||It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Alameda County, California may be able to help!
The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
|WikiProject U.S. Roads||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject California / San Francisco Bay Area||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
Wouldn't it be a good idea for CalTrans to rename I-238 to something like I-580 Spur? I mean hell they did it in Baltimore for I-895... and it works... and I think there may be other Interstate spurs... not sure what they are off the top of my head... but that would at least get rid of this numeral monstrosity...Route 82 07:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't I-238 intersect with I-880 and I-580? Don't those count as intersections with interstates (or do spurs and loops not count in that section)? -- Ke4roh 14:12, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Has anyone proposed renumbering it I-480 now that the Embarcadero Freeway is gone? Or is there a California State Route 480 now? Bayberrylane 02:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Well CA 480 was I-480, but it got demolished by an earthquake in the late 1980's. Now, Doyle Dr., which is in the place of the Embarcadero Fwy., is part of US 101. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Despite the fact that it is a unique primary Interstate highway, shouldn't the routebox used be routeboxca2 instead of routeboxus? After all, the route never leaves the state, and that state being California in fact. I will change it to routeboxca2 if no one minds, and may make a stronger link to California State Route 238 (not redirect, I won't do that), as they are one and the same in the eyes of the California Legislature. --Geopgeop 07:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- In spite of the fact that it is a glorified state highway, it is officially a primary Interstate highway... and that's exactly what the routebox template is for. So I think people will mind. :-) Also, the directional parameters are for how the highway is signed, presuming that it is directionally signed. Northwest/southeast may not be an option (see Interstate 24 for a prime example). --Rob 14:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- "Also, the directional parameters are for how the highway is signed, presuming that it is directionally signed." It's officially signed north-south, with I-880 being the north end (consistent with CA 238 through Hayward, Union City and Fremont). However, since I-580 is signed east-west, and one makes a straight left exit to get onto I-238 (I-580 turns to the right), the directional designation is confusing and probably should be eliminatd. I don't believe it appears on the guide signs, just on a reassurance marker as one passes the on-ramp from I-580 east. 18.104.22.168 18:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
"The Highway That Doesn't Exist"
I lived in this area for years and local people have been referring to I-238 as that for as log as I can remember. I added the note back in. --Darth Borehd 16:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Please provide a reliable source. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 19:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- It doesn't exist, nor will it likely ever. That was just a suggestion by a road buff (Kurumi). He suggested a short interstate to alleviate congestion in that area. It is likely that Caltrans would never construct this highway (it would be one-way), nor would it ever get the I-338 designation. --Fightingirish 17:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Didn't see a section yet so I'll start the discussion. I oppose this merge idea. I-238 and SR 238 are two distinct roads. One is a short freeway connecting I-580 and I-880, the other is a city boulevard running along the east bay. The argument can be made that under CA state law I-238 is really just SR 238 (thus suggesting the opposite of the suggested merge), but not this merge. Per precedent the articles should remain seperate. (See California State Route 15 and Interstate 15). Gateman1997 (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this should not be merged. These are two separate roads with different characteristics. --NE2 09:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I-38 redirection to I-238
- Doesn't mean it shouldn't stay since it may get some use. Plus there likely won't be an I-38 in any of our lifetimes so I hardly see this as an issue. Gateman1997 (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I think there are a little too many parentheses in the lead. Is it possible to at least reduce them?
Does anyone wish it would be numbered as Interstate 1080