Freeway Closed sign on 101n

[jander]

Can anyone provide information on this freeway closed sign?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4766290673/in/album-72157624355660417/

When was it installed and why?

[bing101]

Is this when the Central Freeway was around?

[TheStranger]

Is this when the Central Freeway was around?

The Central Freeway still exists between Market Street and Interstate 80.

The ramp in question is near the east terminus of the Central Freeway, but it is for traffic from southbound 10th Street to the southbound Bayshore Freeway.  I use it approximately 2-3 times a week.

[sparker]

^^^^^
Since I don't believe I've ever entered SB 101 at that ramp, I haven't actually seen the sign (although I'm going to make it a point to do so the next time I'm up that way).  It's neon, which means it was probably erected by S.F. (rather than Caltrans D4) some time ago; clearly aimed at diverting traffic to the parallel surface street (Potrero) after an accident or in case of serious and protracted congestion.  If there's a similar sign at 7th and Harrison (WB Skyway at that point) and it's been seen lit on occasion (which from the blog discussion doesn't seem to happen often with the one pictured), that would seem to indicate that there is still significant traffic segueing from WB I-80 to NB US 101/Central freeway despite that freeway's truncation -- enough "diversion" to keep the 10th St. entrance shown from having its sign "triggered" by undue issues.  I'll bet those signs date from at least the early '80's -- prior to the widespread use of "dot matrix" signage that allows for changeable messages. 

[TheStranger]

that would seem to indicate that there is still significant traffic segueing from WB I-80 to NB US 101/Central freeway despite that freeway's truncation -- enough "diversion" to keep the 10th St. entrance shown from having its sign "triggered" by undue issues. 

What's interesting that comes to mind here: the WB 80 to NB 101 ramp used to be...I-80's western continuation onto the Central Freeway!

Until the freeway revolts fully nixed the Western Freeway routing through the Panhandle, near Kezar Stadium, and into Golden Gate Park, 80 was slated to use the Central Freeway approximately along the extent it existed from 1991-2005 (to Fell Street, where the Western Freeway would have begun).  I think this explains why 101 north enters the Central Freeway on the right, after being the through left lanes from the Bayshore Freeway, while the ramp from 80 west becomes the leftmost lanes of the Central Freeway at its start.

I mentioned in a  previous thread I've seen a 1984 video of the Skyway on Youtube that shows the westbound pullthrough signs near the 80/480 junction as "I-80/US 101 Civic Center", rather than the current "US 101 San Jose/Golden Gate Bridge" - this seems to fit in with the pre-1968 plan to have 80 continue down the Central Freeway for that mile and a half or so. 

[sparker]

Took that Central Freeway many times pre-'89 quake when US 101 emptied out onto the Turk/Golden Gate E-W couplet that took it a block east to its old Van Ness alignment.  The twin ramps originally intended for the Western (I-80) freeway themselves were sub-configured for the Fell/Oak couplet; there were "shelves" on the double-deck ramp structure that were to be the start of the through I-80 lanes.  They would have immediately emptied out into a lengthy set of twin tunnels that would take it over to a block or so from Divisadero, where it would remain in a trench until the Panhandle, which was also to be a trench, likely partially covered.  The freeway revolt happened before a Golden Gate Park configuration could be devised, so nothing west of Kezar was ever set in stone.  Besides the usual rationales behind the freeway revolt, the fact that the Panhandle lay along the north edge of the Haight-Ashbury district, which was perpetually in the public eye during the mid-to-late '60's and early '70's made the Western Freeway plans for its parkland segment front-and-center in the general "anti-establishment" mode of the day.  Once those plans were conflated with the ambience generated by the myriad protestors who invariably staged many of their gatherings in the Panhandle, where they would have maximum visibility, you could stick a fork in the I-80 extension; it was done!  Couple that with the controversy over just where to put the N-S I-280 corridor (right down 19th Avenue; jogged over to Sunset, tunneled under the whole district) and the whole arrangement fell apart like a house of cards. 

According to my cousin who worked for the agency at the time, many of the engineers in District 4 were not terribly disappointed when the city freeways were deleted from the system; they (probably correctly) saw the entire S.F. project as an endless "money pit", with the cost of both property acquisition and construction so high as to jeopardize progress on the remainder of the freeway projects in the district, including I-280 down the peninsula.   

[mrsman]

Took that Central Freeway many times pre-'89 quake when US 101 emptied out onto the Turk/Golden Gate E-W couplet that took it a block east to its old Van Ness alignment.  The twin ramps originally intended for the Western (I-80) freeway themselves were sub-configured for the Fell/Oak couplet; there were "shelves" on the double-deck ramp structure that were to be the start of the through I-80 lanes.  They would have immediately emptied out into a lengthy set of twin tunnels that would take it over to a block or so from Divisadero, where it would remain in a trench until the Panhandle, which was also to be a trench, likely partially covered.  The freeway revolt happened before a Golden Gate Park configuration could be devised, so nothing west of Kezar was ever set in stone.  Besides the usual rationales behind the freeway revolt, the fact that the Panhandle lay along the north edge of the Haight-Ashbury district, which was perpetually in the public eye during the mid-to-late '60's and early '70's made the Western Freeway plans for its parkland segment front-and-center in the general "anti-establishment" mode of the day.  Once those plans were conflated with the ambience generated by the myriad protestors who invariably staged many of their gatherings in the Panhandle, where they would have maximum visibility, you could stick a fork in the I-80 extension; it was done!  Couple that with the controversy over just where to put the N-S I-280 corridor (right down 19th Avenue; jogged over to Sunset, tunneled under the whole district) and the whole arrangement fell apart like a house of cards. 

According to my cousin who worked for the agency at the time, many of the engineers in District 4 were not terribly disappointed when the city freeways were deleted from the system; they (probably correctly) saw the entire S.F. project as an endless "money pit", with the cost of both property acquisition and construction so high as to jeopardize progress on the remainder of the freeway projects in the district, including I-280 down the peninsula.   

I agree that many of the planned highways were probably not worth the cost of construction and displacement, but it is still a shame that there is no room for a connector of some sort between San Mateo County and the Golden Gate Bridge that doesn't involve a lot of traffic signals.  I always thought that Great Highway could be upgraded pretty easily without any displacement.  There are no intersections even between Lincoln and Sloat, those signals can be removed and replaced with pedestrian bridges (or tunnels).

I'm not as concerned about a connector between the GG Bridge and the Bay Bridge because for most of the North Bay, the Richmond Bridge would serve the area better. 

[Interstate 69 Fan]

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Unnamed+Road,+San+Francisco,+CA+94103/@37.7703225,-122.4095432,3a,75y,270.76h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1swJIaMpFhF3d6kIQ4YmINgA!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x808f7e2ed4a80145:0x3578ea2ac16f019a?hl=en-US
Here is where it is.

[TheStranger]

I agree that many of the planned highways were probably not worth the cost of construction and displacement, but it is still a shame that there is no room for a connector of some sort between San Mateo County and the Golden Gate Bridge that doesn't involve a lot of traffic signals.  I always thought that Great Highway could be upgraded pretty easily without any displacement.  There are no intersections even between Lincoln and Sloat, those signals can be removed and replaced with pedestrian bridges (or tunnels).

I'm not as concerned about a connector between the GG Bridge and the Bay Bridge because for most of the North Bay, the Richmond Bridge would serve the area better. 

Great Highway was a corridor considered for freeway upgrades in very early (1940s/1950s) plans.  Big problem now that would impede it is issues with erosion and sand blowing onto the road - one lane of the southbound carriageway was permanently closed and transformed into a parking area between Sloat and Skyline, and the long section between Lincoln and Sloat sometimes gets closed due to too much sand on the roadway.

North of Lincoln, it also would be very hard to find any useable right of way between there and the Presidio at either US 101 or Route 1.