Regional Boards > Pacific Southwest

I-980 Oakland CA Signage

(1/3) > >>

In the last two months since I have had to drive from Oakland to Concord for work regularly I have noticed that CalTrans has erected I-980 trailblazers on the mainline of I-980/CA-24 over the Downtown Oakland section between the Nimitz and MacArthur freeways in both directions. Most of the westbound signs have green directionals but have the first letter W in "West" as a larger font than the "EST", and no mention of CA-24 is made in this section whereas the eastbound directionals are the correct blue color.

I seem to think this coincides with some of the construction going on with the fourth Caldecott bore. Somehow this leads me to believe that, once the Caldecott is expanded to two bores each direction, CalTrans will be asking to replace CA-24 with I-980 over the whole freeway from I-880 to I-680. Does anyone know if this indeed is the ultimate plan or is my mind just dreaming?

It would make sense. CA-24 extends northeast to I-680 and is a freeway for its entire length and thus would seem to make perfect sense to replace it with I-980.

However, 3di with an odd leading digit are intended to be spurs that only meet an Interstate on one end. Extended I-980 northeast to I-680 would continue to violate this principal, which I understand really isn't followed all that much throughout the country. It's completely out of the way, but I always felt there should be another Bay crossing that linked I-980 to I-380 and then cancel one of the numbers so you have just one long route with an odd leading digit that ends how it's supposed to.

I had considered this idea as well: Extend 980 north along 680 for approx 4 miles and over the existing CA-242 and CA-4 freeways east over Willow Pass into Pittsburg/Antioch/Brentwood and end at the end of the planned freeway bypass at the Vasco Road/Marsh Creek Road intersection in Brentwood, thus giving the communities of East Contra Costa County access to the Interstate system. And you solve the Interstate-at-both-ends problem.

There already exists precedent for this type of maneuver in the Bay Area: look at the section of 580 that co-routes with 80 between Albany and the Maze. CA-4 could be re-routed back onto its old surface roads or multiplexed, either works fine.

national highway 1:
If Caltrans wants to sign 24 as an interstate, until the fourth bore is completed, why not sign it as CA 980? (similar thing with CA 905 in San Diego; it used to be CA 117)

I think you guys have fabricated this "interstate at one end" rule. Bay Area geography is weird, and therefore so are some of the I numbers, but this is clearly a spur route.

In regards to the OP, I'm not sure what has changed. IIRC I-980 has always suddenly disappeared just east of I-580.

I am guessing they will be very slow to sign 24 as 980, mostly because Caltrans is lazy, but also because the sedate upper-class towns on the route will oppose additional truck traffic.


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version