News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Bay Area Freeway Proposals

Started by coatimundi, January 28, 2017, 08:26:25 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

coatimundi

On Thursday, I had the opportunity to get out to the Earth Sciences & Map Library at UC Berkeley. I will say that I could have probably spent a week there, sleeping behind step ladders, and pulling out the majority of their folders full of California maps back about as far as maps of the state have been published. Kind of a shocking collection. I don't know if anyone else on the forum has ever been, but it's very well worth the trip.

The one that got me excited was one I stumbled across without looking for it, as it wasn't what I was there for. The Thomas Brothers' "Port of Oakland" map that shows pretty much any and all Bay Area freeway proposals in excellent detail. The library does not have a scanner capable of handling a 45-year-old map (seems to be from 1972 - 1975), so I just took pictures, and I forgot my close-up lens, so some are out of focus.
I've posted the majority of it on my Flickr. The one that really got me excited was the Monterey inset, that shows the proposed path of the SR 68 bypass.
Another point of interest, I thought: the Crosstown Freeway in Stockton is missing, yet SR 4 is shown as a proposed freeway on either side of town.

https://flic.kr/s/aHskMSneuS


Max Rockatansky

Weird it shows CA 183 as 118 with a state shield, isn't that not the old LRN for the route?  Daniel's site is acting up so I can't really confirm if it is the same thing with the 56.  That might mean that map possibly dates back to prior to the renumbering if that is the case.

andy3175

Thank you for posting these maps. This is good stuff.
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

coatimundi

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 28, 2017, 10:36:36 PM
Weird it shows CA 183 as 118 with a state shield, isn't that not the old LRN for the route?  Daniel's site is acting up so I can't really confirm if it is the same thing with the 56.  That might mean that map possibly dates back to prior to the renumbering if that is the case.

The LRN for 183 was 118, and 56 was the LRN for the original Highway 1. Looking at it more, this map looks more 60's than 70's, especially when you look at what was constructed and what was not.

The only thing that is very likely a misprint that I've seen so far is labeling 120 as 220. I can't find any justification for that.

Quote from: andy3175 on January 28, 2017, 11:17:05 PM
Thank you for posting these maps. This is good stuff.

I mostly went through LA and Long Beach maps. Everything from the 30's into the 70's. I'll post more pics if I see anything interesting on them. The most interesting thing I saw outright was a Business US 6 shield along Figueroa next to current I-110 on a 1963 Unocal map. Not sure if it was ever signed, or if it ever actually existed, but I had never heard of that.

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: coatimundi on January 28, 2017, 11:58:00 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 28, 2017, 10:36:36 PM
Weird it shows CA 183 as 118 with a state shield, isn't that not the old LRN for the route?  Daniel's site is acting up so I can't really confirm if it is the same thing with the 56.  That might mean that map possibly dates back to prior to the renumbering if that is the case.

The LRN for 183 was 118, and 56 was the LRN for the original Highway 1. Looking at it more, this map looks more 60's than 70's, especially when you look at what was constructed and what was not.

The only thing that is very likely a misprint that I've seen so far is labeling 120 as 220. I can't find any justification for that.

Quote from: andy3175 on January 28, 2017, 11:17:05 PM
Thank you for posting these maps. This is good stuff.

I mostly went through LA and Long Beach maps. Everything from the 30's into the 70's. I'll post more pics if I see anything interesting on them. The most interesting thing I saw outright was a Business US 6 shield along Figueroa next to current I-110 on a 1963 Unocal map. Not sure if it was ever signed, or if it ever actually existed, but I had never heard of that.

Looks like it is probably sometime in 1963 to 1964 right before the renumbering was made official.  I base that off of two things; CA 5 is already renumbered to CA 35 and that the part west of CA 68 west of CA 1 isn't shown as part of the route.  That on top of the LRNs might suggest that it is for sure 1963 as I'm fairly certain that the western part of 68 was created out LRN 262 in 1964:

http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239525~5511850:State-Highway-Map,-California,-1964?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=27&trs=86

http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239528~5511852:State-Highway-Map,-California,-1963?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=29&trs=86

Anyways, cool map though showing what really might have been.  It would be nice to not have 68 running through downtown Salinas like it still does today.

kurumi

I took a day trip several years ago, as the library also has some CT maps and documents. Could have easily spent more time there.

Several Bay Area proposals were either too fanciful or had already been put aside and don't appear on the maps: CA 93 (at all); CA 87 up the Peninsula near the shoreline; CA 61 down to CA 84.
My first SF/horror short story collection is available: "Young Man, Open Your Winter Eye"

andy3175

Quote from: coatimundi on January 28, 2017, 11:58:00 PM
I mostly went through LA and Long Beach maps. Everything from the 30's into the 70's. I'll post more pics if I see anything interesting on them. The most interesting thing I saw outright was a Business US 6 shield along Figueroa next to current I-110 on a 1963 Unocal map. Not sure if it was ever signed, or if it ever actually existed, but I had never heard of that.

This is new to me. I knew about Business US 99 along San Fernando Road and Business US 101 along Ventura Blvd, but I wasn't aware of a Business US 6 along Figueroa. Was it also marked as Business SR 11? Did you happen to take a picture of this map as well? I'd like to run it past sdmichael, who would likely know whether it was signed, and if so, for how long.
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

SeriesE

Lots of missed opportunities here...
Like 84 freeway to 101/280 and "238"
238 freeway
237 freeway to 680

sparker

Quote from: SeriesE on February 01, 2017, 12:53:16 AM
Lots of missed opportunities here...
Like 84 freeway to 101/280 and "238"
238 freeway
237 freeway to 680

A few stories here:  original plans, circa 1965-73, showed 84 extending west from the Dumbarton Bridge more or less along the Francisquito Creek (the San Mateo/Santa Clara county line between Menlo Park & Palo Alto) all the way to I-280, with the present Woodside Road alignment of 84 as the original 114 (there were "114" mileposts along the Woodside Road expressway between CA 82 and US 101 in Redwood City as late as 1977).  When the Shoreline Parkway concept between the Dumbarton Bridge and Marsh Road was developed in the '80's, which took CA 84 further north, the routes were swapped, with 84 taking over Woodside Road (it had always been signed in the field as CA 84 in any case) and 114 aligned over Willow Street between US 101 and Shoreline; the proposed road still extended west to I-280, but was truncated back to CA 82 by the late '80's and finally to US 101 by 1994, about the time that the actual CA 84 was shifted to Shoreline, intersecting US 101 at the Marsh Road interchange.  East of the Dumbarton Bridge, the CA 84 freeway was extended to I-880 in the late '80's and was intended to extend farther east along or south of Decoto Road all the way to CA 238, but that alignment was never constructed; most of the land along the route was subsequently developed as housing.

The CA 237 and 238 freeways actually came close to being constructed; there are still "ghost" overpasses and berms along I-680 near the Scotts Creek interchange where CA 237 would have intersected it; freeway plans were truncated some time ago and traffic diverted north along I-880, where the freeway portion of 237 ends.  The freeway section of CA 238 between I-680 in southern Fremont and I-580 north of Hayward was actually adopted in the '60's, but one of the earlier instances of "freeway backlash" emanating from Hayward & Fremont activist groups resulted in a court order stopping acquisition of land for the freeway's construction in the early '70's; this effectively stopped the freeway in its tracks. 

The final freeways to be developed in the Bay Area were CA 85, 87, and 237 in Santa Clara County; all these were  completed by the early 2000's; the local political atmosphere currently mitigates against any further freeway planning much less actual development.   

cahwyguy

There was a comment on my site acting up. I'll note that my provider, Westhost, keeps claiming there is a DDOS attack. Not sure what I can do from my end.
Daniel - California Highway Guy ● Highway Site: http://www.cahighways.org/ ●  Blog: http://blog.cahighways.org/ ● Podcast (CA Route by Route): http://caroutebyroute.org/ ● Follow California Highways on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cahighways

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: cahwyguy on February 01, 2017, 12:11:52 PM
There was a comment on my site acting up. I'll note that my provider, Westhost, keeps claiming there is a DDOS attack. Not sure what I can do from my end.

Sorry about that, hopefully the tone of what I was saying wasn't taken out of context.  Usually I'm a little more elaborate in my responses and often use your site to look things like previous LRN designations.  I want to say it was down for 15-25 minutes, hence why what I said about LRN 118 was kind vague.  It's going to happen to pretty much every website sooner or later, there was a big crash on the forum last year for a couple days even.

coatimundi

#11
Quote from: andy3175 on February 01, 2017, 12:31:23 AM
Quote from: coatimundi on January 28, 2017, 11:58:00 PM
I mostly went through LA and Long Beach maps. Everything from the 30's into the 70's. I'll post more pics if I see anything interesting on them. The most interesting thing I saw outright was a Business US 6 shield along Figueroa next to current I-110 on a 1963 Unocal map. Not sure if it was ever signed, or if it ever actually existed, but I had never heard of that.

This is new to me. I knew about Business US 99 along San Fernando Road and Business US 101 along Ventura Blvd, but I wasn't aware of a Business US 6 along Figueroa. Was it also marked as Business SR 11? Did you happen to take a picture of this map as well? I'd like to run it past sdmichael, who would likely know whether it was signed, and if so, for how long.

No, it's clearly Business US 6 and, yes, I have several pictures of this map. I'll upload them this evening and then edit my post with the URL.

https://flic.kr/p/Qwicvk
https://flic.kr/p/RL5AB6

Quote from: sparker on February 01, 2017, 04:51:31 AM
The CA 237 and 238 freeways actually came close to being constructed; there are still "ghost" overpasses and berms along I-680 near the Scotts Creek interchange where CA 237 would have intersected it; freeway plans were truncated some time ago and traffic diverted north along I-880, where the freeway portion of 237 ends.  The freeway section of CA 238 between I-680 in southern Fremont and I-580 north of Hayward was actually adopted in the '60's, but one of the earlier instances of "freeway backlash" emanating from Hayward & Fremont activist groups resulted in a court order stopping acquisition of land for the freeway's construction in the early '70's; this effectively stopped the freeway in its tracks.

Good info.
With 880 always so bad through there, I wonder if a toll road proposal will eventually come out from that.

kkt

Quote from: coatimundi on February 01, 2017, 12:59:27 PM
Quote from: sparker on February 01, 2017, 04:51:31 AM
The CA 237 and 238 freeways actually came close to being constructed; there are still "ghost" overpasses and berms along I-680 near the Scotts Creek interchange where CA 237 would have intersected it; freeway plans were truncated some time ago and traffic diverted north along I-880, where the freeway portion of 237 ends.  The freeway section of CA 238 between I-680 in southern Fremont and I-580 north of Hayward was actually adopted in the '60's, but one of the earlier instances of "freeway backlash" emanating from Hayward & Fremont activist groups resulted in a court order stopping acquisition of land for the freeway's construction in the early '70's; this effectively stopped the freeway in its tracks.
Good info.
With 880 always so bad through there, I wonder if a toll road proposal will eventually come out from that.

My guess would be no.  The problem is local opposition to having a freeway there, not lack of money to build it.

coatimundi

Quote from: kkt on February 01, 2017, 01:25:23 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on February 01, 2017, 12:59:27 PM
Quote from: sparker on February 01, 2017, 04:51:31 AM
The CA 237 and 238 freeways actually came close to being constructed; there are still "ghost" overpasses and berms along I-680 near the Scotts Creek interchange where CA 237 would have intersected it; freeway plans were truncated some time ago and traffic diverted north along I-880, where the freeway portion of 237 ends.  The freeway section of CA 238 between I-680 in southern Fremont and I-580 north of Hayward was actually adopted in the '60's, but one of the earlier instances of "freeway backlash" emanating from Hayward & Fremont activist groups resulted in a court order stopping acquisition of land for the freeway's construction in the early '70's; this effectively stopped the freeway in its tracks.
Good info.
With 880 always so bad through there, I wonder if a toll road proposal will eventually come out from that.

My guess would be no.  The problem is local opposition to having a freeway there, not lack of money to build it.

But I think there's a critical mass with this stuff, where the need for change takes precedence over the NIMBY need. I'm not talking about 20 years. Maybe 50 years, if even that soon.
As of now, nothing will happen because people are looking to the BART extension to solve this issue, as it goes right through this area. But eventually a further expansion will be necessary, and expanding I-880, I think, is not an option.

sparker

Quote from: coatimundi on February 01, 2017, 02:26:34 PM
As of now, nothing will happen because people are looking to the BART extension to solve this issue, as it goes right through this area. But eventually a further expansion will be necessary, and expanding I-880, I think, is not an option.

The BART extension will ameliorate, not solve, the issue.  Much of the problem is simple supply and demand economics -- there's a shortage of housing in the South Bay, so home prices have escalated to the point where all but folks making $120-150K/year cannot afford them.  Many of those who have elected to have & raise families have, for the last couple of decades or so, moved east into the easternmost portions of the region (Brentwood, Discovery Bay) or into the San Joaquin Valley (Tracy, Manteca, Lathrop), where housing prices, while high compared to much of the Midwest, are still a third to a half of what they are in the San Jose area.  While there has been some attempt to mitigate the commute with (semi-)public transit (e.g., the ACE commuter rail service between San Jose and Stockton, with several interim stops in the major housing areas), most of the commute (average 40-45 miles/direction) remains on freeways and roads.  IIRC, the last study of weekday commute times (ca. 2013) showed San Jose to Tracy at about 2  hours 25 minutes (I-680/I-580/I-205, with occasional detours over CA 84 near Livermore).  That's nearly 5 hours on the road daily for the commuter -- but if one wants the amenities of an individual home with a yard, it's something of a must! 

The problem is that the commute traffic necessarily has its western termination right here in the South Bay -- and part of Fremont as well; such longer-distance traffic affects, of course, much  local travel as well.  BART is useful for folks living in the East Bay and commuting south to the San Jose area (when the extensions open in a few years, we'll see just how useful), which, in the regional scheme, aren't that much.  And as "Silicon Valley" businesses keep creeping around the south side of the bay and back northward into the Fremont/Union City area, the housing prices in the East Bay, which have lagged behind San Jose and the SF Peninsula (but not by enough to stem the tide of Central Valley "migrants") have correspondingly skyrocketed.  But one of the other consequences of business expansion to the south end of the East Bay is the massive "infill" happening in that area in regards to housing.  Driving north on I-880 one seems to see more & more new dense housing tracts in former open land, primarily in Union City between the freeway and the wetlands along the bay; the adjacent billboards touting the new tracts don't stay up for long as the properties are quickly sold.  While not at the growth levels of the late '80's and early '90's, the housing market just keeps churning along for those who can afford to be in it!  And with that infill comes a lack of space to place roads or other facilities (BART has essentially plopped itself down on the old Western Pacific San Jose branch RR line, out of commission for the last decade). 

If you think this means that the Bay Area -- or at least the part of which is relatively near the bay itself -- is rapidly reaching saturation, you'd be right.  There's not only the political hostility toward freeways (and driving/drivers in general) with which to contend, but the fact that there's just no room to place freeways these days.  We're fortunate to have completed 85, 87, and 237 before it became functionally impossible to deploy regional freeways.  With the possible exception of something along CA 152 down in Gilroy, there's scant hope for any road-based relief! :ded: 

     

coatimundi

Quote from: sparker on February 01, 2017, 04:06:49 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on February 01, 2017, 02:26:34 PM
As of now, nothing will happen because people are looking to the BART extension to solve this issue, as it goes right through this area. But eventually a further expansion will be necessary, and expanding I-880, I think, is not an option.

The BART extension will ameliorate, not solve, the issue.

No, I totally agree. But I think that, if someone proposed a 580-680 connector through the eastern hills of Hayward and Fremont, you'd hear about how BART is coming.
If anything, maybe look forward to this current Silicon Valley bubble bursting. Once the economy is less robust, you'll see a lot less traffic.

kkt

Quote from: coatimundi on February 01, 2017, 04:16:52 PM
Quote from: sparker on February 01, 2017, 04:06:49 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on February 01, 2017, 02:26:34 PM
As of now, nothing will happen because people are looking to the BART extension to solve this issue, as it goes right through this area. But eventually a further expansion will be necessary, and expanding I-880, I think, is not an option.

The BART extension will ameliorate, not solve, the issue.

No, I totally agree. But I think that, if someone proposed a 580-680 connector through the eastern hills of Hayward and Fremont, you'd hear about how BART is coming.
If anything, maybe look forward to this current Silicon Valley bubble bursting. Once the economy is less robust, you'll see a lot less traffic.

That bubble has been going on since about 1945.  For Silicon Valley, even the 2008 recession was just a pause in the increase, not a decrease (though the bedroom communities in the San Joaquin Valley did experience decreases).

coatimundi

Quote from: kkt on February 01, 2017, 08:31:16 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on February 01, 2017, 04:16:52 PM
Quote from: sparker on February 01, 2017, 04:06:49 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on February 01, 2017, 02:26:34 PM
As of now, nothing will happen because people are looking to the BART extension to solve this issue, as it goes right through this area. But eventually a further expansion will be necessary, and expanding I-880, I think, is not an option.

The BART extension will ameliorate, not solve, the issue.

No, I totally agree. But I think that, if someone proposed a 580-680 connector through the eastern hills of Hayward and Fremont, you'd hear about how BART is coming.
If anything, maybe look forward to this current Silicon Valley bubble bursting. Once the economy is less robust, you'll see a lot less traffic.

That bubble has been going on since about 1945.  For Silicon Valley, even the 2008 recession was just a pause in the increase, not a decrease (though the bedroom communities in the San Joaquin Valley did experience decreases).

I think you're confusing growth with bubble. There's a bunch of companies up there right now, including quite a few that are well-known, that have never made a profit, yet continue to be funded. So that creates a job boom like we had in the early 2000's in that same sector (another bubble), and a housing crunch that goes along with those job booms. I mean, I'm all about it. I work in the programming sector, and am close enough to Silicon Valley that it keeps my wages up well above what they would be in other regions, but it's clearly not sustainable.
Here in the Monterey area, we have a bit of a housing bubble, just like a few years ago. The houses are priced too high for residents to be able to afford them. And, really, that's the fault of Silicon Valley. The houses they've recently put in near me are marketed to those living in Gilroy and Hollister but working in San Jose. So it seems expensive to us, but it's market rate for the region.

SeriesE

Quote from: sparker on February 01, 2017, 04:51:31 AM
Quote from: SeriesE on February 01, 2017, 12:53:16 AM
Lots of missed opportunities here...
Like 84 freeway to 101/280 and "238"
238 freeway
237 freeway to 680

A few stories here:  original plans, circa 1965-73, showed 84 extending west from the Dumbarton Bridge more or less along the Francisquito Creek (the San Mateo/Santa Clara county line between Menlo Park & Palo Alto) all the way to I-280, with the present Woodside Road alignment of 84 as the original 114 (there were "114" mileposts along the Woodside Road expressway between CA 82 and US 101 in Redwood City as late as 1977).  When the Shoreline Parkway concept between the Dumbarton Bridge and Marsh Road was developed in the '80's, which took CA 84 further north, the routes were swapped, with 84 taking over Woodside Road (it had always been signed in the field as CA 84 in any case) and 114 aligned over Willow Street between US 101 and Shoreline; the proposed road still extended west to I-280, but was truncated back to CA 82 by the late '80's and finally to US 101 by 1994, about the time that the actual CA 84 was shifted to Shoreline, intersecting US 101 at the Marsh Road interchange.  East of the Dumbarton Bridge, the CA 84 freeway was extended to I-880 in the late '80's and was intended to extend farther east along or south of Decoto Road all the way to CA 238, but that alignment was never constructed; most of the land along the route was subsequently developed as housing.

The CA 237 and 238 freeways actually came close to being constructed; there are still "ghost" overpasses and berms along I-680 near the Scotts Creek interchange where CA 237 would have intersected it; freeway plans were truncated some time ago and traffic diverted north along I-880, where the freeway portion of 237 ends.  The freeway section of CA 238 between I-680 in southern Fremont and I-580 north of Hayward was actually adopted in the '60's, but one of the earlier instances of "freeway backlash" emanating from Hayward & Fremont activist groups resulted in a court order stopping acquisition of land for the freeway's construction in the early '70's; this effectively stopped the freeway in its tracks. 

The final freeways to be developed in the Bay Area were CA 85, 87, and 237 in Santa Clara County; all these were  completed by the early 2000's; the local political atmosphere currently mitigates against any further freeway planning much less actual development.
Did some more research and found out that Fremont's Civic Center was initially designed with the CA 238 freeway in mind. Many of the proposed freeway ROW are now used by BART.

coatimundi

Quote from: SeriesE on February 02, 2017, 01:34:52 AM
Did some more research and found out that Fremont's Civic Center was initially designed with the CA 238 freeway in mind.

It was mostly along the railroad tracks in that area, wasn't it? BART opened to Fremont before the freeway proposal was rescinded.

And, FYI, the links to the Business US 6 map pictures I promised are up above, but just for the sake of continuity:

Quote from: coatimundi on February 01, 2017, 12:59:27 PM
https://flic.kr/p/Qwicvk
https://flic.kr/p/RL5AB6

andy3175

Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

SeriesE

Quote from: coatimundi on February 02, 2017, 01:59:08 PM
Quote from: SeriesE on February 02, 2017, 01:34:52 AM
Did some more research and found out that Fremont's Civic Center was initially designed with the CA 238 freeway in mind.
It was mostly along the railroad tracks in that area, wasn't it? BART opened to Fremont before the freeway proposal was rescinded.
Yes, though the location was chosen before BART plans even existed.

Henry

I see that I-480 was no longer shown as proposed to the Golden Gate Bridge approach. Of course, the freeway revolts had something to do with that. And it now feels somewhat strange to see I-880 around Sacramento instead of running down the eastern side of the Bay, as I was still just 12 when it was decommissioned and replaced by a rerouted I-80, with the original alignment through town becoming a Business Loop.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

bing101

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasco_Road


Wow Im surprised that Vasco Road has not been converted into a freeway though and a state route. This is the busiest non state expressway in eastern Alameda and Contra Costa counties.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond_Parkway_(California)


Was intended to be CA-93 in Contra Costa County.

sparker

Quote from: Henry on February 23, 2017, 09:48:05 AM
I see that I-480 was no longer shown as proposed to the Golden Gate Bridge approach. Of course, the freeway revolts had something to do with that. And it now feels somewhat strange to see I-880 around Sacramento instead of running down the eastern side of the Bay, as I was still just 12 when it was decommissioned and replaced by a rerouted I-80, with the original alignment through town becoming a Business Loop.

Interesting note: even though the Interstate designation for 480 had been dropped in 1965, the definition of it as a state route continued for another 26 years; this definition also included all of the Marina Blvd. approach to the GG Bridge, signed as US 101 west of the Richardson Drive merge (technically, from 1964 to 1991 US 101 ended at this merge and didn't resume until the north end of the bridge).  The "stub" Embarcadero Freeway was re-signed as CA 480 by the end of 1966; that signage existed until the freeway came down in the '89 quake; CA 480 was removed from the books two years later and the Marina/Richardson approaches to the Golden Gate Bridge were transferred to US 101. 

It's pretty much a consensus view that the Embarcadero Freeway would have never been constructed past its "temporary" northern end at Broadway; a double-decker facility through the iconic Fisherman's Wharf (or a single-deck couplet over adjoining E-W streets, an alternative proposal forwarded in the mid-'60's) was essentially a non-starter (S.F. wouldn't sign street closure agreements, so any facility would have to be a viaduct/bridge or underground).  Even the Army opposed any facility that would have plowed through Ft. Baker, and the uber-wealthy Marina District was on record as opposing the plans for a surface freeway along the north side of Marina Blvd (I can remember residents soliciting the signing of petitions to that effect at the equally iconic Marina Safeway circa '69 or so).  480, whether Interstate or state route was, for all intents & purposes, DOA!  No tears were shed when the existing Embarcadero section was razed in 1990-91.     



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.