why not take the time to make the system to seem more logical and at the same time recognize that we now (for better or worse) live the Greater San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose/Sacramento/Stockton/Modesto Bay Area.


Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: xonhulu on May 27, 2010, 01:08:05 AM
These are great ideas, but a suggestion: there is currently no CA 42, and no I-42 anywhere, so would that be an acceptable number?
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: TheStranger on May 27, 2010, 01:22:22 AM
subzeroepsilon:

Interesting ideas, going through them point by point...

#2 - I know that Route 58 is being proposed for freeway upgrades (on new alignment) between I-5 in Buttonwillow and Route 99 in Bakersfield, so that probably would go well with a unified Route 40.  Not sure then if the existing surface road should be part of an extended Route 178 that parallels the future freeway...

I almost feel like any conceptualization of a route along the trajectory of the straight-line 238/580/205/120 corridor should, someday, include a bridge across to today's I-380, as opposed to running towards Route 92 (involving a co-routing slightly southeastward on I-880).  That probably won't be built for many years - if ever - but would nicely round out your proposed interstate.

Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: subzeroepsilon on May 27, 2010, 02:13:20 AM
@TheStranger
I agree with you on the I-380 crossing idea making more sense but I was just trying to work with the stuff that is there now or likely to be constructed in the near or reasonably near future.

@xonhulu
I had forgotten that CA-42 had been decommissioned since CalTrans seems intent on keeping it signed, at least from what I could tell from the signs off I-405 from my LA trip a couple weeks ago. I actually don't see any reason why that would not work: I-42 would be north of I-40, so it would not break that rule. The only issue would that I-242 would not be available for assignment since CA-242 exists already in the Bay Area (short connector freeway in Concord between CA-4 and I-680). I guess we could use I-442 then where I mentioned I-258.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: TheStranger on May 27, 2010, 11:35:59 AM
@TheStranger
I agree with you on the I-380 crossing idea making more sense but I was just trying to work with the stuff that is there now or likely to be constructed in the near or reasonably near future.

Makes sense.  I know a Route 92 freeway has been proposed in years past between I-880 and I-580, but I think that part of Hayward is too built up now to run a new limited access highway through it.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: roadfro on May 28, 2010, 02:23:54 AM
As a hapless Bay Area commuter that has to drive this road on a daily basis from the Tri-Valley to Hayward and back, I think I came up with a logical way of dealing with this problem that folds into some of the other proposals I have seen here repeatedly:
[...snip...]
I am sure there are things I am overlooking in this list of ideas but I figured that if this were to come to the table, why not take the time to make the system to seem more logical and at the same time recognize that we now (for better or worse) live the Greater San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose/Sacramento/Stockton/Modesto Bay Area.

The whole reason for the great I-238 debate is that I-38 doesn't exist (and wouldn't quite be in this area if it did), thus violating the Interstate numbering grid.  Thus, the first point introducing an I-58 with related auxiliary routes only complicates the original issue.

With that said, some of the ideas to consolidate and reorganize route numbers aren't bad.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: Rover_0 on May 28, 2010, 02:47:53 PM
Of course, while this brings up another issue (4-digit Interstates), but what about numbering this I-1080?  What would be wrong about numbering this I-180 or I-480, as I believe they don't exist at this time?  You could renumber CA-180 to CA-194 (as that number isn't in use, unconstructed or otherwise).

Another idea that's a little out there, though leading to renumbering of another long CA State Route, is to number I-580 as I-70.  While I-70 currently ends in Utah, what if you had a "western" version that could, one day down the road, be connected to the rest?  Another idea is to use I-72, I-74, I-76, or I-78, though that would lead to a route renumbering.

Another thing, though unrelated:  some of these routes do need to be consolidated, like CA-61 and CA-260, or in the greater LA area, CA-19 and CA-164.  It just doesn't seem right to use different numbers for what should be the same route (even Utah has done it with UT-28 and UT-41 in Nephi--it's all UT-28 now).
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: agentsteel53 on May 28, 2010, 03:14:33 PM
Of course, while this brings up another issue (4-digit Interstates), but what about numbering this I-1080?

"ten-eighty" is easier to pronounce, but I-1180 would be a better fit on extant shield designs.

the best solution is to call it CA-238, especially since it is signed north-south while going almost exactly east-west.  The only way that that bannering makes sense is if it is considered the continuation of CA-238, so we may as well unify it under one route identifier.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: TheStranger on May 28, 2010, 05:57:40 PM
Of course, while this brings up another issue (4-digit Interstates), but what about numbering this I-1080?  What would be wrong about numbering this I-180 or I-480, as I believe they don't exist at this time?  You could renumber CA-180 to CA-194 (as that number isn't in use, unconstructed or otherwise).

The only time California has ever renumbered 1934-era routes (which Route 180 happens to be) are in the following situations:

- when they conflicted with new Interstate numbers in the 1950s/1960s (i.e. former Route 10 in Inglewood, former Route 5 from SF to Santa Cruz)
- 1964-era Route 69 (former Route 65 which was bypassed by the proposed reroute from Route 198 to Roseville) was renumbered to route 245

Basically, long-standing policy has been, "if the preexisting route is more important in length, then it stays," thus 180 has remained from the very beginning, while urban routes much shorter than the Interstates that used their numbers (5, 8, 10, 15) received new numbers in the 1964 era (35, 26, 42, 7).


Quote from: Rover_0
Another thing, though unrelated:  some of these routes do need to be consolidated, like CA-61 and CA-260, or in the greater LA area, CA-19 and CA-164.  It just doesn't seem right to use different numbers for what should be the same route (even Utah has done it with UT-28 and UT-41 in Nephi--it's all UT-28 now).

Both situations are the result of non-completed freeway projects: Route 61 north and south of unsigned 260 and 112 (both of which are signed as 61) which will likely never be constructed, and the short connector between 19 and 605 that is the only unbuilt segment of 164.

As 164 has always been a paper route (which uses the 1934 sign Route 19, which still remains Route 19 in the field), that should honestly have been done away with years ago.  If 61's extensions are not to be built, then a redefinition would be useful as well.

(The one instance of where signage for a "virtual" route was adjusted to match has to be Route 242 in Concord, which was built as part of the original Route 24, and was signed as Route 24 between 1964 and 1991 even though legislatively in that time period, it was already 242.)

Quote from: agentsteel53
the best solution is to call it CA-238, especially since it is signed north-south while going almost exactly east-west.  The only way that that bannering makes sense is if it is considered the continuation of CA-238, so we may as well unify it under one route identifier.

Since California HAS reused 110 and 105 and 880 (in fact, only waiting one year to reuse 880), I think the best solution would be to give 238 the unused 480 number and leave it at that.

Though part of me wants to be snarky and redesignate 238 as "Truck 580" for laughs (with a concurrency with 880 north of Hayward).   :-D
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: Scott5114 on May 28, 2010, 06:39:30 PM
Since California HAS reused 110 and 105 and 880 (in fact, only waiting one year to reuse 880), I think the best solution would be to give 238 the unused 480 number and leave it at that.

That would indeed be the best solution, but does the stigma of the 480 number remain? (Wouldn't it have faded after all this time?) If that was untenable, I'd prefer to force a 238/180 swap.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: agentsteel53 on May 28, 2010, 07:04:40 PM
The only time California has ever renumbered 1934-era routes (which Route 180 happens to be) are in the following situations:

- when they conflicted with new Interstate numbers in the 1950s/1960s (i.e. former Route 10 in Inglewood, former Route 5 from SF to Santa Cruz)

there are other examples, mainly having to do with US or interstate routes taking them over, either by number or by route.  For example, bear 6 vanished because the number needed to be used for US-6.  So US-6 took over a great portion of what was once bear 7, while bear 6 became bear 26. 

bear 7 in general vanished quite nicely, between US-395, US-6, and I-405 taking it over, and the number was free by 1958 to be used for the bear 15 freeway. 

bear 3 also vanished quickly, being replaced by a new US route: Alternate 101. 

bear 180 is the only route that didn't give up its number because the interstates came in.  Then again, there were only two that did: 5 and 15.  40 and 80 were US routes, and there was no bear 105 or 110. 

two bears that lost their number (permanently, as of 2010) were 440 and 740, but those didn't much make sense in the beginning, and were gone by the mid-30s.  I've never seen a bear 440 or 740 shield, and am having trouble imagining one, since the classic bear font does not afford three full-width digits (a "1" and two non-"1"s fit just fine).

I don't remember if there ever was a bear 69.  If so, that definitely got renumbered. 

also, I thought I-880 vanished in 1980 in Sacramento, and reappeared in the east bay in 1988.  Was the gap shorter than that?
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: Scott5114 on May 28, 2010, 07:33:10 PM
I don't remember if there ever was a bear 69.

goddam furries
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: TheStranger on May 28, 2010, 09:49:39 PM

also, I thought I-880 vanished in 1980 in Sacramento, and reappeared in the east bay in 1988.  Was the gap shorter than that?

Much shorter:

1982 was the end of 880 in Natomas (after the 80 realignment in North Sacramento was canceled in 1979), and 1984 was the start of today's Oakland-to-San Jose 880.

Quote from: Scott5114
That would indeed be the best solution, but does the stigma of the 480 number remain? (Wouldn't it have faded after all this time?) If that was untenable, I'd prefer to force a 238/180 swap.

The one place where I can think of a number stigma remaining long after would be the unbuilt/canceled I-290 in eastern Cleveland; the segment that did get constructed (from I-90/I-71 to I-77) became I-490 instead, even though 290 would have worked just fine for that short connector.

Then again, if Doyle Drive is being rebuilt as a limited access, modern route (as opposed to a divided-by-pylons 1937-era modern route) in a city that is entirely opposed to limited access construction in general, I think maybe recycling the 480 number would not be a bad idea.  (480 and the 238 interstate did exist concurrently from the early 1980s to 1989, so that probably explains why CalTrans didn't try to pull the switch then.)
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: vdeane on May 29, 2010, 08:07:52 AM
Would the stigma matter if it was just a hidden designation?  There is no reason why I-238 needs to be signed as anything other than TO: I-580/TO: I-880
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: TheStranger on May 29, 2010, 02:11:46 PM
Would the stigma matter if it was just a hidden designation?  There is no reason why I-238 needs to be signed as anything other than TO: I-580/TO: I-880

There is one exit (for Mission Boulevard/Route 185) on the highway, so it isn't quite a mere offramp unlike, say the San Bernardino Freeway between US 101 and I-5.

Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: xonhulu on May 29, 2010, 07:45:47 PM
I don't see why it couldn't be "SPUR 580," unless that violates California's route duplication rules.

I also think this short freeway isn't worth burning the 480 designation.  But I guess the same goes for 980, which could easily be a CA 24 extension.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: TheStranger on May 30, 2010, 02:39:56 AM
I don't see why it couldn't be "SPUR 580," unless that violates California's route duplication rules.

California does not use standalone banner routes at all for state-maintained highways - Business 80 is "Route 51" for the section not part of US 50 or Route 99, and the Alternate US 50 that exists is either county road or part of Route 88, IIRC.

If this were ever "Spur 580," it would likely receive a hidden state route designation, just as I-15E was hidden state route 194.

Quote from: xonhulu

I also think this short freeway isn't worth burning the 480 designation.  But I guess the same goes for 980, which could easily be a CA 24 extension.

Considering that Northern California is the last place that very many new freeways will really ever be built in our lifetimes, using up the 480 designation is probably no big deal.  (As for 980, I would love to see that extended to Walnut Creek once the fourth bore of the Caldecott opens - the freeway is Interstate standard on each side of the tunnel, save for that section.)

Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 01:53:40 AM
What does everyone think Caltrans should do with this freeway? Personally, I think it should be renumbered to Interstate 480, but I guess Caltrans thinks otherwise.
I agree 100%. I-480 has been available since 1991, and it would work perfectly, as 3di with an even lead digit are supposed to link one Interstate to another, which would be accomplished if I-238 was renumbered to I-480.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: AZDude on December 01, 2010, 12:34:53 AM
Not sure if it's already been said but I'll go ahead and say it.

How about renaming I-580 as I-705.  Then rename I-238, I-580.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: Quillz on December 01, 2010, 01:59:41 AM
It would be very confusing to move I-580, and old, 70+ mile freeway onto a short, 2 mile alignment right next to its former alignment.

What makes the most sense is to move I-980 to where I-238 is now and just restore that last mile or so of CA-24.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: kkt on February 13, 2012, 12:56:13 AM
Several people have suggested just signing I-238 as CA-238 and making it a hidden interstate.  This would be a bad idea because of how I-238 is used.  I-580 is the major route from the Bay Area to L.A., the Central Valley, and points east via I-40.  However, trucks are banned on I-580 in Oakland.  That's been the case ever since the freeway was built as part of US-50, except brief periods such as after the Loma Prieta earthquake.  Since trucks are banned on I-580, the truck route from Oakland is south on I-880 then east on I-238.  In order to appear as a good route for truckers, I-238 needs that interstate shield.

I-580 is a major route that's had that designation since 1964, and it's been a very important route all that time.  Its number is mnemonic, connecting I-5 to I-80.  Its number should not be changed, at least for the I-5 to Oakland segment.

Besides not fitting the interstate numbering scheme, I-238 is a bad number because it implies a connection with CA-238, but CA-238 is a right angle turn and it requires an exit from I-238 to get on CA-238. 

Reusing an old number in the same area would cause massive confusion.  I rule out swapping I-980 for anything else in the Bay Area, or swapping I-580 to some other route in the Bay Area.

Putting all this together, I think the best options are either A)  I-3 replacing US-101 from L.A. to San Jose, I-880 from San Jose to Oakland, and I-580 from Oakland to San Rafael, with a spur I-503 replacing I-238.  or B)  Use a 4-digit interstate number.  I think I-1580 would be mnemonic and might be able to fit on a shield designed for three-digit interstate numbers.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: TheStranger on February 13, 2012, 01:52:34 AM

Besides not fitting the interstate numbering scheme, I-238 is a bad number because it implies a connection with CA-238, but CA-238 is a right angle turn and it requires an exit from I-238 to get on CA-238. 

Funny enough, I-76 and I-80 do this exact same thing (route "bump") in Ohio.  Not that I like it, but it's not shockingly rare.


Reusing an old number in the same area would cause massive confusion.  I rule out swapping I-980 for anything else in the Bay Area, or swapping I-580 to some other route in the Bay Area.

How about I-480?  The number has been out of use for 21 years now.

I-105 was reused in the Los Angeles area almost immediately (though the first incarnation - a paper concurrency with US 101 on the Santa Ana Freeway between the San Bernardino Freeway and the Golden State Freeway - was never signed, and current I-105 wasn't completed until 1992).

 
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: kkt on February 13, 2012, 12:06:16 PM

Besides not fitting the interstate numbering scheme, I-238 is a bad number because it implies a connection with CA-238, but CA-238 is a right angle turn and it requires an exit from I-238 to get on CA-238. 

Funny enough, I-76 and I-80 do this exact same thing (route "bump") in Ohio.  Not that I like it, but it's not shockingly rare.


Reusing an old number in the same area would cause massive confusion.  I rule out swapping I-980 for anything else in the Bay Area, or swapping I-580 to some other route in the Bay Area.

How about I-480?  The number has been out of use for 21 years now.

I-105 was reused in the Los Angeles area almost immediately (though the first incarnation - a paper concurrency with US 101 on the Santa Ana Freeway between the San Bernardino Freeway and the Golden State Freeway - was never signed, and current I-105 wasn't completed until 1992).

 

Yes, route bumps have happened other places, but they are confusing and one more reason to change the I-238 number.

I-480 could be used for I-238, I agree it's been long enough.  I was thinking I-480 would be a good number for "Business I-80" through Sacramento, since it's not really a business loop and duplicating number 80 is confusing.  I-480 is particularly appropriate there since it's an even number indicating a loop.

I'm not worried by changing a number that was never signed or on maps.  Road geeks are the only ones who know about them, and they have no trouble keeping track of the changes.

Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: myosh_tino on February 13, 2012, 12:57:20 PM
I was thinking I-480 would be a good number for "Business I-80" through Sacramento, since it's not really a business loop and duplicating number 80 is confusing.  I-480 is particularly appropriate there since it's an even number indicating a loop.
You cannot sign all of Business 80 as I-480 because there are non-interstate standard sections of freeway north of the Arden Way/CA-160 interchange.  If these sections were up to interstate standard, I-80 would have remained on what is now Business 80 and I-880 would have remained on what is now I-80.  Technically, the segment of Business 80 between the western I-80 junction and the US 50/CA-99 interchange is "hidden" I-305.

An interesting thought though is if I-80 and I-880 were left alone in Sacramento, what I-number would the Nimitz freeway (current I-880, former CA-17) get.  It's an interesting thought but discussing that would be better served in the Fictional Roads thread.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: kkt on February 13, 2012, 05:08:43 PM
You cannot sign all of Business 80 as I-480 because there are non-interstate standard sections of freeway north of the Arden Way/CA-160 interchange.  If these sections were up to interstate standard, I-80 would have remained on what is now Business 80 and I-880 would have remained on what is now I-80.  Technically, the segment of Business 80 between the western I-80 junction and the US 50/CA-99 interchange is "hidden" I-305.

An interesting thought though is if I-80 and I-880 were left alone in Sacramento, what I-number would the Nimitz freeway (current I-880, former CA-17) get.  It's an interesting thought but discussing that would be better served in the Fictional Roads thread.

I'm looking at the bad sections of CA-51 as posted by TheStranger last July:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3653.25

An odd left entrance from Arden Way, the Marconi Curve, and Howe Avenue's short deceleration ramp and nonexistent acceleration ramp.  Every urban freeway built before 1960 has issues like these.  Arden Way is oddly set up, but I see left entrances and exits all the time.  Could it be redesigned as a diamond or with a flyover ramp?  The Marconi Curve is just a 55-mph curve with small shoulders.  Howe is particularly bad, but it looks as if it could be closed and the next exit/entrance used instead.  I think CalTrans was overreacting when they moved I-80.

If the Capitol City Freeway couldn't be approved as I-480, I'd make it CA-480 with the east-west part as hidden I-480.

CCF is not a business route.  It's a freeway, no businesses front on it.  It's state maintained.  It confuses the public to have two routes 80.  It should be numbered as a loop; that's what loop numbers are for.  Just putting the mainline for I-80 on the northern loop got a lot of the through traffic out of the most congested part of Sacramento, there was no need to suppress old I-80's interstate status entirely.

If the number I-880 were not available, the Nimitz would have had a few options, all with disadvantages:  Leave it signed as CA-17 with some arbitrary hidden interstate number.  Make it I-180 and renumber CA-180.  A 4-digit interstate number.  Make it I-3, along with US-101 from San Jose south to Los Angeles.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: TheStranger on February 13, 2012, 05:49:03 PM

I'm looking at the bad sections of CA-51 as posted by TheStranger last July:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3653.25

An odd left entrance from Arden Way, the Marconi Curve, and Howe Avenue's short deceleration ramp and nonexistent acceleration ramp.  Every urban freeway built before 1960 has issues like these.

The Bayshore and Central Freeways in SF do not have stop signs at end of ramps, and the short merge from southbound 101 to eastbound 80 isn't anywhere as bad as the Howe Avenue onramp.

Both were constructed ca. 1954.  The segment of I-80 (originally US 40/50) between the Central Freeway and the Bay Bridge only has left exits westbound, none eastbound.

The section of unsigned Route 51 with the short merges, the Arden Way left-entrance...that's actually more 1940s build than anything else.

Quote from: kkt
I think CalTrans was overreacting when they moved I-80.

Just putting the mainline for I-80 on the northern loop got a lot of the through traffic out of the most congested part of Sacramento, there was no need to suppress old I-80's interstate status entirely.

CalTrans didn't "move" I-80 for safety reasons per se.

The proposal for I-80 in the 1960s was to reroute the Interstate on a new alignment from north of E Street to the railroad tracks through North Sacramento, and then to today's Watt/I-80 light rail station - with today's Route 51 on the 1940s US 99E alignment as merely a temporary routing, likely to be demolished once the new carriageways were built.  In the late 1970s, the Sacramento board of supervisors voted to cancel the new alignment and shift the funds to the light rail project instead.

THAT is why the I-80 moves ended up occurring, similar to why the 470 beltway in Denver is not a signed Interstate.

That's not to say that any of that is logical reasoning but I don't think CalTrans had a choice in the matter after the city played their hand.

Quote from: kkt
If the Capitol City Freeway couldn't be approved as I-480, I'd make it CA-480 with the east-west part as hidden I-480.

Why not just sign the non-Interstate segment as Route 51 and leave the east-west portion as US 50?  To me that's simpler than attempting to assign one number for the route, when both corridors are rather seperate (the freeway into Arden, and the east-west extent of US 50 connecting West Sacramento with downtown and the east suburbs).

Quote from: kkt
If the number I-880 were not available, the Nimitz would have had a few options, all with disadvantages:  Leave it signed as CA-17 with some arbitrary hidden interstate number.  Make it I-180 and renumber CA-180.  A 4-digit interstate number.  Make it I-3, along with US-101 from San Jose south to Los Angeles.

The I-180 suggestion would have never occurred, given that it was rejected outright for usage with what is now I-238 AND the west extension of I-580 in those days specifically because California had no desire to renumber the then-50 year old State Route 180 in Fresno.  If one considers the removal of Route 30 for Route 210 as simply the extension of an existing route, then by that token there have been no lengthy route renumberings since 1964 whatsoever.

US 101 between Los Angeles and Novato was submitted as a potential interstate route in 1947 but rejected, and I don't know if it was ever submitted again.  Creating a long-distance route just to give the Nimitz an Interstate number wasn't likely by that point in time, especially with 101 still having stoplights in the early 80s in Santa Barbara.

I think it IS fair to say that when Glenn Anderson stumped for today's I-105 and today's I-880 in the early 80s, it helped immensely that the number was available.  We can speculate as to what would've happened had it not been, but that two-year gap between the Sacramento changes and the Nimitz's addition to the system meant that whether on the legislative or DOT end, someone was aware that 880 could be used again.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: The High Plains Traveler on February 13, 2012, 09:55:53 PM
The cure for I-238 is to renumber I-580 as an independent 2-di. It would be longer than several other 2d routes (86 west, 97, 19), and changing 580 would reduce the x80 glut around the Bay area. I would call it I-48, which makes sense for several reasons: first, the designation is currently unused in California; second, it fits within the interstate grid; and third, it would reflect the original U.S. designation that was given to that short piece of road in the late 1920s, but that was changed to U.S. 50. Thus, the spur that is 238 could become 248 (a designation also available).
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: Quillz on February 14, 2012, 05:35:33 AM
I, too, think I-580 could theoretically work as a primary 2di, but it's simply the question of brand name recognition at this point. As noted, I-580 makes sense, since it connects the 5 to the 80, and it's been around for more than half a century now. I might argue that the 580 is to the Bay Area what the 405 is to Los Angeles: important routes that, for better or for worse, have earned their place into the local traffic lore.

I think the best solution is to renumber I-238 as I-480. I see no reason why this wouldn't work. The main argument I've heard is that it apparently would make natives remember the hated Embarcadero Freeway. Perhaps this is the case, but it seems like a fairly weak argument overall.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: vdeane on February 14, 2012, 12:00:59 PM
I think we should renumber I-580 as I-38!  :spin:
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: Bickendan on February 14, 2012, 03:20:20 PM
How about this: Renumber the 280/680 beltway under one number. Whichever got renumbered could then be applied to I-238.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: flowmotion on February 14, 2012, 06:02:20 PM
I agree it's silly to suggest renumbering any major freeway (unless the numbering itself is confusing to the motorist, e.g. Sacto's Biz-80) The only reason it's even worth considering changing I-238 is because the roadway is so short and it's signed as "TO I-580/I-880" on either end.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: Quillz on February 14, 2012, 07:34:38 PM
Another proposal (which I think also makes sense) is to renumber I-980 to CA-24, which is what it used to be anyway, then apply I-980 to where I-238 is now. Both the 238 and 980 are not really signed on their own, anyway, but rather as "TO ___".
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: Alps on February 14, 2012, 08:11:53 PM
The best solution is to sign it as CA 238 for continuity, and maintain it as a secret Interstate. You can thank me later.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: TheStranger on February 14, 2012, 08:46:33 PM
As much as I don't like the 238 number for the Interstate spur here, it seems to me roadgeeks care about this far more than the motoring public.

Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: kphoger on February 14, 2012, 10:28:41 PM
This is all much more trouble than it's worth.  Rather than resign all of California just to make I-238 fit the number scheme, let's just leave it as I-238.  Crazy idea, huh?  Or better yet, we could come up with an even more ludicrous number.  Let's renumber it I-692  :bigass:
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: Bickendan on February 14, 2012, 11:02:04 PM
You know... SPUR 580 could work. Look at SPUR 895 connecting I-97 to I-895.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: andy3175 on February 15, 2012, 12:41:33 AM
My (somewhat) major issue with I-238 has nothing to do with the numerical designation; my major issue is that the entirety of route 238 does not make a logical route. By having 238 the same number for both the Interstate designation and the adjacent state route designation, people may be inclined to believe that 238 is a logical route from 680 to 880. However, I would argue that main purpose of I-238 is to get between I-880 and I-580; most motorists are not taking the right turn onto state route 238 south when traveling east along that short freeway. As such, the freeway should be signed east-west, not north-south. Meanwhile, the main purpose of state route 238 is to serve Hayward via Mission Boulevard and provide local access. Perhaps 238 as a unified freeway would have made better sense if the Mission Freeway were built, but since that was canceled, I don't think its status as a single route designation makes sense.

(As a fictional highway note, I have always thought the I-580 segment between I-5 and I-80 should be renumbered as I-58, and I-238 become I-258. But since "58" is a number already taken elsewhere in the state highway grid, I suspect I-238 and I-580 will be with us for some time to come [as will Business Loop 80 in Sacramento]. These designations have been with us now for close to 30 years, give or take a few.)

So in conclusion, I have never agreed with calling the whole thing state route 238 because I view the Mission Boulevard segment as being a completely separate roadway from the freeway connector.

Cheers,
Andy
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: TheStranger on February 15, 2012, 03:32:41 AM
Perhaps 238 as a unified freeway would have made better sense if the Mission Freeway were built, but since that was canceled, I don't think its status as a single route designation makes sense.


I'll even say that "I-238" and State Route 238 (as either Mission Boulevard or the unbuilt Mission Freeway) has never made sense as one route - but we can even argue that 580's segments are just as hodgepodge too.

Had the Mission Freeway been built, we would've ended up with this being more obvious - one north-south corridor (580 Macarthur Freeway/Mission Freeway Route 238) serving as an alternate SJ-Oakland route to relieve the Nimitz Freeway, and one east-west corridor from Livermore to Hayward.

Honestly I could see an argument to say, renumber 238/580/205 as just 205, the diagonal segment of 580 to I-5 as 705, and keep 580 on the Richmond Bridge and Macarthur Freeway routes, if it had to be renumbered - but I don't see the need all that strongly.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: kkt on February 15, 2012, 06:42:05 PM

I'm looking at the bad sections of CA-51 as posted by TheStranger last July:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3653.25

An odd left entrance from Arden Way, the Marconi Curve, and Howe Avenue's short deceleration ramp and nonexistent acceleration ramp.  Every urban freeway built before 1960 has issues like these.

The Bayshore and Central Freeways in SF do not have stop signs at end of ramps, and the short merge from southbound 101 to eastbound 80 isn't anywhere as bad as the Howe Avenue onramp.

Both were constructed ca. 1954.  The segment of I-80 (originally US 40/50) between the Central Freeway and the Bay Bridge only has left exits westbound, none eastbound.

The section of unsigned Route 51 with the short merges, the Arden Way left-entrance...that's actually more 1940s build than anything else.

This construction reminds me of the I-80 northbound exits and entrances in Berkeley and Albany.  Major ones have been reconstructed and some minor ones closed, but some remain at least last time I was there.  Also the way the Nimitz used to be, before the 1990s reconstruction projects.

Quote from: TheStranger

Quote from: kkt
I think CalTrans was overreacting when they moved I-80.

Just putting the mainline for I-80 on the northern loop got a lot of the through traffic out of the most congested part of Sacramento, there was no need to suppress old I-80's interstate status entirely.

CalTrans didn't "move" I-80 for safety reasons per se.

The proposal for I-80 in the 1960s was to reroute the Interstate on a new alignment from north of E Street to the railroad tracks through North Sacramento, and then to today's Watt/I-80 light rail station - with today's Route 51 on the 1940s US 99E alignment as merely a temporary routing, likely to be demolished once the new carriageways were built.  In the late 1970s, the Sacramento board of supervisors voted to cancel the new alignment and shift the funds to the light rail project instead.

THAT is why the I-80 moves ended up occurring, similar to why the 470 beltway in Denver is not a signed Interstate.

That's not to say that any of that is logical reasoning but I don't think CalTrans had a choice in the matter after the city played their hand.

Sure they had a choice, they could have left the number as is.  The freeway didn't close just because the city vetoed the new alignment.

Quote from: TheStranger

Quote from: kkt
If the Capitol City Freeway couldn't be approved as I-480, I'd make it CA-480 with the east-west part as hidden I-480.

Why not just sign the non-Interstate segment as Route 51 and leave the east-west portion as US 50?  To me that's simpler than attempting to assign one number for the route, when both corridors are rather seperate (the freeway into Arden, and the east-west extent of US 50 connecting West Sacramento with downtown and the east suburbs).

What percent of the traffic from the E-W portion continues to the N-S portion and vice versa?  That is the first major route through the area, approximating US-40.  Someone must think it's substantial traffic or they wouldn't have bothered signing it as Capitol City Freeway.

Much of route 51 was built with interstate funds, and the quality of the road even though it's not quite modern interstate is better than you would expect from just a SR number.

Quote from: TheStranger
Quote from: kkt
If the number I-880 were not available, the Nimitz would have had a few options, all with disadvantages:  Leave it signed as CA-17 with some arbitrary hidden interstate number.  Make it I-180 and renumber CA-180.  A 4-digit interstate number.  Make it I-3, along with US-101 from San Jose south to Los Angeles.

The I-180 suggestion would have never occurred, given that it was rejected outright for usage with what is now I-238 AND the west extension of I-580 in those days specifically because California had no desire to renumber the then-50 year old State Route 180 in Fresno.  If one considers the removal of Route 30 for Route 210 as simply the extension of an existing route, then by that token there have been no lengthy route renumberings since 1964 whatsoever.

US 101 between Los Angeles and Novato was submitted as a potential interstate route in 1947 but rejected, and I don't know if it was ever submitted again.  Creating a long-distance route just to give the Nimitz an Interstate number wasn't likely by that point in time, especially with 101 still having stoplights in the early 80s in Santa Barbara.

Like I said, all the options have disadvantages.  Traffic on 101 has increased a lot since 1947, and most of rebuilding it to interstate standards was already done by the early 1980s, I think it would have been worth applying again.  It still would, for that matter.

Quote from: TheStranger
I think it IS fair to say that when Glenn Anderson stumped for today's I-105 and today's I-880 in the early 80s, it helped immensely that the number was available.  We can speculate as to what would've happened had it not been, but that two-year gap between the Sacramento changes and the Nimitz's addition to the system meant that whether on the legislative or DOT end, someone was aware that 880 could be used again.

That sounds like the tail wagging the dog.  Would the Feds really have said, "Yes, you have a good and needed project and we'd be happy to fund it, but there's no interstate number available so forget it?"  And, faced with losing a couple billion $ for the badly-needed Nimitz reconstruction, would California really have said "Keep your money, it's more important for CA-180 to keep its number?"  Don't both parties first decide what projects to do based on costs (financial, environmental, etc.) and benefits and then assign an appropriate number?

Perhaps 238 as a unified freeway would have made better sense if the Mission Freeway were built, but since that was canceled, I don't think its status as a single route designation makes sense.


I'll even say that "I-238" and State Route 238 (as either Mission Boulevard or the unbuilt Mission Freeway) has never made sense as one route - but we can even argue that 580's segments are just as hodgepodge too.

Had the Mission Freeway been built, we would've ended up with this being more obvious - one north-south corridor (580 Macarthur Freeway/Mission Freeway Route 238) serving as an alternate SJ-Oakland route to relieve the Nimitz Freeway, and one east-west corridor from Livermore to Hayward.

Honestly I could see an argument to say, renumber 238/580/205 as just 205, the diagonal segment of 580 to I-5 as 705, and keep 580 on the Richmond Bridge and Macarthur Freeway routes, if it had to be renumbered - but I don't see the need all that strongly.

Agree that would be a possibility, but I still hesitate to renumber part of a major route as I-580.  That's probably the first or second route anyone living in the bay area for the past 50 years has learned.  Leaving I-238 alone is a better option.

The best solution is to sign it as CA 238 for continuity, and maintain it as a secret Interstate. You can thank me later.

No, it needs to be signed as interstate to appear as a good route for truckers, who have to take it rather than I-580 through Oakland.

How about this: Renumber the 280/680 beltway under one number. Whichever got renumbered could then be applied to I-238.

No, that breaks both moving an existing heavily-used route, and besides you'd have to parallel routes 30 miles apart with the same route number.  How confusing would that be?

I, too, think I-580 could theoretically work as a primary 2di, but it's simply the question of brand name recognition at this point. As noted, I-580 makes sense, since it connects the 5 to the 80, and it's been around for more than half a century now. I might argue that the 580 is to the Bay Area what the 405 is to Los Angeles: important routes that, for better or for worse, have earned their place into the local traffic lore.

I think the best solution is to renumber I-238 as I-480. I see no reason why this wouldn't work. The main argument I've heard is that it apparently would make natives remember the hated Embarcadero Freeway. Perhaps this is the case, but it seems like a fairly weak argument overall.

I think that would work.  Locals hated the Embarcadero Freeway, but those who remember it at all are smart enough to realize I-238 isn't the Embarcadero Freeway  :)
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: TheStranger on February 15, 2012, 07:33:00 PM

What percent of the traffic from the E-W portion continues to the N-S portion and vice versa?  That is the first major route through the area, approximating US-40.  Someone must think it's substantial traffic or they wouldn't have bothered signing it as Capitol City Freeway.

I don't have traffic counts, though I do know the ramps DO back up regularly.  Having said that, the "Capitol City Freeway" name only exists as a remedy to the Business 80 confusion and I don't think is specific to the corridor's importance whatsoever.

In local usage, US 50 and the north-south Capital City Freeway/Business 80 are ALWAYS referred as separate routes.  I don't know if this was the case when all of that was I-80 but "Capital City" references in radio broadcasts generally never include the US 50 segment.

Quote from: kkt


Much of route 51 was built with interstate funds, and the quality of the road even though it's not quite modern interstate is better than you would expect from just a SR number.

Not true.

The only portion of Route 51 constructed as I-80 with Interstate funds was between US 50/Route 99 and E Street in the late 1950s and early 1960s.  North of there is the substandard 1940s-1950s US 99E freeway, primarily built pre-interstate and much in place by 1956.



Quote from: kkt
Like I said, all the options have disadvantages.  Traffic on 101 has increased a lot since 1947, and most of rebuilding it to interstate standards was already done by the early 1980s, I think it would have been worth applying again.  It still would, for that matter.

Except so much of 101 ISN'T up to Interstate standards between San Jose and Ventura, particularly in Prunedale.  

The only routes I can think of that California has applied for an Interstate sign since 880/238/710/110 & the 580 extension in the early 80s are future 15, 905, and 210, the latter of which was rejected twice by AASHTO in the late 90s as the segment east of Route 57 had yet to be completed.  I haven't heard anything about California reapplying for 210 lately.

There's little motivation to get Interstate funding or shields here (particularly when the example of TN 840 is considered - where Tennessee chose to keep it a state route in order to get the road built faster than if they had to deal with federal guidelines/paperwork), even when freeways are built to Interstate standard.  

You also mention (as I have) that number familiarity is important.  If the 48-year old 580 number has enough recognition that you feel it shouldn't be changed - I wasn't arguing it should be, so much as just noting the 580 corridor isn't particularly the most direct trajectory, as US 50 before that wasn't - then the 86-year old 101 number has even more recognition.

Quote from: kkt
That sounds like the tail wagging the dog.  Would the Feds really have said, "Yes, you have a good and needed project and we'd be happy to fund it, but there's no interstate number available so forget it?"  And, faced with losing a couple billion $ for the badly-needed Nimitz reconstruction, would California really have said "Keep your money, it's more important for CA-180 to keep its number?"  Don't both parties first decide what projects to do based on costs (financial, environmental, etc.) and benefits and then assign an appropriate number?

I was thinking more, the 880/80 situation in Sacramento (ca. 1979-1982) and the Nimitz/Century fast-tracking (1982-1984) seem to be entirely separate moments in which the latter benefitted from a number being available from the former.  Nothing intentional.

It IS telling CalTrans made a point of not renumbering 180 so that they could have it available for use in the Bay Area, instead coming up with the 580 extension and the awkward 238 Interstate status as responses.  (Now, in 1964, should they have responded otherwise?  They did renumber state routes 15 (to 7, future 710), 5 (to 35), 8 (to 88), and 10 (to 42) in response to the Interstates' arrival, so maybe 180 should have been in that batch of numbering changes as well.  Too late now.)

I think the documentation is on Kurumi.com, or at least somewhere else - in the discussions for what became 238 (and the 580 extension) the feds originally suggested 180 and CalTrans kept insisting that it not be used.

Quote from: kkt
No, it needs to be signed as interstate to appear as a good route for truckers, who have to take it rather than I-580 through Oakland.

If we're going to stay hypothetical, why not simply sign 238 and the north part of 880 as "TRUCK 580"?  I get that truck/alternate/etc. isn't common with Interstates, but it'd be valid there.  Isn't there a truck route for 278 in Queens?

Having said that, when the Nimitz/Cypress was 17 and 238 was a state route, while the MacArthur was US 50 and first I-5W, then I-580 and had its truck ban in place - it doesn't seem like the former needed the red/white/blue shield to be denoted as the truck route.
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: agentsteel53 on February 15, 2012, 08:57:02 PM
business 580  :pan:
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: kkt on February 20, 2012, 01:49:37 AM
Is it just me, or were there several posts here from Feb. 16 that have vanished?  Was it a technical problem, or did a moderator think were were straying too much into fictional territory?
Title: Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
Post by: Alps on February 20, 2012, 08:10:52 PM
This whole thread is fictional, but never migrated over there...