I-280

[Max Rockatansky]

I didn't see a previous catch-all thread for I-280 so I'd figure I would create one.  Just published a blog on the shifting alignment history of the north terminus of I-280:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/03/the-strange-evolution-of-interstate-280.html

[bing101]

I remember in Old Maps that I-280 was going to be on 19th Ave and I-80 was going to end on 19th ave too though.

Also where China Basin is Located that district prior to Oracle Park being in the area was then a wasteland for Loma Prieta rubble back in the 1990's prior to that area becoming the most gentrified and most expensive part of San Francisco though near the north end of I-280.

[TheStranger]

The most intriguing parts of the 280 routings that came to mind:

1. the short freeway segment along Route 1 up to Font Boulevard, which includes the original 1950s bridges for Alemany Boulevard flyover and the overpass crossing Brotherhood Way

2. On the Southern Freeway portion, the segment from Route 82 east to US 101 was originally built as US 101 mainline (back when Bayshore Freeway south of the Alemany Maze interchange was Bypass US 101).

3. Another segment of limited-access carriageway that would have been incorporated into the original I-280 is the Presidio section of Route 1 from Lake Street to US 101.

I know sparker mentioned in another thread that during the freeway revolts, Sunset Boulevard was actually suggested as a potential alignment due to the wide right of way without any need for structure removal along the frontages. 

---

On the south (Santa Clara County/San Jose) end, I remember seeing one map on Eric Fischer's page with today's east-west segment of 85 incorporated into a freeway that is much of today's 280. 
https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/5510423863/in/album-72157622139053795/


In another planning map from Eric's pages:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/5510425589
101 following Santa Teresa south of the 85/101 junction after using Monterey Road south of the old 101/Bypass 101 Y junction is interesting, and a little more complicated than what ended up happening.

87 north of 101 is shown as planned here as well.

Otherwise it is very interesting to see the Milpitas bypass portion of 680 + the downtown San Jose section of 280 (planned pre-1965 as Route 17) already on a planning map.

[nexus73]

My first time on I-280 would have been 1975.  It was such a modern looking freeway back then!  For "bad visuals" I saw a lot of tract housing but otherwise it was quite the route in those times.

Fast forward to 2013.  On the way back from the Southland, my friend and I took the Bayshore Freeway (US 101).  It was an enjoyable blast from the past with a stop to eat at a McDonald's that had a helicopter (non-functional) on display with the tiled floor reflecting an aviation theme.  Despite it being around 9 AM, traffic flowed just fine. 

Next to try for me: SR 82.  How much classic old school road architecture remains?  Did the new stuff overwhelm everything?  I am curious to see the original 101!

Rick

[Max Rockatansky]

My first time on I-280 would have been 1975.  It was such a modern looking freeway back then!  For "bad visuals" I saw a lot of tract housing but otherwise it was quite the route in those times.

Fast forward to 2013.  On the way back from the Southland, my friend and I took the Bayshore Freeway (US 101).  It was an enjoyable blast from the past with a stop to eat at a McDonald's that had a helicopter (non-functional) on display with the tiled floor reflecting an aviation theme.  Despite it being around 9 AM, traffic flowed just fine. 

Next to try for me: SR 82.  How much classic old school road architecture remains?  Did the new stuff overwhelm everything?  I am curious to see the original 101!

Rick

At some point I'll get something going for all of I-280.  The freeway is actually susprisingly scenic between 84 and I-380 along the San Andreas Fault.  With 82 the further you get from San Francisco you get the more modern looking the scenery becomes.  There are a couple places where it resembles vintage US 101 but those aren't the norm any longer. 

[TheStranger]

My first time on I-280 would have been 1975.  It was such a modern looking freeway back then!  For "bad visuals" I saw a lot of tract housing but otherwise it was quite the route in those times.

Fast forward to 2013.  On the way back from the Southland, my friend and I took the Bayshore Freeway (US 101).  It was an enjoyable blast from the past with a stop to eat at a McDonald's that had a helicopter (non-functional) on display with the tiled floor reflecting an aviation theme.  Despite it being around 9 AM, traffic flowed just fine. 

Next to try for me: SR 82.  How much classic old school road architecture remains?  Did the new stuff overwhelm everything?  I am curious to see the original 101!

Rick

At some point I'll get something going for all of I-280.  The freeway is actually susprisingly scenic between 84 and I-380 along the San Andreas Fault.  With 82 the further you get from San Francisco you get the more modern looking the scenery becomes.  There are a couple places where it resembles vintage US 101 but those aren't the norm any longer. 

Along old US 101/current Route 82...

The section in Burlingame probably has the most 1950s vibe to it

There's a little bit of older businesses in the stretch from Belmont to Sunnyvale, but not consistently so.  Since ECR has been the Peninsula's main street for decades, redevelopment is constant along the road.

Having said that, in South San Francisco there is a section of old US 101 bypassed in the 1930s, Mission Road/Antoinette Lane (which are not continuous to each other anymore) that predates the 6 lane bypass arterial that would be US 101 until 1964 and Route 82 to the present day.

[sparker]

Ther, is one historic oddity regarding I-280:  the bridges over SLAC (Stanford Linear Accelerator Center), on Stanford University land, were constructed between 1965 and 1967, some 4 years before the remaining construction on that segment of freeway commenced -- but in conjunction with the western extension of the accelerator (a long continuous structure that extends under the freeway).  This advance construction was done as a joint project between the Division of Highways and Stanford in order to ensure that any vibrations emanating from the bridge structure would not affect SLAC operations and experiments.  The bridge bents on either side of the accelerator building are double-isolated, with vibration-absorbing pads between the bridge beams and the vertical bents -- and the bents themselves are sitting in a "sheath" of sand and clays to dissipate any remaining vibrations that might be transmitted to the ground; the entire bridge structure therefore "floats" above the surrounding ground rather than terminating there.  It is held in place by its own weight; connected to the remainder of the freeway by a series of short metal bars over which traffic passes (driving it, one feels a series of minor "bumps" at the connecting bars as well as a bit of a "dip" in the middle of the bridge itself -- a deliberately designed "sag" due to the irregular hillside that was carved out to accommodate the accelerator structure.  The unusual design of this road-to-structure isolation interface was a condition imposed by Stanford University as part of the agreement to route I-280 through the back of campus property; there are seismometers installed in the ground underneath and adjacent to the bridge to measure the continuous effectiveness of the isolation measures; when particularly precise SLAC experiments are undertaken, I-280 has on rare occasion been closed for the duration of such an experiment.  This is a one-of-a-kind accommodation by Caltrans and its predecessor agency made necessary by the nature of this particular atom-smashing device.     

[bing101]

I noticed that San Francisco was proposed to have a beltway though where I-780, I-680, I-280, CA-480, US-101 in Marin County and CA-37 were all proposed to be this Bay Area Beltway. What if that beltway was really completed how much traffic would have been relieved plus the Southern Crossing.


When I see these highways on a map it makes a circle around the bay though.

[Max Rockatansky]

I noticed that San Francisco was proposed to have a beltway though where I-780, I-680, I-280, CA-480, US-101 in Marin County and CA-37 were all proposed to be this Bay Area Beltway. What if that beltway was really completed how much traffic would have been relieved plus the Southern Crossing.


When I see these highways on a map it makes a circle around the bay though.

They pretty much were meant to be a full beltway.  I-480 realistically never stood much of a chance to get to the Golden Gate Bridge given the terrain and urban growth.  I-280 on the original corridor would have been incredibly handy to have for connecting to the Golden Gate Bridge.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^
Since the S.F. economy has shifted over the last half-century from heavy industry as well as a primary P.O.E. -- most functions of which have migrated to the East Bay -- the necessity of southern freeway access to the Golden Gate Bridge has diminished considerably.  Commercial traffic to Marin County and points north along US 101 are readily accessed via I-580/Richmond-San Rafael Bridge, leaving the G.G. bridge to commuters and recreational traffic which, considering its physical limitations, is probably for the best.  As designed the original Interstate network in the city -- once away from the structures that served as "stub-ends" prior to the '89 earthquake -- would, even absent the '60's "freeway revolt", probably have consisted of a series of bored and cut-and-cover facilities (mainly due to S.F.'s history of politically connected NIMBY's), the property acquisition and construction costs of which would have dwarfed any other statewide highway projects.   Aside from the freeway facilities that currently exist, S.F. would in all likelihood been the poster child for an "out of sight/out of mind" freeway configuration.     

[GaryA]

I remember 280 as it was being built, since one of the first segments (west of 17) was near me.  The BGS at the then-east-end of the freeway did label what is now I-880 north as "I-280/I-680" since that was the originally proposed route (and the extension through downtown SJ hadn't been built).

We'd take family drives up 280 as it was being built, with some freeway segments being open and others not yet built.  One of the last segments to open was between Farm Hill and around 92, with Cañada Rd serving as the temporary route.

[bing101]

^^^^^^^^
Since the S.F. economy has shifted over the last half-century from heavy industry as well as a primary P.O.E. -- most functions of which have migrated to the East Bay -- the necessity of southern freeway access to the Golden Gate Bridge has diminished considerably.  Commercial traffic to Marin County and points north along US 101 are readily accessed via I-580/Richmond-San Rafael Bridge, leaving the G.G. bridge to commuters and recreational traffic which, considering its physical limitations, is probably for the best.  As designed the original Interstate network in the city -- once away from the structures that served as "stub-ends" prior to the '89 earthquake -- would, even absent the '60's "freeway revolt", probably have consisted of a series of bored and cut-and-cover facilities (mainly due to S.F.'s history of politically connected NIMBY's), the property acquisition and construction costs of which would have dwarfed any other statewide highway projects.   Aside from the freeway facilities that currently exist, S.F. would in all likelihood been the poster child for an "out of sight/out of mind" freeway configuration.   

Also as of 2019 Mission Bay and China Basin the areas where Chase Center(Golden State Warriors) and AT&T now Oracle Park is located is now the startup and VC hub of the city though.
Plus Caltrain, Bart, Muni and Ferries are mentioned as places where current San Francisco commuters demand transportation funds go to.

[bing101]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJbFkbmgs_c


the 1993 archives.

[Max Rockatansky]

Drove the rest of I-280, combined the previous photos into a single album for the entire Interstate:

https://flic.kr/s/aHskQ7TWXe

[Max Rockatansky]

Made a substantial update to the previous I-280 blog.  The blog now includes the entirety of I-280 from San Jose to King Street in San Francisco.  I included some overlook photos of I-280 from Reservoir Hill in Daly City looking into San Francisco.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/03/the-strange-evolution-of-interstate-280.html

[SoCal Kid]

Why does I-280 end and I-680 begin (or vice versa) at US 101. Why cant the whole route be either one? It kinda sounds dumb, but Im curious.

[sparker]

Why does I-280 end and I-680 begin (or vice versa) at US 101. Why cant the whole route be either one? It kinda sounds dumb, but Im curious.

Often wondered the same thing myself.  A possible explanation is that the function of the two routes are quite different -- although they have one common element -- linking San Jose to the parent I-80 (well, in the case of I-280, it turned out to be a "Maxwell Smart" situation: "missed it by that much!".  In it own weird way it sets San Jose apart as a singular destination -- considering the fact that SJ has long surpassed SF in population, the decision was somewhat prescient! 

[Techknow]

I-80, I-280, and I-680 to me serves as an effective beltway, but I don't recall any true beltways in California. Would it be realistic to think that Caltrans could have some kind of disdain towards them?

[TheStranger]

Why does I-280 end and I-680 begin (or vice versa) at US 101. Why cant the whole route be either one? It kinda sounds dumb, but Im curious.

Often wondered the same thing myself.  A possible explanation is that the function of the two routes are quite different -- although they have one common element -- linking San Jose to the parent I-80 (well, in the case of I-280, it turned out to be a "Maxwell Smart" situation: "missed it by that much!".  In it own weird way it sets San Jose apart as a singular destination -- considering the fact that SJ has long surpassed SF in population, the decision was somewhat prescient! 

I think also the paperclip shape of the overall route was a huge factor - having 280 north say in Hillsborough and then a corresponding, but different 280 north in Dublin about 35 miles east would not be intuitive at all.  It's similar to the 494/694 rectangle in the Twin Cities. 

I-80, I-280, and I-680 to me serves as an effective beltway, but I don't recall any true beltways in California. Would it be realistic to think that Caltrans could have some kind of disdain towards them?

I don't think the geography of any of the California cities ever lent itself to a true circular beltway, though sets of routes that effectively functioned as one have been proposed:

SF - had 480 been completed west of Broadway, 80 completed west of the 1992-2005 Central Freeway terminus at Fell Street, and the Junipero Serra Freeway finished north of Font Boulevard, a small belt route would have been created circling downtown, the Inner Richmond, and South of Market districts.  Another belt concept would have involved the Crosstown Freeway through Glen Canyon, which would have created a possible circle of 480, Junipero Serra (1/280), the Crosstown, and 280 between Monterey Boulevard in Glen Park and the never-finished 280/480 connection.

Sacramento - modern 80 (originally 1964-1982 880) is the north Beltline through Natomas, but an east leg of the loop (Route 143) paralleling Watt Avenue between the modern 80/Business 80 junction and Elk Grove was proposed.  The south leg proposal (Route 148) later evolved into the surface road that is modern Cosumnes River Boulevard, and the currently-proposed Capital Southeast Connector expressway.

San Diego - Based on how the freeways ended up being built, Route 52, part of Route 125, and the portion of Route 54 that was upgraded to freeway create a C-shaped eastern belt around the city.

[mrsman]

It is helpful to have two separate n s highways, on each side of the bay 280 & 680.  Yes they meet at one point, but their function is different.

Now look at I 295 near Philadelphia.  Goes n in NJ, around Trenton and then s all the way to the turnpike.  This is confusing.  It would have been better to have the pa portion, west of us 1 ( which used to be 95 before the 95/ turnpike) be a different number like 695.  I commented on this in fictional forums with this suggestion, basing 695/295 as a corrolary to 680/280.  Unless you have a near full circle beltway you don't want the same number reversing direction


Nexus 5X

[DTComposer]

Why does I-280 end and I-680 begin (or vice versa) at US 101. Why cant the whole route be either one? It kinda sounds dumb, but Im curious.

Often wondered the same thing myself.  A possible explanation is that the function of the two routes are quite different -- although they have one common element -- linking San Jose to the parent I-80 (well, in the case of I-280, it turned out to be a "Maxwell Smart" situation: "missed it by that much!".  In it own weird way it sets San Jose apart as a singular destination -- considering the fact that SJ has long surpassed SF in population, the decision was somewhat prescient! 

I think also the paperclip shape of the overall route was a huge factor - having 280 north say in Hillsborough and then a corresponding, but different 280 north in Dublin about 35 miles east would not be intuitive at all.  It's similar to the 494/694 rectangle in the Twin Cities. 

I-80, I-280, and I-680 to me serves as an effective beltway, but I don't recall any true beltways in California. Would it be realistic to think that Caltrans could have some kind of disdain towards them?

I don't think the geography of any of the California cities ever lent itself to a true circular beltway,

Both Fresno and Bakersfield can and should have beltways, and their existing/under construction freeways are already functioning as spokes off of CA-99.

though sets of routes that effectively functioned as one have been proposed:

SF - had 480 been completed west of Broadway, 80 completed west of the 1992-2005 Central Freeway terminus at Fell Street, and the Junipero Serra Freeway finished north of Font Boulevard, a small belt route would have been created circling downtown, the Inner Richmond, and South of Market districts.  Another belt concept would have involved the Crosstown Freeway through Glen Canyon, which would have created a possible circle of 480, Junipero Serra (1/280), the Crosstown, and 280 between Monterey Boulevard in Glen Park and the never-finished 280/480 connection.

Sacramento - modern 80 (originally 1964-1982 880) is the north Beltline through Natomas, but an east leg of the loop (Route 143) paralleling Watt Avenue between the modern 80/Business 80 junction and Elk Grove was proposed.  The south leg proposal (Route 148) later evolved into the surface road that is modern Cosumnes River Boulevard, and the currently-proposed Capital Southeast Connector expressway.

San Diego - Based on how the freeways ended up being built, Route 52, part of Route 125, and the portion of Route 54 that was upgraded to freeway create a C-shaped eastern belt around the city.

The Santa Clara County expressway system as originally envisioned had a beltway around San Jose, consisting of Montague, San Tomas, and Capitol Expressways, plus the portions of Hillsdale Avenue and Capitol Avenue that connect them.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/5510425589

They were to have been built out as freeways, but that plan was abandoned in the '70s. Of course, by the time the expressways were completed, the route functioned more as an inner ring road than a beltway.

[TheStranger]

Both Fresno and Bakersfield can and should have beltways, and their existing/under construction freeways are already functioning as spokes off of CA-99.

Fresno's only outer freeway plan IIRC is just the long-proposed but still entirely conceptual Route 65 gap completion northwest of Orange Cove to at least Route 152.  Not sure the traffic levels are high enough for any other loops in the area (particularly with most development being north and east of Route 99.

Could argue that Route 204/Business 99 (historic US 99) would make a decent enough inner belt when combined with Route 99 and Route 58, though any portion of freeway along that corridor south of Route 178 was nixed when LRN 4/then-US 99 was shifted to the current western alignment in the early 1960s.

The Santa Clara County expressway system as originally envisioned had a beltway around San Jose, consisting of Montague, San Tomas, and Capitol Expressways, plus the portions of Hillsdale Avenue and Capitol Avenue that connect them.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/5510425589

They were to have been built out as freeways, but that plan was abandoned in the '70s. Of course, by the time the expressways were completed, the route functioned more as an inner ring road than a beltway.

To some degree, Route 85 supplanted any belt/ring role that Hillsdale Avenue would have served.  For that matter,  Route 85 and Route 237 form a bit of a C-shaped belt around the region (similar to 52/125/54 in San Diego), with the eastern edge being covered by 680 and US 101.

[Northcoast707]

Some I-280 history via H.M. Gousha maps: San Francisco Peninsula central section & San Jose, 1963-73 issues.  Initial segment, from CA S.R. 17 west to Saratoga Ave., San Jose "Junipero Serra Freeway under construction open late 1963." (Interestingly, Hwy. 17 north of here to US 101 marked as "I-280" on the San Jose map, 1963 edition). West of Saratoga Rd. to westernmost edge of map, double-dashed red lines "J.S. Freeway proposed" continuing onto adjoining map, San Francisco Peninsula central section (as a single dashed red line) to western edge of map at Canada Rd. and Godetia Dr. in Woodside. San Jose, 1964 edition: segment previously marked as "open late 1963" now open; Saratoga Rd. to future intersection with SR 85: "open early 1965"; west to edge of map routing still labelled "proposed." San Francisco Peninsula central section, 1964 edition: as in 1963 issue. San Jose, 1965 edition: freeway completed to Foothill Blvd. in south Los Altos; west to edge of map, "under construction"; San Francisco Peninsula central section, 1965 edition: "under construction" from east edge of map to Page Mill Rd.; "proposed" from here to west edge of map. San Jose, 1966 edition: segment shown as completed in '65 issue from Homestead High School in Cupertino to Foothill Blvd. shown now as under construction (!?). From here to west edge of map, "under construction sched. completion late 1966"; San Francisco Peninsula central section, 1966 edition: "under construction scheduled completion late 1966" to Page Mill Rd.  *This portion, from Page Mill Rd. SW to junction with SR 85 was completed at the stated date, but not opened to traffic until Page Mill Expressway was opened in Oct. 1967. Page Mill Rd. to west edge of map, "proposed." ; San Jose, 1967 edition: entire route from SR 17 west to edge of map shown as completed; San Francisco Peninsula central section, 1967 edition: completed to Page Mill Rd.; Alpine Rd. to west edge of map, "sched completion 1968"; portion between Page Mill Rd. and Alpine Rd. marked "proposed"; Northwesterly from Canada Rd. and Godetia Dr. to Ralston Ave.. labelled "under construction sched. compl. 1968" all along Canada Rd. (the final route turns into the eastern hills about 1/2 mile NW of Palm Circle Rd. in Woodside), from Ralston Ave.. near terminus with SR 35 NW to Crystal Springs Golf Course "under construction sched. compl. 1968"; San Francisco Peninsula central section, 1968 edition: Page Mill Rd. NW to Woodside Rd. "under construction, sched compl. 1969"; Woodside Rd. to Palm Circle Rd. " under construction sched compl. late 1968"; Palm Circle Rd. to Ralston Ave. now marked "proposed"; Ralston Ave.. to NW edge of map "under construction sched. compl. 1970"; San Francisco Peninsula central section, 1969 issue: segment from Page Mill Rd. to Woodside Rd. marked "under construction sched compl. mid 1969"; Palm Circle Rd. NW to just SE of Crystal Springs Rd. now lacking proposed route markings and labelling; just SE of Crystal Springs Rd. to NW edge of map, completed; San Francisco Peninsula central section, 1970 edition: Page Mill Rd. to Woodside Rd. now completed (opened May, 1969); Palm Circle Rd. to Ralston Ave. showing new proposed alignment to the east (into the western hills of Redwood City, San Carlos and Belmont); short segment completed from SE of Crystal Springs Rd. SE to just beyond Bunker Hill Dr.; San Francisco Peninsula central section, 1971 edition: new routing into hills as in 1970 issue; a expressway-like road now extends from SR 92 NW to southern stub of I-280 just SE of Bunker Hill Dr.; San Francisco Peninsula central section, 1972 edition: the new eastern hills routing "under construction sched compl. 1975" (actually completed early 1974); San Francisco Peninsula central section, 1973 edition: as in 1972 issue; expressway connector from SR 92 to just SE of Bunker Hill Dr. as in previous issue.

[Northcoast707]

More cartographic history of I-280, US 101 interchange to northern terminus: San Francisco and vicinity map by General Drafting, July, 1965 - San Francisco inset: Interchange at US 101 to Army St. (now Caesar Chavez Blvd.) "Open early 1966 (under construction)"; San Francisco and vicinity map by General Drafting, Aug. 1966 - San Francisco inset: Army to Mariposa Sts. "under construction."; San Francisco and vicinity map by General Drafting, 1967 - San Francisco inset: same as 1966 map (no change); San Francisco and vicinity map by General Drafting, 1968 - San Francisco inset: Army to Mariposa Sts. completed.  San Francisco and northern peninsula map by HM Gousha, 1966 edition: Interchange with US 101 to Army St. completed; San Francisco and northern peninsula map by HM Gousha, 1967 edition: Army to Mariposa Sts. "sched. compl. late 1967"; San Francisco and northern peninsula map by HM Gousha, 1968 edition, downtown inset:Army to Mariposa Sts. completed; Mariposa to on/offramps at 6th St. "sched. compl. 1970"; San Francisco and northern peninsula map by HM Gousha, 1970 edition, downtown inset: same as 1968 issue, now stating "under constr. sched. comp. late 1970"; San Francisco and northern peninsula map by HM Gousha, 1971 edition, downtown inset: same as above, now stating " under constr. sched compl. mid 1971"; San Francisco and northern peninsula map by HM Gousha, 1972 edition, downtown inset: Mariposa to 6th Sts. completed; 6th to 3rd Sts. "under constr. sched compl. late 1972"; shows a large interchange and on/off ramp trailing off to Brannan and 4th Sts. in double dashed lines; San Francisco and southern peninsula cities map by Rand McNally, 1973 edition: 6th to 3rd Sts. "comp mid 1973"; San Francisco and southern peninsula cities map by Rand McNally, 1974 edition: entire section of I-280, interchange with US 101 to end stub at 3rd. St. shown completed.

[The Ghostbuster]

I think Interstate 280 should have completed to Interstate 80 in San Francisco. I know how anti-freeway the city was then, and still is now, but the 80/280 connection should have been made in my opinion. I know that probably would have been impossible, for more reasons than one, but it seemed like a needed connection to me.