Worst interstate ever

[Scott5114]

At what point can we safely say the number 480 is okay? 50 years? 100? Does anyone who opposed the Embarcadero Freeway back in the day even remember what number it carried at this point?

[ElPanaChevere]

At what point can we safely say the number 480 is okay? 50 years? 100? Does anyone who opposed the Embarcadero Freeway back in the day even remember what number it carried at this point?

You're preaching to the choir here  . Let's be like New York and I-90 and use up all the 3-di if possible.

[kkt]

At what point can we safely say the number 480 is okay? 50 years? 100? Does anyone who opposed the Embarcadero Freeway back in the day even remember what number it carried at this point?

Well, I opposed the Embarcadero Freeway and I remember what number it carried...

If CA-238 between 880 and 580 were being renumbered today, I'm sure it would be fine to use I-480. But every numbering change has a cost:  obsoleted maps, obsoleted directions on web sites and printed handouts, obsoleted memories.  The change from CA-238 to I-238 was mandatory at the time, because interstate funding carried the requirement that the road have an interstate number.  Now there's no such mandatory change.  There's few people but a handful of roadgeeks who even notice that it doesn't follow the numbering plan, let alone care.

[TheStranger]

At what point can we safely say the number 480 is okay? 50 years? 100? Does anyone who opposed the Embarcadero Freeway back in the day even remember what number it carried at this point?

Signage for the road (marked as CLOSED off of the Skyway/I-80) DID stay up until about 1992-1993 at least...though that's quickly not recent anymore.

Is SF the only city to have a complete anti-freeway policy codified as local ordinance (as opposed to simply blocking projects during the 60s/70s)?  Interesting that the one section of freeway being upgraded and completely rebuilt now under the "Parkway" moniker...would have been (but never was signed as) part of the complete 480 route.

Los Angeles DID reuse 105 about 10 years on paper after the original 105 was removed from the Interstate system, though in that case it was basically a hidden designation for the portion of the Santa Ana Freeway/US 101 between the East Los Angeles Interchange and San Bernardino Split.  (tied into this: 110 was reused about 13 years after it was removed from what is now basically the I-10 spur from 5 to 101)

[vdeane]

At what point can we safely say the number 480 is okay? 50 years? 100? Does anyone who opposed the Embarcadero Freeway back in the day even remember what number it carried at this point?

Well, I opposed the Embarcadero Freeway and I remember what number it carried...

If CA-238 between 880 and 580 were being renumbered today, I'm sure it would be fine to use I-480. But every numbering change has a cost:  obsoleted maps, obsoleted directions on web sites and printed handouts, obsoleted memories.  The change from CA-238 to I-238 was mandatory at the time, because interstate funding carried the requirement that the road have an interstate number.  Now there's no such mandatory change.  There's few people but a handful of roadgeeks who even notice that it doesn't follow the numbering plan, let alone care.

I don't know that the requirement extends to actually signing that number.  There are many unsigned interstates, such as I-478, I-878, I-595 MD, etc.

[TheStranger]

I don't know that the requirement extends to actually signing that number.  There are many unsigned interstates, such as I-478, I-878, I-595 MD, etc.

Even by 1984, unsigned interstates were already in use (specific example: I-305 in Sacramento).  Having said that, 478 and 595 you brought up were planned to have been signed at one point (unlike 305).

[kkt]

I-305 in Sacramento has been signed as an interstate, just as I-80 rather than I-305.

Signing 238 as an interstate is an advantage to truckers unfamiliar with the area that the truck route from Tracy to Oakland really is I-580, I-238, I-880, rather than I-580 all the way.

[Brandon]

I-305 in Sacramento has been signed as an interstate, just as I-80 rather than I-305.

Just a nitpick, I-305 is signed as BL-80, not I-80.

[kkt]

I-305 in Sacramento has been signed as an interstate, just as I-80 rather than I-305.

Just a nitpick, I-305 is signed as BL-80, not I-80.

Now, yes, but from 1964 to 1980 it was I-80.

[myosh_tino]

I-305 in Sacramento has been signed as an interstate, just as I-80 rather than I-305.

If I'm not mistaken (and TheStranger can correct me if I'm wrong), I-305 didn't come about until I-80 was rerouted around Sacramento on what was then I-880.

Signing 238 as an interstate is an advantage to truckers unfamiliar with the area that the truck route from Tracy to Oakland really is I-580, I-238, I-880, rather than I-580 all the way.

Trucks cannot use I-580 "all the way" because they are banned on I-580 from I-238 to downtown Oakland.  Trucks headed to the Port of Oakland from the Central Valley on I-580 *must* use I-238 and I-880.

[kkt]

I-305 in Sacramento has been signed as an interstate, just as I-80 rather than I-305.

If I'm not mistaken (and TheStranger can correct me if I'm wrong), I-305 didn't come about until I-80 was rerouted around Sacramento on what was then I-880.

That's true.  The point was (there was a point, really) that although I-305 is an unsigned interstate now, it was built as signed interstate and was a signed interstate for a long time.  Use interstate funds to build it means signing it as an interstate, at least for a while.

Signing 238 as an interstate is an advantage to truckers unfamiliar with the area that the truck route from Tracy to Oakland really is I-580, I-238, I-880, rather than I-580 all the way.

Trucks cannot use I-580 "all the way" because they are banned on I-580 from I-238 to downtown Oakland.  Trucks headed to the Port of Oakland from the Central Valley on I-580 *must* use I-238 and I-880.

Exactly right.  That is why it's an advantage to show that the truck route is an interstate quality route, and truckers who follow it aren't going to be dumped off onto a city street or goat path somewhere, as they were up until the route from 580 to 880 was upgraded.

[billtm]

Why can't they just decommission unsigned interstates?

[myosh_tino]

Exactly right.  That is why it's an advantage to show that the truck route is an interstate quality route, and truckers who follow it aren't going to be dumped off onto a city street or goat path somewhere, as they were up until the route from 580 to 880 was upgraded.

I believe that was the main reason why Caltrans wanted the Interstate designation for that portion of route 238, to facilitate freight movement to and from the Port of Oakland.

BTW, you had to throw in a gratuitous Alanland reference didn't you. 

[agentsteel53]

Why can't they just decommission unsigned interstates?

because for maintenance funding purposes, they need an interstate designation.  if they were decommissioned (likely turned over to county or city control), there would not be a guarantee of consistent quality.

(yeah, I know, there isn't one anyway - I-580 is abysmal in some places and it's even signed!)

[kkt]

Why can't they just decommission unsigned interstates?

Do the states have obligations to maintain interstate routes, even unsigned, that are greater than their obligations to other National Highway System routes?

[kkt]

Why can't they just decommission unsigned interstates?

because for maintenance funding purposes, they need an interstate designation.  if they were decommissioned (likely turned over to county or city control), there would not be a guarantee of consistent quality.

(yeah, I know, there isn't one anyway - I-580 is abysmal in some places and it's even signed!)

I-580 doesn't seem so bad.  I-880 through Oakland is just awful and a disgrace to California and Interstates everywhere.

[TheStranger]

Why can't they just decommission unsigned interstates?

because for maintenance funding purposes, they need an interstate designation.  if they were decommissioned (likely turned over to county or city control), there would not be a guarantee of consistent quality.

(yeah, I know, there isn't one anyway - I-580 is abysmal in some places and it's even signed!)

I-580 doesn't seem so bad.  I-880 through Oakland is just awful and a disgrace to California and Interstates everywhere.

Which is probably why that portion of 880 (namely the section between 980 and High Street) seems to have been under constant construction in the last few years.  (I do find it funny that much of the MacArthur Freeway was built as an Interstate (originally I-5W) to Interstate standards, yet preserved a truck ban dating back to the days US 50 ran along MacArthur Boulevard...while the official truck route uses a portion of 880 that for many years has been a barely-upgraded segment of former Route 17)

Most substandard CURRENTLY signed Interstate higwhay in California would likely be I-80 on the San Francisco Skyway.  Past example?  the old Cypress Freeway is one...what is now Business 80 northeast of El Camino Avenue is another.  (While never signed as an interstate, the Santa Ana Freeway/US 101 segment northwest of the East Los Angeles Interchange likely is the most definitive example, during its 4 years as unmarked I-105.)

---

Re: Myosh_tino - for 305, you are correct: it basically is all of what used to be I-80 (and specifically, the portion of it that WAS built as an Interstate, which explains recent FHWA length total corrections to the route) from West Sacramento to E Street, the portion northeast of there built originally as substandard US 99E.

[Legodinodoctor]

France has a lot of tolled freeways. If I am correct, all of Japan's freeways are tolled.

If all of Japan's freeways are tolled , I Would NOT want to live there 

[US 41]

France has a lot of tolled freeways. If I am correct, all of Japan's freeways are tolled.

If all of Japan's freeways are tolled , I Would NOT want to live there 

All or almost all of Mexico's freeways are tolled too.

[Legodinodoctor]

All or almost all of Mexico's freeways are tolled too.

Then I wouldn't want to live in Mexico Either

[US 41]

All or almost all of Mexico's freeways are tolled too.

Then I wouldn't want to live in Mexico Either

Mexico's toll roads aren't cheap either. Taking a bypass around a small town could cost you over 100 pesos (10 USD). On my planned Mexico trip from Nuevo Laredo - Mazatlan - Nogales, it will cost me 162 dollars in tolls according to Mexico's government website.

[jakeroot]

Mexico's toll roads aren't cheap either. Taking a bypass around a small town could cost you over 100 pesos (10 USD). On my planned Mexico trip from Nuevo Laredo - Mazatlan - Nogales, it will cost me 162 dollars in tolls according to Mexico's government website.

Those prices remind of the E-470 around Denver. That mofo ain't cheap. According to Wikipedia (bare with me) it's ~$13 for transponders and ~$17 for licence plates from north to south.

[adventurernumber1]

Of the choices, I-180 has got to be the worst, it literally isn't even an interstate. I-189 in Burlington, Vermont isn't much different. That is basically an exit ramp. 

[I94RoadRunner]

Of the choices, I-180 has got to be the worst, it literally isn't even an interstate. I-189 in Burlington, Vermont isn't much different. That is basically an exit ramp. 

At least I-189 has a system interchange with its parent unlike I-180

[adventurernumber1]

I-97 should become an extension of I-83. Sure, that would put it east of I-95, but at least it would be a longer route connecting two state capitals (Harrisburg and Annapolis).

That would be the perfect solution to the whole I-97 thing. Either that, or they rename I-97 as I-995, which would be fine.