News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

California

Started by andy3175, July 20, 2016, 12:17:21 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

mgk920

Quote from: kkt on October 16, 2017, 04:48:29 PM
At least it'll make potential buyers think twice for a while.  A cabin in woods at the end of five miles of dirt road would be so nice much of the time!  But it is, and should be, at the bottom of the firefighter's priority list, and you might have a lot of trouble escaping with your lives, let alone any possessions.  One hopes insurance companies will hesitate to insure these.

The subdivisions burning is more scary.  Cities could require renovations for increased fire protection anytime there's a substantial investment in the property - new roof etc.  And possibly sooner on rental property, hotels, and so on.

Related to this, and IMHO a major precedent for ordering that buildings be built with less flammable materials, were the building codes that were adopted by the City of Chicago after the seriously devastating firestorm that blew through it on 1871-10-08/10.  It's why the city's neighborhoods look the way that they do to this day.

Mike


sparker

Quote from: mgk920 on October 16, 2017, 05:59:56 PM
Quote from: kkt on October 16, 2017, 04:48:29 PM
At least it'll make potential buyers think twice for a while.  A cabin in woods at the end of five miles of dirt road would be so nice much of the time!  But it is, and should be, at the bottom of the firefighter's priority list, and you might have a lot of trouble escaping with your lives, let alone any possessions.  One hopes insurance companies will hesitate to insure these.

The subdivisions burning is more scary.  Cities could require renovations for increased fire protection anytime there's a substantial investment in the property - new roof etc.  And possibly sooner on rental property, hotels, and so on.

Related to this, and IMHO a major precedent for ordering that buildings be built with less flammable materials, were the building codes that were adopted by the City of Chicago after the seriously devastating firestorm that blew through it on 1871-10-08/10.  It's why the city's neighborhoods look the way that they do to this day.

Mike

It's more than likely that the insurance companies, particularly here in CA, will continue to insure outlying residences -- but the fire(s) will certainly be used as a rationale for substantially raising premiums.  A friend who has a house in Redwood Estates, up in the coast range off CA 17 between Los Gatos and Santa Cruz, saw his rates go up close to 15% last year after a fire about 25 miles SE near Watsonville took out several $1M+ properties.  If you live up in the hills around here, you invariably end up paying for your privileges (he does have a fantastic view of the whole "Silicon Valley" from his perch!) 

mrpablue

Does anyone know why there is only one constructed SR-x00 in California? (SR-100 is unconstructed.) Other states seem to have many hundred-multiple routes...

:hmmm:

NE2

Quote from: mrpablue on October 19, 2017, 12:02:41 AM
Does anyone know why there is only one constructed SR-x00 in California? (SR-100 is unconstructed.) Other states seem to have many hundred-multiple routes...
Continuous numbers only go into the high 200s. 1/2 is statistically insignificant.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

mrpablue

Quote from: NE2 on October 19, 2017, 01:38:29 AM
Quote from: mrpablue on October 19, 2017, 12:02:41 AM
Does anyone know why there is only one constructed SR-x00 in California? (SR-100 is unconstructed.) Other states seem to have many hundred-multiple routes...
Continuous numbers only go into the high 200s. 1/2 is statistically insignificant.

Yeah, good point. That was pretty obvious. I'm sorta new, so I forget stuff.

Max Rockatansky

Checked out the new Pfeiffer Canyon Bridge today out on 1.  The bridge is so new that the frame work is actually still in place and there was a ton of Caltrans workers scurrying about to remove it.  I'll have some pictures up tonight but it was actually kind of cool to see Big Sur lively again.

gonealookin

Quote from: gonealookin on October 05, 2017, 02:28:12 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 05, 2017, 12:51:43 AM
Tioga and Sonora Pass had a snow closure already, probably won't last with warmer weather coming:

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/10/04/snow-closes-yosemites-tioga-road-and-sonora-pass/

Caltrans has a historical listing of the winter closure dates:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/roadinfo/clsdlst.htm

However, the dates of the closures shown there, usually after Thanksgiving, are misleading.  Those are the dates when they formally throw in the towel on each road and say "we're not going to try to reopen this thing until the spring".  In fact, most of those passes, particularly Ebbets, Sonora and Tioga, are usually "closed due to snow" though not officially "closed for winter" sometime earlier in November, maybe second week of November on average, and sit closed but in limbo for a few weeks, on the possibility that minimal snow and an extended dry period through the rest of November may allow them to be opened for Thanksgiving weekend.  But in most cases there's enough snow in November at >8000 feet that they never reopen after the first big November storm.  October sees them closed for 24 hours period or so but October snow is usually not so copious that it can't easily be plowed away.

I know I have driven over Tioga at Thanksgiving, and one year it was even open for Christmas/New Year's, but that's very rare.

The spring reopening dates are more accurate.  Sonora Pass is almost always open for Memorial Day, but that wasn't the case in 2017.  It's not just clearing the snow and abating the avalanche danger, it's repairing any damage they find once they're down to bare pavement.  There were some major repair issues on Ebbetts Pass this year, thus the 6/30 opening.

Updating this:  Ebbets, Sonora and Tioga Passes were all preemptively closed yesterday, Nov. 2, in anticipation of a storm coming through over the next couple days.  It looks like there will be more snow next week, so there's a good chance they won't be reopened until the spring.  However, the Caltrans highway conditions site has them labeled "Closed due to snow" for now; eventually they will give in and change that to "Closed for the winter".

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: gonealookin on November 03, 2017, 01:22:19 PM
Quote from: gonealookin on October 05, 2017, 02:28:12 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 05, 2017, 12:51:43 AM
Tioga and Sonora Pass had a snow closure already, probably won't last with warmer weather coming:

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/10/04/snow-closes-yosemites-tioga-road-and-sonora-pass/

Caltrans has a historical listing of the winter closure dates:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/roadinfo/clsdlst.htm

However, the dates of the closures shown there, usually after Thanksgiving, are misleading.  Those are the dates when they formally throw in the towel on each road and say "we're not going to try to reopen this thing until the spring".  In fact, most of those passes, particularly Ebbets, Sonora and Tioga, are usually "closed due to snow" though not officially "closed for winter" sometime earlier in November, maybe second week of November on average, and sit closed but in limbo for a few weeks, on the possibility that minimal snow and an extended dry period through the rest of November may allow them to be opened for Thanksgiving weekend.  But in most cases there's enough snow in November at >8000 feet that they never reopen after the first big November storm.  October sees them closed for 24 hours period or so but October snow is usually not so copious that it can't easily be plowed away.

I know I have driven over Tioga at Thanksgiving, and one year it was even open for Christmas/New Year's, but that's very rare.

The spring reopening dates are more accurate.  Sonora Pass is almost always open for Memorial Day, but that wasn't the case in 2017.  It's not just clearing the snow and abating the avalanche danger, it's repairing any damage they find once they're down to bare pavement.  There were some major repair issues on Ebbetts Pass this year, thus the 6/30 opening.

Updating this:  Ebbets, Sonora and Tioga Passes were all preemptively closed yesterday, Nov. 2, in anticipation of a storm coming through over the next couple days.  It looks like there will be more snow next week, so there's a good chance they won't be reopened until the spring.  However, the Caltrans highway conditions site has them labeled "Closed due to snow" for now; eventually they will give in and change that to "Closed for the winter".

I don't know this actually close them down for good, it doesn't seem like this particular storm doesn't have a ton of strength.  120 and 108 still just say "adverse weather" while 4 is much more vague other than the road is closed.  89 over Monitor Pass is still open, no real chain restrictions on the map so far.

gonealookin

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 05, 2017, 11:07:46 AM
I don't know this actually close them down for good, it doesn't seem like this particular storm doesn't have a ton of strength.  120 and 108 still just say "adverse weather" while 4 is much more vague other than the road is closed.  89 over Monitor Pass is still open, no real chain restrictions on the map so far.

I have to remember every year to take the storm forecasts, especially the early ones, with a few grains of salt. :rolleyes: This storm was what is sometimes locally known as a "fizzard".  The process I described is correct, but it looks like I jumped the gun on the timing and there is probably still some opportunity to drive over those passes in 2017.

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: gonealookin on November 05, 2017, 01:46:43 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 05, 2017, 11:07:46 AM
I don't know this actually close them down for good, it doesn't seem like this particular storm doesn't have a ton of strength.  120 and 108 still just say "adverse weather" while 4 is much more vague other than the road is closed.  89 over Monitor Pass is still open, no real chain restrictions on the map so far.

I have to remember every year to take the storm forecasts, especially the early ones, with a few grains of salt. :rolleyes: This storm was what is sometimes locally known as a "fizzard".  The process I described is correct, but it looks like I jumped the gun on the timing and there is probably still some opportunity to drive over those passes in 2017.

Today on the quick map Tioga Pass and Monitor are showing open by Sonora in addition to Ebbetts are closed down.  I wonder if that really more to do with Caltrans really just doesn't want people on 24-26% grades with a possibility of a storm in high elevations.  Tioga and Monitor are both only 8% grades.

gonealookin


sparker

Quote from: gonealookin on December 06, 2017, 06:50:28 PM
The Southern Crossing, attempt LXVIII.  California's senior Senator renews her call.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Feinstein-Traffic-is-terrible-Build-a-new-bridge-12410794.php

238 to 380 -- direct -- would involve a Bay crossing at close to its widest point; it's more likely that the old "triangle" method extending from the east end of the double-deck segment of I-280 to Hunters' Point and then across to Bay Farms near Oakland International (immediately south of Alameda) -- and then creeping down the bay's east shore before cutting across to 238 -- would be the alignment of choice, as it would involve considerably less structure.  No doubt it'd include some form of cable-stay design for at least the portion over the designated shipping channel.  But the likelihood of this surviving the multi-level vetting process required for any new-terrain facilities in CA have never looked particularly good.  One good thing: it could actually be an eastern extension of I-280 all the way to I-580 (kill 2 birds with one stone: actually connect I-280's northern end back to the Interstate system -- and say adios to I-238!).  Always an intriguing idea that eventually runs up against fiscal and logistic reality -- but if someone wants to fund yet another study, I say go for it!

andy3175

Interstate 80 improvements are planned between Kidwell Road near Dixon and the interchange between I-80 meets I-5 (including the Yolo Bypass bridge) ... this project would add an extra carpool lane that would widening the freeway from three to four lanes in each direction. Goal is to begin construction in 2021.

http://www.abc10.com/news/local/california/caltrans-has-plan-to-ease-congestion-on-stretch-of-i-80-through-davis/497189381

Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

kkt

101 and 880 are just as much bottlenecks as the bridges are.

BART, Caltrain, ACE, and other commuter services still leave a lot to be desired.  They don't cover enough territory out into the suburbs where people with ordinary jobs can afford to live.  They have long headways (except BART, and Caltrain at rush hour).  Express busses are operated by the counties, and don't cross county lines, while commutes in the Bay Area can easily cross two, three, or four counties.  Their schedules don't coordinate; if they even meet at a stop you must wait 20-30 minutes for the next bus to continue in the same direction.

sparker

Quote from: andy3175 on December 07, 2017, 12:34:55 AM
Interstate 80 improvements are planned between Kidwell Road near Dixon and the interchange between I-80 meets I-5 (including the Yolo Bypass bridge) ... this project would add an extra carpool lane that would widening the freeway from three to four lanes in each direction. Goal is to begin construction in 2021.

http://www.abc10.com/news/local/california/caltrans-has-plan-to-ease-congestion-on-stretch-of-i-80-through-davis/497189381



I wonder if the I-80/US 50 interchange in West Sac will be rebuilt with one of the HOV lane splits continuing northeast with I-80 on a separate flyover structure, since from the map in the cite both I-80 and US 50 will have those lanes added;  this is presuming the HOV lanes will be located in the current freeway median.  Actually, I wouldn't at all be surprised to see all of I-80 from Emeryville to at least Roseville built out to 8 lanes within 20 years as the Sacramento exurban spread, now a bit west of Dixon, meets the North Bay suburbs via Fairfield and Vacaville, with housing flanking most stretches of that highway.   

TheStranger

Quote from: sparker on December 07, 2017, 12:00:32 AM
Quote from: gonealookin on December 06, 2017, 06:50:28 PM
The Southern Crossing, attempt LXVIII.  California's senior Senator renews her call.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Feinstein-Traffic-is-terrible-Build-a-new-bridge-12410794.php

238 to 380 -- direct -- would involve a Bay crossing at close to its widest point; it's more likely that the old "triangle" method extending from the east end of the double-deck segment of I-280 to Hunters' Point and then across to Bay Farms near Oakland International (immediately south of Alameda) -- and then creeping down the bay's east shore before cutting across to 238 -- would be the alignment of choice, as it would involve considerably less structure. 

From the 1960s planning maps I've seen on Flickr (and posted on the AARoads forums) I recall the original Southern Crossing plan was a connection from today's I-280 at Cesar Chavez (Army) Street (where small stubs exist for the unbuilt Route 87 extension, later today's unbuilt Route 230) east to Alameda to a connection with today's I-980 and the unbuilt Route 61 freeway:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4741575894

On that map, 61/112 seems to correspond to the connection to today's I-238 though not a direct linkage between the two.  (IIRC, there is an unbuilt extension of the 238 freeway west to the unconstructed 61 freeway that had been proposed)
Chris Sampang

sparker

Quote from: TheStranger on December 07, 2017, 02:41:52 PM
Quote from: sparker on December 07, 2017, 12:00:32 AM
Quote from: gonealookin on December 06, 2017, 06:50:28 PM
The Southern Crossing, attempt LXVIII.  California's senior Senator renews her call.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Feinstein-Traffic-is-terrible-Build-a-new-bridge-12410794.php

238 to 380 -- direct -- would involve a Bay crossing at close to its widest point; it's more likely that the old "triangle" method extending from the east end of the double-deck segment of I-280 to Hunters' Point and then across to Bay Farms near Oakland International (immediately south of Alameda) -- and then creeping down the bay's east shore before cutting across to 238 -- would be the alignment of choice, as it would involve considerably less structure. 

From the 1960s planning maps I've seen on Flickr (and posted on the AARoads forums) I recall the original Southern Crossing plan was a connection from today's I-280 at Cesar Chavez (Army) Street (where small stubs exist for the unbuilt Route 87 extension, later today's unbuilt Route 230) east to Alameda to a connection with today's I-980 and the unbuilt Route 61 freeway:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4741575894

On that map, 61/112 seems to correspond to the connection to today's I-238 though not a direct linkage between the two.  (IIRC, there is an unbuilt extension of the 238 freeway west to the unconstructed 61 freeway that had been proposed)

Originally, there were freeways (87 on the west side and 61 on the east) that were to flank the bay; as construction of them (particularly 87 from SF to Alviso) would have required considerably bayfill, they were, within a couple of decades or so, deleted from the system (the 61 freeway only went as far south as far as the Dumbarton/CA 84 bridge).  Most of the 61 alignment was far more "doable" than its CA 87 counterpart; much of that route is now newer industrial parks.  Under both the original 1959 freeway plan and its 1965 update, pretty much every planned freeway perpendicular to either bay shore terminated at one of these; as the corridors were deleted, so were the various extensions serving them.  Unsigned CA 112 always went out to the 61 corridor, but that route was never part of the freeway network, just a surface street connecting to central San Leandro.  These days, placing a freeway along 112 (Davis Street) would be a highly unlikely prospect due to the intense adjacent industrial and residential development.  If a serious bridge proposal were to hit the formal route selection process, I wouldn't at all be surprised to see a connection skirting Oakland International Airport and intersecting I-880 near the present Coliseum in conjunction with plans for a new A's stadium, possibly on or near the present site.   Still, though, the odds-on favorite alignment remains one that would function as a I-238 extension.

jdbx

I think that the southern crossing is a non-starter.  As much as many of us would like to see another crossing, even if they were able to get over the environmental hurdles, the cost would be exorbitant.  Look at the overruns on the new Benicia Bridge and the Bay Bridge east span vs the original estimates.  The best option, as unpopular as it may seem around here, is to try and build another transbay BART tube and add bypass BART tracks to some of the closer-in stations to allow express trains.

That said, I am very happy to see that there are finally plans to expand I-80 between Dixon and Sacramento.  The congestion on that road is horrific on the weekends.  I only wish it had been done 10 years ago.

TheStranger

Quote from: jdbx on December 08, 2017, 02:27:35 PM
The best option, as unpopular as it may seem around here, is to try and build another transbay BART tube and add bypass BART tracks to some of the closer-in stations to allow express trains.

There was an Examiner article on that concept a few years ago that noted it wouldn't be until the late 2030s before any second transbay tube would actually be projected to happen.
Chris Sampang

andy3175

Additional article on Feinstein's comments, which encompass both the bridge and trans-bay tube:

https://sf.curbed.com/2017/12/8/16751814/feinstein-san-francisco-transportation-second-bay-bridge

QuoteCalifornia Sen. Dianne Feinstein and East Bay Congressperson Mark DeSaulnier penned a letter to the Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission this week, urging the agency to build an additional bay bridge, a new east-west transbay connection, and–while they're at it–a second Transbay Tube.

The California lawmakers cite "intolerable"  traffic throughout the region.

"Quality of life is suffering; and our economy is not nearly thriving as much as it could be if these transportation challenges were addressed,"  reads the request.

The solution? "An additional route across the Bay for both BART and vehicular traffic."

The letter continues: "The most congested freeway segments in the Bay Area for the second year in a row are the afternoon commutes northbound and eastbound on U.S. 101 and Interstate 80 from the I-280 interchange in San Francisco to the Bay Bridge's Yerba Buena Island Tunnel. Moreover, the next most congested route is the westbound direction on I-80, through the Bay Bridge, to Fremont Street. A second crossing would alleviate this traffic through San Francisco and the East Bay, would better connect the entire Bay Area, and would provide significant benefits for toll payers."

The letter, addressed to MTC Executive Director Steve Heminger, references Regional Measure III (RM3), calling it inadequate to solve transit problems., If passed by voters next year, RM3 will raise bridge tolls and put the money toward transit. DeSaulnier previously called RM3 unfair. He told East Bay Times that it "disproportionately put the burden of financing [transit] investment on East Bay residents."  

The idea of a second bay crossing is as old as the Bay Bridge itself. Architect Frank Lloyd Wright even created a design for an additional span. (Wright hated the idea of a second steel design, and partnered with engineer Jaroslav J. Polivka to propose the concrete "Butterfly Bridge,"  which would have spanned from Cesar Chavez and Third Street to its eastern terminus on Bay Farm Island, just north of the Oakland Airport.) Back in 2000, Feinstein sent a similar letter urging then governor Gray Davis to start planning on a southern bridge project. Similar to Wright's vision, the new bridge's price tag sunk the idea.

Here's a copy of the press release and letter: https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?id=BDA14490-FB58-45D6-95FC-4F90A9453A82



Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

Occidental Tourist

Quote from: sparker on December 08, 2017, 05:00:41 AM
Originally, there were freeways (87 on the west side and 61 on the east) that were to flank the bay; as construction of them (particularly 87 from SF to Alviso) would have required considerably bayfill, they were, within a couple of decades or so, deleted from the system (the 61 freeway only went as far south as far as the Dumbarton/CA 84 bridge).  Most of the 61 alignment was far more "doable" than its CA 87 counterpart; much of that route is now newer industrial parks.  Under both the original 1959 freeway plan and its 1965 update, pretty much every planned freeway perpendicular to either bay shore terminated at one of these; as the corridors were deleted, so were the various extensions serving them.  Unsigned CA 112 always went out to the 61 corridor, but that route was never part of the freeway network, just a surface street connecting to central San Leandro.  These days, placing a freeway along 112 (Davis Street) would be a highly unlikely prospect due to the intense adjacent industrial and residential development.  If a serious bridge proposal were to hit the formal route selection process, I wouldn't at all be surprised to see a connection skirting Oakland International Airport and intersecting I-880 near the present Coliseum in conjunction with plans for a new A's stadium, possibly on or near the present site.   Still, though, the odds-on favorite alignment remains one that would function as a I-238 extension.

This.  There's way too much residential development along the shore of the East Bay to connect a Southern Crossing to 238.  The only feasible option would be south side or north side of Bay Farm Island, either through or under Sea Leandro Bay or a routing south of the airport with a connection to Doolittle/Davis on upgraded facilities to 880.

sparker

Quote from: Occidental Tourist on December 11, 2017, 08:50:49 PM
This.  There's way too much residential development along the shore of the East Bay to connect a Southern Crossing to 238.  The only feasible option would be south side or north side of Bay Farm Island, either through or under Sea Leandro Bay or a routing south of the airport with a connection to Doolittle/Davis on upgraded facilities to 880.

In addition to the problem of plowing through housing stock, an alignment directing Southern Crossing traffic specifically to I-238 is that there would be no direct freeway connection to either Oakland or Berkeley, both of which would be likely destinations for cross-bay traffic; a 238-serving routing would be to shoot traffic to and from east I-580, meaning Dublin/Livermore and beyond.  Alameda is too densely packed to accommodate a spur freeway from the new crossing to central Oakland (such would function as a virtual extension of I-980).  Something more or less along Hegenberger Road (the main Oakland Airport access to I-880) would probably suffice as a reasonable if not direct substitute for a cross-Alameda alignment; but a spur down to San Leandro and the 238/880 junction in addition to the Hegenberger "branch" would serve to split traffic going north/northeast (to NB I-880, I-980/CA 24, or even EB I-80) and south or due east (EB I-580, SB I-880).  The housing stock in west San Leandro along the "main drag", Lewelling Blvd., is mostly smaller postwar single-family units mixed in with the occasional small apartment complex; while objections would almost certainly be made to the use of eminent domain to acquire properties, if a Southern Crossing developmental process gained traction via public support it may well overcome such obstacles.

TheStranger

Quote from: sparker on December 17, 2017, 05:42:35 AM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on December 11, 2017, 08:50:49 PM
This.  There's way too much residential development along the shore of the East Bay to connect a Southern Crossing to 238.  The only feasible option would be south side or north side of Bay Farm Island, either through or under Sea Leandro Bay or a routing south of the airport with a connection to Doolittle/Davis on upgraded facilities to 880.

Alameda is too densely packed to accommodate a spur freeway from the new crossing to central Oakland (such would function as a virtual extension of I-980).

Interesting you mention that (given that the 980 extension has been shown as part of real proposals for the Southern Crossing in the past).  Is the former Alameda naval air station land empty enough to be useful as potential right of way?  Not sure there is any aviation activity there these days.
Chris Sampang

kkt

Yes.  From existing 980, into a tube under the ship channel (like the existing Webster and Posey tubes to Alameda), then tunnel under Alameda, possibly one exit, then bridge across the bay to 280 near the Islais Creek Ship Channel. Possible exits at Army Caesar Chavez St. or 3rd St.


sparker

Quote from: TheStranger on December 18, 2017, 02:16:35 PM
Quote from: sparker on December 17, 2017, 05:42:35 AM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on December 11, 2017, 08:50:49 PM
This.  There's way too much residential development along the shore of the East Bay to connect a Southern Crossing to 238.  The only feasible option would be south side or north side of Bay Farm Island, either through or under Sea Leandro Bay or a routing south of the airport with a connection to Doolittle/Davis on upgraded facilities to 880.

Alameda is too densely packed to accommodate a spur freeway from the new crossing to central Oakland (such would function as a virtual extension of I-980).

Interesting you mention that (given that the 980 extension has been shown as part of real proposals for the Southern Crossing in the past).  Is the former Alameda naval air station land empty enough to be useful as potential right of way?  Not sure there is any aviation activity there these days.

Funny you should mention the ex-NAS; was just up there today; the woodworking company that does my speaker cabinets set up shop in the old base wood shop.  A development company, in concert with the City of Alameda, has taken over management of the site and has already leased out about 70% of the buildings for industrial or warehousing facilities.  About a quarter-mile on the bayward side of the site was originally the old N-S runway -- and its pavement is in such bad shape that it can't even be used as a parking lot these days!  That would be a reasonable location for a freeway, but it's pretty much due south of the big curve on I-880 (the replacement for the former earthquake-destroyed Cypress viaduct).

Quote from: kkt on December 18, 2017, 04:40:53 PM
Yes.  From existing 980, into a tube under the ship channel (like the existing Webster and Posey tubes to Alameda), then tunnel under Alameda, possibly one exit, then bridge across the bay to 280 near the Islais Creek Ship Channel. Possible exits at Army Caesar Chavez St. or 3rd St.

A very long curved tube would be needed to access the unused NAS portion from I-980; a more likely candidate would be an interchange along I-880 west of there.  Perhaps slip lanes from I-980 could be utilized -- but that would involve additional property taking in an area that almost certainly would be a political "hot potato" (i.e., West Oakland).  I don't know the specific geological makeup of the Alameda island, but if it's anything like the rest of the eastern Bay shoreline, much of it will be packed mud; tunneling might be problematic (at least keeping said tunnel intact).  Unfortunately, since the density of Alameda itself is similar to the west side of S.F., there's not much place to put a surface -- or even a cut-and-cover -- facility (no wide streets paralleling the Bay).   It's more than likely anything on the Alameda island won't prove conducive to a freeway approach to a southern crossing.




Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.