Rt. 84 is in trouble
By Matt Artz
Wednesday, July 16th, 2008 at 12:14 am in Fremont, Route 84, Uncategorized, Union City.
It took Fremont and Union City more than a decade to agree on building Route 84. Now it looks like it could take just as long to build it.
Cost estimates for the road, which would span from Mission Boulevard in Union City to Paseo Padre Boulevard in Fremont, have increased from $136 million in 2004 to $211 million.
That means the project now has a big, fat deficit. And to plug it, the Alameda County Transportation Authority needs about $43 million either from the state or from the cities.
Fremont mayor Bob Wasserman said Fremont’s not chipping in. “What I would say is if that’s going to be the contribution then you’re going to be waiting a lot longer than 2013 to finish that project,” the mayor told county planners. “We don’t have that type of money.”
As Wasserman alluded, the project is scheduled to be completed in 2013. But, if there’s not enough money the project could be built in phases or delayed altogether.
The road, which will help motorists travel from I-880 to Union City’s proposed high-rise housing development, has always been a sore spot between the two cities. Union City wanted a new road going all the way to the freeway, but Fremont objected.
[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]
July 16th, 2008 at 7:39 am
Thanks NIMBYs!
I look forward to your work in delaying public transportation projects in the coming years.
July 16th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Route 84, Option 2, was shoved down Fremonts throat.
The new roadway will dump Union City Traffic into Fremont.
There is NO benefit to Fremont. Caltrans held the new Mission 880 to 680 Overpass as a bargining chip or threaten to delay the project.
What should happen is to widen Docoto Road from 880 to Mission Blvd.
Mayor Mark Green would not have that. Instead they have compromised a route that will dump Union City Bart traffic on Paseo Padre Parkway.
What the heck does that acomplish. Remember the cost is 210 million dollars of your money.
Another example of our inept city council.
This project should be cancelled, remember this when Incumbent council members or mayor run for re election this November Elections
Yes, Marty, not in my backyard
July 16th, 2008 at 9:50 am
It’s my understanding that whatever gets built will NOT be called “Route 84″. They’ll be local streets, not managed by Caltrans.
July 16th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Well Bill, this is the new California -where the minority with the loudest blow horn wins over the public good every single time.
July 16th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Am I missing something?
If the traffic that Union City would be “dumping” on Fremont consists of people who are driving from the BART station to Paseo Padre, wouldn’t it stand to reason that those “dumpees” are actually Fremont residents who drive through Union City in order to get to their jobs?
Marty is right. This is a REGIONAL issue, not a local issue.
July 17th, 2008 at 8:12 am
The whole purpose of the RT 84 option 2 was a compromise. Union City wanted a highway from Mission Blvd. to 880. That was not to be, so they compromised on this fiasco.
Think about how much sense it makes to widen Docoto Road for a straight shot from Mission Blvd to 880
with out dumping traffic into Fremont neighborhood.
What does this solve? Nothing it just moves the traffic mess into a Fremont neighborhood
July 17th, 2008 at 8:48 am
This project was originally conceived in the 50’s as a freeway connecting the Nimitz and Mission freeways. But the Mission freeway project was abandoned decades ago.
The project is funded by the 1986 sales tax measure, but the number “84″ doesn’t appear on the ballot statement:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060105095437/http://www.acta2002.com/1986_measure_b/original_ballot.html
So it’s not a freeway, and it’s not named on the ballot. Without a clear definition of what this project is, it’s no wonder Union City and Fremont couldn’t agree on what it should look like.
July 17th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Coyote Bill Says: “What does this solve?”
At a minimum, Union City needs a road from Mission/Appian to Alvarado-Niles, through the redeveloped Pacific States Steel property. Normally, a new city street would be no big deal. But the grade separations with BART and the other rail lines makes this expensive.
Once you get to Alvarado-Niles, then you need a way to continue to 880. The intersection of Decoto and Alvarado-Niles is small, with buildings close to every corner. Expanding it would be expensive and ugly. Continuing the road to Paseo Padre bypasses that intersection. It also bypasses Isherwood. But now the project is not just in Union City, but Fremont as well.
Meanwhile, tax money is finite. Fremont would rather spend the money on 880/Warren/Mission. So it’s basically a turf battle and a money battle.
Complicating the whole discussion was the idea (now abandoned) that this was a “Route 84 realignment”. That dragged Caltrans into the mix.
Meanwhile, Union City STILL needs a road from Mission/Appian to Alvarado-Niles.
July 21st, 2008 at 3:35 pm
I’m don’t agree that Fremont doesn’t benefit considering many fremont residents use the Union City BART station. I guess I can see that Union City benefit more, so maybe UC should fork over more money than Fremont? but it makes so much more sense if that road goes all the way from Mission to 880, making the whole area a more attractive place to live. And about traffic dumping, isn’t the current traffic all on Decoto which is already in Fremont?
July 22nd, 2008 at 3:52 pm
I drive this route every day, and have for nearly 10 years.
I really fail to see the need to for this project - traffic is NOT that bad on Decoto Road. It takes on average 15 minutes to get from the 880 overcrossing on Highway 84 to Mission Blvd.
Is there something that I am missing? Is there gridlock at a particular time of day that I’m not aware of?
July 23rd, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Karl Says: “it makes so much more sense if that road goes all the way from Mission to 880″
A few years ago, that was one of the plans. The drawings of the intersection of Decoto, Cabrillo, and the new road were scary ugly. Not to mention wiping out a swath of the Cabrillo neighborhood.
August 1st, 2008 at 3:40 pm
The cost of the controversial Route 84, option 2 is $211 Million.
The road at most is 4 miles long. That comes to about $53 million a mile, that is unacceptable.
What do you think
August 25th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
If we want Union City and Fremont to be more livable we should be adding parks, not building roads.
Cities that are livable tend to be pedestrian-friendly, whether they are Palo Alto, or San Francisco.
Cities cut up by freeways and 6 lane arteries just aren’t nice places to live and visit. Cities like Palo Alto let University Avenue and Willow throttle the traffic into town. Highland Park in Dallas forces Mockingbird Lane down to four lanes with ubiquitous stoplights. San Francisco didn’t rebuild the Embarcadero Freeway after the Lomo Prieta earthquake and revitalized the entire waterfront. Boston buried I93 with the big dig and revitalized downtown by connecting it with the North End.
It seems like we’re going backwards in Fremont by chasing an outdated vision of sprawl that was popular in the 1960s.
August 25th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Bruce McNaughton, I just wanted to add my support for your posts regarding roads and Cisco Field. Your comments on both are right on the money.
Currently there are 40 U.S. cities in various stages of review of light rail systems. They are thinking 10 years out and that’s what we need to do.
Pacific Commons and Ballpark Village have shifted the focus and priorities from where they should be, our city’s center and the quality of life in our neighborhoods.