AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Good Article about removing 980, and its history  (Read 3827 times)

skluth

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1275
  • Age: 65
  • Location: Palm Springs, CA
  • Last Login: June 16, 2021, 09:59:20 PM
Re: Good Article about removing 980, and its history
« Reply #25 on: May 14, 2021, 08:20:43 PM »




 The Big Dig in Boston was a mess in construction and cost but the end product is that walking or driving the city streets you'd never know it's there if it wasn't pointed out.

"Why is this open wannabe park here?"

Yes, it's better since the Central Artery came down.  But also yes, you know it's there.

You know that. Locals probably know that. Most visitors will just think it's a nice downtown park except for the busy streets flanking the sides. It's like the Arch grounds in St Louis; most visitors don't realize there's a series of railroad tunnels running between the Arch and the Mississippi unless they see one of the trains enter at the south end. It's so well-landscaped that the open air between the tunnels aren't noticed unless you take the elevator to the top of the Arch.
Logged

Concrete Bob

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 120
  • Roadgeek since 1966 - When Caltrans moved traffic

  • Age: 57
  • Location: Wholesome, Folsom CA
  • Last Login: June 16, 2021, 05:11:40 PM
Re: Good Article about removing 980, and its history
« Reply #26 on: May 14, 2021, 11:42:01 PM »

If the "powers that be" want to put a cap over the 980, by all means let it happen.  If those caps contain commercial and/or residential development, let the developers pay for the cost of the cap.  If those caps contain a park, let the City of Oakland or the proceeds from the local Sales and Use Tax dedicated to transportation from Alameda County cover it.  If the freeway is removed altogether, and replaced with a "leafy boulevard," let the locals pay for it and let them reap the consequences of their decision.

As we all know, the Central and Embarcadero freeways were stubs of a much bigger system, acting as glorified off-ramps.  Interstate 980 is different.  It is a very vital stretch of freeway connecting all the chief freeways of the east bay.  It takes a lot of inter-regional traffic off of Oakland's surface streets. 

Most arguments for removal of freeways in urban areas are based on emotion, rather than traffic count statistics.  In many cases, urban freeway removals (or boulevard downgrades) were supplanted by nearby new or existing parallel freeways (Oklahoma City, Portland, West Sacramento).  In cities where urban freeways were removed (San Francisco, Milwaukee), it involved removing the stubs of canceled freeways. 

Removing 980 from the Bay Area freeway grid would be a big regional mistake.  I hope cooler heads prevail, and things remain as is.   
« Last Edit: May 14, 2021, 11:46:05 PM by Concrete Bob »
Logged

skluth

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1275
  • Age: 65
  • Location: Palm Springs, CA
  • Last Login: June 16, 2021, 09:59:20 PM
Re: Good Article about removing 980, and its history
« Reply #27 on: May 15, 2021, 03:37:41 PM »

There have been some really good ideas here that I don't think have been considered elsewhere. I really like the idea of just making I-980 two long freeway ramps connecting CA 24 to I-880, much like these ramps connecting I-88 to I-294 just outside Chicago. I'd still put half-interchanges at each end for traffic coming into Oakland, but eliminate all ramps going in or out between 11th St and 27th St. That would make capping the highway fairly simple from 11th to 18th. It's not worth burying I-980 around San Pablo to 27th because you'd have to tunnel rather than cap that section. We don't need to Big Dig this.

I believe the urbanists are more concerned about the freeway just west of downtown more than the Grove Shafter Park area. A park over most of I-980 between 11th and 18th should placate most calling for removal. It should also reduce E-W traffic through downtown as cars from CA 24 would mostly enter on Northgate and there are still several NB options for I-880 traffic going downtown. There would probably need to be some street fixes too, but that's for the local planners.

Some people would lose their preferred commutes, but that's about the only real damage. I'd love this in part because it would be fun watching the same urbanists start whining as the inevitable gentrification consumes West Oakland.

Fixed URL tag. —Roadfro
« Last Edit: May 16, 2021, 01:55:58 PM by roadfro »
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4318
  • Last Login: Today at 01:52:17 PM
Re: Good Article about removing 980, and its history
« Reply #28 on: May 15, 2021, 05:00:15 PM »

As we all know, the Central and Embarcadero freeways were stubs of a much bigger system, acting as glorified off-ramps.

...
Most arguments for removal of freeways in urban areas are based on emotion, rather than traffic count statistics. 

With regards to the Central Freeway north of Market Street: I recall that the argument back then was that the traffic along it was no more than a local city street would have, specifically from those who were battling to have it removed.

Since the 2005 reconfiguration where the terminus is now Market and feeds into Octavia Boulevard, Octavia has become a regular source of traffic in part due to the restaurants that opened up in Hayes Valley (and not just in the area where the freeway used to be) and the boutique shops that also were built in the last 15 years.   I've personally gone to several of the dessert shops (i.e. Smitten Ice Cream right where the US 101 viaduct once ran) so I do enjoy the neighborhood as it is now, but it isn't as mellow as Mandela Parkway or as idyllic as The Embarcadero. 

The increased business activity on Octavia in turn has made the current Market Street to Bayshore Freeway/I-80 segment of the Central Freeway a lot more vital now.

 IMO this is why Dogpatch residents strongly opposed the late Mayor Ed Lee's now-defunct proposal to remove 280 north of Cesar Chavez (Army) to the ballpark, they very specifically pointed to Octavia's traffic increase as something they did NOT want.  Could also be argued that since much of the Mission Bay development is already east of the existing highway (i.e. Chase Center, the newer buildings along 4th, the UCSF and Kaiser facilities, and the food truck park I actually went to last night with friends), that the road directly serves all the new structures in the area to begin with - something that will be enhanced once the planned carpool lane to connect to the US 101 peninsula carpool lane is completed.

Oakland obviously is a different set of circumstances and at the end of they day they will do whatever they choose to do (and have the funding to enact).
« Last Edit: May 17, 2021, 02:46:05 AM by TheStranger »
Logged
Chris Sampang

bing101

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3766
  • Last Login: Today at 11:46:59 AM
Re: Good Article about removing 980, and its history
« Reply #29 on: May 16, 2021, 05:29:04 PM »

If the "powers that be" want to put a cap over the 980, by all means let it happen.  If those caps contain commercial and/or residential development, let the developers pay for the cost of the cap.  If those caps contain a park, let the City of Oakland or the proceeds from the local Sales and Use Tax dedicated to transportation from Alameda County cover it.  If the freeway is removed altogether, and replaced with a "leafy boulevard," let the locals pay for it and let them reap the consequences of their decision.

As we all know, the Central and Embarcadero freeways were stubs of a much bigger system, acting as glorified off-ramps.  Interstate 980 is different.  It is a very vital stretch of freeway connecting all the chief freeways of the east bay.  It takes a lot of inter-regional traffic off of Oakland's surface streets. 

Most arguments for removal of freeways in urban areas are based on emotion, rather than traffic count statistics.  In many cases, urban freeway removals (or boulevard downgrades) were supplanted by nearby new or existing parallel freeways (Oklahoma City, Portland, West Sacramento).  In cities where urban freeways were removed (San Francisco, Milwaukee), it involved removing the stubs of canceled freeways. 

Removing 980 from the Bay Area freeway grid would be a big regional mistake.  I hope cooler heads prevail, and things remain as is.

Same I agree too. Also I see this ending in the gentrification debate if that happens.
Logged

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3041
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: Today at 12:11:20 AM
Re: Good Article about removing 980, and its history
« Reply #30 on: May 17, 2021, 02:21:13 PM »

Could the northern-most portion of Interstate 980 (the portion north of 18th Street) be converted into a depressed freeway? Perhaps doing that, and adding caps over it would help decrease the barrier the existing freeway portrays.
Logged

skluth

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1275
  • Age: 65
  • Location: Palm Springs, CA
  • Last Login: June 16, 2021, 09:59:20 PM
Re: Good Article about removing 980, and its history
« Reply #31 on: May 17, 2021, 03:48:19 PM »

Could the northern-most portion of Interstate 980 (the portion north of 18th Street) be converted into a depressed freeway? Perhaps doing that, and adding caps over it would help decrease the barrier the existing freeway portrays.

It's possible to convert the rest into a depressed freeway. However, it would be very expensive there. There are a minimum of three streets which would need viaducts; San Pedro, Grand Av, and Castro/MLK Way. A couple of the buildings adjacent to I-980 would also need to be removed since they would rest on depressed lanes' walls. It can't be done further north because of the BART tracks that enter the median at Sycamore.

There's also an elevation issue. (Using Google Earth elevations here.) Elevations in the depressed section are still a few feet above sea level with the street elevations about 30' above MSL. The elevation around San Pablo is 18-20' above MSL, meaning any depressed lanes here would be at or slightly below sea level. It would be very prone to flooding every time it rained because water would have to be pumped out of the depression.

Depressing that short section of highway would also require a highway closure of a couple years for a rebuild. Just doing that may be enough to convince the urbanists calling for its removal to push even harder for that rather than just a cap. I'm not saying it's impossible; I'm just saying it's not worth the effort.
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4318
  • Last Login: Today at 01:52:17 PM
Re: Good Article about removing 980, and its history
« Reply #32 on: May 18, 2021, 03:09:52 AM »

Just drove up 980 on the way home from Fremont.  Saw the first eastbound offramp was blocked off for some construction work (resurfacing?) this evening.

(Also saw similar work on 101 in SF and San Mateo County but that can easily be attributed to the express lane project over there)

SM-G973U1

Logged
Chris Sampang

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3041
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: Today at 12:11:20 AM
Re: Good Article about removing 980, and its history
« Reply #33 on: May 18, 2021, 05:31:01 PM »

Like Interstate 345 in Dallas, I think the best thing to do about Interstate 980 in Oakland is to leave it alone.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8058
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:00:29 PM
Re: Good Article about removing 980, and its history
« Reply #34 on: May 29, 2021, 05:45:26 PM »

Like Interstate 345 in Dallas, I think the best thing to do about Interstate 980 in Oakland is to leave it alone.

Cap it; the interim braided ramps in the recessed portion could be eliminated easily, leaving the direct ramps at either end of the recessed section that empty out onto the one-way parallel streets.  Those streets could be redeveloped, with the capped area turned into either/and parkland or a "public square", with room for gatherings, events, or anything that can be devised by the local residents.  One thing that doesn't seem to come up -- or be given serious consideration -- by the RE/T folks -- is that I-980 is the main conduit for traffic from the Contra Costa eastern region (Walnut Creek, Concord, Antioch, etc.) to Oakland Airport.  If removed, the only way to compensate for that loss would be to construct ramps at the MacArthur Maze from NB 880 to the CA 24/I-580 interchange and from that interchange to SB 880.  That would invariably impinge upon the local neighborhood in any instance, so there would be little if any overall gain from a teardown/"boulevardization".  The best bet is to retain the extant through facility but reduce the local impact as described above. 
Logged

cahwyguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 507
  • California Highway Guy

  • Age: 61
  • Location: Northridge, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 09:26:27 AM
    • California Highways
Re: Good Article about removing 980, and its history
« Reply #35 on: May 29, 2021, 05:55:20 PM »

Just drove up 980 on the way home from Fremont.  Saw the first eastbound offramp was blocked off for some construction work (resurfacing?) this evening.

(Also saw similar work on 101 in SF and San Mateo County but that can easily be attributed to the express lane project over there)
SM-G973U1

All you need to do is look at the SHOPP:

4-Alameda-580 1487M 0415000090 In various cities, on Routes 580, 680, 880, and 980 at various locations. Enhance pedestrian safety by installing Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS) systems and countdown timers and upgrading crosswalk markings.

4-Alameda-80  2.0/8.0 0064A 0414000106. In Alameda, Contra Costa, and Solano Counties, on Routes 80, 580, and 980 at various locations; also on local streets from Route 980 to the District 4 Transportation Management Center (TMC).  Install fiber optic cable and install and upgrade Transportation Management System (TMS) elements.

04-Alameda-980 1488Z 0417000136. In various counties, on various routes at various locations.  Upgrade controllers in vehicle detection and traffic signal systems.

Of course, this doesn't capture anything amended into the SHOPP since I downloaded it (check https://dot.ca.gov/programs/financial-programming/state-highway-operation-protection-program-shopp-minor-program-shopp ) or in the STIP ( https://catc.ca.gov/programs/state-transportation-improvement-program , as the Caltrans site doesn't link to the list of projects). But it usually isn't hard to find the projects -- and of course, if it is more than resurfacing or landscape and such -- that is, adding aux lanes, widening, rerouting, replacement of bridges, etc, I capture those on my pages at www.cahighways.org .

Daniel
Logged
Daniel - California Highway Guy ● Highway Site: http://www.cahighways.org/ ●  Blog: http://blog.cahighways.org/ ● Follow California Highways on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cahighways

bing101

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3766
  • Last Login: Today at 11:46:59 AM
Re: Good Article about removing 980, and its history
« Reply #36 on: June 08, 2021, 01:46:13 PM »

How about CA-13 Warren Freeway if one wants to debate removing freeways CA-13 could be argued here for freeway removal. I-980 not so much given that it's an extension of CA-24.
Logged

Concrete Bob

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 120
  • Roadgeek since 1966 - When Caltrans moved traffic

  • Age: 57
  • Location: Wholesome, Folsom CA
  • Last Login: June 16, 2021, 05:11:40 PM
Re: Good Article about removing 980, and its history
« Reply #37 on: June 08, 2021, 01:54:44 PM »

The Warren Freeway doesn't run through a so-called "dense urban" area like I-980 does. The Warren Freeway runs up in the hills in the suburbs. Removing either of those freeways would be a big mistake in my opinion.   
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 15138
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 02:32:36 PM
    • Gribblenation
Re: Good Article about removing 980, and its history
« Reply #38 on: June 08, 2021, 02:47:29 PM »

Finishing CA 77 between I-880 and I-580 along with a full interchange with CA 13/I-580 would do a lot to enhance the utility of the Warren Freeway.  It might even soften the blow of a deleted I-980. 
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8058
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:00:29 PM
Re: Good Article about removing 980, and its history
« Reply #39 on: June 08, 2021, 06:05:41 PM »

How about CA-13 Warren Freeway if one wants to debate removing freeways CA-13 could be argued here for freeway removal. I-980 not so much given that it's an extension of CA-24.
The Warren Freeway doesn't run through a so-called "dense urban" area like I-980 does. The Warren Freeway runs up in the hills in the suburbs. Removing either of those freeways would be a big mistake in my opinion.   

AFAIK there's been no push for removal of the Warren/CA 13 freeway; the 980 removal push is grievance-driven; in this case by urban activists purporting to speak for local residents.  CA 13 travels through what would be, in the parlance, described as a "privileged" residential area; it's unlikely that such grievances, elicited or not, would emanate from that zone. 

Finishing CA 77 between I-880 and I-580 along with a full interchange with CA 13/I-580 would do a lot to enhance the utility of the Warren Freeway.  It might even soften the blow of a deleted I-980. 

The odds against a full-blown CA 77 freeway from I-880 to I-580, much less CA 13, are so slim as to be nonexistent; it traverses neighborhoods demographically similar to that along I-980.  While still on the books as an unadopted "dotted line", it's long been functionally dead as a potential freeway corridor -- although it would serve as a reasonable substitute for a removed I-980, since it would allow efficient passage from the Contra Costa suburbs to Oakland Airport (the particular function of I-980 that couldn't be duplicated otherwise without additions to the MacArthur Maze).
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4318
  • Last Login: Today at 01:52:17 PM
Re: Good Article about removing 980, and its history
« Reply #40 on: June 08, 2021, 07:06:25 PM »


The odds against a full-blown CA 77 freeway from I-880 to I-580, much less CA 13, are so slim as to be nonexistent; it traverses neighborhoods demographically similar to that along I-980.  While still on the books as an unadopted "dotted line", it's long been functionally dead as a potential freeway corridor -- although it would serve as a reasonable substitute for a removed I-980, since it would allow efficient passage from the Contra Costa suburbs to Oakland Airport (the particular function of I-980 that couldn't be duplicated otherwise without additions to the MacArthur Maze).

So essentially the only new highway project in the Bay Area that has any chance of even happening at this point is the 262 freeway upgrade, correct?  Not sure how far along the 680 realignment in Cordelia (to feed directly into 12 west) is, I know that has been in the works for a few years.

I know 84 was supposed to have a suburban bypass of Fremont (heading east from about I-880/Decoto Road) but not sure that's ever going to be built either.
Logged
Chris Sampang

citrus

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 190
  • Age: 34
  • Location: San Francisco
  • Last Login: Today at 02:31:32 PM
    • (website)
Re: Good Article about removing 980, and its history
« Reply #41 on: June 08, 2021, 07:47:08 PM »

So essentially the only new highway project in the Bay Area that has any chance of even happening at this point is the 262 freeway upgrade, correct?  Not sure how far along the 680 realignment in Cordelia (to feed directly into 12 west) is, I know that has been in the works for a few years.

I know 84 was supposed to have a suburban bypass of Fremont (heading east from about I-880/Decoto Road) but not sure that's ever going to be built either.

In the urban core of the Bay Area (i.e. the areas adjacent to the bay itself), I wouldn't be surprised. The 680 realignment is in active construction and expected to be completed in fall 2022 (https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-4/d4-projects/d4-solano-i-80-i-680-sr-12-interchange).

Otherwise.... lots of HOT lanes under construction - currently along US-101 on the Peninsula, but they're all over the place. US-101 between Novato and Petaluma is being upgraded to a full freeway as well. Okay, freeway-ization is done, now it's just adding the 3rd lane in each direction, IIRC. I could see CA-4 being extended further east over time. There are huge plans for CA-37 one way or another (https://scta.ca.gov/resilient37/), which could involve a freeway, but who knows. And something with CA-152, if you squint and call the Gilroy / Hollister area "Greater Bay Area".

EDIT: Changed brackets to parentheses to allow first link to be clickable. —Roadfro
« Last Edit: June 09, 2021, 09:56:03 AM by roadfro »
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8058
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:00:29 PM
Re: Good Article about removing 980, and its history
« Reply #42 on: June 08, 2021, 09:39:55 PM »

So essentially the only new highway project in the Bay Area that has any chance of even happening at this point is the 262 freeway upgrade, correct?  Not sure how far along the 680 realignment in Cordelia (to feed directly into 12 west) is, I know that has been in the works for a few years.

I know 84 was supposed to have a suburban bypass of Fremont (heading east from about I-880/Decoto Road) but not sure that's ever going to be built either.

In the urban core of the Bay Area (i.e. the areas adjacent to the bay itself), I wouldn't be surprised. The 680 realignment is in active construction and expected to be completed in fall 2022 [https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-4/d4-projects/d4-solano-i-80-i-680-sr-12-interchange].

Otherwise.... lots of HOT lanes under construction - currently along US-101 on the Peninsula, but they're all over the place. US-101 between Novato and Petaluma is being upgraded to a full freeway as well. Okay, freeway-ization is done, now it's just adding the 3rd lane in each direction, IIRC. I could see CA-4 being extended further east over time. There are huge plans for CA-37 one way or another (https://scta.ca.gov/resilient37/), which could involve a freeway, but who knows. And something with CA-152, if you squint and call the Gilroy / Hollister area "Greater Bay Area".

The list of pending and/or realistically potential projects in the Bay Area can be counted on the fingers of one hand.  262, as cited above, either a raising or relocation of 37, the Cordelia Junction upgrade (at this point a fait accompli) -- and encompassing the CA 12 Jameson Canyon expansion, the extension of the CA 4 freeway, likely down the CA 239 corridor to I-205, and the ongoing upgrades to US 101 in the North Bay counties.  If the San Benito area is included, it would also take in the upgrades to CA 25, including a possible preliminary connection to a CA 152 reroute southeast of Gilroy.  While most of the CA 84/Decoto corridor remains intact (not sold off for development as of yet), it doesn't appear to be on D4's near-term radar, even though the CA 84 signed surface route across Fremont is up for relinquishment.  Essentially every transportation agency/entity in the region is gun-shy about anything that looks like road capacity enhancement, since even hinting at doing so brings outcries from both anti-automotive activists and localized NIMBY's.  The projects that are being done or planned are generally there out of necessity (an existential matter in the case of 37 and a congestive nightmare re 262) or simply addressing obsolescence (Cordelia Junction) or demographic realities (101 and the CA 4/239 extension); and getting even those done was like pulling teeth!  And what's left to do -- the longstanding CA 152 "gap" among others -- is equally daunting, particularly in terms of getting all relevant agencies' ducks in a row.           
Logged

bing101

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3766
  • Last Login: Today at 11:46:59 AM
Re: Good Article about removing 980, and its history
« Reply #43 on: June 09, 2021, 12:08:28 PM »

How about CA-13 Warren Freeway if one wants to debate removing freeways CA-13 could be argued here for freeway removal. I-980 not so much given that it's an extension of CA-24.
The Warren Freeway doesn't run through a so-called "dense urban" area like I-980 does. The Warren Freeway runs up in the hills in the suburbs. Removing either of those freeways would be a big mistake in my opinion.   

AFAIK there's been no push for removal of the Warren/CA 13 freeway; the 980 removal push is grievance-driven; in this case by urban activists purporting to speak for local residents.  CA 13 travels through what would be, in the parlance, described as a "privileged" residential area; it's unlikely that such grievances, elicited or not, would emanate from that zone. 

Finishing CA 77 between I-880 and I-580 along with a full interchange with CA 13/I-580 would do a lot to enhance the utility of the Warren Freeway.  It might even soften the blow of a deleted I-980. 

The odds against a full-blown CA 77 freeway from I-880 to I-580, much less CA 13, are so slim as to be nonexistent; it traverses neighborhoods demographically similar to that along I-980.  While still on the books as an unadopted "dotted line", it's long been functionally dead as a potential freeway corridor -- although it would serve as a reasonable substitute for a removed I-980, since it would allow efficient passage from the Contra Costa suburbs to Oakland Airport (the particular function of I-980 that couldn't be duplicated otherwise without additions to the MacArthur Maze).
True in all points.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8058
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:00:29 PM
Re: Good Article about removing 980, and its history
« Reply #44 on: June 09, 2021, 05:42:10 PM »

How about CA-13 Warren Freeway if one wants to debate removing freeways CA-13 could be argued here for freeway removal. I-980 not so much given that it's an extension of CA-24.
The Warren Freeway doesn't run through a so-called "dense urban" area like I-980 does. The Warren Freeway runs up in the hills in the suburbs. Removing either of those freeways would be a big mistake in my opinion.   

AFAIK there's been no push for removal of the Warren/CA 13 freeway; the 980 removal push is grievance-driven; in this case by urban activists purporting to speak for local residents.  CA 13 travels through what would be, in the parlance, described as a "privileged" residential area; it's unlikely that such grievances, elicited or not, would emanate from that zone. 

Finishing CA 77 between I-880 and I-580 along with a full interchange with CA 13/I-580 would do a lot to enhance the utility of the Warren Freeway.  It might even soften the blow of a deleted I-980. 

The odds against a full-blown CA 77 freeway from I-880 to I-580, much less CA 13, are so slim as to be nonexistent; it traverses neighborhoods demographically similar to that along I-980.  While still on the books as an unadopted "dotted line", it's long been functionally dead as a potential freeway corridor -- although it would serve as a reasonable substitute for a removed I-980, since it would allow efficient passage from the Contra Costa suburbs to Oakland Airport (the particular function of I-980 that couldn't be duplicated otherwise without additions to the MacArthur Maze).
True in all points.


All of the discussion points to one two-headed controversy driving both the teardown and preservation POV's -- pitting purported highly localized needs or desires versus the concept of the area in question being part of a greater regional whole.  A question to be pondered is whether the needs of regional residents outside of the small area affected by the presence of I-980 in its current form can and should be considered along with the concept of a cohesive local neighborhood.  It seems that one of the arguments for a removal falls along the notion of reparations -- that folks outside that affected area are deemed to be "historically privileged" and thus must endure some sort of loss as compensation for causing -- or benefiting from -- the object of grievance, in this case I-980 itself.   So Contra Costa commuters coming through the Caldecott tunnels are, under this rationale, expected to give up their ability to get to Oakland Airport or the nearby industrial areas efficiently in order to satisfy a localized grievance.  Some RE/T activists have adopted a version of this particular viewpoint -- that their aims are only fully realized when the driving public endures a substantial loss. 

In this specific case, the neighborhood in question could be "reconnected" if the sunken portion of I-980 were to be capped; this would involve deleting the set of braided on/off ramps in the middle of that segment (the area of which could be in part used for ventilation equipment).  Of course, housing or any buildings of that type wouldn't be able to be placed on top of the cap; it would be more of "public square" or quasi-park usage (which in that neighborhood would be a definite plus), but the streets on either side of the facility could conceivably be redeveloped (please, leave out the gentrification!) for combined business/housing -- even publicly-supported housing.  IMO, the closest thing to a "win-win" situation for all parties concerned.  One can only hope that cooler and calmer heads will prevail and that a plan keeping "losers" to the absolute minimum can be cobbled together.     
Logged

Henry

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6327
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Chicago, IL/Seattle, WA
  • Last Login: Today at 10:38:20 AM
    • Henry Watson's Online Freeway
Re: Good Article about removing 980, and its history
« Reply #45 on: June 10, 2021, 11:01:26 AM »

I remember hearing about the Cypress Freeway (the former double-decker section of I-880) being damaged in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. In retrospect, that was a redundant alignment, with I-980 close by (and even the new rerouted I-880 still is, though further away), but the surface Mandela Parkway is a huge improvement over what was there before, from an aesthetic standpoint.
Logged
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4318
  • Last Login: Today at 01:52:17 PM
Re: Good Article about removing 980, and its history
« Reply #46 on: June 10, 2021, 11:21:50 AM »

I remember hearing about the Cypress Freeway (the former double-decker section of I-880) being damaged in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. In retrospect, that was a redundant alignment, with I-980 close by (and even the new rerouted I-880 still is, though further away)

The Cypress Street (Mandela Parkway) alignment wasn't exactly redundant when it (as Route 17/Business US 50) was the only freeway from downtown Oakland to the Macarthur Maze from around 1955-1981.

If I'm not mistaken, that also predates the MacArthur Freeway portion of today's 580 as well (which parallels 880 from 80 to 238), a road opened in the early 1960s as I-5W/US 50.



Logged
Chris Sampang

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 15138
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 02:32:36 PM
    • Gribblenation
Re: Good Article about removing 980, and its history
« Reply #47 on: June 10, 2021, 11:26:39 AM »

I remember hearing about the Cypress Freeway (the former double-decker section of I-880) being damaged in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. In retrospect, that was a redundant alignment, with I-980 close by (and even the new rerouted I-880 still is, though further away), but the surface Mandela Parkway is a huge improvement over what was there before, from an aesthetic standpoint.

But they redundancy with 880 and 980 prevented a traffic nightmare on the city streets in Oakland.  Everyone involved with getting rid of 980 seems to have forgotten what happened. 
Logged

 


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.