AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Looking for road meets for 2015 or have an idea for one? See this topic for what's out there already

Author Topic: The Great Interstate 238 Debate  (Read 39520 times)

national highway 1

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1135
  • From Down Under

  • Age: 17
  • Location: Carlingford, NSW, Australia
  • Last Login: December 20, 2014, 08:03:22 PM
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #125 on: April 14, 2010, 04:01:57 AM »

What if the Southern Bay Crossing ever became real and you connected I-980 to I-380? I-380 would sucumb to I-980 and you could give I-380 to I-238!!

Funny enough, IIRC the 2003 Southern Crossing study looked at a direct 238-380 connection.
That would be the most logical place for a new bridge across San Francisco Bay and it would solve the whole I-238 mess that has caused such an uproar among roadgeeks.  Unfortunately, that new bridge would have to span the bay at it's widest point and would have to be a low-level causeway to keep from interfering with air traffic from San Francisco International.  I think the reality is, while the Southern Crossing would help alleviate traffic on the Bay Bridge, it probably won't be built in our lifetimes.
No, I meant connecting I-980 to I-380. I-380 would *become* part of 980, while 238 would become 380
Logged

The Premier

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 506
  • Age: 26
  • Location: Akron-Canton (Portage Co.), Ohio
  • Last Login: December 20, 2014, 05:27:06 PM
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #126 on: April 18, 2010, 08:07:04 PM »

Hasn't I-480 been scratched off the list of interstates in California? :hmmm:
Logged
Alex P. Dent

agentsteel53

  • invisible hand
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15364
  • long live button copy!

  • Age: 33
  • Location: San Diego, CA
  • Last Login: December 19, 2014, 08:05:45 PM
    • AARoads Shield Gallery
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #127 on: April 18, 2010, 08:15:00 PM »

Hasn't I-480 been scratched off the list of interstates in California? :hmmm:

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

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2577
  • Last Login: December 20, 2014, 11:53:18 PM
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #128 on: April 18, 2010, 11:18:07 PM »

Hasn't I-480 been scratched off the list of interstates in California? :hmmm:

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

Though it had been State Route 480 for approximately 21 years at that point...I'm not sure what the purpose of de-designating the route as an interstate actually served (considering that today's I-280 - built with Interstate funds save for parts of the Southern Freeway - also peters out on city streets), though that's moot.
Logged
Chris Sampang

national highway 1

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1135
  • From Down Under

  • Age: 17
  • Location: Carlingford, NSW, Australia
  • Last Login: December 20, 2014, 08:03:22 PM
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #129 on: April 19, 2010, 12:44:36 AM »

i don't know why in 1964, CA downgraded I-480 into CA 480. What was the purpose of that?
Maybe I-480 was incomplete and they decided to temporarily sign it as a state route until it was fully complete (never happened). Notable examples: I-215, CA 905 & I-210/CA 210
Logged

agentsteel53

  • invisible hand
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15364
  • long live button copy!

  • Age: 33
  • Location: San Diego, CA
  • Last Login: December 19, 2014, 08:05:45 PM
    • AARoads Shield Gallery
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #130 on: April 19, 2010, 01:15:07 AM »

I have never seen a stand-alone I-480 shield, just this green sign.  The photo was taken in 1968, so it looks like some shields survived the change.  Not exactly out of character for Cal Division of Highways!

Logged

national highway 1

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1135
  • From Down Under

  • Age: 17
  • Location: Carlingford, NSW, Australia
  • Last Login: December 20, 2014, 08:03:22 PM
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #131 on: April 19, 2010, 01:20:21 AM »

where, exactly, was this photo taken
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2577
  • Last Login: December 20, 2014, 11:53:18 PM
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #132 on: April 19, 2010, 12:15:36 PM »

where, exactly, was this photo taken

Interstate 80 westbound at the foot of the Bay Bridge.  Here's a more modern photo from this very site:
http://www.aaroads.com/california/images080/i-080_wb_exit_002c_16b.jpg
Logged
Chris Sampang

national highway 1

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1135
  • From Down Under

  • Age: 17
  • Location: Carlingford, NSW, Australia
  • Last Login: December 20, 2014, 08:03:22 PM
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #133 on: April 22, 2010, 02:17:39 AM »

ok, now why are we suddenly talking about dead I-480? Isn't this topic supposed to be on I-238?
Logged

Bickendan

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1347
  • Last Login: December 19, 2014, 03:29:07 PM
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #134 on: April 22, 2010, 03:10:17 AM »

Yeah, but who wants to talk about I-238?
Logged

roadfro

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2082
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Reno, NV
  • Last Login: December 20, 2014, 04:57:21 PM
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #135 on: April 23, 2010, 12:17:25 AM »

^ Whoever started this topic...  :-P
Logged
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

subzeroepsilon

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13
  • Location: Greater SF/Oakland/San Jose/Sacramento/Stockton/Modesto Bay Area
  • Last Login: January 30, 2013, 09:59:53 PM
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #136 on: May 27, 2010, 12:42:30 AM »

Long time lurker, first time poster...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Logged

xonhulu

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1324
  • Location: Salem, OR
  • Last Login: August 10, 2014, 11:07:51 PM
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #137 on: May 27, 2010, 01:08:05 AM »

These are great ideas, but a suggestion: there is currently no CA 42, and no I-42 anywhere, so would that be an acceptable number?
Logged
"Never eat anything bigger than your own head."

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2577
  • Last Login: December 20, 2014, 11:53:18 PM
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #138 on: May 27, 2010, 01:22:22 AM »

subzeroepsilon:

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

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

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

Logged
Chris Sampang

subzeroepsilon

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13
  • Location: Greater SF/Oakland/San Jose/Sacramento/Stockton/Modesto Bay Area
  • Last Login: January 30, 2013, 09:59:53 PM
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #139 on: May 27, 2010, 02:13:20 AM »

@TheStranger
I agree with you on the I-380 crossing idea making more sense but I was just trying to work with the stuff that is there now or likely to be constructed in the near or reasonably near future.

@xonhulu
I had forgotten that CA-42 had been decommissioned since CalTrans seems intent on keeping it signed, at least from what I could tell from the signs off I-405 from my LA trip a couple weeks ago. I actually don't see any reason why that would not work: I-42 would be north of I-40, so it would not break that rule. The only issue would that I-242 would not be available for assignment since CA-242 exists already in the Bay Area (short connector freeway in Concord between CA-4 and I-680). I guess we could use I-442 then where I mentioned I-258.
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2577
  • Last Login: December 20, 2014, 11:53:18 PM
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #140 on: May 27, 2010, 11:35:59 AM »

@TheStranger
I agree with you on the I-380 crossing idea making more sense but I was just trying to work with the stuff that is there now or likely to be constructed in the near or reasonably near future.

Makes sense.  I know a Route 92 freeway has been proposed in years past between I-880 and I-580, but I think that part of Hayward is too built up now to run a new limited access highway through it.
Logged
Chris Sampang

roadfro

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2082
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Reno, NV
  • Last Login: December 20, 2014, 04:57:21 PM
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #141 on: May 28, 2010, 02:23:54 AM »

As a hapless Bay Area commuter that has to drive this road on a daily basis from the Tri-Valley to Hayward and back, I think I came up with a logical way of dealing with this problem that folds into some of the other proposals I have seen here repeatedly:
[...snip...]
I am sure there are things I am overlooking in this list of ideas but I figured that if this were to come to the table, why not take the time to make the system to seem more logical and at the same time recognize that we now (for better or worse) live the Greater San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose/Sacramento/Stockton/Modesto Bay Area.

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

With that said, some of the ideas to consolidate and reorganize route numbers aren't bad.
Logged
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

Rover_0

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 590
  • Because why not?

  • Age: 29
  • Location: Utah
  • Last Login: December 20, 2014, 02:30:54 PM
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #142 on: May 28, 2010, 02:47:53 PM »

Of course, while this brings up another issue (4-digit Interstates), but what about numbering this I-1080?  What would be wrong about numbering this I-180 or I-480, as I believe they don't exist at this time?  You could renumber CA-180 to CA-194 (as that number isn't in use, unconstructed or otherwise).

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

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

agentsteel53

  • invisible hand
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15364
  • long live button copy!

  • Age: 33
  • Location: San Diego, CA
  • Last Login: December 19, 2014, 08:05:45 PM
    • AARoads Shield Gallery
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #143 on: May 28, 2010, 03:14:33 PM »

Of course, while this brings up another issue (4-digit Interstates), but what about numbering this I-1080?

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

the best solution is to call it CA-238, especially since it is signed north-south while going almost exactly east-west.  The only way that that bannering makes sense is if it is considered the continuation of CA-238, so we may as well unify it under one route identifier.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2010, 03:16:05 PM by agentsteel53 »
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2577
  • Last Login: December 20, 2014, 11:53:18 PM
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #144 on: May 28, 2010, 05:57:40 PM »

Of course, while this brings up another issue (4-digit Interstates), but what about numbering this I-1080?  What would be wrong about numbering this I-180 or I-480, as I believe they don't exist at this time?  You could renumber CA-180 to CA-194 (as that number isn't in use, unconstructed or otherwise).

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Though part of me wants to be snarky and redesignate 238 as "Truck 580" for laughs (with a concurrency with 880 north of Hayward).   :-D
« Last Edit: May 28, 2010, 06:03:15 PM by TheStranger »
Logged
Chris Sampang

Scott5114

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5467
  • Age: 24
  • Location: Norman, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 07:37:17 AM
    • scott5114.name
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #145 on: May 28, 2010, 06:39:30 PM »

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

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

agentsteel53

  • invisible hand
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15364
  • long live button copy!

  • Age: 33
  • Location: San Diego, CA
  • Last Login: December 19, 2014, 08:05:45 PM
    • AARoads Shield Gallery
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #146 on: May 28, 2010, 07:04:40 PM »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scott5114

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5467
  • Age: 24
  • Location: Norman, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 07:37:17 AM
    • scott5114.name
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #147 on: May 28, 2010, 07:33:10 PM »

I don't remember if there ever was a bear 69.

goddam furries
Logged
Quindaropedia: the authority on Alanland.

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2577
  • Last Login: December 20, 2014, 11:53:18 PM
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #148 on: May 28, 2010, 09:49:39 PM »


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

Much shorter:

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

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

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

Then again, if Doyle Drive is being rebuilt as a limited access, modern route (as opposed to a divided-by-pylons 1937-era modern route) in a city that is entirely opposed to limited access construction in general, I think maybe recycling the 480 number would not be a bad idea.  (480 and the 238 interstate did exist concurrently from the early 1980s to 1989, so that probably explains why CalTrans didn't try to pull the switch then.)
Logged
Chris Sampang

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5034
  • Age: 23
  • Location: Latham, NY
  • Last Login: December 20, 2014, 09:54:15 AM
    • New York State Roads
Re: The Great Interstate 238 Debate
« Reply #149 on: May 29, 2010, 08:07:52 AM »

Would the stigma matter if it was just a hidden designation?  There is no reason why I-238 needs to be signed as anything other than TO: I-580/TO: I-880
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

 


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.