California

[cl94]

Because that would go over well. A lot of people who live in the Bay Area rarely have a reason to cross the bridges. Never mind that you'd need to change state law to remove the tolls, something people who don't use the bridges would not like. Even better, toll increases have generally been improved by regional voters, so it's not like there isn't public support for tolls over another source of funding.

The bridge toll pays for the bridges and upgrades to the bridges, apart from $1 that supports transit along the bridge (which in turn reduces congestion for everyone else). $7 charged only one way isn't a particularly high toll, given that similar crossings in the Northeast would happily charge double. There's also a hefty carpool discount (50%) and a multi-bridge discount if you use multiple crossings in a day. Golden Gate is run by its own agency that has higher tolls, but that also has maintenance costs.

[jdbx]

Because that would go over well. A lot of people who live in the Bay Area rarely have a reason to cross the bridges. Never mind that you'd need to change state law to remove the tolls, something people who don't use the bridges would not like. Even better, toll increases have generally been improved by regional voters, so it's not like there isn't public support for tolls over another source of funding.

The bridge toll pays for the bridges and upgrades to the bridges, apart from $1 that supports transit along the bridge (which in turn reduces congestion for everyone else). $7 charged only one way isn't a particularly high toll, given that similar crossings in the Northeast would happily charge double. There's also a hefty carpool discount (50%) and a multi-bridge discount if you use multiple crossings in a day. Golden Gate is run by its own agency that has higher tolls, but that also has maintenance costs.

There is also the fact that there are a *lot* of electric vehicles in the Bay Area, so tying anything to a gas tax is going to result in diminishing returns.

[cahwyguy]

Fuel prices are already sky high so why not add a 10 cent per gallon tax for the bridge system in all counties along the San Francisco Bay? Then drop the tolls and save money by also dropping the toll bureaucracies plus the collection system while removing all the toll booth obstructions so traffic flows better.  Drive the bridges for "free" and figure out of area people doing so will be gassing up somewhere along the bay to put something in the kitty.

Yes.  I don't live in California anymore but I will visit every year or two, and I don't want to have to jump through hoops and pay a "visitor's tax" extra high rate to cross bridges.

You can always do pay by license plate, and just register your plate beforehand. We do plan to do a special episode of the podcast talking about tolls when we can get it setup.

(edited to fix quoting)

[cl94]

That. At least with Bay Area FasTrak, license plate account pays the same rate as a transponder on state-owned crossings. Transponders are mainly needed for express lanes. GGBHTD gives a 25-cent discount for using a transponder, but that's its own agency not directly aligned with Caltrans.

[roadman65]

Is that a lane control signal on the c/d roadway pipe gantry off to the right in this photo taken on I-80 in Russell?

[gonealookin]

Is that a lane control signal on the c/d roadway pipe gantry off to the right in this photo taken on I-80 in Russell?

A bit of an optical illusion there, I think.  Knowing how much construction has gone on in recent years on that Cordelia stretch of I-80, I believe it's an orange temporary detour sign attached to the mileage sign, covered in black plastic wrap.

[cl94]

If you're referring to the green down arrows hanging from the gantry, they're lane control signals for the weigh station. The mileage sign hides the CHP logo identifying it as such.

[roadman65]

Is SF starting to align itself with the rest of state installing traffic signals?

I noticed that some signals are mounted overhead with backplates.  Usually SF uses side mounts with no backplates and 8-8-8 signal heads painted dark green.

California always likes it curved mast arms and 12-12-12 with back plates and uses black coloring.

[roadman65]

I was reading an article on Wiki about I-280 originally planned in 1958 to not head north east of CA Route 1, but to be built along Route 1 and meet its parent ( as I-80 was to run further west) south of the Presidio and I-280 would have ran further north to the Golden Gate Bridge.

Also included would have completed the now defunct Embarcadero Freeway to also connect to the GG Bridge. However US 101 would have been the alignment in part as the freeway would have shifted inland instead of hug the bay front.

I am confused of where present day I-280 would have went if I-280 was built beyond the intersection of King and Fifth where it now terminates. I see King Street is a boulevard north of I-280 which suggests that the city don't want the freeway to continue at all.  From GSV both King and the Embarcadero look like it was a purposely done boulevard to move the traffic efficiently to replace the need for a freeway especially considering the elevated I-480 was torn down along the waterfront north of the Bay Bridge.

Does anyone have links to maps to show the unbuilt freeway proposals that were to be that never came to fruition?

[Max Rockatansky]

Most of them are featured in volumes of California Highways and Public Works.  You can find the entire 1924-1967 collection on archive.org. 

For the Golden Gate Freeway here you go:

https://archive.org/details/technicalreportg1965cali/page/n77/mode/1up?view=theater

But to answer your question, the corridor of 19th would have needed to been largely razed.  I don't recall the corridor getting far into the planning phases but the early elevated freeways during the mid-1950s soured a lot of people in the city on anything else being built.

[DTComposer]

I am confused of where present day I-280 would have went if I-280 was built beyond the intersection of King and Fifth where it now terminates. I see King Street is a boulevard north of I-280 which suggests that the city don't want the freeway to continue at all.  From GSV both King and the Embarcadero look like it was a purposely done boulevard to move the traffic efficiently to replace the need for a freeway especially considering the elevated I-480 was torn down along the waterfront north of the Bay Bridge.

Does anyone have links to maps to show the unbuilt freeway proposals that were to be that never came to fruition?

Originally it was meant to connect to the Embarcadero Freeway. I-280 was built on a slightly different alignment past the 6th Street exit (closer to Mission Creek) and the roadway was built as far as 3rd Street.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4185022205

https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4445915295

But even as early as the '70s there were alternative proposals, several of which included removal of the Embarcadero Freeway (which happened in 1991). Different connections to I-80 were considered, including along 6th Street.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4445915297

(Search other photos in that collection to find more plans and alternatives)

In conjunction with the ballpark construction in the late '90s, the freeway from 6th to 3rd was removed and replaced with the ramps to King Street.

[TheStranger]

Most of them are featured in volumes of California Highways and Public Works.  You can find the entire 1924-1967 collection on archive.org. 

For the Golden Gate Freeway here you go:

https://archive.org/details/technicalreportg1965cali/page/n77/mode/1up?view=theater

But to answer your question, the corridor of 19th would have needed to been largely razed.  I don't recall the corridor getting far into the planning phases but the early elevated freeways during the mid-1950s soured a lot of people in the city on anything else being built.

IIRC wasn't the pre-1968 280 going to use Junipero Serra past the end of the current freeway (Font) and then Laguna Honda/7th into Golden Gate park?  As opposed to 19th itself

[roadman65]

https://maps.app.goo.gl/QE8ABRc7atViWQWA8
So this was the intended connection to I-80 from I-280 then. The long ramps to and from Brannan/ 6th connecting I-280 Exit 57.

[heynow415]

I am confused of where present day I-280 would have went if I-280 was built beyond the intersection of King and Fifth where it now terminates. I see King Street is a boulevard north of I-280 which suggests that the city don't want the freeway to continue at all.  From GSV both King and the Embarcadero look like it was a purposely done boulevard to move the traffic efficiently to replace the need for a freeway especially considering the elevated I-480 was torn down along the waterfront north of the Bay Bridge.

Does anyone have links to maps to show the unbuilt freeway proposals that were to be that never came to fruition?

Originally it was meant to connect to the Embarcadero Freeway. I-280 was built on a slightly different alignment past the 6th Street exit (closer to Mission Creek) and the roadway was built as far as 3rd Street.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4185022205

https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4445915295

But even as early as the '70s there were alternative proposals, several of which included removal of the Embarcadero Freeway (which happened in 1991). Different connections to I-80 were considered, including along 6th Street.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4445915297

(Search other photos in that collection to find more plans and alternatives)

In conjunction with the ballpark construction in the late '90s, the freeway from 6th to 3rd was removed and replaced with the ramps to King Street.

The original 280 stub ended at Third Street, parallel to King and can be seen in archived images in Google Earth Pro or in historicaerials.com for years prior to 1997.  Had 280 been constructed northward to connect with the Embarcadero Freeway, aka I-480/SR-480, it would have plowed through what is now Willie Mays Plaza and up the left field foul line through Oracle Park. 

The boulevard that exists today along the Embarcadero was created to replace the Embarcadero Freeway to the north of the Bay Bridge and to provide a traffic connection and pedestrian and bicycling promenade to the south in conjunction with the construction of the ballpark and the redevelopment/reincarnation of South Beach, which was a large but dying/dead industrial area.  It also enabled establishment of Muni Metro tracks and stations/platforms in the median from the ballpark and Caltrain station to Fisherman's Wharf.  Standard Muni Metro service comes out of the Market Street subway and serves the southern leg of the Embarcadero while the northern leg is served by historic streetcars that run on the surface of Market Street.  Even though the N-Judah and F-Market/Wharves run in opposite directions from Market Street, both standard Metro cars and historic streetcars can run on the entire length of the Embarcadero since they are both powered by the same catenary system. 

[roadman65]

It's amazing how many proposals there were in the city for freeways. However, with the revolts it's understandable why so many were brought up. 

To me I think the Sixth Street Ramps should be extended that one block to connect with I-80 to have the freeways connect.

I can actually see the reasoning behind the Embarcadero removal as it did obstruct the aesthetics of the Bayfront.  The Ferry Building, was completely hindered as the double decker viaduct was taller than the building itself. Only the clock tower was taller than that.  However, ideally a suppressed freeway should have been from the start, but it's too late now. Though 70k traffic did prove SR 480 was a useful roadway in its day.

[Max Rockatansky]

King of hard to build a suppressed freeway along the Embarcadero given how close it is to the water.  The freeway was almost certainly unaided by the fact that a lot of it was laid on reclaimed land that had been present for decades.  The Golden Gate Freeway design alternatives are interesting given they seem to intend to account for the negative reaction to the elevated freeways.  Many of them were below grade and similar to something like the Vine Street Expressway in Philadelphia.

[roadman65]

A tunnel under the Embarcadero would not be impossible. It would be below sea level, but slur walls could be built to keep it sealed.  It could have been built with the above looking like it is now.

[Max Rockatansky]

Put yourself in the mindset of the era of 1948-1959 when the concept of freeways in San Francisco was new.  The city planners, Division of Highways and California Highway Commission were all trying to figure out how to best make these freeways happen in San Francisco.  They didn't have a lot of room and all collectively settled on elevated structures being the way forward.  At no point in my research was a below grade freeway even seriously considered until the 1965 Golden Gate Freeway designs I linked above. 

I suspect the elevated freeways were simply the most cost effective option available during the era.  Let us not forget that this was an era prior to CEQA and NEPA.  If the planners really wanted a corridor and had funding it was likely going to get built.

I suspect the reason the Golden Gate Freeway ultimately went nowhere in 1965 was that all the design alternatives were way too expensive compared to the early elevated structures. The Golden Gate Freeway also had vie for a piece of the Federal Highway Trust Fund which is why the mileage it had reserved was eventually shifted to less problematic corridors. 

[roadman65]

It's funny how the double decker was a space saver at the time as you don't need a wide freeway ROW to build. You build up instead hence the parking garage concept. After the 89 quake and both this and the Nimitz Freeway across the bay brought out maybe this concept is the idea.

Times change and definitely people change.  Just like VHS was here one moment, then the DVD, and then next we have streaming.  Same with road designs.

A shame more freeways couldn't be built, but now is not the time for sure to redo the plans. However if they knew then to tunnel I'm sure the SR 480 would still be alive today, but right idea at wrong time.

[Plutonic Panda]

Actually, now would be a better time than ever to complete the original plans. San Francisco has not returned to its original state pre-pandemic. Sad to see the state that City is in.

[Rothman]

Actually, now would be a better time than ever to complete the original plans. San Francisco has not returned to its original state pre-pandemic. Sad to see the state that City is in.

Huh.  I've mixed-up everyone's backgrounds now.  I forgot you were in the Bay Area.

[citrus]

Actually, now would be a better time than ever to complete the original plans. San Francisco has not returned to its original state pre-pandemic. Sad to see the state that City is in.

The state of the city is maybe 5-10% worse than before the pandemic, but news articles make the world think it is 10x worse.
Now's not the time to complete previous freeway plans. Hayes Valley, the Marina, the Inner Sunset (where cancelled freeways were supposed to go through) are areas that have all recovered from the pandemic and would be much worse off with freeways running through them - it's really the Union Square and Financial District areas that have changed.

[Quillz]

CA-27 has been closed for some time now, between CA-1 and the Topanga city limits. Not sure what's going on, my guess is maybe some kind of rock slide? It's happened before, but the other mountain crossings are open. I use this crossing a lot so having to take Malibu Canyon Road instead adds a fair bit of travel time.

[Quillz]

Actually, now would be a better time than ever to complete the original plans. San Francisco has not returned to its original state pre-pandemic. Sad to see the state that City is in.

Have you actually been there and seen it for yourself, or are you just making this assumption based on what the media tells you?

[cahwyguy]

CA-27 has been closed for some time now, between CA-1 and the Topanga city limits. Not sure what's going on, my guess is maybe some kind of rock slide? It's happened before, but the other mountain crossings are open. I use this crossing a lot so having to take Malibu Canyon Road instead adds a fair bit of travel time.

It's made the commute on the 405 horrible. Added perhaps 20 minutes in the morning, and about 40 in the evening (making it, for me, over 2 hours to go 35 miles!)