This is a floating closed javascript menu.
Menu


State Shield

State Route 92

Click here for a key to the symbols used. An explanation of acronyms may be found at the bottom of the page.


Routing Routing

  1. Rte 92 Seg 1From Route 1 near Half Moon Bay to Route 280.

    Post 1964 Signage History Post 1964 Signage History

    This segment is unchanged from its 1963 definition.

    Pre 1964 Signage History Pre 1964 Signage History

    This route runs along Half Moon Bay Road and San Mateo Road. It was unsigned before 1964, and was part of LRN 105 (defined in 1933). Portions may have been 3rd Avenue. LRN 105 ran between Half Moon Bay on an implied path over the San Mateo-Hayward Bridge to Hayward, and then northward to Oakland (current Route 185). Only the section of LRN 105 between Half Moon Bay east Hayward ultimately became part of Route 92.
    (Note: Some additional text adapted from Tom Fearer's post California State Route 92, 2/15/2019, based on material from cahighways.org)

    Naming Naming

    J. Arthur YoungerRoute 92 from Route 1 to Route 280 is named the "J. Arthur Younger Freeway". Jesse Arthur Younger, born 11 April 1893, Albany, Oregon, graduated from the University of Washington at Seattle, 1915, and served in World War I. He was the representative from the 9th California Congressional District to the United States House of Representatives, 1953-1967. He died 20 June 1967. Named by Senate Concurrent Resolution 78, Chapter 188 in 1967.
    (Biographical Information from the Online Archives of California; Image source: Wikipedia)

    Portions of this route were named "Skyline Blvd" by Resolution Chapter 46 in 1919.

    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.

    Scenic Route Scenic Route

    [SHC 263.5] Entire portion.

    Freeway Freeway

    [SHC 253.5] Entire portion.


  2. Rte 92 Seg 2From Route 280 to Route 238 in Hayward.

    (b) The relinquished former portion of Route 92 within the City of Hayward is not a state highway and is not eligible for adoption under Section 81. For the relinquished former portion of Route 92, the City of Hayward shall maintain within its jurisdiction signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 92 or to the state highway system, as applicable.

    (c) (1) The commission may relinquish to the City of Hayward all or any portion of Route 92 located within the city limits of that city, 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 subdivision shall become effective immediately after 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, both of the following shall occur:

    (A) The portion of Route 92 relinquished shall cease to be a state highway.

    (B) The portion of Route 92 relinquished shall be ineligible for future adoption under Section 81.

    (4) For relinquished portions of Route 92, the City of Hayward shall maintain signs within its jurisdiction directing motorists to the continuation of Route 92 or to the state highway system, as applicable.

    Post 1964 Signage History Post 1964 Signage History

    In 2009, AB 1386 (Chapter 291, 10/11/2009) authorized the relinquishment of the portion of the route in the city of Hayward by adding the following:

    (b) (1) The commission may relinquish to the City of Hayward the portion of Route 92 located within the city limits of that city, 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 subdivision shall become effective immediately after 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, both of the following shall occur: (A) The portion of Route 92 relinquished shall cease to be a state highway. (B) The portion of Route 92 relinquished shall be ineligible for future adoption under Section 81.

    (4) For relinquished portions of Route 92, the City of Hayward shall maintain signs within its jurisdiction directing motorists to the continuation of Route 92 or to the state highway system, as applicable.

    In July 2010, the CTC approved relinquishment of right of way in the city of Hayward on Route 92 (Jackson Street) from Mission Boulevard to just south of Atherton Street, under terms and conditions stated in the letter dated June 1, 2010, determined to be in the best interests of the State. Authorized by Chapter 291, Statutes of 2009, which amended Section 392 of the Streets and Highways Code. In October 2017, they additionally relinquished right of way in the city of Hayward on Route 92 (Jackson Street) from Santa Clara Street to near Atherton Street.

    In 2012, AB 2679 (Chapter 769, 9/29/2012) updated the language to reflect the relinquishment within the City of Hayward:

    (b) The relinquished former portion of Route 92 within the City of Hayward is not a state highway and is not eligible for adoption under Section 81. For the relinquished former portion of Route 92, the City of Hayward shall maintain within its jurisdiction signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 92 or to the state highway system, as applicable, and shall ensure the continuity of traffic flow on the relinquished portion of Route 92, including any traffic signal progression.

    In 2015, SB 491, Chapter 451, 10/2/15, changed the 1963 definition of this route as follows:

    From Route 280 to Route 238 in 580 near Castro Valley and Hayward.

    Chapter 451 (2015) also deleted the requirement regarding traffic signal progression from item (b):

    (b) The relinquished former portion of Route 92 within the City of Hayward is not a state highway and is not eligible for adoption under Section 81. For the relinquished former portion of Route 92, the City of Hayward shall maintain within its jurisdiction signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 92 or to the state highway system, as applicable, and shall ensure the continuity of traffic flow on the relinquished portion of Route 92, including any traffic signal progression.

    Lastly, Chapter 451 (2015) also added section (c):

    (c) (1) The commission may relinquish to the City of Hayward all or any portion of Route 92 located within the city limits of that city, 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 subdivision shall become effective immediately after 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, both of the following shall occur:

    (A) The portion of Route 92 relinquished shall cease to be a state highway.

    (B) The portion of Route 92 relinquished shall be ineligible for future adoption under Section 81.

    (4) For relinquished portions of Route 92, the City of Hayward shall maintain signs within its jurisdiction directing motorists to the continuation of Route 92 or to the state highway system, as applicable.

    Scott Parker on AAroads notes:
    (Source: Sparker on AAroads, "Re: CA 92", 2/15/2019)

    The final nail in the coffin for any direct connection from Route 92 to I-580 near Castro Valley was the construction of multi-lane direct connectors from EB Route 92 to NB I-880, with traffic heading toward I-580 directed north and eventually east on I-238. The city of Hayward has done all in its power to divert through traffic, regardless of travel direction, away from downtown (specifically the multi-facility intersection at Mission & Jackson, formerly the junction of Route 92/Route 185/Route 238). Simply put, all parties involved want freeway traffic to remain on the freeways; at present I-880 through Hayward and San Lorenzo is being upgraded to accommodate the traffic taking that "detour". And to drive the point home, SB traffic on former Route 238 (Foothill Blvd.) has been diverted onto downtown streets, eventually spilling out onto former Route 185 to pass through the former multi-route junction -- more an arterial bypass than a "road diet".

    Pre 1964 Signage History Pre 1964 Signage History

    This route runs across the San Mateo Toll Bridge. It was unsigned before 1964. It is LRN 105 (defined in 1933) to Route 238 (former LRN 5), and LRN 259 (defined in 1959) between Route 238 and I-580 (former US 50). When it was unsigned (i.e., LRN 105), it appears to have run along Crystal Springs Avenue and 3rd Avenue in San Mateo.

    The first San Mateo-Hayward Bridge was opened by the San Francisco Bay Toll-Bridge company in March of 1929 as the San Francisco Bay toll bridge. At the time of it's opening the 1929 San Mateo-Hayward Bridge was the longest in the world at about 7 miles in length over San Francisco Bay. The 1929 San Mateo-Hayward Bridge was mostly a causeway structure which featured center vertical lift which had a 135 height above the water when raised. In late 1951 the 1929 San Mateo Bridge was purchased by the California Division of Highways for $6 million. This closed in much of the gap in LRN 105 through San Mateo. Construction on a new bridge began in 1961 and was completed in 1967. Following the completion of the 1967 San Mateo-Hayward Bridge the 1929 bridge was largely demolished. Access to the 1929 San Mateo-Hayward Bridge remains can be obtained at Bridgeview Park. After much of the 1929 Bridge was demolished San Mateo County bought the remaining western approach and operated it as a fishing pier until 1996 under land lease from the Division of Highways. While the 1929 Bridge is no longer accessible the land was purchased by Foster City, which opened Bridgeview Park in 2015. The 1929 Bridge next to the 1967 structure is almost immediately apparent upon entering Bridgeview Park.
    (Source: Gribblenation Blog (Tom Fearer): California State Route 92, 2/15/2019)

    On the Gribblenation Blog California State Route 92, Tom Fearer provides the specifics of the changing of the routing of LRN 105 (future Route 92) along the approach to the San Mateo bridge. This notes that LRN 105 in San Mateo originally was only State Maintained between Route 1/LRN 56 in Half Moon Bay east to US 101/LRN 2 in San Mateo. LRN 105 began at Main Street/Route 1 in Half Moon Bay and followed the modern course of Route 92 eastward over the Santa Cruz Mountains to the Crystal Springs Reservoirs. From the Crystal Springs Reservoirs LRN 105 followed Skyline Boulevard and Crystal Springs Road to reach US 101/LRN 2 on El Camino Real in San Mateo. The implied connection to the eastern segment of LRN 105 followed 3rd Avenue to the 1929 San Mateo-Hayward Bridge. On the eastern side of the bridge, LRN 105 entered downtown Hayward via Jackson Street to Mission Boulevard. Later, an alignment along 19th Avenue in San Mateo was adopted.
    (Source: Gribblenation Blog (Tom Fearer): California State Route 92, 2/15/2019)

    In March 1957, the routing was adopted for this freeway (at the time, called the 19th Avenue Freeway). This adoption extended the route from Skyline Blvd (present-day Route 35) to the Alameda County line. The segment from the Alameda County Line to the Eastshore Freeway (then Route 17, now I-880) was adopted in August 1952.

    On the EB Route 92 to SB US 101 ramp, the ramp momentarily widens to the point where it could accommodate 3 lanes (but is only marked for 1 lane). Then suddenly, on the left side of this ramp, the pavement simply ends. From this point and beyond, the ramp is only wide enough for 1 lane (and 1 shoulder lane). From a different angle, it almost looks like the pavement was supposed to continue and convert into a seperate flyover ramp, connecting eastbound Route 92 with northbound US 101 (there's a cloverleaf ramp connecting these 2 freeways as of today). This is a remnant of a planned continuation of Route 92 (from US 101 to Ralston) that would have been farther south than the route that actually got built. Before it was finished, the interchange had a unique, goofy appearance: several ramps, including part of that one, were concrete supported by wooden truss structures. Route 92 from US 101 to the San Mateo Bridge used to have a totally different routing. The very elaborate bridge that now supports "Fashion Island Blvd." used to be part of Route 92. Traveling WB on Route 92 past the US-101 interchange, notice the guide-sign on the opposite roadway, telling you about the upcoming exits. That sign is a little farther away from its readers than is Caltrans' usual practice.. because the roadways used to be much closer together; further, at that point, you were driving uphill [from surface level up to the viaduct level] so that sign was way above you as you approached it.
    (Source: MTR postings by John David Galt and "Blue Plate")

    Route 92/US 101 Interchange

    With respect to the Route 92/US 101 interchange, there is more information in the draft EIR from 1979. Back in 1979, the section of Route 92 had an 0.7mi freeway gap, with an at-grade signalized intersection. The EIR concerned connecting freeway-to-freeway connectors (each replacing an existing ramp loop); reconstructing portions of the existing interchange; and building two new bridges across the Marina Lagoon. There were two alternatives under consideration. Alternate A is completion of the Route 92 freeway and reconstructing the interchange by replacing the loopramps in the southwest and northeast quadrants with direct freeway-to-freeway connections The loop ramps in the southeast and northwest quadrants would be structurally upgraded along with other parts of the interchange which are now temporary construction The nonfreeway section of Route 92 within the project limits would be reconstructed to freeway standards. This construction will include building two new bridges over Marina Lagoon. Alternate B is completion of the Route 92 freeway and reconstruction of the interchange by replacing all four loop ramps with direct freeway-to-freeway connections The gap in the freeway section of Route 92 will be completed in the same way as in Alternate A. The EIR notes that the Route 92/US 101 interchange was originally planned as a direct without loop ramps freeway-to-freeway interchange. This is the design of the interchange that is in the freeway agreement executed in 1967 between the City of San Mateo and the State of California. It was planned to construct the Route 92 freeway in this area and the interchange with Route 101 in a series of projects. This was necessary because of financing considerations and because this type of staged construction provided a good way to handle the detours and rerouted traffic. As part of this construction portions of the interchange and the segment of Route 92 connecting the interchange to Mariners Island were built on a temporary alignment. This portion of the staged project was constructed between 1967 and 1971. The temporary section of Route 92 includes the bridge over Marina Lagoon, a second temporary bridge spanning an adjacent lagoon, and an undivided section of highway that has a sharply curving alignment. Three structures of the interchange were built on temporary wood testle supported construction; these are the loop ramp in the southwest quadrant, the loop ramp in the southeast quadrant, and the connection between the permanent elevated section of westbound Route 92 and the temporary section of roadway leading to the top of the existing overcrossing. Alternative A was chosen to provide a lower cost alternative. Under Alternate A the interchange would be completed and the gap in the freeway portion of Route 92 would be closed as follows:

    1. A direct freeway to freeway connection will be constructed for southbound Route 101 traffic wishing to go east on Route 92. This will be anelevated structure crossing over Route 101, South Norfolk Street, and Marina Lagoon and will connect to the full freeway section of Route 92 on Mariners Island. This direct connection eliminates the loop ramp in the southwest quadrant.
    2. The eastbound gap in the Route 92 freeway will be closed by building a new structure connecting the existing interchange to Route 92 on Mariners Island. This new elevated structure will cross over South Norfolk Street and Marina Lagoon.
    3. A new offramp will be built to connect northbound Route 101 traffic to eastbound Route 92. This ramp will be an elevated structure crossing over South Norfolk Street and connecting to the new structure crossing Marina Lagoon. This new structure will then carry southbound and northbound Route 101 traffic going to eastbound Route 92 as well as through eastbound Route 92 traffic.
    4. To complete westbound Route 92, another elevated structure will be constructed connecting the existing interchange to Route 92 on Mariners Island. This elevated structure will cross over South Norfolk Street and over Marina Lagoon on a second new bridge. This second new bridge over Marina Lagoon will be built immediately to the north of the new bridge carrying eastbound Route 92 traffic.
    5. An offramp will be built connecting westbound Route 92 to northbound Route 101.
    6. A direct freeway to freeway connection will be constructed for northbound Route 101 traffic wishing to go west on Route 92. This will be an elevated structure which will cross over Route 101 and connect to the full freeway section of Route 92 to the west of Route 101. This direct connection eliminates the loop ramp in the northest quadrant
    7. A new offramp will be constructed for southbound Route 101 traffic exiting to westbound Route 92.
    8. The loop ramps in the northwest and southeast quadrants will be upgraded.
    9. Local service will be provided by using the existing structure now carrying Route 92 across Route 101 and by providing connectionson both the east and west sides to the local streets. Northbound Route 101 traffic will not have access to the local streets at the interchange and will have to use an adjacent interchange to reach local streets. It is likely that northbound Route 101 traffic wishing to turn onto South Norfolk Street will exit at the Mariners Island Interchange and return to South Norfolk Street using local streets. Local traffic on South Norfolk Street will no longer have direct access to Route 92 through an intersection

    The EIR notes that Route 92 will be completed as a four lane throughout the project. However because it necessary to provide for the many merging and movements, there are locations where the ramps freeway sections have increased roadway widths, and most of the freeway within the project limits is wider than a standard section of four lane freeway. The completed interchange will have three levels. The levels are the two direct connections between Route 101 and Route 92. These connections cross the interchange structures at a maximum height of 55' above the ground.
    (Source: Draft EIR Route 92 Gap Completion, 2/12/1979)

    In March 2016, it was reported that state funding for improvements to the US 101/Route 92 interchange that backs up traffic in San Mateo has been eliminated. Members of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission expressed frustration but approved a list of cuts, including the one above. Funding may not be available until 2021.
    (Source: SM Daily Journal, 3/28/2016)

    Mr. Roadshow of the Mercury News investigated the "kink" in the San Mateo Bridge. This kink is the transition from the low-rise trestle section to the high-rise section and it's due to how the trestle section was widened. When the trestle section had only four lanes (two in each direction), the median barrier in the center of the bridge for both the trestle and high-rise sections made a relatively straight line. However, when the trestle section was widened to six lanes, all of the widening was done along the north side. The three westbound lanes are on the widened structure; the three eastbound lanes are (mostly) on the old trestle section. This meant that the six lanes on the trestle section are laterally offset in relation to the six lanes on the high-rise section. As for why the bridge was widened in two sections, Mr. Roadshow explained it as follows. In those days, the old Division of Bay Toll Crossings was responsible for the toll bridges in the region. Planners did not have the funding to widen the entire span to six lanes, but they were looking ahead to when six lanes might be needed and took the opportunity to build the wider bridge. After that, economic conditions and overall funding priorities kept the project low on the list of highway improvements until voters approved a regionwide tax to make the bridge six lanes each way.
    (San Jose Mercury News, 2/8/2013)

    Status Status

    Route 92 General

    Unconstructed Freeway has been completed from Route 280, through San Mateo, over the San Mateo Bridge, to .5 miles east of the Route 880 junction, which is unconstructed at this point.

    I-280 to the San Mateo Bridge (Foster City/US 101)

    Route 92 / Route 82 Interchange Improvements (~ SM R11.162)

    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:

    • Conversion of the northern half of the interchange to a diamond configuration. The two existing loop ramps would be eliminated. The existing westbound-to-northbound diagonal ramp would be widened. A left-turn lane would be added to northbound El Camino Real. The existing southbound-to-westbound diagonal ramp would be relocated to fit the new intersection which would be controlled by a traffic signal.
    • Conversion of the northeast quadrant of the cloverleaf to a diamond configuration. The northbound-to-westbound loop would be eliminated, with a northbound left-turn lane on El Camino Real provided. The westbound-to-northbound ramp would be widened for additional lanes and signalized at El Camino.
    • Conversion of the existing full cloverleaf configuration to a diamond configuration with modifications to the Route 92/Delaware Street interchange. The westbound on-ramp from Delaware would be connected to the westbound off-ramp to El Camino Real. The off-ramp from eastbound Route 92 to Delaware would be eliminated. Traffic wishing to reach Delaware Street would exit at El Camino Real, proceed through the intersection of the off-ramp and onto the eastbound on-ramp.

    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.

    Rte 92 - El Camino Real InterchangeIn 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 Camino Real. The project is in the final design stages.
    (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.

    Route 92/US 101 Interchange (SM 11.5/12.5)

    In June 2010, it was reported that studies are beginning to improve the US 101/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 March 2016, it was reported that state funding for improvements to the US 101/Route 92 interchange that backs up traffic in San Mateo has been eliminated. Members of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission expressed frustration but approved a list of cuts, including the one above. Funding may not be available until 2021.
    (Source: SM Daily Journal, 3/28/2016)

    In January 2018, it was reported that short- and long-term ideas for the US 101 / Route 92 interchange are taking shape as an early round of funding to consider options is coming together. The San Mateo County Transportation Authority, or TA, is leading the project that involves working with Caltrans, the City/County Association of Governments, and the cities of Foster City and San Mateo. The project may also align with fast-moving plans to create managed lanes across a San Mateo County stretch of the congested US 101. Essentially, one of the longer-term proposals is to construct new overpasses that would give carpoolers and toll payers on Route 92 direct access to the managed lanes in the center of US 101. Shorter-term ideas include widening certain intersection ramps, reconfiguring lanes and eliminating the problematic weave between commuters heading toward the San Mateo-Hayward Bridge. While still early, nearly $3 million is being sought to prepare two documents that will outline the scope of the longer-term “Direct Connector Project” and the shorter-term “Interchange Area Improvements Project.” That expense doesn’t include the environmental, design or construction phases that cumulatively could cost more than $150 million. Suggested short-term improvements could happen in the next three to five years. Alternatives include increasing capacity by adding a carpool lane on the ramp from westbound Route 92 to southbound US 101. Another option is to modify the Hillsdale Boulevard exit from northbound US 101 to increase capacity and avoid spillover onto the freeway, according to documents submitted to the TA. One proposal that includes short- and long-term improvements is to add another lane on eastbound Route 92 between US 101 to Mariners Island Boulevard. The goal is to eliminate the short weaving distance between drivers from both directions on US 101 trying to merge with others headed toward the bridge. The other long-term suggestion is to create a quicker route for carpoolers by creating new “connectors” or overpasses, from westbound Route 92 to both directions on US 101. That improvement would feed into the US 101 Managed Lanes Project, which suggests squeezing in a new lane in each direction on the freeway. Located in the center, the express lanes would be free for carpoolers with three people, and open to others willing to pay a toll. That $593 million project is in the environmental review phase with construction aiming to begin May 2019, according to Caltrans.
    (Source: SM Daily Journal, 1/30/2018)

    The 2018 STIP, approved at the CTC March 2018 meeting, appears to show that the 2016 STIP included funding for PPNO 0668D, Route 92/US 101 Interchange Improvements - Phase 2. In San Mateo. Reconstruct/Reconfigure Route 101/Route 92 Interchange. The purpose statement notes that the current level of service (LOS) on SR 92 at US 101 is F. The purpose of this project is to develop alternatives that address the current congestion and improve traffic safety at this location. The project has a total of $5.628M in the STIP: $2.411M in FY19-20 for Environmental and Planning, and $3.217M in FY 20-21 for PS&E.

    The 2020 STIP, approved at the CTC March 2020 meeting, shifted the programmed funding for PPNO 0668D "Rt 101 interchange improvements" from FY20-21 to FY21-22.
    (Source: March 2020 CTC Agenda, Item 4.7, 2020 STIP Adopted 3/25/2020)

    San Mateo Toll Bridge (~ SM R14.471 to ALA R3.459)

    The San Francisco Bay Crossings Study, dated June 2002, had improvements to the San Mateo Bridge corridor as Alternative 3. This would be the addition of a second bridge to add additional lanes. Note that the current bridge is the 10th largest bridge structure in the world. Costs for the improvements and widening of the bridge run from $2.052 to $2.356 billion dollars. Contrast these with the costs for Alternative 4, described under I-380.

    According to the San Jose Mercury News, there are plans in early 2009 to raise tolls on the San Mateo 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.

    In July 2011, it was reported that Caltrans plans to shut down the San Mateo Bridge in both directions for two full weekends for a $10 million repair job in 2012. The bridge underwent a partial retrofit that included adding a 30-foot-long, wishbone-shaped steel beam just east of the incline section in 1999. In October 2010, however, inspectors discovered a 10-inch crack in the beam - apparently caused by the movement of a steel plate that wobbles every time a heavy truck rolls over it. The closure is to install a permanent solution.

    In September 2019, it was reported that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission gave the green light on a $4 million contract with a consultant for an all-electronic tolling system for all bay area bridges, except the Golden Gate which is its own district and has already gone cashless.. Drivers must pay with FasTrak only. For those without FasTrak, cameras will capture your license plate and you'll get a bill in the mall. The commission said it will save drivers time and the agency money. Drivers won't have to slow down to squeeze through a toll booth. Toll booths will be removed. The commission anticipates realistically it could take up to five years for the system to go into effect. The Carquinez Bridge will likely be the first to go cashless. MTC said engineers say it's a good test bed to move faster on the others. The Bay Bridge will be likely be last since it's the busiest. The toll authority first authorized the move to all-electronic, open road tolling in December 2018. The consultants jsut approved will be responsible for developing the toll system’s specifications, providing oversight of the program’s implementation, reviewing design plans, and help to develop policies for all-electronic tolling. Bridges under the purview of the toll authority include the Antioch Bridge, Benicia-Martinez Bridge, Carquinez Bridge, Dumbarton Bridge, Richmond-San Rafael Bridge, San Mateo-Hayward Bridge and the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge.
    (Source: KTVU, 9/1/2019; SFExaminer, 9/4/2019)

    East Bay to Route 238 in Hayward (~ ALA R3.459 to ALA 8.027)

    I-880 / Route 92 Interchange (~ ALA R6.103)

    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 #2484: Reconstruct I-880/Route 92 interchange in Hayward. $1,400,000. (~ ALA R6.103)

    Caltrans recently rebuilt the Route 92/I-880 interchange. The original interchange was a conventional cloverleaf interchange, with collector/distributor roads on I-880. The new $245 million interchange has 3 levels: I-880 at the bottom; Route 92 West next, with a left-hand ramp to I-880 South; Route 92 East at the top, soaring over both I-880 and the Route 92 West/I-880 South transition ramp. The project will take out business and/or homes west of I-880 south of Route 92, and either east or west of I-880 north of Route 92, depending on which alignment Caltrans picks. In 2010, it was reported that the estimated completion for this project is in late 2012. It was actually reopened in October 2011. About 235,000 vehicles pass through the interchange daily as of 2011. The project, constructed by Flatiron Construction and Granite Construction, was completed on schedule and about $1 million under budget.

    In October 2017, the CTC authorized relinquishment of right of way in the city of Hayward on Route 92 (Jackson Street) from Santa Clara Street to near Atherton Street (04-Ala-92-PM 6.8/8.1), under terms and conditions as stated in the relinquishment agreement dated August 29, 2017, determined to be in the best interest of the State. Authorized by Chapter 451, Statutes of 2015, which amended Section 392 of the Streets and Highways Code.

    Unconstructed The portion of (2) From Route 238 to Route 580 is unconstructed, but roughly parallels Grove Way and A Street. The routing is along Jackson Street, and it dumps into Route 238 at Mission Blvd. The Route 238 - I-580 segment was planned as freeway, but deleted from the Freeway and Expressway system in 1975. The route was rescinded effective 1/22/1976. There are no plans to complete this segment. It was deleted from the route in 2015.

    Commuter Lanes Commuter Lanes

    This route has HOV lanes on the westbound approach to the San Mateo Bridge, from Hesperian Blvd to west of the toll plaza, for a total length of 2.0 mi. They opened in October 1989 and were extended in 1992, with the EB end relocated from the Clawiter Road on-ramp to Hesperian Blvd as part of the San Mateo Bridge Widening project completed in January 2003. They require two or more occupants, and are in operation on weekdays between 5:00 AM and 10:00 AM and between 3:00 PM and 6:00 PM.

    Naming Naming

    J. Arthur YoungerRoute 92 from Route 280 to the San Mateo/Hayward Bridge is named the "J. Arthur Younger Freeway". Jesse Arthur Younger, born 11 April 1893, Albany, Oregon, graduated from the University of Washington at Seattle, 1915, and served in World War I. He was the representative from the 9th California Congressional District to the United States House of Representatives, 1953-1967. He died 20 June 1967. Named by Senate Concurrent Resolution 78, Chapter 188 in 1967.
    (Biographical Information from the Online Archives of California; Image source: Wikipedia)

    CHP Officer Andrew J. CamilleriThe interchange at I-880 (ALA 880 16.664) and Route 92 (ALA 092 6.328) in the County of Alameda is named the CHP Officer Andrew J. Camilleri Memorial Interchange. It was named in memory of Andrew Joseph Camilleri, Sr., who was born in February 1984 in San Jose, California. Officer Camilleri graduated from Merrill F. West High School in Tracy, California, in 2002, and worked for Clark Pest Control for 13 years after graduation. Officer Camilleri, badge number 21653, graduated from the California Highway Patrol Academy in 2017 and was assigned to patrol the Hayward area upon graduation, where he proudly served for 16 months before making the ultimate sacrifice. California Highway Patrol Officer Camilleri was killed in the line of duty on December 24, 2017, when an errant driver traveling southbound on I-880 collided with his patrol vehicle. Officer Camilleri was transported to St. Rose Hospital, where he ultimately succumbed to his injuries. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution (ACR) 120, Res. Chapter 39, 09/14/20.
    (Image source: Officer Down Memorial Page)

    Named Structures Named Structures

    Harold (Bizz) JohnsonBridge 35-0252 on US 101, the Route 92/Route 101 Interchange in San Mateo (SM R011.78), is named the "Harold "Bizz" Johnson Interchange". Congressman Harold T. "Bizz" Johnson, state Senator from 1949 to 1958, who served in the House of Representatives from 1958-1980, was instrumental in helping establish the Rails-to-Trails program. He also promoted water development projects and sided with consumer-owned electric utilities against the economic and political clout of big investor-owned systems like Pacific Gas and Electric Co. He also successfully broadened language in the Surface Transportation Assistance Act to allow bridges over highways, railroads and other physical features to qualify for funding under the Act's bridge replacement provisions. It was built in 1971, and was named by Senate Concurrent Resolution 42, Chapt. 155 in 1985.
    (Image sources:Wikipedia)

    Bridge 35-0252, on US 101, the Route 92/Route 101 Interchange in San Mateo (SM R011.78), is also named the "Leslie Charlene Curtis Memorial Bridge". This name was assigned by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 84, Chapter 129, in 1985. Leslie Curtis was killed in an auto accident at this location.

    Bridge 35-0054 (SM R014.44), over San Francisco Bay, is named the "San Mateo-Hayward Bridge". It as built in 1967. It replaced an earlier bridge at this location.


Pre 1964 Signage History Pre 1964 Signage History

Route 92 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 92 between 1934 and 1964.

Classified Landcaped Freeway Classified Landcaped Freeway

The following segments are designated as Classified Landscaped Freeway:

County Route Starting PM Ending PM
San Mateo 92 R8.83 R9.54
San Mateo 92 R10.01 R11.77
San Mateo 92 R12.00 R12.28
San Mateo 92 R12.60 R13.84
San Mateo 92 R13.95 R14.32
Alameda 92 2.41 2.85
Alameda 92 4.27 6.23

Freeway Freeway

[SHC 253.5] From Route 280 to Route 238. Added to the Freeway and Expressway system in 1959.

Exit Information Exit Information

Other WWW Links Other WWW Links

Statistics Statistics

Overall statistics for Route 92:

Pre-1964 Legislative Route Pre-1964 Legislative Route

In 1933, the segment from "[LRN 65] near Coloma to Marshall's Monument" was added to the highway system. In 1935, that routing was defined as LRN 92, and remained unchanged until the 1963 renumbering. It ran from Route 49 near Columa to Marshall's Monument. This is present-day unsigned Route 153.


Acronyms and Explanations:


Back Arrow Route 91 Forward Arrow Route 93

© 1996-2020 Daniel P. Faigin.
Maintained by: Daniel P. Faigin <webmaster@cahighways.org>.