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

SF's 280 Extension

Started by thsftw, January 18, 2023, 02:40:33 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

thsftw

I just came across this and thought it was so interesting that the freeway was built so far up the Embarcadero but never used. Did it have ramps to 3rd/4th at any time or just the 6th ramp? Would love to see some street level 90's photos of it existing in that spot.



TheStranger

The ramp to 3rd definitely existed, I remember my parents driving me on it in the late 90s at least once.  (this was that period of 1994-1999 where the freeway had just reopened after a period of inspections/repairs for damage from Loma Prieta, but before the realignment to King Street that was set up in time for the opening of the Giants' ballpark)

Chris Sampang

Duke87

Historic Aerials is your friend. Yes, there was an offramp to 3rd, but only an offramp. The southbound roadway was completely unused past the onramp from 6th.

This may seem strange by modern standards but it was once common practice. There were a lot of long stubs built back in the day, because it was always assumed that the next contract to continue the road would be coming soon and often it was more convenient for the sake of accounting/budgeting or construction logistics for work to not end right at an interchange.

States stopped doing this once it started becoming more common for the road to not be continued as planned, and it thus became more risky.
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

jakeroot

Quote from: Duke87 on January 19, 2023, 12:05:31 AM
States stopped [building stubs] once it started becoming more common for the road to not be continued as planned, and it thus became more risky.

I don't think it really stopped per-se. In cases where there are plans, even if not totally firm, it's still normal to build stubs, as long as the stub configuration doesn't adversely affect the flow of traffic versus a superior non-stub configuration. Longer stubs are admittedly less common (if not unheard of), if you were specifically referring to those.

Eg, the WA-522 freeway in Monroe has a stub for an extension to the Monroe Bypass, built circa 2016. The bypass is still up in the air but the stub was still built to facilitate easier construction in the future.

bing101

Quote from: TheStranger on January 18, 2023, 04:33:01 PM
The ramp to 3rd definitely existed, I remember my parents driving me on it in the late 90s at least once.  (this was that period of 1994-1999 where the freeway had just reopened after a period of inspections/repairs for damage from Loma Prieta, but before the realignment to King Street that was set up in time for the opening of the Giants' ballpark)
That area where SF 280 extension is located used to be an industrial wasteland back in the 1990's. I remember those stubs and it became redeveloped for the past two decades as one of the most expensive parts of the city once the Giants moved there, VC's, UCSF Mission bay, Golden State Warriors and startup companies started having their operations there.

Max Rockatansky

Worth noting, I-280 was originally supposed to follow CA 1 towards the Golden Gate Bridge and planned Golden Gate Freeway.  The connection described here was originally planned as CA 87.

thsftw

For a second I was confused since that would mean it never met 80, but then I remembered 80 was going to go on the crosstown freeway through Golden Gate Park.

Max Rockatansky

Yes, and it would have ended at US 101/I-480. 

The Ghostbuster

I think Interstate 280 should have been connected with Interstate 80 (at the former location of the Interstate/CA 480 interchange). However, given that San Francisco has been anti-freeway since the 1950's, that was likely always a pipe dream.

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 03, 2023, 06:06:25 PM
I think Interstate 280 should have been connected with Interstate 80 (at the former location of the Interstate/CA 480 interchange). However, given that San Francisco has been anti-freeway since the 1950's, that was likely always a pipe dream.

The interchange design actually would have passed under I-80 and connected with the Embarcadero Freeway.  See image 69 (yes, nice) in the blog below:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/03/the-embarcadero-and-history-of.html


TheStranger

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 03, 2023, 06:11:06 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 03, 2023, 06:06:25 PM
I think Interstate 280 should have been connected with Interstate 80 (at the former location of the Interstate/CA 480 interchange). However, given that San Francisco has been anti-freeway since the 1950's, that was likely always a pipe dream.

The interchange design actually would have passed under I-80 and connected with the Embarcadero Freeway.  See image 69 (yes, nice) in the blog below:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/03/the-embarcadero-and-history-of.html



To clarify: post-1968, 280's terminus IIRC has always been defined as I-80 in that area - so if I'm interpreting the planned routing correctly, 280 was to meet with 480 where 480 made the bend towards Embarcadero (there were stubs built for the never-completed 480/280 connection!), and then to continue along that last segment of 480 towards the now-demolished 80/480 junction.
Chris Sampang

Concrete Bob

If you scroll down on this page of the excellent California Highways website, you can see the details of how 280 would have joined up with both SR 480 and Interstate 80:

https://www.cahighways.org/ROUTE087.html



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.