Routes 81 through 88
Click here for a key to the symbols used. "LRN" refers to the Pre-1964 Legislative Route Number. "US" refers to a US Shield signed route. "I" refers to an Eisenhower Interstate signed route. "Route" usually indicates a state shield signed route, but said route may be signed as US or I. Previous Federal Aid (pre-1992) categories: Federal Aid Interstate (FAI); Federal Aid Primary (FAP); Federal Aid Urban (FAU); and Federal Aid Secondary (FAS). Current Functional Classifications (used for aid purposes): Principal Arterial (PA); Minor Arterial (MA); Collector (Col); Rural Minor Collector/Local Road (RMC/LR). Note that ISTEA repealed the previous Federal-Aid System, effective in 1992, and established the functional classification system for all public roads.
81 · 82 · 83 · 84 · 85 · 86 · 87 · 88
This routing was LRN 276, defined in 1959.
Route 81 was not defined as part of the initial state signage of routes in 1934. It is unclear what (if any) route was signed as Route 81 between 1934 and 1964. Based on research, it looks like the number was not in use during that time as a signed route number.
It is unsigned, and no specific routing was ever determined. This
was in the planning stages, but there are no local roads meeting the definition
of a traversable highway.
TEA-21 funded the reconstruction of the Route 81 (Sierra Avenue) and I-10 Interchange in Fontana. Although the legislation noted that Sierra Avenue is Route 81, it is not signed as Route 81 and doesn't appear to be formally part of the route.
[SHC 253.1] Entire route; unconstructed. Added to the Freeway and Expressway system in 1959.
Overall statistics for Route 81:
(b) The relinquished former portion of Route 82 within the City of San Jose is not a state highway and is not eligible for adoption under Section 81. For the relinquished former portion of Route 82, the City of San Jose shall maintain within its jurisdiction signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 82 and shall ensure the continuity of traffic flow on the relinquished former portion of Route 82, including any traffic signal progression. The city may apply to the department for approval of a business route designation in accordance with Chapter 20, Topic 21, of the Highway Design Manual.
In 1963, this route was defined as "(a) Route 101 near Ford Road south of San Jose to Route 101 in San Francisco. (b) Route 101 near Alemany Boulevard to Route 87 in San Francisco." There also was the following condition: "Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 89 of Chapter 1062 of the Statutes of 1959, construction of all or any portion of subdivision (b) of Route 82 may be commenced at any time, if the City and County of San Francisco has conveyed or does convey to the State of California, without charge, all real property presently acquired by it for the construction of said subdivision (b) of this route or such portion thereof." This appeared to be a long-standing contention: that San Francisco must provide the land for the consturction.
In 1968, Chapter 282 truncated the definition to "Route 101 near Ford Road south of San Jose to Route 280 in San Francisco." and transfered the condition to I-280. This chapter also transferred the portion from I-280 to US 101, as well as the entire part (b) routing, to I-280.
In 1988, Chapter 106 changed the origin to be "Route 101 near Blossom Hill Road in San Jose"
In 2010, Chapter 448 (AB 1670, 9/29/10) renumbered the routing as (a) and added subsection (b) covering the relinquishment from Route 101 to Route 880.
In December 2011, the CTC authorized relinquishment of right of way in the city of San Jose on Route 82 from Route 880 to Route 101 (near Blossom Hill Road), under terms and conditions determined to be in the best interest of the State, as stated in the relinquishment agreement scheduled to be approved by the City at their November 29, 2011 Council Meeting. Authorized by Chapter 448, Statutes of 2010, which amended Section 382 of the Streets and Highways Code.
In 2013, Chapter 525 (SB 788, 10/9/13) reworded the definition to reflect relinquishments:
Upon a determination by the commission that
it is in the best interests of the state to do so, the commission may, upon
terms and conditions approved by it, relinquish to the City of San Jose the
portion of Route 82 from Route 101 to Route 880 in that city if the department
and the city enter into an agreement providing for that relinquishment. The
following conditions shall apply upon relinquishment:
(1) The relinquishment shall become effective on the date following the county recorder's recordation of the relinquishment resolution containing the commission's approval of the terms and conditions of the relinquishment.
(2) On and after the effective date of the relinquishment, the relinquished portion of Route 82 shall cease to be a state highway.
(3) The portion of Route 82 relinquished under this subdivision shall be ineligible for future adoption under Section 81.
(4) The City of San Jose shall ensure the continuity of traffic flow on the relinquished portion of Route 82, including any traffic signal progression.
(5) For the portion of Route 82 that is relinquished under this subdivision, the City of San Jose shall install and maintain within the jurisdiction of the city signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 82 to the extent deemed necessary by the department.
This is the former surface routing of US 101; it was signed as US 101 until the 1964 route realignment and the signing of Bypass US 101 as US 101. It was the original portion of LRN 2, defined in 1909. Note that the route of current Route 82 in downtown San Jose differs from the route of US 101 when it ran down the El Camino routing: instead of continuing on West Santa Clara Street east to Market, Route 82 south turns right at San Jose Arena onto Montgomery Street (northbound Route 82 uses Montgomery to Autumn Street, then makes the left turn on West Santa Clara at the arena). Route 82 southbound then uses San Carlos Street northeast to reconnect with Market; this rerouting may have occured as a result of the construction of the I-280/Route 87 interchange and occured several years before San Jose Arena was finished.
According to Chris Sampang much of Old Mission Road is the original
alignment of US 101 and the El Camino Real which was bypassed in the 1930s. The
original alignment of Old Mission Road bent back towards Route 82 over Colma
Creek at one point.
(Source: Tom Fearer: Gribblenation Blog on Route 82, February 2019)
The Historic Aerials site permits closer examination of the intersection of Mission Road (former El Camino Real/US 101) and Oak Avenue, where the current road turns to the southeast to meet up with Chestnut Avenue. In 1946, the existing westerly routing crossing Colma Creek closer to Colma was already in existence, but Mission Road still returned to El Camino Real at its south end, about a thousand feet south of the current Chestnut/El Camino intersection. By 1956, Mission was widened in the South San Francisco portion, but truncated to Chestnut Avenue, crossing Colma Creek near where Mission and Oak presently intersect via the road that is now "Antoinette Lane." Some time between 1968 and 1980, the section of historic El Camino Real/US 101 along what is now Antoinette Lane between the creek and Chestnut Avenue was bypassed by the current, modern routing of Mission Road southeast of Oak Avenue, and truncated to not cross the creek.
Route 82 was not defined as part of the initial state signage of routes in 1934. It is unclear what (if any) route was signed as Route 82 between 1934 and 1964.
Route 82 General
In October 2011, the CTC approved $11.2 million to install closed-circuit video cameras, vehicle detection systems and improved traffic signals along Route 82.
Former Route 82 in San Jose
In August 2011, it was reported that owners of more than 50% of the properties on The Alameda (in downtown San Jose, S of 880) have given verbal agreements to support the formation of a Maintenance Improvement District to fund a $4 million makeover of the segment. The makeover funding comes primarily from a Metropolitan Transportation Commission grant with some additional funding from the San Jose Department of Transportation. The grant was based on the vision offered of raised medians with landscaping and pedestrian refuges, new lighting, gateway and neighborhood markers, enhanced pedestrian crosswalks and corner sidewalk bulb-outs. It would stretch from Stockton Avenue down The Alameda to where it meets Fremont Street and Schiele Avenue.
Grand Blvd Initiative (~ SCL 11.545 to SCL 21.604)
The SAFETEA-LU act, enacted in August 2005 as the
reauthorization of TEA-21, provided the following expenditures on or near this
route: High Priority Project #1942: El Camino Real Grand Blvd initiative
San Mateo County. $3,000,000.
In August 2011, the San Francisco Chronicle reported on the Grand Boulevard Initiative. The Grand Boulevard Initiative is an ongoing effort to transform the street into "a destination of valued places," spur development and improve the pedestrian feel of a roadway that now varies in width from 129 feet in Millbrae to 46 feet in Burlingame, where the eucalyptus trees on either side are protected as part of the city's cultural heritage. Additional details may be found in the full article from the Chronicle.
In October 2011,
more information on the Grand Boulevard Initiative was published. The plan
includes removing two lanes of traffic from Lafayette Street in Santa Clara to
Showers Drive in Mountain View and turn them into bus-only lanes running down
the middle of the road. The express buses would be sleek and look more like
light-rail trains, with ticket areas in the median and signals that turn green
as a bus approaches an intersection. A 3-inch curb would separate the bus lanes
from cars, enough to alert motorists who may wander into the transit-only
lanes. The curbs would be low enough to allow emergency vehicles access. For
this initiative to be realized, the VTA needs city councils in all six cities
along El Camino within the county to endorse the changes, in addition to
approval from Caltrans (VTA will be submitting the plan in June 2012) as El
Camino is a state route. Money for the project is coming from the ½¢
transit-only sales tax approved in 2000 to bring BART to the South Bay and make
other rail and bus improvements. The VTA will also seek some federal funding.
The El Camino changes could cost $240 million, with $75 million possible from
(Source: San Jose Mercury News, 10/23/2011)
Mountain View (Route 85) to Atherton (Route 84) via Palo Alto and Menlo Park
In November 2018, it was reported that the VTA, Santa Clara and Mountain
View have big plans to overhaul El Camino over the next decade (~ SCL 18.924).
Here is what is being considered:
(Source: Mercury News, 11/13/2018)
Atherton (Route 84) to San Mateo (N of Route 92)
Route 82 / Route 92 Interchange (~ SM 10.518)
In June 2010, it was reported that studies are
beginning to improve the El Camino Real (Route 82)/Route 92 interchange.
Officials from three local transit agencies are splitting a $450,000 study that
by the end of Summer 2011 should map out why cars move so slowly through the
area, and what can be done about it. The purpose of the study is to figure out
if there are any quick and easy fixes for operational problems in the
interchange. C/CAG, MTC and the county Transportation Authority will each pay
$150,000 to fund the study.
[Source: Oakland Tribune, 6/9/10]
In January 2011, results from the study were disclosed. Five options are being considered. The favored option includes converting the existing cloverleaf configuration to a “partial cloverleaf” configuration. This would require the elimination of two loop ramps and the construction of diagonal off-ramps. Cost for the work is expected to be up to $15 million and San Mateo is currently sitting on a $2.8 million grant from the federal government for the design and construction of the project. The city is also seeking about $5 million for the project from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. The focused study also favored an option that calls for constructing partial cloverleafs at the interchange with the widening of Route 92 by one lane in each direction. The other three options include:
In February 2014, it was reported that the draft EIR for reconstruction of the El Camino Real/Route 92 interchanage was released for public comment. The current El Camino Real-Route 92 interchange is laid out in a full cloverleaf configuration, with four circular ramps guiding cars on and off the highway. The merging lanes are short and tricky to negotiate. Traffic on Route 92 often backs up as motorists slow down to exit or accommodate cars shifting from the onramp to the highway. Caltrans proposes dismantling two of the cloverleafs. The planned configuration would funnel vehicles leaving the highway to new three-way intersections with stoplights at El Camino Real. If the plan is approved in its current form, Caltrans expects to begin construction in 2017.
92 - El Camino Real Interchange"
src="maps/092-ECR.jpg" style="padding: 5pt; float: right;">In March 2015, it
was reported that after entering into a cooperative agreement last year, the
city of San Mateo and Caltrans are collaborating on a $16 million
reconfiguration of the on- and off-ramps into a partial cloverleaf design. The
project will also entail two signalized intersections that will accommodate
drivers entering El Camino Real while also providing safer crossings for
bicyclists and pedestrians. San Mateo has assumed landscaping responsibilities
after the completion of the project on top of its $2.75 million contribution
— the majority of which came from a federal grant and San Mateo County
Transportation Authority Measure A fund. Caltrans is taking the lead on the
project as it has the in-house design staff. In the future, drivers entering
Route 92 from El Camino Real will continue to have access to separate eastbound
and westbound on-ramps. Those exiting Route 92 will only have one off-ramp in
either direction that would eventually widen into two or three lanes at a
signalized intersection allowing drivers to turn either north or south onto El
Camino Real (Route 82). The project will add two additional intersections with
traffic lights between Bovet Road and 20th Avenue. The current design is about
65% complete and Caltrans hopes to begin construction in July 2016 with the
project completed around April 2018.
(Source: San Mateo Daily Journal, 3/7/2015)
In October 2015, it was reported that the San Mateo
County Transportation Authority allocated $16.2 million toward the project that
will convert the dangerous Route 92/El Camino Real Interchange into a partial
cloverleaf, realign the off- and on-ramps and add signalized intersections on
El Camino Real. The project will improve safety by eliminating the short weave
distance between drivers merging on and off Route 92 as well as deter existing
backups when drivers spill onto the westbound portion of the highway at El
(Source: San Mateo Daily Journal, 10/2/2015)
In August 2016, the CTC approved a proposal from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the San Mateo City/County Council of Governments (C/CAG) and the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (SMCTA) to program an AB 3090 cash reimbursement project (PPNO 0668B) in order to use local funds for construction of the Route 92/Route 82 Interchange Improvements – Phase 1 project (PPNO 0668A) in San Mateo County. The San Mateo County Transportation Authority requested reimbursements over a two-year period beginning in Fiscal Year (FY) 2019-20. This project will reconstruct and reconfigure the existing interchange. Once completed, these improvements will result in increased operational efficiencies. SMCTA proposes to amend the STIP to revise the funding plan to advance project delivery with the use of $5,000,000 in local sales tax (Measure A) funds for construction support, and request reimbursements in FYs 2019-20 and 2020-21. This request follows AB 3090 Guidelines, which allow a local agency to use its own funds (non-state or non-federal) to complete a project component early to be later reimbursed with STIP funds currently programmed on the project.
In October 2016, the CTC approved the following STIP allocation: 04-SM-92 10.3/10.7; 11.0/11.5 | Route 92/Route 82 Interchange Improvements - Phase 1. In San Mateo. Modify existing on/off ramps at the Route 92/Route 82 interchange. It is proposed to remove the southeast and the northwest quadrant loops. Two new signalized intersections would be created at new on and off ramps on Route 82 (El Camino). $5,000,000
The Route 92/Route 82 interchange project in San Mateo was completed in early 2018, after several months in 2017 of realigning or removing the old ramps from the original cloverleaf.
Floribunda Avenue Intersection Improvements / Burlingame (~ SM 13.683)
In December 2014, the CTC was provided the ability to comment on a draft EIR regarding a project in San Mateo County that will widen the intersection and install traffic signals on Route 82 at Floribunda Avenue in the city of Burlingame and the town of Hillsborough. The project is programmed in the 2014 State Highway Operation and Protection Program. The total estimated cost is $5,837,000 for capital and support. Construction is estimated to begin in Fiscal Year 2015-16. The scope, as described for the preferred alternative, is consistent with the project scope programmed by the Commission in the 2014 State Highway Operation and Protection Program. The decision to prepare an EIR was made due to a substantial amount of public controversy surrounding the project associated with the proposed removal of five historic trees. To mitigate this specific concernt, five replacement trees of an approved variety will be planted in the Halston-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows along Route 82. Alternatives considered for the proposed project include:
Historically, this route is close to the original "El Camino Real" (The Kings Road). This route has officially been designated as "El Camino Real by Assembly Bill 1769, Chapter 1569, in 1959.
The segment of Route 82 between Page Mill Road (SCL 24.04) and San Francisquito Creek (SCL 26.37/SM 0.000) in the City of Palo Alto is named the "Betty Meltzer Memorial Highway" This segment was named in memory of Elizabeth T. (Betty) Meltzer, best known in Palo Alto for her environmental efforts, including being a key organizer of the "Dream of a Thousand Trees for El Camino Real Project" in Palo Alto, and cofounder with Ellen Wyman of Palo Alto Tomorrow, an organization that successfully promoted sensible growth in downtown Palo Alto. Betty Meltzer was born on May 3, 1939, in San Francisco to Anna Rose and Sam Taylor, and moved to Palo Alto in 1948, where she graduated from Palo Alto High School in 1956. Betty Meltzer graduated from Smith College in 1960 and received her master's degree in education from Stanford University in 1961. Beginning in the mid 1980's, Betty Meltzer began her community organizing for a better Palo Alto with the cofounding of Palo Alto Tomorrow. Betty Meltzer was also a graduate of the first class in 1987 of the "Leadership Palo Alto" (later "Leadership Midpeninsula") program designed to train both citizens and government people on how to contribute to local civic betterment. Betty Meltzer was an active member in the Palo Alto Garden Club and the Palo Alto Women's Club. Meltzer taught in the Palo Alto Unified School District for five years, trained blind people how to read, and for many years tutored elementary school students who had reading disabilities. Meltzer served on the board of the former Peninsula Conservation Center Foundation (PCCF), now Acterra, and was especially active in creating the Business Environmental Network, which gave awards to environmentally outstanding businesses. Betty Meltzer was cofounder with Susan Rosenberg of the Trees for El Camino Project which aided the City of Palo Alto in obtaining the funding for hundreds of new trees along the 4.3 miles of El Camino Real in Palo Alto. Betty Meltzer, who was known for her tenacious attitude and steadfast commitment to her work for the City of Palo Alto, was able to work with the Department of Transportation to relax the department's regulations on the planting of trees in road medians in order to realize her dream of seeing Palo Alto's portion of El Camino Real become a welcoming, tree-lined boulevard. Betty Meltzer died on September 29, 2008. Named by Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR) 30, Resolution Chapter 74, on 7/16/2009.
California @ AARoads: California 82
Overall statistics for Route 82:
LRN 82 was first defined in 1933 as the route from "Etna Mills to Montague". In 1935, it was codified into the highway code as that routing.
In 1959, Chapter 1062 changed the origin to "[LRN 20] near Weaverville".
(b) The relinquished former portion of Route 83 within the City of Upland is not a state highway and is not eligible for adoption under Section 81. For the relinquished former portion of Route 83, the City of Upland shall ensure the continuity of traffic flow, including any traffic signal progression, and maintain signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 83.
In 1999, this was changed to end at Route 210 instead of Route 30, reflecting the 1998 renaming of Route 30 (AB 1650, Ch 724, 10/10/99). This had the net effect of moving the terminus of Route 83 from 19th Street in Upland (Route 30) to the new freeway (Route 210). However, the portion between former Route 30 and Route 210 is unconstructed—according to the Caltrans postmile log, Route 83 ends at Postmile 14.193, which is at the former Route 30 (19th St.).
With respect to offramps in Upland, Ali Pezeshkpour writes:
Upland chose to place on and off-ramps for the new freeway at Mountain Avenue and Campus Avenue (Mountain Ave for access to Mt. Baldy, Campus for access to the 1,000 new homes and mall in being built in Upland). Then, around 1998-99, Upland chose to relocate Campus Ave. and create a new alignment about .5 miles to the east, which is the distance between the major north-south arterials of the city of Upland. This means that Mtn. Ave and Euclid Ave are 1 mile apart, and Euclid and the new Campus are 1 mile apart. Thus, the possibilty of adding ramps to Euclid in the future would be left open. Also, in an unusual note, posts were placed along Euclid to prepare the street for new shields and signs for freeway entrances, but were later removed. Sound-wall construction had gaps in the walls around Euclid left until about 6 months ago when they were filled in, but the recently constructed power lines paralleling the freeway and crossing Euclid were done in a way that they would go around any ramps that could be built. The retaining wall around Euclid was also constructed in an odd manor, as if to suggest that they could be removed when the time came to place ramps at Euclid. Grading was also done on curbs where ramps could be added about 6 months ago.
In 2006, AB 3030 and SB 246, Chapter 248, 8/26/2006 permitted relinquishment in Upland: (1) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the commission may relinquish to the City of Upland the portion of Route 83 that is located within the city limits or the sphere of influence of the city, upon terms and conditions that the commission finds to be in the best interests of the state. (2) A relinquishment under this subdivision shall become effective immediately following the recordation by the county recorder of the relinquishment resolution containing the commission's approval of the terms and conditions of the relinquishment. (3) On and after the effective date of the relinquishment, both of the following shall occur: (A) The portion of Route 83 relinquished under this subdivision shall cease to be a state highway. (B) The portion of Route 83 relinquished under this subdivision may not be considered for future adoption under Section 81. (c) The city shall ensure the continuity of traffic flow on the relinquished portion of Route 83, including any traffic signal progression. (d) For relinquished portions of Route 83, the city shall maintain signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 83. [Added by SB 246 (Chapter 248, 8/26/2006)]. This right of way was relinquished in June 2008.
This route was LRN 192, defined in 1933. It was not signed as part of the intial set of signed routes in 1934.
According to a map of the San Bernardino area from 1941, Route 83 was signed along Gilman Springs Road from US 60 to Route 79. However, this designation appears to have disappeared by 1964; the exact date of disappearance is unknown. [Thanks to Ali Pezeshkpour for providing that information.]
There may be some plans to upgrade a portion of this route. According to "LA Freeway Enthusiest" in October 2002, there was an article in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin about a plan to upgrade Route 83 (Euclid Ave) from Route 71 in Frontera to Route 60 in Ontario (~ SBD R0.059 to SBD 7.04); the plan called for a widening of the narrow section by the Chino state prison and improvements within the Ontario section south of Route 60.
In June 2008, the CTC relinquished right of way in the city of Upland, under terms and conditions as stated in the cooperative agreement, dated October 17, 2007, determined to be in the best interest of the State. Authorized by Chapter 507, Statutes of 2006, which amended Section 383 of the Streets and Highways Code.
The northbound and southbound sections of Route 83 in Chino between the Kimball Avenue and Route 60 exits (~ SBD 2.921 to SBD 7.04) are officially named the "Correctional Officer Jesus "Jesse" Sanchez Memorial Highway". This segment was named in memory of Correctional Officer Jesus "Jesse" Sanchez, who, in 1972 at 24 years of age, became a permanent correctional officer at the California Institution for Men. Officer Sanchez had worked his way through the ranks for such a promotion as part of the federal government's new Work Incentive Program. Previously, Officer Sanchez had graduated from the Correctional Officers School in Soledad with good grades and was an excellent employee. Officer Sanchez was ambitious and always asked what else he could do to be a better officer and colleague. Upon receiving word of his promotion, Officer Sanchez moved his family to Pomona, assured of his future. Tragically and shortly thereafter, Officer Sanchez was gunned down during an ambush while escorting a prisoner to San Bernardino County Court, along with his partner George F. Fitzgerald, about a mile from Euclid Avenue on Edison Street in Chino. Named by Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR) 83, Resolution Chapter 122, on 9/7/2010.
[SHC 253.1] Entire route. Added to the Freeway and Expressway system in 1959.
Overall statistics for Route 83:
In 1933, Chapter 767 added a number of segments that all became part of LRN 83: [LRN 3] near Mt. Shasta to Lassen National Park, Lassen National Park to [LRN 29] at Mineral, Lassen National Park-Mineral Road to [LRN 29] near Morgan (part of this was LRN 86), [LRN 29] near Deer Creek Pass to [LRN 21] near Indian Falls, and [LRN 21] near Blairsden to [LRN 38] near Truckee. In 1935, all these segments were codified into the highway code as follows:
This definition remained unchanged until the 1963 renumbering. It was signed as follows:
This was signed as Route 89. It ended near Old Station in Lassen National Park.
This segment was signed as Route 89 between Lassen National Park and the junction with Route 36 5 mi E of Mineral (near Deer Creek Pass). The remainder to Morgan Springs (4 mi) is cosigned as Route 36/Route 89.
This was signed as Route 89.
From Route 1 near San Gregorio to Route 101 at Woodside Road in Redwood City.
In 1984, Chapter 409 rewrote segments (a) and (b) and relocated the discontinuity to US 101, making this segment the new (a): "(a) Route 1 near San Gregorio to Route 101 at Woodside Road in Redwood City. (b) Route 101 at Marsh Road in Menlo Park to Route 238."
Route 84 was not defined as part of the original set of state signed routes in 1934; it was defined by the highway commission in January 1961. This was an extension to LRN 107. By 1963, between Woodside and US 101, there were two alignments:
The first signage in the field was noted in 1963. According to Scott Parker
(Source: Sparker on AARoads, "Re: CA 84", 5/17/2019)
[In the Summer of 1963] freestanding trailblazer signage marked the Willow Ave. interchange; essentially "tacked on" besides the original street big green or black signs. Route 84 (new-style white) reassurance shields were indeed mounted beneath the Bypass US 101 reassurance shields north as far as the Old Bayshore Highway exit in Redwood City -- the east Woodside Road extension was still in the planning stages. The original alignment of Route 84 (LRN 107) was northwest along Old Bayshore Highway to Main Street, where it turned on a very sharp angle SSW, crossing then-US 101 (LRN 2, later Route 82) and veering a bit to the right as Woodside Road. Again, the Bypass 101/Old Bayshore exit for Route 84 was marked, like the Willow interchange, with freestanding white Route 84 trailblazer signage. Post '64 renumbering, Route 84 was indeed planned to follow the San Francisquito Creek southwest, essentially subsuming the Sand Hill Road alignment up to near the intersection of Portola Road and La Honda Road, where it would head uphill to Route 35 and then down along the current alignment to its terminus at Route 1 near La Honda. The original Route 114 was what is now Route 84 west of US 101 -- down Woodside Road to I-280, where the legal definition of Route 114 ended. After Stanford balked at allowing another major highway on its grounds (it too would have skirted the linear accelerator), the numerical definition was swapped circa 1976, with Route 84 formally assigned to its current Woodside Road and La Honda Road alignment, and Route 114 relegated to a line on the map now ending at Route 82 at the Santa Clara/San Mateo county line (between Palo Alto and Menlo Park). When Route 84 was rerouted over the Bayfront Expressway from Willow Road NW to the Marsh Road/US 101 interchange in the '90's, Willow Ave. from US 101 to Route 84 was ceded to Route 114 (and even signed with trailblazers at US 101 for a short time). But any extension west of US 101 has been functionally dead for decades. Route 114/Willow Road is now famous/notorious as the street where Facebook HQ is located. But since the relinquishment of Route 84 in Fremont has been announced, the designated west segment of Route 84 is now in 2 parts: from Route 1 in La Honda to US 101 in Redwood City, and from US 101 at the Marsh Road exit to I-880 at Decoto Road in Newark.
There are no local roads that fit the definition of a traversable local highway between Woodside Road and Marsh Road. This was a San Mateo County Measure A project.
Route 101 at Marsh Road in Menlo Park to Route 880.
In 1984, Chapter 409 rewrote segments (a) and (b) and relocated the discontinuity to US 101, making this segment the new (b): "(a) Route 1 near San Gregorio to Route 101 at Woodside Road in Redwood City. (b) Route 101 at Marsh Road in Menlo Park to Route 238."
Before the reconstruction of the Dumbarton Bridge and the construction of the Newark bypass freeway between the east end of the bridge and I-880, Route 84 followed Thornton Avenue from Route 84 southeast to I-880.
In October 2005, the Governor signed AB 1462 which changes the existing law that authorized a city or county in which a planned transportation facility was to be located on Route 238 in Alameda County to develop and file with the California Transportation Commission a local alternative transportation program that addresses transportation problems and opportunities, and provides for the use of revenues from the sales of excess properties acquired for the planned state facility in order to fund the local alternative program, but limits the use of revenues from excess property sales to highway purposes. It also extends the applicability of the provision that the commission may not approve a local alternative program under these provisions after July 1, 2010 to a Route 84 between existing Route 238 and I-880 in Alameda County. (Chapter 619, October 6, 2005)
Route 84 was not defined as part of the original set of state signed routes in 1934. This was LRN 107 (defined in 1933), and includes the Dunbarton Bridge. The route existed in 1939, but the signage is unclear. It was signed as Route 84 in 1961.
The Dunbarton Bridge was originally a rail bridge that opened in 1910, the
first bridge across the bay. Just south of the current auto bridge, it has been
unused since 1982 but remains in place, its swing span now permanently in the
open position to allow ship traffic. It was repaced in the 1920s by a private
toll bridge. The first cars drove across the automotive bridge on Jan. 17,
1927. The Bay Bridge would not open until November 1936, and the Golden Gate
Bridge six months after that. The 1927 Dumbarton Bridge was similar to the 1929
San Mateo-Hayward Bridge in that it featured a causeway structure and a center
vertical lift span.... and was purchased by the California Division of Highways
in 1951. The 1927 Dumbarton Bridge became part of LRN 107, which already
existed on both ends of the structure since 1933. It was purchased by the state
in 1951 for $2.25 million. It was demolished just before 3 p.m. on Sept. 23,
1984, when the 222-foot-long main span of the old bridge went tumbling into the
bay, after six hours of delay. What the remaining 200 spectators saw was a
bright flash from 176 explosive charges, a dark cloud of smoke and dust, and
then the splash as 600 tons of debris fell into the water. The delay was the
result of numerous adjustments to make sure the towers on each side
wouldn’t be destroyed as well. Those towers and the eight other spans
would be taken down later.
(Source: Mercury News, 1/17/2017; Gribblenation Blog:California State Route 84 west from Interstate 880 over the Dumbarton Bridge, 2/15/2019)
There were plans for a $60 million "Bayfront Expressway extension project" that would parallel US 101 between Marsh and Woodside roads (SM 25.621 to SM R25.857), but these have been put on hold. The existing Bayfront Expressway comes off the Dumbarton Bridge and runs north along the bay as far as Marsh Road. Current plans call for it to be extended to the next interchange, at Woodside Road (~ 84 SM 25.619). There has been a project to widen this segment, and it is now six lanes from the Dumbarton Bridge to the Marsh Road/US-101 interchange. The widening project was (remarkably) completed seven months ahead of schedule.
The portion of Route 84 from US-101/Marsh Road (~ SM R25.881) to the junction with Route 114 (Bayfront Expressway, ~ SM R25.999), is now signed as Route 84 (in addition to the Willow Road portion, which is really Route 114 but signed as Route 84). New signage along US 101 also points out that the Bayfront Expressway is now Route 84. In fact, at the Willow Road/Bayfront Expressway (~ 84 SM R27.623) junction, westbound Route 84 drivers are now directed to continue on Bayfront, instead of the older signed left turn down Willow/Route 114.
In June 2018, the CTC authorized an access control opening on Route 84 at SM
PM 27.2 in the city of Menlo Park, county of San Mateo. This request is part of
the Bayfront Expressway Roadway Improvement Project which will improve traffic
operation along Bayfront Expressway, also known as Route 84, in order to
accommodate the additional traffic demand generated by development on the
adjacent Hibiscus Properties, LLC parcel. A traffic study was completed in July
2017 to analyze traffic impacts to Bayfront Expressway. The study identified
installation of a signalized intersection at the subject access opening
location as the preferred alternative to alleviate increased traffic volumes
after development. The existing main access would also be modified to allow
westbound left turns for transit buses only and extension of the existing
eastbound right turn lane. Director’s Deed (DD) 045626-01-04, approved
May 17, 2018, authorized the transfer of a 71.49 foot access control opening to
Hibiscus Properties, LLC. This break in access control will be of public
benefit by increasing traffic safety at the new intersection, better
controlling the flow of traffic, and reducing traffic queueing in this area.
The cost of all road improvements associated with this Project is borne by the
developer.The May, 2018 Commission meeting agenda item essentially sold a
04-SM-84 PM 27.2 a 71.49-foot access opening to HIBISCUS PROPERTIES, LLC for
$2,025,000 (Appraisal $2,025,000). This is a right of way decertification of
access restriction along Route 84, an access restricted conventional highway. A
full intersection will be constructed. The new access opening is located on the
southerly side of Route 84 between the signalized intersections of Chilco
Street and Willow Road in the city of Menlo Park (City). The buyer, Hibiscus
Properties LLC, is owned by Facebook. Facebook is expanding their campus at
this location and the City requires the location of a new driveway off the
highway, as Chilco Street cannot accommodate the increase in traffic caused by
the Facebook expansion. Selling price represents appraised value.
(Source: CTC Agenda, June 2018 Agenda Item 4.20)
The SAFETEA-LU act, enacted in August 2005 as the reauthorization of TEA-21, provided the following expenditures on or near this route:
Dumbarton Bridge Toll
According to the San Jose Mercury News, there are plans in early 2009 to raise tolls on the Dumbarton Bridge, likely $1, and likely to be applied to carpoolers as well. They may also add congestion pricing. This is being done to help support the cost of retrofitting the Dumbarton and Antioch spans for earthquake improvements. In February 2010, the toll increased to $5 at all times on the Dumbarton, San Mateo, Richmond-San Rafael, Carquinez, Benicia-Martinez and Antioch bridges. In July 2010, the toll will be extended to carpoolers, who will pay $2.50.
Dumbarton Bridge Retrofit (~ SM R28.989 to ~ ALA R3.112)
In July 2010, the Bay Area Toll Authority, which governs all of the region's toll bridges except the Golden Gate Bridge, allocated $75 million in toll money to fund construction of the Dumbarton Bridge retrofit. Caltrans plans to award the funds to a construction firm in August 2010. The winning contractor will begin working shortly thereafter, but no later than September, according to the toll authority. Officials expect to wrap up the project in April 2013, and the construction firm's contract will be tied to finishing the work quickly. The new Dumbarton span is being designed to withstand the most intense earthquake possible in the region. Work includes installing 14 steel pipe piles, replacing deck joints and strengthening the connections from the approaches to the bridge. Although the full cost of the Dumbarton project is budgeted at $365 million — to be funded using toll revenue — it is unlikely to be that high. Construction bids came in as low as $47 million after engineers budgeted $73 million because contractors continue to quote low prices around the Bay Area during the recession. The toll authority still plans to allocate $75 million to give Caltrans breathing room in awarding the contract.
In July 2011, it was reported that Caltrans plans to retrofit the Dumbarton Bridge. The current Dumbarton Bridge was opened to traffic in 1982 linking the cities of Newark in Alameda County and East Palo Alto in San Mateo County. The 1.6 mile long bridge has six lanes (three in each direction) and an eightfoot bicycle/pedestrian pathway. The bridge is a combination of reinforced concrete and steel girders that support a reinforced lightweight concrete roadway on reinforced concrete columns. The current retrofit strategy for the bridge includes superstructure and deck modifications and installation of isolation bearings.
In December 2016, it was reported that a bill
signed into law this year by Gov. Jerry Brown has set into motion a study by
SamTrans in San Mateo County to convert the six-lane span from Fremont to the
Peninsula to use reversable lanes -- that is, four westbound lanes and two
eastbound lanes in the morning, then flip-flopping that configuration in the
afternoon. A movable median barrier like that on the Golden Gate Bridge would
be used. It won’t happen quickly, and may be a decade away. But the first
reports will be ready in May 2017. Questions persist over costs, impacts on key
roads off the bridges such as University Avenue in East Palo Alto and whether
the extra lane should be reserved for carpoolers or converted into express
lanes. Caltrans has considered reversible lanes on the San Mateo Bridge (Route
92), I-680 along the Sunol Grade, and I-80 in the East Bay but found problems
that stopped those efforts. The Dumbarton has several key factors in its favor.
Around 80 percent of traffic is jammed together in the peak driving direction,
while just 20 percent is going the opposite way. Caltrans will consider
reversible lanes only if there is a 65-35 split and if it can ease delays for
three decades or more. The Dumbarton is almost a straight shot with few curves
that could make using a reversible barrier tricky.
(Source: Monterey Herald, 12/18/2016)
Bridge 35-232 (084 SM 21.54) is also named the "Leslie Charlene Curtis Memorial Bridge". This name was assigned by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 84, Chapter 129, in 1985. Leslie Charlene Curtis, 19, was killed in 1985 by a drunk driver at the then notoriously unsafe intersection of South Norfolk and Route 92.
Bridge 35-038 (084 SM R029.25) over San Francisco Bay between San Mateo and
Alameda counties is named the "Dumbarton Bridge". It was never
officially named. The name comes from Dumbarton Point, which itself apparently
dates to 1876 when it was named after the town of Dumbarton in Scotland. About
the same time, Origin Mowry established a successful landing on the deep slough
just south of Dumbarton Point. Railroads also played a part in the growth of
the area when the narrow-gauge Santa Clara Valley Railroad was bought by James
Fair, James Flood and Alfred "Hog" Davis. They renamed the line the South
Pacific Coast Railroad, extended the railroad from Dumbarton Point to Santa
Cruz, and eventually offered daily commute service north to the Alameda Pier.
In addition, people could catch the railroad's ferry "Newark," which ran daily
trips from Dumbarton Point to San Francisco. Eventually that railroad was
bought by Southern Pacific and this area became one of the busiest freight
junctions in California. In 1907, the railroad built a bridge just north of the
current Dumbarton Bridge. In 1927, the original Dumbarton Bridge, the first
vehicular crossing of San Francisco Bay, was opened to traffic. It linked
southern Alameda County on the east to San Mateo County on the west. Built
originally to provide a shortcut for traffic originating in San Mateo and Santa
Clara Counties, the bridge served industrial and residential areas on both
sides. The bridge was built with private capital and then purchased by the
State for $2.5 million in 1951. Portions of this old drawbridge remain as
fishing piers. Its age and the limitations of a two-lane undivided roadway and
lift-span made it necessary for a replacement bridge to be constructed 90 feet
to the north. This bridge was opened to traffic in October 1982 as a four-lane,
high-level structure. The cost of the complete project was $200 million.
Following the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989, Caltrans converted the shoulders
to additional travel lanes. It is 8,600 feet long with a shoulder in each
direction for supposedly for emergency use (but in reality, too narrow for
emergency use) and a two-way bicycle and pedestrian path on the eastbound side.
A 340-foot center span provides 85 feet of vertical clearance for shipping. The
approach spans on both sides of the Bay are of prestressed lightweight concrete
girders supporting a lightweight concrete deck. The center spans are twin steel
trapezoidal girders which also support a lightweight concrete deck.
[Statistics on the Dumbarton Bridge from the Caltrans Dumbarton Bridge site]
Commuter lanes exist in Alameda County on the approach to the Dumbarton Bridge, from Newark Blvd to west of the Toll Plaza, for 1.8 mi. These were opened in October 1982, were extended in 1989 to University Avenue due to the Loma Prieta earthquake, were shorted back to the toll plaza in 1990, and had the occupancy requirement reduced in 1992. They require two or more people, and are in operation weekdays between 5:00am and 10:00am and between 3:00pm and 6:00pm.
According to the Mercury News in June 2007, by 2017, there are plans to add HOVs across the Dumbarton Bridge from Newark Avenue to the toll plaza. This is odd, as these lanes already exist.
Route 880 to Route 238.
(c) (1) The commission may relinquish to the City of Fremont the portion of Route 84 within its city limits between Route 880, approximately post mile 6.922, and Route 238 Mission Boulevard, approximately post mile 10.83, upon terms and conditions the commission finds to be in the best interests of the state, if the department and the city enter into an agreement providing for that relinquishment.
(2) A relinquishment under this section shall become effective on the date following the county recorder’s recordation of the relinquishment resolution containing the commission’s approval of the terms and conditions of the relinquishment.
(3) On and after the effective date of the relinquishment, all of the following shall occur:
(A) The relinquished portion of Route 84 shall cease to be a state highway.
(B) The relinquished portion of Route 84 shall be ineligible for future adoption under Section 81.
(C) For the relinquished portion of Route 84, the City of Fremont shall maintain signs within its jurisdiction directing motorists to the continuation of Route 84.
In 1963, this segment was covered by the original segment (b): "(b) Route 35 to Route 238."
In 1984, Chapter 409 rewrote segments (a) and (b) and relocated the discontinuity to US 101, making this segment the new (b): "(a) Route 1 near San Gregorio to Route 101 at Woodside Road in Redwood City. (b) Route 101 at Marsh Road in Menlo Park to Route 238."
In 1988, Chapter 106 split segment (b) and made the definition more specific: "(b) Route 101 at Marsh Road in Menlo Park to Route 880. (c) Route 880 to Route 238."
In 2018, SB 989, Chapter 461, 9/17/2018, added section (c) authorizing the relinquishment to the City of Fremont the portion of Route 84 within its city limits between Route 880, approximately post mile 6.922, and Route 238 Mission Boulevard, approximately post mile 10.83, upon terms and conditions the commission finds to be in the best interests of the state, if the department and the city enter into an agreement providing for that relinquishment. It also may have renumbered the statute with (a) being the list of segments; (b) being the relinquishment in West Sacramento; and (c) being the relinquishment in Fremont.
Route 84 was signed as part of the original set of state signed routes in 1934. This segment was part of the 1933 portion of LRN 107. This was signed as Route 84 in 1961, when the CHC approved sign route 84 as "State Sign Route 84 in San Mateo and Alameda counties, extending from the junction with State Sign Route 1 at San Gregorio to the junction with US 50 (I-5W) near Livermore. The route passes through La Honda, Woodside, Menlo Park, Fremont, Newark, Sunol, and Livermore, and extends across the Dumbarton Bridge."
This segment is not constructed to freeway standards.
Fremont and Union City (~ ALA 6.981 to ALA 10.785)
There is a new project that provides for construction of a new parkway from I-880 to a point on Mission Boulevard near the Fremont/Union City border. From there Route 84 will be rerouted along a section of Mission Boulevard to Niles Canyon Road where it joins the current route through the Canyon.
In early 2003, the city councils of Fremont and Union City agreed on a compromise for realigning Route 84. The agreement would have included construction of a portion of the Route 84 parkway between Mission Blvd (Route 238) and Alvarado-Niles Blvd. Route 84 would then continue north on Alvarado-Niles to Decoto Road, and then west on Decoto to the Dumbarton Bridge. Decoto Road would have been widened from Paseo Padre Pkwy to I-880, and the Decoto/Alvarado-Niles intersection would have been improved. The current Route 84 on Mowry, Peralta, Fremont, Thornton, and I-880 would have been decertified and control of the city streets will return to the city of Fremont. However, Union City favored a parkway alignment running from I-880 at Decoto Rd in Fremont to Mission Blvd at 7th St in Union City, while the Fremont city council was opposed to any route running through the city of Fremont. The mayors of the two cities were unable to agree on a compromise, and the project appeared to be dead. However, in June 2005, there was a new proposal. This proposal would involve construction of a portion of the Route 84 Parkway between Mission Blvd and Paseo Padre Blvd. Route 84 would then continue north on Paseo Padre to Decoto Road, and then west on Decoto to the Dumbarton Bridge.
Both Paseo Padre and Decoto
would be widened. However, according to this note, that
proposal was also unsuccessful, as Caltrans did not support it. Now, the
Alameda County Transportation Authority has to decide what to do with almost
$100 million that for the past 20 years had been slated for realigning Route
84. Union City would get the bulk of the money, $55 million, to build its part
of the road from Mission Boulevard to Alvarado-Niles Road. The money also would
be used to mitigate traffic problems expected to arise from not building the
new connection all the way to I-880. Fremont still will get the money it needs
to complete the Warm Springs interchange. Most of the money is expected to come
from Caltrans, which will sell the state-owned land that had been intended for
Route 84. In June 2006, the parties involved reached a concensus. The selection
that received consensus -- known as "Option 2" -- includes only construction of
the four lane parkway with a landscaped median between Mission Blvd and Paseo
Padre Pkwy. There will be no parkway between Paseo Padre and I-880. Instead,
portions of Paseo Padre and Decoto Road will be widened and improved.
[Thanks to Andy Gross for providing this information.]
In February 2018, it was reported that the plan for
Fremont to regain local control of Route 84 is moving forward. A state
legislator has introduced a bill that would relinquish ownership of a portion
of Route 84 to the city of Fremont. The section of highway in question consists
of nearly 3 miles of Decoto Road between I-880 and Mission Boulevard, roughly
half of which runs through Union City north of Alameda Creek. "Fremont has long
desired to have Caltrans relinquished (sic) this portion of the route when the
time was right," Senate Bill 989 author State Sen. Bob Wieckowski, D-Fremont,
said in a statement. "Now everything is coming into place." The move has been
in progress since the city entered into a memorandum of understanding with the
Alameda County Transportation Commission, Caltrans and Union City in 2006, but
was significantly delayed by the economic recession of 2008. City officials
have a number of improvements planned like safer routes for walking to school,
more curb ramps that comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, updated
traffic signals, rebuilt pavement surfaces and various enhancements to the
Centerville business district - a project which could begin as soon as 2020 and
be completed by 2021.
(Source: Union City Patch, 2/7/2018)
On AARoads, Sparker provided some additional
information on Fremont's plans. The portion of Route 84 in Fremont that's being
considered for relinquishment does not use Decoto Road (that's part of a
long-postponed realignment plan); it extends east from I-880 on Thornton Ave.
to Fremont Blvd., south on Fremont to Peralta Ave., east on Peralta to East
Mowry Ave., and east on Mowry to Route 238/Mission Blvd. Fremont is trying to
redevelop their "old town", which contains the Route 84 alignment, so they're
asking for the relinquishment for somewhat more latitude regarding street
configuration. No word if they're planning to maintain Route 84 continuation
(Source: Sparker on AARoad, 3/1/2018)
The 2018 STIP, approved at the CTC March 2018 meeting, includes a modification for PPNO 0081J, East-West Connector in Fremont. This project (ALA 84 PM 6.9/10.8), in the cities of Fremont and Union City, from Route 880 to Route 238 (Mission Boulevard), would construct a 4-6 lane expressway on existing and new alignment. The modification appears to delete $12,000K in construction funding in FY20-21; this funding appears to have been replaced by MTC funding in the same amount in FY18-19, which combines with $156,257K funding from the ACTC. Prior FY funding totalled $56,659K.
In September 2018, Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill
that gives the city of Fremont the stretch of Route 84 between I-880 and
Mission Boulevard (to be precise, it probably authorizes relinquishment upon
acceptance by the city/county, and includes improvements to the highways by
Caltrans before relinquishment). Sen. Bob Wieckowski, D-Fremont, a member of
the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee, authored the bill. It is part
of a 2006 agreement with Fremont, the Alameda County Transportation Commission,
Caltrans and Union City. The city has a variety of plans to make improvements
to the route, including repaving work, installing curb ramps and more efficient
traffic signals, and creating safer walking routes to school.
(Source: Fremont Patch, 9/18/2018)
[SHC 253.5] Entire portion. Added to the Freeway and Expressway system in 1959.
From Route 238 to Route 680 near Scotts Corners via the vicinity of Sunol.
This segment remains as defined in 1963.
This was also part of the 1933 LRN 107. It was not part of the original state signage in 1934, but was signed by 1963.
Niles Canyon Road (~ ALA 10.88 to ALA 17.901)
Caltrans has also been working on safety improvements along Niles Canyon Road. The agency has proposed widening and adding both medians and shoulders to the meandering two-lane state highway as well as building nearly two miles of cement retaining walls. The work is designed to reduce fatal accidents along the scenic route from Fremont to Sunol and I-680. Caltrans proposed the project after traffic injury statistics showed that the road had a higher than average percentage of fatal and injury collisions. From 1999 to 2008, there were 426 accidents on the road, resulting in 11 fatalities and 226 injuries, according to Caltrans. However, residents, environmental groups and city officials fear it would increase speeds and diminish the beauty of Niles Canyon, and are strongly opposed. They argue that Caltrans instead should consider measures to slow traffic or ban trucks on the road, which were involved in 38% of the injury accidents. Caltrans also is dealing with concerns from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, which warned in a letter last month that it might not issue permits for the work if it posed significant threats to habitat along nearby Alameda Creek. The Niles Canyon Railway has also warned Caltrans that the work, which involves cutting into a railway embankment, could force it to shut down its weekend passenger service from Sunol to Fremont during construction.
Caltrans has divided the work along Niles Canyon
Road into three projects. The first, which faced little opposition, involves
widening shoulders and improving sight distances along portions of the road in
Fremont, Union City and the county, and could be completed by 2013. The third
project, a new Alameda Creek Bridge, hasn't undergone environmental review yet.
But the second project, which is still under environmental review and calls for
removing 439 native trees to make way for retaining walls, has run into strong
opposition. The second project would include a 2-foot center median and
standard 8-foot shoulders on sections of the road mostly around Sunol. It also
would soften curves to allow drivers to see farther down the road. The
environmental review period for it has been extended to Oct. 7, 2010, and
Caltrans will decide in Spring 2011 whether to move forward with the road
[Source: Oakland Tribune, 9/14/10; Mercury News, 9/23/10]
In March 2010, it was reported that a battle was
brewing over the Niles Canyon Widening. Citing safety concerns, Caltrans plans
to widen the scenic, winding road by 20 feet in some areas, adding shoulders
and a median. The road between Niles, once a bustling moviemaking hub, and
Sunol (where the route meets I-680) would remain two lanes. The first phase of
the project is already under way. Caltrans has removed about 80 sycamores,
oaks, alders and other trees alongside the stretch of the road near the Union
City border. But the next two phases have yet to be approved, and residents and
environmentalists hope to derail them. Removing the trees has a broad impact on
the environment. The trees provide food, shelter and shade for wildlife, as
well as control erosion along the creek bed. Caltrans' plans call for retaining
walls, replacing Alameda Creek Bridge and adding 8- to 10-foot shoulders on
both sides of the road. For every tree that's removed, Caltrans said it will
plant three to five to replace them, mostly in the Alameda Creek watershed.
Caltrans embarked on the project almost a decade ago, hoping to curb the high
number of accidents along the road. From 1998 10 2008, Niles Canyon Road saw
436 collisions, resulting in 13 deaths and 342 people injured.
(SF Chronicle, 3/10/11)
In December 2011, it was reported that Caltrans has
agreed to stop planning to widen the scenic, 8-mile route (Niles Canyon Road)
between Fremont and Sunol due to environmental concerns, according to a legal
settlement reached with the Alameda Creek Alliance. The Alliance sued Caltrans
in June to stop the $80 million project, which called for widening the
shoulders and adding retaining walls and a median to Route 84. Caltrans has
already removed about 100 sycamores, willows and other trees in the canyon in
preparation for the widening project; the agency will have to plant
replacements. Caltrans had also started repaving the road before Alameda County
Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch issued a restraining order in June 2011;
Caltrans must now rip up the new pavement and replace the rumble strips it had
removed. Note that the settlement only stops the first phase of the project,
the portion of the road closest to Fremont. The next two phases are still under
review. Caltrans is expected to start over with the first phase, putting forth
an environmental impact report and essentially starting the process from
(SF Chronicle, 12/14/11)
In July 2012, it was reported that Caltrans had
scrapped their previous approach, and was restarting the Niles Canyon Road
project fresh because they want to make the scenic highway as safe as possible.
They held a public meeeting where they announced the clean slate approach and
heard community inputs for the process. The notion stressed by the audience
appeared to be wanting to make the road safer without increasing traffic. The
safety concerns were in six areas: (1) Roadside Quality; (2) Limited Use
Shoulders; (3) Speed Management; (4) Signs and Markings; (5) Bicycles and
Pedestrians; and (6) Intersections and Curves. The details of these problems
are on the Caltrans Niles
Canyon website. The website presentations also identify proposed
short-term, mid-term, and long-term mitigations.
(Mercury News, 8/1/2012)
In December 2012, Caltrans introduced new proposals
for Niles Canyon Road. These included 16 short-term fixes for Route 84,
including placing reflective materials and signs on several underpasses and
guardrails, as well as increased signage and visibility. Twelve medium-term
solutions included road realignments; relocating railroad abutments; widening
roads; building roundabouts; and constructing intersection signals, among other
ideas. Caltrans also suggested only implementing safety measures at certain
points along the route, including the Rosewarnes Underpass, the low speed areas
between bridges, the Palomares/Farwell Underpass, both intersections at Main
Street and the Pleasanton/Sunol exit, and the Alameda Creek Bridge.
Improvements will most likely involve installing reflective lights at
Rosewarnes Underpass, the low speed areas between bridges, the
Palomares/Farwell Underpass, both intersections at Main Street and the
Pleasanton/Sunol exit, and the Alameda Creek Bridge. Minor widening in these
five areas will also be done to allow for speed limit enforcement by California
Highway Patrol. In addition, Caltrans will remove vegetation obstructing safety
signs, and install new feedback signs, such as electronic ones that report
drivers' speeds. These improvements will not be done until at least 2014, as
Caltrans wants public feedback and review. There was still concern that
Caltrans planned on removing trees.
(Source: Mercury News, 12/28/2012)
Alameda Creek Bridge (04-Ala-84, PM 13.01/13.60)
In May 2014, the CTC received notice of the preparation of an EIR for the Alameda Creek Bridge replacement. The project in Alameda County will replace the Alameda Creek Bridge on Route 84 in the city of Fremont. The project is programmed in the 2014 State Highway Operation and Protection Program. The total estimated cost is $47,074,000 for capital and support. Construction is estimated to begin in Fiscal Year 2014-15. Alternatives for the project include:
In April 2015, it was reported that the community
was still protesting Caltrans proposal for the Alameda Creek Bridge
replacement. Caltrans says the $24 million project will increase the bridge's
total width to 42 feet, giving bicyclists and motorists more room to maneuver.
Caltrans would widen the roadway's two lanes and add modern safety railings and
8-foot shoulders on each side. The Alameda Creek Alliance doesn't believe it is
that simple, as the project will involve removing hundreds of native trees and
excavating along thousands of feet of the canyon, adding large retaining walls.
Caltrans aims to offset adverse environmental changes caused by construction by
incorporating many mitigation elements, including providing bat roosts,
removing creek obstructions to improve fish passage and replanting trees.
Opponents say they do not oppose fixing the highway's unsafe spots, but they
are disappointed that Caltrans' latest proposal, its first since the 2011
dispute, doesn't seem that different from previous ones. Caltrans hopes to
break ground by the fall of 2017.
(Source: Contra Costa Times, 4/6/2015)
In January 2018, the CTC approved for future
consideration of funding the following project for which a Final Environmental
Impact Report (FEIR) has been completed: Route 84 (04-Ala-84, PM 13.01/13.60)
in Alameda County. Replace existing bridge on Route 84 in the city of Fremont.
(PPNO 0084B). This project is located within the Niles Canyon Corridor, in the
city of Fremont, Alameda County. The project proposes to replace the Alameda
Creek Bridge (Bridge No. 33-36) and realign the bridge approaches on Route 84.
The proposed project will correct structural deficiencies of the bridge and its
approaches as well as improve road safety. The project is fully funded and
programmed in the 2016 State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP)
an estimated total $42 million which includes Construction (capital and
support) and Right-of-Way (capital and support). Construction is estimated to
begin in Fiscal Year 2019-20. The scope, as described for the preferred
alternative, is consistent with the project scope programmed by the Commission
in the 2016 SHOPP.
(Source: CTC Minutes, January 2018, Agenda Item 2.2c(2))
The following project was included in the final adopted 2018 SHOPP: PPNO 0084B. 04-Alameda-84 13.0/13.6 On Route 84, In Fremont, at Alameda Creek Bridge No. 33-0036. Replace bridge. Begin Con: 12/8/2019 Total Project Cost: $42.074M.
The following project was included in the final adopted 2018 SHOPP: PPNO 0481M. 04-Alameda-84 17.0/17.4. On Route 84. Near Sunol, at Arroyo De La Laguna Bridge No. 33-0043. Replace/rehabilitate bridge for scour mitigation, bridge rail upgrade, and seismic retrofit. Begin Con: 12/7/2022. Total Project Cost: $22.813M.
[SHC 263.5] Entire portion.
From Route 680 near Scotts Corners to I-580 in Livermore.
In 1988, Chapter106 changed this to "I-580 in Livermore."
This was LRN 108, and was defined in 1933. It was not part of the original state signage in 1934, but was signed by 1963. On November 22, 1960, the California Highway Commission adopted an alignment for Route 84 that generally extends along Isabel Avenue from Vallecitos Road connecting to I-580 in the vicinity of Collier Canyon Road.
Route 84 Expressway / Sunol to Ruby Hill Widening (04-Ala-84, PM 17.9/23.0, 04-Ala-680, PM 10.3/15.3)
In October 2016, the CTC
approved for future consideration of funding the completed project in Alameda
County (04-Ala-84, PM 20.7/23.0) that added a median and turn pockets, widened
through-lanes and shoulders, and added climbing lanes on a portion of Route 84.
This realignment and widening project (PPNO 0086Z) was programmed in the 2006
State Highway Operation and Protection Program for $45,023,000 for capital and
support. Construction was completed in Fiscal Year 2012-13. Environmental
mitigation for the project (PPNO 0085S) is programmed in the 2016 State Highway
Operation and Protection for $1,750,000 for capital and support. The Future
Consideration of Funding was for this environmental mitigation project. The
scope is consistent with the project scope programmed by the Commission in the
State 2016 Highway Operation and Protection Program.
[Note: Image from ACTC Project Page, 680_Interchange.pdf">Project Overview Document, snarfed 6/16/2018]
The 2018 STIP, approved at the CTC March 2018 meeting, appears to modify this. It includes $11,114K funding in FY19-20 for PPNO 0080D, Widen, s/o Ruby Hill-Rt 680, Rt 84/680 IC Imprvs(TCEP). This is the "SR-84 Widening and SR-84/I-680 Interchange Improvements Project". This project proposes to proposes to conform Route 84 to expressway standards between south of Ruby Hill Drive and the I-680 interchange in southern Alameda County (4–ALA–84 (PM 17.9/22.9), 4–ALA–680 (PM 10.3/15.3)) by: (•) Widening Route 84 to accommodate one additional lane in each direction; (•) Implementing additional improvements to reduce weaving/merging conflicts and help address the additional traffic demand between I-680 and Route 84. The project would also improve the SR-84/I-680 interchange operations by: (•) Modifying ramps; and (•) Extending the existing southbound I-680 High Occupancy Vehicle/Express Lane northward by ~2 miles. Currently, the southbound express lanes extend from Route 84 south of Pleasanton to Route 237 in Milpitas. The amount of funding in the 2018 STIP agrees with the amount that the Alameda County Transportion Commission (ACTC) requested in regional improvement funding; it combines with $122,000K in Measure BB funding, $1,046K in Measure B funding, $14,940K in local (Tri-Valley Transportation Council) funding. ACTC has requested an additional $70,900K in SB1 funding for this. Currently, construction is scheduled for Winter 2021 - Winter 2023.
Per the draft EIR, The purpose of the project is to
alleviate existing and projected traffic congestion and improve traffic
circulation between Route 84 and I-680, and in the vicinity of the Route
84/I-680 interchange; improve safety for motorists and cyclists on this segment
of Route 84; and complete the statutory designation of this segment of Route 84
as an expressway facility. An expressway is a type of highway where access is
typically limited to controlled locations such as intersections. The project is
needed because high transportation demand leads to congestion and reduced
vehicle speeds on Route 84 in the project area. During the afternoon/evening
peak commute period, congestion on northbound Route 84 also contributes to a
bottleneck at the weaving area on northbound I-680 between the Calaveras
Road/Route 84 on-ramp and northbound Route 84 off-ramp. Motorists use local
roadways and the I-580/I-680 interchange to avoid the limited capacity and
congestion along Route 84, which further congests these routes.
(Source: August 2017 Draft EIR)
For Route 84, the proposed project would widen the route from two to four lanes (two in each direction) and overlay and restripe the roadway. The proposed roadway would have 12-foot-wide travel lanes and 10-foot-wide shoulders. A Class II bikeway would be provided in each direction. Concrete barriers would be placed in the median to enhance user safety. As part of conforming Route 84 to expressway standards, access would be limited to controlled intersections to improve traffic flow and safety. The project would consolidate existing vehicle access openings to private driveways and rural roads at new frontage roads. The proposed frontage roads would connect to a new signalized intersection at Little Valley Road/Vallecitos Atomic Laboratory Road. The new intersection and frontage roads would provide access to Little Valley Road on the north side of Route 84 and private driveways and rural roads on the south side of Route 84.
At the Route 84/I-680 interchange, the project would make the following modifications:
A new Class I bikeway would be provided through the interchange area to connect the southbound Route 84 Class II bikeway with Paloma Way. The bikeway will primarily serve westbound bicycle travel. A new Class II bikeway would be provided along the northbound I-680 on-ramp from Calaveras Road to connect with the northbound Route 84 Class II bikeway.
On southbound I-680, the project would extend the existing HOV/express lane northward from its current entry point at approximately Calaveras Road to approximately 0.8 mile north of Koopman Road, a distance of approximately 2 miles. The pavement in the center median of southbound I-680 would be widened to accommodate the HOV/express lane. Approximately six overhead signs (including variable toll message signs [VTMS] with pricing information) and toll readers for FasTrak transponders would be installed in the median of I-680. The northernmost overhead sign would be approximately 1.8 miles north of Koopman Road (at 4-Ala-680 PM 14.2). Proposed project activities between the northernmost overhead sign and the I-680/Sunol Boulevard interchange would be limited to the placement of temporary construction signage.
In August 2018, the CTC
approved for future consideration of funding the following project for which a
Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been completed: Route 84 and I-680
in Alameda County. Construct roadway improvements including widening to a
portion of Route 84 near the cities of Livermore and Pleasanton. (EA 29763)
This project proposes to widen and conform Route 84 to expressway standards
between Ruby Hill Drive and the I-680 interchange, in the vicinity of Sunol and
Pleasanton cities. The project proposes to improve interchange ramps and extend
the existing southbound I-680 High Occupancy Vehicle express lane. A complete
statutory designation as an expressway is expected for this segment of Route
84. The proposed project is estimated to cost in total approximately $220
million. The project is not fully funded, funding sources are anticipated to be
from local tax measures, Regional Transportation Improvement Program funds and
Alameda County. The project is estimated to begin construction in 2021.
(Source: August 2018 CTC Agenda Item 2.2c.(10))
In January 2019, it was reported that the Alameda
County Transportation Commission (CTC) issued a report on projects that they
were able to leverage funding in order to improve transportation throughout
Alameda County. One of these projects is along Route 84, which serves as a
regional connection between I-680 and I-580 in Alameda County through the
community of Sunol and the cities of Pleasanton and Livermore. Widening of
Route 84 has been a priority of the City of Pleasanton because it removes some
of the cut through traffic on the city's streets. Since 2010, Alameda CTC's
commitment of $213.5 million in local funds for this corridor has successfully
brought in additional local, state and federal funds to construct four of the
five projects. Construction on three of the five projects is complete. The
remaining project, the Route 84 Expressway South Segment, which widens the
segment from Ruby Hill Drive to Concannon Boulevard from two lanes to four
lanes, opened to the public two days ahead of schedule on November 14, 2018.
The passage of Measure BB in November 2014 provided the necessary funds to
begin the environmental phase of the Route 84 Expressway Widening and Route
84/I-680 Interchange Improvements. The project will transform the 3-mile
segment from south of Ruby Hill Drive to the I-680 interchange from two lanes
to four lanes and will provide operational improvements, such as ramp
modifications at the interchange. Both state and federal environmental
clearances were achieved this year. The project is currently in the design
phase, and with the infusion of $85 million from Regional Measure 3, the
construction phase is fully funded and is anticipated to begin in early
(Source: The Independent, 1/3/2019)
Isabel Avenue Corridor Realignment (~ ALA M23.587 to ALA N28.007)
Caltrans and the City of Livermore have proposed for some time the realignment of Route 84 onto the existing and extended Isabel Avenue (~ ALA M23.587 to ALA N28.007) from its current First Street routing. The Isabel extension was opened back in August 2001 as a two-lane road now connecting the existing Route 84 to Airway Boulevard near I-580. This roadway will eventually become a four- and six-lane parkway with a future interchange at I-580. In 2003, Caltrans redesignated Isabel as Route 84. [Thanks to Jeffrey Waller and Laurence Maller for this information.]
According to an observer in July 2004, the new bypass isn't complete; you have to first drive on Airway Blvd (which is the official designation for Route 84, until the rest of the bypass is constructed to connect with I-580 in the next several years). You drive on Airway Blvd for about ¾ mile, then make a right onto another street, and then a left onto the newly constructed bypass. The bypass has one lane in each direction in most parts, and is signed for 50 MPH. It looks like there's enough ROW for an 8 lane expressway, or 6 lane freeway in the future.
In December 2003, the California Transportation Commission approved a proposal to transfer the location of Route 84 from the alignment through downtown Livermore (Vallecitos, Holmes, and First) to the Isabel Avenue Corridor, with the old alignment being concurrently relinquished to the city. The existing alignment through the city of Livermore is built to conventional highway standards. The Isabel Avenue Corridor is generally built to expressway standards. The alignment along the Isabel Avenue Corridor will be adopted as a controlled access highway from Vallecitos Road to Airway Boulevard. The portion of the route that runs along Airway Boulevard will be adopted as a traversable highway. Airway Boulevard will be used as an interim connection to I-580 until the Isabel Avenue extension and new I-580 interchange is built. Once the new I-580 interchange is built a request will go to the Commission to adopt the new Isabel Avenue extension to I-580. Environmental clearance was received in late 2004 and construction completed in 2009.
The SAFETEA-LU act, enacted in August 2005 as the reauthorization of TEA-21, provided the following expenditures on or near this route:
In October 2011, the CTC recieved a request to amend the CMIA baseline agreements related to a project in this area; specifically, for Segment 1 (Widen and realign State Route 84 south of I-580 interchange and relocate utilities, PPNO 0115E), Segment 2 (Construct new local roads north of the I-580/Isabel Avenue Interchange, PPNO 0115F), and Segment 3 (Construct new interchange at Isabel Avenue and a new Portola Avenue Overcrossing, PPNO 0115B) of the I-580/Isabel Interchange project to: • Transfer a portion of the scope of work from Segment 3 to Segment 1. • Shift $600,000 CMIA and $400,000 local funds in close-out savings from Segment 2 to Segment 1 in order to complete this transferred scope of work.
In August 2012, the CTC approved the transfer of the adopted alignment from Post Mile (PM) M27.2 to M28.2 along Airway Boulevard to a new shorter northerly alignment connecting to I-580. A Project Report was approved on August 15, 2007. The Department prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration that was signed on August 15, 2007. This transfer of alignment will allow existing Route 84 along Airway Boulevard to be relinquished to the City of Livermore and utilize the new connection to the Isabella Avenue/I-580 Interchange. Route 84 is one of four east-west links between the urbanized Bay Area and the Central Valley. On December 11, 2003, the California Transportation Commission adopted Route 84 from Vallecitos Road north to Airway Boulevard and then east on Airway Boulevard to I-580 as a Controlled Access Highway. A Project Report and Environmental document were approved in 2007 for the construction of a new interchange on I-580 at Isabel Avenue. This project provides improved access to I-580 by converting the partial interchange at Portola Avenue to an overcrossing and constructs a new interchange at Isabel Avenue. This will improve the connection between the 2003 adopted Route 84 corridor and I-580. In relation to this, in August 2012 the CTC also authorized relinquishment of right of way in the city of Livermore on Route 84 (Airway Boulevard), from Isabel Avenue to Route 580, consisting of highway right of way superseded by a transfer of state highway location.
In November 2011, Caltrans opened the new I-580/Route 84 ramps (~ ALA N28.007) and the newly realigned Route 84 south of I-580 that will connect with the new interchange, and closed the westbound I-580 Portola Avenue onramp. The two new onramps will serve as new freeway access from Las Positas College and the businesses north of I-580. Commuters will be able to use the new interchange in lieu of cutting through downtown Livermore. Another project to widen Route 84 south of the interchange between Jack London Boulevard and Vallecitos Road is slated to begin in spring 2012.
Isabel Avenue Corridor Widening (~ ALA 23.034 to ALA N28.007)
In June 2011, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding a project that will widen and upgrade Route 84 in the City of Livermore from two to four lanes. The project is programmed in the Corridor Mobility Improvement Account and includes local funds. Total estimated cost $122,900,000 for capital and support. The project is divided into two construction contracts, along with a follow-up landscaping project that is funded by local funds. Segment 1 (PPNO 0081G) is scheduled to start construction in Fiscal Year 2011-12, and Segment 2 (PPNO 0081H) is currently scheduled to start construction in Fiscal Year 2013-14 using only local funds. The scope as described for the preferred alternative is consistent with the project scope set forth in the proposed project baseline agreement.
In June 2011, the CTC amended the scope and funding for a project that will widen Route 84 from two lanes to four lanes, from north of Concannon Boulevard (~ ALA R25.336) to Stanley Boulevard (~ ALA R26.351) and from two lanes to six lanes lanes, from Stanley Boulevard (~ ALA R26.351) to Jack London Boulevard (~ ALA R27.23). Segment 2 of this project will widen Route 84 from two lanes to four lanes, from Ruby Hill Drive (~ ALA 23.034) to north of Concannon Boulevard. By improving this regional connection between I-680 and I-580, this project will help relieve the highly congested regional commutes between the employment centers in the South Bay and the growing residential areas in Eastern Alameda County and the Central Valley.
In August 2012, it was reported that construction has begun on the latest phase of the widening of Route 84 between I-580 in Livermore and I-680 in Sunol. The $40 million project will widen the highway from two to six lanes between Stanley and Jack London boulevards and from two to four lanes from Stanley to Concannon boulevards. The contractor, Bay Cities Paving and Grading, is scheduled to complete the project in March 2014. This is the third part of the five-phase project to widen 10.6 miles of Route 84, also known as Isabel Avenue, between I-580 and I-680. In the next phase of the project to start in 2014 and finish in 2016, Route 84 will be widened to four lanes between Concannon Boulevard and Ruby Hills Drive. This 2.6-mile-long segment will cost an estimated $82.7 million. In an earlier phase of the project, Route 84 was moved out of downtown Livermore to boost the revitalization of the downtown. In the fifth and final stage of the project, three miles of the highway would be widened from two to four lanes between Pigeon Pass and I-680 in Sunol. That project would cost an estimated $277 million -- money that is not yet lined up, according to a report by the county Transportation Commission.
In October 2014, city, civic and regional leaders
officially marked the completion of the first phase of widening Route 84
between the I-580 and I-680 freeways. With this widening project, the Isabel
Avenue segment of Route 84 was completed as a four-and six-lane throughway from
I-580 to Stanley Boulevard. The next phase of improvement will widen the
roadway to four lanes to the Ruby Hill Eastgate entry point at Pleasanton's
eastern edge. Eventually, plans call for widening Route 84 to I-680, turning
the thoroughfare into a junior expressway.
(Source: Pleasanton Weekly, 10/30/2014)
In March 2015, the CTC amended the $47,030,000
authorization for the Route 84 Expressway Widening - Segment 2: In the City of
Livermore on Route 84. Widen from 2 lanes to 4 lanes from Ruby Hill Drive to
north of Concannon Boulevard. The specific changes in funding were:
$4,900,000 for CON ENGR, $42,130,000
for CONST. (Contributions from other sources:
$8,975,000: Support [ $3,105,000 ] and Capital
[ $5,870,000 ])
[SHC 253.5] Entire portion; not constructed to freeway standards. Added to the Freeway and Expressway system in 1959.
From I-580 in Livermore to Route 4 near Brentwood.
In 1988, Chapter106 changed this to "I-580 in Livermore."
This was an extension to LRN 108 defined in 1959. It was not part of the original state signage in 1934, but was signed by 1963.
Caltrans documentation from 1994 indicates that the unconstructed portion is from I-580 to Route 4, and from W of Livermore to I-580, replacing the traversible highway. When this 5 mile stretch is constructed, it will reduce the total length of the route to 107 miles. The Route 4 bypass was being construction over portions of Route 84, although most of legislative Route 84 is Vasco Road. However, it appears the bypass was assigned to Route 4.
There are some who believe that this section may be used to create the Mid State Tollway. The tollway is a proposal that would start off of I-680 near Sunol, cross I-580 west of Livermore (roughly along the alignment of the Livermore Bypass), and then will extend north to Route 4 near Antioch. A spur will come off the tollway near Brentwood and run SE to the junction of I-580 and I-205. The tollway could be designated Route 84, since it roughly follows the built and unbuilt portions of the route and the spur could be designated Route 239, since it follows the general routing for that unbuilt highway. The tollway was originally supposed to extend to I-80 between Vacaville and Dixon with a spur connecting with I-505 at the 80/505 junction, but that portion was killed due to the need for high-level crossings (150') of the San Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers plus environmental issues.
The EIR for Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory noted the following regarding the project: "The Mid-State Tollway
project involves a conceptual proposal for an 85-mile tollway connecting the
Fremont area with the I-80 corridor near Vacaville, and the I-5 corridor, via
I-580, with the I-80 corridor near Vacaville. These connections are proposed to
occur approximately midway between I-680 and I-5. The Mid-State Tollway
construction is projected to begin in 1994 and be completed in the late 1990s.
(Source: Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Impact Report for Continued Operation of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratory, 1992)
This project was later reduced in scope to a $600
million, 40+ mile, initial four lane (ultimate 6-lane) toll road extending from
Route 680 near Sunol to Route 4 near Antioch. The project developer, California
Toll Road Company (CTRC), and Caltrans amended the original franchise agreement
in 1993 to delete the portions of the original project that included an
extension into Solano County. This amendment satisfied a condition imposed by
the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in its review of the proposed
transportation project. Work on the project was suspended due to serious
political opposition and the franchise terminated on January 1, 2001
(Source: Mid-State Tollway Project Page)
On AAroads, Sparker noted that the tollway would
have required twinning of the Antioch Bridge and a second high-level crossing
of the Sacramento River several miles north. Much of the proposed alignment of
the western Mid-State "branch" follows what has been suggested for a Route 84
extension north to Route 4 near Brentwood; the south(west) terminus of that
branch was to have been the present Route 84/Route 680 interchange at Sunol;
the eastern branch would have tracked the proposed Route 239 alignment,
terminating at the I-580/I-205 Altamont interchange. The branches came together
slightly south of the present Route 4/Vasco Road intersection between Brentwood
and Discovery Bay and utilized Route 4 as a "free" connector between that point
and the Antioch Bridge, where the tolled section would have resumed north
toward Vacaville and Davis. Again, the facility was planned to split into two
branches to separate termini -- one on I-505 just north of Vacaville and the
other at the I-80/Route 113 (north) freeway interchange near Davis. Planning
for this commenced circa 1991-92; included in the concept was a cable-stayed
4-lane bridge over the Sacramento River directly north of the present Antioch
Bridge. Opponents included a large contingent of tomato farmers in the
Dixon-Elmira area, which the facility would have bisected, the Alameda County
planning department and the county board of supervisors, and UC Davis. Studies
persisted for about 5 years and were shelved circa 1998; funding for the
planning efforts were withdrawn in late 2001.
(Source: Sparker on AAroads, "Re: I-505", 2/26/2019)
[SHC 253.5] Entire portion; unconstructed. Added to the Freeway and Expressway system in 1959.
From Route 12 at Rio Vista to the southerly city limit of the City of West Sacramento.
(b) The relinquished former portion of Route 84 within the City of West Sacramento is not a state highway and is not eligible for adoption under Section 81. For the relinquished former portion of Route 84, the City of West Sacramento shall maintain signs within its jurisdictions directing motorists to the continuation of Route 84.
In 1963, this segment was defined as " (f) Route 4 near Antioch to Route 80 near Broderick via the vicinity of Rio Vista and via Ryer Island." Note that at this time, "Route 80" referred to the current US 50.
In 1976, Chapter 1354 split (f) into two segments: "(f) Route 4 near Antioch to Route 12 near Rio Vista. (g) Route 12 near Rio Vista to Route 880 near Bryte via Ryer Island." (again, note that Route 880 is current Route 80). This transfered the segment within Rio Vista to Route 12.
In 1981, Chapter 292 deleted (f), and clarified the remaining segment"(f) Route 12 at Rio Vista to Route 80 near Bryte via Ryer Island." It also renumbered Route 880 to Route 80. The former (f) was transferred to Route 160.
In 2003, SB 104, Chapter 5, 4/21/2003, authorized relinquishment in West Sacramento: Note that the California Transportation Commission may relinquish the portion of Route 84 within the City of West Sacramento to that city upon terms and conditions that the commission finds to be in the best interests of the state, per SB 104, chaptered 4/21/2003 (Chapter 5). For those portions of Route 84 that are relinquished, the City of West Sacramento agrees to maintain signs within its jurisdiction directing motorists to the continuation of Route 84 as a condition of the relinquishment. After relinquishment, the last segment of Route 84 shall be defined as "Route 12 at Rio Vista to the southerly city limit of the City of West Sacramento. The relinquishment may happen fast, as it is already on the May 2003 CTC Agenda. This is evidenced by the fact that West Sacramento wants an allocation of $6.199M, but is willing to take over maintenance and ownership immediately, and defer receiving the funds until June 2006.
In 2010, Chapter 421 changed the terminus from "Route 80 near Bryte via Ryer Island" to "the southerly city limit of the City of West Sacramento" and updated the relinquishment words.
Sparker on AAroads provided some interesting insights into this segment:
Originally, Route 84 was legislatively commissioned over that part of signed
Route 160 from Route 4 north to Route 12 as part of the 1964 renumbering. The
entire route -- both existing parts being the "end pieces" of that route -- was
envisioned as an alternate/scenic route from the coast south of S.F. to the
Sacramento area, including a connector more or less on the Vasco Road alignment
between Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. Somewhere along the line (~ the
early '80's) Caltrans must have realized that the concept was unworkable as a
through route (Caltrans being generally multiplex-adverse, the long
coincidences with I-580 and CA 4 probably contributed to that conclusion), and
that portion from Antioch to Rio Vista was assigned to Route 160 as
(Source: Sparker on AAroads, "Re: CA 84/Real McCoy Ferry and CA 220 J Mack Ferry", 12/18/2018)
This was LRN 99 between Route 12 and US 50, and was defined in 1933. The remainder of the route was not defined until 1965. It was not signed before 1964. It runs along Jefferson Blvd in West Sacramento.
Partially signed from Route 12 to Sacramento.
Ryer Island Ferry
The route includes the Ryer Island Ferry "The Real McCoy" on Cache Slough (~ SOL 1.899), which is signed as Route 84. The Real McCoy used to be a cable ferry, but it was retrofitted as a diesel powered boat in the early 1960s when the Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel was constructed and Cache Slough was deepened as part of the Ship Channel. They didn't want freighters severing the cable.
In 2009, it was reported that the river ferry is being updated. On January 11, 2009, "The Real McCoy", a 62-year-old twin-propeller boat that serves as part of Route 84 was taken out of service. It returned to service in February 2009. Normally the ferry run round the clock, stopping only for twice-daily 20-minute lunch breaks, when river conditions make it unsafe to operate, or when something breaks down and needs fixing, which has been happening often. Caltrans plans to replace the Real McCoy, a flat-bottom, double-ended ferry powered by two engines and propellers that can be turned 360 degrees, but with the state budget crisis threatening funding for transportation projects, it's not certain when. So the ferry will head to dry-dock, where it will get two new engines, a new electrical system, other mechanical fixes and a fresh coat of paint. It was the first dry dock service in eight years for the ferry, whose twin six-cylinder service engines sprung leaks and its hulls were dented from bumping into docks. The Real McCoy carries about 300 to 400 vehicles a day, crossing the river about 200 times.
In January 2011, a new ferry that will replace the 65-year-old Rio Vista ferry arrived in Alameda. In February 2011, the $4.3 million Real McCoy II ferry will take over from the aging Real McCoy ferry on Route 84 at Ryer Island near Rio Vista in Solano County.
In September 2011, it was reported that there were numerous problems with the new ferry. It was taken out of service on September 9, 2011, and Caltrans is still working with the boat builder to determine why the vessel keeps breaking down. Engineers have replaced three sets of 6,000 PSI hydraulic hoses. The hoses or fittings failed in each incident, leading to a loss of control. Caltrans has instructed Nichols Bros. to come up with an "action plan" to put the ferry back into service. Caltrans is committed to solving the hydraulic problem before the warranty expires at the beginning of next year. Caltrans continues to pick up the tab for an operator on board the ferry around the clock in case an emergency crossing is required. With the ferry idled, several hundred residents of Ryer Island have been forced to take a long detour to get to Rio Vista and the rest of Solano County. What should be an 800-foot trip across Cache Slough takes travelers more than 23 miles out of their way.
Miner Slough Bridge
In March 2018, the CTC approved for future
consideration of funding the following project for which a Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) has been completed: Route 84 in Solano County. Replace or
rehabilitate an existing bridge on Route 84 near the city of Rio Vista
(04-Sol-84, PM 12.0/12.4). (PPNO 0886). The project is located near the city of
Rio Vista on Route 84 in the county of Solano. The bridge connects Ryer Island
in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to the mainland. The project proposes
to replace or rehabilitate the Miner Slough Bridge with a new fixed span and
new vertical clearance over the slough to accommodate sea level rise. The
project is fully funded and programmed in the 2016 SHOPP for an estimated total
of $38.5 million, which includes Construction (capital and support) and
Right-of-Way (capital and support). Construction is estimated to begin in 2019.
The scope, as described for the preferred alternative, is consistent with the
project scope programmed by the Commission in the 2016 SHOPP.
(Source: CTC Agenda, March 2018 Agenda Item 2.2c(1))
The following project was included in the final adopted 2018 SHOPP in March 2018: PPNO 0886. 04-Solano-84 12.0/12.4. On Route 84 Near Rio Vista, at Miner Slough Bridge No. 23-0035. Replace bridge. Begin Con: 12/20/2020. Total Project Cost: $38,482K.
In September 2010, the CTC approved relinquishment of right of way in the city of West Sacramento along former Route 84 (Jefferson Blvd.), from Linden Road to 13th Street (3-Yol-84-PM 19.7/21.4), consisting of collateral facilities.
Bridge 22-0176 in Yolo County (in West Sacrament, since relinquished) is named the "Arthur H. Edmonds Underpass". It was named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 135, Chapter 162 in 1982. Arthur H. Edmonds, a Yolo County Supervisor from 1966 to 1981, was the principal proponent for the extension of Route 84 from West Sacramento to east Yolo County.
The following segments are designated as Classified Landscaped Freeway:
|County||Route||Starting PM||Ending PM|
As defined on July 1, 1964, parts (6) and (7) were continuous (i.e., from Route 4) and ended at I-80 (present-day US 50, a/k/a unsigned I-305). In 1965, the portion from I-80 (present-day US 50, a/k/a unsigned I-305) to I-880 (present-day I-80) was added, making the route continuous from Route 4 to I-880 (present-day I-80); this section was formerly part of Route 16. In 1976, parts (6) and (7) were made discontinuous when the portion from Route 160 to Route 12 in Rio Vista was transferred to Route 12, leaving part (6) running to the new terminus of Route 12 (former Route 160). In 1981, the portion of part (6) from Route 4 near Antioch to Route 12 near Rio Vista was transferred to Route 160.
Route 84 was not defined as part of the initial state signage of routes in 1934. It is unclear what (if any) route was signed as Route 84 between 1934 and 1964.
Overall statistics for Route 84:
The route that became LRN 84 was defined in 1933 as the route from "[LRN 20] near Willow Creek to [LRN 46] near Weitchpec." It was codified in 1935 into the highway code with this definition, and the definition remained unchanged until 1963.
This was signed as Route 96, but was not the original alignment of Route 96 (which was the route from Klamath to Weitchpec, and then the present route to US 99 (I-5). The resigning of Route 96 to include LRN 84 occured sometime between 1939 and 1963.
In 1968, Chapter 282 added the following, which did not change the definition of the route:
Mathilda Avenue, which is part of Route 85 in the City of Sunnyvale, is hereby declared to be a city street within the meaning of Sections 189 and 190, and is eligible for an allocation of funds for grade separation pursuant to Section 190.
The legislature finds and declares that although Mathilda Avenue is presently a portion of Route 85, the commission has approved an alternate routing, the department has commenced acquisition of the property necessary for right-of-way along the new route, and Mathilda Avenue will be returned to the City of Sunnyvale within a few years. Because of the heavy traffic congestion at the intersection of Mathilda Avenue and the Southern Pacific Company's railroad tracks, it is necessary that Mathilda Avenue be eligible for a grade separation allocation as soon as possible.
In 1988, Chapter 106 changed the origin to be "Route 101 near Bernal Road in San Jose"
As freeway, the first section of this route opened was from I-280 near Cupertino to US 101 near Mountain View; it opened in 1965 (per SJMN, 12/7/15). In 1992, a 4 lane, 2 mile section in San Jose from Santa Teresa Blvd east to Cottle Road opened. In 1993, the route was extended a mile east (S) to Great Oaks Blvd, and a mile west (N) to Almaden Expressway. The opening of these sections coincided with the opening of Route 87 from Almaden Expressway south to Route 85. The final sections from Almaden Expressway to Route 280 and the short, ¾ mile gap between Great Oaks Blvd and US 101 opened Oct. 19, 1994.
Originally, there was a traversable maintained routing from Route 9 to I-280 along De Anza Blvd and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. It was immediately relinquished when the freeway was completed in 1994, although the state agreed to repave it before handing it over to the cities of Cupertino and Saratoga. This relinquishment is finally before the California Transportation Commission; it was on the July 2000 agenda. As of 2007, there were still a significant number of remaining postmiles, especially in Saratoga.
Prior to the 1994 opening of the Route 85 freeway, only the Cupertino
portion (between Homestead and Bollinger) of De Anza was signed as "De Anza
Boulevard". To the north, the road was known as Sunnyvale-Saratoga Road and
Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road to the south. The Route 85 exits were originally signed
as Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road but were changed to the current "De Anza Boulevard"
shortly after the freeway opened when the city of San Jose agreed to change the
name to De Anza Blvd so now within the city limits of Cupertino and San Jose,
the road is known as De Anza Blvd. Saratoga's portion, starting at Prospect
Road retains the old name, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road.
(Source: Myosh_Tino on AAroads, 6/20/2018)
This route was only proposed in 1963; it was unsigned. It was the "under construction" routing for LRN 114, defined in 1959. The old surface routing was defined in 1933. The portion of the route between Saratoga and US 101 may have been part of the original signed Route 9 before 1964.
The tricky part is the portion between Route 17 and US 101 in San Jose. There is some evidence that the original definition of LRN 239 used what was Route 85 for a time. Nathan Edgars noted on some Wikipedia work pages that (note: I've changed Nathan's route notation to the notation used here):
The initial definition of [LRN 239] (mostly I-280) said "to [LRN 2] near San Jose". This is inconclusive, but other evidence shows that it used what is now [Route 85] southeast of [Route 17]: the 1959 law creating the F&E System included "[LRN 239] from [LRN 2] south of San Jose to [LRN 5]"; the rest was added by the clause including Interstates. The 1961 law creating [LRN 292] ([Route 87]) specified that it was to end at "[LRN 239] in the vicinity of Pearl Avenue". [LRN 239] was moved in 1961 to "the junction of [LRN 68] and [LRN 69]", and was removed from the F&E System descriptions, as that was part of I-680. At the same time, the F&E System description of [LRN 114] (and [LRN 114] itself) was extended to cover this. Presumably what is now I-880, and was then I-680, between I-280 and US 101 was [LRN 5] until 1961. This would have replaced the old surface routing, which was closer to current I-280 than I-880. [LRN 5] was moved to present I-280 between [Route 17] and US 101 in 1961, replacing part of [LRN 115] (which had been moved there in 1959).
Route 85 was not defined as part of the initial state signage of routes in 1934. It is unclear what (if any) route was signed as Route 85 between 1934 and 1964.
In March 2013, the CTC relinquished right of way in the county of Santa Clara along Route 85 at Alameda Plaza Way (04-SCl-85-PM 6.2), consisting of collateral facilities.
In February 2009, the CTC approved relinquishment of right of way in the city of San Jose along Route 85 from Meridian Avenue to Union Avenue (~ SCL 7.301 to SCL 9.279), consisting of relocated or reconstructed city streets, and frontage roads. They also approved relinquishment of right of way in the county of Santa Clara along Route 85 on Branham Lane between 0.1 mile west of Standish Drive and Union Avenue, consisting of a frontage road (~ SCL 8.969 to SCL 9.279).
In August 2009, the CTC approved relinquishment of right of way in the city of Campbell along Route 85 on South Bascom Avenue (~ SCL 10.382), consisting of a reconstructed city street. The County of Santa Clara, by freeway agreement dated December 11, 1990, agreed to accept title upon relinquishment by the State, the street at that date lying within an unincorporated area of the county and has since been annexed by the city. The 90- day notice period expired July 8, 2009, without exception.
In April 2009, the CTC approved relinquishment of right of way in the city of San Jose along Route 85 on South Bascom Avenue, Samaritan Drive, and National Avenue (~ SCL 10.382), consisting of relocated or reconstructed city streets. They also approved relinquishment of right of way in the town of Los Gatos along Route 85 on Los Gatos Boulevard, Samaritan Drive, and National Avenue, and along Route 17 on Lark Avenue, consisting of relocated or reconstructed city streets.
A small portion near SCL R12.0 was up for relinquishment in the city of Campbell [May 2002 CTC Agenda Item 2.3c].
In December 2004, the CTC considered relinquishment of right of way in the City of Cupertino, at Cleo Avenue (~ SCL R16.01), consisting of a cul-de-sac. The City, by freeway agreement dated October 15, 1990, agreed to accept title upon relinquishment by the State and by letter dated August 27, 2004, waived the 90-day notice requirement and agreed to accept title upon relinquishment by the State.
In August 2011, the CTC approved $12,010,000 in SHOPP funding for repairs near Sunnyvale and Mountain View, from 0.3 mile north of Stevens Creek Boulevard Overcrossing to the Route 85/US 101 Separation (~ SCL R17.999 to SCL R23.763), that will rehabilitate 33.0 lane miles of roadway to improve the ride quality, prevent further deterioration of the traveling surface, minimize costly roadway repairs and extend the pavement service life.
Note that the termination of Route 85 is near Shoreline Blvd, but Moffet is the state legislative definition.
General Route 85
Route 85 HOT Lanes
In November 2014, the VTA
considered a plan to convert the existing high-occupancy vehicle lanes on Route
85 from US 101 in South San Jose to US 101 in Mountain View to allow
single-occupancy vehicles to pay a fee during rush hour to join carpool,
clean-air vehicles, motorcyclists and transit buses in the relatively faster
lane. Route 85 currently has six lanes, including a carpool lane in each
direction. If the project is approved and implemented, single-occupant vehicles
would be able to begin using FasTrak, electronic technology that Bay Area
motorists are already using on local toll bridges. Motorists would find
overhead signs alerting drivers to the upcoming express lanes. Signs will also
be erected telling drivers the price to enter the approaching lane. The express
lanes' exit will be situated to give drivers adequate distance to change lanes
prior to reaching the interchange. A double white line would be painted
alongside the express lane to prevent drivers from moving in and out of the
lane and to prevent weaving issues. The full cost of the project if it were to
include the second-lane component is approximately $170 million. During the
meeting, however, the VTA voted to temporarily suspend the project. Despite the
recommendation of a VTA member of a single-lane conversion, the board approved
a motion by San Jose District 10 director Johnny Khamis to postpone the project
and direct staff to prepare a side-by-side comparison of the one lane versus
two lanes plan and conduct additional community outreach.
(Source: San Jose Mercury News, 10/30/2014, 11/13/2014)
In May 2015, it was reported that Los Gatos was
joining the suit over widening the freeway from Route 87 to I-280, using the
median for double carpool lanes. The plan is to convert the diamond lane on the
entire length of Route 85 into an express lane that solo drivers can jump into
for a toll. Light rail runs in the median on Route 87 from Route 85 to downtown
San Jose, and BART uses the median to run trains along the center of I- 580 and
eventually Route 4, but those plans were hatched when those freeways were
built. When Route 85 was designed, the median from Route 87 to I-280 was
reserved for mass transit, according to agreements signed in 1989. That may be
a pivotal issue in the lawsuit. It was also noted that intersections were
originally planned for Prospect and Quito roads.
(Source: San Jose Mercury News, 5/19/2015)
In June 2015, it was reported that the Los Altos
City Council on June 9 supported establishing a working group to explore
options for the corridor (other than express lanes). According to the current
plan, solo drivers with FasTrak accounts would be able to pay a toll and use
the carpool lane on Route 85. The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
project covers Route 85 from US 101 in Mountain View to south San Jose.
Caltrans, the highway’s owner and operator, approved the project’s
final environmental document and found no significant impact. But Cupertino,
Saratoga and Los Gatos recently filed separate lawsuits against Caltrans and
the VTA for “failing to prepare an adequate environmental impact
report” for the proposed Route 85 project. Los Altos did not formally
comment on the environmental document at that time. The VTA is in the midst of
implementing its Silicon Valley Express Lanes Program, which includes the
project on Route 85. The project converts approximately 27 miles of existing
carpool lanes to express lanes, extending between US 101 in Mountain View and
Bailey Avenue on US 101 in south San Jose. The project also adds a second
express lane between Route 87 and I-280 in the median and converts the existing
carpool direct-connector in south San Jose to an express-lane connector. If the
project continues on schedule and with adequate funding, the VTA anticipates
opening the express lanes late 2018.
(Source: Los Altos Online, 6/24/2015)
In June 2015, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding a project in Santa Clara County that will convert High Occupancy Vehicle lanes on Route 85 to express lanes and add an express lane in each direction. The project is not fully funded. The project is programmed for the Project Approval and Environmental Document phase in the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority’s Federal Transportation Improvement Program with local and federal funds. The estimated cost is $170,000,000 for capital and support. Construction is estimated to begin in Fiscal Year 2018-19. (map above is from CTC proposal)
In August 2015, it was reported that there will be
eight northbound and nine southbound locations for the Route 85 express lanes.
Northbound, they'll be at US 101 in South San Jose, Cottle Road, Almaden
Expressway, Union Avenue, Winchester Boulevard, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road,
Homestead Road and Middlefield Road. The nine southbound access areas will be
at US 101 in Mountain View, El Camino Real, Stevens Creek Boulevard,
Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Quito Road, Union Avenue, Camden Avenue, Blossom Hill
Road and Metcalf Road.
(Source: SJ Mercury News, 8/25/2015)
In June 2016, it was reported that a plan to
construct toll lanes in the median of Route 85 median could be abandoned, after
city leaders made clear that the undeveloped strip of land dividing the
congested highway ought to be reserved for transit rather than solo drivers. In
June 2016, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) board of
directors agreed to put a half-cent sales tax measure on the November ballot.
If passed, the tax would generate $6.5 billion over 30 years, and would help to
pay for myriad transportation projects throughout the region. The resolution to
put the measure on the ballot, which was approved on June 2, includes carving
out $350 million in tax revenue to go toward improving traffic flow along Route
85, one of the county's most congested highways. However, the resolution
explicitly calls for a transit lane, as contrasted to a HOT lane. A project
development schedule for improvements on Route 85 show that the next two years
will be primarily dominated by a lengthy environmental clearance of the transit
lane project. Construction is expected to begin by the summer of 2020.
(Source: Mountain View Voice, 6/30/2016)
In November 2016, it was reported that the idea of
extending light rail along Route 85 may gain steam instead of adding a second
carpool lane between Route 87 and I-280. The 2016 Measure B sales tax would
earmark $350 million for the Route 85 corridor and a trolley line on Route 85
could go as far north as US 101 in Mountain View.
(Source: Mercury News, 11/3/2016)
The 2018 STIP, approved at the CTC March 2018 meeting, also appears to create a number of PPNOs for this project. On Route 85, there is PPNO 2015F Route 85 Silicon Valley Express Lns Program-Ph4-Civil; and 2015G Route 85 Silicon Valley Express Lns Program-Ph4-ETS. According to the VTA page on the program, the Route 85 portion will convert approximately 24 miles of existing High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV or carpool) lanes to express lanes and will add a second express lane between Route 87 and I-280 in the median. The project will also convert the existing HOV direct connector in south San Jose from US 101 to Route 85 to an express lane connector. Based on the map from VTA (see above), Phase 4 runs from the start of the route at US 101 to Route 87 (~ SCL 0.0 to SCL 5.193); it also appears to include the portion on US 101 from 101 SCL R25.292 to SCL R26.873.
In May 2019, the CTC approved the following
allocation for a locally administered STIP project: $600,000 04-SCL-85
R0.0/R5.2. Route 85 Silicon Valley Express Lanes Program - Phase 4 - Civil.
Convert existing carpool lanes to express lanes on Route 85 from US 101 south
(in San Jose) to Route 87, including the existing US 101/Route 85 HOV to HOV
direct connector ramps and the approaches to and from US 101. R/W funding. PPNO
04-2015F. ProjID 0417000232. The CTC also approved the following allocation:
$8,600,000 04-SCL-85 0.0/5.2. Route 85 Silicon Valley Express Lanes Program -
Phase 4 ETS. Develop and install Electronic Tolling System (ETS) on Route 85
from US 101 south (in San Jose) to Route 87, including the existing US
101/Route 85 HOV to HOV direct connector ramps and the approaches to/from US
101. PS&E funding. PPNO 04-2015G. ProjID 0417000232.
(Source: May 2019 CTC Minutes, Agenda Item 2.5c.(2) Item 1; Agenda Item 2.5c.(5))
In April 2018, it was reported that any fixes to Route 85 have been stalled
by a funding gap that the parties haven’t been able — or willing
— to fill. City officials want the Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority to do it. The agency says it can’t, because public transit
funds generated by the Measure B sales tax increase have been tied up by a
lawsuit. Suggestions that the tech giants relying on the freeway could help
fund the study have, so far, produced no concrete results. The study is
supposed to examine traffic patterns on Route 85 and explore options that may
help reduce congestion. The study’s $400,000 first phase, which included
tracking tech company shuttle buses on the road, was paid for by Measure A, a
sales tax increase that Santa Clara County voters approved in 2000. Now, $1.2
million is needed for the study to continue. Meanwhile, traffic on Route 85 has
worsened, with the average annual number of cars increasing 6 percent from 2011
to 2016, according to Caltrans data. If no other funding sources are found, the
study will be halted until Measure B litigation is resolved. Smaller cities
pushed their constituents to vote for Measure B in part because money would go
toward the Route 85 study. While the San Jose BART extension also does not have
access to Measure B funds because of the lawsuit, that project can continue
because it has Measure A funding, as well as money from the state and federal
government. Without a formal study, Cupertino will not be able to charge real
estate developers building projects near the freeway traffic impact fees that
could help pay for improvements to the road.
(Source: SF Chronicle, 4/14/2018)
In August 2018, it was reported that a crucial study examining worsening
traffic on Route 85, the vital Silicon Valley artery that links Cupertino and
Mountain View, is expected to resume after months of inactivity. The study,
overseen by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, was halted in
February after money slated to fund it was tied up in litigation. Now, a $1.2
million loan from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, a Bay Area
transportation agency, will allow the study to enter into its next phase,
according to Santa Clara County Supervisor Dave Cortese. The study could
provide data that will help officials determine solutions for the
region’s traffic woes. Money for the study was approved by Santa Clara
County voters in 2016 under Measure B, but that funding became inaccessible due
to a lawsuit. In February, members of the study’s policy advisory board
asked the Valley Transportation Authority to seek out another funding source,
but an authority official said at the time that staff members have
“looked under the couch cushions,” and “we’re just
reaching a point where we don’t have additional funds for this
project.” Under the agreement with the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission, the Valley Transportation Authority will repay the commission for
the loan if it wins the lawsuit, according to the authority. If Measure B is
repealed, the authority does not have to repay the commission for the loan.
(Source: SF Chronicle, 8/6/2018)
This entire route is officially named the "West Valley Freeway". It was named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 57, Chapter 73, in 1996.
This entire route, except the segment between Quito Road and Prospect Road (~ SCL R12.846 to SCL R15.241), in Santa Clara County is named the "Norman Y. Mineta Highway". It was named in honor of Norman Y. Mineta. Born in 1931, in San Jose, California, Mr. Mineta and his family were among the 120,000 Americans of Japanese ancestry detained in internment camps during WWII. In 1953, Mr. Mineta graduated from the University of California, Berkeley with a degree in Business Administration. He then joined the United States Army and served as an intelligence officer in Korea and Japan. From 1967 to 1971, Mr. Mineta served as a member of the San Jose City Council and from 1971 to 1974, he served as Mayor of San Jose, thereby becoming the first Asian-American mayor of a major United States city. From 1975 to 1995, Mr. Mineta represented the Silicon Valley area as a Member of the United States House of Representatives, where his legislative and policy agenda was wide and varied, including major projects in the areas of economic development, science and technology policy, trade, transportation, the environment, intelligence, the budget, and civil rights. As a Member of Congress, Mr. Mineta cofounded the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus and served as its first chair; he also chaired the House Public Works and Transportation Committee from 1992 to 1994, chaired that committee's aviation subcommittee from 1981 to 1988, and chaired its Surface Transportation Subcommittee from 1989 to 1991. He was also a key author of the landmark Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, which shifted decisions concerning highway and mass transit planning to state and local governments and led to major upsurges in mass transit ridership and more environmentally friendly transportation projects. Mr. Mineta was also the driving force behind the passage of the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, which officially apologized for and redressed the injustices endured by Japanese Americans during World War II. After leaving Congress, Mr. Mineta chaired the National Civil Aviation Review Commission, which in 1997 issued recommendations on reducing traffic congestion and the aviation accident rate, many of which were adopted by the Clinton administration. In 2000, President Clinton appointed Mr. Mineta United States Secretary of Commerce, making Mr. Mineta the first Asian American to hold a post in the Presidential Cabinet. In 2001, President George W. Bush appointed Mr. Mineta United States Secretary of Transportation, making Mr. Mineta the only Democrat to serve in George W. Bush's Cabinet and the first Cabinet member to switch directly from a Democratic to a Republican Cabinet. During Mr. Mineta's first four years as Secretary of Transportation, the United States saw the lowest vehicle fatality rate ever recorded, the highest safety belt usage rate ever recorded, and the lowest rail fatality level ever recorded. As Secretary of Transportation, Mr. Mineta oversaw the safest three-year period in aviation history and was instrumental in persuading every state in the country to set a maximum blood alcohol content level for automobile drivers at 0.08 percent, a level that has proved to be effective in preventing automobile crashes and improving automobile safety. Mr. Mineta also oversaw the United States Coast Guard's response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, including expanding the number and mission of Coast Guard Port Security Units and developing the Sea Marshal Program and Maritime Safety and Security Teams. Mr. Mineta also guided the creation of the Transportation Security Administration, an agency of more than 60,000 employees charged with protecting Americans as they travel across the United States. On June 23, 2006, Mr. Mineta announced his resignation as United States Secretary of Transportation, effective July 7, 2006, making him the longest-serving Secretary of Transportation in the history of the Department of Transportation. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution (ACR) 25, Resolution Chapter 66, on 7/3/2007.
The portion between Quito Road and Prospect Road in the City of Saratoga (~ SCL R12.846 to SCL R15.241) is named the "CHP Officer Scott M. Greenly Memorial Freeway". It was named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 172, Chapter 140 in 1998. California Highway Patrol Officer Scott M. Greenly, 31, was killed in the line of duty on January 7, 1998. Officer Greenly was killed while making a routine traffic stop before the Saratoga Avenue exit to Route 85 when an out-of-control driver slammed into him as he petted the dog of the woman he had pulled over. Officer Greenly's death prompted the state to pass the "move over'' statute, requiring drivers to move into another lane (if it can be done safely) when they spot an emergency vehicle on the side of the road.
This route is named the "Stevens Creek Freeway" from Route 280 to
Route 101 in Mountain View (~ SCL R18.487 to SCL R23.763). It was named after
Stevens Creek, which in turn was named after Captain Elisha Stephens, the first
man to lead a wagon train across the Sierras in 1844. All 50 of the pioneers
survived the trip, as well as two infants born during the journey. In 1848,
Stephens settled east of the creek that bears his name. The 160-acre homestead,
called Blackberry Farm, still exists today by Stevens Creek Boulevard in Monta
Vista. Widely regarded as an eccentric, Stephens befriended two inventors who
cluttered his yard with perpetual motion machines and steam-driven plows.
Neighbors politely declined his invitations to dinner because the main course
was usually rattlesnake. Stephens claimed, "You don't know what's good!
Rattlesnakes beat frogs all to pieces." Popular legend credited Stephens with
capturing and eating most of the rattlesnakes around Stevens Creek. Stephens
moved to Kern County, near Bakersfield, where he died in 1887.
[Information excerpted from the Mountain View Voice]
The intersection of Route 85 and US 101 (~ SCL R23.763) in San Jose is named the Michael Evanhoe Interchange. It was named in honor of Michael Evanhoe, who served between 1995 and 2004 as the chief development officer responsible for the planning, programming, project development, marketing, and congestion management functions for the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) in the County of Santa Clara. In that position, Mr. Evanhoe managed the $700 million VTA highway program, and was responsible for long-range transportation planning and programming for VTA, working to address and set the VTA's priorities for discretionary state and federal transportation funds. Mr. Evanhoe worked in the field of transportation since 1965, initially with the Caltrans in its Sacramento, Marysville, and San Francisco offices from 1965 to 1974, and later serving as Assistant Secretary for Transportation in the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency from 1975 to 1978 and Executive Director of the California Transportation Commission from 1978 to 1984. He joined the Sunset Development Company in San Ramon in 1984 and served as Vice President of Operations until 1988, was later appointed as Executive Director of the Golden Triangle Task Force in Santa Clara County from 1988 to 1990, and was subsequently appointed as the Executive Director of the Congestion Management Agency of Santa Clara County in 1990, serving in the latter position until the agency merged with the Santa Clara County Transit District in 1994 to form the VTA. Over the years, Mr. Evanhoe has gained the respect and admiration of elected officials, staff, and business leaders by getting the job done, maintaining a positive work environment, taking on new challenges, and working collaboratively with others. He had substantial responsibilities for construction of the Route 85/US 101 interchange and the widening of US 101. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 152, chaptered September 1, 2004. Resolution Chapter 175.
Alma Ribbs, Just past Saratoga Ave (~SCL R13.698). This sign was placed by her husband, Richard Wyckoff. The sign includes the names of Alma and the children. Alma Ribbs was seven months' pregnant when she and the twin babies she was carrying (Nina and Robert) were killed by a drunken driver on Route 85 in 1996.
Commuter lanes exist along the entire freeway. The portion between Route 280 and Route 237 was opened in February 1990 (NB) and April 1990 (SB). The portion between US 101 and Route 82 was opened in August 1994; the remainder (Route 82 to Route 280) was opened in October 1994. The lanes from Route 237 to US 101 in Mountain View opened in 1998. They all require two or more occupants, and are in operation weekdays between 5:00 AM and 9:00 AM, and between 3:00 PM and 7:00 PM.
HOV lanes also exist in Mountain View between Dana Street and Route 101.
With respect to usage: A 2001 Caltrans survey showed that 6,814 vehicles rode in the carpool lane between Almaden Expressway and I-280, up from 4,837 in 1996.
The following segments are designated as Classified Landscaped Freeway:
|County||Route||Starting PM||Ending PM|
[SHC 253.1] Entire route. Added to the Freeway and Expressway system in 1959.
Overall statistics for Route 85:
This definition remained unchanged until 1963. This route is present-day unsigned Route 200.
(a) (1) From Route 111 to Route 8 near El Centro.
(b) Upon a determination by the commission that it is in the best interests of the state to do so, the commission may, upon terms and conditions approved by it, relinquish the following portions of Route 86, if the department and the applicable local agency enter into an agreement providing for that relinquishment, as follows:
(1) To the County of Imperial, the portions of Route 86 within unincorporated areas of the county from the beginning of the route at the junction of Route 111 to 0.5 mile south of Fredricks Road.
(2) To the City of El Centro, the portion of Route 86 within its city limits.
This segment remains unchanged from its 1963 definition.
In 2013, Chapter 525 (SB 788, 10/9/13) added segment (b) and (b)(1) permitting relinquishment within unincorporated areas of the county and within El Centro.
Submitted for inclusion in the interstate system in 1956; not accepted.
(a) (2) From Route 8 near El Centro to Route 10 in Indio via the vicinity of Brawley.
(b) Upon a determination by the commission that it is in the best interests of the state to do so, the commission may, upon terms and conditions approved by it, relinquish the following portions of Route 86, if the department and the applicable local agency enter into an agreement providing for that relinquishment, as follows: [...]
(2) To the City of El Centro, the portion of Route 86 within its city limits.
(3) To the City of Imperial, the portion of Route 86 within its city limits.
(4) To the City of Brawley, the portion of Route 86 within its city limits.
(c) The following conditions shall apply upon relinquishment:
(1) The relinquishment shall become effective on the date following the county recorder’s recordation of the relinquishment resolution containing the commission’s approval of the terms and conditions of the relinquishment.
(2) On and after the effective date of the relinquishment, the relinquished portions of Route 86 shall cease to be a state highway.
(3) The portions of Route 86 relinquished under this subdivision shall be ineligible for future adoption under Section 81.
(4) The Cities of Brawley, El Centro, and Imperial and the County of Imperial shall ensure the continuity of traffic flow on the relinquished portions of Route 86, including any traffic signal progression.
(5) For the portions of Route 86 that are relinquished under this subdivision, the Cities of Brawley, El Centro, and Imperial, and the County of Imperial shall install and maintain, within their respective jurisdictions, the city or county signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 86 to the extent deemed necessary by the department.
(d) Following the relinquishments authorized in subdivision (b), the portion of Route 86 from 0.5 mile south of Fredricks Road to the north junction of Route 78 shall be redesignated as a part of Route 78.
In 1984, Chapter 409 clarified the terminus to be "Route 10 in Indio via the vicinity of Brawley."
The section of Route 86 in Brawley was adopted as a Freeway in 1945. A Freeway Agreement had never been executed in the City of Brawley. This section of Route 86 was recently denominated to Controlled Access Highway (CAH) in 2005. It is a four-lane highway with paved shoulders and a median.
In 2013, Chapter 525 (SB 788, 10/9/13) added segment (b) and (b)(1) permitting relinquishment within unincorporated areas of the county and within El Centro, Imperial, and Brawley, and added the language regarding Route 78 (e.g., (d)).
In December 2016, the CTC authorized relinquishment of right of way in the city of Imperial on Route 86 from the south city limits to the north city limits, under terms and conditions as stated in the relinquishment agreement dated March 22, 2016, determined to be in the best interest of the State. Authorized by Chapter 523, Statutes of 2013, which amended Section 386 of the Streets and Highways Code.
This was originally signed as US 99, and was part of LRN 26, defined in 1915/1916. The northbound lanes of the original expressway are original US 99. The original route through Coachella and Thermal is along Harrison Avenue, and then diagonally to Pierce (starting at 66th). It was resigned as Route 86 in 1964.
Route 86 General
According to Don Hagstrom in October 2002, Route 86 is to be part of the NAFTA Farm-To-Market Highway. When complete, the NAFTA Farm-to-Market highway will encourage trucks to use the following route between Mexicali and Interstate 10 in Coachella: Route 7 Expressway northbound (Calexico / Mexicali II crossing east of downtown Calexico) to I-8 westbound to the Route 111 expressway northbound to the Route 86/Route 78 Brawley Bypass expressway westbound to Route 86 expressway northbound via the Salton Sea to I-10. I wonder if they will ever consider one route number for the whole thing, as this would be easier to follow. Additionally, on Route 86 there will be one interruption to the expressway in the small town of Westmoreland; the expressway becomes a 4 lane conventional highway with one stop sign and a reduced speed limit in this small town several miles north of Brawley.
The SAFETEA-LU act, enacted in August 2005 as the reauthorization of TEA-21, provided the following expenditures for this route:
Decommissioning from El Centro to Brawley (~ IMP 4.999 (in prev. segment, S of I-8) to IMP 21.379)
Andy also notes that there has been some talk of decommissioning Route 86 between Brawley and Imperial, including the segment through El Centro. Caltrans prepared a report on the feasibility of this in 2011. It is available [on the District 11 Web Pages]. It notes: " The County of Imperial, the City of El Centro, the City of Imperial, and the City of Brawley are supportive of this relinquishment. They have expressed an interest in having full control of these portions of SR-86 within their jurisdictions so they would have the ability to issue permits to new developments for roadway connections, thereby eliminating the need to obtain State encroachment permits or State involvement." The 2011 also report mentions a proposal for a new state-maintained roadway that could be built along the current Forrester Road (County Sign Route S30) corridor west of the current Route 86 corridor. It is not explicit that Forrester Road would be a realigned route for Route 86, but I suppose it is possible if the existing route is decommissioned to county and municipal governments. The 2011 report states:
The Forrester Road Interregional Corridor Study was completed in April 2009. The report analyzes a variety of short-term and long-term alternatives to improve Forrester Road between Route 98 and Route 78. These alternatives including widening the existing two lane roadway to a four and six lane facility, and developing interchange improvements at I-8/Forrester Road. The study also evaluates transportation demands and resulting infrastructure needs required to serve the demand for growing regional, interregional, and international traffic. In addition, the study looks at transportation improvements intended to facilitate the movement of freight and related goods to meet the needs of agriculture and related industries in Imperial Valley, including cross-border commercial vehicle traffic. One of the study’s long range future network alternatives is to develop Forrester Road as a Caltrans facility between Route 98 and Route 78. The study discusses the need to relinquish Route 86, which supports this current relinquishment recommendation. By providing the additional Forrester Road corridor for commercial goods movement and international, interregional and regional traffic, the need to retain Route 86 as a State highway is minimized.
Andy continues: The Transportation Concept Report Summary for Route 86 is in two files: [one for the portion of Route 86 in District VIII] and [one for the portion of Route 86 in District XI]. The District 8 section specifically states that it is intended to function as a full freeway in its ultimate configuration, as noted on page 4:
The Route 86 ultimate corridor will be a six-lane freeway for the controlled access portion of the highway within the urbanized areas and for the rural portion of the highway, the ultimate corridor will be determined by its potential as a significant, goods-movement route and for its seasonal/recreational traffic potential. The intent is to take advantage of or develop opportunities for long term right of way acquisition and to work with local and regional agencies to implement corridor preservation measures. The ultimate facility will accommodate anticipated growth, which is expected to occur during and beyond the twenty year planning horizon.
Andy notes that this appears not to be the case for Route 86 from the Riverside-Imperial County line south to its southern terminus. As noted on page 4 of the District 11 report, "With the exception of the proposed Westmorland Bypass 4-lane expressway, there are no mainline capacity enhancing projects proposed for Route 86." I believe the existing facility, which was only recently converted into a four-lane expressway, was considered to be satisfactory for the planning horizon of the 2008 transportation concept report. An update to the Route 86 transportation concept report and a study of upgrading Forrester Road (S-30) are listed on a map that showing ongoing planning efforts in Imperial County - see http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist11/maps/StatusMapImperial.pdf.
Andy noted in a subsequent post (ref) that he found a copy of the December 2016 Transportation Concept Report for the portion of Route 86 in District 11. This new report calls for decommissioning of all of Route 86 south of the western intersection with Route 78 (Segments 1 through 11 as described below). The shared/concurrent/cosigned Route 78/Route 86 would become solely Route 78. The TCR divides up Route 86 into 12 segments:
He quotes the following from the report:
Route 86 primarily functions as a Main Street through the community of Heber and the cities of El Centro, Imperial, Brawley, and Westmorland with high concentrations of access points and bicycle and pedestrian crossings. In certain segments, the surrounding land use consists of primarily residential and commercial centers and the route operates more like a city street rather than an interregional state highway, normally characterized by higher speeds and limited access points.
In order to have greater control of the design and operation of Route 86, the City of Imperial began discussions with Caltrans regarding the potential relinquishment of the route within their jurisdiction from Treshill Road (PM 8.80) to Ralph Road (PM 12.30). A Project Study Report (PSR) was completed for this portion of the route and upon completion of the rehabilitation outlined in the PSR, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) can approve the relinquishment to the city. This will allow the City of Imperial to manage, maintain, and improve the roadway within their community to meet their needs or vision for the corridor.
In 2011, a Transportation System Analysis and Evaluation (TSAE) Report was developed by Caltrans District 11 to address and determine the appropriateness of relinquishing portions of the Route 86 from of Route 111 (PM 0.0) to Route 78 East Junction (PM 24.20). Following the TSAE, a Project Study Report for Project Development Support was developed in 2013 by Caltrans to request programming for capital support in the SHOPP program for the relinquishment.
The Route 86 corridor is instrumental in providing goods movement for commodities that enter the country via the POE’s and for the different agricultural activities in Imperial County. Due to the Main Street character found in the various cities, trucks often use Forrester Road as a way to bypass the congested city centers. Originally designed to only facilitate local agricultural traffic, Forrester Road’s function has evolved to include international cross border traffic. As the relinquishment discussions developed with the local jurisdictions along Route 86, ICTC, Caltrans, and SCAG conducted the Forrester Road Interregional Corridor Study that examined the possibility of relinquishing the current alignment of Route 86, including alternatives for a bypass of the City of Westmorland. By superseding Forrester Road as the new state highway, this alternative would alleviate potential traffic impacts caused by intraregional and interregional growth and increasing border traffic between Mexico and the United States.
As previously discussed, Route 86 primarily functions as a Main Street through the community of Heber and the cities of El Centro, Imperial, Brawley, and Westmorland with high concentrations of access points and high bicycle and pedestrian volumes. In certain segments, the surrounding land use consists of primarily residential and commercial centers and the route operates more like a city street rather than an interregional state highway, normally characterized by higher speeds and limited access points.
Therefore, the concept for Route 86 is to relinquish segments (segments 1-9) to allow for the local jurisdictions to have the final authority on future street improvements and ultimately streamline the permitting process for their development projects. Segments 10 through 12 will continue to be part of the state highway system as it serves as a major goods movement corridor serving the greater Los Angeles area and beyond. There is currently a Break in Route between the Route 86 west junction and the Brawley Bypass; therefore, segments 10 and 11 will be designated as Route 78 to provide a continuous alignment for that route.
In the 2013 Imperial County Long Range Transportation Plan, there is a proposed project called the Westmorland Bypass that allows through traffic to bypass the City of Westmorland. This four-lane expressway on the new alignment would extend approximately four miles from Route 86/Route 78 near Andre Road and rejoin Route 86/Route 78 near Lack Road and would be designated as Route 78. Segment 12 would be maintained as a four-lane expressway as Route 86.
Relinquishment in Imperial (~ IMP 8.758 to IMP 12.317)
In December 2016, Andy Fields noted in an AAroads discussion (ref):
The relinquishment of Route 86 through the city of Imperial appears to be moving forward, based on an article I found in the March 2016 Milemarker 11 (see http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist11/milemarker11/march2016.pdf), which states "There are multiple projects underway or set to begin in 2016 that will improve more than 100 miles of roadway (in Imperial County). Among these projects, is rehabilitation work on four miles of Route 86 in the city of Imperial as part of a Caltrans relinquishment process, and a new signal at Hovley Road and Route 78. Currently under construction, the Caltrans Maintenance station in El Centro will bring much needed new facilities to the region and will house 50 employees, equipment and materials." This same newsletter contains a map at the end showing pavement work underway along Route 86 north of Route 78
[Potentially related to the above: In December 2016, the CTC authorized relinquishment of right of way in the city of Imperial on Route 86 from the south city limits to the north city limits, under terms and conditions as stated in the relinquishment agreement dated March 22, 2016, determined to be in the best interest of the State. Authorized by Chapter 523, Statutes of 2013, which amended Section 386 of the Streets and Highways Code.]
Brawley Bypass (~ IMP R24.014)
In May of 2003, the Commission approved the Route 78/Route 111 Route Adoption, a Controlled Access Highway bypass around the City of Brawley. Once constructed this will alleviate traffic impacts in the downtown area of Brawley and accommodate increased regional and interregional traffic due to the North American Free Trade Agreement. This will divert heavier traffic away from the downtown area off of Route 86 and improve safety and relieve congestion. In November 2005, the state proposed constructing new at grade connections to Panno Road and on the east side of Route 86 at Legion Road in the City of Brawley. There is a current connection at Legion Road to the west side of Route 86.
The SAFETEA-LU act, enacted in August 2005 as the reauthorization of TEA-21, provided the following expenditures for this route:
In July 2008, the CTC relinqished right of way in the county of Imperial between Brandt Road and Loveland Road (~ IMP 21.748 to IMP R25.919) consisting of superseded highway right of way, and relocated and reconstructed county roads, frontage roads and other state constructed local roads.
The SAFETEA-LU act, enacted in August 2005 as the reauthorization of TEA-21, provided the following expenditures for this route:
In October 2008, the CTC relinquished right of way in the county of Riverside along Route 86S south of the Coachella city limits between Avenue 52 and Avenue 82, consisting of relocated or reconstructed county roads. (8-Riv-86S-PM R2.54/R18.27)
In July 2008, the CTC relinquished right of way in the county of Riverside on: Route 86 between Route 86S and Avenue 54 including adjacent right of way along Route 86 for drainage purposes; Route 111 between Route 195 and Route 86S, and between Route 86S and the boundary line between Riverside County and the city of Coachella; and Route 195 between Route 86 and Route 86S, consisting of superseded highway right of way and collateral facilities. (8-Riv-86-PM 2.68/18.32, 8-Riv-111-PM 18.48/20.05, 8-Riv-111-PM 20.13/25.12, 8-Riv-195-PM 0.00/6.45)
Route 86 Expressway / Route 86S
A new Route 86 expressway has been built to its entire Route 195 length (~ RIV R3.107 to RIV R22.738). The expressway runs from I-10 at Coachella to join Route 86 at Oasis. The segment from Mecca to Coachella will be a joint section of 86 and 111 (it may be signed as such now) upon completion of the remainder of the expressway (at which time, Route 195 will be eliminated). It is unknown whether the signage for Route 195 has yet been removed.
In December 2012, Caltrans officially renumbered Route 86S as Route 86. They noted that portions of the original highway, which is locally referred to as “old 86”, have been relinquished to the County of Riverside or the City of Coachella and renamed by the local jurisdiction.
In December 2007, the CTC vacated right of way in the county of Riverside, at 0.18 mile southeasterly of Middleton Street, consisting of right of way no longer needed for State highway purposes. (8-Riv-86-PM 11.43)
In May 2016, the CTC authorized relinquishment of right of way in the county of Riverside along Route 86 on Desert Cactus Drive (S of Coachella near Thermal), consisting of relocated or reconstructed county roads (~ RIV R16.262 to RIV R16.713). The County, by freeway agreement dated August 13, 1974, agreed to accept title upon relinquishment by the State. The 90-day notice period expired April 11, 2016.
In April 2010, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding a project in Riverside County that will construct a new interchange and roadway improvements on State Route 86S at Airport Boulevard in the city of Coachella (~ RIV R16.694). The project is fully funded in the 2008 State Highway Operation and Protection Program. Total estimated project cost is $21,049,000 for capital and support. Construction is estimated to begin in Fiscal Year 2011- 12. Environmental studies conducted for the project revealed that there would be no adverse environmental impacts associated with the project.
In June 2002, the CTC had on its agenda the relinquishment of 08-Riv-86,111-PM 17.3/21.5,24.5/T30.0 in the City of Coachella. This is likely the original routings that were bypassed by the expressway.
In June 2019, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding a project
located at the intersection of Route 86 and Avenue 50 in the city of Coachella
in Riverside County (08-Riv-86, PM R19.2/R21.6). This project proposes to
convert an at-grade signalized intersection into a grade-separated full
interchange with a new overcrossing bridge and access ramps. The proposed
project addresses the issues of water flooding and damage during severe winter
and summer storms. The proposed project is projected to improve operational
efficiency and mobility to and from the city of Coachella and enhance levels of
service at local and adjacent street intersections. The project is fully funded
through the City of Coachella, Coachella Valley Associated Governments and
Federal Demonstration funds. Construction is projected to begin in 2021.
(Source: June 2019 CTC Minutes, Agenda Item 2.2c.(1))
In 2002, a new Route 86S expressway, running N of present-day Route 111, opened from I-10 to the vicinity of Pierce near Thermal. The expressway will eventually replace Route 195 in the area and continue to Route 86, bypassing the original US 99 routing along Harrison. In December 2012, Route 86S officially became Route 86.
The segment between the City of Imperial and the City of Brawley (~ IMP 10.851 to IMP R22.003) is officially designated the "California Highway Patrol Officer Franke A. Story Memorial Highway". Officer Story was a dedicated traffic officer killed in the line of duty at the age of 25 years while on a traffic stop on northbound Route 86 at Larsen Road in the early morning darkness of July 19, 1967. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 57, Chapter 73, in 1996.
The segment between San Felipe Creek Bridge (at Route 78) and the Riverside county line (~ IMP 43.528 to IMP 67.824) is named the "David E. Peirson and Bill Freeman Highway". It was named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 23, Chapter 68, in 1989. Bill Freeman, chairman of the Highway 86 Improvement Association, worked with David E. Pierson, engineer and Imperial County Public Works Director, for the completion of Route 86, which was dedicated to honor their work on October 30, 1987.
The portion of Route 86 between the Counties of Riverside and Imperial County line and the I-10 junction in the County of Riverside (~ RIV 0.000 to RIV R22.936), is named the "CHP Officer Saul Martinez Memorial Highway". It was named in memory of Officer Saul Martinez, who was born November 15, 1958, to Fidel and Amparo in Villa Juarez, San Luis Potosi, Mexico. Prior to joining the CHP, Officer Martinez was a volunteer for the United Farm Workers of America and worked alongside Cesar Chavez for almost 10 years. Throughout his time with the United Farm Workers, he held several roles, some of which included translator, contract administrator, and negotiator. On May 8, 1989, Officer Martinez graduated from the CHP Academy with Cadet Training Class IV-88 and was assigned to the Indio area where, on a talk radio show “El Protector,” he informed the public about new laws, seatbelt usage, drinking and driving, and other safety issues. He also visited schools to educate children on safety issues, and would often read to the children corresponding books. On May 8, 1997, Officer Martinez and his partner, James “Donovan” Rice, were investigating a vehicle parked on the shoulder of a road north of Palm Springs, when, out of nowhere, an oncoming car, traveling more than 15 feet off the roadway, came rushing towards the officers. Without hesitation, Officer Martinez shoved his partner to safety, only to be struck and critically injured. On May 10, 1997, Officer Martinez’s son, Saul Jr., and his two brothers, Ben and Rafael, received the “Latino Peace Officer of the Year Award” for 1996 on Officer Martinez’s behalf, as he lay critically injured in the hospital. The award was presented by the Latino Peace Officer’s Association of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. Officer Martinez succumbed to his injuries and was pronounced dead on May 16, 1997. At Officer Martinez’s funeral, Governor Pete Wilson met privately with friends and family to present the California Medal of Valor to Officer Martinez’s wife. The Governor said, “The medal is an award to Saul for the courage he gave in sacrificing his own life to save his partner, Donovan Rice. The medal cannot begin to constitute the loss, but through his family, the medal speaks recognition through the state for the loved one they lost. This medal is given on behalf of those lives he touched and made so much better. Fellow officers said he was, and is, the best we had”. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 100, Resolution Chapter 109, on September 4, 2012.
The segment between 82nd Avenue and 66th Avenue (~ RIV R2.968 to RIV R19.307), near the communities of Oasis and Valeria, near the Northern edge of the Salton Sea, in the County of Riverside is officially named the "Senator David G. Kelley Highway." Senator David G. Kelley was the state senator for the 37th district (including this area) from 1992 until 2000; before that, he served for 14 years in the California State Assembly. He was born and raised in Riverside County, and graduated from California Poly San Luis Obispo, majoring in citrus fruit production. He was a citrus rancher for over 45 years in the Hemet area. He was active in the Riverside County Farm Bureau since 1955, and also served on the board of directors of the California Farm Bureau Federation. He was active in the establishment of an agricultural preserve program in Riverside County. He has had an ongoing committment to improving the dangerous portion of Route 86 on which many fatal accidents have occurred, commonly known as "Killer Highway," by submitting numerous requests for the funding of improvements and negotiating with the Department of Transportation, the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments, community leaders, and state and county officials to improve the safety of this portion of the highway. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 106, Chapter 108, August 22, 2000.
This segment is designated as part of "Historic US Highway 99" by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 19, Chapter 73, in 1993.
Submitted for inclusion in the interstate system in 1956; not accepted.
Route 86 was not defined as part of the initial state signage of routes in 1934. It is unclear what (if any) route was signed as Route 86 between 1934 and 1964.
The following segments are designated as Classified Landscaped Freeway:
|County||Route||Starting PM||Ending PM|
The portion of this route that is former US 99 was designated as a "North-South Blue Star Memorial Highway" by Senate Concurrent Resolution 33, Ch. 82 in 1947.
Overall statistics for Route 86:
In 1933, a route was defined from "Lassen National Park-Mineral Road to [LRN 29] near Morgan". Part of this became LRN 83, and part became LRN 86. In 1935, the LRN 86 portion was codified as:
From Route 85 in the vicinity of Santa Teresa Boulevard to Route 101 in the vicinity of Guadalupe River.
As defined in 1963, this segment was defined as:
Subdivision (a) of Route 87 shall be added to the state highway system at the time the City of San Jose and the County of Santa Clara have acquired all rights-of-way necessary to construct a freeway on this route to state freeway standards and have conveyed said rights-of-way to the State without charge; provided, that the commission and the department may take all steps necessary to locate and design said freeway or any portion thereof prior to the time it is added to the state highway system.
In 1965, Chapter 65 allowed construction to begin, changing the caveat to “Construction of subdivision (a) of Route 87, or any portion thereof, may be commenced at the time the City of San Jose and the County of Santa Clara have acquired all rights-of-way necessary to construct a freeway, or any portion thereof, on this route to state freeway standards and have conveyed said rights-of-way to the State without charge.” This was done to permit Route 87 to be incorporated into the design of I-680, then planned to start construction in 1968.
In 1969, Chapter 1179 changed the caveat on (a) again: “Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 89 of Chapter 1062 of the Statutes of 1959, construction of subdivision (a) of Route 87 may be commenced at any time, if the City of San Jose and the County of Santa Clara has conveyed or does convey to the State of California, without charge, all real property presently acquired by it for the construction of said subdivision (a) of this route or such portion thereof.”
In 1980, Chapter 777 removed all conditions on this segment.
In 1988, Chapter 106 changed the origin of this segment to be “Route 85 in the vicinity of Santa Teresa Boulevard”
The history of the construction of this portion is as follows:
1963 State adopts plan designating the Guadalupe Parkway as a future freeway. Note: Guadalupe Parkway used to end at Coleman, with ramps from NB Coleman to NB Guadalupe and SB Guadalupe to SB Coleman. The Caltrans maps show a confirmed adopted route for Route 87 to Coleman on the 1963 map, with the portion south of Coleman as unconfirmed. The pre-freeway version of Guadalupe Parkway between Coleman and Taylor did hug the east side of the ROW like the frontage road does now, but the current street is all new pavement. The original was removed during the freeway conversion, and the current road was put in around 2000 per DTComposer on AAroads.
1970. Caltrans stops freeway planning due to budget problems.
1972. The Route 87/I-280 interchange is constructed.
1976. A temporary 4-lane freeway is built from I-280 N to Julian Street.
1988. The temporary freeway is extend from Julian N to Taylor Street.
1992. Median barriers installed. A new ramp from NB Guadalupe Parkway to N First Street opens.
1993. Route 87 S of I-280 opens.
1997. Construction begins on the completion of the Route 87 freeway. This will run underneath W Taylor Street, rising above Skyport and Airport parkways. The Taylor and Skyport interchanges will be SPUIs. Skyport will be the only entry point into the San Jose Airport from Route 87. Estimated completion for this work is 2003. The total cost of this additional work is over $225 million, and involved the movement of more than 470,000 ft² of fill.
2004. The last signal light on Route 87 at the intersection with Hedding was removed in April 2004 as the northbound lanes were opened to make Route 87 in San Jose without any signal lights for its entire length.
Sparker on AAroads provided some interesting history on this segment:
(Source: Sparker on AAroads, "Re: LA Times - High Desert Highway", 2/26/2019)
From the '60's forward to recent years, the city of San Jose by and large was looking to enhance their downtown area and wanted to provide access to the greatest number of inbound folks regardless of mode of transport. There was an downtown easement provided for the Route 87 freeway; north from there it had always been assumed that the alignment would subsume the Guadalupe Parkway that had been developed in the '60's. The alignment to the south had been adopted in the early '60's as well; the Route 87/I-280 interchange near downtown was fully built (with stub-ends in both directions) as part of the original I-280 construction in the late '60's and early '70's. Up until the late '80's the city government wanted it, Caltrans wanted to get cracking on it back then, and the downtown businesses definitely wanted Route 87 built and supplying potential customers. But the transit/LR push in the late '80's that culminated in the first phase of VTA LR being built up and down First Street signaled a major policy shift within the city; if it were not for the alteration of Route 87 plans south of downtown -- along with several miles of Route 85 to the southeast -- placing the LR line in the freeway median, the whole thing might well not have been fully built. The northern part was "sold" to city planners as the only way to expedite traffic to and from the airport to downtown. In the meantime, the Guadalupe River, adjacent to the northern half of the Route 87 corridor, was declared a riparian reserve -- so the north half of Route 87 required a redesign to preserve river space, which flanks the ROW along its west side. Also, the management of Mineta Airport argued against a Route 87/I-880 interchange, which sat at the corner of the airport only a quarter-mile away from one of the main runways; any flyovers were considered to pose potential interference issues with airport operations. Although this omission meant a lack of a direct downtown SJ-to-Oakland connection, the interchange was erased from the freeway's plans. But although some planners wished to omit the freeway south of I-280 and simply run the LR line down the ROW, it was the design of the whole thing that combined LR terminals with the various overpasses and undercrossings along the freeway that saved the project; dropping the freeway would have entailed a complete LR redesign -- and a corresponding delay of several years. Still, most of the downtown businessmen, the chamber of commerce, and D4 itself maintained an unflagging resolve to get Route 87 built despite increasing opposition from some quarters.
This segment was LRN 292, defined in 1961. It was unsigned in 1963. Note: the 1961 law said "Route 239 in the vicinity of Pearl Avenue", but this was technically an error as Route 239 was moved from Route 85 to Route 17 by Chpater 1146 in 1961. Chapter 1698 in 1963 corrected the definition of LRN 292, but of course, it was overtaken by the 1963 renumbering (Chapter 385). It was not signed in Route 87 was not defined in the initial set of state signed routes in 1934.
In June 2017, it was reported that the Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority and San Jose city officials recently approved a $225,000 study that
will examine the feasibility of creating flex lanes on Route 87. The study will
focus on traffic congestion along the 87 corridor between Route 85 and US 101
(i.e., the entire route) and explore different ways to alleviate traffic jams.
San Jose Councilman Johnny Khamis, whose District 10 encompasses a large
stretch of Route 87, says he’d like to see one extra traffic lane created
on each side of the freeway. Both lanes would start at Route 85 and extend
north to I-280 (~ SCL 0.078 to SCL 5.33). Flex lanes serve as an extra traffic
lane during commute hours and as a regular shoulder the rest of the time. A
consultant will study such factors as narrowing all the lanes and by how much
to accommodate the extra lane. A decision on whether that flex lane should also
require a toll during commute hours “will not be made until we find out
if the lane will fit.” The study was initiated in response to complaints
from residents about traffic around the Almaden Ranch shopping center.
Consideration is also being given to removing the right-hand shoulder between
the Route 87 on-ramp for a quarter-mile up to Route 85 northbound and creating
a dedicated exit lane. All modes of travel will be explored during the study,
according to VTA officials, who will start requesting proposals from
consultants this summer. Funding for the study is being split, with $150,000
from the VTA and $75,000 from the city of San Jose. VTA officials expect the
study to be finished by the end of the year. Adding an extra lane would require
repaving the road in addition to restriping. No estimates or funding sources
for construction have yet been supplied.
(Source: Mercury News, 6/1/2017)
In June 2002, the CTC considered a STIP project to update the existing four lane highway to a six lane freeway with HOV lanes from Julian St to US 101 (~ SCL 6.116 to SCL 9.15) . This was completed in 2004.
In June 2015, the CTC authorized the relinquishment of three segments along Route 87: (1) right of way in the city of San Jose along Guadalupe Parkway from Coleman Avenue to West Hedding Street, consisting of reconstructed city streets; right of way in the city of San Jose at Skyport Drive, consisting of a reconstructed city street; and (3) right of way in the city of San Jose at Airport Parkway, consisting of reconstructed city streets. (04-SCl-87-PM 6.5/7.3, 04-SCl-87-PM 8.4, 04-SCl-87-PM T8.8)
The route has two Single-Point Urban Interchanges (SPUIs): one at Taylor Street (~ SCL 6.916), the other at a new road going into San Jose International Airport (~ SCL 8.372).
There is a rationale for the lack of a connector between Route 87 and I-880
(~ SCL 7.519). The two freeways are close to the eastern edge of Mineta San
Jose International Airport, meaning that elevated ramps cannot be built without
interfering in the flight path. Route 87 runs parallel to the Guadalupe River,
so tunneling to link the freeways does not work. One corner of the crossover is
the light-rail maintenance yard for the Valley Transportation Authority, which
cannot be easily or cheaply moved. Exits from Route 87 to Taylor Street and
from I-880 to Coleman Avenue and First Street are less than a ¼ mi away, and
Caltrans requires that ramps be at least a mile apart to avoid merging chaos.
Lastly, high-voltage power lines run through the area, which would be costly to
[Thanks to Gary Roberts "Mr. Roadshow" for hunting down this information]
In April 2002, the CTC considered STIP Project #3 [Agenda Item 2.5b.(1)], which would upgrade the current 4 lane highway to a six-lane freeway with HOV lanes from 0.5 km N of I-880 (SCL 8.0) to 0.6 km N of Airport Parkway (SCL 9.0).
The portion of this route completed to freeway standards is named the "Guadalupe Freeway".
The portion of Route 87 between Route 85 and I-280 in the City of San Jose (~SCL 0.097 to SCL 5.198) is named the "San Jose Police Officer Michael Johnson Memorial Highway". It was named in memory of San Jose Police Officer Michael “Mike” Jeremiah Johnson , who was born in December 1976. At the time he was born, Mike’s father, Daniel Johnson, was a military police officer in the United States Army, who, after his discharge from the army, became a member of the Calaveras County Sheriff’s Department, and Mike and his family moved to Wilseyville, California. In 1988, Mike and his family moved to the City of San Jose, where Mike attended Gunderson High School and became captain of the school’s chess team. Mike’s first job was delivering newspapers on his bicycle for the San Jose Mercury News, and, after graduation from high school in 1995, Mike took classes at West Valley College while working as an audio-visual specialist at Radio Shack and later at The Good Guys electronics store. He began studying jujitsu, ultimately earning a black belt and becoming an instructor to children. Mike’s ultimate goal and desire was to become a police officer and serve his community. Mike joined the San Jose Police Academy in 2001 and graduated on June 15, 2001. As a member of San Jose’s police force, Officer Johnson was a dedicated and highly regarded officer who had a strong sense of duty and great pride in being a police officer. He was beloved in the community because he always had a genuine smile and a natural ability to engage people in conversation. On March 24, 2015, Officer Johnson and his partner, Doug Potwora, responded to an emergency call involving a suicidal man who was threatening his wife in a domestic violence dispute. When they arrived, the suspect, armed with a high-powered rifle, opened fire on the officers from behind an enclosed balcony. Tragically, the suspect fatally shot Officer Johnson. The suspect was later shot and killed by Officer Potwora, whose heroic efforts likely saved several more lives. During his 14 years with the San Jose Police Department, Officer Johnson worked as a patrolman and court liaison. He also specialized in prescription drug fraud crimes and had recently been promoted to field training officer. Officer Johnson was a member of the Specialist Rifle Program and an expert marksman. He proved his skills each year when he and his father competed together at the United States Police and Fire Championships, where he won numerous medals. Officer Johnson will be inducted into the Police and Fire Championships’ Hall of Fame in 2015. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 88, Resolution Chapter 186, on 09/21/15.
The segment of northbound Route 87 commencing with its intersection with Route 280 and ending at Exit 6B, the Julian Street/Santa Clara Street exit in the City of San Jose (~ SCL 5.198 to SCL 6.11) is named the "Lewis E. Platt Memorial Highway" This segment was named in memory of Lewis E. Platt, president and chief executive officer of the Hewlett-Packard Company (HP) from 1992 to 1999, and chairman of the board of HP from 1993 to 1999. Lewis Platt was born on April 11, 1941 in Johnson City, New York and received a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering from Cornell University in Ithaca, New York; and a master's degree in business administration from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. He also received an honorary doctorate in engineering science from the University of Santa Clara. He started at HP in 1966, holding a variety of management posts in the company's medical products operations prior to becoming general manager of the Waltham Massachusetts Division in 1974. Thereafter, he served as general manager of HP's analytical group from 1980 to 1984, and was elected a vice president of HP in 1983, managing various aspects of HP's computer business from 1984 to 1988. In 1987, Lewis E. Platt was appointed to the Advisory Committee on Trade Policy Negotiations by President Bill Clinton and served as chairman of one of its task forces, the World Trade Organization Task Force. In 1996, Lewis E. Platt was elected cochair and a member of the board of directors of Joint Venture Silicon Valley and the Tech Network, formed in 1991, to strengthen the local economy and make the area a better place to live, and he was a member of The Business Council, also serving as a member of the California Business Roundtable from 1993 to 1995. While serving as the chief executive officer and chairman of the board of HP, Platt took the time to personally engage in a local transportation measure championed by the Silicon Valley Leadership Group to improve the quality of life and the economic health of Silicon Valley, specifically taking the following steps to promote that measure: (1) Loaning out an HP employee funded by HP for six months to run the countywide campaign for the measure; (2) Serving as fundraising chair for the campaign with Ron Gonzales, who was a supervisor for the County of Santa Clara at that time, serving as his vice chair; (3) Personally raising nearly nine hundred thousand dollars ($900,000) of the one million six hundred thousand dollars ($1,600,000) required to run a competitive campaign for the measure; and through his leadership, HP made a sizable financial contribution, as well as the in-kind contribution of the time and salary of the loaned HP employee. In addition, making fewer than 15 telephone calls, Lewis E. Platt raised the rest of the funds needed for the campaign. Platt also motivated the rest of the fundraising committee through his personal leadership and engagement by chairing meetings of a communitywide committee of 45 diverse leaders. His leadership by example motivated that group to raise the entire one million six hundred thousand dollars ($1,600,000) in less than 90 days. The campaign resulted in the voters' approval of Measures A and B at the General Election held on November 5, 1996, with the additional one-half cent sales tax revenue, which terminated on April 1, 2006, funding 19 road and rail-transit improvements, all completed on time and within budget, just as Lewis E. Platt had promised during the campaign for these measures. Lewis E. Platt died on September 8, 2005. Named by Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR) 37, Resolution Chapter 96, on 7/12/2007.
Historically, this route is close to the original "El Camino Real" (The Kings Road). A portion of this route has officially been designated as part of "El Camino Real by Assembly Bill 1707, Chapter 739, on October 11, 2001.
From San Jose easterly of Route 101 to Route 237.
this segment was defined as “(b) San Jose easterly of the Bayshore Freeway to
Route 230.” There was also a segment (c), defined as: “(c) Route 230 to Route
480 near the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. Notwithstanding the provisions
of Section 89 of Chapter 1062 of the Statutes of 1959, construction of all or
any portion of subdivision (c) of Route 87 may be commenced at any time, if the
City and County of San Francisco has conveyed or does convey to the State of
California, without charge, all real property presently acquired by it for the
construction of said subdivision (c) of this route or such portion thereof.”
In 1968, Chapter
282 truncated segment (c) to be "Route 230 to Route 280 in San Francisco
Route 480 near the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge.” The
deleted portion (Route 230 to Route 480) was transferred to I-80. This was part
of the major reworking of freeways in the San Francisco area due to the
"Freeway Revolt". Route 87 was originally planned as a full freeway in the
ocean to the E of US 101. In 1968, the portion from Route 280 to Route 480
[First Street] was transferred to Route 280 (this was part of LRN 253). The
image to the right, from Chris Sampang's pages, illustrates this quite well.
Route 87 was not defined in the initial set of state signed routes in 1934.
HOV lanes are planned for or constructed for this route as follows:
Part (2) is completely unconstructed. A route has not been adopted and there have been no studies for future alignment of this route.
Southbound HOV lanes from I-280 to Branham Lane began construction in Fall 2004. S/B direction. This project is being done by VTA. The project was completed in 2007.
In February 2012, there was an update on the project to construct high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane and auxiliary lanes in each direction, construct 13 retaining walls and widen six bridges in San Jose, from 0.3 mile north of Branham Lane to 0.3 mile north of Virginia Street. Evidently, the project is overrunning its budget; the CTC authorized $6,200,000 in supplemental funding.
Route 87 was not defined as part of the initial state signage of routes in 1934. It is unclear what (if any) route was signed as Route 87 between 1934 and 1964.
The following segments are designated as Classified Landscaped Freeway:
|County||Route||Starting PM||Ending PM|
[SHC 253.1] Entire route. The portion from Route 101 to Route 237 was added to the Freeway and Expressway system in 1959. The portion from Route 85 to Route 101 was added to the Freeway and Expressway system in 1961.
Overall statistics for Route 87:
In 1933, three segments were added to the highway system: "[LRN 7] near Woodland to State Highway near Yuba City", "[LRN 15] near Marysville to [LRN 21] near Oroville", and "[LRN 3] near Chico to [LRN 21] near Oroville". In 1935, these were formally assigned to LRN 87, which was defined as:
In 1957, Chapter 36 extended the routing and combined two segments, giving:
This route was signed as follows:
This connection was originally unsigned; it is present-day Route 149.
From Route 99 near Stockton to Route 49 passing south of Ione.
This segment remains as defined in 1963.
This is LRN 97, defined in 1933. It was not signed as Route 88 as part of the initial state highway routing, but was signed by the early 1940s.
In a thread on AARoads, Max R noted in June 2017 that Route 104 was a post 1964 route created from parts of the original Route 104 alignment and LRN 97. Originally it was Route 104 that ran north to Route 16 instead of it running through downtown Ione eastward via what was an unsigned portion of LRN 34 to Route 88. The state highway south of Ione was an unsigned part of LRN 97, for some reason the route north out of Ione still shows as a Route 104 but LRN 124 in 1964 but it finally shows the signage change by 1965. Really the realignment of Route 104 made sense since the route took a pretty wild north/south swing after being almost entirely east/west. The 1935 Amador County Map shows LRN 97 running to Ione on Dave Brubeck Road and maybe Marlette Street then using what became LRN 34 to continue eastward to Jackson. That would certainly explain what the thinking was with Route 104 in the early signed highway era. By 1940 the state highway map shows Route 88 coming to Ione. By 1955, Route 88 is still shown going through Ione but using part of the modern highway which can be seen changing from 1954. In 1960, Route 88 is shown shifting completely south of Ione in 1960.
In the same thread, Sparker noted that Ione has always been something of a mess. Originally LRN 34 east of Jackson was signed as Route 8; this continued into Alpine County and out into Nevada (along present Route 88). Route 104 remained on LRN 34 from Ione to Route 49 just north of Jackson, where it terminated. In 1939 it was decided to terminate Route 8 in Jackson (the longstanding multiplex on Route 49 from Mokelumne Hill to Jackson remained intact); a new route, Route 88, was commissioned over all of LRN 34 east of Ione and over LRN 97 southwest of there to Stockton. Instead of terminating Route 104 at new Route 88 in Ione, it was redirected north over the remainder of LRN 97 to terminate at Route 16 west of Route 49; this left a few blocks of state-maintained LRN 34/LRN 97 in Ione unsigned, but (apparently; I've never seen specific evidence published) with "trailblazer"/"TO" signage from each of the separate signed alignments. This arrangement persisted until 1959, when the "88 Connector" south of Ione was built; technically a spur of LRN 97. Signage was simple: from EB Route 88, the LRN 97 (west) turnoff was signed "Ione" (with an arrow on a BBS), with an attached "TO"/"Route 104" shield array; the LRN 34 (east) turnoff was likewise signed WB only. Within Ione proper, the intersection where Route 104 turned from east to north was signed "TO Route 88"; once the LRN 34/LRN 97 "split" was reached in downtown Ione, trailblazers reading "TO EAST Route 88" and "TO WEST Route 88" were posted. The '64 renumbering cleared things up considerably. Actual signage (Route 104, Route 124) was now posted on the connectors, with Route 104 on the previous LRN 34 and Route 124 on LRN 97. Also at that time the connection (now on Route 124) north to Route 16 was realigned east of its previous track; it now intersected Route 16 only a half-mile west of that route's eastern terminus at Route 49 near Plymouth. The new alignment was (and is) definitely a 2-lane CA-type "expressway", with very limited side access. Presently Ione still maintains its historic "old gold rush village" demeanor downtown, but there's a lot of modern housing around the town's perimeter (including a lot of second homes for Sacramento and Stockton residents).
Tom Fearer (Max R) has a nice travelogue on Route 88, including quite a lot of history of the routing.
In September 2012, the CTC relinquished right of way in the county of San Joaquin along Route 88 on Baker and Pezzi Roads (~ SJ 4.382), consisting of collateral facilities.
In August 2011, the CTC approved $3,200,000 in SHOPP funding for repairs near Lodi, from Comstock Road (~ SJ 4.914) to Route 12 (~ SJ L12.276), that will rehabilitate 14 miles of pavement to improve safety and ride quality.
In October 2018, the CTC approved for for future consideration of funding
the following project for which a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been
completed: Route 88 in San Joaquin County (10-SJ-88, PM 22.09). Construct a new
roundabout on Route 88 at Liberty Road near the town of Clements. (PPNO 3207)
This project is located at the Liberty Road and the Route 88 intersection near
Clements in San Joaquin County. This project proposes to improve the safety of
the intersection with the construction of a single lane rural roundabout. The
proposed project addresses the need to reduce the number and severity of
broadside collisions at this intersection in which the total accident rate is
higher than the statewide average. The proposed project is currently estimated
to cost approximately $10.0 million. This project is fully funded and is
currently programmed in the 2018 SHOPP for approximately $9.9 million which
includes Construction (capital and support) and Right-of -Way (capital and
support). Construction is estimated to begin in 2020. The scope, as described
for the preferred alternative, is consistent with the project scope programmed
by the Commission in the 2018 SHOPP. In Agenda Item 2.5b.(2a), they provided a
support allocation of PA&ED $1,390,000.
(Source: October 2018 CTC Agenda Item 2.2c.(1))
In March 2019, the CTC added the following project into the SHOPP: 10-Ama-88
6.2 PPNO 3418. Proj ID. 1018000075. Route 88 Near Ione, at Buena Vista Road.
Improve safety by constructing a roundabout. Begin const. 12/30/2022. Total
est. cost: $12,152,000.
(Source: March 2019 CTC Minutes Agenda Item 2.1a.(1) Item 21)
In July 2008, the CTC relinquished right of way in the county of Amador, being a portion of the improved intersection at Route 88 and Route 104 (~ AMA 12.695), consisting of a relocated and reconstructed county road.
The segment of Route 88 between Comstock Road (SJ 4.913) and East Harney
Lane (SJ 9.641), in the County of San Joaquin is named the "Deputy Sheriff
Robert “Bob” Paris, Jr., Memorial Highway". Robert
“Bob” Paris, Jr., was born in January 1959 to Robert and Jane
Paris, and was raised, along with his older sister and younger brother, in
Tracy, California. As a young boy, Bob was fascinated anytime he saw or heard
lights and sirens, always wanting to follow the first responders to get in on
the action, and it was no surprise to those who knew him that, after graduating
from Tracy High School in 1977, Bob would decide to become a paramedic. Bob
attended a paramedic training program in Santa Barbara and then went to work
for Tracy Ambulance, earning the “Paramedic of the Year” award in
1983, and he continued his service as a paramedic when American Medical
Response took over Tracy Ambulance. The people of Tracy appreciated the calm,
professional paramedic who responded to their emergencies and many people
relayed stories of Bob coming to the rescue, remembering how his compassion,
professionalism, and outstanding medical care helped them get through some of
the most frightening moments of their lives. During the last 20 years of
Bob’s life, he was devoted to his daughter, who suffered from recurrent
brain tumors, surgeries, radiation treatments, and hospitalizations, and he was
front and center at every crisis, lending a strong, but calm presence to every
situation. Eventually, Bob went after his dream of becoming a police officer,
and graduated from the Ray Simon Regional Criminal Justice Training Center in
1993. After working as a reserve deputy for the Stanislaus County
Sheriff’s Department for three years, he accepted a full-time position as
a deputy sheriff, serving in patrol operations, court services, and in the
Special Vehicle Off-road and Water Enforcement Unit for the county, and in his
last two years, served in the Civil Division of the county. Bob took special
pride in his work with the Sheriff Explorers, believing that he may have
influence on the next generation of law enforcement in some small positive way.
Bob loved working with and entertaining children, often deputizing them and
handing out sticker badges, and spending time at Christmas participating in the
children’s “Shop with a Cop” event, at which children in need
were paired up with an officer who helped them pick out a Christmas gift. Bob
frequently worked at the Stanislaus County Fair, as well as other community
festivals where Bob truly shined with his gift of making whomever he was
conversing with feel as though he was there only for them, and he constantly
showed how he valued people from all walks of life. On April 12, 2012, Deputy
Sheriff Paris and his partner met a locksmith at a Modesto home to carry out a
scheduled eviction, at which time Deputy Sheriff Paris knocked and announced
himself, but after receiving no response, was shot and killed, along with the
locksmith who had been drilling the lock, by a person armed with multiple
weapons. Following Bob’s death, there were hundreds of stories shared by
people in the community relaying how Bob provided medical care, comfort, or
befriended someone in the community who had fallen on tough times. One couple
who knew Bob remembered that, when the couple’s son was killed, Bob had
been the first responder to the scene, had provided caring assistance at what
was the worst moment of their lives, and, upon seeing them a year later, Bob
remembered and embraced them, which deeply touched the grieving couple.
Reflections from Bob’s coworkers also revealed details about Bob’s
great sense of humor, skills as an outdoorsman, and caring nature as someone
who was always there if a friend or family member needed something. It was
through these stories that the character of Bob Paris became visible to those
closest to him, and there are many stories of the kindness Bob showed while in
uniform, or as an off-duty deputy sheriff. Bob’s many generous actions,
kindness, and dedication to serving others is fondly remembered by his family,
friends, coworkers, and the many citizens of the community whose lives were
touched by Deputy Sheriff Robert “Bob” Paris, Jr. Named by Assembly
Concurrent Resolution (ACR) 179, Res. Chapter 161, 8/21/2018.
Route 49 in Jackson to the Nevada state line via Pine Grove, Silver Lake, and Kirkwood.
In 1963, this segment was defined as "(b) Route 49 in Jackson to Route 89 near Picketts in Hope Valley via Irishtown, Pinegrove, Silver Lake and Kirkwood." There was also a segment (c) from "Route 89 near Woodfords to the Nevada state line." However, later in 1963 Chapter 1698 removed the reference to "Irishtown"
In 1976, Chapter 1354 changed the definition of the terminus to delete the reference to "near Pickets", leaving the terminus as "Route 89 in Hope Valley via Pine Grove, Silver Lake, and Kirkwood."
In 1986, Chapter 928 combined (b) and (c), giving "(b) Route 49 in Jackson to the Nevada state line via Pine Grove, Silver Lake, and Kirkwood." The segment that had created this discontinuity, ("Route 89 near Picketts Junction to Route 89 near Woodfords") was transferred from Route 89.
This was LRN 34 (defined in 1915) between Jackson and Picketts (W junction with Route 89), orginally signed as part of Route 8. It was LRN 23 [defined in 1911] (signed as Route 89, or possibly cosigned Route 88/Route 89) between Pickets and Woodfords. It was LRN 24 (1933 extension) from Woodfords to the Nevada state line. It was cosigned with Route 4 to the Nevada state line until 1964. It appears to have been originally signed as Route 8, but by 1948 it was signed as Route 88.
This segment is actually one of the older roads in the state. After some failed bond issues, initial construction of the road was funded by bonds in 1862, as a toll road, 16 feet wide, with a maximum grade of 18 per-cent, from Antelope Springs (35 mi E of Jackson, ~ 088 AMA 49.0) to Twin Lakes/Caples (~ 088 ALP 1.872). The original wagon road went N at that point; the immigrant route (current Route 88) climbed to the summit. The roads rejoined at Tragedy Springs. Additional details on the original road may be found at Joel Windmiller's site.
In February 2018,
Joel Windmiller posted an interesting picture on Facebook. It was of the Hope
Valley, California Alpine County Hope Valley Resort, Post Office, 76 gas
station, Trailer Park and Camp ground along the West Fork of the Carson River
(approx 088 ALP 14.888). He noted that, from 1935-51, the original alignment of
Route 88 traveled in front of the building and thru the campground to end at
the original bridge crossing the river.
(Source: Joel Windmiller, FB Post, 2/15/2018)
Pine Grove Improvements (10-Ama-088 PM 22.3-R23.9) (PPNO 2454)
The SAFETEA-LU act, enacted in August 2005 as the reauthorization of TEA-21, provided the following expenditures on or near this route:
There are plans for improvements to the route near Pine Grove. (~AMA 23.465) The public scoping has just begun; project approval is planed for 2012, with construction starting in 2024 and completing in 2028. The goal is to alleviate congestion, improve operations and enhance safety between the intersections at Climax Road and Mount Zion Road. Project components currently being studied include widening Route 88 through the Pine Grove and/or the construction of either a southerly or northerly two-lane bypass route.
In May 2016, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding a project in Amador County that will construct roadway improvements on a portion of Route 88 in the town of Pine Grove. The project is programmed in the 2014 State Transportation Improvement Program. The project is not fully funded. The total estimated cost is $41,000,000 for capital and support. Depending on the availability of funds, construction is estimated to begin in Fiscal Year 2020-21. The scope, as described for the preferred alternative, is consistent with the project scope programmed by the Commission in the 2014 State Transportation Improvement Program. A copy of the MND has been provided to Commission staff. The project will result in less than significant impacts to the environment after mitigation. The following resource area may be impacted by the project: biological resources. Avoidance and minimization measures will reduce any potential effects on the environment. These measures include, but are not limited to, pre-construction red-legged frog surveys will be conducted by a qualified biologist, staging areas will be located at least 100 feet from riparian or aquatic habitats, environmental awareness training will be given to all construction personnel, and all proposed landscape will incorporate native plant materials. As a result, an MND was completed for this project.
The 2018 STIP, approved at the CTC March 2018 meeting, appears to deallocate $3,075K in R/W funding for this project in FY19-20, and to allocate $2,751K for R/W funding in FY18-19.
Since it's construction, Route 88 has run across the top of the Silver Lake Dam (~ AMA R65.792). The increase in traffic began to create structural problems for the dam, so in 1998, Caltrans proposed creating a new crossing of the Silver Fork of the American River, just downstream from the dam. Construction started in March 2000, and was budgeted at $6.5 million, of which $2 million was for construction of a new bridge. This new bridge involved the use of the longest pre-cast girders ever placed on a California bridge—almost 40 meters long, weighing more than 70,000 kg.
Between Alpine Village (~ ALP 19.253) and Paynesville (~ ALP 22.724), an "Old State Highway 88" takes a less direct path, with a north terminus at the intersection of Foothill Road and Route 88 in Paynesville. (This is labeled as Old State Highway 88 by MSN's map service and Compass, but as "Carson River Road" by Mapquest.)
This route continues into Nevada as NV 88 to end at US 395. The designation of the NV 88 dates back to the 1976 Nevada route renumbering; previously, this was NV 37.
Historically, the portion of this route from Route 49 near Jackson to Woodfords in Alpine county (~ AMA 14.519 to ALP 19.074) was called the "Kit Carson Pass Highway".
The portion of Route 88 from 5 miles southwest of the Nevada State Line (ALP
20.000) to the Nevada state line (ALP 25.14) in the County of Alpine is named
the "Vietnam Veterans Memorial Highway'. Many residents of the County
of Alpine, including many Washoe Tribal members and other community members,
served in the United States military during the Vietnam war with the support of
friends, family, and loves ones. The section was named to recognize the
contributions and sacrifices of these veterans, their friends, families, and
loved ones, helping to upgrade the Vietnam war from being classified as the
“Forgotten War”. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution (ACR) 184,
Res. Chapter 148, 8/17/2018.
The overlook just west of Peddler Hill on Route 88 is officially designated the "Bert Lund Memorial Overlook" (AMA 52.6). Bert Lund was an employee of the Department of Highways. He began as a chainman on a survey crew; he eventually worked his way up to Senior District Engineer in charge of District 10, where he was involved in the creation or upgrading of many of the roads in District 10, including new bridges on Route 12 in the Delta, the making of Route 99 into a limited access freeway, the start of making Route 88 into a year-round, all-weather highway, and the upgrading and maintenance of four Sierra Nevada mountain passes (Carson, Ebbetts, Sonora, and Tioga). Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 144, Chapter 106, in 1994.
The "John G. Meyer Overlook", in Alpine County (E of Carson Pass) (ALP R5.4). It was named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 86, Chapter 10, in 1990. John G. Meyer was long-time Caltrans employee, serving over 46 years, the last 15 of which were as a District Engineer in Caltrans District 10. He was instrumental in the completion and improvement of several important highways in Alpine County, including the development of Route 88 as an all-year highway. He was also well known for contributions to the Boy Scouts, the Salvation Army, the United Crusade, and was a member of the Engineers Club, the Rotary Club, the American Society of Engineers, and the Navy League.
[SHC 263.5] Entire portion.
[SHC 253.1] Entire route. Added to the Freeway and Expressway system in 1959.
[SHC 164.14] Entire route.
Overall statistics for Route 88:
In 1933, two segments were added to the state highway system: "[LRN 15] near Sycamore to Woodland-Yuba City Road near Knights Landing", and "[LRN 45] near Glenn to [LRN 47] near Hamilton City". In 1935, these were codified into the code as LRN 88, which was defined as:
In 1959, Chapter 1062 changed the origin of the first segment to "[LRN 15] near Colusa".
This route is signed as follows:
Return to State Highway Routes