1962 photo along the Embarcadero Freeway/I-480

[TheStranger]

Saw this on Flickr just now (it was posted a few months ago) and it answers a long-standing question I had: the Bayshore Freeway was indeed signed this far north/east.  (I know that the Bayshore Freeway and the SF Skyway each were once part of LRN 68 so I presume the name continued to the bridge, though in today's usage the junction with the Central Freeway is where the name change occurs)

https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/12397779803/

Another photo of the area from that year shows an Interstate 480 shield for an exit along the eastbound Skyway!

https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/12397660265/sizes/o/

[Bickendan]

The Bay Bridge used to be dual direction on both decks?

[andy3175]

What a great picture! It sure would be nice to see the original photo rather than the newspaper posted here. It's interesting to see I-480 signed but not I-80 (or any evidence of US 40-50) signed.

[TheStranger]

The Bay Bridge used to be dual direction on both decks?

Yes, until 1962 (when the Key System interurban tracks were removed).  Infamously, the Yerba Buena Island tunnel had a bit of a jump (I want to say westbound) during the conversion process to one-way decks.

What a great picture! It sure would be nice to see the original photo rather than the newspaper posted here. It's interesting to see I-480 signed but not I-80 (or any evidence of US 40-50) signed.

I HAVE seen at least one vintage photo - but not recently - of the back of a sign assembly along 80 west that appears to be two US shields and one Interstate shield (presumably 40/50/80).  I think Jake's pointed out a signage frame near the westbound onramp from Treasure Island that dates back from the 40/50 era, though it hasn't had a reassurance market on it in years.

Why 480 might be signed in that photo, but not 80/40/50 - given the timespan between the deck conversion and the 1964 renumbering, I wonder if no shields were put up while a final decision on which route would remain after the deck project was finished was still in the air, as opposed to 480 retaining its number for the entire life of its route (to 1991).  Kinda like what ended up happening with what was 40/99E, now 160, in North Sacramento (pullthrough only lists control cities, no route sign).

This might also tie into why 480's terminus in the first photo is labeled for "Bayshore Freeway" rather than 80, 40/50, or 101 - ESPECIALLY considering the 80 extension from the Central Freeway exit at Fell Street to Golden Gate Park/Kezar Stadium area was still a hot-button topic at the time.

This makes me even think: given the existing status of 40/50 along the Skyway from the early 1950s to the mid-1960s...could 480 have been the first Interstate signed in San Francisco, period?  101 was still on most of the Southern Freeway until 1964, and 280 was still then proposed for the unbuilt Junipero Serra extension north of Font Boulevard, so 280 along its familiar route to Mission Bay wasn't a reality until 1968.

[jrouse]

The Bay Bridge used to be dual direction on both decks?

Yes, as you can see by the signing, there were 3 lanes in each direction on the upper deck for cars only.  The lower deck had 3 lanes and was reserved for trucks and buses.  It appears (based on the photo) that it may have been 2 lanes eastbound, one lane westbound.

[kkt]

The Bay Bridge used to be dual direction on both decks?

Yes, as you can see by the signing, there were 3 lanes in each direction on the upper deck for cars only.  The lower deck had 3 lanes and was reserved for trucks and buses.  It appears (based on the photo) that it may have been 2 lanes eastbound, one lane westbound.

The middle lane on the lower deck was reversible, according to the direction of commute traffic.

In terms of passengers, the bridge had much higher capacity as built than it did after the Key System tracks and truck/bus lanes were removed.

[bing101]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LgRME32j8A


According to Jim K. Georges I-280 in San Francisco was CA-82 Fwy when it opened?

[TheStranger]

According to Jim K. Georges I-280 in San Francisco was CA-82 Fwy when it opened?

Depends.

82 has only existed as a signed route since 1964 (when 101 was moved over to the Bayshore Freeway). 

By 1964, the section of the Southern Freeway from San Jose Avenue to the Alemany Maze had opened; this was built/signed as US 101.  This became Route 82 from 1964-1968.

In that time, the segment west of San Jose Avenue was constructed to the north 280/1 split in Daly City, and legislatively assigned to Route 1 (though 1 remained on the Junipero Serra/19th/Park Presidio routing, which was then legislatively part of the proposed 280 extension through the Sunset and Richmond districts).  The segment east of US 101 was built to Army (Cesar Chavez) Street as Route 82.  The portion of today's 280 north of Army Street was under construction, at the time part of a proposed Route 87 extension from San Jose north.

In 1968, after the Junipero Serra Freeway extension north of Font Boulevard was cancelled, 280 was then moved over to the existing/under construction Southern Freeway along with the route towards the South of Market neighborhood, legislatively superseding portions of 1, 82, and 87.

[SimMoonXP]

I have a few shots for 1962 San Francisco area map. Enjoys!

'62 Golden Gate Page 16 (Downtown San Francisco)

'62 Golden Gate Page 19 (Southeast of Downtown San Francisco)

'62 Golden Gate Page 20 (Southwest San Francisco showing Alemany Blvd as US-101 (not yet CA-82))

'62 Golden Gate Page 21 (Southeast San Francisco showing Candlestick Park (not yet CA-82))

[TheStranger]

Related: 1980s photo of the Embarcadero Freeway near the Ferry Building from SFGate.com, from a June article

http://blog.sfgate.com/stew/2014/06/24/things-you-can-never-see-again-in-san-francisco/#23852101=1

http://blog.sfgate.com/stew/wp-content/blogs.dir/2290/files/things-youll-never-see-again-in-san-francisco/place20_ph1.jpg

Interesting to see the smaller roadside-style signage used for the Washington Street exit, as well as the stub that would have continued south to I-280.

[Henry]

Awesome finds there! I always felt that they rushed the I-480 designation into existence instead of just signing CA 480, especially when the possibility was there that the freeway would never be completed as originally planned.

[TheStranger]

Awesome finds there! I always felt that they rushed the I-480 designation into existence instead of just signing CA 480, especially when the possibility was there that the freeway would never be completed as originally planned.

It always seemed though that taking 480 out of the Interstate system (along with the still-signed I-80 along the Skyway) was more of a paper move to provide enough interstate milage to cover federal funding for today's I-105 in Los Angeles.

The freeway WAS submitted at one point as I-380, according to Cahighways - which makes me think AASHTO encouraged the 480 designation due to the planned western termini at 101/1, from 1956-1968 the planned 280 north terminus.

[bugo]

That freeway was totally badass.  It's a shame they tore it down.

[Interstate Trav]

Saw this on Flickr just now (it was posted a few months ago) and it answers a long-standing question I had: the Bayshore Freeway was indeed signed this far north/east.  (I know that the Bayshore Freeway and the SF Skyway each were once part of LRN 68 so I presume the name continued to the bridge, though in today's usage the junction with the Central Freeway is where the name change occurs)

https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/12397779803/

Another photo of the area from that year shows an Interstate 480 shield for an exit along the eastbound Skyway!

https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/12397660265/sizes/o/

Cool pictures

[Duke87]

The Bay Bridge used to be dual direction on both decks?

Yes, as you can see by the signing, there were 3 lanes in each direction on the upper deck for cars only.  The lower deck had 3 lanes and was reserved for trucks and buses.  It appears (based on the photo) that it may have been 2 lanes eastbound, one lane westbound.

The middle lane on the lower deck was reversible, according to the direction of commute traffic.

In terms of passengers, the bridge had much higher capacity as built than it did after the Key System tracks and truck/bus lanes were removed.

To be fair, the Transbay Tube now used by BART replaced that lost rail capacity. And it's probably better that the trains use a tunnel since suspension bridges are poorly suited for rail, especially if the tracks are off-center.