AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Author Topic: The Great Interstate 238 Debate  (Read 83085 times)

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4718
  • Last Login: Today at 03:22:40 AM
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #150 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.

Logged
Chris Sampang

xonhulu

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1389
  • Location: Salem, OR
  • Last Login: March 05, 2024, 12:08:05 AM
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #151 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.
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4718
  • Last Login: Today at 03:22:40 AM
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #152 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.)

Logged
Chris Sampang

Quillz

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3315
  • A Talking Pokémon

  • Age: 35
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Last Login: March 15, 2024, 10:13:27 PM
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #153 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.
Logged

AZDude

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 232
  • Last Login: June 11, 2023, 11:52:35 PM
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #154 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.
Logged

Quillz

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3315
  • A Talking Pokémon

  • Age: 35
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Last Login: March 15, 2024, 10:13:27 PM
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #155 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.
Logged

kkt

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7887
  • Location: Seattle, Washington
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 10:59:29 PM
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #156 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.
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4718
  • Last Login: Today at 03:22:40 AM
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #157 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).

 
Logged
Chris Sampang

kkt

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7887
  • Location: Seattle, Washington
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 10:59:29 PM
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #158 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.

Logged

myosh_tino

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2809
  • Silicon Valley Roadgeek

  • Age: 50
  • Location: Cupertino, CA
  • Last Login: March 17, 2024, 01:25:52 PM
    • Silicon Valley Roads @ Markyville.com
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #159 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.
Logged
Quote from: golden eagle
If I owned a dam and decided to donate it to charity, would I be giving a dam? I'm sure that might be a first because no one really gives a dam.

kkt

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7887
  • Location: Seattle, Washington
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 10:59:29 PM
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #160 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.
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4718
  • Last Login: Today at 03:22:40 AM
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #161 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.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2012, 05:51:00 PM by TheStranger »
Logged
Chris Sampang

The High Plains Traveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1141
  • Age: Just an old prairie dog

  • Location: Pueblo West CO
  • Last Login: March 15, 2024, 06:16:31 PM
    • Unofficial Minnesota and New Mexico Highway Pages
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #162 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).
Logged
"Tongue-tied and twisted; just an earth-bound misfit, I."

Quillz

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3315
  • A Talking Pokémon

  • Age: 35
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Last Login: March 15, 2024, 10:13:27 PM
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #163 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.
Logged

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14684
  • Age: 33
  • Location: The 518
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 09:10:05 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #164 on: February 14, 2012, 12:00:59 PM »

I think we should renumber I-580 as I-38!  :spin:
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Bickendan

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3011
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 11:19:16 PM
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #165 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.
Logged

flowmotion

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 343
  • Last Login: May 02, 2023, 11:40:52 PM
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #166 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.
Logged

Quillz

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3315
  • A Talking Pokémon

  • Age: 35
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Last Login: March 15, 2024, 10:13:27 PM
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #167 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 ___".
Logged

Alps

  • y u m
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15811
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 41
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 09:45:18 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #168 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.

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4718
  • Last Login: Today at 03:22:40 AM
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #169 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.

Logged
Chris Sampang

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 29128
  • My 2 Achilles' heels: sarcasm & snark

  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 09:31:10 PM
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #170 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:
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. Dick
If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

Bickendan

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3011
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 11:19:16 PM
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #171 on: February 14, 2012, 11:02:04 PM »

You know... SPUR 580 could work. Look at SPUR 895 connecting I-97 to I-895.
Logged

andy3175

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1508
  • Location: San Diego, California, USA
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 02:58:36 PM
    • AARoads
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #172 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
Logged
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4718
  • Last Login: Today at 03:22:40 AM
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #173 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.
Logged
Chris Sampang

kkt

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7887
  • Location: Seattle, Washington
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 10:59:29 PM
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #174 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  :)
Logged

 


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