680/Mission Boulevard

[coatimundi]

Driving back from Livermore yesterday, I decided to take Mission Boulevard to get from 680 back to 880 (I had to go to SJC). That ended up being a mistake. It was something 11:30am, and the traffic was backed up from the off-ramp onto the freeway for over 1/4 mile. When you finally got off, there was relatively little traffic on Mission. It was just the cloverleaf interchange that was bottlenecking everything, exacerbated by drivers cutting in.

I was looking at the various resources, and could only find info on projects that have already been completed.
I did find this from 2011: http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/systemplanning/docs/pssr/sr_262_tcr_final.pdf
It features the vague "I-680/SR-262 interchange reconfiguration" with no details or diagrams.

Any insight?

[jrouse]

The main problem with this interchange is that there is a signal just west of it which creates backups.  I thought there was a plan to make 262 into a full freeway, which would remove the signal and (obviously) improve traffic flow.

<Edit> I just went back and looked through the TCR and I see it calls for preserving Mission as a conventional highway.  So it won't be full freeway.  It also mentions reconstruction of the interchange at 680 to make it a partial cloverleaf.  This would probably mean it would eliminate the loop exits and instead create t-intersections for the slip exits.  They would probably add extra lanes to the ramps which would provide more storage and help with the backups on the SB mainline.  This was the first I'd heard of this proposal.   I would need to check but it would not surprise me if these improvements might be funded out of Alameda County's transportation sales tax, now that the voters approved an extension of the tax.

iPhone

[coatimundi]

I think it's mostly the single lane exit that causes issues, but the light right after the ramp probably causes the most issues during peak periods.
I don't know if you saw the part that said Caltrans would do nothing to this corridor before 237 was converted to a freeway. Now that that's off the table, I wonder if it's just that no one knows what to do. Since that part of Fremont along Mission is so residential, a freeway would likely get a lot of push back. I like the idea of a half cloverleaf though. No one seems to use the 680 SB to Mission NB connection. And I would bet that any thru traffic you see on Mission is mostly people getting off at the other Mission exit up the hill to avoid that more southern exit.
BART and VTA funded part of the 880 interchange, so I wonder if they'll also fund part of this. I mean, that's unlikely, but I think you're right that'll probably be Alameda County. I also saw that Fremont had published a study on the area recently, so they may throw down some money.
In the end though, this is a very important connection that's critical to the overall Bay Area system, and it involves a state route. It really should be Caltrans who handles this.

[jrouse]

I personally don't think 262 is going to go away.  I am aware of the limitation in the Streets & Highways Code but that's a pretty simple legislative fix since 237 probably will not be upgraded through Milpitas.   

I would think any funding for improvement would be done through the Alameda County sales tax.  The State Transportation Improvement Program is broke and the State's priorities for use of those funds is changing.

I think there's a potential that express lane toll revenues from the 680 and 880 corridors could also be tapped too, since this is a vital connector between them.


iPhone

[coatimundi]

17. Where does the toll money go?
Toll revenue first pays for operating and maintaining the toll facilities.  All additional revenue from Alameda CTC's I-580 Express Lanes and I-680 Southbound Express Lane stays within the corridor, supporting transit and other corridor improvements in the same corridor.

That's a lot of "corridor".
So I would guess the actual 680/Mission interchange would fall into that, but Mission farther down doesn't necessarily. Who knows. It's pretty vague.

[sparker]

One of the major obstacles to constructing a freeway-to-freeway connector along the present 262/Mission facility is the fact that the surface portion of the route from Warm Springs Road to I-680 is lined with dense retail development, complete with multiple driveways.  For better or worse, the 262/880 interchange was rebuilt a few years ago, including high-speed ramps and flyovers directing traffic onto 262 east, ducking under twin UP tracks plus the new BART extension bridge; it's in a trench at that point.  But as soon as it emerges from the BART overpass, it rises to the surface right at Warm Springs and then slogs through the commercial zone until it hits I-680 about 3/4-mile east.  IMO, the only way to convert this segment to freeway would be to continue the trench eastward under Warm Springs (likely in a narrow 2+2 box-sided facility), with frontage roads on either side; access to the commercial establishments would be via Warm Springs Rd. and Warren Ave, which more or less parallels 262 a couple of blocks to the south.

But if Caltrans is planning to convert the 680/262 interchange to a parclo (they DO love their parclos!), it likely means that they've abandoned (or at least back-burnered) the idea of a freeway between 680 and 880, and are simply looking to address the traffic situation here as cheaply as they can -- this seems to be the ongoing pattern in this particular neck of the woods! 

[lordsutch]

One of the major obstacles to constructing a freeway-to-freeway connector along the present 262/Mission facility is the fact that the surface portion of the route from Warm Springs Road to I-680 is lined with dense retail development, complete with multiple driveways.  For better or worse, the 262/880 interchange was rebuilt a few years ago, including high-speed ramps and flyovers directing traffic onto 262 east, ducking under twin UP tracks plus the new BART extension bridge; it's in a trench at that point.  But as soon as it emerges from the BART overpass, it rises to the surface right at Warm Springs and then slogs through the commercial zone until it hits I-680 about 3/4-mile east.  IMO, the only way to convert this segment to freeway would be to continue the trench eastward under Warm Springs (likely in a narrow 2+2 box-sided facility), with frontage roads on either side; access to the commercial establishments would be via Warm Springs Rd. and Warren Ave, which more or less parallels 262 a couple of blocks to the south.

But if Caltrans is planning to convert the 680/262 interchange to a parclo (they DO love their parclos!), it likely means that they've abandoned (or at least back-burnered) the idea of a freeway between 680 and 880, and are simply looking to address the traffic situation here as cheaply as they can -- this seems to be the ongoing pattern in this particular neck of the woods! 

An elevated 2x2 tolled facility (if it can be sufficiently quake-proof with the local soil conditions) would seem to be the logical solution; really "all" you need are direct ramps from 880 north to 680 north and 680 south to 880 south, which would put it in the realm of affordability. The only real question is whether enough people would want to avoid the two signals to justify it.

[sparker]

As currently configured, the newly-installed high capacity/high speed ramps from I-880 to east 262 deposit traffic into the trench under the RR tracks and the new BART extension.  Immediately after the BART bridge the facility rises to ground level to intersect Warm Springs Blvd.  Deploying an elevated facility here would require a substantial gradient to take traffic to and from the trench to the elevated section -- the gradient would likely exceed the 6-8% normally considered maximum for freeway mainlines.   The area is too densely developed to realign a full-length elevated facility north or south of existing 262; and having recently spent millions on the 880/262 upgraded interchange, it's unlikely Caltrans or Alameda CTC would consider such a facility in the foreseeable future.

The issue, of course, is the fact that when the 237 freeway alignment that veered north of its current route, crossing I-880 near Dixon Landing and terminating at I-680 near Scotts Creek (ghost ramps are still visible), was still an active proposal any ROW preservation along 262 was dropped, leaving the situation as it sits today.   

[TheStranger]

The issue, of course, is the fact that when the 237 freeway alignment that veered north of its current route, crossing I-880 near Dixon Landing and terminating at I-680 near Scotts Creek (ghost ramps are still visible), was still an active proposal any ROW preservation along 262 was dropped, leaving the situation as it sits today.   

Out of curiosity, is the empty right of way northwest of Escuela Parkway & Russell Lane in Milpitas part of what was the 1960s-1970s proposed routing for 237?

[coatimundi]

The issue, of course, is the fact that when the 237 freeway alignment that veered north of its current route, crossing I-880 near Dixon Landing and terminating at I-680 near Scotts Creek (ghost ramps are still visible), was still an active proposal any ROW preservation along 262 was dropped, leaving the situation as it sits today.   

Out of curiosity, is the empty right of way northwest of Escuela Parkway & Russell Lane in Milpitas part of what was the 1960s-1970s proposed routing for 237?

Northeast? Northwest is the high school. Northeast-southwest is a drainage ditch, part of Calera Creek and the Coyote Creek watershed. It continues north of 680.

[TheStranger]

The issue, of course, is the fact that when the 237 freeway alignment that veered north of its current route, crossing I-880 near Dixon Landing and terminating at I-680 near Scotts Creek (ghost ramps are still visible), was still an active proposal any ROW preservation along 262 was dropped, leaving the situation as it sits today.   

Out of curiosity, is the empty right of way northwest of Escuela Parkway & Russell Lane in Milpitas part of what was the 1960s-1970s proposed routing for 237?

Northeast? Northwest is the high school. Northeast-southwest is a drainage ditch, part of Calera Creek and the Coyote Creek watershed. It continues north of 680.

Yeah, I meant northeast.

I know of the bend in 680 that would be where the 238 freeway would've gone, but not sure if I've ever seen any evidence of the planned 237 freeway out there.

[DTComposer]

The issue, of course, is the fact that when the 237 freeway alignment that veered north of its current route, crossing I-880 near Dixon Landing and terminating at I-680 near Scotts Creek (ghost ramps are still visible), was still an active proposal any ROW preservation along 262 was dropped, leaving the situation as it sits today.   

Out of curiosity, is the empty right of way northwest of Escuela Parkway & Russell Lane in Milpitas part of what was the 1960s-1970s proposed routing for 237?

Northeast? Northwest is the high school. Northeast-southwest is a drainage ditch, part of Calera Creek and the Coyote Creek watershed. It continues north of 680.

That's not the ROW. The proposed route continued ENE from Lafayette Street (instead of heading E as the current route does), crossed Zanker just south of the wastewater treatment plant, then turned sharply NNE to cross I-880 right on top of the current Dixon Landing interchange. Then it turned more NE to cross the county line at the RR tracks, then intersect I-680 at Scott Creek. The I-680 mini-bridge just south of the Scott Creek bridge would have been over the N-680 to W-237 ramp.

[coatimundi]

Interesting! And you can see that the houses off the southeast corner of 680/Scott Creek are set back a little more than houses typically are in the area.
Were there other alternative routings originally proposed? That seems like a big deviation from the original.

[flowmotion]

One of the major obstacles to constructing a freeway-to-freeway connector along the present 262/Mission facility is the fact that the surface portion of the route from Warm Springs Road to I-680 is lined with dense retail development, complete with multiple driveways. 

Let's be honest here. It's actually a bunch of fast food joints in strip mall parking lots, which is pretty much the opposite of dense retail development.

The problem here is local opposition (possibly even moreso than funding since the 680 commute is so bad). Not sentiment over the local Jack-In-The-Box and drive-thru ATMs.

[sparker]

There is a sizeable shopping complex on the NE corner of 262 and Warm Springs, replete with multiple driveways.  Most of the fast-food establishments (intermixed with gas stations and/or convenience stores) are arrayed on the south side of 262 immediately east of Warm Springs.  Fry's Electronics used to have a huge store a half-block north of the intersection, partially fronting on the west side of  Warm Springs (the south end of their property abutted the 262 trench under the RR tracks).  They moved north to the corner of Osgood (which continues the north trajectory of Warm Springs) and Grimmer Blvd. about 5 years ago, citing issues with access due to the perpetual congestion along 262/Mission (Warm Springs itself is no picnic during rush hour either, functioning as a "safety valve" alternative [it's old CA 17] for both I-680 and I-880).

As flowmotion states, it's not any particular fondness for these businesses that has prevented a direct freeway connection, it's the generalized opposition to any new freeway facilities in the region that has hampered any efficient connection here rather than any specific opposition to a project at this location.  Slapping down a parclo at the 680/262 interchange effectively shuts out the possibility of a full freeway cross-connection between 880 and 680 for the near term.  This is a repeat of the north 84/880 situation at Decoto Road several miles north; while both facilities are full freeway; there still -- after about 20 years -- is no freeway-to-freeway connection there.  The local COG's are calling the shots; undertaking any project that even looks like it expedites intraregional automotive commuter traffic is a non-starter (and the ones that do make it under the wire are, these days, generally tolled!).  Remember, the anti-freeway movement (at least the West Coast chapter) started up here in '64-'65, and has continued since, with more victories than defeats.