I-980

[Max Rockatansky]

I recently drove I-980 east from I-880 towards I-580 on a Bay Area day trip.  The Interstate corridor really didn't much sense to me until I looked closer at the maps of the CA 24 freeway as completed in the 1970s.  At the time CA 24 only briefly extended west of I-580 and terminated in downtown Oakland on surface streets.  I-980 essentially filled the gap to I-880 by 1986 which completed the downtown corridor LRN 226 was meant to be.

https://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2019/03/interstate-980.html

My photo set for I-980 can be found below:

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmAZQobs

[TheStranger]

I kinda wish there was a set of ramps from 880 S to 980 E and 980 W to 880 N, allowing drivers from the Bay Bridge to completely bypass the MacArthur Maze. 

When I was younger, I always suspected that the Southern Crossing plans involved 980 given the geography involved.  While the bridge plans predate the 980 designation itself, they do involve an extension of that freeway being a primary connector to the bridge and to the proposed 61 realignment, at least in this 1971 planning map:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4741575894

(Interestingly, the map also shows the unbuilt planned 92 east of downtown Hayward, AND 112 as a proposed connector for the crossing as well)

[Max Rockatansky]

I kinda wish there was a set of ramps from 880 S to 980 E and 980 W to 880 N, allowing drivers from the Bay Bridge to completely bypass the MacArthur Maze. 

When I was younger, I always suspected that the Southern Crossing plans involved 980 given the geography involved.  While the bridge plans predate the 980 designation itself, they do involve an extension of that freeway being a primary connector to the bridge and to the proposed 61 realignment, at least in this 1971 planning map:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4741575894

(Interestingly, the map also shows the unbuilt planned 92 east of downtown Hayward, AND 112 as a proposed connector for the crossing as well)

If I recall correctly wasn't the present route of CA 112 one of the early Interstate submissions that ended up being rejected?

[TheStranger]

If I recall correctly wasn't the present route of CA 112 one of the early Interstate submissions that ended up being rejected?

Looking at Dan Faigin's pages, I-205 was originally submitted as I-112, back when the 3di numbering system was not set in stone.  Route 112 itself was never submitted as far as I know.

https://www.cahighways.org/itypes.html

[bing101]

I remember I-980/CA-24 was planned to connect to Candlestick park though as part of the Southern crossing though to Brisbane/South San Francisco area.

[The Ghostbuster]

If the tear-down-980 crowd gets their way, the boulevard they propose to replace the freeway will likely become an extension of CA-24 (if it has any number at all).

[TheStranger]

One subtle aspect of 980 that would be affected severely if it were to be removed entirely: it is the only direct access to the Caldecott Tunnel from 880 (and the only way to get there from points south that does not require using any part of the MacArthur Freeway segment of 580).

980's heaviest use was likely in the eight years after Loma Prieta when the old Cypress section of 880 (which had been built as Route 17/Business US 50), since supplanted by the Mandela Parkway surface boulevard, had been demolished due to earthquake damage and the current westerly single-level 880 realignment was being built.  IIRC, due to the Cypress replacement being longer than the old Mandela Parkway corridor, from Berkeley/Emeryville it's actually slightly shorter to take 580 then 980 from the MacArthur Maze to 880 rather than continuing straight down 880 into West Oakland.

[Max Rockatansky]

Isn't 980 still averaging well over 100,000 vehicles a day?

[TheStranger]

Isn't 980 still averaging well over 100,000 vehicles a day?

Around the 100K range, yeah:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/census/volumes2017/Route505-980.html

Hourly traffic range is from 6000-7700.

For comparison, Route 77 (which we've talked about extensively this week), the orphaned freeway off of 880 further south in Oakland, has an AADT of 22900, or less than 1/4 the traffic volume of 980.

Another comparison point: US 101 along the Central Freeway (a similar short urban connector to 980) has about a 109200 ADT heading from 80 to Duboce/Mission.

Also, look at this fun image from the front page of the CalTrans Traffic Census Program website!

http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/census/

[Max Rockatansky]

Isn't 980 still averaging well over 100,000 vehicles a day?

Around the 100K range, yeah:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/census/volumes2017/Route505-980.html

Hourly traffic range is from 6000-7700.

For comparison, Route 77 (which we've talked about extensively this week), the orphaned freeway off of 880 further south in Oakland, has an AADT of 22900, or less than 1/4 the traffic volume of 980.

Another comparison point: US 101 along the Central Freeway (a similar short urban connector to 980) has about a 109200 ADT heading from 80 to Duboce/Mission.

Also, look at this fun image from the front page of the CalTrans Traffic Census Program website!

http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/census/

That's what I don't get, with those traffic volumes I don't see a justification for reducing I-980 to a parkway.  Any downgrade with those numbers will only make traffic worse on I-80, I-580, I-880 and CA 24.  Maybe had CA 77 been built at least to I-580 there might be more of an argument.