San Mateo County's Cancelled Freeways

[kernals12]

Take a good long look at this map. It shows the freeways that, in 1964, San Mateo County thought it would have by 1990.

The people who cram up 101 would have a whole other freeway, the Bay Front freeway, built on fill in San Francisco Bay. 3 Freeways traversing the Santa Cruz Mountains and another along the Pacific Coast, would open up the Western part of the county to development, providing relief to the current housing shortage.

So look at this, and then get very angry at the NIMBYs who killed it.

[TheStranger]

Amusingly, the Hickey Boulevard extension to Hillside which did not exist at the time of this map...

...was built in 2003 as part of BART station construction in South San Francisco!  Albeit instead of being a direct link, Lawndale Boulevard connects El Camino Real to Hillside with a terminus two blocks south of Hickey.

SAMSUNG-SM-G930A

[Max Rockatansky]

Take a good long look at this map. It shows the freeways that, in 1964, San Mateo County thought it would have by 1990.

The people who cram up 101 would have a whole other freeway, the Bay Front freeway, built on fill in San Francisco Bay. 3 Freeways traversing the Santa Cruz Mountains and another along the Pacific Coast, would open up the Western part of the county to development, providing relief to the current housing shortage.

So look at this, and then get very angry at the NIMBYs who killed it.

Please don't start this anti-Bay thing again...  You're not hitting on any new ground and your opinions on the matter are toxic at best (and show why you hide your age on your user profile now).

[Concrete Bob]

Thanks for sharing the planning map.  I am more than familiar with most of the proposed and subsequently cancelled freeways of the area.  However, I have never seen a planning map with the Southern Crossing at that alignment before (beginning at US 101 near Brisbane and heading due east).   

[kkt]

San Francisco Bay is important to the region.  The moderate salinity in between the ocean and fresh water is a home to many marine species which in turn support birds.  I am glad that Bay was not shrunk even more by poorly though out fill projects.

The coastal strip from the Coast Range to the ocean is very scenic and not that great for building on.  Steep slopes on unstable hillsides, heavy rain as storm systems move in from the ocean, and a lot of foggy weather that most people would rather visit occassionally than live in.  On the whole, it's good that vast amounts of subdivisions were not built there.  Looking for more housing, I look instead at the square mile after square mile developed as single-family homes that are now all too expensive for middle class workers.  Too bad they didn't develop some areas as mid-rise apartments and other areas as single-family homes.

[Max Rockatansky]

San Francisco Bay is important to the region.  The moderate salinity in between the ocean and fresh water is a home to many marine species which in turn support birds.  I am glad that Bay was not shrunk even more by poorly though out fill projects.

The coastal strip from the Coast Range to the ocean is very scenic and not that great for building on.  Steep slopes on unstable hillsides, heavy rain as storm systems move in from the ocean, and a lot of foggy weather that most people would rather visit occassionally than live in.  On the whole, it's good that vast amounts of subdivisions were not built there.  Looking for more housing, I look instead at the square mile after square mile developed as single-family homes that are now all too expensive for middle class workers.  Too bad they didn't develop some areas as mid-rise apartments and other areas as single-family homes.

Considering CA 35 and CA 84 were on that map the challenges presented to building those as freeways would be huge to say the least.  To that end, I hardly see any cars on either of those two highways which really speaks to the fact nobody really lives west of I-280.  I could see a potentially benefit to CA 92 being a four lane expressway given Half Moon Bay generates substantial traffic but that would probably require extensive tunneling to get through the crest of the Santa Cruz Mountains.  The Tom Lantos Tunnels seem to be about as good as anyone in Half Moon Bay is going to get on CA 1. 

[kkt]

Yeah, San Mateo County wisely decided not to allow large subdivisions to be built west of 280 when there were no roads to carry the traffic they would generate... or allow large roads to be built when they didn't want subdivisions to be built there.

[Max Rockatansky]

Yeah, San Mateo County wisely decided not to allow large subdivisions to be built west of 280 when there were no roads to carry the traffic they would generate... or allow large roads to be built when they didn't want subdivisions to be built there.

One thing that I think we forgot to mention upthread is that the San Andreas Fault runs just west of I-280.  That muddy soil based terrain coupled with the constantly moving fault makes for fun times with landslides and eroding terrain. The water drains out of the Santa Cruz Mountains buckets when it rains.  I remember driving 84 one time and finding out that the road surface was the drainage grade in places. 

[heynow415]

San Francisco Bay is important to the region.  The moderate salinity in between the ocean and fresh water is a home to many marine species which in turn support birds.  I am glad that Bay was not shrunk even more by poorly though out fill projects.

The coastal strip from the Coast Range to the ocean is very scenic and not that great for building on.  Steep slopes on unstable hillsides, heavy rain as storm systems move in from the ocean, and a lot of foggy weather that most people would rather visit occassionally than live in.  On the whole, it's good that vast amounts of subdivisions were not built there.  Looking for more housing, I look instead at the square mile after square mile developed as single-family homes that are now all too expensive for middle class workers.  Too bad they didn't develop some areas as mid-rise apartments and other areas as single-family homes.

There are similar plan sheets floating around for Marin County and East Bay as well.  Back in the day filling in the bay was seen as "reclaiming" underutilized land, so freeways were shown east of 101 to serve these newly developable areas.  The real amazing scheme was to construct dams north and south of the central bay to protect these reclaimed lands and to keep the salt water out; hence creation of the Bay Model in Sausalito to study the idea (which concluded that it was impractical, particularly for the northern dam with the volume of water coming through the delta and San Pablo Bay).  Marin has its share of cancelled freeways too, laid out on the assumption that the western part of the county would be subdivided into 7,000sf lots. 

Between learning that building on fill on top of bay mud is not the most sound practice and that lands west of the coast range are generally steep and unstable, it was wise to retain much of it in its natural state or use it for less intensive (and costly to maintain/repair) purposes.  Concrete and condos as far as the eye can see is not necessarily a desirable environment - context and moderation are important.

[kernals12]

San Francisco Bay is important to the region.  The moderate salinity in between the ocean and fresh water is a home to many marine species which in turn support birds.  I am glad that Bay was not shrunk even more by poorly though out fill projects.

The coastal strip from the Coast Range to the ocean is very scenic and not that great for building on.  Steep slopes on unstable hillsides, heavy rain as storm systems move in from the ocean, and a lot of foggy weather that most people would rather visit occassionally than live in.  On the whole, it's good that vast amounts of subdivisions were not built there.  Looking for more housing, I look instead at the square mile after square mile developed as single-family homes that are now all too expensive for middle class workers.  Too bad they didn't develop some areas as mid-rise apartments and other areas as single-family homes.

There are similar plan sheets floating around for Marin County and East Bay as well.  Back in the day filling in the bay was seen as "reclaiming" underutilized land, so freeways were shown east of 101 to serve these newly developable areas.  The real amazing scheme was to construct dams north and south of the central bay to protect these reclaimed lands and to keep the salt water out; hence creation of the Bay Model in Sausalito to study the idea (which concluded that it was impractical, particularly for the northern dam with the volume of water coming through the delta and San Pablo Bay).  Marin has its share of cancelled freeways too, laid out on the assumption that the western part of the county would be subdivided into 7,000sf lots. 

Between learning that building on fill on top of bay mud is not the most sound practice and that lands west of the coast range are generally steep and unstable, it was wise to retain much of it in its natural state or use it for less intensive (and costly to maintain/repair) purposes.  Concrete and condos as far as the eye can see is not necessarily a desirable environment - context and moderation are important.

Foster City has been just fine

[kkt]

San Francisco Bay is important to the region.  The moderate salinity in between the ocean and fresh water is a home to many marine species which in turn support birds.  I am glad that Bay was not shrunk even more by poorly though out fill projects.

The coastal strip from the Coast Range to the ocean is very scenic and not that great for building on.  Steep slopes on unstable hillsides, heavy rain as storm systems move in from the ocean, and a lot of foggy weather that most people would rather visit occassionally than live in.  On the whole, it's good that vast amounts of subdivisions were not built there.  Looking for more housing, I look instead at the square mile after square mile developed as single-family homes that are now all too expensive for middle class workers.  Too bad they didn't develop some areas as mid-rise apartments and other areas as single-family homes.

There are similar plan sheets floating around for Marin County and East Bay as well.  Back in the day filling in the bay was seen as "reclaiming" underutilized land, so freeways were shown east of 101 to serve these newly developable areas.  The real amazing scheme was to construct dams north and south of the central bay to protect these reclaimed lands and to keep the salt water out; hence creation of the Bay Model in Sausalito to study the idea (which concluded that it was impractical, particularly for the northern dam with the volume of water coming through the delta and San Pablo Bay).  Marin has its share of cancelled freeways too, laid out on the assumption that the western part of the county would be subdivided into 7,000sf lots. 

Between learning that building on fill on top of bay mud is not the most sound practice and that lands west of the coast range are generally steep and unstable, it was wise to retain much of it in its natural state or use it for less intensive (and costly to maintain/repair) purposes.  Concrete and condos as far as the eye can see is not necessarily a desirable environment - context and moderation are important.

Foster City has been just fine

Waiting for the big one.

[Max Rockatansky]

San Francisco Bay is important to the region.  The moderate salinity in between the ocean and fresh water is a home to many marine species which in turn support birds.  I am glad that Bay was not shrunk even more by poorly though out fill projects.

The coastal strip from the Coast Range to the ocean is very scenic and not that great for building on.  Steep slopes on unstable hillsides, heavy rain as storm systems move in from the ocean, and a lot of foggy weather that most people would rather visit occassionally than live in.  On the whole, it's good that vast amounts of subdivisions were not built there.  Looking for more housing, I look instead at the square mile after square mile developed as single-family homes that are now all too expensive for middle class workers.  Too bad they didn't develop some areas as mid-rise apartments and other areas as single-family homes.

There are similar plan sheets floating around for Marin County and East Bay as well.  Back in the day filling in the bay was seen as "reclaiming" underutilized land, so freeways were shown east of 101 to serve these newly developable areas.  The real amazing scheme was to construct dams north and south of the central bay to protect these reclaimed lands and to keep the salt water out; hence creation of the Bay Model in Sausalito to study the idea (which concluded that it was impractical, particularly for the northern dam with the volume of water coming through the delta and San Pablo Bay).  Marin has its share of cancelled freeways too, laid out on the assumption that the western part of the county would be subdivided into 7,000sf lots. 

Between learning that building on fill on top of bay mud is not the most sound practice and that lands west of the coast range are generally steep and unstable, it was wise to retain much of it in its natural state or use it for less intensive (and costly to maintain/repair) purposes.  Concrete and condos as far as the eye can see is not necessarily a desirable environment - context and moderation are important.

Foster City has been just fine

Waiting for the big one.

Lots of landfill in Foster City which means lots of potential liquefaction come the time the San Andreas wants to go big.  Let's not forget how close said fault actually is to a Foster City. 

[DTComposer]

San Francisco Bay is important to the region.  The moderate salinity in between the ocean and fresh water is a home to many marine species which in turn support birds.  I am glad that Bay was not shrunk even more by poorly though out fill projects.

The coastal strip from the Coast Range to the ocean is very scenic and not that great for building on.  Steep slopes on unstable hillsides, heavy rain as storm systems move in from the ocean, and a lot of foggy weather that most people would rather visit occassionally than live in.  On the whole, it's good that vast amounts of subdivisions were not built there.  Looking for more housing, I look instead at the square mile after square mile developed as single-family homes that are now all too expensive for middle class workers.  Too bad they didn't develop some areas as mid-rise apartments and other areas as single-family homes.

There are similar plan sheets floating around for Marin County and East Bay as well.  Back in the day filling in the bay was seen as "reclaiming" underutilized land, so freeways were shown east of 101 to serve these newly developable areas.  The real amazing scheme was to construct dams north and south of the central bay to protect these reclaimed lands and to keep the salt water out; hence creation of the Bay Model in Sausalito to study the idea (which concluded that it was impractical, particularly for the northern dam with the volume of water coming through the delta and San Pablo Bay).  Marin has its share of cancelled freeways too, laid out on the assumption that the western part of the county would be subdivided into 7,000sf lots. 

Between learning that building on fill on top of bay mud is not the most sound practice and that lands west of the coast range are generally steep and unstable, it was wise to retain much of it in its natural state or use it for less intensive (and costly to maintain/repair) purposes.  Concrete and condos as far as the eye can see is not necessarily a desirable environment - context and moderation are important.

Foster City has been just fine

Emphasis on the word "has."

https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/urban/sfbay/liquefaction/sfbay/

For further information, see Marina District, October 17, 1989.

[skluth]

San Francisco Bay is important to the region.  The moderate salinity in between the ocean and fresh water is a home to many marine species which in turn support birds.  I am glad that Bay was not shrunk even more by poorly though out fill projects.

The coastal strip from the Coast Range to the ocean is very scenic and not that great for building on.  Steep slopes on unstable hillsides, heavy rain as storm systems move in from the ocean, and a lot of foggy weather that most people would rather visit occassionally than live in.  On the whole, it's good that vast amounts of subdivisions were not built there.  Looking for more housing, I look instead at the square mile after square mile developed as single-family homes that are now all too expensive for middle class workers.  Too bad they didn't develop some areas as mid-rise apartments and other areas as single-family homes.

There are similar plan sheets floating around for Marin County and East Bay as well.  Back in the day filling in the bay was seen as "reclaiming" underutilized land, so freeways were shown east of 101 to serve these newly developable areas.  The real amazing scheme was to construct dams north and south of the central bay to protect these reclaimed lands and to keep the salt water out; hence creation of the Bay Model in Sausalito to study the idea (which concluded that it was impractical, particularly for the northern dam with the volume of water coming through the delta and San Pablo Bay).  Marin has its share of cancelled freeways too, laid out on the assumption that the western part of the county would be subdivided into 7,000sf lots. 

Between learning that building on fill on top of bay mud is not the most sound practice and that lands west of the coast range are generally steep and unstable, it was wise to retain much of it in its natural state or use it for less intensive (and costly to maintain/repair) purposes.  Concrete and condos as far as the eye can see is not necessarily a desirable environment - context and moderation are important.

I'm not keen with living on landfills or any filling in of wetlands, despite the long Japanese and Dutch history of doing so. I don't mind causeways and other ways of bridging mud flats and other shallows. When I lived in Tidewater, I saw how Virginia and North Carolina both will build causeways parallel to the old highways to better move traffic. The new VA 164 north of Port Norfolk (the neighborhood in Portsmouth next to Shea Terrace where I lived) greatly improved the quality of life in Port Norfolk as the traffic now bypassed the neighborhood. North Carolina is currently working on a new NC 12 around the Pea Island refuge which will help endangered and threatened species in the refuge. I think California should consider a similar structure along the western edge of SF Bay. They could sweeten the deal by adding bicycle and transit to the corridor. It wouldn't be cheap, but what is these days.

[kernals12]

San Francisco Bay is important to the region.  The moderate salinity in between the ocean and fresh water is a home to many marine species which in turn support birds.  I am glad that Bay was not shrunk even more by poorly though out fill projects.

The coastal strip from the Coast Range to the ocean is very scenic and not that great for building on.  Steep slopes on unstable hillsides, heavy rain as storm systems move in from the ocean, and a lot of foggy weather that most people would rather visit occassionally than live in.  On the whole, it's good that vast amounts of subdivisions were not built there.  Looking for more housing, I look instead at the square mile after square mile developed as single-family homes that are now all too expensive for middle class workers.  Too bad they didn't develop some areas as mid-rise apartments and other areas as single-family homes.

There are similar plan sheets floating around for Marin County and East Bay as well.  Back in the day filling in the bay was seen as "reclaiming" underutilized land, so freeways were shown east of 101 to serve these newly developable areas.  The real amazing scheme was to construct dams north and south of the central bay to protect these reclaimed lands and to keep the salt water out; hence creation of the Bay Model in Sausalito to study the idea (which concluded that it was impractical, particularly for the northern dam with the volume of water coming through the delta and San Pablo Bay).  Marin has its share of cancelled freeways too, laid out on the assumption that the western part of the county would be subdivided into 7,000sf lots. 

Between learning that building on fill on top of bay mud is not the most sound practice and that lands west of the coast range are generally steep and unstable, it was wise to retain much of it in its natural state or use it for less intensive (and costly to maintain/repair) purposes.  Concrete and condos as far as the eye can see is not necessarily a desirable environment - context and moderation are important.

I'm not keen with living on landfills or any filling in of wetlands, despite the long Japanese and Dutch history of doing so. I don't mind causeways and other ways of bridging mud flats and other shallows. When I lived in Tidewater, I saw how Virginia and North Carolina both will build causeways parallel to the old highways to better move traffic. The new VA 164 north of Port Norfolk (the neighborhood in Portsmouth next to Shea Terrace where I lived) greatly improved the quality of life in Port Norfolk as the traffic now bypassed the neighborhood. North Carolina is currently working on a new NC 12 around the Pea Island refuge which will help endangered and threatened species in the refuge. I think California should consider a similar structure along the western edge of SF Bay. They could sweeten the deal by adding bicycle and transit to the corridor. It wouldn't be cheap, but what is these days.

It'd be way less expensive than that stupid HSR.

[Max Rockatansky]

San Francisco Bay is important to the region.  The moderate salinity in between the ocean and fresh water is a home to many marine species which in turn support birds.  I am glad that Bay was not shrunk even more by poorly though out fill projects.

The coastal strip from the Coast Range to the ocean is very scenic and not that great for building on.  Steep slopes on unstable hillsides, heavy rain as storm systems move in from the ocean, and a lot of foggy weather that most people would rather visit occassionally than live in.  On the whole, it's good that vast amounts of subdivisions were not built there.  Looking for more housing, I look instead at the square mile after square mile developed as single-family homes that are now all too expensive for middle class workers.  Too bad they didn't develop some areas as mid-rise apartments and other areas as single-family homes.

There are similar plan sheets floating around for Marin County and East Bay as well.  Back in the day filling in the bay was seen as "reclaiming" underutilized land, so freeways were shown east of 101 to serve these newly developable areas.  The real amazing scheme was to construct dams north and south of the central bay to protect these reclaimed lands and to keep the salt water out; hence creation of the Bay Model in Sausalito to study the idea (which concluded that it was impractical, particularly for the northern dam with the volume of water coming through the delta and San Pablo Bay).  Marin has its share of cancelled freeways too, laid out on the assumption that the western part of the county would be subdivided into 7,000sf lots. 

Between learning that building on fill on top of bay mud is not the most sound practice and that lands west of the coast range are generally steep and unstable, it was wise to retain much of it in its natural state or use it for less intensive (and costly to maintain/repair) purposes.  Concrete and condos as far as the eye can see is not necessarily a desirable environment - context and moderation are important.

I'm not keen with living on landfills or any filling in of wetlands, despite the long Japanese and Dutch history of doing so. I don't mind causeways and other ways of bridging mud flats and other shallows. When I lived in Tidewater, I saw how Virginia and North Carolina both will build causeways parallel to the old highways to better move traffic. The new VA 164 north of Port Norfolk (the neighborhood in Portsmouth next to Shea Terrace where I lived) greatly improved the quality of life in Port Norfolk as the traffic now bypassed the neighborhood. North Carolina is currently working on a new NC 12 around the Pea Island refuge which will help endangered and threatened species in the refuge. I think California should consider a similar structure along the western edge of SF Bay. They could sweeten the deal by adding bicycle and transit to the corridor. It wouldn't be cheap, but what is these days.

It'd be way less expensive than that stupid HSR.

Ergo what I posted in another thread about Bay Area transportation priorities, they tend to be abstract compared to the rest of the state.  Interestingly though, the only HSR segment that is presently being funded and constructed is Merced-Bakersfield.  The rest of the HSR presently isn't funded nor has a time table to be.  The project while not outright cancelled is pretty far fetched after Gavin Newsom scaled back planned construction to the Merced-Bakersfield segment.  So to that end, your point is kind of mute since the only HSR construction going on is in Caltrans District 6.  D6 has probably benefited from SB1 road repairs/upgrades than any other Caltrans District. 

[silverback1065]

to be honest, i'm glad the one that was proposed for the bay was cancelled. building a freeway in that area would have been an environmental disaster!

[Max Rockatansky]

to be honest, i'm glad the one that was proposed for the bay was cancelled. building a freeway in that area would have been an environmental disaster!

Which freeway?  Or do you mean the HSR?  Amusingly a lot projects don't get "cancelled"  often in California, they usually get shelved indefinitely.  Almost all the Legislatively defined highways in the Bay Area that were never built still exist in obscure Legislative Route definition.  I have a feeling the HSR is destined for a similar fate in regards to its unconstructed segments. 

[silverback1065]

to be honest, i'm glad the one that was proposed for the bay was cancelled. building a freeway in that area would have been an environmental disaster!

Which freeway?  Or do you mean the HSR?  Amusingly a lot projects don't get "cancelled"  often in California, they usually get shelved indefinitely.  Almost all the Legislatively defined highways in the Bay Area that were never built still exist in obscure Legislative Route definition.  I have a feeling the HSR is destined for a similar fate in regards to its unconstructed segments.

just the bayfront. i think that freeway was supposed to end with a crazy y shaped interchange near the bay bridge too

[Max Rockatansky]

to be honest, i'm glad the one that was proposed for the bay was cancelled. building a freeway in that area would have been an environmental disaster!

Which freeway?  Or do you mean the HSR?  Amusingly a lot projects don't get "cancelled"  often in California, they usually get shelved indefinitely.  Almost all the Legislatively defined highways in the Bay Area that were never built still exist in obscure Legislative Route definition.  I have a feeling the HSR is destined for a similar fate in regards to its unconstructed segments.

just the bayfront. i think that freeway was supposed to end with a crazy y shaped interchange near the bay bridge too

So basically the unbuilt portion of CA 87?  If I recall correctly it was supposed to be built on reclaimed land.  Similarly CA 61 was supposed parallel I-80 north of Oakland on reclaimed land.  Even I-280 had a different planned alignment at one point which took it more or less up 19th Avenue in San Francisco.  Really I-280 probably could be cut back to US 101 and few would miss it.

Really the Embarcadero Freeway was Orwellian enough that it probably did more to start the freeway revolt movement than any planned highway ever could. 

[silverback1065]

to be honest, i'm glad the one that was proposed for the bay was cancelled. building a freeway in that area would have been an environmental disaster!

Which freeway?  Or do you mean the HSR?  Amusingly a lot projects don't get "cancelled"  often in California, they usually get shelved indefinitely.  Almost all the Legislatively defined highways in the Bay Area that were never built still exist in obscure Legislative Route definition.  I have a feeling the HSR is destined for a similar fate in regards to its unconstructed segments.

just the bayfront. i think that freeway was supposed to end with a crazy y shaped interchange near the bay bridge too

So basically the unbuilt portion of CA 87?  If I recall correctly it was supposed to be built on reclaimed land.  Similarly CA 61 was supposed parallel I-80 north of Oakland on reclaimed land.  Even I-280 had a different planned alignment at one point which took it more or less up 19th Avenue in San Francisco.  Really I-280 probably could be cut back to US 101 and few would miss it.

Really the Embarcadero Freeway was Orwellian enough that it probably did more to start the freeway revolt movement than any planned highway ever could.

honestly, the only way i'd fix this area is turn ca 1 into a freeway from us 101 down to where it hits 280, extend 80 (as a tunnel or capped freeway) to this new ca1 freeway, then extend the us 101 freeway from where it dies at 80 up to the bay bridge area. remove 280 east of us 101. ca480 was a stupid idea.

[TheStranger]

to be honest, i'm glad the one that was proposed for the bay was cancelled. building a freeway in that area would have been an environmental disaster!

Which freeway?  Or do you mean the HSR?  Amusingly a lot projects don't get "cancelled"  often in California, they usually get shelved indefinitely.  Almost all the Legislatively defined highways in the Bay Area that were never built still exist in obscure Legislative Route definition.  I have a feeling the HSR is destined for a similar fate in regards to its unconstructed segments.

just the bayfront. i think that freeway was supposed to end with a crazy y shaped interchange near the bay bridge too

So basically the unbuilt portion of CA 87?  If I recall correctly it was supposed to be built on reclaimed land.  Similarly CA 61 was supposed parallel I-80 north of Oakland on reclaimed land.  Even I-280 had a different planned alignment at one point which took it more or less up 19th Avenue in San Francisco.  Really I-280 probably could be cut back to US 101 and few would miss it.

Really the Embarcadero Freeway was Orwellian enough that it probably did more to start the freeway revolt movement than any planned highway ever could. 

- The segment of the Bayshore Freeway in Potrero Hill in the mid-1950s was the first thing that raised local ire (due to dividing Potrero Hill and Mission districts), but the most intense battle was the I-80 extension west to Golden Gate Park (one of the ideas silverback1065 mentioned in his post), the Western Freeway which would have been in the Panhandle park area near Haight-Ashbury. 

- 280 east of 101 is still a viable commute corridor - I've mentioned this in several other threads - and after Mayor Ed Lee passed away, his proposal to have it removed died out, and had been ardently opposed by residents in the Dogpatch neighborhood that the route serves.


- The Bayfront freeway proposal - legislatively a north extension of Route 87 from San Jose - would have ended in Hunter's Point (at the unbuilt Route 230) in southern San Francisco, with the segment of 280 north of Cesar Chavez being the northernmost extent of 87 from 1964-1968, though likely never signed as such.  The interchange that would have connected it to the Bay Bridge was the existing 480/80 junction that was removed after 1991.

- While 480 itself was seen as a barrier to waterfront development, its removal under Mayor Art Agnos led Chinatown merchants and others to not support his re-election in 1991, and he was voted out then in part due to that opposition.  Agnos later actually supported the Dogpatch residents' desire to have 280 retained between Cesar Chavez and the ballpark.

- The Route 1/19th Avenue corridor was originally to have been given a freeway upgrade in the form of the original (1955-1968) I-280 proposal through the Inner Sunset and Inner Richmond, including the 80/280 Golden Gate Park interchange near Kezar Stadium back when that was the home of the 49ers.  I remember asking a teacher in high school about this one and he noted that there was plenty of opposition of that route from residents and existing businesses and schools along that path.

As it ended up, the only portions of the pre-1968 280 that exist in San Francisco are the 1950s Route 1 freeway between Daly City and Font Boulevard in SF, and the short freeway portion of Route 1 through the tunnels from Lake Street in the Inner Richmond north through the Presidio to US 101. 

The wide area along Laguna Honda Boulevard south of 7th Avenue would have been some of the right of way for 1955-1968 I-280, along with Junipero Serra Boulevard north of Route 1 and the Park Presidio Boulevard segment of Route 1 north of Golden Gate Park.

[kkt]

I think California should consider a similar structure along the western edge of SF Bay.

Most of the Bayshore Freeway (101) was built on fill.  That's part of the reason the pavement cracks and suffers heaves almost as soon as they finish repaving it.

[mrsman]

to be honest, i'm glad the one that was proposed for the bay was cancelled. building a freeway in that area would have been an environmental disaster!

Which freeway?  Or do you mean the HSR?  Amusingly a lot projects don't get "cancelled"  often in California, they usually get shelved indefinitely.  Almost all the Legislatively defined highways in the Bay Area that were never built still exist in obscure Legislative Route definition.  I have a feeling the HSR is destined for a similar fate in regards to its unconstructed segments.

just the bayfront. i think that freeway was supposed to end with a crazy y shaped interchange near the bay bridge too

So basically the unbuilt portion of CA 87?  If I recall correctly it was supposed to be built on reclaimed land.  Similarly CA 61 was supposed parallel I-80 north of Oakland on reclaimed land.  Even I-280 had a different planned alignment at one point which took it more or less up 19th Avenue in San Francisco.  Really I-280 probably could be cut back to US 101 and few would miss it.

Really the Embarcadero Freeway was Orwellian enough that it probably did more to start the freeway revolt movement than any planned highway ever could.

honestly, the only way i'd fix this area is turn ca 1 into a freeway from us 101 down to where it hits 280, extend 80 (as a tunnel or capped freeway) to this new ca1 freeway, then extend the us 101 freeway from where it dies at 80 up to the bay bridge area. remove 280 east of us 101. ca480 was a stupid idea.

I agree with silverback's assessment.  As a kid, I would pore over maps of SF and imagine these two roadways, in some form or another.  What are attractive about those ROWs is that much of the land was urban parkland - fewer homes and businesses that need to be bulldozed.  Park Presidio freeway could be built today all the way to the park without taking a single home.  THe Pahnhandle could be built and only 10 square blocks (including the DMV) would need to be bulldozed (this was back when the Central Fwy extended to Golden Gate Ave, obviously with the freeway ending at Market today this can no longer be done as easily).  From the Park to Daly City, there seemed to be less obvious options as the 19th Ave corridor was not wide enough for a freeway without significant takings.  Sunset Blvd, built like the existing Park Presidio, could accommodate a freeway without much demolition.

Venturing slightly into the fictional, my preference was to remove Sunset Blvd between Irving and Yorba and replace it with a Fell/Oak style one-way couplet along 36th and 37th.  This would allow for 15 square blocks of devlopable land to replace housing and some of the parkland lost with the Panhandle Fwy.  Great Highwy and Skyline could be upgraded to freeways to accommodate traffic from CA-1 in Daly City (somewhat near the 280 as well) to GG Park (and thence to the GG Bridge following Park-Presidio). 

Even without a freeway, I always thought it was relatively cheap to turn Great Highway into a truly high speed corridor to connect Daly City with western SF.  The stretch had very few at-grade intersections.  Imagine if you simply removed the pedestrian crossing signals (and replaced them with bridges) between Lincoln and Sloat.  You'd have a SF version of an at-grade mini-freeway with very little construction cost.  It'd be similar to Pershing drive on the west side of LAX.

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9509199,-118.4388005,3a,75y,122.73h,87.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfRpQZb195eUG5P5pvwYhrA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[skluth]

I think California should consider a similar structure along the western edge of SF Bay.

Most of the Bayshore Freeway (101) was built on fill.  That's part of the reason the pavement cracks and suffers heaves almost as soon as they finish repaving it.

I wasn't proposing building it on fill. I was proposing a causeway above the shallow waters and mudflats like they do along the East Coast in Virginia and North Carolina. Florida is doing the same thing to elevate short sections of US 41 over the Everglades to improve the fresh water flow. It's also how Louisiana built I-10 west of New Orleans through the swamp. The pilings are driven through the mud to the bedrock. The last thing I want is more landfill.