http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-11-09/bay-area/24822375_1_toll-bridge-study-effort-toll-authority (http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-11-09/bay-area/24822375_1_toll-bridge-study-effort-toll-authority)
I'd like to see I-380 reach across the Bay to connect to I-580 and I-980 to be extended northeast to I-680, replacing CA-24.
The only problem is that I-380 would have to make the widest crossing of the Bay.
Would this finally put an end to I-238?
^ Nah, I-238 would probably grow longer and take over I-380 :spin:
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 20, 2010, 11:55:42 PM
Would this finally put an end to I-238?
I would hope so. The only reason I-238 was commissioned in the first place was because there were no x80 numbers available in 1983. Should I-380 connect to I-238, it's only logical to have I-380 continue eastward to I-580.
The other pipe dream of mine is to have I-980 completely replace CA-24, which is basically Interstate standard freeway, anyway.
Quote from: Quillz on November 21, 2010, 01:36:44 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 20, 2010, 11:55:42 PM
Would this finally put an end to I-238?
I would hope so. The only reason I-238 was commissioned in the first place was because there were no x80 numbers available in 1983. Should I-380 connect to I-238, it's only logical to have I-380 continue eastward to I-580.
The other pipe dream of mine is to have I-980 completely replace CA-24, which is basically Interstate standard freeway, anyway.
Except, as you well know, all discussions of pipe dreams go in Fictional Highways, which is why you will stop bringing them up here. Thank you.
Quote from: Quillz on November 21, 2010, 01:36:44 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 20, 2010, 11:55:42 PM
Would this finally put an end to I-238?
I would hope so. The only reason I-238 was commissioned in the first place was because there were no x80 numbers available in 1983. Should I-380 connect to I-238, it's only logical to have I-380 continue eastward to I-580.
Well, that's not really the
only reason; I-180 was available, but Caltrans didn't want to renumber CA-180 for whatever reason and submitted I-238 to keep the number of CA-238. And other cases exist where a highway number changes at an intersection where it would be logical to continue it onward–look at I-255 and I-270 in St Louis.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 23, 2010, 12:52:53 AM
Quote from: Quillz on November 21, 2010, 01:36:44 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 20, 2010, 11:55:42 PM
Would this finally put an end to I-238?
I would hope so. The only reason I-238 was commissioned in the first place was because there were no x80 numbers available in 1983. Should I-380 connect to I-238, it's only logical to have I-380 continue eastward to I-580.
Well, that's not really the only reason; I-180 was available, but Caltrans didn't want to renumber CA-180 for whatever reason and submitted I-238 to keep the number of CA-238. And other cases exist where a highway number changes at an intersection where it would be logical to continue it onward–look at I-255 and I-270 in St Louis.
Well, yes, I'm aware that both I-180 and I-480 were theoretically available, but CalTRANS has long had a policy of not repeating highway numbers throughout the state. Had CA-180 just been some short route defined in, say, the 70s or something, it probably would not have been an issue to renumber. But, it happens to be a length route going back to the 1930s or so and thus had quite a history. And then I-480 wasn't really appropriate either due to still existing as CA-480 and being linked to the bad memories of the Embarcadero Freeway.
Apparently, though, there was an I-180 that existed very briefly for the Richmond Bridge alignment of what is today I-580 between US-101 and I-80. Whether or not this was actually signed, though, I have no idea.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 23, 2010, 12:52:53 AM
And other cases exist where a highway number changes at an intersection where it would be logical to continue it onward–look at I-255 and I-270 in St Louis.
IIRC, this was proposed at one point as a singular I-270, with the extra leg from the eastern 255/270 junction to I-55/I-70 becoming I-870. The current arrangement is significantly better than the old 270/244/255 setup, in which the route change numbers three times on the west side of metro St. Louis without any shifting in mainline!
494/694 and 280/680 are similar situations of number change, though I think in those cases (and in 270/255), it's the matter of a more rectangular beltway shape that encourages this to happen.
Quote from: Revive 755 on November 21, 2010, 12:52:37 AM
^ Nah, I-238 would probably grow longer and take over I-380 :spin:
I seriously hope you're joking! :pan:
On another topic, I read about a proposal for an I-338, which would continue west of I-238 (but one-way westbound) and then drop off into the Bay! I never got a bigger laugh than that! :-D
Still, it would make sense to extend I-380 eastward to I-580, and in the process, I wouldn't mind having a bridge-tunnel combination there (see the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel in the Tidewater area of Virginia).
Quote from: Henry on January 30, 2011, 10:26:56 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on November 21, 2010, 12:52:37 AM
^ Nah, I-238 would probably grow longer and take over I-380 :spin:
I seriously hope you're joking! :pan:
On another topic, I read about a proposal for an I-338, which would continue west of I-238 (but one-way westbound) and then drop off into the Bay! I never got a bigger laugh than that! :-D
Gee, while we're at it, let's extend I-10 one way westbound about twenty miles, then have it come to a dead end. :D