Had to drop my fiance off at SFO before sunrise this morning. That being the case I took the opportunity to get in as many Bay Area routes today as I could before bailing out for new stuff in Sacramento Valley tomorrow. I'll eventually work up historical blogs and the standard stuff I usually do but for now I have all my photos from today aside from Unbuilt CA 179 ready to go:
I-380
https://flic.kr/s/aHskNqTWdX
CA 82 from San Francisco south to I-380
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmye8hvP
Old CA 1 on the Devil's Slide
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmvm7Pkj
CA 92
https://flic.kr/s/aHsm9wd82a
CA 238 in Hayward and I-238 west
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmAnEdCB
CA 84 over the Dumbarton Bridge
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmvmdP5C
CA 87
https://flic.kr/s/aHskRHEdbS
CA 262
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmAnGmBt
CA 185 from I-238 north to CA 112
https://flic.kr/s/aHsm9wh6Nv
CA 112
https://flic.kr/s/aHsm9whEQx
CA 61 and CA 260 through the Posey Tube
https://flic.kr/s/aHsm9wkMmH
CA 77
https://flic.kr/s/aHskNr96Tk
CA 13 Freeway
https://flic.kr/s/aHskRHMqxb
CA 242
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmAnPvmD
I-680 over the Benicia-Martinez Bridge
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmAAvVfY
I-780
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmvmpsUf
CA 113 north to I-80
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmvmqDQG
I-505 north to CA 128/CR E6
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmyetxgF
Some thoughts on each route before I close the night out...
I-380
- Pretty much all the signage is a poor state of repair for the most part, lots of button copy left over. I was getting hammered by rain which is why my photos sucked but the point of the route is clearly conveyed to launch traffic to/from SFO to either US 101 or I-280.
CA 82
- I could see the El Camino Real having some local uses still approaching San Francisco. The road grade is surprising decent and for suburban surface highway is is incredibly well signed. The north terminus doesn't have a clear-cut connection to northbound I-280 but I doubt that's a common movement.
Devil's Slide/Old CA 1
- No surprise this was replaced by tunnels. I'd like to try the original route on foot over Montaro Mountain one of these days.
CA 92
- Half Moon Bay east to San Mateo probably has enough traffic to justify widening but the terrain essentially is unworkable. The San Mateo Bridge is criminally underrated as a crossing of San Francisco Bay given it has views of everything. The eastern terminus is unclear in Hayward with the signage but I might be missing a reliquishment.
CA 238/I-238
- There is no CA 238 signage to be found in Hayward from what I observed. I-238 is just what everyone thinks it is, a glorified state highway extension that should have never kept it's current number.
CA 84 Dumbarton Bridge
- The surface quality on both ends of the Dumbarton Bridge is incredibly poor and needs to be repaired. Really this would be the lowest ranking of the Bay Area bridge crossings in my opinion.
CA 87
- I never tried this route in traffic but I imagine it is a nightmare with only four regular lanes for the most part. HOV lanes don't make a ton of sense to me until a roadway is at least 8 lanes wide.
CA 262
- This route is unsigned from the surface and probably could use an overpass to smooth out the transition from I-880 to I-680. Traffic was backing up heavily onto the I-680 ramp and the red light cameras posted locally don't help with the traffic.
CA 185
- Total abortion of a route that ought to be relinquished as soon as possible. The road surface north of I-238 is probably the worst I've experienced on a State Highway...at least it is is signed from the freeway.
CA 112
- No signage on the surface and really this ought be part of CA 61.
CA 61 and CA 260
- What a weird "official ending" in Alameda. The double end signage in Alameda along with the Posey Tube was incredibly strange. Again, CA 260 ought to be part of CA 61 even though there is technically a gap in the route.
CA 77
- There was two shields on my northbound approach to CA 185. The route is not signed from I-880.
CA 13 Freeway
- Interesting freeway straddling the hills above Oakland. The scenery is nice but the connection from I-880 south is weird being routed on a surface.
CA 242
- Really there isn't too much to say, probably one of the most generic freeways I've found in California.
I-680 Benicia-Martinez Bridge
- Nothing too exciting about this crossing, from the northbound approach there wasn't much to see.
I-780
- There was some interesting views westbound that made it slightly more interesting that CA 242
CA 113 north to I-80
- Really haggard old highway that needs some repaving badly. The 90 degree turns are certainly a throwback along with the historic US 40 shields in Dixon.
I-505 to CA 128/CR E6
- Really smooth and I was surprised how fast this ramped up to 70 MPH.
Unbuilt CA 179 on Pleasant Valley Road
- I discovered this one by accident in 2017 heading east on CA 128. I really dig the old bridge from 1907 and the fun but workable twisties. The current route is fairly useful and sufficient despite it never being upgraded to CA 179.
Looks like the signs for CA-85 on CA-87 used the wrong up arrows. What a shame, as the signs looks so nice besides that issue.
Quote from: SeriesE on February 10, 2019, 03:40:33 AM
Looks like the signs for CA-85 on CA-87 used the wrong up arrows. What a shame, as the signs looks so nice besides that issue.
Personally I kind of dig the button copy that's in decent shape on CA 87. Most of it around the Bay Area is substantially more weathered.
Finished up the Unbuilt CA 179 album today:
https://flic.kr/s/aHskRJHR2y
So today is more Sacramento Valley and the Sierra Foothills. Here is what I have set to do:
CA 45
CA 191 (at least the first reassurance shield and guide sign saying Paradise is 13 miles away....I'm interested in context for the history of the road not the destruction of a town)
CA 149
CA 162 east of CA 70 to Lake Oroville
CA 65 north segment
CA 193
CA 104
If I have time I'm debating do the CA 4 freeway in Stockton and possibly the CA 120 freeway as well. I had a thought to drive the remaining segments of US 99W between Stockton and Manteca but I think that have enough of urban slogging for one weekend. I might try some north Bay stuff on the way back next Sunday. I think that I figured out a good way to tackle rain and glare while photo taking that seemed effective yesterday.
A lot of these photos look like they have been exposed for the highlights (the sky), which makes the road (and signs) too dark. You might want to try turning on your phone's HDR mode to try and bring out some of the shadow detail to make your photos look better. The only thing I'd suggest is trying out the HDR mode of your phone first before going out and shooting for a day. HDR blends a couple of images that have been recording in quick succession, and could add some blur to your photos depending on how the image is processed.
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on February 10, 2019, 12:06:04 PM
A lot of these photos look like they have been exposed for the highlights (the sky), which makes the road (and signs) too dark. You might want to try turning on your phone's HDR mode to try and bring out some of the shadow detail to make your photos look better. The only thing I'd suggest is trying out the HDR mode of your phone first before going out and shooting for a day. HDR blends a couple of images that have been recording in quick succession, and could add some blur to your photos depending on how the image is processed.
Some of it early on especially in the CA 92 album was condensation from running on the Devils Slide I didn't know was there until the CA 35 junction. The HDR setting on my camera phone is absolutely terrible at speed and blurs more often than not. The best I've come up with is to shut it off and correct as best I can in photoshop. Generally I try to avoid facing the sun as much as possible but that's not something that can always be done.
I'm trying out a new piece of flat black fabric on this trip for my dash. Limited access roads have given me a ton of trouble in the past. Things have been easier this trip but really the last conclusion I can really draw is that I need a new camera sooner rather than later. Generally speaking the moving photos are good enough for a blog series but I'd like to have them better, especially on limited access. I'm kind of dreading getting started with all this map research all this stuff is going to take...
Slight change of plans. I'm going to stay mostly in the valley and round out my Sacramento stuff with CA 160 and CA 244. I'm thinking about making a out of CA 104, 16 east and 193 in March
I guess you are limited by your device.
You could try adjusting the shadows slider in the "shadows/highlights" window of photoshop. but you're probably going to introduce a whole lot of noise.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 10, 2019, 01:56:50 AM
CA 92
- .... The eastern terminus is unclear in Hayward with the signage but I might be missing a reliquishment.
CA 238/I-238
- There is no CA 238 signage to be found in Hayward from what I observed.
Yeah, the eastern end of CA 92 got relinquished, as well as the southern end of CA 185, and the middle of CA 238 including most or all of its non-freeway segment in Hayward.
Quote
CA 185
- Total abortion of a route that ought to be relinquished as soon as possible. The road surface north of I-238 is probably the worst I've experienced on a State Highway...at least it is is signed from the freeway.
I agree, having driven it all last October. The legislature has authorized relinquishment of the part north of Hayward that's already been removed from the state system. All that remains is for the affected local governments to agree to take it off Caltrans' hands.
Quote from: oscar on February 10, 2019, 12:55:28 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 10, 2019, 01:56:50 AM
CA 92
- .... The eastern terminus is unclear in Hayward with the signage but I might be missing a reliquishment.
CA 238/I-238
- There is no CA 238 signage to be found in Hayward from what I observed.
Yeah, the eastern end of CA 92 got relinquished, as well as the southern end of CA 185, and the middle of CA 238 including most or all of its non-freeway segment in Hayward.
Quote
CA 185
- Total abortion of a route that ought to be relinquished as soon as possible. The road surface north of I-238 is probably the worst I've experienced on a State Highway...at least it is is signed from the freeway.
I agree, having driven it all last October. The legislature has authorized relinquishment of the part north of Hayward that's already been removed from the state system. All that remains is for the affected local governments to agree to take it off Caltrans' hands.
That's what I figured but I really didn't read up too much on the latest relinquishments until I got home tonight, I'm assuming the same thing happened to CA 238 in Hayward also. . Its no wonder Caltrans would want to get rid of CA 185 given it is functionally obsolete with I-880 serving the role CA 17 once had. I don't see any incentive for San Leandro to take over maintenance of such a haggard roadway until Caltrans makes some improvements to that surface quality.
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on February 10, 2019, 12:47:15 PM
I guess you are limited by your device.
You could try adjusting the shadows slider in the "shadows/highlights" window of photoshop. but you're probably going to introduce a whole lot of noise.
After my upcoming wedding I'm hoping to finally makes some camera upgrades. I've been thinking of moving to video format for freeways and limited access roadways but I'm really not sure give how much side stuff I tend to cover in blog series. The biggest obstruction was reflection from the dashboard but that's been solved after this trip and the recent Florida stuff I did. Now its just all glare to get rid of.
So I changed things up today after I spent way more time than expected on CA 45 and CA 162 east of CA 70. Essentially the game plan for March now is the following route in the Sierra Foothills:
- CA 104 east
- CA 16 (east section) west to US 50
- US 50 east to CA 193 (I'll pick up the Mosquito Bridge on the way)
- CA 193
- Parts of the north CA 65 segment
- CA 244
- CA 160 north Sacramento Freeway...maybe the Delta again for old times sake.
But I digress, below is what I went through today:
CA 113 from I-80 to CA 45
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmvmqDQG
- Really the freeway segment is pretty straight forward and doesn't have much deviation to it. I've heard calls to have this numbered as an Interstate and I can see why. CA 113 north of I-5 is typical Sacramento Delta fare highway.
CA 45
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmAD8sS3
- I did the full route and I have to say that this probably the most scenic surface route in San Joaquin Valley and Sacramento Valley. There are plenty of wide views of all the ranges on the edges of Sacramento Valley and some nice views of the Sacramento River on high quality levees. The segment south of CA 20 was kind of haggard but nothing all that crazy. I really dig old towns like Grimes and Colusa which had lots of older structures to gawk at.
CA 149
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmvoQ3w5
- Nothing really special here the route is almost completely a freeway aside from one grade crossing.
CA 191
https://flic.kr/s/aHsm9ySaTp
- I took a picture of the first reassurance shields, the Paradise control city sign and signage indicating where the truck route ends. I wanted to take CA 191 back in 2017 to see the Depot in Paradise but was feeling a little tired after CA 49 and CA 70 earlier in the day. In retrospect I regret it given the fate of Paradise...at least the historic depot is still standing. The smell of smoke and soot was still lingering at the CA 191/CA 70 junction, didn't feel right to go any further even though the road was open. I have plenty to cover the history of the highway.
CA 162 east of CA 70 to Bidwell's Bar Bridge
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmvoY5ny
- The modern Bidwell's Bar Bridge is worth heading over Lake Oroville to see just by itself, what a pretty suspension structure. Lake Oroville is way below capacity which revealed much of the true height of the modern bridge. I stopped to see the original suspension bridge which is hidden away at Bidwell's Canyon Marina.
CA 70 from CA 149 to CA 99
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmvoYrWf
- Really I wanted this to flesh out my CA 70/Feather River Highway blog. The route through Marysville is interesting enough really to warrant to taking this over CA 65 for now.
CA 99
https://flic.kr/s/aHsm9z2zUx
- Given that I just did a long blog post regarding the history of surface highway routes in Sacramento I wanted to do at least part of the route of CA 99 north out of downtown. CA 99 north of downtown Sacramento had nothing to do with either US 99W or US 99E and even existed alongside the two of them during the 1964 Highway Renumbering.
CA 4 Crosstown Freeway in Stockton
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmyhdVi8
- Simple freeway that may or may not have implications with a possible I-7/I-9 someday, not much more to say.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 10, 2019, 11:34:12 PM
That's what I figured but I really didn't read up too much on the latest relinquishments until I got home tonight, I'm assuming the same thing happened to CA 238 in Hayward also. . Its no wonder Caltrans would want to get rid of CA 185 given it is functionally obsolete with I-880 serving the role CA 17 once had. I don't see any incentive for San Leandro to take over maintenance of such a haggard roadway until Caltrans makes some improvements to that
185 was created to keep a portion of the old Route 17 under state maintenance, years after 17 had been moved to the Nimitz Freeway. Kinda a similar deal to things like Route 72 (former US 101) in SoCal, Route 82/El Camino Real in the Bay Area (itself truncated in recent years), though at this rate CalTrans and the local municipalities seem to be very much about relinquishing as many state highway urban/suburban arterials as possible.
Quote from: TheStranger on February 11, 2019, 02:07:15 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 10, 2019, 11:34:12 PM
That's what I figured but I really didn't read up too much on the latest relinquishments until I got home tonight, I'm assuming the same thing happened to CA 238 in Hayward also. . Its no wonder Caltrans would want to get rid of CA 185 given it is functionally obsolete with I-880 serving the role CA 17 once had. I don't see any incentive for San Leandro to take over maintenance of such a haggard roadway until Caltrans makes some improvements to that
185 was created to keep a portion of the old Route 17 under state maintenance, years after 17 had been moved to the Nimitz Freeway. Kinda a similar deal to things like Route 72 (former US 101) in SoCal, Route 82/El Camino Real in the Bay Area (itself truncated in recent years), though at this rate CalTrans and the local municipalities seem to be very much about relinquishing as many state highway urban/suburban arterials as possible.
That's what was surprising about CA 82 near San Franisco, it actually was very well Signed. Compared to Routes like 109, 114, 185 and and 112 which aren't or hardly signed on the surface that was surprising to see. Weirder still was seeing that 77 actually had multiple shields despite nothing from I-880.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 11, 2019, 09:20:25 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on February 11, 2019, 02:07:15 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 10, 2019, 11:34:12 PM
That's what I figured but I really didn't read up too much on the latest relinquishments until I got home tonight, I'm assuming the same thing happened to CA 238 in Hayward also. . Its no wonder Caltrans would want to get rid of CA 185 given it is functionally obsolete with I-880 serving the role CA 17 once had. I don't see any incentive for San Leandro to take over maintenance of such a haggard roadway until Caltrans makes some improvements to that
185 was created to keep a portion of the old Route 17 under state maintenance, years after 17 had been moved to the Nimitz Freeway. Kinda a similar deal to things like Route 72 (former US 101) in SoCal, Route 82/El Camino Real in the Bay Area (itself truncated in recent years), though at this rate CalTrans and the local municipalities seem to be very much about relinquishing as many state highway urban/suburban arterials as possible.
That's what was surprising about CA 82 near San Franisco, it actually was very well Signed. Compared to Routes like 109, 114, 185 and and 112 which aren't or hardly signed on the surface that was surprising to see. Weirder still was seeing that 77 actually had multiple shields despite nothing from I-880.
In my opinion, while it is a good idea to have a state-maintained road between Oakland and San Jose, there is no need to have a duplicate. Before the Nimitz freeway was built, San Pablo avenue was a state-maintained highway, but now it is just a city street and should be maintained by the cities. Other than for historical purposes, there is no need to sign this road as ca 185. Ditto for ca 82 and 72.
Nexus 5X
Quote from: mrsman on February 11, 2019, 09:52:51 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 11, 2019, 09:20:25 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on February 11, 2019, 02:07:15 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 10, 2019, 11:34:12 PM
That's what I figured but I really didn't read up too much on the latest relinquishments until I got home tonight, I'm assuming the same thing happened to CA 238 in Hayward also. . Its no wonder Caltrans would want to get rid of CA 185 given it is functionally obsolete with I-880 serving the role CA 17 once had. I don't see any incentive for San Leandro to take over maintenance of such a haggard roadway until Caltrans makes some improvements to that
185 was created to keep a portion of the old Route 17 under state maintenance, years after 17 had been moved to the Nimitz Freeway. Kinda a similar deal to things like Route 72 (former US 101) in SoCal, Route 82/El Camino Real in the Bay Area (itself truncated in recent years), though at this rate CalTrans and the local municipalities seem to be very much about relinquishing as many state highway urban/suburban arterials as possible.
That's what was surprising about CA 82 near San Franisco, it actually was very well Signed. Compared to Routes like 109, 114, 185 and and 112 which aren't or hardly signed on the surface that was surprising to see. Weirder still was seeing that 77 actually had multiple shields despite nothing from I-880.
In my opinion, while it is a good idea to have a state-maintained road between Oakland and San Jose, there is no need to have a duplicate. Before the Nimitz freeway was built, San Pablo avenue was a state-maintained highway, but now it is just a city street and should be maintained by the cities. Other than for historical purposes, there is no need to sign this road as ca 185. Ditto for ca 82 and 72.
Nexus 5X
If I recall correctly wasn't El Camino Real still maintained as US 101 mainline even after the Bayshore Freeway (US 101 Bypass) was built due to localities wanting the route signed as such? I suspect that plays a large part in why CA 82 is so well signed compared to other surface routes in the Bay Area.
While I agree that CA 185 and other routes like that are former parts of larger highways ought to be relinquished it seemed iffy to me that the condition of what Caltrans "does" maintain was so bad. For one if it's in the state highway system it ought it be signed at least until it is given to local agency. Stuff like not signing CA 114and CA 109 is inexcusable in my opinion since they are they are very much active highways that will likely remain for the foreseeable future.
Correct - the Bayshore route was US 101 mainline starting in 1937 or so, but businesses lobbied to have 101 mainline restored to El Camino within 2 years of that. The permanent switchover of 101 along Bayshore happened with the 1964 remembering.
114 reminds me of the now former segment of 170 along Highland Avenue in Hollywood: a surface street routing as a vestige of a cancelled freeway corridor. Could argue that 61 and 77 in the East Bay are a similar situation as well.
SAMSUNG-SM-G930A
Quote from: TheStranger on February 11, 2019, 10:14:37 AM
Correct - the Bayshore route was US 101 mainline starting in 1937 or so, but businesses lobbied to have 101 mainline restored to El Camino within 2 years of that. The permanent switchover of 101 along Bayshore happened with the 1964 remembering.
114 reminds me of the now former segment of 170 along Highland Avenue in Hollywood: a surface street routing as a vestige of a cancelled freeway corridor. Could argue that 61 and 77 in the East Bay are a similar situation as well.
SAMSUNG-SM-G930A
That's what I thought, I suppose it made more sense to have the "bypass" on the freeway routing.
Even thought 114 isn't to the scope it was planned the route does connect 84 and US 101 which not even 109 technically does due to a locally maintained segment. I searched for a new CA 114 at the ramp construction on US 101, sadly it has not been replaced.
I suspect some of the deemphasis of 114 as a signed state route is because prior to the early 2000s, it had been signed 84; but with the in-the-field rerouting to Bayfront Expressway drivers are encouraged now to use that instead (Willow Road/114 is semi residential).
I have only seen 1 114 shields
in person, off 101 south at the Willow interchange about 3 or 4 years ago. Think it was removed after the interchange was rebuilt
SAMSUNG-SM-G930A
So next Sunday I need to make a return trip to San Francisco to pick up from the airport. That being the case I'll probably be spending the day out in the area again. I'm looking at hiking most of the morning but here is what I have in mind for road stuff:
- The covered bridge near Felton
- CA 84 in the Santa Cruz Range
- The new Bay Bridge since I've never driven the current structure somehow.
- Maybe the former right of way of the Embarcadero Freeway.
Quote from: TheStranger on February 11, 2019, 12:07:10 PM
I suspect some of the deemphasis of 114 as a signed state route is because prior to the early 2000s, it had been signed 84; but with the in-the-field rerouting to Bayfront Expressway drivers are encouraged now to use that instead (Willow Road/114 is semi residential).
I have only seen 1 114 shields
in person, off 101 south at the Willow interchange about 3 or 4 years ago. Think it was removed after the interchange was rebuilt
SAMSUNG-SM-G930A
There were "EAST CA 114" trailblazers from US 101 in both directions when I was up here on a visit back in 2008; by the time I had moved up here for good four years later they were gone. East of the US 101 interchange, CA 114/Willow Road is completely industrial, but west of there the road (under Menlo Park maintenance at that point) is a meandering arterial serving as part of the principal access to central Menlo Park from the east; not much has changed since the '80's along that stretch.
Quote from: sparker on February 14, 2019, 07:40:05 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on February 11, 2019, 12:07:10 PM
I suspect some of the deemphasis of 114 as a signed state route is because prior to the early 2000s, it had been signed 84; but with the in-the-field rerouting to Bayfront Expressway drivers are encouraged now to use that instead (Willow Road/114 is semi residential).
I have only seen 1 114 shields
in person, off 101 south at the Willow interchange about 3 or 4 years ago. Think it was removed after the interchange was rebuilt
SAMSUNG-SM-G930A
There were "EAST CA 114" trailblazers from US 101 in both directions when I was up here on a visit back in 2008; by the time I had moved up here for good four years later they were gone. East of the US 101 interchange, CA 114/Willow Road is completely industrial, but west of there the road (under Menlo Park maintenance at that point) is a meandering arterial serving as part of the principal access to central Menlo Park from the east; not much has changed since the '80's along that stretch.
Seems the recent interchange rebuild has taken them way and made 114 unsigned again.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 14, 2019, 07:43:59 PM
Quote from: sparker on February 14, 2019, 07:40:05 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on February 11, 2019, 12:07:10 PM
I suspect some of the deemphasis of 114 as a signed state route is because prior to the early 2000s, it had been signed 84; but with the in-the-field rerouting to Bayfront Expressway drivers are encouraged now to use that instead (Willow Road/114 is semi residential).
I have only seen 1 114 shields
in person, off 101 south at the Willow interchange about 3 or 4 years ago. Think it was removed after the interchange was rebuilt
There were "EAST CA 114" trailblazers from US 101 in both directions when I was up here on a visit back in 2008; by the time I had moved up here for good four years later they were gone. East of the US 101 interchange, CA 114/Willow Road is completely industrial, but west of there the road (under Menlo Park maintenance at that point) is a meandering arterial serving as part of the principal access to central Menlo Park from the east; not much has changed since the '80's along that stretch.
Seems the recent interchange rebuild has taken them way and made 114 unsigned again.
Last October, I traveled 114 in both directions, and from both US 101 northbound and southbound. No 114 signage to be found.
I have my plans finalized for my return day trip to the Bay Area:
- I'll be hitting part of CA 123 and following to City Hall in Oakland the pre-Bay Bridge terminus of Us 40/50.
- I'll be crossing to San Francisco Via the Bay Bridge.
- I'm looking at hitting the terminus of I-280 and King Street and follow Embarcadero Hyde Street Pier. From Hyde Street Pier I'm looking following the original alignment of US 101 out of the city.
- I'm looking at taking CA 84 over the Santa Cruz Mountains to do some hiking. The only road related item I'm looking at from there is the Felton Covered Bridge.
I figure I'll hike until sundown and start heading towards San Francisco International. I'm just hoping the plane will be on time since I have a good 2.5 hour drive back home from there.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 16, 2019, 02:52:41 PM
- I'm looking at hitting the terminus of I-280 and King Street and follow Embarcadero Hyde Street Pier. From Hyde Street Pier I'm looking following the original alignment of US 101 out of the city.
In South San Francisco will you stick on El Camino the whole way through or use the older Mission Road alignment?
I think that is the one spot along Route 82 where an older alignment is nearby; otherwise, it primarily sticks to the existing road. The section in Burlingame is a bit bumpy and narrow compared to the portions north and south of there.
In Colma I think the pavement for 82 is the original 1930s-1940s concrete when it was US 101W/US 101.
Quote from: TheStranger on February 16, 2019, 05:15:06 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 16, 2019, 02:52:41 PM
- I'm looking at hitting the terminus of I-280 and King Street and follow Embarcadero Hyde Street Pier. From Hyde Street Pier I'm looking following the original alignment of US 101 out of the city.
In South San Francisco will you stick on El Camino the whole way through or use the older Mission Road alignment?
I think that is the one spot along Route 82 where an older alignment is nearby; otherwise, it primarily sticks to the existing road. The section in Burlingame is a bit bumpy and narrow compared to the portions north and south of there.
In Colma I think the pavement for 82 is the original 1930s-1940s concrete when it was US 101W/US 101.
Actually I was just going to take the Old alignment out of the City Limits and hitting I-280 Via John Daly. Now that you reminded I might make the Detour down Old Mission.
Just finished up my Bay Area photos from yesterday. Below is what I did with some thoughts.
CA 120 Freeway
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmAZGTS7
- This freeway more or less always felt like an extension of I-205 which I suppose makes sense since it is on the edge of the US 48 corridor and essentially is a limited access replacement for what was US 99W. The design is pretty good through Manteca, it wouldn't surprise me if I-7/I-9 ever became a thing that CA 120 would see a truncation.
I-580 from I-205 to CA 13
https://flic.kr/s/aHskNNyxgv
- Really this a very pretty freeway, especially over Altamont Pass. There was some sort of construction area signed but there was no evidence of any work. I thought it was odd the express lanes are all the way out in Livermore and not closer to San Francisco Bay.
CA 123 to the terminus of US 40/US 50 in Oakland
https://flic.kr/s/aHskS6dhT7
- I believe that CA 123 actually needs at Peralta Street on San Pablo Avenue if memory serves correctly. The real surprise for me with this once was that CA 123 was actually signed with reassurance shields which I found to be a surprise. Unless had prior knowledge that San Pablo and 14th was the terminus of US 40/50 before the Bay Bridge you would never know it. The city plaza is kind of ugly and really is kind of disappointing it doesn't even acknowledge such an important highway terminus point.
I-980
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmAZQobs
- I can't be the only one who thinks this still should be part of CA 24? Really there isn't much special on this route but the eastbound signage is pretty clear that you'll end up on CA 24 if you don't jump onto I-580. Having I-80, I-880, I-580 and I-980 all within a couple blocks seems excessive for Interstate designations.
I-280 terminus and the Embarcadero:
https://flic.kr/s/aHskNNHG7Z
- I-280 has one of the best looking terminus views in the State Highway system with the wiping sweeping look at downtown San Francisco. The Embarcadero hasn't change a ton since I was on it last, the green bike lane is a nice touch. The view of the Bay Bridge is worth the drive alone, it is hard to fathom the double decker freeway which used to be here.
Original US 101 alignment in San Francisco
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmAKA8oe
- Aside from Hyde Street I got the impression driving the original alignment of US 101 in San Francisco that it largely used simply due to the easy of the terrain. Valencia to Mission in particular seems to be right in the gap through the easiest terrain below the hill sides.
CA 84 in the Santa Cruz Mountains
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmAKF5nV
- Really this is a kind of primitive alignment even more so than CA 9 south from Saratoga. Things get a little better west of CA 35 but pretty much all the reassurance shields disappear. Someone went on a shield theft rampage and took all the CA 35 shields at the junctions to Skyline.
Ice Cream Grade
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmyCnsoZ
- Most of my photos turned out like crap but this was a pretty cool find that I didn't know was there. Supposedly this road was named after how it was funded which I'm to understand was from ice cream sales in the late 19th century. I'm sure there is interesting story with an answer just like Kitchen-Dick Road up in Washington.
Felton Covered Bridge
https://flic.kr/s/aHskNNSpG6
- Really cool somewhat newer covered bridge from the 1890s which was used until 1937. I'm to understand this was the tallest covered bridge ever built in the United States. Compared to other covered bridges this one felt the most practical.
I-80 over the Bay Bridge
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmAZWcxG
- This was my first time over the new bridge structure and it really is a looker. The toll booths are fairly well organized, especially to what I'm remembering. Its kind of disappointing that I-80 doesn't even get an "end" placard at US 101.
Re Route 123: Cahighways identifies I-580 as Route 123's southern terminus, so that makes me wonder if the segment of the short MacArthur Boulevard expressway/freeway between I-580 and the Peralta/San Pablo Avenue ramp set is actually the real southernmost portion of 123. That part of MacArthur of course connected what had been Business US 40 along San Pablo back to its parent, as well as carrying mainline US 50 before the MacArthur Freeway itself was built.
980: Part of the reason for the numbering was that when it was first conceived, I-880 along the Nimitz Freeway hadn't been designated yet (880 at the time being used for the Beltline portion of today's I-80 in Sacramento's Natomas area). So the numbering kinda made sense - a spur south from I-580 to a state route freeway, Route 17. IMO with the opening of the 4th bore of the Caldecott a few years ago, 980 should be extended east, especially as 24/980 use one exit numbering set (very much unlike 17/880 which is still really one corridor to this day).
I actually drove all of 980 westbound today on the way to the Sharks game, and had driven all of it eastbound last week en route to Berkeley after a long drive up from Palmdale. It feels a bit longer than it actually is as it has way more ramps than similarly short freeways in the Bay Area (238, the Central Freeway part of 101, 380).
Since you mentioned end placards, I did notice that on the flyover that 980 west uses to get to 880 south, a SOUTH 880 trailblazer is up on there (rather than an END 980 sign set).
280: I have some childhood memories of the old I-280 terminus at 4th Street that existed from about the mid-1970s to the time the Giants' ballpark was built - a large viaduct that had completely unused lanes between 4th and the 6th ramps, and essentially was only in use northbound only up until the ramp for 4th. I sadly didn't take any photos of it back in the late 90s when it was in use.
Quote from: TheStranger on February 19, 2019, 05:52:49 AM
Re Route 123: Cahighways identifies I-580 as Route 123's southern terminus, so that makes me wonder if the segment of the short MacArthur Boulevard expressway/freeway between I-580 and the Peralta/San Pablo Avenue ramp set is actually the real southernmost portion of 123. That part of MacArthur of course connected what had been Business US 40 along San Pablo back to its parent, as well as carrying mainline US 50 before the MacArthur Freeway itself was built.
980: Part of the reason for the numbering was that when it was first conceived, I-880 along the Nimitz Freeway hadn't been designated yet (880 at the time being used for the Beltline portion of today's I-80 in Sacramento's Natomas area). So the numbering kinda made sense - a spur south from I-580 to a state route freeway, Route 17. IMO with the opening of the 4th bore of the Caldecott a few years ago, 980 should be extended east, especially as 24/980 use one exit numbering set (very much unlike 17/880 which is still really one corridor to this day).
I actually drove all of 980 westbound today on the way to the Sharks game, and had driven all of it eastbound last week en route to Berkeley after a long drive up from Palmdale. It feels a bit longer than it actually is as it has way more ramps than similarly short freeways in the Bay Area (238, the Central Freeway part of 101, 380).
Since you mentioned end placards, I did notice that on the flyover that 980 west uses to get to 880 south, a SOUTH 880 trailblazer is up on there (rather than an END 980 sign set).
280: I have some childhood memories of the old I-280 terminus at 4th Street that existed from about the mid-1970s to the time the Giants' ballpark was built - a large viaduct that had completely unused lanes between 4th and the 6th ramps, and essentially was only in use northbound only up until the ramp for 4th. I sadly didn't take any photos of it back in the late 90s when it was in use.
Regarding CA 123 I plan on using the post Mile tool to see exactly we're the mileage ends at. With 980 I was always under the impression that the tunnels on CA 24 was the reason why the designation couldn't be extended to 680? Some of the older tunnels are a far cry from Interstate standards. Interesting that 980 out of all places had an end placard, the only three I recall seeing on my trip was on 82, 61 (twice oddly) and 92. I-280 and former 480 will be intriguing to look into given how much things have been altered since the 1980:
Presently I'm on 112, 61 and 260 on my blog series. I did the historical summary for all three routes which is actually fairly intriguing considering they were all part of LRN 69, 252 and 226 as one route at various points. 260 being spun off into its own thing always struck me as odd given how way too ambitious the expansion of 61 west of I-80 really was. The double end 61 shields at both sides of the Webster/Posey Tubes was interesting to see. Even 112 had signage indicating that 61 continues on it Via Davis Street.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 19, 2019, 08:05:52 PM
Regarding CA 123 I plan on using the post Mile tool to see exactly we're the mileage ends at.
In general does CalTrans consider the onramp connection to a route to be the route's terminus, or the physical overpass/underpass where one road crosses another? It seems like a minor detail but that has me thinking a little bit given the way concurrencies are handled legislatively: i.e. for instance, when Route 99 connects with US 50 in Sacramento, does the segment end where the ramps feed into US 50 westbound, or is the mainline former US 99E/US 50 freeway between the offramp and the Business 80 onramp also part of Route 99? And the second segment of I-10 in the legislative definition essentially includes all of the former US 60/70/99 portion of the San Bernardino Freeway between US 101 and I-5, which doesn't have any direct way of connecting with the Santa Monica Freeway portion.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 19, 2019, 08:05:52 PM
With 980 I was always under the impression that the tunnels on CA 24 was the reason why the designation couldn't be extended to 680? Some of the older tunnels are a far cry from Interstate standards. Interesting that 980 out of all places had an end placard, the only three I recall seeing on my trip was on 82, 61 (twice oddly) and 92. I-280 and former 480 will be intriguing to look into given how much things have been altered since the 1980:
I actually meant that 980 didn't have an end placard, rather the 880 SOUTH thing, but I also drove through it as it was getting dark. I'll need to check it out again sometime later this month. I think the reason the designation wasn't extended is that 980 is the only segment that was built with Interstate funds.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 19, 2019, 08:05:52 PM
Presently I'm on 112, 61 and 260 on my blog series. I did the historical summary for all three routes which is actually fairly intriguing considering they were all part of LRN 69, 252 and 226 as one route at various points. 260 being spun off into its own thing always struck me as odd given how way too ambitious the expansion of 61 west of I-80 really was. The double end 61 shields at both sides of the Webster/Posey Tubes was interesting to see. Even 112 had signage indicating that 61 continues on it Via Davis Street.
The 61 and 87 bayfront freeway concepts are interesting by themselves - not only due to the extreme optimism planners had in creating both concepts, but also making me wonder if the initial plan for relief/bypass routes in the Bay involved having closely-spaced parallel corridors of 6 or so lanes in width, rather than the current example of 8+ lane wide freeways doing all the heavy lifting for one trajectory. (i.e. between I-238 and Route 84, the Nimitz Freeway was not intended to be the only north-south freeway between Hayward and Newark, but to be one of three with Route 238 and Route 61)
I'm pretty sure the routes technically end before the ramps generally, or least that's how District 6 has been signing them. I would imagine that the Post Mile Tool will be pretty illuminating towards answering that question.
That makes me think it's a Freeway thing in the Bay Area regarding the lack of end signage. For what it's worth some even well Signed surface routes like 84 don't seem to have end placards either. I believe you are correct about 980 being signed over an area upgraded with Interstate funding, wasn't that also the case with I-238?
Really I don't think the planners had any reason not to be optimistic about some of the grand projects that popped up in the 1950s/60s. There may have been Freeway revolts but it really wasn't until the California Environmental Quality Act follows by the Environmental Protection Act that road building really ground to a halt. Really I find it amazing that some of the legislative plans of the time haven't been scrapped and an attempt clear up the Existing Highway system hasn't been made in the almost five decades since.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 19, 2019, 08:35:55 PM
I'm pretty sure the routes technically end before the ramps generally, or least that's how District 6 has been signing them. I would imagine that the Post Mile Tool will be pretty illuminating towards answering that question.
That makes me think it's a Freeway thing in the Bay Area regarding the lack of end signage. For what it's worth some even well Signed surface routes like 84 don't seem to have end placards either. I believe you are correct about 980 being signed over an area upgraded with Interstate funding, wasn't that also the case with I-238?
I-980 and I-110 came about ca. 1981, while I-238, I-710, today's I-880, and the I-580 extension to San Rafael are all from 1984. Isn't that the last time new Interstate signage has been created in California, period? (As 210 east of Route 57, I-15 south of I-8, and 905 all still are not yet signed as Interstates.) 880 interestingly is an example in which freeway that had once been part of Interstate routings in the early 1960s (the former 280/680 portion of 17 between 262 and the Santana Row shopping complex) was readded to the system approximately 19 years after being removed from it, I feel like the former Business I-40 in Greensboro is one of the few other times a route was restored to the Interstate network after being taken out from it.
I don't know how much Interstate funding came into play with 880 when the rerouted Cypress portion of the freeway (980 to MacArthur Maze) ended up being constructed in the 1990s after the Loma Prieta earthquake.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 19, 2019, 08:35:55 PM
Really I don't think the planners had any reason not to be optimistic about some of the grand projects that popped up in the 1950s/60s. There may have been Freeway revolts but it really wasn't until the California Environmental Quality Act follows by the Environmental Protection Act that road building really ground to a halt. Really I find it amazing that some of the legislative plans of the time haven't been scrapped and an attempt clear up the Existing Highway system hasn't been made in the almost five decades since.
One of the side effects of the latter:
I-380's exit numbering starts at 5 at the El Camino Real ramp set, rather than at 1! As a comparison: although Route 14 south of Sylmar is still legislatively on the books, the exit numbering deliberately starts from I-5 rather than from the planned southern terminus near Malibu that is never happening. I remember seeing those Exit 5 signs on 380 for the first time a few years ago and being very surprised.
Could argue the piecemeal application of relinquishments has only added to the lack of cleanup of route definitions/numbers that exists to this day - there are many perfectly good route numbers like 64 and 81 that have never been used except to represent never-to-be-built lines on planning maps. The 1964 renumbering was not as comprehensive as say Nevada's 1976 renumbering, in part to maintain as many existing state route numbers from California's 1934 batch as possible; however this is probably why we ended up with I-238.