AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered at https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33904.0
Corrected several already and appreciate your patience as we work through the rest.

Author Topic: The Great Interstate 238 Debate  (Read 83087 times)

Hellfighter

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1209
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Livonia, Detroit, MI
  • Last Login: July 30, 2010, 01:48:02 PM
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #75 on: May 24, 2009, 02:40:22 PM »

What about I-980?
Logged

Sykotyk

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 888
  • Last Login: February 21, 2024, 11:11:42 AM
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #76 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
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4718
  • Last Login: Today at 03:22:40 AM
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #77 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.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2009, 02:25:50 PM by TheStranger »
Logged
Chris Sampang

Hellfighter

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1209
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Livonia, Detroit, MI
  • Last Login: July 30, 2010, 01:48:02 PM
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #78 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".
« Last Edit: May 27, 2009, 03:46:42 PM by Hellfighter06 »
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4718
  • Last Login: Today at 03:22:40 AM
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #79 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...
Logged
Chris Sampang

flowmotion

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 343
  • Last Login: May 02, 2023, 11:40:52 PM
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #80 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".
Logged

Hellfighter

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1209
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Livonia, Detroit, MI
  • Last Login: July 30, 2010, 01:48:02 PM
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #81 on: June 15, 2009, 11:26:21 AM »

Instead of I-78, we could make it I-70... ;-)
Logged

mapman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 239
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Gilroy, California
  • Last Login: September 28, 2021, 07:25:15 PM
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #82 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.

Logged

leifvanderwall

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 397
  • Last Login: May 01, 2012, 08:35:30 PM
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #83 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.
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 #84 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.
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.

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 #85 on: August 19, 2009, 10:26:10 PM »

Will CA ever figure out that they could just renumber their highway to remove the conflict?
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

agentsteel53

  • invisible hand
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15374
  • long live button copy!

  • Age: 42
  • Location: San Diego, CA
  • Last Login: November 21, 2016, 09:58:39 AM
    • AARoads Shield Gallery
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #86 on: August 19, 2009, 11:24:12 PM »

yes, to CA-238 as the rest of it is signed.
Logged
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

agentsteel53

  • invisible hand
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15374
  • long live button copy!

  • Age: 42
  • Location: San Diego, CA
  • Last Login: November 21, 2016, 09:58:39 AM
    • AARoads Shield Gallery
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #87 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. 
Logged
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

leifvanderwall

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 397
  • Last Login: May 01, 2012, 08:35:30 PM
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #88 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.
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4718
  • Last Login: Today at 03:22:40 AM
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #89 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.
Logged
Chris Sampang

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 #90 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?
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

agentsteel53

  • invisible hand
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15374
  • long live button copy!

  • Age: 42
  • Location: San Diego, CA
  • Last Login: November 21, 2016, 09:58:39 AM
    • AARoads Shield Gallery
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #91 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.
Logged
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

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 #92 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
Logged
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

english si

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3637
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Buckinghamshire, England
  • Last Login: July 02, 2022, 05:33:16 AM
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #93 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.
Logged

Brandon

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11564
  • Stop making sense

  • Age: 46
  • Location: Joliet, IL
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 07:52:25 PM
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #94 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)?
Logged
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4718
  • Last Login: Today at 03:22:40 AM
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #95 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

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.)

Logged
Chris Sampang

City

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 175
  • Last Login: February 15, 2010, 10:22:49 PM
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #96 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



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



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.
Logged

agentsteel53

  • invisible hand
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15374
  • long live button copy!

  • Age: 42
  • Location: San Diego, CA
  • Last Login: November 21, 2016, 09:58:39 AM
    • AARoads Shield Gallery
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #97 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.
Logged
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

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 #98 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
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

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 #99 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.
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.

 


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.