CA 84

[Max Rockatansky]

Just finished the last (finally over...) of my Bay Area blog series which just so happened to be CA 84 over the Santa Cruz Mountains:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/03/california-state-route-84-over-santa.html

That being the case I figured it would be a good time to create a catch-all thread for CA 84 since it has popped up for me three times in the last couple months:

Dumbarton Bridge

https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/02/california-state-route-84-west-from.html

Real McCoy II Ferry

https://www.gribblenation.org/2018/12/california-ferry-routes-ca-84-over-real.html

[sparker]

Considering all the reroutings, truncations, and just plain weirdness regarding CA 84, this is going to be one interesting thread.  Back in '76, when living in Palo Alto, I did a return trip from spending Christmas with relatives in Sacramento -- deliberately utilizing all of CA 84, at least west to US 101.  This included the unsigned/unadopted "bridge" between CA 4 and I-580 using Vasco Road (well pre-upgrades), the original alignment through downtown Livermore, and the original Thornton Avenue approach to the Dumbarton Bridge.  Took a bit longer than my usual 80/101 route back then, but was quite a change of pace.  My first time on the McCoy ferry -- the waters were a bit choppy that day (late December), but still pleasant -- but got stuck in Rio Vista when the drawbridge was up!

After "digesting" that trip, I always wondered what was in the back of the mind of Division of Highway planners back in '63-'64 when they were devising the new designations for state highways -- why a continuous highway from Sacramento down to the middle of the Peninsula and on to a terminus in a remote coastal area? -- what purpose did that serve (except as a single-designation route from the state capital to one of the few legal nude beaches in CA -- the privately owned but publicly available North San Gregorio -- a place to literally freeze your ass off most of the year!).  Since one of the proposed Peninsula alignments skirted Stanford, it may have been an "old school" sentiment on the part of a Division honcho, or simply just a whimsical if a bit historic pathway (Niles Canyon being part of the original rail access to the Bay Area from the Valley).  But 84's still a conundrum -- even though rerouting and, now, pending relinquishment of the Fremont mileage has certainly altered the original concept.  All I can say is -- enjoy as much of what's still out there while you can!   

[Max Rockatansky]

84 tends to be one of the poster children for questioning a lot of the 64 renumbering.  Even back then if the entirety of 84 had been completed it wouldn't have made much sense as a single route designation with the odd north/south to east/west transition.  The north segment should been designated under a different number due to the cardinal change in direction.  Really 84 is a mixed bag, it had a lot of interesting segments but overall has only a small regional importance as a cumlative Route. 

[TheStranger]

84 tends to be one of the poster children for questioning a lot of the 64 renumbering.  Even back then if the entirety of 84 had been completed it wouldn't have made much sense as a single route designation with the odd north/south to east/west transition.  The north segment should been designated under a different number due to the cardinal change in direction.  Really 84 is a mixed bag, it had a lot of interesting segments but overall has only a small regional importance as a cumlative Route. 

The east-west 84 between Route 1 and I-580 has of course always been one somewhat cohesive corridor - though it would have been more so if the planned freeway between 280 and 101 had ever been built (not at all likely now with property values in Palo Alto/Menlo Park) and if the realignment near Decoto Road in Newark/Fremont ever happens.


The delta portion on the other hand...I can kinda see the logic behind the J shaped route that is Route 70 (as it took over former Route 24/Alternate US 40) though I'm not in love with that, but the Yolo County part of 84 really needs its own number IMO.

[Max Rockatansky]

84 tends to be one of the poster children for questioning a lot of the 64 renumbering.  Even back then if the entirety of 84 had been completed it wouldn't have made much sense as a single route designation with the odd north/south to east/west transition.  The north segment should been designated under a different number due to the cardinal change in direction.  Really 84 is a mixed bag, it had a lot of interesting segments but overall has only a small regional importance as a cumlative Route. 

The east-west 84 between Route 1 and I-580 has of course always been one somewhat cohesive corridor - though it would have been more so if the planned freeway between 280 and 101 had ever been built (not at all likely now with property values in Palo Alto/Menlo Park) and if the realignment near Decoto Road in Newark/Fremont ever happens.


The delta portion on the other hand...I can kinda see the logic behind the J shaped route that is Route 70 (as it took over former Route 24/Alternate US 40) though I'm not in love with that, but the Yolo County part of 84 really needs its own number IMO.

Personally I'd think 70 would be a better fit in the Delta.  The designation of 99 north of Sacramento to Yuba City has nothing to do with the corridor of US 99E or W and should have just been 70 alone.  If anything 99 should have been routed on I-80BL/CA 51.  But then again for awhile it was looking like I-80 would stay in Sacramento...

[TheStranger]

84 tends to be one of the poster children for questioning a lot of the 64 renumbering.  Even back then if the entirety of 84 had been completed it wouldn't have made much sense as a single route designation with the odd north/south to east/west transition.  The north segment should been designated under a different number due to the cardinal change in direction.  Really 84 is a mixed bag, it had a lot of interesting segments but overall has only a small regional importance as a cumlative Route. 

The east-west 84 between Route 1 and I-580 has of course always been one somewhat cohesive corridor - though it would have been more so if the planned freeway between 280 and 101 had ever been built (not at all likely now with property values in Palo Alto/Menlo Park) and if the realignment near Decoto Road in Newark/Fremont ever happens.


The delta portion on the other hand...I can kinda see the logic behind the J shaped route that is Route 70 (as it took over former Route 24/Alternate US 40) though I'm not in love with that, but the Yolo County part of 84 really needs its own number IMO.

Personally I'd think 70 would be a better fit in the Delta.  The designation of 99 north of Sacramento to Yuba City has nothing to do with the corridor of US 99E or W and should have just been 70 alone.  If anything 99 should have been routed on I-80BL/CA 51.  But then again for awhile it was looking like I-80 would stay in Sacramento...

For the Feather river routes, I feel like 70/149 and 99 should be like a 99/99A setup given both do utilize former segments of US 99 on each side; 70 north of 149 could stay as an east-west 70.

84/160 is interesting because there are times 84 is actually the straighter/easier alignment, but 160 is the main road in the area probably due to not being reliant on a ferry crossing.

[nexus73]

If there is a scenic drive to be found, Mad Max is your man!  It looks like a fun road to drive.  I wonder when the traffic is heaviest?

Rick

[Max Rockatansky]

If there is a scenic drive to be found, Mad Max is your man!  It looks like a fun road to drive.  I wonder when the traffic is heaviest?

Rick

Definitely the busiest point on 84 would be at the Dumbarton Bridge which gets 70,000 cars plus.  Really some of the traffic counts on 84 dip to absolute state minimums in paces.  The Real McCoy II might get a hundred or so cars a day.

[nexus73]

If there is a scenic drive to be found, Mad Max is your man!  It looks like a fun road to drive.  I wonder when the traffic is heaviest?

Rick

Definitely the busiest point on 84 would be at the Dumbarton Bridge which gets 70,000 cars plus.  Really some of the traffic counts on 84 dip to absolute state minimums in paces.  The Real McCoy II might get a hundred or so cars a day.

Thanks for that info Max.  Going out in the country sounds easy.  Some day I hope to see in person all the natural beauty from the SF Bay Area that your photos have shown.  There is much more than I expected!

Rick

[sparker]

CA 84, if you will, is in a way the functional equivalent of the I-74 extension in NC; the odds of either one connecting its two disparate sections are slim & none, but the legal definitions that keep the designations alive are still going strong.  In the Caltrans case, simple agency apathy is the major factor mitigating against redesignation; while it would take legislation that their legal staff would have to compile to effect such a change, getting them to actually task such an undertaking would be a stretch today.  And, of course, since NC interests spearheaded the original I-74 proposal, getting them to admit that they bit off more than they could chew might be beyond the pale.  In both cases we're all stuck with some willful disconnects!

[Max Rockatansky]

CA 84, if you will, is in a way the functional equivalent of the I-74 extension in NC; the odds of either one connecting its two disparate sections are slim & none, but the legal definitions that keep the designations alive are still going strong.  In the Caltrans case, simple agency apathy is the major factor mitigating against redesignation; while it would take legislation that their legal staff would have to compile to effect such a change, getting them to actually task such an undertaking would be a stretch today.  And, of course, since NC interests spearheaded the original I-74 proposal, getting them to admit that they bit off more than they could chew might be beyond the pale.  In both cases we're all stuck with some willful disconnects!

In the case of 84 in the Delta it is barely signed and includes a gap in West Sacramento.  Given how poorly Caltrans tends to maintain 84 in the Delta it makes me think that if it wasn't for the Real McCoy II that it would be on their hit list for relinquishment.

If there is a scenic drive to be found, Mad Max is your man!  It looks like a fun road to drive.  I wonder when the traffic is heaviest?

Rick

Definitely the busiest point on 84 would be at the Dumbarton Bridge which gets 70,000 cars plus.  Really some of the traffic counts on 84 dip to absolute state minimums in paces.  The Real McCoy II might get a hundred or so cars a day.

Thanks for that info Max.  Going out in the country sounds easy.  Some day I hope to see in person all the natural beauty from the SF Bay Area that your photos have shown.  There is much more than I expected!

Rick

There is a lot of good stuff out in the Bay Area that doesn't get much time in the spotlight.  Personally I found CA 77, CA 262 and CA 123 (Old US 40) to be the most intriguing things I looked at on the two recent trips.

[Max Rockatansky]

Found a 1930 flyer for the original Dumbarton Bridge on David Rumsey.  The toll rates include horse drawn carriages, the visuals feature a suicide lane:

https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~290450~90062055:Covers--Dumbarton-Bridge?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:fresno;sort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=199&trs=225

[Northcoast707]

Hi Sparker:  I don't know if I can help you with all of your questions concerning State Route 84, but here goes: the designation was made sometime in late 1961, or very early 1962 according to my road map collection of SF Peninsula maps (this coming from the 1962 edition of the Chevron Oil map titled "San Francisco Peninsula central section".) by HM Gousha, not during the 1963-64 State Highway renumbering orgy episode.  This number is absent on the 1961 and 1960 issues, the 1960 edition being the first year of this particular map.  It is portrayed on the map on the back titled "San Francisco Bay Area" as starting in the north at Livermore, trending south then southwest through  the Vallecitos Canyon to Sunol, then towards the Fremont area via Niles Canyon.  Across the Dumbarton Bridge to the Bayshore Freeway/Willow Rd. cloverleaf, north on Bayshore Freeway to Main St. in Redwood City, south to El Camino Real. After crossing the said boulevard, the name changes to Woodside Rd.  From there, south to the town of Woodside, then southwest to Tripp Rd., then swings to the southeast along Old County Rd. paralleling the San Andreas Fault line to La Honda Rd.  In the 1963 edition of the Gousha map of the same title as above, there is a single dashed line in red beginning about halfway between the Willow Rd./Bayshore Freeway interchange and the southwest Dumbarton bridgehead that trends off to the east of the Willow Rd., along Ralmar Ave. in East Palo Alto, crossing Bayshore Freeway and swinging west to parallel Menalto Ave. in Menlo Park, then southwestward where it crosses San Francisquito Creek, crossing it to Palo Alto Ave. just east of Fulton Ave. across Middlefield Rd. along Palo Alto Ave., through El Camino Real northwest of SF Creek, and paralleling Willow Rd. behind Stanford Shopping Center to Alameda de las Pulgas/Junipero Serra Blvd. @ Sand Hill Rd. I think this was the proposed rerouting of (at least a portion of) State Route 84.  Hope this helps!

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^
The first signage I saw of SSR 84 as a kid was during the summer of '63 on a summer road trip with my parents; we headed north along then-Bypass US 101/Bayshore Freeway.  The 84 signage had made the Gousha maps in the '63 edition; I was anxious to see how it would be signed.  Freestanding trailblazer signage marked the Willow Ave. interchange; essentially "tacked on" besides the original street BGS's (or they may have been BBS's; the Bayshore was one of the facilities to maintain the old white-on-black signage until well into the late '60's).  SSR 84 (new-style white) reassurance shields were indeed mounted beneath the Bypass US 101 reassurance shields north as far as the Old Bayshore Highway exit in Redwood City -- the east Woodside Road extension was still in the planning stages.  The original alignment of SSR 84 (LRN 107) was northwest along Old Bayshore Highway to Main Street, where it turned on a very sharp angle SSW, crossing then-US 101 (LRN 2, later CA 82) and veering a bit to the right as Woodside Road.  Again, the Bypass 101/Old Bayshore exit for SSR 84 was marked, like the Willow interchange, with freestanding white 84 trailblazer signage.

Post '64 renumbering, CA 84 was indeed planned to follow the San Francisquito Creek southwest, essentially subsuming the Sand Hill Road alignment up to near the intersection of Portola Road and La Honda Road, where it would head uphill to CA 35 and then down along the current alignment to its terminus at CA 1 near La Honda.  The original CA 114 was what is now CA 84 west of US 101 -- down Woodside Road to I-280, where the legal definition of CA 114 ended.  After Stanford balked at allowing another major highway on its grounds (it too would have skirted the linear accelerator), the numerical definition was swapped circa 1976, with CA 84 formally assigned to its current Woodside Road and La Honda Road alignment, and CA 114 relegated to a line on the map now ending at CA 82 at the Santa Clara/San Mateo county line (between Palo Alto and Menlo Park).  When CA 84 was rerouted over the Bayfront Expressway from Willow Road NW to the Marsh Road/US 101 interchange in the '90's, Willow Ave. from US 101 to CA 84 was ceded to CA 114 (and even signed with trailblazers at US 101 for a short time).  But any extension west of US 101 has been functionally dead for decades.  CA 114/Willow Road is now famous/notorious as the street where Facebook HQ is located (I'm surprised it wasn't changed to Zuckerberg Parkway!).  But since the relinquishment of CA 84 in Fremont has been announced, the designated west segment of CA 84 is now in 2 parts:  from CA 1 in La Honda to US 101 in Redwood City, and from US 101 at the Marsh Road exit to I-880 at Decoto Road in Newark.     

[TheStranger]

^^^^^^^^^
The first signage I saw of SSR 84 as a kid was during the summer of '63 on a summer road trip with my parents; we headed north along then-Bypass US 101/Bayshore Freeway.  The 84 signage had made the Gousha maps in the '63 edition; I was anxious to see how it would be signed.  Freestanding trailblazer signage marked the Willow Ave. interchange; essentially "tacked on" besides the original street BGS's (or they may have been BBS's; the Bayshore was one of the facilities to maintain the old white-on-black signage until well into the late '60's).  SSR 84 (new-style white) reassurance shields were indeed mounted beneath the Bypass US 101 reassurance shields north as far as the Old Bayshore Highway exit in Redwood City -- the east Woodside Road extension was still in the planning stages.  The original alignment of SSR 84 (LRN 107) was northwest along Old Bayshore Highway to Main Street, where it turned on a very sharp angle SSW, crossing then-US 101 (LRN 2, later CA 82) and veering a bit to the right as Woodside Road.  Again, the Bypass 101/Old Bayshore exit for SSR 84 was marked, like the Willow interchange, with freestanding white 84 trailblazer signage.

Out of curiosity, when was Old Bayshore Highway renamed to Veterans Boulevard in Redwood City?

The cloverleaf between Woodside Road and El Camino Real looks to have been built a few years after the Bayshore/Main alignment had been in place (and can be seen in the 1968 HistoricAerials view of the area).  Looking at HistoricAerials, in 1958 much of the modern Woodside/Bayshore Freeway interchange already existed, but Woodside itself between Broadway and El Camino hadn't been built, so when the route was established ca. 1962, eastbound 84 simply continued at grade from Woodside northwest to Main at El Camino.  (The portion of the Bayshore Freeway that bypassed what is now Veterans Boulevard didn't exist in the 1956 historic aerials photo but was in place in 1958)

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^
The eastern extension of Woodside Road was completed about 1970; the modification of the US 101 (Bayshore) interchange with Old Bayshore to accommodate the Woodside extension was done by the end of '68; CA 84 maintained its previous route over Old Bayshore and Main St. until that extension was completed, including a partial interchange with El Camino Real (CA 82).  The extension was and is configured as a 4-lane expressway, with several at-grade intersections between CA 82 and US 101. 

I resided about 2 blocks away from this expressway on East Broadway back at the beginning of 1976; there were still CA 114 white "paddles" along the expressway at that time; CA 84 markers replaced them by about 1979.   

[bing101]

Was Vasco Road ever supposed to be CA-84? This area happens to be one of Contra Costa county most busiest route outside I-680, CA-24, I-80 and CA-4. This route could have fill in the CA-84 gap between the Bay Area and Sacramento Delta section.

[SoCal Kid]

I didnt drive on the Dumbarton Bridge, but the San Mateo-Hayward bridge. The bay view is nice, and its even cooler at night. I assume Dumbarton is similar but farther from SF.

[Max Rockatansky]

I didnt drive on the Dumbarton Bridge, but the San Mateo-Hayward bridge. The bay view is nice, and its even cooler at night. I assume Dumbarton is similar but farther from SF.

Dumbarton is the leash interesting, least scenic and most poorly maintained crossing of San Francisco Bay IMO. 

[SoCal Kid]

Looked at some images, dang it is bland. Just land and some powerlines, oof

[sparker]

Was Vasco Road ever supposed to be CA-84? This area happens to be one of Contra Costa county most busiest route outside I-680, CA-24, I-80 and CA-4. This route could have fill in the CA-84 gap between the Bay Area and Sacramento Delta section.

The original "lines on the map" -- i.e., unadopted routes within a corridor -- for CA 84 paralleled Vasco Road from I-580 north to CA 4.  But AFAIK there has never been any official "buzz" regarding bringing Vasco into the state system.  That's not surprising, considering much of the multi-year Caltrans STIP is now dedicated to local facilities in addition to the state-maintained system.  The improvements on the Contra Costa side of the county line were funded by state aid in addition to local sources -- CC County's contribution was based upon a countywide-passed bond issue several years ago.  And since Caltrans is attempting to get out of the surface-street business, it's not likely they would assume maintenance of Vasco as is; there would have to be an actual freeway route designated along the corridor that could utilize the existing 2+1 configuration as at least one of the carriageways.   But since it's likely that Brentwood and Tracy may indeed grow together in the next decade or so (essentially duplicating the Mountain House subdivision in other locations more or less between Tracy and Byron), there may be some call to enhance access to newer housing areas in the region by building CA 84 as a freeway extension of the nascent CA 4 facility -- as well as starting on the long-delayed CA 239 corridor from Brentwood to Altamont (the I-580/205 junction).  It is highly unlikely that any freeway development will occur east of Discovery Bay along CA 4 as it traverses the Delta; if a freeway extension does eventually happen, it'll probably head southeast via the CA 239 corridor or possibly south/southwest on Vasco and/or a CA 84 extension.   Those corridors not only avoid the delta wetlands, but provide a long-needed freeway connection between the CA 4 corridor in the Antioch area with the "Tracy Triangle" along the namesake city.  BTW, Tracy will likely surpass 100K population in the 2020 census. 

Looked at some images, dang it is bland. Just land and some powerlines, oof

Seeing as how the Dumbarton facilities were built through territory whose prime utility is baywater evaporation for the production of sea salt, the area is decidedly unscenic.  Just use Google Earth for the area, and the bridge and its approaches look like a gash through the squared-off evaporation ponds.  It's been that way since the bridge was incorporated into the state system decades ago.  Right now, massive new "infill" housing tracts in and around Newark are edging closer and closer to the salt production facilities (most of which are owned by the Leslie corporation), so the visual aspect of the area will, if anything, become even more bizarre.     

[Max Rockatansky]

Looked at some images, dang it is bland. Just land and some powerlines, oof

It definitely isn't s looker.  Considering the current span opened in the 1980s I highly doubt that design aesthetics was much of a consideration.  Most construction in general was very bland and a trope of the 1960s through 1990s.  Personally I don't care much for modern construction design aesthetics but at least they large attempt to emulate bygone eras or present a somewhat sleeker looking shape.  Bridge design definitely can be an art and I think it shows with the Golden Gate Bridge and western span of the Bay Bridge. 

[sparker]

Looked at some images, dang it is bland. Just land and some powerlines, oof

It definitely isn't s looker.  Considering the current span opened in the 1980s I highly doubt that design aesthetics was much of a consideration.  Most construction in general was very bland and a trope of the 1960s through 1990s.  Personally I don't care much for modern construction design aesthetics but at least they large attempt to emulate bygone eras or present a somewhat sleeker looking shape.  Bridge design definitely can be an art and I think it shows with the Golden Gate Bridge and western span of the Bay Bridge. 

With suspension bridges, it certainly helps that the anchorages of those structures are set well above the water level -- as is the case with the two bridges mentioned above as well as the Zampa bridge crossing the Carquinez; the anchorages are at least 100 feet above the mean water level, making the approaches blend into the surrounding topology.  Contrast this to any of the other bridges crossing the bay (with the exception of I-680/Benicia); the touchdown point for each is close to sea level, so they end up looking like "humpback" structures where they need to cross the navigation channel (the San Mateo/CA 92 bridge illustrates that particular type; the Dumbarton is simply a truncated version of that, with a berm substituting for the eastern causeway).  Both were built prior to the prevalence of cable-stayed bridges that have since dominated longer water crossings -- and were done in a function-over-form fashion typical of construction in the '70's and early '80's.  If any future crossings of the bay or its associated channels are contemplated (such as the constantly re-explored "Southern Crossing"), they'll likely face pressure to utilize some aesthetic design features; re-doing the unimaginative San Mateo or Dumbarton formats won't cut it when and if funding is sought for such projects; they'll have to be a bit more of the "signature" approach -- pleasing architectural critics as well as the driving public.  That drove the Zampa approach to the Carquinez situation rather than simply duplicating the eastbound I-80 truss bridge.   

[Northcoast707]

Dear The Stranger  re: "When was Old Bayshore Blvd. renamed..."  I believe this was around 1958 when the Bayshore Freeway bypass was built, but I'm not 100% sure.  I have a collection of CSAA maps of the area from 1961 -77, and the first labelling of "Veterans Blvd." is on the map dated March, 1967.  In my collection of Gousha maps titled "San Francisco Peninsula central section," it first appears in the 1964 edition.  Hope this helps