About the cancelled route 238 freeway?

[ACSCmapcollector]

I have noticed the Caltrans also cancelled the proposed California state route 238 in the East Bay area:

(a) From Route 680 in Fremont to Route 61 near San Lorenzo via Hayward.

(b) The relinquished former portion of Route 238 within the City of Hayward is not a state highway and is not eligible for adoption under Section 81. For the relinquished former portion of Route 238, the City of Hayward shall maintain within its jurisdiction signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 238 or to the state highway system, as applicable.

(c) (1) The commission may relinquish to the City of Hayward all or any portion of Route 238 located within the city limits of that city, upon terms and conditions the commission finds to be in the best interests of the state, if the department and the city enter into an agreement providing for that relinquishment.

(2) A relinquishment under this subdivision shall become effective immediately after the county recorder's recordation of the relinquishment resolution containing the commission's approval of the terms and conditions of the relinquishment.

(3) On and after the effective date of the relinquishment, both of the following shall occur:

(A) The portion of Route 238 relinquished shall cease to be a state highway.

(B) The portion of Route 238 relinquished shall be ineligible for future adoption under Section 81.

(4) For relinquished portions of Route 238, the City of Hayward shall maintain signs within its jurisdiction directing motorists to the continuation of Route 238 or to the state highway system, as applicable.

In 2009, AB 1386 (Chapter 291, 10/11/2009) authorized relinquishment of the portion of the route in the City of Hayward by adding:

(b) (1) The commission may relinquish to the City of Hayward the portion of Route 238 located within the city limits of that city, upon terms and conditions the commission finds to be in the best interests of the state, if the department and the city enter into an agreement providing for that relinquishment.

(2) A relinquishment under this subdivision shall become effective immediately after the county recorder's recordation of the relinquishment resolution containing the commission's approval of the terms and conditions of the relinquishment.

(3) On and after the effective date of the relinquishment, both of the following shall occur: (A) The portion of Route 238 relinquished shall cease to be a state highway. (B) The portion of Route 238 relinquished shall be ineligible for future adoption under Section 81.

(4) For relinquished portions of Route 238, the City of Hayward shall maintain signs within its jurisdiction directing motorists to the continuation of Route 238 or to the state highway system, as applicable.

In July 2010, the CTC approved relinquishing right of way in the city of Hayward on Route 238 (Mission Boulevard/Foothill Boulevard) from Industrial Parkway to Apple Avenue, under terms and conditions stated in the letter dated June 1, 2010, determined to be in the best interests of the State. Authorized by Chapter 291, Statutes of 2009, which amended Section 538 of the Streets and Highways Code.

What about the freeway?  on cahwyguy it says...

Mission/Foothill Freeway/Hayward Bypass

Where Route 238 veers off of I-680, between the Durham and Washington exits, where I-680 makes a turn, there is an overpass over the southbound lanes and some pavement suggesting that there might have been an exit from the leftmost northbound lane and an "entrance" to the leftmost southbound lane. This is the beginning of a proposed "Mission" Freeway (upgrade of Route 238) that was never built.

The proposed Foothill Freeway, also known as the Hayward Bypass, was born on June 21, 1961, when the California Highway Commission (CHC) adopted a location for Route 238 as a Freeway in Alameda County between I-680 and I-580 through the cities of Fremont and Hayward. The CHC also adopted as a freeway other segments of Route 238 through Alameda County on June 21, 1961, December 15, 1965, and July 20, 1967. Following those actions by the CHC, the Department executed freeway agreements with the City of Fremont on December 21, 1966 and April 24, 1967; the City of Hayward on October 5, 1965 and March 13, 1984; and the County of Alameda on October 9, 1964, January 14, 1967, and March 13, 1984. The Department acquired much of the right of way for construction of the adopted Route 238 in the late 1960's and early 1970's. Caltrans agents, using the threat of eminent domain, bought up 620 parcels -- some with homes or business -- in and around Hayward. This freeway would have traversed the Hayward foothills from Route 580 in Castro Valley to Route 680 in Mission San Jose, while providing regional congestion relief with Central Alameda County.

Opposition to the Route 238 Hayward Bypass happened almost from the date of adoption. A class action lawsuit was filed in June 1971 seeking to halt land acquisition, relocation activities and other preparations for the project. In November of 1971, a preliminary court injunction to halt the project was issued by the United States District Court for Northern California and reaffirmed on appeal in November 1973. On April 25, 1980, the CHC rescinded that portion of the adopted Route 238 freeway location from I-680 to Industrial Parkway in the city of Hayward. In addition, the Commission's rescission resolution obligated the portion of Route 238 from Industrial Parkway to I-580 to have a funding plan in place within two years (e.g., by 1982). If a financial plan was not forthcoming by 1982, the remainder of Route 238 would be rescinded. Subsequently, in 1982, legislation (AB 3179, Holmdahl) created a process to allow local public agencies to develop an alternative transportation project or projects (LATIP) to address congestion on existing Route 238 and to provide flexibility to local decision makers by ensuring that the investment of funds on the adopted freeway alignment would not preclude consideration of other options. Subsequent to this resolution, legislation was passed to allow additional time to develop a funding plan for the remaining Route 238 location. Current Government Code Section 14528.5 requires that a funding plan be approved before July 1, 2010.

In the 1984 State Transportation Improvement Plan, the CHC approved the adopted Route 238 project (Hayward Bypass) for inclusion in the Special Studies category to initiate the environmental studies. In 1986, after years of inaction, Alameda County voters passed a transportation sales tax measure that called for constructing a Hayward freeway. The measure earmarked money from a one-half cent sales tax increase to "...a six-lane freeway/expressway along Foothill Boulevard and Mission Boulevard to Industrial Parkway," the ballot read. But Caltrans' proposed $244 million freeway ended up aligned a half mile east of those roadways in the hills. Opponents sued, arguing the project described on the ballot was not the freeway envisioned in 1961.

In January 1990, the United States District Court approved a Consent Decree that established the procedures for removal of the court injunction of 1971. The Consent Decree, which is still in effect, included commitments from the Department and the City of Hayward for providing relocation benefits to the residents of the adopted Route 238 corridor, replenishment housing, and replacement parks along with other corridor enhancements.

However, in 1997, another lawsuit was filed against the project. This suit disallowed the use of Measure B funds. This suit, along with the subsequent appeals, made construction of the adopted Route 238 (Hayward Bypass) infeasible. A judge ruled in 2002 that the hillside freeway being designed by ACTA and the California Department of Transportation was different from what voters approved in 1986, thereby disqualifying the project from Measure B funds.

In November 2002, Measure U was passed by the City of Hayward supporting improvements along the traversable Route 238 (Mission Boulevard) in lieu of a bypass along the adopted Route 238 corridor. The Hayward Bypass will not be constructed as a State freeway within the foreseeable future as it is not acceptable to local stakeholders, does not conform with most recent local and regional plans, and local funding of the project through Measure B has been withdrawn.

The final chapter was written in April 2004, when Caltrans appeal of a trial court decision blocking the long-debated transportation project was rejected. The First District Court of Appeals in San Francisco reaffirmed the ruling Alameda County Judge Gordon Baranco made in January 2002 that Caltrans' proposed route for the freeway through the hills was not the one voters approved with a ballot measure funding the project. According to the Tri-Valley Herald, under a variety of different names and versions, the freeway–a north-south link between Interstate 580 in Castro Valley and Fremont has been one of the most contentious, enduring and litigious civic debates in Hayward's history. During all this time, Caltrans has rented nearly 400 houses, apartments and townhouses in Hayward and Castro Valley. Other properties have been boarded up or torn down. Some Caltrans-owned vacant land sat encircled by chain-link fences and posted with signs: "State property, no trespassing." Also in 2004, the Legislature passed SB 509 (Government Code section 14528.5) to extend the provisions of the LATIP process to July 2010. The Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, working with the City of Hayward, Alameda County, the City of San Leandro, the Alameda County Transportation Authority and Caltrans is charged with the responsibility of developing the LATIP.

The city has moved on with an alternative plan for relieving traffic in the corridor. A working group of community members has used $1.5 million of the $111 million raised for the freeway by Measure B, to study a road-widening and improvement project along Foothill and Mission boulevards. This alternative includes a grade separation at the Five Flags intersection where Foothill and Mission intersect with Jackson and E streets. In 2005, the Alameda County Transportation Authority began work to divert the controversial project's money into a compromise plan that would, instead of creating a new freeway east of Mission and Foothill boulevards, simply improve existing roads. ACTA would use $15 million in Measure B funds to fix the I-580 interchange at Redwood Road in Castro Valley, $5 million to study the traffic problems in the central county area and another $5 million to improve circulation in the congested Bayview Avenue area of Castro Valley. The Hayward traffic improvement projects would include a major grade separation at the Five Corners intersection of Mission and Foothill boulevards and Jackson Street and a downtown traffic loop that would convert some Hayward streets into one-way routes. This was on the May 2005 CTC Agenda, whch would move funds to fix I-580.

In October 2005, the Governor signed AB 1462 which changes the existing law that authorized a city or county in which a planned transportation facility was to be located on Route 238 in Alameda County to develop and file with the California Transportation Commission a local alternative transportation program that addresses transportation problems and opportunities, and provides for the use of revenues from the sales of excess properties acquired for the planned state facility in order to fund the local alternative program, but limits the use of revenues from excess property sales to highway purposes. It also extends the applicability of the provision that the commission may not approve a local alternative program under these provisions after July 1, 2010 to a Route 84 between existing Route 238 and I-880 in Alameda County. (Chapter 619, October 6, 2005)

In late November 2006, Caltrans announced that over the next two years it will sell off 1,100 to 1,200 parcels of surplus real estate, including the properties in and around Hayward. Caltrans has given Hayward $250,000 to plan how best to use the 300 acres of land. And Caltrans will cooperate with the city as the agency sells off the land. But before Caltrans can start selling the land, the California Transportation Commission has to release it for sale. Sunne Wright McPeak, state Secretary of Business, Transportation and Housing, said the sale fits with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's mandate to sell surplus state assets. The goal of Caltrans is to sell 640 parcels next year and another 500 in 2008. For the Alameda County Transportation Authority, the land sale is a boon, as the authority will get the proceeds of the land sales -- an amount as much as $200 million -- that can be used to pay for highway -- but not transit -- improvements in central Alameda County. They're likely to include expansions of Foothill and Mission boulevards, a new Redwood Road interchange at I-580 and congestion relief projects on Interstates 238, 580 and 880. To get the money, the authority needs to submit a spending plan to the state Transportation Commission -- probably in 2008 or 2009 -- and have it accepted. On September 28, 2009, relative to the housing element resolution following provisions of the 1990 Consent Decree, Caltrans, the City of Hayward and the Public Interest Law Project, held a meeting with Caltrans' residential tenants residing in the adopted Route 238 Corridor. Provisions from the Draft Settlement Agreement were presented to the tenants. The agreement includes programs to provide: (1) monetary and other assistance to all eligible corridor tenants, (2) 237 new, low-income housing units, and (3) a home purchase program for eligible corridor tenants, currently renting eligible detached single family residences. On October 6, 2009, following the tenant meeting, the City of Hayward approved the Settlement Agreement. The Final Settlement Agreement is expected to be signed by the end of December 2009 by the two remaining parties--Caltrans and the Public Interest Law Project. Superior Court Approval of the final Settlement Agreement is anticipated thereafter.

AB 1386 Chapter 291, 10/11/2009) enacted provisions relating to the disposition of excess properties acquired for the Route 238 Hayward Bypass project. This law will become operative on the date on which the Superior Court issues the final approval order for the Settlement Agreement signed by Caltrans, the City of Hayward, and the Public Interest Law Project, or on January 1, 2010, whichever occurs later. AB 1386 also includes provisions for the relinquishment of traversable Route 238, the programming of LATIP projects, and use of proceeds from the sale of excess lands. In December 2009, the CTC began the processing of rescinding the freeway adoption for the western portion of the Hayward Bypass route (I-580 to Industrial Blvd.). Once this route rescission is approved and litigation matters are settled, the County of Alameda will be able to proceed with planned enhancements to relieve congestion in central Alameda County. These enhancements will include improvements along the traversable Route 238, also known as Mission Boulevard, through the city of Hayward. Litigation matters are expected to be resolved by the end of December 2009. In the adopted Route 238 corridor, there are 464 parcels estimated to be worth between $90 million and $125 million, based on 2009 market value and best use assumptions.

In November 2010, the CTC formally rescinded of the freeway adoption. The rationale was as follows: The route segment is not needed for system continuity. The need for a freeway corridor parallel to I-880 to handle interregional traffic can be served by improving the adjacent facilities including the traversable Route 238. The traversable highway traffic is local versus interregional, and improvements can be made to the traversable Route 238 to accommodate future traffic demand. On June 30, 2010, the Commission approved the relinquishment of the traversable Route 238, Mission and Foothill Boulevards, from Industrial Parkway to 0.3 mile south of I-580 to the City of Hayward.

In August 2012, updates were provided on the Route 238 corridor project in Hayward. The goal of the project is construction of a "loop" to speed traffic through downtown Hayward to link I-580 and Route 238. As of August 2012, the project ws roughly two-thirds complete. LED streetlights have been installed for almost the full length of Foothill Boulevard from I-580 to Mission Boulevard. Video-monitored traffic signals have been activated at several intersections. The northern portion of the Foothill corridor is paved, with new sidewalks and a median. Near the southern end of the project, a section of Mission is nearly finished, with a repaved road and new sidewalks, lights and median. The project has encountered delays due to unexpected problems -- among them a Mission Boulevard sidewalk that was really a basement roof, the discovery of abandoned wells and underground gas storage tanks. In addition, rain delays during the wet winter of 2010 also pushed the project back. The heart of the project is a "loop" of one-way streets through downtown. This has involved torn-up sidewalks and intersections, but completion is in sight. Several intersections along Foothill in the loop are still torn up, awaiting the arrival of huge custom-made traffic signal bridges that will span the boulevard. After they are installed, the one-way loop will be go into effect. Old signals will be removed, and roads in the downtown will be ground down and leveled out. Paving downtown streets, one of the final steps, probably won't happen until May 2013.
(Oakland Tribune, 8/1/2012)

[myosh_tino]

I have noticed the Caltrans also cancelled the proposed California state route 238 in the East Bay area:

:snip:

What about the freeway?  on cahwyguy it says...

:snip:

Didn't you answer your own question?  Route 238 does exist between I-580 and I-680 via Mission Blvd.  Saying it was canceled is a bit misleading.  The freeway south of I-580 was indeed canceled due to local opposition and cost.

Also, I'm not sure how cahwyguy feels about you reposting large chunks of text from his website.  Might I recommend you simply provide a link to his site?

[coatimundi]

I want those 30 seconds I just spent scrolling back.

[cahwyguy]

Also, I'm not sure how cahwyguy feels about you reposting large chunks of text from his website.

Oh, I don't mind that. At least this time he went out and researched before asking, and answering, his own question. 

[Avalanchez71]

Can you answer why this was approved as I-238?

[cahwyguy]

Can you answer why this was approved as I-238?

Probably because it was a continuation of Route 238, and they just submitted it as non-chargeable interstate. Why Caltrans chose to submit it I don't know, but that's probably why they chose 238 (as every other x80 number at that time was already assigned to a state route).

[myosh_tino]

Could the truck ban on I-580 from Grand Ave to the Oakland/San Leandro border have played a role?

The Port of Oakland is a major shipping terminal on the west coast and, because of the ban, the only way trucks can access the port is either from west I-80 to south I-880 or from west I-580 to north I-238 to north I-880.  I would think the long-haul truckers would prefer to travel on roads signed with an Interstate shield because it provides some assurance about the quality of the road they're traveling on.

[andy3175]

Can you answer why this was approved as I-238?

Probably because it was a continuation of Route 238, and they just submitted it as non-chargeable interstate. Why Caltrans chose to submit it I don't know, but that's probably why they chose 238 (as every other x80 number at that time was already assigned to a state route).

Casey Cooper wrote a fairly reasoned commentary on I-238 on his page at http://www.gbcnet.com/roads/I-238/. I would recommend reading it for his perspective.