https://sf.streetsblog.org/2019/04/17/inside-the-push-to-tear-down-an-oakland-freeway/
By removing just the section of freeway next to downtown Oakland, the city would get thirteen empty city blocks. Parks, leafy boulevards, and affordable housing could spread down that corridor. Trains could whisk people underneath: This section of I-980 runs through a massive trench, some twenty feet below the rest of the city streets, which could serve as a ready made tunnel for the second much-needed subway crossing planned between Oakland and San Francisco. And once the ConnectOakland team started thinking about rail, they realized there would be plenty of space not just for the train system, BART, but also for a commuter line between San Francisco and San Jose, and for Amtrak, and maybe even for high-speed rail. There could be enough room for an entire underground rail yard to store trains and shuffle them between tracks.
Cities were losing people and their tax revenue in the 1970s, and Oakland thought it could stem the tide with a massive downtown redevelopment. It drew up plans for a downtown shopping center with freeway offramps running directly to its garage, so that suburbanites could do their shopping without ever setting foot on Oakland's streets. But this downtown plan depended upon finishing the freeway, and the fastest way to do that was to say "yes" to all of Clay's demands. (In the end, the plans for the shopping center fell apart and it was never built).
Trouble is there that I-980 still carries a large amount of traffic and functionally replaced I-880 when it was damaged in the Loma Prieta Earthquake. Any act that removes limited access road capacity that currently exists in the Bay Area I'm not in favor of. Somehow I-980 is being lumped in as the modern "Embarcadero Freeway" when it doesn't deserve such levels of disdain.
Affordable housing in the Bay Area?...now that's a pipe dream if I've ever heard one.
Also, we had a previous I-980 thread going not too long ago. Perhaps these two could be merged?
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=24601.0
None of that makes any sense to me:
Anything that would place more traffic on the MacArthur Maze should be a non-starter.
A rail tunnel in that corridor wouldn't serve any purpose:
BART is already in a tunnel a half-mile away. If a second transbay tunnel was started in the 980 corridor (so that the Richmond and Antioch lines would use it) then the 19th Street and 12th Street stations are...abandoned? Relocated a half-mile away from downtown Oakland? Those are the busiest BART stations outside of the Market Street corridor.
Meanwhile, ignoring the fact that a San Francisco-San Jose commuter line (Caltrain) exists and has for 125+ years, making a SF-SJ line via Oakland is redundant (because of BART), and would not use the 980 corridor anyway - a) because once it's done on 980, there's no existing rail corridor to jump onto; b) it would never reach 980 in any case - it would simply go onto the Capitol Corridor at Jack London.
Same with Amtrak. Where would it go north of 980?
In any case, they solved the problem when they state the freeway is in a trench. Just leave the freeway and cover it between 11th and 20th Streets.
A carry over from the previous I-980 thread that I forgot last night is that the freeway still gets 100,000 plus cars a day. As noted above forcing more vehicles onto the MacArthur Maze would only worsen traffic issues.
Wait isn't I-980 a continuation of CA-24. I-980 and CA-24 has to carry traffic from the Diablo Valley who commute to Oakland and San Francisco though. Also I-980 was part of a proposed southern crossing bridge to South San Francisco at one point though prior to the southern crossing being shifted to Hayward to San Bruno though with I-238 meeting up with I-380 though.
Quote from: bing101 on April 18, 2019, 02:06:39 PM
Wait isn't I-980 a continuation of CA-24. I-980 has to carry traffic from the Diablo Valley who commute to Oakland and San Francisco though.
Correct, but when CA 24 was around there wasn't a link connecting I-580 to I-880 (old CA 17). The urbanism movement around the Bay Area has targeted I-980 as some sort of focal point for urban renewal in Oakland. I'd argue that housing costs (which isn't a good thing in my opinion) skyrocketing has pretty much already start the path to urban renewal in Oakland. That begs the question, what is demolishing a freeway carrying 100,000 plus vehicles a day going to actually accomplish besides creating more traffic problem. If there was an alternate solution like finishing the CA 77 freeway before I-880 and I-580 in addition to a full interchange at I-580/CA 13 I could see more of a reasonable argument for getting rid of I-980.
Which side has greater momentum in their cause? The tear-it-down crowd, or the leave-it-alone crowd?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 18, 2019, 03:42:31 PM
Which side has greater momentum in their cause? The tear-it-down crowd, or the leave-it-alone crowd?
The tear-it-down crowd certainly is the one pushing the most and being the loudest. So far I haven't really seen anything from anyone in Caltrans or of importance State wise really making comment on it. I'd suspect not many people at the State level really care, I don't believe there has been anything popping up on the CTC regarding I-980?
I go through the CTC minutes, and I certainly don't recall anything. If there was, it would be on my 980 pages, as well as any articles on the subject.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 18, 2019, 03:52:05 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 18, 2019, 03:42:31 PM
Which side has greater momentum in their cause? The tear-it-down crowd, or the leave-it-alone crowd?
The tear-it-down crowd certainly is the one pushing the most and being the loudest. So far I haven't really seen anything from anyone in Caltrans or of importance State wise really making comment on it. I'd suspect not many people at the State level really care, I don't believe there has been anything popping up on the CTC regarding I-980?
The tear-it-down crowd is louder right now because those drivers using I-980 regularly probably don't realize there are some who want to remove it. You can bet if there was suddenly an announcement that I-980 would be torn down there would be a lot of vocal opposition to that.
Quote from: skluth on April 18, 2019, 04:13:07 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 18, 2019, 03:52:05 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 18, 2019, 03:42:31 PM
Which side has greater momentum in their cause? The tear-it-down crowd, or the leave-it-alone crowd?
The tear-it-down crowd certainly is the one pushing the most and being the loudest. So far I haven't really seen anything from anyone in Caltrans or of importance State wise really making comment on it. I'd suspect not many people at the State level really care, I don't believe there has been anything popping up on the CTC regarding I-980?
The tear-it-down crowd is louder right now because those drivers using I-980 regularly probably don't realize there are some who want to remove it. You can bet if there was suddenly an announcement that I-980 would be torn down there would be a lot of vocal opposition to that.
Looking at a map, it looks similar to the I-345 situation. One leg of a "square" that allows drivers to use the other three legs if it is torn down, and over 100k AADT. The main difference is that I-345 is part of a through route, while I-980 is for short and medium length trips, not long distance.
Quote from: 1 on April 18, 2019, 04:18:06 PM
Looking at a map, it looks similar to the I-345 situation. One leg of a "square" that allows drivers to use the other three legs if it is torn down, and over 100k AADT. The main difference is that I-345 is part of a through route, while I-980 is for short and medium length trips, not long distance.
However there are two major differences:
- There is no way for drivers on 880 north to get to Route 24 otherwise, as the MacArthur Maze has never had ramps from 880 north (historically 17 north) to 580 east or from 580 west to 880 south
- Given how busy the MacArthur Maze itself is (as the only point of access from Oakland directly to San Francisco), providing any sort of alternate away from it is pretty important, even for just that one set of movements.
Quote from: 1 on April 18, 2019, 04:18:06 PM
Quote from: skluth on April 18, 2019, 04:13:07 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 18, 2019, 03:52:05 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 18, 2019, 03:42:31 PM
Which side has greater momentum in their cause? The tear-it-down crowd, or the leave-it-alone crowd?
The tear-it-down crowd certainly is the one pushing the most and being the loudest. So far I haven't really seen anything from anyone in Caltrans or of importance State wise really making comment on it. I'd suspect not many people at the State level really care, I don't believe there has been anything popping up on the CTC regarding I-980?
The tear-it-down crowd is louder right now because those drivers using I-980 regularly probably don't realize there are some who want to remove it. You can bet if there was suddenly an announcement that I-980 would be torn down there would be a lot of vocal opposition to that.
Looking at a map, it looks similar to the I-345 situation. One leg of a "square" that allows drivers to use the other three legs if it is torn down, and over 100k AADT. The main difference is that I-345 is part of a through route, while I-980 is for short and medium length trips, not long distance.
That's what I was getting at a couple posts above. The next closest limited access route that would connect I-580 and I-880 is all the way in Hayward at I-238. Removing 980 greatly reduce the potential number of movements and force traffic onto surfaces that aren't designed the handle the load. 980 functionally is still part of CA 24 for all intents and purposes, I'd argue that it has far more regional utility than is being stated in these articles.
It should be noted that there are a couple major gaps in the planned freeway system in Oakland that would have negated the need for 980 had they actually been built. I touched on CA 77 up thread but CA 13 to I-80 comes to mind as well.
Quote from: jander on April 17, 2019, 11:07:36 PM
https://sf.streetsblog.org/2019/04/17/inside-the-push-to-tear-down-an-oakland-freeway/
By removing just the section of freeway next to downtown Oakland, the city would get thirteen empty city blocks. Parks, leafy boulevards, and affordable housing could spread down that corridor. Trains could whisk people underneath: This section of I-980 runs through a massive trench, some twenty feet below the rest of the city streets, which could serve as a ready made tunnel for the second much-needed subway crossing planned between Oakland and San Francisco. And once the ConnectOakland team started thinking about rail, they realized there would be plenty of space not just for the train system, BART, but also for a commuter line between San Francisco and San Jose, and for Amtrak, and maybe even for high-speed rail. There could be enough room for an entire underground rail yard to store trains and shuffle them between tracks.
So what about the traffic (over 100K vehicles daily) who use I-980? What of those who drive CA 24 to Oakland and use I-980 as the freeway connector to I-880? Those vehicles will need an expanded I-580 to the bridge then new ramps and a widened I-880 to maintain a similar capacity. This isn't the Embarcadero Freeway which blocked the waterfront and dumped onto a city street. This is a continuation of a freeway to another freeway.
Quote from: cahwyguy on April 18, 2019, 03:59:30 PM
I go through the CTC minutes, and I certainly don't recall anything. If there was, it would be on my 980 pages, as well as any articles on the subject.
My assumption would be until something pops up on the CTC minutes none of this 980 tear down talk as any real momentum. The completed 980 really isn't even all that old. Demolishing 980 would be a tall order as selling point after such a short time period and expecting the state to pay for it.
Quote from: jander on April 17, 2019, 11:07:36 PM
https://sf.streetsblog.org/2019/04/17/inside-the-push-to-tear-down-an-oakland-freeway/
By removing just the section of freeway next to downtown Oakland, the city would get thirteen empty city blocks. Parks, leafy boulevards, and affordable housing could spread down that corridor.
"Affordable housing" is enough of a fantasy in the Bay Area as is. Parks and leafy boulevards make it even more likely that the I-980 corridor would be thoroughly gentrified, rather than being of any help to the people who now live in the vicinity.
The mixed feelings (to put it mildly) about a proposed New Orleans freeway removal, among local residents (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=24794.msg2408109#msg2408109), are illustrative. They were afraid that the freeway removal could improve the neighborhood to the point of pricing out the people who now live there, destroying their community in the process.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 18, 2019, 04:29:54 PM
That's what I was getting at a couple posts above. The next closest limited access route that would connect I-580 and I-880 is all the way in Hayward at I-238. Removing 980 greatly reduce the potential number of movements and force traffic onto surfaces that aren't designed the handle the load. 980 functionally is still part of CA 24 for all intents and purposes, I'd argue that it has far more regional utility than is being stated in these articles.
In my 20s I lived out in Concord, and getting to a ballgame at the Coliseum or going to Oakland Airport required taking CA 13 down to I-580, exiting at either Seminary or Edwards and trekking across East Oakland. Edwards Avenue in particular is a narrow, steep 2-lane residential street, even passing a school, although it does eventually open onto the 73rd Ave./Hegenberger Road boulevard. The completion of that final mile or so of I-980 was a huge relief, even more so in the years after the 1989 earthquake.
https://www.sfgate.com/commute/article/oakland-980-freeway-biden-infrastructure-bay-area-16172033.php
A couple of thoughts:
The "Housing of all income levels" thing for the planned boulevard and city blocks is an interesting assertion when the road they are modeling after (Octavia Boulevard in SF along the former Central Freeway) pretty much is the core of the upper-middle/higher-class modern Hayes Valley.
No mention at all of how people from 880 will now reach 24 and vice versa. That to me is the more interesting engineering challenge should this come to pass, will 24 basically become unreachable from the Nimitz Freeway without either going through San Lorenzo on 238 or through stoplights along the 980-replacement boulevard?
The webpage http://www.connectoakland.org/ has a progression of images that show the aerials of Interstate 980 over the last 36 years. It seems like the idea is to rebuild the grid system just east of Interstate 880 and place housing. I wonder if the freeway could be placed underground with cut and cover tunnels rather than building the at-grade boulevard. I agree with Chris, there is no consideration for how to make the movement from I-880 north to State Route 24 east. I guess they would just take the at-grade boulevard past the new housing? I-980 is part of the best route to travel from State Route 24 corridor communities to Oakland International Airport, so hopefully that will be a consideration as part of any study to reclaim I-980.
Quote from: oscar on April 18, 2019, 05:34:18 PM
Quote from: jander on April 17, 2019, 11:07:36 PM
https://sf.streetsblog.org/2019/04/17/inside-the-push-to-tear-down-an-oakland-freeway/ (https://sf.streetsblog.org/2019/04/17/inside-the-push-to-tear-down-an-oakland-freeway/)
By removing just the section of freeway next to downtown Oakland, the city would get thirteen empty city blocks. Parks, leafy boulevards, and affordable housing could spread down that corridor.
"Affordable housing" is enough of a fantasy in the Bay Area as is. Parks and leafy boulevards make it even more likely that the I-980 corridor would be thoroughly gentrified, rather than being of any help to the people who now live in the vicinity.
The mixed feelings (to put it mildly) about a proposed New Orleans freeway removal, among local residents (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=24794.msg2408109#msg2408109), are illustrative. They were afraid that the freeway removal could improve the neighborhood to the point of pricing out the people who now live there, destroying their community in the process.
Yes it's a mixed one too if I-980 was removed then we will run into the gentrification debate.
Quote from: TheStranger on April 18, 2019, 04:23:26 PM
Quote from: 1 on April 18, 2019, 04:18:06 PM
Looking at a map, it looks similar to the I-345 situation. One leg of a "square" that allows drivers to use the other three legs if it is torn down, and over 100k AADT. The main difference is that I-345 is part of a through route, while I-980 is for short and medium length trips, not long distance.
However there are two major differences:
- There is no way for drivers on 880 north to get to Route 24 otherwise, as the MacArthur Maze has never had ramps from 880 north (historically 17 north) to 580 east or from 580 west to 880 south
- Given how busy the MacArthur Maze itself is (as the only point of access from Oakland directly to San Francisco), providing any sort of alternate away from it is pretty important, even for just that one set of movements.
And the third is that trucks are not permitted on 580 east of 24/980 so that would really leave truck traffic in the lurch getting from the Diablo Valley to the port or points south.
I get the reasons to remove it; it did sever the western part of the city from downtown. However, as noted by others, this is not a "dead end" freeway into city streets ala the Embarcadero. Whatever the cost of removing it, constructing new connector ramps at the Maze (and widening the approaches to it), and dealing with the myriad other impacts of doing so, it would seem to be of greater benefit to build over the section between 11th and 18th Streets since it's already in a trench. The street grid in this section could be restored to reconnect the neighborhood and provide a whole lot of developable "land" albeit on a podium that could be used to address housing need mixed with neighborhood-supporting commercial and some park space. The Big Dig in Boston was a mess in construction and cost but the end product is that walking or driving the city streets you'd never know it's there if it wasn't pointed out.
Quote from: heynow415 on May 13, 2021, 11:25:24 AM
The Big Dig in Boston was a mess in construction and cost but the end product is that walking or driving the city streets you'd never know it's there if it wasn't pointed out.
"Why is this open wannabe park here?"
Yes, it's better since the Central Artery came down. But also yes, you know it's there.
It's clear to me that the push to tear down I-980 is based on local considerations without thinking too much about regional. The fact is, 980 is carrying some regional traffic that will have to go....somewhere.
Now, the http://www.connectoakland.org/ people mention that a lot of the complexity and current traffic is due to people actually entering and exiting from 980 into downtown Oakland. So, why not de-scope 980 into just a direct connector between 880 (really, only to/from the south) and 580/24 (just need to/from the east on 580 and 24), and let the local interchanges on 24, 580, and 880 take the local traffic? Probably wouldn't need a freeway more than 2 lanes in each direction at that point, and you can call it ramps instead of a freeway if people would like that better. It would have a much smaller footprint, whether it remains where it is, or whether it goes underground or gets capped (which I would support).
Re: BART, there is some context here around capacity. YES, there is already a BART line a few blocks away, but it's at capacity, so the the authors are interested in adding more (eventually leading to an additional crossing of the Bay). Is this cheaper / more effective than adding capacity to the existing lines? I don't know, but I would guess it would be infeasible to widen the existing lines (from 2 to 4 tracks, for example), especially without disrupting existing service.
Quote from: citrus on May 13, 2021, 04:02:53 PM
Re: BART, there is some context here around capacity. YES, there is already a BART line a few blocks away, but it's at capacity, so the the authors are interested in adding more (eventually leading to an additional crossing of the Bay). Is this cheaper / more effective than adding capacity to the existing lines? I don't know, but I would guess it would be infeasible to widen the existing lines (from 2 to 4 tracks, for example), especially without disrupting existing service.
A future Second Tube notwithstanding, from MacArthur there are already four tracks up to the point they enter the tunnel where it is three tracks. With the 12th and 19th St. stations having stacked platforms (two tracks on the upper level, one one the lower) it has always mystified me why they didn't either build or provide for the fourth track under Broadway, thus enabling balanced throughput. As it is now, Richmond and Pittsburg trains "outbound" can travel in parallel on the two upper level tracks but SF or Berryessa trains "inbound" can only go one at a time, with the attendant distance separation using the single/lower level track and platform, creating a choke point that affects the whole system. There has been plenty of debate over the years as to why BART wasn't built in the NYC four track express/local arrangement (it would have been prohibitively expensive) but this section should have been a no-brainer given its essential role in the system.
Quote from: Rothman on May 13, 2021, 03:13:28 PM
Quote from: heynow415 on May 13, 2021, 11:25:24 AM
The Big Dig in Boston was a mess in construction and cost but the end product is that walking or driving the city streets you'd never know it's there if it wasn't pointed out.
"Why is this open wannabe park here?"
Yes, it's better since the Central Artery came down. But also yes, you know it's there.
You know that. Locals probably know that. Most visitors will just think it's a nice downtown park except for the busy streets flanking the sides. It's like the Arch grounds in St Louis; most visitors don't realize there's a series of railroad tunnels running between the Arch and the Mississippi unless they see one of the trains enter at the south end. It's so well-landscaped that the open air between the tunnels aren't noticed unless you take the elevator to the top of the Arch.
If the "powers that be" want to put a cap over the 980, by all means let it happen. If those caps contain commercial and/or residential development, let the developers pay for the cost of the cap. If those caps contain a park, let the City of Oakland or the proceeds from the local Sales and Use Tax dedicated to transportation from Alameda County cover it. If the freeway is removed altogether, and replaced with a "leafy boulevard," let the locals pay for it and let them reap the consequences of their decision.
As we all know, the Central and Embarcadero freeways were stubs of a much bigger system, acting as glorified off-ramps. Interstate 980 is different. It is a very vital stretch of freeway connecting all the chief freeways of the east bay. It takes a lot of inter-regional traffic off of Oakland's surface streets.
Most arguments for removal of freeways in urban areas are based on emotion, rather than traffic count statistics. In many cases, urban freeway removals (or boulevard downgrades) were supplanted by nearby new or existing parallel freeways (Oklahoma City, Portland, West Sacramento). In cities where urban freeways were removed (San Francisco, Milwaukee), it involved removing the stubs of canceled freeways.
Removing 980 from the Bay Area freeway grid would be a big regional mistake. I hope cooler heads prevail, and things remain as is.
There have been some really good ideas here that I don't think have been considered elsewhere. I really like the idea of just making I-980 two long freeway ramps connecting CA 24 to I-880, much like these ramps connecting I-88 to I-294 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8503836,-87.9298809,15.03z?hl=en) just outside Chicago. I'd still put half-interchanges at each end for traffic coming into Oakland, but eliminate all ramps going in or out between 11th St and 27th St. That would make capping the highway fairly simple from 11th to 18th. It's not worth burying I-980 around San Pablo to 27th because you'd have to tunnel rather than cap that section. We don't need to Big Dig this.
I believe the urbanists are more concerned about the freeway just west of downtown more than the Grove Shafter Park area. A park over most of I-980 between 11th and 18th should placate most calling for removal. It should also reduce E-W traffic through downtown as cars from CA 24 would mostly enter on Northgate and there are still several NB options for I-880 traffic going downtown. There would probably need to be some street fixes too, but that's for the local planners.
Some people would lose their preferred commutes, but that's about the only real damage. I'd love this in part because it would be fun watching the same urbanists start whining as the inevitable gentrification consumes West Oakland.
Fixed URL tag. –Roadfro
Quote from: Concrete Bob on May 14, 2021, 11:42:01 PM
As we all know, the Central and Embarcadero freeways were stubs of a much bigger system, acting as glorified off-ramps.
...
Most arguments for removal of freeways in urban areas are based on emotion, rather than traffic count statistics.
With regards to the Central Freeway north of Market Street: I recall that the argument back then was that the traffic along it was no more than a local city street would have, specifically from those who were battling to have it removed.
Since the 2005 reconfiguration where the terminus is now Market and feeds into Octavia Boulevard, Octavia has become a regular source of traffic in part due to the restaurants that opened up in Hayes Valley (and not just in the area where the freeway used to be) and the boutique shops that also were built in the last 15 years. I've personally gone to several of the dessert shops (i.e. Smitten Ice Cream right where the US 101 viaduct once ran) so I do enjoy the neighborhood as it is now, but it isn't as mellow as Mandela Parkway or as idyllic as The Embarcadero.
The increased business activity on Octavia in turn has made the current Market Street to Bayshore Freeway/I-80 segment of the Central Freeway a lot more vital now.
IMO this is why Dogpatch residents strongly opposed the late Mayor Ed Lee's now-defunct proposal to remove 280 north of Cesar Chavez (Army) to the ballpark, they very specifically pointed to Octavia's traffic increase as something they did NOT want. Could also be argued that since much of the Mission Bay development is already east of the existing highway (i.e. Chase Center, the newer buildings along 4th, the UCSF and Kaiser facilities, and the food truck park I actually went to last night with friends), that the road directly serves all the new structures in the area to begin with - something that will be enhanced once the planned carpool lane to connect to the US 101 peninsula carpool lane is completed.
Oakland obviously is a different set of circumstances and at the end of they day they will do whatever they choose to do (and have the funding to enact).
Quote from: Concrete Bob on May 14, 2021, 11:42:01 PM
If the "powers that be" want to put a cap over the 980, by all means let it happen. If those caps contain commercial and/or residential development, let the developers pay for the cost of the cap. If those caps contain a park, let the City of Oakland or the proceeds from the local Sales and Use Tax dedicated to transportation from Alameda County cover it. If the freeway is removed altogether, and replaced with a "leafy boulevard," let the locals pay for it and let them reap the consequences of their decision.
As we all know, the Central and Embarcadero freeways were stubs of a much bigger system, acting as glorified off-ramps. Interstate 980 is different. It is a very vital stretch of freeway connecting all the chief freeways of the east bay. It takes a lot of inter-regional traffic off of Oakland's surface streets.
Most arguments for removal of freeways in urban areas are based on emotion, rather than traffic count statistics. In many cases, urban freeway removals (or boulevard downgrades) were supplanted by nearby new or existing parallel freeways (Oklahoma City, Portland, West Sacramento). In cities where urban freeways were removed (San Francisco, Milwaukee), it involved removing the stubs of canceled freeways.
Removing 980 from the Bay Area freeway grid would be a big regional mistake. I hope cooler heads prevail, and things remain as is.
Same I agree too. Also I see this ending in the gentrification debate if that happens.
Could the northern-most portion of Interstate 980 (the portion north of 18th Street) be converted into a depressed freeway? Perhaps doing that, and adding caps over it would help decrease the barrier the existing freeway portrays.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 17, 2021, 02:21:13 PM
Could the northern-most portion of Interstate 980 (the portion north of 18th Street) be converted into a depressed freeway? Perhaps doing that, and adding caps over it would help decrease the barrier the existing freeway portrays.
It's possible to convert the rest into a depressed freeway. However, it would be very expensive there. There are a minimum of three streets which would need viaducts; San Pedro, Grand Av, and Castro/MLK Way. A couple of the buildings adjacent to I-980 would also need to be removed since they would rest on depressed lanes' walls. It can't be done further north because of the BART tracks that enter the median at Sycamore.
There's also an elevation issue. (Using Google Earth elevations here.) Elevations in the depressed section are still a few feet above sea level with the street elevations about 30' above MSL. The elevation around San Pablo is 18-20' above MSL, meaning any depressed lanes here would be at or slightly below sea level. It would be very prone to flooding every time it rained because water would have to be pumped out of the depression.
Depressing that short section of highway would also require a highway closure of a couple years for a rebuild. Just doing that may be enough to convince the urbanists calling for its removal to push even harder for that rather than just a cap. I'm not saying it's impossible; I'm just saying it's not worth the effort.
Just drove up 980 on the way home from Fremont. Saw the first eastbound offramp was blocked off for some construction work (resurfacing?) this evening.
(Also saw similar work on 101 in SF and San Mateo County but that can easily be attributed to the express lane project over there)
SM-G973U1
Like Interstate 345 in Dallas, I think the best thing to do about Interstate 980 in Oakland is to leave it alone.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 18, 2021, 05:31:01 PM
Like Interstate 345 in Dallas, I think the best thing to do about Interstate 980 in Oakland is to leave it alone.
Cap it; the interim braided ramps in the recessed portion could be eliminated easily, leaving the direct ramps at either end of the recessed section that empty out onto the one-way parallel streets. Those streets could be redeveloped, with the capped area turned into either/and parkland or a "public square", with room for gatherings, events, or anything that can be devised by the local residents. One thing that doesn't seem to come up -- or be given serious consideration -- by the RE/T folks -- is that I-980 is the main conduit for traffic from the Contra Costa eastern region (Walnut Creek, Concord, Antioch, etc.) to Oakland Airport. If removed, the only way to compensate for that loss would be to construct ramps at the MacArthur Maze from NB 880 to the CA 24/I-580 interchange and from that interchange to SB 880. That would invariably impinge upon the local neighborhood in any instance, so there would be little if any overall gain from a teardown/"boulevardization". The best bet is to retain the extant through facility but reduce the local impact as described above.
Quote from: TheStranger on May 18, 2021, 03:09:52 AM
Just drove up 980 on the way home from Fremont. Saw the first eastbound offramp was blocked off for some construction work (resurfacing?) this evening.
(Also saw similar work on 101 in SF and San Mateo County but that can easily be attributed to the express lane project over there)
SM-G973U1
All you need to do is look at the SHOPP:
4-Alameda-580 1487M 0415000090 In various cities, on Routes 580, 680, 880, and 980 at various locations. Enhance pedestrian safety by installing Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS) systems and countdown timers and upgrading crosswalk markings.
4-Alameda-80 2.0/8.0 0064A 0414000106. In Alameda, Contra Costa, and Solano Counties, on Routes 80, 580, and 980 at various locations; also on local streets from Route 980 to the District 4 Transportation Management Center (TMC). Install fiber optic cable and install and upgrade Transportation Management System (TMS) elements.
04-Alameda-980 1488Z 0417000136. In various counties, on various routes at various locations. Upgrade controllers in vehicle detection and traffic signal systems.
Of course, this doesn't capture anything amended into the SHOPP since I downloaded it (check https://dot.ca.gov/programs/financial-programming/state-highway-operation-protection-program-shopp-minor-program-shopp ) or in the STIP ( https://catc.ca.gov/programs/state-transportation-improvement-program , as the Caltrans site doesn't link to the list of projects). But it usually isn't hard to find the projects -- and of course, if it is more than resurfacing or landscape and such -- that is, adding aux lanes, widening, rerouting, replacement of bridges, etc, I capture those on my pages at www.cahighways.org .
Daniel
How about CA-13 Warren Freeway if one wants to debate removing freeways CA-13 could be argued here for freeway removal. I-980 not so much given that it's an extension of CA-24.
The Warren Freeway doesn't run through a so-called "dense urban" area like I-980 does. The Warren Freeway runs up in the hills in the suburbs. Removing either of those freeways would be a big mistake in my opinion.
Finishing CA 77 between I-880 and I-580 along with a full interchange with CA 13/I-580 would do a lot to enhance the utility of the Warren Freeway. It might even soften the blow of a deleted I-980.
Quote from: bing101 on June 08, 2021, 01:46:13 PM
How about CA-13 Warren Freeway if one wants to debate removing freeways CA-13 could be argued here for freeway removal. I-980 not so much given that it's an extension of CA-24.
Quote from: Concrete Bob on June 08, 2021, 01:54:44 PM
The Warren Freeway doesn't run through a so-called "dense urban" area like I-980 does. The Warren Freeway runs up in the hills in the suburbs. Removing either of those freeways would be a big mistake in my opinion.
AFAIK there's been no push for removal of the Warren/CA 13 freeway; the 980 removal push is
grievance-driven; in this case by urban activists purporting to speak for local residents. CA 13 travels through what would be, in the parlance, described as a "privileged" residential area; it's unlikely that such grievances, elicited or not, would emanate from that zone.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 08, 2021, 02:47:29 PM
Finishing CA 77 between I-880 and I-580 along with a full interchange with CA 13/I-580 would do a lot to enhance the utility of the Warren Freeway. It might even soften the blow of a deleted I-980.
The odds against a full-blown CA 77 freeway from I-880 to I-580, much less CA 13, are so slim as to be nonexistent; it traverses neighborhoods demographically similar to that along I-980. While still on the books as an unadopted "dotted line", it's long been functionally dead as a potential freeway corridor -- although it
would serve as a reasonable substitute for a removed I-980, since it would allow efficient passage from the Contra Costa suburbs to Oakland Airport (the particular function of I-980 that couldn't be duplicated otherwise without additions to the MacArthur Maze).
Quote from: sparker on June 08, 2021, 06:05:41 PM
The odds against a full-blown CA 77 freeway from I-880 to I-580, much less CA 13, are so slim as to be nonexistent; it traverses neighborhoods demographically similar to that along I-980. While still on the books as an unadopted "dotted line", it's long been functionally dead as a potential freeway corridor -- although it would serve as a reasonable substitute for a removed I-980, since it would allow efficient passage from the Contra Costa suburbs to Oakland Airport (the particular function of I-980 that couldn't be duplicated otherwise without additions to the MacArthur Maze).
So essentially the only new highway project in the Bay Area that has any chance of even happening at this point is the 262 freeway upgrade, correct? Not sure how far along the 680 realignment in Cordelia (to feed directly into 12 west) is, I know that has been in the works for a few years.
I know 84 was supposed to have a suburban bypass of Fremont (heading east from about I-880/Decoto Road) but not sure that's ever going to be built either.
Quote from: TheStranger on June 08, 2021, 07:06:25 PM
So essentially the only new highway project in the Bay Area that has any chance of even happening at this point is the 262 freeway upgrade, correct? Not sure how far along the 680 realignment in Cordelia (to feed directly into 12 west) is, I know that has been in the works for a few years.
I know 84 was supposed to have a suburban bypass of Fremont (heading east from about I-880/Decoto Road) but not sure that's ever going to be built either.
In the urban core of the Bay Area (i.e. the areas adjacent to the bay itself), I wouldn't be surprised. The 680 realignment is in active construction and expected to be completed in fall 2022 (https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-4/d4-projects/d4-solano-i-80-i-680-sr-12-interchange).
Otherwise.... lots of HOT lanes under construction - currently along US-101 on the Peninsula, but they're all over the place. US-101 between Novato and Petaluma is being upgraded to a full freeway as well. Okay, freeway-ization is done, now it's just adding the 3rd lane in each direction, IIRC. I could see CA-4 being extended further east over time. There are huge plans for CA-37 one way or another (https://scta.ca.gov/resilient37/), which could involve a freeway, but who knows. And something with CA-152, if you squint and call the Gilroy / Hollister area "Greater Bay Area".
EDIT: Changed brackets to parentheses to allow first link to be clickable. –Roadfro
Quote from: citrus on June 08, 2021, 07:47:08 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on June 08, 2021, 07:06:25 PM
So essentially the only new highway project in the Bay Area that has any chance of even happening at this point is the 262 freeway upgrade, correct? Not sure how far along the 680 realignment in Cordelia (to feed directly into 12 west) is, I know that has been in the works for a few years.
I know 84 was supposed to have a suburban bypass of Fremont (heading east from about I-880/Decoto Road) but not sure that's ever going to be built either.
In the urban core of the Bay Area (i.e. the areas adjacent to the bay itself), I wouldn't be surprised. The 680 realignment is in active construction and expected to be completed in fall 2022 [https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-4/d4-projects/d4-solano-i-80-i-680-sr-12-interchange].
Otherwise.... lots of HOT lanes under construction - currently along US-101 on the Peninsula, but they're all over the place. US-101 between Novato and Petaluma is being upgraded to a full freeway as well. Okay, freeway-ization is done, now it's just adding the 3rd lane in each direction, IIRC. I could see CA-4 being extended further east over time. There are huge plans for CA-37 one way or another (https://scta.ca.gov/resilient37/), which could involve a freeway, but who knows. And something with CA-152, if you squint and call the Gilroy / Hollister area "Greater Bay Area".
The list of pending and/or realistically potential projects in the Bay Area can be counted on the fingers of one hand. 262, as cited above, either a raising or relocation of 37, the Cordelia Junction upgrade (at this point a
fait accompli) -- and encompassing the CA 12 Jameson Canyon expansion, the extension of the CA 4 freeway, likely down the CA 239 corridor to I-205, and the ongoing upgrades to US 101 in the North Bay counties. If the San Benito area is included, it would also take in the upgrades to CA 25, including a possible preliminary connection to a CA 152 reroute southeast of Gilroy. While most of the CA 84/Decoto corridor remains intact (not sold off for development as of yet), it doesn't appear to be on D4's near-term radar, even though the CA 84 signed surface route across Fremont is up for relinquishment. Essentially every transportation agency/entity in the region is gun-shy about anything that looks like road capacity enhancement, since even hinting at doing so brings outcries from both anti-automotive activists and localized NIMBY's. The projects that
are being done or planned are generally there out of necessity (an existential matter in the case of 37 and a congestive nightmare re 262) or simply addressing obsolescence (Cordelia Junction) or demographic realities (101 and the CA 4/239 extension); and getting even those done was like pulling teeth! And what's left to do -- the longstanding CA 152 "gap" among others -- is equally daunting, particularly in terms of getting all relevant agencies' ducks in a row.
Quote from: sparker on June 08, 2021, 06:05:41 PM
Quote from: bing101 on June 08, 2021, 01:46:13 PM
How about CA-13 Warren Freeway if one wants to debate removing freeways CA-13 could be argued here for freeway removal. I-980 not so much given that it's an extension of CA-24.
Quote from: Concrete Bob on June 08, 2021, 01:54:44 PM
The Warren Freeway doesn't run through a so-called "dense urban" area like I-980 does. The Warren Freeway runs up in the hills in the suburbs. Removing either of those freeways would be a big mistake in my opinion.
AFAIK there's been no push for removal of the Warren/CA 13 freeway; the 980 removal push is grievance-driven; in this case by urban activists purporting to speak for local residents. CA 13 travels through what would be, in the parlance, described as a "privileged" residential area; it's unlikely that such grievances, elicited or not, would emanate from that zone.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 08, 2021, 02:47:29 PM
Finishing CA 77 between I-880 and I-580 along with a full interchange with CA 13/I-580 would do a lot to enhance the utility of the Warren Freeway. It might even soften the blow of a deleted I-980.
The odds against a full-blown CA 77 freeway from I-880 to I-580, much less CA 13, are so slim as to be nonexistent; it traverses neighborhoods demographically similar to that along I-980. While still on the books as an unadopted "dotted line", it's long been functionally dead as a potential freeway corridor -- although it would serve as a reasonable substitute for a removed I-980, since it would allow efficient passage from the Contra Costa suburbs to Oakland Airport (the particular function of I-980 that couldn't be duplicated otherwise without additions to the MacArthur Maze).
True in all points.
Quote from: bing101 on June 09, 2021, 12:08:28 PM
Quote from: sparker on June 08, 2021, 06:05:41 PM
Quote from: bing101 on June 08, 2021, 01:46:13 PM
How about CA-13 Warren Freeway if one wants to debate removing freeways CA-13 could be argued here for freeway removal. I-980 not so much given that it's an extension of CA-24.
Quote from: Concrete Bob on June 08, 2021, 01:54:44 PM
The Warren Freeway doesn't run through a so-called "dense urban" area like I-980 does. The Warren Freeway runs up in the hills in the suburbs. Removing either of those freeways would be a big mistake in my opinion.
AFAIK there's been no push for removal of the Warren/CA 13 freeway; the 980 removal push is grievance-driven; in this case by urban activists purporting to speak for local residents. CA 13 travels through what would be, in the parlance, described as a "privileged" residential area; it's unlikely that such grievances, elicited or not, would emanate from that zone.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 08, 2021, 02:47:29 PM
Finishing CA 77 between I-880 and I-580 along with a full interchange with CA 13/I-580 would do a lot to enhance the utility of the Warren Freeway. It might even soften the blow of a deleted I-980.
The odds against a full-blown CA 77 freeway from I-880 to I-580, much less CA 13, are so slim as to be nonexistent; it traverses neighborhoods demographically similar to that along I-980. While still on the books as an unadopted "dotted line", it's long been functionally dead as a potential freeway corridor -- although it would serve as a reasonable substitute for a removed I-980, since it would allow efficient passage from the Contra Costa suburbs to Oakland Airport (the particular function of I-980 that couldn't be duplicated otherwise without additions to the MacArthur Maze).
True in all points.
All of the discussion points to one two-headed controversy driving both the teardown and preservation POV's -- pitting purported highly localized needs or desires versus the concept of the area in question being part of a greater regional whole. A question to be pondered is whether the needs of regional residents outside of the small area affected by the presence of I-980 in its current form can and should be considered along with the concept of a cohesive local neighborhood. It seems that one of the arguments for a removal falls along the notion of reparations -- that folks outside that affected area are deemed to be "historically privileged" and thus must endure some sort of loss as compensation for causing -- or benefiting from -- the object of grievance, in this case I-980 itself. So Contra Costa commuters coming through the Caldecott tunnels are, under this rationale, expected to give up their ability to get to Oakland Airport or the nearby industrial areas efficiently in order to satisfy a localized grievance. Some RE/T activists have adopted a version of this particular viewpoint -- that their aims are only fully realized when the driving public endures a substantial loss.
In this specific case, the neighborhood in question could be "reconnected" if the sunken portion of I-980 were to be capped; this would involve deleting the set of braided on/off ramps in the middle of that segment (the area of which could be in part used for ventilation equipment). Of course, housing or any buildings of that type wouldn't be able to be placed on top of the cap; it would be more of "public square" or quasi-park usage (which in that neighborhood would be a definite plus), but the streets on either side of the facility could conceivably be redeveloped (please, leave out the gentrification!) for combined business/housing -- even publicly-supported housing. IMO, the closest thing to a "win-win" situation for all parties concerned. One can only hope that cooler and calmer heads will prevail and that a plan keeping "losers" to the absolute minimum can be cobbled together.
I remember hearing about the Cypress Freeway (the former double-decker section of I-880) being damaged in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. In retrospect, that was a redundant alignment, with I-980 close by (and even the new rerouted I-880 still is, though further away), but the surface Mandela Parkway is a huge improvement over what was there before, from an aesthetic standpoint.
Quote from: Henry on June 10, 2021, 11:01:26 AM
I remember hearing about the Cypress Freeway (the former double-decker section of I-880) being damaged in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. In retrospect, that was a redundant alignment, with I-980 close by (and even the new rerouted I-880 still is, though further away)
The Cypress Street (Mandela Parkway) alignment wasn't exactly redundant when it (as Route 17/Business US 50) was the only freeway from downtown Oakland to the Macarthur Maze from around 1955-1981.
If I'm not mistaken, that also predates the MacArthur Freeway portion of today's 580 as well (which parallels 880 from 80 to 238), a road opened in the early 1960s as I-5W/US 50.
Quote from: Henry on June 10, 2021, 11:01:26 AM
I remember hearing about the Cypress Freeway (the former double-decker section of I-880) being damaged in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. In retrospect, that was a redundant alignment, with I-980 close by (and even the new rerouted I-880 still is, though further away), but the surface Mandela Parkway is a huge improvement over what was there before, from an aesthetic standpoint.
But they redundancy with 880 and 980 prevented a traffic nightmare on the city streets in Oakland. Everyone involved with getting rid of 980 seems to have forgotten what happened.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 10, 2021, 11:26:39 AM
Quote from: Henry on June 10, 2021, 11:01:26 AM
I remember hearing about the Cypress Freeway (the former double-decker section of I-880) being damaged in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. In retrospect, that was a redundant alignment, with I-980 close by (and even the new rerouted I-880 still is, though further away), but the surface Mandela Parkway is a huge improvement over what was there before, from an aesthetic standpoint.
But they redundancy with 880 and 980 prevented a traffic nightmare on the city streets in Oakland. Everyone involved with getting rid of 980 seems to have forgotten what happened.
This is also why I-880 between Auto Mall Parkway and I-238 is a mess. It's handling the traffic load for 2 freeways because the CA-238 freeway from I-680 to I-580 was cancelled.