Was highway 237 ever planned to connect to 280?

[Voyager]

Considering how abruptly it ends at El Camino Real in Mountain View, I always wondered if there was an actual plan (IE not a "hey this would be fun" line drawn on a 1948 trafficways plan) to get the highway all the way to 280 near Loyola?

[TheStranger]

Considering how abruptly it ends at El Camino Real in Mountain View, I always wondered if there was an actual plan (IE not a "hey this would be fun" line drawn on a 1948 trafficways plan) to get the highway all the way to 280 near Loyola?

I don't think so:

The 1950s plan for the route explicitly only shows upgrades between what was then Bypass 101 (now US 101) and what was then 17 (now I-880), essentially the east-west portion of then-Highway 9
https://www.cahighways.org/ROUTE237.html



Do keep in mind that 85 between 101 in Mountain View and 280 in Cupertino functionally replaced another segment of Highway 9 as well (with 9 truncated back to Los Gatos with the 1964 renumbering).

[The Ghostbuster]

If a CA 237 extension to Interstate 280 had ever been proposed, how difficult would it have been to actually construct it, excluding right-of-way impacts?

[TheStranger]

If a CA 237 extension to Interstate 280 had ever been proposed, how difficult would it have been to actually construct it, excluding right-of-way impacts?

Looking at Historicaerials

The road to El Camino existed as early as 1956 (on slightly different geometry), before it had been fully upgraded to freeway/expressway standards.  At that time, there was what appears to be a drive-in theatre at the El Camino/237 junction on the south side.

Some residential development already existed west of there, but the pathway southwest towards Magdalena Avenue (near the modern 280 junction) still was mostly rural.

[cahwyguy]

If you look at the historic Route 9, there would have been a connection (although Route 237 would have been Route 9): https://www.cahighways.org/ROUTE009.html

Pre 1964 Signage History
This route consisted of two segments:

The first segment ran between Santa Cruz and the present northern Route 9/Route 236 junction near Waterman Gap. This segment was LRN 116, and was added to the state highway system in 1933.
The second segment ran between Route 236 and Route 17 in Los Gatos (through Saratoga). This segment was LRN 42. The portion between Route 236 and Saratoga Gap was added to the state highway system in 1913; the remainder of the segment from Saratoga Gap to Los Gatos was added in 1933.
In 1934, Route 9 was signed along the route from Santa Cruz to Milpitas via Redwood Park.

According to research by Tom Fearer, the original routing of Route 9 traveled west from Milpitas on Route 17 (nee Route 13) along LRN 113 via Alviso-Milpitas Road and 1st Street to Alviso. From Alviso, LRN 113 continued south on Gold Street and west to Mathilda Avenue.  The original alignment of LRN 113 is largely buried under the Route 237 freeway. LRN 113 was realigned out of Alviso by 1958. CA 9 then traveled south on LRN 114 via Mathilda Avenue to the El Camino Real/US 101 in Sunnyvale.  Route 9 on LRN 114 took an eastern jog on El Camino Real/US 101 before turning south on Sunnyvale-Saratoga Road.  Route 9 continued south LRN 114 via Sunnyvale-Saratoga Road to Big Basin Way in downtown Saratoga.  LRN 114 became the original alignment of Route 85 during the 1964 California Highway Renumbering.  Route 9 traveled west from Saratoga on LRN 42 to Big Basin State Park. LRN 42 and LRN 44 were developed off of preexisting logging roads.  LRN 42 and LRN 44 would become Route 236 during the 1964 State Highway Renumbering. Maps in 1940 begin to show Route 9 using LRN 116 to reach Route 1 in Santa Cruz.
(Source: Summarized from Gribblenation Blog "California State Route 9", August 2020)

In Saratoga, the original signage of Route 9 diverged from the present signage. The signed Route 9, as LRN 114, proceeded North on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road into Sunnyvale via Mathilda Ave, thence to a jct with Alviso-Milpitas Road (currently signed as Route 237), and a junction with Bypass US-101 (LRN 68). It appears this segment was defined in 1933. On October 18, 1956, the Highway Commission adopted the routing for a future freeway location for Route 9 (now Route 85) from Bayshore Freeway north of Moffett Field, generally following Stevens Creek to an existing Route 9 location north of Azule near Saratoga.


In 1956, public hearings were conducted for "Sign Route 9" (future Route 85) between Azula (Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road) and the Bayshore Freeway. Azule is located at the railroad crossing on Sign Route 9 between Saratoga and Cupertino. The proposed freeway (which is hard to map to present routings due to street changes and the orientation of the map) runs roughly along the lines of Stevens Creek and westerly of the present highway, just N of Moffett Field. As of 1956, Sign Route 9 (now Sunnyvale-Saratoga Road and Matilda Ave, as the state signage for Sign Route 9 in this area was dropped in the 1964 renumbering) met the Alviso-Mountain View Road (future Route 237) just S of Moffett Field.
(Source: 1956 Newspaper Article via Joel Windmiller, 2/13/2023)

The route signed as Route 9 then proceeded on the current Route 237 alignment into Milpitas. This was LRN 113. It ran east as Route 237 to Route 17 (LRN 69; now I-880). Before the current bridge over the Guadalupe River was constructed, it took a route into Alviso via Gold Street north and 1st Street southwest back to current Route 237.

Between Milpitas and Warm Springs, Route 9 ran N along a LRN 69 (Route 17, now I-880) to present-day Route 262 near Warm Springs. This segment, as LRN 69, was added to the state highway system in 1933.

Near Warm Springs, Route 9 ran along the present-day Route 262 routing between Route 17 (present-day I-880) and Route 21 (present-day Route 680). This was part of LRN 5, defined in 1909.

Between the present-day Route 262/I-680 junction near Warm Springs and Irvington, Route 9 ran cosigned with Route 21 to Irvington, near Mission San Jose. This segment was LRN 5, and was added to the state highway system in 1909.

Near the mission (at Mission Blvd), Route 9 diverged, continuing signed as Route 9 (but still LRN 5) along what is now Route 238, ending at US 50 (present-day I-580). This was also added in 1909.

[TheStranger]

The key part of the above is:

LRN 113 was realigned out of Alviso by 1958. CA 9 then traveled south on LRN 114 via Mathilda Avenue to the El Camino Real/US 101 in Sunnyvale.

What this means is that I don't think there was any proposal for anything directly west of today's 237/82 junction, but rather that 237 replaced 9 east of 85, and 85 replaced 9 between 101 and 280 (and temporary 85 replaced the surface street routing of 9 south of 280 into Saratoga until 1994).

[cahwyguy]

The key part of the above is:

LRN 113 was realigned out of Alviso by 1958. CA 9 then traveled south on LRN 114 via Mathilda Avenue to the El Camino Real/US 101 in Sunnyvale.

What this means is that I don't think there was any proposal for anything directly west of today's 237/82 junction, but rather that 237 replaced 9 east of 85, and 85 replaced 9 between 101 and 280 (and temporary 85 replaced the surface street routing of 9 south of 280 into Saratoga until 1994).

Yes, at the western end of what is now 237, the route turned south and would have crossed what is now 280. But the question wasn't whether 237 was ever planned to continue west, but whether it was planned to connect to 280 :-)

[TheStranger]

The key part of the above is:

LRN 113 was realigned out of Alviso by 1958. CA 9 then traveled south on LRN 114 via Mathilda Avenue to the El Camino Real/US 101 in Sunnyvale.

What this means is that I don't think there was any proposal for anything directly west of today's 237/82 junction, but rather that 237 replaced 9 east of 85, and 85 replaced 9 between 101 and 280 (and temporary 85 replaced the surface street routing of 9 south of 280 into Saratoga until 1994).

Yes, at the western end of what is now 237, the route turned south and would have crossed what is now 280. But the question wasn't whether 237 was ever planned to continue west, but whether it was planned to connect to 280 :-)

Fair!  Though wouldn't the "connect to 280" part be 85?

Voyager's post mentions "Loyola" so that is why I was looking to see if 9/237 was ever planned to go southwest there (as opposed to south towards Cupertino)

[Voyager]

The key part of the above is:

LRN 113 was realigned out of Alviso by 1958. CA 9 then traveled south on LRN 114 via Mathilda Avenue to the El Camino Real/US 101 in Sunnyvale.

What this means is that I don't think there was any proposal for anything directly west of today's 237/82 junction, but rather that 237 replaced 9 east of 85, and 85 replaced 9 between 101 and 280 (and temporary 85 replaced the surface street routing of 9 south of 280 into Saratoga until 1994).

Yes, at the western end of what is now 237, the route turned south and would have crossed what is now 280. But the question wasn't whether 237 was ever planned to continue west, but whether it was planned to connect to 280 :-)

Fair!  Though wouldn't the "connect to 280" part be 85?

Voyager's post mentions "Loyola" so that is why I was looking to see if 9/237 was ever planned to go southwest there (as opposed to south towards Cupertino)

I only mentioned Loyola because it seems like the most probable routing for 237. It's very interesting that there were no plans for it because if you think about it, that route would be very useful especially due to lack of peninsula 101/280 connections since the 84 freeway never was built to Sand Hill.

[TheStranger]

I only mentioned Loyola because it seems like the most probable routing for 237. It's very interesting that there were no plans for it because if you think about it, that route would be very useful especially due to lack of peninsula 101/280 connections since the 84 freeway never was built to Sand Hill.

At the time, both 84 and 114 between 280 and 101 were active proposals (which might then explain why the next planned crossing was what became 85 from Mountain View south), though neither ended up happening and 84 remains on Woodside Road to this day.

[DTComposer]

If you look at traffic patterns in the 1940s:


Traffic Flow Diagram, Santa Clara County, California (1942) by Erica Fischer, on Flickr

What would become 237 was not necessarily a heavy-traffic route, so it makes sense that the Stevens Creek Freeway (the north section of CA-85) would be adequate for Milpitas-to-Los Altos traffic. Here's the earliest freeway planning map I've seen, from 1952:

Freeways, Northwesterly Section, Santa Clara County, California (1952) by Erica Fischer, on Flickr

[GaryA]

If you look at the historic Route 9, there would have been a connection (although Route 237 would have been Route 9): https://www.cahighways.org/ROUTE009.html

Pre 1964 Signage History
This route consisted of two segments:

The first segment ran between Santa Cruz and the present northern Route 9/Route 236 junction near Waterman Gap. This segment was LRN 116, and was added to the state highway system in 1933.
The second segment ran between Route 236 and Route 17 in Los Gatos (through Saratoga). This segment was LRN 42. The portion between Route 236 and Saratoga Gap was added to the state highway system in 1913; the remainder of the segment from Saratoga Gap to Los Gatos was added in 1933.
In 1934, Route 9 was signed along the route from Santa Cruz to Milpitas via Redwood Park.

When was CA 9 routed into Los Gatos?  Was that part of the 1964 renumbering?  I see that LRN 42 ended in Los Gatos, but was the Saratoga-Los Gatos segment signed as CA 9 or anything else at this time?

[cahwyguy]

When was CA 9 routed into Los Gatos?  Was that part of the 1964 renumbering?  I see that LRN 42 ended in Los Gatos, but was the Saratoga-Los Gatos segment signed as CA 9 or anything else at this time?

Contrast the 1963 with the 1964 map, and you have your answer:

1963: https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY%7E8%7E1%7E239528%7E5511852:State-Highway-Map,-California,-1963?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY%7E8%7E1&mi=29&trs=86

1964: https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY%7E8%7E1%7E239525%7E5511850:State-Highway-Map,-California,-1964?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY%7E8%7E1&mi=27&trs=86

Route 9 was rerouted into Los Gatos in the 1964 Renumbering.

[bing101]

If you look at traffic patterns in the 1940s:


Traffic Flow Diagram, Santa Clara County, California (1942) by Erica Fischer, on Flickr

What would become 237 was not necessarily a heavy-traffic route, so it makes sense that the Stevens Creek Freeway (the north section of CA-85) would be adequate for Milpitas-to-Los Altos traffic. Here's the earliest freeway planning map I've seen, from 1952:

Freeways, Northwesterly Section, Santa Clara County, California (1952) by Erica Fischer, on Flickr

Also interesting in the 1952 map the then proposed highway 280 stopped at US-101 but not connect to CA-21 and now Highway 680. This proposal of I-680 was not considered yet.