State senator wants to turn CA 37 into a toll road because of climate change

[bing101]

https://www.ktvu.com/news/state-senator-wants-to-turn-hwy-37-into-a-toll-road-because-of-climate-change




Note this is in talks for now though. Also this proposal is supposed protect low lying areas on the road.

[Max Rockatansky]

The article is completely vague on what "improvements."   Are they proposing a raised structure or something kind of like what the Tamiami Trail got?

[SSR_317]

How about making the [expletive deleted] Fossil Fuel conglomerates pay for it instead of making every last road and bridge into a toll facility for a change? Typical big business & corrupt, clueless government attitude, "the driving public has deep pockets so let's just slap a toll on them now that we have the technology to do so."

[oscar]

^ So where do you think the fossil fuel companies get their money?

You might start by looking in a mirror.

[Max Rockatansky]

Like it or not till bridged more or less have been the standard since the 1930s in the Bay Area.  To that end a new facility that had a one way toll would be the norm and not the exception like C 37 is presently.  The road is really low to the water but more so really outdated between CA 121 East to CA 29.  A new four lane elevated structure toll or not would be a huge improvement.  Don't forget this was the same highway that was so bad that it carried a "Blood Alley"  moniker before the current concrete divider was put in. 

[sparker]

If the general CA 37 alignment is retained from Sears Point to Mare Island, tolls are all but inevitable -- the only type of construction that will alleviate the problem is a continuous causeway with bridge decks a good 10-12 feet above the current mean roadway level in order to accommodate tidal issues.  Construction in that area is and always has been problematic; what's deployed now is essentially the same facility (with some bridge upgrades) as was originally constructed as LRN 208/SSR 48 back in the late '40's.  Previously E-W traffic used the "inland" route (now CA 121 from Sears Point to Napa and CA 29 south & east from there, much of that multiplexed with CA 12) -- which would have to be substantially expanded (think divided expressway or even freeway) if the CA 37 segment under discussion is abandoned.  Of course, the presence of the CA 121 alternative, useful for those not on a tight schedule, would likely gain significant traffic in any case because of shunpiker use.   But with a lot of nearer-in Bay residents relocating outward to Fairfield or Vacaville for housing-cost reasons, any reduction in CA 37 usage because of the addition of tolls would likely be offset by sheer numbers of folks needing that direct-as-possible path between their homes and Marin County.  But one thing would more than mitigate the tolls -- expanding the route to 4+ lanes divided; IMO that alone would justify tolls; a raised facility intended to withstand sea rise would essentially be "icing on the cake".

[The Ghostbuster]

Should CA-37 become a toll road again? According to Wikipedia, what is now highway 37 was a toll road when it opened in 1928. It was known the Sears Point Toll Road. The SPTR was de-tolled in 1938, and was numbered CA-48 until 1964 when it was renumbered to CA 37. It is estimated that improvements to the roadway won't be funded until 2088. Maybe making 37 a toll road again, and elevating the most low-lying portions of the highway might eventually turn out to be a boon to the corridor. Of course, I could be wrong.

[Max Rockatansky]

Should CA-37 become a toll road again? According to Wikipedia, what is now highway 37 was a toll road when it opened in 1928. It was known the Sears Point Toll Road. The SPTR was de-tolled in 1938, and was numbered CA-48 until 1964 when it was renumbered to CA 37. It is estimated that improvements to the roadway won't be funded until 2088. Maybe making 37 a toll road again, and elevating the most low-lying portions of the highway might eventually turn out to be a boon to the corridor. Of course, I could be wrong.

Really the only real way 37 is getting improved is if it's tolled again. That's not anything different than the rest of the Bay Area commute has to deal with at major crossings.  Some no doubt would cry foul to the toll but environmental concerns or not that's the only way 37 is going to get improvements.  To that end 37 DOES need to be improved, it essentially is on life support with all those jersey barriers. 

[Plutonic Panda]

^^^ so doing away with extreme environmental laws and red tape along with using some of the 5 billion dollar per increase in funds the state now receives isn't an option?

[Max Rockatansky]

^^^ so doing away with extreme environmental laws and red tape along with using some of the 5 billion dollar per increase in funds the state now receives isn't an option?

Doesn't seem like it's on the agenda for anyone locally.  Besides how much of that five billion would actually go towards a replacement span for 37?

[Plutonic Panda]

^^^ so doing away with extreme environmental laws and red tape along with using some of the 5 billion dollar per increase in funds the state now receives isn't an option?

Doesn't seem like it's on the agenda for anyone locally.  Besides how much of that five billion would actually go towards a replacement span for 37?

Well we should also work to lower infrastructure costs as well.

[Max Rockatansky]

^^^ so doing away with extreme environmental laws and red tape along with using some of the 5 billion dollar per increase in funds the state now receives isn't an option?

Doesn't seem like it's on the agenda for anyone locally.  Besides how much of that five billion would actually go towards a replacement span for 37?

Well we should also work to lower infrastructure costs as well.

I've kind of accepted that part of Bay Area life is that the major of people are flat out anti infrastructure unless it's mass transit.  It's just one of the numerous reasons I like to visit but I wouldn't live over there. 

[Plutonic Panda]

^^^ so doing away with extreme environmental laws and red tape along with using some of the 5 billion dollar per increase in funds the state now receives isn't an option?

Doesn't seem like it's on the agenda for anyone locally.  Besides how much of that five billion would actually go towards a replacement span for 37?

Well we should also work to lower infrastructure costs as well.

I've kind of accepted that part of Bay Area life is that the major of people are flat out anti infrastructure unless it's mass transit.  It's just one of the numerous reasons I like to visit but I wouldn't live over there.

Apart from my overly ambitious plans for new road tunnels and bridges, if they could only manage to really extend rail north of the bay and further west giving that area rapid transit and HSR but currently all proposals end at the transbay.

My travels have primarily ended in SF though this year I plan on venturing north and checking out this section of California. I guess I'm in for a surprise as far as roads go.

[Max Rockatansky]

^^^ so doing away with extreme environmental laws and red tape along with using some of the 5 billion dollar per increase in funds the state now receives isn't an option?

Doesn't seem like it's on the agenda for anyone locally.  Besides how much of that five billion would actually go towards a replacement span for 37?

Well we should also work to lower infrastructure costs as well.

I've kind of accepted that part of Bay Area life is that the major of people are flat out anti infrastructure unless it's mass transit.  It's just one of the numerous reasons I like to visit but I wouldn't live over there.

Apart from my overly ambitious plans for new road tunnels and bridges, if they could only manage to really extend rail north of the bay and further west giving that area rapid transit and HSR but currently all proposals end at the transbay.

My travels have primarily ended in SF though this year I plan on venturing north and checking out this section of California. I guess I'm in for a surprise as far as roads go.

North of the Bay isn't too bad, the upgrades that were really needed on US 101 north to Santa Rosa were underway.  37 essentially is overwhelmed between Vallejo and Sears Point.  CA 121 and CA 116 are largely just two lane highways that aren't really up to the task of commuter traffic.  CA 29 seems to move pretty well between Vallejo and Napa from what I've usually seen.  I-680 and I-780 serve as connectors but always felt pretty lite on traffic.  The San Rafael Bridge IMO would have benefited from the extra travel lane over a pedestrian lane. 

[coatimundi]

Flooding was particularly bad last year, which is what I'm sure is prompting it. But it spans a NWR and other environmentally-sensitive zones, and it's so prominent in the Bay Area that the optics of almost any kind of structure would be pretty terrible, especially if it doesn't flood again for a while and people forget why it's needed in the first place. I think you may as well causeway the whole damn thing straight across San Pablo Bay from Mare Island. It would probably be cheaper and easier to float (no pun intended) with the environmental groups.
Oh, but if they do get it through, I predict that my frozen corpse will be driven over its tolled span in a flying car when it's opened in 2067.

[sparker]

^^^ so doing away with extreme environmental laws and red tape along with using some of the 5 billion dollar per increase in funds the state now receives isn't an option?

Doesn't seem like it's on the agenda for anyone locally.  Besides how much of that five billion would actually go towards a replacement span for 37?

Well we should also work to lower infrastructure costs as well.

I've kind of accepted that part of Bay Area life is that the major of people are flat out anti infrastructure unless it's mass transit.  It's just one of the numerous reasons I like to visit but I wouldn't live over there. 

From my experience, it's less the population in general and more those who find themselves attracted to public office or service; the planning departments of city & county governments around here are dominated by relatively devout urbanists and have been for the past 40 years (why do you think VTA's LR is configured as it is?), aided & abetted by politicians who have latched on to the perceived "latest & greatest" concepts.  The fact that a cut/cover freeway on CA 262 is still a possibility is a downright miracle around here (helped by Tesla getting on that bandwagon since commute traffic on that route has affected its Fremont plant workforce).  My argument with those folks is not their motivation or rationales, but that they default to a "one size fits all" set of priorities that don't necessarily fit specific situations.  But I would suspect a number of them -- activists or embedded within agencies -- would rather see CA 37 simply deleted from existence and the area return to swampland (I suspect few of them commute from Marin to Fairfield or Vacaville!).

[jdbx]

Sparker is right.  The only people I ever hear complaining about highway expansion in the Bay Area tend to be the more militant "I don't own a car" types living in San Francisco, which is a very small minority.  The vast majority of people are in favor of highway expansion and improvement.  The hangup for many is the price tag attached.  I think the debacle of the Bay Bridge replacement, which took YEARS longer than promised and went from $1B to over $6B.  At the same time, bridge tolls tripled, local transportation sales taxes and vehicle registration fees have all also gone up, and with each project the money available covers less and less.

[SeriesE]

Sparker is right.  The only people I ever hear complaining about highway expansion in the Bay Area tend to be the more militant "I don't own a car" types living in San Francisco, which is a very small minority.  The vast majority of people are in favor of highway expansion and improvement.  The hangup for many is the price tag attached.  I think the debacle of the Bay Bridge replacement, which took YEARS longer than promised and went from $1B to over $6B.  At the same time, bridge tolls tripled, local transportation sales taxes and vehicle registration fees have all also gone up, and with each project the money available covers less and less.

Rather than simply widening existing roads, I think there should be focus on creating new high capacity routes too. A new parallel freeway can do wonders for reducing traffic in a current congested freeway.

[jdbx]

Rather than simply widening existing roads, I think there should be focus on creating new high capacity routes too. A new parallel freeway can do wonders for reducing traffic in a current congested freeway.

New terrain routes ceased to be viable long ago in already-urbanized areas.  I think the CA-4 bypass in eastern Contra Costa County will be the last new terrain routing we see anywhere in the Bay Area.  Too many areas are protected as parkland or developed, and the land acquisition costs would be enormous.  Nevermind the NIMBY factor that would come about.  The best (and arguably only) option is to make improvements within or along the existing right of way.

[sparker]

Rather than simply widening existing roads, I think there should be focus on creating new high capacity routes too. A new parallel freeway can do wonders for reducing traffic in a current congested freeway.

New terrain routes ceased to be viable long ago in already-urbanized areas.  I think the CA-4 bypass in eastern Contra Costa County will be the last new terrain routing we see anywhere in the Bay Area.  Too many areas are protected as parkland or developed, and the land acquisition costs would be enormous.  Nevermind the NIMBY factor that would come about.  The best (and arguably only) option is to make improvements within or along the existing right of way.

As far as anything south of Carquinez/Suisun is concerned, that's probably correct.  The South Bay is pretty much built out in the urban zone from San Jose northward, and development in the Pleasanton area has functionally put the kibosh on any freeway connection, such as a replacement for CA 84, south of I-580.  Now whether the CA 4 corridor is extended SE via the long-discussed CA 239 or even connected south to the Livermore Valley via further upgrades of the Vasco corridor is still up in the air (IMO it's likely that the former will gain traction before the latter due to foot-dragging in Alameda County).  But within a few miles of the Bay itself, nothing more will be built on new alignment; the 262 upgrade mentioned in my prior post would "underlay" the present ROW.   Down here in Santa Clara (or San Benito) County, the only thing of the sort even remotely on the agenda is the ever-delayed CA 152 reroute between US 101 and CA 156 and an expressway upgrade of CA 25, necessitated by the growth of Hollister as a commute exurb (that one's more of a sure thing).  But that's about it -- both local official sentiment -- and the ridiculous cost of property acquisition -- has rendered new-terrain routes all but impossible in this neck of the woods!

[skluth]

Flooding was particularly bad last year, which is what I'm sure is prompting it. But it spans a NWR and other environmentally-sensitive zones, and it's so prominent in the Bay Area that the optics of almost any kind of structure would be pretty terrible, especially if it doesn't flood again for a while and people forget why it's needed in the first place. I think you may as well causeway the whole damn thing straight across San Pablo Bay from Mare Island. It would probably be cheaper and easier to float (no pun intended) with the environmental groups.
Oh, but if they do get it through, I predict that my frozen corpse will be driven over its tolled span in a flying car when it's opened in 2067.

I'm not sure what type of causeway you mean. Environmentalists would back a low-level bridge like the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway. They backed the east end of the West Norfolk bridge in Virginia and are pushing for one over the sound west of Pea Island in the North Carolina Outer Banks as it separates the traffic from the wildlife. It was the only way a new US 17 was allowed through the Northwest River wetlands coming out of the Dismal Swamp. Any expanded surface-level causeway would be fought by environmentalists (who would likely force enough litigation to kill a surface-level highway regardless of whether they win or lose the case) as it would both increase traffic and increase danger to wildlife not to mention continue the problem of proper drainage of the wetlands, and I can't see that happening at all in the current political picture.

I know West Coast environmental disputes are not the same as East Coast disputes and California is significantly less friendly to new highways than Virginia and especially North Carolina. But I believe a compromise to build this is possible.

[Concrete Bob]

If California environmentalists actually supported a Route 37 Causeway Replacement over San Pablo bay, it would be one vehicle lane in each direction with traffic-calming speed bumps every 1,000 feet.  It would be flanked by four bicycle lanes (that wouldn't be used by long distance cycling commuters anyway), an equestrian path, and a surface-level three-way stop sign (without a protected left turn lane) at an extended Route 121 spur for a Napa cut-off.  The $25.00 toll-crossing charge (in 2020 dollars) would be accompanied by a 200 percent surcharge to fund the Peninsular Bike Trail and Interpretive Justice Center to replace the Bayshore Freeway on the peninsula, as part of the VISION 2100 Transportation Plan.  I would expect a December 2098 completion date for the Route 37 replacement, if all the environmental studies and meetings are done on time and within budget.     

[SeriesE]

If California environmentalists actually supported a Route 37 Causeway Replacement over San Pablo bay, it would be one vehicle lane in each direction with traffic-calming speed bumps every 1,000 feet.  It would be flanked by four bicycle lanes (that wouldn't be used by long distance cycling commuters anyway), an equestrian path, and a surface-level three-way stop sign (without a protected left turn lane) at an extended Route 121 spur for a Napa cut-off.  The $25.00 toll-crossing charge (in 2020 dollars) would be accompanied by a 200 percent surcharge to fund the Peninsular Bike Trail and Interpretive Justice Center to replace the Bayshore Freeway on the peninsula, as part of the VISION 2100 Transportation Plan.  I would expect a December 2098 completion date for the Route 37 replacement, if all the environmental studies and meetings are done on time and within budget.     

You forgot about the all important sidewalks.

[Concrete Bob]

If California environmentalists actually supported a Route 37 Causeway Replacement over San Pablo bay, it would be one vehicle lane in each direction with traffic-calming speed bumps every 1,000 feet.  It would be flanked by four bicycle lanes (that wouldn't be used by long distance cycling commuters anyway), an equestrian path, and a surface-level three-way stop sign (without a protected left turn lane) at an extended Route 121 spur for a Napa cut-off.  The $25.00 toll-crossing charge (in 2020 dollars) would be accompanied by a 200 percent surcharge to fund the Peninsular Bike Trail and Interpretive Justice Center to replace the Bayshore Freeway on the peninsula, as part of the VISION 2100 Transportation Plan.  I would expect a December 2098 completion date for the Route 37 replacement, if all the environmental studies and meetings are done on time and within budget.     

You forgot about the all important sidewalks.

Doh!  Back to the drawing board.  Extend that completion date from December 2098 to March 2122.

[skluth]

If California environmentalists actually supported a Route 37 Causeway Replacement over San Pablo bay, it would be one vehicle lane in each direction with traffic-calming speed bumps every 1,000 feet.  It would be flanked by four bicycle lanes (that wouldn't be used by long distance cycling commuters anyway), an equestrian path, and a surface-level three-way stop sign (without a protected left turn lane) at an extended Route 121 spur for a Napa cut-off.  The $25.00 toll-crossing charge (in 2020 dollars) would be accompanied by a 200 percent surcharge to fund the Peninsular Bike Trail and Interpretive Justice Center to replace the Bayshore Freeway on the peninsula, as part of the VISION 2100 Transportation Plan.  I would expect a December 2098 completion date for the Route 37 replacement, if all the environmental studies and meetings are done on time and within budget.     

I know you're being sarcastic. But you can get most environmentalists on board if you can build something that actually improves the quality of the environment. A low-bridge causeway would help restore the wetlands to their natural state, returning the area to the mix of fresh and salt water that formed the land in the first place (with some change due to sea level rise).

You're never going to convince the hard-core environmentalists and their eco-terrorist friends. But you can work with environmentalists if you give them a win. A four-lane low bridge would be an improvement for the adjacent wetlands from the current surface causeway. Designing a proposal with input from influential groups like the Sierra Club and Ducks Unlimited will cut through much of the environmental red tape. This is not easy work. But it can be done.