CA-24 Tunnel bore 2 8/8/14-8/15/14

[bing101]

http://www.caldecott-tunnel.org/index.php/traffic/traffic-advisories

"Purpose of Closures:
Since the Fourth Bore opened in late 2013, traffic using Bore #2 no longer needs to be shifted to accommodate both eastbound and westbound traffic during peak hours; Bore #2 is now permanently dedicated to eastbound traffic. In addition to signage and alignment changes to reflect the permanent dedication of the bore to eastbound traffic, the approach to Bore #2 will be regraded to smooth traffic flow and bring the lanes up to current freeway standards. This will result in a smoother approach to Bore #2, which will aid eastbound traffic flow.
In order to minimize disruptions to motorists, Caltrans has scheduled work to occur during a period of typically low traffic volume. We thank motorists in advance for their cooperation during the upcoming closure."


From the Press Release. This is interesting.

[andy3175]

This closure makes sense and is a good move to make the new configuration on SR 24 appear permanent.

[national highway 1]

So while the fourth bore has been opened, is Caltrans interested in maybe perhaps changing CA 24 to I-980?

[sdmichael]

Why? State 24 is a good number and has also been around since 1934. 980 as it is now is rather pointless. Not everything "needs" an Interstate designation nor is everything a preparation for such.

[Bickendan]

If anything, CA 24 should become I-24... like I-238

[bing101]

What about renaming ca 24 into CA 980? Since bore 4 was done in 2013.

[roadfro]

What about renaming ca 24 into CA 980? Since bore 4 was done in 2013.

I don't see the relevance to your statement...

[JustDrive]

It's a lot easier to remove all the 980 shields (given that the route is not signed on its own) than to replace all the CA 24 shields between Oakland and Walnut Creek.  But then, there really isn't a reason why.

[mrsman]

I think the point of renumbering the highway is to emphasize that CA-24 and I-980 are one corridor and should only have one number.  Since it is now all interstate quality, the whole corridor can become I-980.

In my book, there was no need for I-980 along the part between I-580 and I-880, it could have stayed as CA-24. 

But if politicians were really keen on making that stretch an interstate, then they should have changed CA-24 to CA-980 at the time that I-980 was introduced.   This would be similar to what happened along the 110 corridor in L.A.  After the 1964 renumbering, the entire stretch from Pasadena to San Pedro was CA-11.  When the Harbor Freeway was upgraded to interstate standards in the 1980's, it became I-110.  The existing Pasadena Freeway (now Arroyo Seco Pkwy) and Gaffey Street segments of CA-11, which are not to interstate standards were renumbered to CA-110.

[TheStranger]

In my book, there was no need for I-980 along the part between I-580 and I-880, it could have stayed as CA-24.

The entire existence of 980 was a late-70s push to use Interstate funds to complete the section between then-17 (now 880) and 580.

I do think it should have been applied to the entire corridor though.

The existing Pasadena Freeway (now Arroyo Seco Pkwy) and Gaffey Street segments of CA-11, which are not to interstate standards were renumbered to CA-110.

My guess as to why that didn't happen:

When 11 became I-110/Route 110, most of the route (based on southbound signage, about 22 miles; based on northbound signage, about 19) became the Interstate, so it made sense to use the number as well for the non-Interstate portion.

Conversely, 3 years later, when 17 between 280 and the MacArthur Maze received the 880 number, I guess it was felt that the 26 miles of 17 remaining should keep the number they've had since 1936-1937.  Similar logic to 24/980 (where the majority of the route including the tunnels retains the number it has had since 1934).

[emory]

In my book, there was no need for I-980 along the part between I-580 and I-880, it could have stayed as CA-24.

The entire existence of 980 was a late-70s push to use Interstate funds to complete the section between then-17 (now 880) and 580.

I do think it should have been applied to the entire corridor though.

The existing Pasadena Freeway (now Arroyo Seco Pkwy) and Gaffey Street segments of CA-11, which are not to interstate standards were renumbered to CA-110.

My guess as to why that didn't happen:

When 11 became I-110/Route 110, most of the route (based on southbound signage, about 22 miles; based on northbound signage, about 19) became the Interstate, so it made sense to use the number as well for the non-Interstate portion.

Conversely, 3 years later, when 17 between 280 and the MacArthur Maze received the 880 number, I guess it was felt that the 26 miles of 17 remaining should keep the number they've had since 1936-1937.  Similar logic to 24/980 (where the majority of the route including the tunnels retains the number it has had since 1934).

If they only renumbered the interstate portion you'd have old Route 11 bookending both ends of a new Route 110, so for consistency's sake it makes sense.

[TheStranger]

If they only renumbered the interstate portion you'd have old Route 11 bookending both ends of a new Route 110, so for consistency's sake it makes sense.

Agreed.

With Route 17, it was a special case: there WAS a segment north of the MacArthur Maze, but that all became part of an extended 580 (after CalTrans basically refused to accept the originally proposed 180 numbering due to not wanting to renumber 1934-present Route 180 in Fresno).

[kkt]

If they only renumbered the interstate portion you'd have old Route 11 bookending both ends of a new Route 110, so for consistency's sake it makes sense.

Agreed.

With Route 17, it was a special case: there WAS a segment north of the MacArthur Maze, but that all became part of an extended 580 (after CalTrans basically refused to accept the originally proposed 180 numbering due to not wanting to renumber 1934-present Route 180 in Fresno).

Speaking of the extension of 580, why did Caltrans rule out numbering the Oakland-San Rafael portion as an extension of I-880?  It seems like it would make more sense than extending I-580:  I-880 would be all of the freeway portion of old CA 17, and it would avoid the conflicting direction indications where 80 East is duplexed with 580 West.

[TheStranger]

Speaking of the extension of 580, why did Caltrans rule out numbering the Oakland-San Rafael portion as an extension of I-880?  It seems like it would make more sense than extending I-580:  I-880 would be all of the freeway portion of old CA 17, and it would avoid the conflicting direction indications where 80 East is duplexed with 580 West.

Though the obvious answer comes to mind first (880 as is routed has termini at two interstates, which is not the case for the freeway from Richmond to San Rafael), I also think the fact it was considered originally (1981-1984) on paper as a potential I-180 hinted at that part of 17 being seen as an entirely separate corridor from the Nimitz Freeway.

[mrsman]

Speaking of the extension of 580, why did Caltrans rule out numbering the Oakland-San Rafael portion as an extension of I-880?  It seems like it would make more sense than extending I-580:  I-880 would be all of the freeway portion of old CA 17, and it would avoid the conflicting direction indications where 80 East is duplexed with 580 West.

Though the obvious answer comes to mind first (880 as is routed has termini at two interstates, which is not the case for the freeway from Richmond to San Rafael), I also think the fact it was considered originally (1981-1984) on paper as a potential I-180 hinted at that part of 17 being seen as an entirely separate corridor from the Nimitz Freeway.

I suppose when planning the interstates and the numbering system, one would have to think and decide whether it makes more sense for the Richmond-San Rafael corridor to head towards Oakland and San JOse or head towards Fremont and Tracy.  In my view, it makes more sense to have a San Rafael-Oakland-San Jose corridor, especially considering the fact that at the "Maze" the Nimitz and the Eastshore were one corridor, especially before the 1989 earthquake (when the Nimitz got relocated after the earthquake damage).

In California, the rule that an even 3di should connect two interstates and an odd 3di should be a highway that doesn't isn't strictly followed.  See I-505 for example.  So we would not violate California practice if I-880 ended at US 101.

IMO, the 880 should've taken over the entire 17 corridor north of 280.  580 should be from the Maze to Castro Valley.  205 should take over the I-238 corridor all the way to 205/I-5 and I-705 should be for the  corridor from 580/205 to 580/5 (i.e. the shortcut from Altamont Pass toward Los Angeles).   

[kkt]

IMO, the 880 should've taken over the entire 17 corridor north of 280.  580 should be from the Maze to Castro Valley.  205 should take over the I-238 corridor all the way to 205/I-5 and I-705 should be for the  corridor from 580/205 to 580/5 (i.e. the shortcut from Altamont Pass toward Los Angeles).   

I have to disagree about 205 taking over 238 and the Castro Valley-Tracy portion of 580.  580 from Oakland to I-5 is the logical NW-SE route from the biggest population centers of the Bay Area to I-5, the route to the big population centers of Southern California.  The connection to the Bay Area via 580 is the main reason I-5 was built along the west side of the valley.  205, on the other hand, is a low-traffic afterthought.

[TheStranger]

In California, the rule that an even 3di should connect two interstates and an odd 3di should be a highway that doesn't isn't strictly followed.  See I-505 for example.  So we would not violate California practice if I-880 ended at US 101.

I've always interpreted California's usage of the odd 3di as "does not return to parent interstate" more than anything else, as opposed to "only one end at an Interstate" - usage which is not particularly uncommon nationwide (i.e. I-380 in Pennsylvania, I-395 in Connecticut/Massachussetts).  780 also qualifies for this distinction (and seems to have been chosen as the lowest number available back in 1974-1976).

To be fair, in the late 1950s, AASHO kinda directed California towards a very strict interpretation of the rule - what was submitted ca. 1958 as I-380 was then accepted as San Francisco's I-480, even though it did fit "only one end at parent" (and would ultimately never connect to another interstate).

280 not ending at another Interstate at the north end is a function entirely of route cancellation (its original intended end from 1956-1968 was at what would have been 480's terminus in the Presidio, and its intended end from 1968-1981 would have been at the 480/80 interchange near Transbay Terminal with the first couple of thousand feet of 480 becoming part of 280).  Interstate 210's terminus in San Dimas at two state routes right now is temporary.

205, on the other hand, is a low-traffic afterthought.

I'd disagree with that firmly (I used to drive it quite a bit as part of an alternate route from the Peninsula to Sacramento) - 205 was widened from 4 to 6 lanes sometime in the last couple of years.  Certainly the growth of Tracy as an exurb to the Bay Area has increased 205's importance.

[kkt]

205, on the other hand, is a low-traffic afterthought.

I'd disagree with that firmly (I used to drive it quite a bit as part of an alternate route from the Peninsula to Sacramento) - 205 was widened from 4 to 6 lanes sometime in the last couple of years.  Certainly the growth of Tracy as an exurb to the Bay Area has increased 205's importance.

You're right, 205 is getting more traffic than 580 east of the split now, and thanks for pointing that out.  But it's commute traffic to/from Tracy, Manteca, and Stockton, not long haul.  I'm not quite curious enough to go through old Caltrans reports and see when 205 became the higher traffic route.  I still think interstate numbering should reflect the needs of long-haul drivers in preference to commuters.