Vasco Road (Contra Costa County)

[bing101]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anE4jlmtF8s
Vasco Rd on Motorcycle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasco_Road_%28California%29

I find this Highway interesting its a major commuter RD but not a state designated route. Its an alternate route to I 680.

[polarscribe]

Didn't used to be much more than a ranch road in the middle of nowhere... until the crazy housing boom in East County. I remember driving east from Antioch on Highway 4 when there was absolutely nothing but farmland (except Discovery Bay) all the way until you hit Stockton and Brentwood. Now it's full-blown exurbia.

[TheStranger]

I find this Highway interesting its a major commuter RD but not a state designated route.

It is the approximate traversable corridor to what is the Route 84 gap between Rio Vista/Antioch and Livermore.

(Though I have ALWAYS felt that the east-west 84 between Route 1 and Livermore, and the north-south Delta river road should be separately numbered - they do not form one corridor at all.)

[bing101]

I find this Highway interesting its a major commuter RD but not a state designated route.

It is the approximate traversable corridor to what is the Route 84 gap between Rio Vista/Antioch and Livermore.

(Though I have ALWAYS felt that the east-west 84 between Route 1 and Livermore, and the north-south Delta river road should be separately numbered - they do not form one corridor at all.)

I heard of Many Accidents on Vasco Rd. and its the most dangerous road in the Bay Area Besides I-880 in Oakland. I'm wondering about this How about putting a state route number designation on Vasco Rd. once the county inproves the road quality in the area. Such as CA-42, CA-141, CA-30 or whatever under Caltrans control since its the most used exoressway in the area. Or CA-239.

[polarscribe]

CalTrans doesn't want it. And Contra Costa County having the money to significantly improve that road... lol.

[myosh_tino]

CalTrans doesn't want it. And Contra Costa County having the money to significantly improve that road... lol.

IMO, Vasco has been *significantly* improved over the past decade with passing lanes, center medians and even alignment changes.  I believe the state did fund some of the improvements.

Many in the roadgeeking community want CA-84 routed over Vasco Road in an attempt to link the two segments but if the counties are doing a sufficient job in maintaining Vasco, why should the state step in to take "control" of the road?

[TheStranger]

Many in the roadgeeking community want CA-84 routed over Vasco Road in an attempt to link the two segments but if the counties are doing a sufficient job in maintaining Vasco, why should the state step in to take "control" of the road?

For that matter, it seems the only reason that the north-south Vasco/Sacramento River corridor is part of 84 is that it shares an endpoint in Livermore with the more familiar east-west section.  Otherwise, the two segments aren't even all that related at all and do not directly connect.

[polarscribe]

IMO, Vasco has been *significantly* improved over the past decade with passing lanes, center medians and even alignment changes.  I believe the state did fund some of the improvements.

I was thinking "significant improvements" in the sense of making it an expressway.

On the other end of Contra Costa County, the Richmond Parkway is a spectacular cautionary tale of what happens when a city builds a really fancy road expecting CalTrans to take it over (and yes, that was the city's plan...) - except that CalTrans doesn't take it over, leaving the city stuck with the maintenance bill. So I don't expect the county government to (over?)build anything with the idea that they'd be able to get the state to pay for maintenance. Not without some iron-clad guarantees of route adoption.

[andy3175]

On the other end of Contra Costa County, the Richmond Parkway is a spectacular cautionary tale of what happens when a city builds a really fancy road expecting CalTrans to take it over (and yes, that was the city's plan...) - except that CalTrans doesn't take it over, leaving the city stuck with the maintenance bill. So I don't expect the county government to (over?)build anything with the idea that they'd be able to get the state to pay for maintenance. Not without some iron-clad guarantees of route adoption.

Great point. I would also add that the local municipality, when planning for the proposed state highway, should be sure the new road is built to state highway standards for an expressway. Otherwise there might be a hefty retrofit price tag at the other end (which is the case for Richmond Parkway).

Regards,
Andy

[polarscribe]

Yes, the Richmond Parkway is neither fish nor fowl... more than an arterial yet less than an expressway. Definitely a design failure.