Looks like the CA 262 Project is finally happening (kinda)

[Voyager]

Having driven this for many years and watching it slowly progress, this is probably welcome news to a ton of South Bay drivers. I do find it a bit odd that they're not building the 680 connection as a full freeway since it seems like it'll just move the choke point down the road.

[Max Rockatansky]

The real question is, will CA 262 actually be fully signed?

[Voyager]

The real question is, will CA 262 actually be fully signed?

Sure, as "To 680" (I hope they actually sign it properly).

[TheStranger]

Would this beat out Route 132 in Modesto (the originally planned I-5W split) for being oldest planned freeway project to finally occur in California?  (Since this was part of the original I-680 proposal from about 1956-1965)

[Max Rockatansky]

Not if you count the 1947 iteration of the Interstate System.  The freeway segment of 132 west of 99 would have been the branch point for the Interstate to the Bay Area.

[Quillz]

So this will turn a surface street into a freeway?

[Voyager]

So this will turn a surface street into a freeway?

Either by trenching 4 lanes and creating narrow side streets or building a viaduct over them.

[The Ghostbuster]

What do the locals think of this proposal? Are they up-in-arms about it? I hardly think this is the kind of proposal that they would just say "meh" to.

[SeriesE]

This design still going to have weaving problems where the local traffic merges with traffic coming from the direct connector.

Diamond interchange on the west side of I-680? That seems like a downgrade.

Why not something like I-405/Harbor Blvd where it's a parclo A4 but traffic entering the freeway gets a c/d road so they bypass traffic lights?

[bing101]

Dang if this is approved then CA-262 would be tied with CA-77 in Oakland for shortest signed state highway.

[Max Rockatansky]

Nah, CA 262 is one mile long.  You have to get to half mile territory to compete with CA 77.

[ClassicHasClass]

And yet CA 153 keeps its trophy plaque.

[Max Rockatansky]

And yet CA 153 keeps its trophy plaque.

My theory was that Caltrans was counting the "unconstructed" mileage with CA 77.  Either way, none of this business with CA 153 makes sense with CA 283 and CA 275 out there.

[TheStranger]

Dang if this is approved then CA-262 would be tied with CA-77 in Oakland for shortest signed state highway.

262 already has been signed for at least 2-3 years now (notably coming off of 880, and on lighted overhead sign blades at Warm Springs Boulevard).

[DTComposer]

Dang if this is approved then CA-262 would be tied with CA-77 in Oakland for shortest signed state highway.

262 already has been signed for at least 2-3 years now (notably coming off of 880, and on lighted overhead sign blades at Warm Springs Boulevard).

There are matching reassurance signs - CA-262 East signed just before Warm Springs Boulevard, and CA-262 West signed just past the I-680 interchange.

While I understand the need to reconfigure the I-680 interchange to accommodate the ramps to/from the frontage road version of Mission Blvd., I completely agree that signalizing the interchange will create a serious choke point. At the very least, the E-262 to N-680 and S-680 to W-262 movements need to be free-flowing.

[jdbx]

Dang if this is approved then CA-262 would be tied with CA-77 in Oakland for shortest signed state highway.

262 already has been signed for at least 2-3 years now (notably coming off of 880, and on lighted overhead sign blades at Warm Springs Boulevard).

There are matching reassurance signs - CA-262 East signed just before Warm Springs Boulevard, and CA-262 West signed just past the I-680 interchange.

While I understand the need to reconfigure the I-680 interchange to accommodate the ramps to/from the frontage road version of Mission Blvd., I completely agree that signalizing the interchange will create a serious choke point. At the very least, the E-262 to N-680 and S-680 to W-262 movements need to be free-flowing.

I agree completely.  That first light for traffic coming from S-680 -> W-262 already creates a nasty backup all the way onto the offramp from 680.  The proposed design does nothing to mitigate that. A flyover for the E-262 -> N-680 movement would make the most sense as well, vs that existing tight loop.  At least the reconfiguration eliminates the worst of the weaving movements.