On Thursday, I had the opportunity to get out to the Earth Sciences & Map Library at UC Berkeley. I will say that I could have probably spent a week there, sleeping behind step ladders, and pulling out the majority of their folders full of California maps back about as far as maps of the state have been published. Kind of a shocking collection. I don't know if anyone else on the forum has ever been, but it's very well worth the trip.
The one that got me excited was one I stumbled across without looking for it, as it wasn't what I was there for. The Thomas Brothers' "Port of Oakland" map that shows pretty much any and all Bay Area freeway proposals in excellent detail. The library does not have a scanner capable of handling a 45-year-old map (seems to be from 1972 - 1975), so I just took pictures, and I forgot my close-up lens, so some are out of focus.
I've posted the majority of it on my Flickr (https://flic.kr/s/aHskMSneuS). The one that really got me excited was the Monterey inset, that shows the proposed path of the SR 68 bypass.
Another point of interest, I thought: the Crosstown Freeway in Stockton is missing, yet SR 4 is shown as a proposed freeway on either side of town.
https://flic.kr/s/aHskMSneuS
Weird it shows CA 183 as 118 with a state shield, isn't that not the old LRN for the route? Daniel's site is acting up so I can't really confirm if it is the same thing with the 56. That might mean that map possibly dates back to prior to the renumbering if that is the case.
Thank you for posting these maps. This is good stuff.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 28, 2017, 10:36:36 PM
Weird it shows CA 183 as 118 with a state shield, isn't that not the old LRN for the route? Daniel's site is acting up so I can't really confirm if it is the same thing with the 56. That might mean that map possibly dates back to prior to the renumbering if that is the case.
The LRN for 183 was 118, and 56 was the LRN for the original Highway 1. Looking at it more, this map looks more 60's than 70's, especially when you look at what was constructed and what was not.
The only thing that is very likely a misprint that I've seen so far is labeling 120 as 220. I can't find any justification for that.
Quote from: andy3175 on January 28, 2017, 11:17:05 PM
Thank you for posting these maps. This is good stuff.
I mostly went through LA and Long Beach maps. Everything from the 30's into the 70's. I'll post more pics if I see anything interesting on them. The most interesting thing I saw outright was a Business US 6 shield along Figueroa next to current I-110 on a 1963 Unocal map. Not sure if it was ever signed, or if it ever actually existed, but I had never heard of that.
Quote from: coatimundi on January 28, 2017, 11:58:00 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 28, 2017, 10:36:36 PM
Weird it shows CA 183 as 118 with a state shield, isn't that not the old LRN for the route? Daniel's site is acting up so I can't really confirm if it is the same thing with the 56. That might mean that map possibly dates back to prior to the renumbering if that is the case.
The LRN for 183 was 118, and 56 was the LRN for the original Highway 1. Looking at it more, this map looks more 60's than 70's, especially when you look at what was constructed and what was not.
The only thing that is very likely a misprint that I've seen so far is labeling 120 as 220. I can't find any justification for that.
Quote from: andy3175 on January 28, 2017, 11:17:05 PM
Thank you for posting these maps. This is good stuff.
I mostly went through LA and Long Beach maps. Everything from the 30's into the 70's. I'll post more pics if I see anything interesting on them. The most interesting thing I saw outright was a Business US 6 shield along Figueroa next to current I-110 on a 1963 Unocal map. Not sure if it was ever signed, or if it ever actually existed, but I had never heard of that.
Looks like it is probably sometime in 1963 to 1964 right before the renumbering was made official. I base that off of two things; CA 5 is already renumbered to CA 35 and that the part west of CA 68 west of CA 1 isn't shown as part of the route. That on top of the LRNs might suggest that it is for sure 1963 as I'm fairly certain that the western part of 68 was created out LRN 262 in 1964:
http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239525~5511850:State-Highway-Map,-California,-1964?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=27&trs=86
http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239528~5511852:State-Highway-Map,-California,-1963?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=29&trs=86
Anyways, cool map though showing what really might have been. It would be nice to not have 68 running through downtown Salinas like it still does today.
I took a day trip several years ago, as the library also has some CT maps and documents. Could have easily spent more time there.
Several Bay Area proposals were either too fanciful or had already been put aside and don't appear on the maps: CA 93 (at all); CA 87 up the Peninsula near the shoreline; CA 61 down to CA 84.
Quote from: coatimundi on January 28, 2017, 11:58:00 PM
I mostly went through LA and Long Beach maps. Everything from the 30's into the 70's. I'll post more pics if I see anything interesting on them. The most interesting thing I saw outright was a Business US 6 shield along Figueroa next to current I-110 on a 1963 Unocal map. Not sure if it was ever signed, or if it ever actually existed, but I had never heard of that.
This is new to me. I knew about Business US 99 along San Fernando Road and Business US 101 along Ventura Blvd, but I wasn't aware of a Business US 6 along Figueroa. Was it also marked as Business SR 11? Did you happen to take a picture of this map as well? I'd like to run it past sdmichael, who would likely know whether it was signed, and if so, for how long.
Lots of missed opportunities here...
Like 84 freeway to 101/280 and "238"
238 freeway
237 freeway to 680
Quote from: SeriesE on February 01, 2017, 12:53:16 AM
Lots of missed opportunities here...
Like 84 freeway to 101/280 and "238"
238 freeway
237 freeway to 680
A few stories here: original plans, circa 1965-73, showed 84 extending west from the Dumbarton Bridge more or less along the Francisquito Creek (the San Mateo/Santa Clara county line between Menlo Park & Palo Alto) all the way to I-280, with the present Woodside Road alignment of 84 as the original 114 (there were "114" mileposts along the Woodside Road expressway between CA 82 and US 101 in Redwood City as late as 1977). When the Shoreline Parkway concept between the Dumbarton Bridge and Marsh Road was developed in the '80's, which took CA 84 further north, the routes were swapped, with 84 taking over Woodside Road (it had always been signed in the field as CA 84 in any case) and 114 aligned over Willow Street between US 101 and Shoreline; the proposed road still extended west to I-280, but was truncated back to CA 82 by the late '80's and finally to US 101 by 1994, about the time that the actual CA 84 was shifted to Shoreline, intersecting US 101 at the Marsh Road interchange. East of the Dumbarton Bridge, the CA 84 freeway was extended to I-880 in the late '80's and was intended to extend farther east along or south of Decoto Road all the way to CA 238, but that alignment was never constructed; most of the land along the route was subsequently developed as housing.
The CA 237 and 238 freeways actually came close to being constructed; there are still "ghost" overpasses and berms along I-680 near the Scotts Creek interchange where CA 237 would have intersected it; freeway plans were truncated some time ago and traffic diverted north along I-880, where the freeway portion of 237 ends. The freeway section of CA 238 between I-680 in southern Fremont and I-580 north of Hayward was actually adopted in the '60's, but one of the earlier instances of "freeway backlash" emanating from Hayward & Fremont activist groups resulted in a court order stopping acquisition of land for the freeway's construction in the early '70's; this effectively stopped the freeway in its tracks.
The final freeways to be developed in the Bay Area were CA 85, 87, and 237 in Santa Clara County; all these were completed by the early 2000's; the local political atmosphere currently mitigates against any further freeway planning much less actual development.
There was a comment on my site acting up. I'll note that my provider, Westhost, keeps claiming there is a DDOS attack. Not sure what I can do from my end.
Quote from: cahwyguy on February 01, 2017, 12:11:52 PM
There was a comment on my site acting up. I'll note that my provider, Westhost, keeps claiming there is a DDOS attack. Not sure what I can do from my end.
Sorry about that, hopefully the tone of what I was saying wasn't taken out of context. Usually I'm a little more elaborate in my responses and often use your site to look things like previous LRN designations. I want to say it was down for 15-25 minutes, hence why what I said about LRN 118 was kind vague. It's going to happen to pretty much every website sooner or later, there was a big crash on the forum last year for a couple days even.
Quote from: andy3175 on February 01, 2017, 12:31:23 AM
Quote from: coatimundi on January 28, 2017, 11:58:00 PM
I mostly went through LA and Long Beach maps. Everything from the 30's into the 70's. I'll post more pics if I see anything interesting on them. The most interesting thing I saw outright was a Business US 6 shield along Figueroa next to current I-110 on a 1963 Unocal map. Not sure if it was ever signed, or if it ever actually existed, but I had never heard of that.
This is new to me. I knew about Business US 99 along San Fernando Road and Business US 101 along Ventura Blvd, but I wasn't aware of a Business US 6 along Figueroa. Was it also marked as Business SR 11? Did you happen to take a picture of this map as well? I'd like to run it past sdmichael, who would likely know whether it was signed, and if so, for how long.
No, it's clearly Business US 6 and, yes, I have several pictures of this map. I'll upload them this evening and then edit my post with the URL.
https://flic.kr/p/Qwicvk
https://flic.kr/p/RL5AB6
Quote from: sparker on February 01, 2017, 04:51:31 AM
The CA 237 and 238 freeways actually came close to being constructed; there are still "ghost" overpasses and berms along I-680 near the Scotts Creek interchange where CA 237 would have intersected it; freeway plans were truncated some time ago and traffic diverted north along I-880, where the freeway portion of 237 ends. The freeway section of CA 238 between I-680 in southern Fremont and I-580 north of Hayward was actually adopted in the '60's, but one of the earlier instances of "freeway backlash" emanating from Hayward & Fremont activist groups resulted in a court order stopping acquisition of land for the freeway's construction in the early '70's; this effectively stopped the freeway in its tracks.
Good info.
With 880 always so bad through there, I wonder if a toll road proposal will eventually come out from that.
Quote from: coatimundi on February 01, 2017, 12:59:27 PM
Quote from: sparker on February 01, 2017, 04:51:31 AM
The CA 237 and 238 freeways actually came close to being constructed; there are still "ghost" overpasses and berms along I-680 near the Scotts Creek interchange where CA 237 would have intersected it; freeway plans were truncated some time ago and traffic diverted north along I-880, where the freeway portion of 237 ends. The freeway section of CA 238 between I-680 in southern Fremont and I-580 north of Hayward was actually adopted in the '60's, but one of the earlier instances of "freeway backlash" emanating from Hayward & Fremont activist groups resulted in a court order stopping acquisition of land for the freeway's construction in the early '70's; this effectively stopped the freeway in its tracks.
Good info.
With 880 always so bad through there, I wonder if a toll road proposal will eventually come out from that.
My guess would be no. The problem is local opposition to having a freeway there, not lack of money to build it.
Quote from: kkt on February 01, 2017, 01:25:23 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on February 01, 2017, 12:59:27 PM
Quote from: sparker on February 01, 2017, 04:51:31 AM
The CA 237 and 238 freeways actually came close to being constructed; there are still "ghost" overpasses and berms along I-680 near the Scotts Creek interchange where CA 237 would have intersected it; freeway plans were truncated some time ago and traffic diverted north along I-880, where the freeway portion of 237 ends. The freeway section of CA 238 between I-680 in southern Fremont and I-580 north of Hayward was actually adopted in the '60's, but one of the earlier instances of "freeway backlash" emanating from Hayward & Fremont activist groups resulted in a court order stopping acquisition of land for the freeway's construction in the early '70's; this effectively stopped the freeway in its tracks.
Good info.
With 880 always so bad through there, I wonder if a toll road proposal will eventually come out from that.
My guess would be no. The problem is local opposition to having a freeway there, not lack of money to build it.
But I think there's a critical mass with this stuff, where the need for change takes precedence over the NIMBY need. I'm not talking about 20 years. Maybe 50 years, if even that soon.
As of now, nothing will happen because people are looking to the BART extension to solve this issue, as it goes right through this area. But eventually a further expansion will be necessary, and expanding I-880, I think, is not an option.
Quote from: coatimundi on February 01, 2017, 02:26:34 PM
As of now, nothing will happen because people are looking to the BART extension to solve this issue, as it goes right through this area. But eventually a further expansion will be necessary, and expanding I-880, I think, is not an option.
The BART extension will ameliorate, not solve, the issue. Much of the problem is simple supply and demand economics -- there's a shortage of housing in the South Bay, so home prices have escalated to the point where all but folks making $120-150K/year cannot afford them. Many of those who have elected to have & raise families have, for the last couple of decades or so, moved east into the easternmost portions of the region (Brentwood, Discovery Bay) or into the San Joaquin Valley (Tracy, Manteca, Lathrop), where housing prices, while high compared to much of the Midwest, are still a third to a half of what they are in the San Jose area. While there has been some attempt to mitigate the commute with (semi-)public transit (e.g., the ACE commuter rail service between San Jose and Stockton, with several interim stops in the major housing areas), most of the commute (average 40-45 miles/direction) remains on freeways and roads. IIRC, the last study of weekday commute times (ca. 2013) showed San Jose to Tracy at about 2 hours 25 minutes (I-680/I-580/I-205, with occasional detours over CA 84 near Livermore). That's nearly 5 hours on the road daily for the commuter -- but if one wants the amenities of an individual home with a yard, it's something of a must!
The problem is that the commute traffic necessarily has its western termination right here in the South Bay -- and part of Fremont as well; such longer-distance traffic affects, of course, much local travel as well. BART is useful for folks living in the East Bay and commuting south to the San Jose area (when the extensions open in a few years, we'll see just
how useful), which, in the regional scheme, aren't that much. And as "Silicon Valley" businesses keep creeping around the south side of the bay and back northward into the Fremont/Union City area, the housing prices in the East Bay, which have lagged behind San Jose and the SF Peninsula (but not by enough to stem the tide of Central Valley "migrants") have correspondingly skyrocketed. But one of the other consequences of business expansion to the south end of the East Bay is the massive "infill" happening in that area in regards to housing. Driving north on I-880 one seems to see more & more new dense housing tracts in former open land, primarily in Union City between the freeway and the wetlands along the bay; the adjacent billboards touting the new tracts don't stay up for long as the properties are quickly sold. While not at the growth levels of the late '80's and early '90's, the housing market just keeps churning along for those who can afford to be in it! And with that infill comes a lack of space to place roads or other facilities (BART has essentially plopped itself down on the old Western Pacific San Jose branch RR line, out of commission for the last decade).
If you think this means that the Bay Area -- or at least the part of which is relatively near the bay itself -- is rapidly reaching saturation, you'd be right. There's not only the political hostility toward freeways (and driving/drivers in general) with which to contend, but the fact that there's just no room to place freeways these days. We're fortunate to have completed 85, 87, and 237 before it became functionally impossible to deploy regional freeways. With the possible exception of something along CA 152 down in Gilroy, there's scant hope for any road-based relief! :ded:
Quote from: sparker on February 01, 2017, 04:06:49 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on February 01, 2017, 02:26:34 PM
As of now, nothing will happen because people are looking to the BART extension to solve this issue, as it goes right through this area. But eventually a further expansion will be necessary, and expanding I-880, I think, is not an option.
The BART extension will ameliorate, not solve, the issue.
No, I totally agree. But I think that, if someone proposed a 580-680 connector through the eastern hills of Hayward and Fremont, you'd hear about how BART is coming.
If anything, maybe look forward to this current Silicon Valley bubble bursting. Once the economy is less robust, you'll see a lot less traffic.
Quote from: coatimundi on February 01, 2017, 04:16:52 PM
Quote from: sparker on February 01, 2017, 04:06:49 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on February 01, 2017, 02:26:34 PM
As of now, nothing will happen because people are looking to the BART extension to solve this issue, as it goes right through this area. But eventually a further expansion will be necessary, and expanding I-880, I think, is not an option.
The BART extension will ameliorate, not solve, the issue.
No, I totally agree. But I think that, if someone proposed a 580-680 connector through the eastern hills of Hayward and Fremont, you'd hear about how BART is coming.
If anything, maybe look forward to this current Silicon Valley bubble bursting. Once the economy is less robust, you'll see a lot less traffic.
That bubble has been going on since about 1945. For Silicon Valley, even the 2008 recession was just a pause in the increase, not a decrease (though the bedroom communities in the San Joaquin Valley did experience decreases).
Quote from: kkt on February 01, 2017, 08:31:16 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on February 01, 2017, 04:16:52 PM
Quote from: sparker on February 01, 2017, 04:06:49 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on February 01, 2017, 02:26:34 PM
As of now, nothing will happen because people are looking to the BART extension to solve this issue, as it goes right through this area. But eventually a further expansion will be necessary, and expanding I-880, I think, is not an option.
The BART extension will ameliorate, not solve, the issue.
No, I totally agree. But I think that, if someone proposed a 580-680 connector through the eastern hills of Hayward and Fremont, you'd hear about how BART is coming.
If anything, maybe look forward to this current Silicon Valley bubble bursting. Once the economy is less robust, you'll see a lot less traffic.
That bubble has been going on since about 1945. For Silicon Valley, even the 2008 recession was just a pause in the increase, not a decrease (though the bedroom communities in the San Joaquin Valley did experience decreases).
I think you're confusing growth with bubble. There's a bunch of companies up there right now, including quite a few that are well-known, that have never made a profit, yet continue to be funded. So that creates a job boom like we had in the early 2000's in that same sector (another bubble), and a housing crunch that goes along with those job booms. I mean, I'm all about it. I work in the programming sector, and am close enough to Silicon Valley that it keeps my wages up well above what they would be in other regions, but it's clearly not sustainable.
Here in the Monterey area, we have a bit of a housing bubble, just like a few years ago. The houses are priced too high for residents to be able to afford them. And, really, that's the fault of Silicon Valley. The houses they've recently put in near me are marketed to those living in Gilroy and Hollister but working in San Jose. So it seems expensive to us, but it's market rate for the region.
Quote from: sparker on February 01, 2017, 04:51:31 AM
Quote from: SeriesE on February 01, 2017, 12:53:16 AM
Lots of missed opportunities here...
Like 84 freeway to 101/280 and "238"
238 freeway
237 freeway to 680
A few stories here: original plans, circa 1965-73, showed 84 extending west from the Dumbarton Bridge more or less along the Francisquito Creek (the San Mateo/Santa Clara county line between Menlo Park & Palo Alto) all the way to I-280, with the present Woodside Road alignment of 84 as the original 114 (there were "114" mileposts along the Woodside Road expressway between CA 82 and US 101 in Redwood City as late as 1977). When the Shoreline Parkway concept between the Dumbarton Bridge and Marsh Road was developed in the '80's, which took CA 84 further north, the routes were swapped, with 84 taking over Woodside Road (it had always been signed in the field as CA 84 in any case) and 114 aligned over Willow Street between US 101 and Shoreline; the proposed road still extended west to I-280, but was truncated back to CA 82 by the late '80's and finally to US 101 by 1994, about the time that the actual CA 84 was shifted to Shoreline, intersecting US 101 at the Marsh Road interchange. East of the Dumbarton Bridge, the CA 84 freeway was extended to I-880 in the late '80's and was intended to extend farther east along or south of Decoto Road all the way to CA 238, but that alignment was never constructed; most of the land along the route was subsequently developed as housing.
The CA 237 and 238 freeways actually came close to being constructed; there are still "ghost" overpasses and berms along I-680 near the Scotts Creek interchange where CA 237 would have intersected it; freeway plans were truncated some time ago and traffic diverted north along I-880, where the freeway portion of 237 ends. The freeway section of CA 238 between I-680 in southern Fremont and I-580 north of Hayward was actually adopted in the '60's, but one of the earlier instances of "freeway backlash" emanating from Hayward & Fremont activist groups resulted in a court order stopping acquisition of land for the freeway's construction in the early '70's; this effectively stopped the freeway in its tracks.
The final freeways to be developed in the Bay Area were CA 85, 87, and 237 in Santa Clara County; all these were completed by the early 2000's; the local political atmosphere currently mitigates against any further freeway planning much less actual development.
Did some more research and found out that Fremont's Civic Center was initially designed with the CA 238 freeway in mind. Many of the proposed freeway ROW are now used by BART.
Quote from: SeriesE on February 02, 2017, 01:34:52 AM
Did some more research and found out that Fremont's Civic Center was initially designed with the CA 238 freeway in mind.
It was mostly along the railroad tracks in that area, wasn't it? BART opened to Fremont before the freeway proposal was rescinded.
And, FYI, the links to the Business US 6 map pictures I promised are up above, but just for the sake of continuity:
Quote from: coatimundi on February 01, 2017, 12:59:27 PM
https://flic.kr/p/Qwicvk
https://flic.kr/p/RL5AB6
Quote from: coatimundi on February 02, 2017, 01:59:08 PM
And, FYI, the links to the Business US 6 map pictures I promised are up above, but just for the sake of continuity:
Quote from: coatimundi on February 01, 2017, 12:59:27 PM
https://flic.kr/p/Qwicvk
https://flic.kr/p/RL5AB6
Thanks!
Quote from: coatimundi on February 02, 2017, 01:59:08 PM
Quote from: SeriesE on February 02, 2017, 01:34:52 AM
Did some more research and found out that Fremont's Civic Center was initially designed with the CA 238 freeway in mind.
It was mostly along the railroad tracks in that area, wasn't it? BART opened to Fremont before the freeway proposal was rescinded.
Yes, though the location was chosen before BART plans even existed.
I see that I-480 was no longer shown as proposed to the Golden Gate Bridge approach. Of course, the freeway revolts had something to do with that. And it now feels somewhat strange to see I-880 around Sacramento instead of running down the eastern side of the Bay, as I was still just 12 when it was decommissioned and replaced by a rerouted I-80, with the original alignment through town becoming a Business Loop.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasco_Road (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasco_Road)
Wow Im surprised that Vasco Road has not been converted into a freeway though and a state route. This is the busiest non state expressway in eastern Alameda and Contra Costa counties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond_Parkway_(California)
Was intended to be CA-93 in Contra Costa County.
Quote from: Henry on February 23, 2017, 09:48:05 AM
I see that I-480 was no longer shown as proposed to the Golden Gate Bridge approach. Of course, the freeway revolts had something to do with that. And it now feels somewhat strange to see I-880 around Sacramento instead of running down the eastern side of the Bay, as I was still just 12 when it was decommissioned and replaced by a rerouted I-80, with the original alignment through town becoming a Business Loop.
Interesting note: even though the Interstate designation for 480 had been dropped in 1965, the definition of it as a state route continued for another 26 years; this definition also included all of the Marina Blvd. approach to the GG Bridge, signed as US 101 west of the Richardson Drive merge (technically, from 1964 to 1991 US 101 ended at this merge and didn't resume until the north end of the bridge). The "stub" Embarcadero Freeway was re-signed as CA 480 by the end of 1966; that signage existed until the freeway came down in the '89 quake; CA 480 was removed from the books two years later and the Marina/Richardson approaches to the Golden Gate Bridge were transferred to US 101.
It's pretty much a consensus view that the Embarcadero Freeway would have never been constructed past its "temporary" northern end at Broadway; a double-decker facility through the iconic Fisherman's Wharf (or a single-deck couplet over adjoining E-W streets, an alternative proposal forwarded in the mid-'60's) was essentially a non-starter (S.F. wouldn't sign street closure agreements, so any facility would have to be a viaduct/bridge or underground). Even the Army opposed any facility that would have plowed through Ft. Baker, and the
uber-wealthy Marina District was on record as opposing the plans for a surface freeway along the north side of Marina Blvd (I can remember residents soliciting the signing of petitions to that effect at the equally iconic Marina Safeway circa '69 or so). 480, whether Interstate or state route was, for all intents & purposes, DOA! No tears were shed when the existing Embarcadero section was razed in 1990-91.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_84 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_84)
But wait theres a gap between Rio Vista and Livermore on CA-84. But the West Sacramento Section of CA-84 was relinquished to the city. If Vasco Road was allowed to get state route status would CA-84 take that spot and convert it into a freeway.
Quote from: bing101 on February 24, 2017, 08:27:51 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasco_Road (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasco_Road)
Wow Im surprised that Vasco Road has not been converted into a freeway though and a state route. This is the busiest non state expressway in eastern Alameda and Contra Costa counties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond_Parkway_(California)
Was intended to be CA-93 in Contra Costa County.
Before CA 84's relocation to Isabel Ave. west of Livermore several years back, it was a regular point of contention for eastern Alameda & Contra Costa Counties that Vasco Road would be a natural and logical extension of that route, at least as far north as CA 4 near Brentwood. Caltrans wouldn't commit to development of that route -- and Alameda County was also dragging its feet, so the Vasco improvements (some 4 lane with K-rail median, some 2-lane with uphill passing lanes in alternating directions) were done under Contra Costa County auspices. Occasionally there's talk of extending Isabel Avenue north and east to meet the south end of the improved Vasco section, but AFAIK no formal plans or even preliminary proposals have been formulated. Even with the improvements, Vasco is a traffic nightmare SB in the morning and NB in the late afternoon due to Brentwood/Discovery Bay's status as a lower-cost residential area for San Jose-area workers (and still within Contra Costa MPO territory). Part of the problem is the section of road between the 4-lane arterial extending north of I-580 for about 2 miles before dropping to a conventional 2-lane road and heading up the hill. This is a remnant of what the road looked like prior to the expansion; while speed enforcement
has been stepped up (CHP regularly patrols this route) and the collision incidents have diminished, it remains a classic "bottleneck"; even in off-peak hours, NB truck traffic jams up this uphill segment on a regular basis. Unfortunately, it seems this Alameda County segment has missed out on available funding for the time being and improvements are not forthcoming in the near term. Occasionally one hears rumors that Caltrans is formulating plans to extend the CA 4 Brentwood bypass southeast as the long-planned CA 239, which would intersect I-580 at the I-205 Altamont interchange -- but so far those rumors have been just that. But that still wouldn't address the Alameda County Vasco mess -- just give Contra Costa residents an upgraded road to Tracy and SB I-5! Unless an injection of funding is in the cards, it looks like the Vasco situation will be a long-term issue.
Essentially the same dynamics happened with the CA 93 corridor; Caltrans never actually formalized a routing from I-580 to I-80 north of Richmond, so Contra Costa MPO took the lead and built a "parkway" facility on roughly the route 93 would have taken -- but did it "on the cheap", utilizing Richmond city streets as the SW end of the corridor. At this point, Caltrans has not expressed any intention of adopting the facility as a state highway -- so it'll remain what it is: a moderately efficient way to get from eastward I-80 to the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge.
Quote from: bing101 on February 24, 2017, 08:36:32 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_84 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_84)
But wait theres a gap between Rio Vista and Livermore on CA-84. But the West Sacramento Section of CA-84 was relinquished to the city. If Vasco Road was allowed to get state route status would CA-84 take that spot and convert it into a freeway.
Probably not, at least as far as a freeway upgrade is concerned. Caltrans would likely (a) build a 4-lane surface facility from the present 84/580 junction west of Livermore to a spot on Vasco near the Alameda/Contra Costa county line, where the improved section drops to 2 conventional lanes -- which would require a large expenditure, or (b) simply add a NB climbing lane to that substandard section of Vasco and multiplex (knowing District 4, silently!) CA 84 east over I-580 to the Vasco interchange; this would involve much less expense. But given Caltrans' reluctance to adopt surface roads (even ones that have become virtual expressways), I doubt that making Vasco a state highway is in the cards for the near term. However, even if such an action were to occur, it's unlikely that such an extension would be physically connected with the CA 84 segment north of Rio Vista; it'll remain an "orphan".
http://www.dailyrepublic.com/news/solanocounty/fairfield-suisun-sits-between-bay-valley/ (http://www.dailyrepublic.com/news/solanocounty/fairfield-suisun-sits-between-bay-valley/)
Well there was an article a few years ago showing Solano County having to deal with both Bay Area traffic and Sacramento area traffic. Even the question is Fairfield, CA a Bay Area city or Sacramento Valley even came into play though. My Point is this if CA-84 was really connected together how much relief would I-80 get. I know I-80 in Solano County has been jammed in recent years due to the fact that the area has to cater to both Davis/ Sacramento Commuters and Bay Area Commuters at the same time.
http://www.dailyrepublic.com/news/solanocounty/green-valley-interchanges-days-as-relic-are-numbered/ (http://www.dailyrepublic.com/news/solanocounty/green-valley-interchanges-days-as-relic-are-numbered/)
Quote from: bing101 on February 24, 2017, 10:28:00 PM
http://www.dailyrepublic.com/news/solanocounty/fairfield-suisun-sits-between-bay-valley/ (http://www.dailyrepublic.com/news/solanocounty/fairfield-suisun-sits-between-bay-valley/)
Well there was an article a few years ago showing Solano County having to deal with both Bay Area traffic and Sacramento area traffic. Even the question is Fairfield, CA a Bay Area city or Sacramento Valley city even came into play though. My Point is this if CA-84 was really connected together how much relief would I-80 get. I know I-80 in Solano County has been jammed in recent years due to the fact that the area has to cater to both Davis/ Sacramento Commuters and Bay Area Commuters at the same time.
http://www.dailyrepublic.com/news/solanocounty/green-valley-interchanges-days-as-relic-are-numbered/ (http://www.dailyrepublic.com/news/solanocounty/green-valley-interchanges-days-as-relic-are-numbered/)
Even if Vasco Road were to become a full freeway and connect seamlessly with CA 4 in the Brentwood area, the portion of CA 160 between Antioch and Rio Vista (adjacent), the CA 12 bridge across the lower Sacramento River, and the northern segment of CA 84 from Rio Vista to metro Sacramento would require extensive capacity improvements before it could have a chance of making a dent in the overall Bay Area-Sacramento trip numbers. First thing to go would be the ferry, replaced by a multilane high-level bridge over the ship channel (bye-bye, quaintness!). Since the CA 12 bridge's west end is right in the middle of the Rio Vista commercial district, it's likely that a western bypass of the town and another bridge to the south would have to be built (shades of the old Mid-State toll proposals of 20 years ago!).
It's likely that when the 84 designation was applied to the route between the metro areas that something like this was what planners in 1964 had in mind -- a 2nd through corridor -- but this time, aiming at the South Bay rather than the historic population centers of Oakland and San Francisco, likely as an acknowledgement of the growth of San Jose and its environs. You can't say that they didn't think big in those days! And since the levee-sited CA 160 was never a suitable candidate for such a corridor, the relatively direct highway to the west was pressed into service as the basic alignment.
Quote from: sparker on February 25, 2017, 01:52:27 AM
Quote from: bing101 on February 24, 2017, 10:28:00 PM
http://www.dailyrepublic.com/news/solanocounty/fairfield-suisun-sits-between-bay-valley/ (http://www.dailyrepublic.com/news/solanocounty/fairfield-suisun-sits-between-bay-valley/)
Well there was an article a few years ago showing Solano County having to deal with both Bay Area traffic and Sacramento area traffic. Even the question is Fairfield, CA a Bay Area city or Sacramento Valley city even came into play though. My Point is this if CA-84 was really connected together how much relief would I-80 get. I know I-80 in Solano County has been jammed in recent years due to the fact that the area has to cater to both Davis/ Sacramento Commuters and Bay Area Commuters at the same time.
http://www.dailyrepublic.com/news/solanocounty/green-valley-interchanges-days-as-relic-are-numbered/ (http://www.dailyrepublic.com/news/solanocounty/green-valley-interchanges-days-as-relic-are-numbered/)
Even if Vasco Road were to become a full freeway and connect seamlessly with CA 4 in the Brentwood area, the portion of CA 160 between Antioch and Rio Vista (adjacent), the CA 12 bridge across the lower Sacramento River, and the northern segment of CA 84 from Rio Vista to metro Sacramento would require extensive capacity improvements before it could have a chance of making a dent in the overall Bay Area-Sacramento trip numbers. First thing to go would be the ferry, replaced by a multilane high-level bridge over the ship channel (bye-bye, quaintness!). Since the CA 12 bridge's west end is right in the middle of the Rio Vista commercial district, it's likely that a western bypass of the town and another bridge to the south would have to be built (shades of the old Mid-State toll proposals of 20 years ago!).
It's likely that when the 84 designation was applied to the route between the metro areas that something like this was what planners in 1964 had in mind -- a 2nd through corridor -- but this time, aiming at the South Bay rather than the historic population centers of Oakland and San Francisco, likely as an acknowledgement of the growth of San Jose and its environs. You can't say that they didn't think big in those days! And since the levee-sited CA 160 was never a suitable candidate for such a corridor, the relatively direct highway to the west was pressed into service as the basic alignment.
True and now the Sacramento Delta had faced recent threats to its levees during the last run of storms in NorCal. And yes the Sacramento Delta Water tunnels was supposed to go to the northern section of CA-84 and that got cancelled for drought reasons.
Quote from: sparker on February 24, 2017, 09:18:27 PM
Quote from: bing101 on February 24, 2017, 08:36:32 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_84 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_84)
But wait theres a gap between Rio Vista and Livermore on CA-84. But the West Sacramento Section of CA-84 was relinquished to the city. If Vasco Road was allowed to get state route status would CA-84 take that spot and convert it into a freeway.
Probably not, at least as far as a freeway upgrade is concerned. Caltrans would likely (a) build a 4-lane surface facility from the present 84/580 junction west of Livermore to a spot on Vasco near the Alameda/Contra Costa county line, where the improved section drops to 2 conventional lanes -- which would require a large expenditure, or (b) simply add a NB climbing lane to that substandard section of Vasco and multiplex (knowing District 4, silently!) CA 84 east over I-580 to the Vasco interchange; this would involve much less expense. But given Caltrans' reluctance to adopt surface roads (even ones that have become virtual expressways), I doubt that making Vasco a state highway is in the cards for the near term. However, even if such an action were to occur, it's unlikely that such an extension would be physically connected with the CA 84 segment north of Rio Vista; it'll remain an "orphan".
Are the I-5 and CA-99 corridors between Stockton and Sacramento close to capacity? If not, I can see why connecting the two segments of CA-84 is not a high priority to the planners. (In addition to the environmental issues of building through that area)
Quote from: SeriesE on February 27, 2017, 10:25:54 PM
Are the I-5 and CA-99 corridors between Stockton and Sacramento close to capacity? If not, I can see why connecting the two segments of CA-84 is not a high priority to the planners. (In addition to the environmental issues of building through that area)
I-5 sometimes gets to LOS "D" from downtown Stockton to the northern side of town; it used to be more regularly congested until the capacity increases of the past few years. Once in Sacramento, though, all bets are off from the "big tank" (metro outskirts) north. CA 99 is less congested, however, until Elk Grove. Where the most consistent congestion occurs outside of Sacramento itself is I-205 through Tracy; the status of that town plus Manteca and Lathrop as exurban bedroom communities to the Bay Area has rendered that facility one of the most crowded during commute time -- both ways!
And yes, attempting to place a through facility in the Delta has proven to be a concept featuring more cost than benefit; the attempt, which peaked in the '90's, to set forth plans for the "Mid-State Tollway" from the Livermore-Pleasanton area (with a branch approximating the CA 239 alignment from Brentwood to Altamont) to Solano County (a split route to Vacaville and Davis) was effectively dashed by the sheer cost of a 2nd crossing of the lower San Joaquin river paralleling the CA 160 Antioch Bridge -- in addition to a high-level bridge over the lower Sacramento River several miles south of Rio Vista. The likelihood of "shunpiking" on existing I-5 (east) or I-680 (west) was simply too great for the proposal to be deemed feasible.
I've never encountered much traffic on that stretch of I-5 or 99, even around rush hours. And I-5 has definitely gotten better since construction through Stockton finally finished. It's not quite as desolate as the stretch around around Tracy after 580, but it's pretty low.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/census/volumes2015/Route5-6.html
The counts pick up quite a bit at Elk Grove, but that's also where an additional travel lane comes in.
I mentioned it in another thread, but I think that traffic would have to get a lot worse than it already is for the Bay Area to allow another freeway in. Personally, when going from the South Bay to Sacramento, I usually take 84 to Vasco Road to 4 to 5 (from here, I avoid the Bay Area completely and use 152). SR 4 is not in any current condition to receive a lot of traffic with its narrow bridges and sharp curves, but upgrading it would certainly be cheaper and easier than building a set of bridges through the Delta.
Quote from: coatimundi on February 28, 2017, 11:11:16 AM
SR 4 is not in any current condition to receive a lot of traffic with its narrow bridges and sharp curves, but upgrading it would certainly be cheaper and easier than building a set of bridges through the Delta.
Upgrading CA 4 between Discovery Bay and Stockton
would itself require multiple bridges, some over navigable channels. I don't see Caltrans tackling any significant upgrades (aside from minor adjustments, such as line-of-sight improvements) to that highway in the foreseeable future. Instead, it's likely they'll shunt traffic down to I-205 via a SE extension (CA 239) of the Brentwood bypass freeway; this has long been planned (albeit never formally adopted) as a NW extension of the diagonal trajectory of I-580 from I-5 to I-205.
Quote from: sparker on February 28, 2017, 02:37:21 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on February 28, 2017, 11:11:16 AM
SR 4 is not in any current condition to receive a lot of traffic with its narrow bridges and sharp curves, but upgrading it would certainly be cheaper and easier than building a set of bridges through the Delta.
Upgrading CA 4 between Discovery Bay and Stockton would itself require multiple bridges, some over navigable channels.
Yeah, but at least there's something there right now. Saying "we're building a freeway over this highway" seems like a better sell than "we're building a freeway over this undeveloped wetland." And, granted, a lot of SR 4 right there is through wetlands, but there's still existing ROW.
Quote from: coatimundi on March 01, 2017, 02:32:33 PM
Quote from: sparker on February 28, 2017, 02:37:21 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on February 28, 2017, 11:11:16 AM
SR 4 is not in any current condition to receive a lot of traffic with its narrow bridges and sharp curves, but upgrading it would certainly be cheaper and easier than building a set of bridges through the Delta.
Upgrading CA 4 between Discovery Bay and Stockton would itself require multiple bridges, some over navigable channels.
Yeah, but at least there's something there right now. Saying "we're building a freeway over this highway" seems like a better sell than "we're building a freeway over this undeveloped wetland." And, granted, a lot of SR 4 right there is through wetlands, but there's still existing ROW.
A lot of that ROW is up on levees or on berms across the aforementioned wetlands -- but more than that the route takes a number of twists & turns across drawbridges to traverse the distance between Discovery and Stockton. If even a basic 4-lane expressway facility (4 lanes, shoulders, and a K-rail median) were to be planned, it would involve a lot of fill to either side of the existing route plus straightening out of the bridge alignments. It wouldn't be cheap -- and would almost certainly require some level of environmental review at every step (which is probably why it hasn't been seriously considered to date). Also, there's not a lot of commuter traffic between Stockton and Discovery Bay; the latter primarily serves as an outlying bedroom community for folks heading west or southwest in the morning and back in the evening (hence the improvements to CA 4 and Vasco Road). The difference in housing prices between Discovery and, say, even Fremont (the most economical of Bay-adjacent areas) is significant enough to draw folks to the Discovery/Brentwood area. There's just not enough well-paying employment opportunities in the Stockton area to create a substantial commuter flow between the two cities. As I've iterated before, since there is enough ROW remaining on at least the northern section of Vasco Road south of the east CA 4 intersection for expansion of that facility, I'd expect Caltrans to cobble up plans for a "CA 239" freeway or at least expressway, which would branch off Vasco a mile or two south of CA 4 and head toward I-205 and Tracy before considering anything east of Brentwood on CA 4. As there's more new housing being developed along the 239/205/5 (and likely 120 as well) continuum than other parts of the region -- e.g. Mountain Home, Manteca/Lathrop (they're sort of running together these days!), and even down as far as Ripon -- tying them all together with a relatively seamless corridor would seem to be more of a priority than building out a route across the Delta that isn't anywhere near capacity.
Well Caltrans for now is updating the Cordelia interchange in Fairfield where CA-12, I-80 and I-680 meet.
This is probably the busiest interchange halfway from both Sacramento and Bay Area given that I-80 has to handle both Big Rigs from the Wineries in Napa Valley, Plus Solano County serves as the commuter county for both Sacramento and Bay Area at the same time. From what I can see here is that I-80 Solano County is a higher priority for now compared to this CA-84 gap that's prone to levee issues in the Rio Vista area.
Quote from: bing101 on March 01, 2017, 07:30:13 PM
Well Caltrans for now is updating the Cordelia interchange in Fairfield where CA-12, I-80 and I-680 meet.
This is probably the busiest interchange halfway from both Sacramento and Bay Area given that I-80 has to handle both Big Rigs from the Wineries in Napa Valley, Plus Solano County serves as the commuter county for both Sacramento and Bay Area at the same time. From what I can see here is that I-80 Solano County is a higher priority for now compared to this CA-84 gap that's prone to levee issues in the Rio Vista area.
That's been a severely underpowered interchange for decades; a largely unimproved holdover from when I-680 in that area was still CA 21. The presence of not only the main 80/680 interchange but also the local Cordelia street network and the CHP truck facility just up the road (and the fact that I-80 carries CA 12 traffic there as well) has turned it into a perpetual bottleneck. All I can say is "about time".
Directly related question: does anyone have access to the actual plans for this reconstruction? I've heard rumors that I-680 will be relocated considerably west of its current north end and will include direct ramps to WB CA 12 as well as I-80; I'd certainly like to have a look at what's about to happen!
Quote from: sparker on March 01, 2017, 04:27:06 PM
As I've iterated before, since there is enough ROW remaining on at least the northern section of Vasco Road south of the east CA 4 intersection for expansion of that facility, I'd expect Caltrans to cobble up plans for a "CA 239" freeway or at least expressway, which would branch off Vasco a mile or two south of CA 4 and head toward I-205 and Tracy before considering anything east of Brentwood on CA 4. As there's more new housing being developed along the 239/205/5 (and likely 120 as well) continuum than other parts of the region -- e.g. Mountain Home, Manteca/Lathrop (they're sort of running together these days!), and even down as far as Ripon -- tying them all together with a relatively seamless corridor would seem to be more of a priority than building out a route across the Delta that isn't anywhere near capacity.
I was more responding to the idea of putting a tollway over the Delta to provide a viable alternate route for I-80 east of Richmond; not just random freeways in eastern CoCo County. The 239 corridor is a lot more viable for a number of reasons. I could see it being built. If anything, I think the first thing that needs to happen around there is extending the SR 4 freeway to Vasco Road, just so that perpetually congested expressway section after the freeway ends can at least make it until traffic splits between Discovery Bay and Livermore.
Quote from: sparker on March 01, 2017, 07:50:16 PM
Directly related question: does anyone have access to the actual plans for this reconstruction? I've heard rumors that I-680 will be relocated considerably west of its current north end and will include direct ramps to WB CA 12 as well as I-80; I'd certainly like to have a look at what's about to happen!
I opened a thread on it and posted the link to the project docs, which have a number of maps. I don't recall which alternative for interchange design ended up being adopted off-hand, but it's probably in there somewhere. The I-5 thread referenced in the first post also has some info on some ramp relocations to the east of the interchange that aren't shown in the project docs, but I feel like those aren't actually part of the project anymore.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18998.0
Quote from: sparker on March 01, 2017, 07:50:16 PM
Quote from: bing101 on March 01, 2017, 07:30:13 PM
Well Caltrans for now is updating the Cordelia interchange in Fairfield where CA-12, I-80 and I-680 meet.
This is probably the busiest interchange halfway from both Sacramento and Bay Area given that I-80 has to handle both Big Rigs from the Wineries in Napa Valley, Plus Solano County serves as the commuter county for both Sacramento and Bay Area at the same time. From what I can see here is that I-80 Solano County is a higher priority for now compared to this CA-84 gap that's prone to levee issues in the Rio Vista area.
That's been a severely underpowered interchange for decades; a largely unimproved holdover from when I-680 in that area was still CA 21. The presence of not only the main 80/680 interchange but also the local Cordelia street network and the CHP truck facility just up the road (and the fact that I-80 carries CA 12 traffic there as well) has turned it into a perpetual bottleneck. All I can say is "about time".
Directly related question: does anyone have access to the actual plans for this reconstruction? I've heard rumors that I-680 will be relocated considerably west of its current north end and will include direct ramps to WB CA 12 as well as I-80; I'd certainly like to have a look at what's about to happen!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CwqqAt64wv8
BigRig Travels had a shot of the Cordelia interchange as of 2017 but that's still an active project as far as I know because Caltrans is renovating the mid section of I-80 though.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LMOGfSZH9sI
From the westbound section of I-80.
Quote from: bing101 on March 02, 2017, 08:22:11 AM
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LMOGfSZH9sI
From the westbound section of I-80.
Love the running commentary -- especially the pithy comments about the truck scales regarding his alarm bell and the "scales closed" sign ("Well, I've got proof"), the Zampa bridge crossing "Nice view.....are we there yet?", and Oakland itself: "This is Oakland.....what a mess!". Overall, a nice, fun (I guess -- if you weren't there), trip.
However, it did give me a view of the revised WB CA 12 exit scheme (most of my recent Sacramento trips have taken me south on I-680 at night, so I've missed the new facilities). Looks like there will be a relatively seamless transition from 680 north to both 12 and 80 west (and vice-versa) when the entire project is completed.
Quote from: coatimundi on January 28, 2017, 08:26:25 PM
On Thursday, I had the opportunity to get out to the Earth Sciences & Map Library at UC Berkeley. I will say that I could have probably spent a week there, sleeping behind step ladders, and pulling out the majority of their folders full of California maps back about as far as maps of the state have been published. Kind of a shocking collection. I don't know if anyone else on the forum has ever been, but it's very well worth the trip.
The one that got me excited was one I stumbled across without looking for it, as it wasn't what I was there for. The Thomas Brothers' "Port of Oakland" map that shows pretty much any and all Bay Area freeway proposals in excellent detail. The library does not have a scanner capable of handling a 45-year-old map (seems to be from 1972 - 1975), so I just took pictures, and I forgot my close-up lens, so some are out of focus.
I've posted the majority of it on my Flickr (https://flic.kr/s/aHskMSneuS). The one that really got me excited was the Monterey inset, that shows the proposed path of the SR 68 bypass.
Another point of interest, I thought: the Crosstown Freeway in Stockton is missing, yet SR 4 is shown as a proposed freeway on either side of town.
https://flic.kr/s/aHskMSneuS
An observation regarding the "proposed freeway" lines you see on these maps: I believe that the routes marked in that manner were (and some still are) part of the State Freeway & Expressway System. So while it may look like they were going to turn these routes into freeways, that may not actually have been the plan for all of them. I imagine some might have just been turned into expressways, and perhaps just a "super-2" expressway, at that.
iPhone
Quote from: jrouse on March 03, 2017, 09:02:17 PM
An observation regarding the "proposed freeway" lines you see on these maps: I believe that the routes marked in that manner were (and some still are) part of the State Freeway & Expressway System. So while it may look like they were going to turn these routes into freeways, that may not actually have been the plan for all of them. I imagine some might have just been turned into expressways, and perhaps just a "super-2" expressway, at that.
For example, SR 120 east of Yosemite is a constructed two-lane expressway.
Quote from: sparker on March 01, 2017, 07:50:16 PM
Quote from: bing101 on March 01, 2017, 07:30:13 PM
Well Caltrans for now is updating the Cordelia interchange in Fairfield where CA-12, I-80 and I-680 meet.
This is probably the busiest interchange halfway from both Sacramento and Bay Area given that I-80 has to handle both Big Rigs from the Wineries in Napa Valley, Plus Solano County serves as the commuter county for both Sacramento and Bay Area at the same time. From what I can see here is that I-80 Solano County is a higher priority for now compared to this CA-84 gap that's prone to levee issues in the Rio Vista area.
That's been a severely underpowered interchange for decades; a largely unimproved holdover from when I-680 in that area was still CA 21. The presence of not only the main 80/680 interchange but also the local Cordelia street network and the CHP truck facility just up the road (and the fact that I-80 carries CA 12 traffic there as well) has turned it into a perpetual bottleneck. All I can say is "about time".
Directly related question: does anyone have access to the actual plans for this reconstruction? I've heard rumors that I-680 will be relocated considerably west of its current north end and will include direct ramps to WB CA 12 as well as I-80; I'd certainly like to have a look at what's about to happen!
Also the North end of I-680 has become jammed too. But that was a carryover when cordelia district of Fairfield,California was farmland and pleased Mare Island plus Travis Air Base workers. Now Cordelia District of Fairfield, CA is one of the Solano county cities that have quickly become the bedroom communities for both Sacramento and Bay Area. I-680 would have to be widened too if Cordelia interchange is to be completely updated.
Quote from: bing101 on March 06, 2017, 12:00:37 AM
......the North end of I-680 has become jammed too. But that was a carryover when cordelia district of Fairfield,California was farmland and pleased Mare Island plus Travis Air Base workers. Now Cordelia District of Fairfield, CA is one of the Solano county cities that have quickly become the bedroom communities for both Sacramento and Bay Area. I-680 would have to be widened too if Cordelia interchange is to be completely updated.
Traffic from I-680 over the Benicia-Martinez Bridge would use I-780 to access Mare Island rather than the long way around via Cordelia; only Mare Island workers residing in the Fairfield/Suisun City area (which includes Cordelia) would utilize I-80. The interchange revision is more about eliminating on/off merge conflicts, getting rid of sharp curvatures (primarily the ramp from NB 680 to WB 80/12 and the corresponding sharp-angle direct ramp in the opposite direction), and creating a better connection from I-680 to CA 12 west so it can be a more efficient alternative for traffic to and from the Napa area than the slog via I-780, I-80, CA 37, and CA 29 by way of Vallejo. However, widening I-680 overall between I-780 and I-80 probably isn't in the short-term cards; that would mean widening the twin bridges over the Benicia industrial area -- an exceptionally costly prospect. Since the 2nd I-680 Benicia span was opened, traffic jams SB have lessened except at commute peaks; NB there is, volume-wise, a virtual split between I-780 and I-680 (although the latter features a substantially greater level of large trucks). But it's unlikely that I-680 would expand to 6+ lanes unless funding prospects improve.