CA 84/Real McCoy Ferry and CA 220 J Mack Ferry

[Max Rockatansky]

This morning I finally got around to taking the two remaining State Highway ferries up in the Sacramento River Delta.  Started out at Rio Vista and took CA 84 and the Real McCoy Ferry to Ryer Island where I hooked up CA 220.  I took CA 220 east to Grand Island and CA 160.  The Real McCoy Ferry seems to no longer have a posted lunch period and is just running every 20 minutes.  The J Mack Ferry seemed to be running over it's cable span whenever traffic needed to cross.  Suffice to say both routes are extremely unique for the State Highway system, my photos can be found here:

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmszmsqm

[ryanbrownCA]

Driving from San Jose to Sacramento, I took the long way through the Delta several months ago (I-680 to CA-4 to CA-160 to CA-84) just for the scenery. I decided to take the extra long way and use the Ryer Island Ferry and it was worth it! If I'm not mistaken, those two are the only posted ferries that are part of the California State Highway System?

[Max Rockatansky]

Driving from San Jose to Sacramento, I took the long way through the Delta several months ago (I-680 to CA-4 to CA-160 to CA-84) just for the scenery. I decided to take the extra long way and use the Ryer Island Ferry and it was worth it! If I'm not mistaken, those two are the only posted ferries that are part of the California State Highway System?

That's correct, 84 and 220 are the only State Highway Ferry's left.  The ride on 84 on top of the levee on Ryer Island is pretty haggard and wild compared to how it is on 160.  I was surprised how poorly 84 was maintained compared to even 220. 

[TheStranger]

Driving from San Jose to Sacramento, I took the long way through the Delta several months ago (I-680 to CA-4 to CA-160 to CA-84) just for the scenery. I decided to take the extra long way and use the Ryer Island Ferry and it was worth it! If I'm not mistaken, those two are the only posted ferries that are part of the California State Highway System?

That's correct, 84 and 220 are the only State Highway Ferry's left.  The ride on 84 on top of the levee on Ryer Island is pretty haggard and wild compared to how it is on 160.  I was surprised how poorly 84 was maintained compared to even 220. 

Having driven 84, 220, and 160 semi-regularly in the past (including all 3 this past September), I suspect 84 gets less maintenance due to passing through way fewer towns compared to 160 which is the prime tourist route in the region.

Still not sure what the logic was in ever having 84 cover both the east-west Redwood City/Fremont route and a north-south minor rural highway in the Sacramento River Delta - even if Vasco Road was incorporated to connect both segments, there is very little interconnectivity between them!

[Max Rockatansky]

Driving from San Jose to Sacramento, I took the long way through the Delta several months ago (I-680 to CA-4 to CA-160 to CA-84) just for the scenery. I decided to take the extra long way and use the Ryer Island Ferry and it was worth it! If I'm not mistaken, those two are the only posted ferries that are part of the California State Highway System?

That's correct, 84 and 220 are the only State Highway Ferry's left.  The ride on 84 on top of the levee on Ryer Island is pretty haggard and wild compared to how it is on 160.  I was surprised how poorly 84 was maintained compared to even 220. 

Having driven 84, 220, and 160 semi-regularly in the past (including all 3 this past September), I suspect 84 gets less maintenance due to passing through way fewer towns compared to 160 which is the prime tourist route in the region.

Still not sure what the logic was in ever having 84 cover both the east-west Redwood City/Fremont route and a north-south minor rural highway in the Sacramento River Delta - even if Vasco Road was incorporated to connect both segments, there is very little interconnectivity between them!

Really 84 in the Delta should have been assigned a different route number.  The LRN 84 definition from 12 to 4 over 160 has long been changed if I recall correct?  Really 220 all the way to Rio Vista would make much more sense since it would include both ferries. 

[TheStranger]

Driving from San Jose to Sacramento, I took the long way through the Delta several months ago (I-680 to CA-4 to CA-160 to CA-84) just for the scenery. I decided to take the extra long way and use the Ryer Island Ferry and it was worth it! If I'm not mistaken, those two are the only posted ferries that are part of the California State Highway System?

That's correct, 84 and 220 are the only State Highway Ferry's left.  The ride on 84 on top of the levee on Ryer Island is pretty haggard and wild compared to how it is on 160.  I was surprised how poorly 84 was maintained compared to even 220. 

Having driven 84, 220, and 160 semi-regularly in the past (including all 3 this past September), I suspect 84 gets less maintenance due to passing through way fewer towns compared to 160 which is the prime tourist route in the region.

Still not sure what the logic was in ever having 84 cover both the east-west Redwood City/Fremont route and a north-south minor rural highway in the Sacramento River Delta - even if Vasco Road was incorporated to connect both segments, there is very little interconnectivity between them!

Really 84 in the Delta should have been assigned a different route number.  The LRN 84 definition from 12 to 4 over 160 has long been changed if I recall correct?  Really 220 all the way to Rio Vista would make much more sense since it would include both ferries. 

IIRC "84" along 160 between Antioch and 12 was removed ca. 1981 according to Cahighways.  (An aside: It fascinates me how 1964 was supposed to bring forth "one route, one number" yet we ended up with situations like 84 on portions of 16 and 160, 164 along a road that has remained signed 19 since the 1930s, and the 77/185 setup in Oakland.)

The feel I get from driving 220 is like a 1930s US highway, no shoulders, but manageable curves.  84 is a straighter drive with much less traffic compared to 160, though 160 isn't particularly slow either outside of the towns it goes through.

[ZLoth]

The ferries are worth doing at least once if you are in the area.

[Max Rockatansky]

The ferries are worth doing at least once if you are in the area.

Funny, my wife was bewildered why I would drive all the way up from Fresno just to take two car ferries.  Alone they were worth the experience just for the novelty but I also chained them in with clinching CA 140 and J7 the same day.  I had intended to use the ferries last month when I went to Fairfield but I had two cars following me.  I had to be back early the Sunday was in Sacramento so I photo clinched the 99 Freeway instead. 

Regarding CA 160 in the Delta, that's a great drive just for the scenery and unique drawbridge work.   Partially did 160 and all of J11 last year. 

[sparker]

Driving from San Jose to Sacramento, I took the long way through the Delta several months ago (I-680 to CA-4 to CA-160 to CA-84) just for the scenery. I decided to take the extra long way and use the Ryer Island Ferry and it was worth it! If I'm not mistaken, those two are the only posted ferries that are part of the California State Highway System?

That's correct, 84 and 220 are the only State Highway Ferry's left.  The ride on 84 on top of the levee on Ryer Island is pretty haggard and wild compared to how it is on 160.  I was surprised how poorly 84 was maintained compared to even 220. 

Having driven 84, 220, and 160 semi-regularly in the past (including all 3 this past September), I suspect 84 gets less maintenance due to passing through way fewer towns compared to 160 which is the prime tourist route in the region.

Still not sure what the logic was in ever having 84 cover both the east-west Redwood City/Fremont route and a north-south minor rural highway in the Sacramento River Delta - even if Vasco Road was incorporated to connect both segments, there is very little interconnectivity between them!

Really 84 in the Delta should have been assigned a different route number.  The LRN 84 definition from 12 to 4 over 160 has long been changed if I recall correct?  Really 220 all the way to Rio Vista would make much more sense since it would include both ferries. 

Originally, CA 84 was legislatively commissioned over that part of signed CA 160 from CA 4 north to CA 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 (ca. 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 CA 160 as long-signed.  Now -- why the lightly-used portion of CA 84 through the Delta wasn't re-designated as something else probably is due to just plain apathy on the part of Caltrans -- just one example of their sporadic abandonment of the concept of through routes.  They've got enough numbers available via past relinquishments; it's just appears that they can't be bothered to write up the legislative measures necessary to do so (and it's not like the northern "84" is regionally iconic!).

[TheStranger]

  They've got enough numbers available via past relinquishments; it's just appears that they can't be bothered to write up the legislative measures necessary to do so (and it's not like the northern "84" is regionally iconic!).

And now that Jefferson Boulevard in West Sacramento (and the portion that was once former Route 16 along Sacramento Avenue) is not part of the definition of the route anymore, that leaves us with what...less than 10-11 total trailblazers along the Delta segment of 84?

[sparker]

  They've got enough numbers available via past relinquishments; it's just appears that they can't be bothered to write up the legislative measures necessary to do so (and it's not like the northern "84" is regionally iconic!).

And now that Jefferson Boulevard in West Sacramento (and the portion that was once former Route 16 along Sacramento Avenue) is not part of the definition of the route anymore, that leaves us with what...less than 10-11 total trailblazers along the Delta segment of 84?

The last time I was on it NB (about 3 years ago) I recall only seeing 2 or 3 stand-alone reassurance shields (not counting the trailblazers near the ferry and at the CA 220 junction).  It barely functions as a regional connector much less a through route at this time -- a number change would bother the D3 signage folks more than the general public (and yet another reason Caltrans would rather not deal with such "trivialities").

[Max Rockatansky]

  They've got enough numbers available via past relinquishments; it's just appears that they can't be bothered to write up the legislative measures necessary to do so (and it's not like the northern "84" is regionally iconic!).

And now that Jefferson Boulevard in West Sacramento (and the portion that was once former Route 16 along Sacramento Avenue) is not part of the definition of the route anymore, that leaves us with what...less than 10-11 total trailblazers along the Delta segment of 84?

The last time I was on it NB (about 3 years ago) I recall only seeing 2 or 3 stand-alone reassurance shields (not counting the trailblazers near the ferry and at the CA 220 junction).  It barely functions as a regional connector much less a through route at this time -- a number change would bother the D3 signage folks more than the general public (and yet another reason Caltrans would rather not deal with such "trivialities").

Hence what I said about 220 being extended to Rio Vista.  220 definitely gets traffic, the J Mack seemed to be fairly bustling compared to the Real McCoy II.  Might as well have a well signed alternate to Walnut Grove than 12 and 160.

[TheStranger]

  They've got enough numbers available via past relinquishments; it's just appears that they can't be bothered to write up the legislative measures necessary to do so (and it's not like the northern "84" is regionally iconic!).

And now that Jefferson Boulevard in West Sacramento (and the portion that was once former Route 16 along Sacramento Avenue) is not part of the definition of the route anymore, that leaves us with what...less than 10-11 total trailblazers along the Delta segment of 84?

The last time I was on it NB (about 3 years ago) I recall only seeing 2 or 3 stand-alone reassurance shields (not counting the trailblazers near the ferry and at the CA 220 junction).  It barely functions as a regional connector much less a through route at this time -- a number change would bother the D3 signage folks more than the general public (and yet another reason Caltrans would rather not deal with such "trivialities").

Hence what I said about 220 being extended to Rio Vista.  220 definitely gets traffic, the J Mack seemed to be fairly bustling compared to the Real McCoy II.  Might as well have a well signed alternate to Walnut Grove than 12 and 160.

I feel like the J-Mack having a shorter crossing - and with the aid of guide wires - makes it a significantly more practical option in that area than the longer waits for the Real McCoy's connection along 84.

[Max Rockatansky]

  They've got enough numbers available via past relinquishments; it's just appears that they can't be bothered to write up the legislative measures necessary to do so (and it's not like the northern "84" is regionally iconic!).

And now that Jefferson Boulevard in West Sacramento (and the portion that was once former Route 16 along Sacramento Avenue) is not part of the definition of the route anymore, that leaves us with what...less than 10-11 total trailblazers along the Delta segment of 84?

The last time I was on it NB (about 3 years ago) I recall only seeing 2 or 3 stand-alone reassurance shields (not counting the trailblazers near the ferry and at the CA 220 junction).  It barely functions as a regional connector much less a through route at this time -- a number change would bother the D3 signage folks more than the general public (and yet another reason Caltrans would rather not deal with such "trivialities").

Hence what I said about 220 being extended to Rio Vista.  220 definitely gets traffic, the J Mack seemed to be fairly bustling compared to the Real McCoy II.  Might as well have a well signed alternate to Walnut Grove than 12 and 160.

I feel like the J-Mack having a shorter crossing - and with the aid of guide wires - makes it a significantly more practical option in that area than the longer waits for the Real McCoy's connection along 84.

The Deep Water Channel certainly didn't help keep the Real McCoy Ferry as viable due to it's cable span being removed.  Really the only time a bridge probably would have ever been considered was when the Deep Wayer Channel was being dredged out.  What's interesting to me is that on the 1935 Division of Highway map of Solao County is that the traffic on Ryer Island was pretty actually fairly steady.  I wonder if the cable span being removed turned most traffic off of the Real McCoy and just added more to 160. 

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^
There's a definite trade-off involved here regarding traffic on the part of CA 84 north of the CA 220 junction: the J-Mack ferry, having a relatively short back-and-forth cycle, allows 220 to function as a reasonably efficient route -- while anyone who has sat in line (in either direction) for 15-20 minutes on CA 12 when that highway's draw span at Rio Vista is raised -- knows that option can be problematic.   Considering either choice involves a ferry trip, drivers experienced with Delta roads may opt for the "known quantity" of the 220 ferry rather than the 84 ferry plus the chance of delay with the CA 12 crossing. 

[Max Rockatansky]

^^^^^^^^
There's a definite trade-off involved here regarding traffic on the part of CA 84 north of the CA 220 junction: the J-Mack ferry, having a relatively short back-and-forth cycle, allows 220 to function as a reasonably efficient route -- while anyone who has sat in line (in either direction) for 15-20 minutes on CA 12 when that highway's draw span at Rio Vista is raised -- knows that option can be problematic.   Considering either choice involves a ferry trip, drivers experienced with Delta roads may opt for the "known quantity" of the 220 ferry rather than the 84 ferry plus the chance of delay with the CA 12 crossing.

Ironically I never realized that LRN 100 actually was routed over both ferries.  I always thought LRN 99 was over the Ryer Island Ferry and Real McCoy I.  Found that out when I was writing my blog post on the ferry routes:

https://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2018/12/california-ferry-routes-ca-84-over-real.html

[Max Rockatansky]

A couple interesting questions came up after finishing my blog post regarding the ferries:

-  The Real McCoy I was present by 1945 and be J-Mack by 1969.  So what were the vessels that serviced LRN 100 before those times?  LRN 100 was defined in 1933 and is shown complete by 1935 on a Division of Highway Map of Solano County. 

-  Did regular ferry service and roads exist on Ryer Island prior to LRN 100?  Maps of Solano County in 1878 and 1896 seem to suggest there was no real infrastructure.  The 1878 Map does show a land owner.