Route 262 freeway upgrade proposal in Fremont

[TheStranger]

Saw this in the cloverleaves thread:

  But right now one long-pressing road/connectivity issue is being considered -- reconstructing the CA 262 Mission Blvd. connection between I-880 and I-680 into a full freeway to eliminate a peak-hour bottleneck in the Warm Springs area that affects local traffic as well -- a situation that has prompted renewed public interest in the concept.  We'll just have to see what transpires regarding both whether such a project gets out of the starting blocks and how timely the funding process plays out.  262 is one case where the concept of "induced demand" is a ship that sailed when the original CA 237 freeway connecting the two N-S Interstates was cancelled -- about 3 out of 4 drivers heading to I-680 and points beyond (Pleasanton, Livermore, Tracy, etc.) crowd onto 262 since it's the shortest connection between the freeways.  So far there's been no massive or even vocal pissing and moaning from the "woke" and/or urbanist sector regarding the preliminary planning/design for the freeway upgrade; we'll see what happens when a final design is completed and proffered.       

A quick google search and I find this relatively new project page on CalTrans's website!
https://www.alamedactc.org/programs-projects/highway-improvement/sr-262connector/

In addition to the interest of what would be the first new freeway in the Bay Area since 85/87 in the 1990s, the history of that southernmost segment of Mission Boulevard is very robust:

- originally part of 1930s US 101E between Warm Springs and today's I-680
- became Route 9 after the east bay US 101 branch was removed
- the existing freeway segment, west of Warm Springs Boulevard, was built in the 1950s as Route 9/Route 21
- during the 1964 renumbering, the short freeway segment was legislatively part of I-680 while theoretically carrying 680 north/17 south and vice versa.  At the time, 17 went to San Jose via Warm Springs Boulevard Oakland Road (old Route 9 and old US 101E) with 680 being the sole designation of the Nimitz Freeway from today's 262 to 101.  A proposed new 17 realignment from Warm Springs to San Jose passing near eastern Milpitas was already on planning maps.  680 itself would have used all of today's 262 to link from the Nimitz Freeway to the current alignment north towards Sunol.
- in 1965, 262 was created as a result of shifting that 17 realignment to 680, and restoring all of the Nimitz Freeway south of Warm Springs to 17 (which ultimately would become Interstate 880 in 1984).  The segment of 262 east of Warren Avenue was never upgraded to freeway as a result of 680 being moved eastward.  Warm Springs Boulevard/Oakland Road became part of an extended signed Route 238 which existed until I-680 opened on that eastern alignment.  (As a result, the oldest portion of 262, between Warm Springs Boulevard and 680, has seen the following designations over the years: US 101E, Route 9, Route 21, I-680, Route 17, Route 238 and finally Route 262.)

In that vein, this is not unlike Route 132 in Modesto (a freeway project that was originally proposed as I-5W in the 1950s, partially graded for an interchange ca. 1963-1965, then dormant until being revived in 2017-2018 and now under construction), except that the physical road here has existed in some form since the 1930s!  Could argue that Route 99 being upgraded to freeway piecemeal between Bakersfield and Sacramento from the 1960s to present also has similar roots, that being the original I-5 corridor prior to 1958.

---

The most recent project update is this PDF from August 2020:
https://www.alamedactc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/1472000_SR262_Mission_Cross-Connector_FS_20200804.pdf

[roadfro]

I'm not in the Bay Area much, but I've been on 262 a few times. This project is definitely needed.

[Max Rockatansky]

Well this will be a huge win, 262 as is often backed up with freight traffic.  If I recall correctly didn't we determine as a group that 262 has had the most previous designations of any piece of State Highway in California?

[sparker]

At least D4 had the good sense to rebuild the 880/262 interchange as a full high-speed system type (albeit with ramp signals on the flyovers!) back around 2012.  Problem is it goes under the RR tracks and BART and abruptly hits the Warm Springs Blvd. (old SSR 17) signal, then slogs between a couple of strip malls before hitting I-680.  IMO, could be done by depressing the main carriageways and doing a TX-type frontage situation; but will have to see what will actually be proffered as the final configuration.   But it is and always has been a major regional chokepoint.

[TheStranger]

Well this will be a huge win, 262 as is often backed up with freight traffic.  If I recall correctly didn't we determine as a group that 262 has had the most previous designations of any piece of State Highway in California?

That would be correct yeah! 

Dividing it into the two segments, the 880-Warm Springs segment and the Warm Springs-680 segment:

Warm Springs-680:

late 1920s (as noted by Max R. in the thread) - US 48
1920s/1930s - US 101E
1934-1964 - Route 9
late 1930s-1964 - Route 21
late 1950s-1965 - I-680
1964-1965 - Route 17
1965-present - Route 262
1965-early 1970s - (temporary) Route 238, not part of legislative definition of route

880 to Warm Springs:
1950s-1964: Route 9
1950s-1964: Route 21
1964-1965: I-680
1964-1965: Route 17
1965-present: Route 262

[kkt]

Long time in coming!

[Max Rockatansky]

^^^

I find it amazing that such a short stretch of Highway has been allowed to grow and evolve from an ancient two lane US Route/State Highway all the way to likely a fully limited access facility (If something doesn't happen to this project).   All those Route designations really speak to the prime piece of real estate CA 262 occupies as a transportation corridor.  The historic value of such a small piece of highway truly belies it's size.

[mapman]

It'll be interesting to see exactly what is being proposed for CA 262.  Some years ago (maybe 5 or 6 years ago?), Alameda CTC was proposing to construct a new freeway alignment directly on top of the existing at-grade roadway, and even had some preliminary designs of it.  Now it sounds like that idea has been rejected for a more conventional upgrade of the existing roadway.

[michravera]

It'll be interesting to see exactly what is being proposed for CA 262.  Some years ago (maybe 5 or 6 years ago?), Alameda CTC was proposing to construct a new freeway alignment directly on top of the existing at-grade roadway, and even had some preliminary designs of it.  Now it sounds like that idea has been rejected for a more conventional upgrade of the existing roadway.

This is almost what is going to have to happen anyway. Once they build some sort of interchange with Warm Springs Blvd (or overcrossing to avoid it) and start the bends to collect and distribute traffic to and from I-680, it doesn't seem that much will be in contact with the current Mission Blvd. alignment, so they might as well (except for the seismic aspects build "over the top".

[sparker]

It'll be interesting to see exactly what is being proposed for CA 262.  Some years ago (maybe 5 or 6 years ago?), Alameda CTC was proposing to construct a new freeway alignment directly on top of the existing at-grade roadway, and even had some preliminary designs of it.  Now it sounds like that idea has been rejected for a more conventional upgrade of the existing roadway.

This is almost what is going to have to happen anyway. Once they build some sort of interchange with Warm Springs Blvd (or overcrossing to avoid it) and start the bends to collect and distribute traffic to and from I-680, it doesn't seem that much will be in contact with the current Mission Blvd. alignment, so they might as well (except for the seismic aspects build "over the top".

If you've ever been to CA 262 at the Warm Springs intersection, you'll notice that directly west 262 takes a deep dip into a trench to go under BART and the adjacent UP tracks; it would seem to make more sense to continue that trench east past the commercial zone directly east of the intersection and bring it back up to the surface near the I-680 interchange which, hopefully, will be rebuilt from its present cloverleaf to something a bit more befitting its traffic level (the larger portion of EB traffic turning north on a loop to NB 680).   Remember that up to the mid-1990's it was expected that the CA 237 freeway would be built on its original planned alignment across to 680 near Scotts Creek (the "ghost" grading for that interchange can be seen along 680 south of the Mission/262 interchange).   At that point, it was planned that CA 262 would be relinquished when the 237 freeway was completed, so the underpowered cloverleaf (at least there are C/D lanes along 680) remained as it was when opened in 1971. 

[michravera]

It'll be interesting to see exactly what is being proposed for CA 262.  Some years ago (maybe 5 or 6 years ago?), Alameda CTC was proposing to construct a new freeway alignment directly on top of the existing at-grade roadway, and even had some preliminary designs of it.  Now it sounds like that idea has been rejected for a more conventional upgrade of the existing roadway.

This is almost what is going to have to happen anyway. Once they build some sort of interchange with Warm Springs Blvd (or overcrossing to avoid it) and start the bends to collect and distribute traffic to and from I-680, it doesn't seem that much will be in contact with the current Mission Blvd. alignment, so they might as well (except for the seismic aspects build "over the top".

If you've ever been to CA 262 at the Warm Springs intersection, you'll notice that directly west 262 takes a deep dip into a trench to go under BART and the adjacent UP tracks; it would seem to make more sense to continue that trench east past the commercial zone directly east of the intersection and bring it back up to the surface near the I-680 interchange which, hopefully, will be rebuilt from its present cloverleaf to something a bit more befitting its traffic level (the larger portion of EB traffic turning north on a loop to NB 680).   Remember that up to the mid-1990's it was expected that the CA 237 freeway would be built on its original planned alignment across to 680 near Scotts Creek (the "ghost" grading for that interchange can be seen along 680 south of the Mission/262 interchange).   At that point, it was planned that CA 262 would be relinquished when the 237 freeway was completed, so the underpowered cloverleaf (at least there are C/D lanes along 680) remained as it was when opened in 1971.

I live on the alternate route of CASR-262 to the south (Auto Mall Parkway), so I drive it quite often. Build it under or over. It STILL won't have much interaction with the current Mission Blvd.

[Max Rockatansky]

I couldn't put my finger on the highway we were missing above it hit me just now; we forgot about US 48!