I-80/I-680/CA-12 Interchange Project

[bing101]

Mod Note: Split this off from the general "California" thread. –Roadfro



Here is a new video talking about the updates Cordelia interchange in Solano County, CA.

[sparker]

Here is a new video talking about the updates Cordelia interchange in Solano County, CA.

Expected to see at least a diagram of the full project -- this was a bit of a self-congratulatory piece of fluff.  If anyone has such a diagram, please post it -- thanks!

[jakeroot]

Expected to see at least a diagram of the full project -- this was a bit of a self-congratulatory piece of fluff.  If anyone has such a diagram, please post it -- thanks!

See the PDF below. Last quarter of the document:

https://sta.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/04_Ch_2_80-680_DEIR_Vol_1_web.pdf

[Occidental Tourist]

Expected to see at least a diagram of the full project -- this was a bit of a self-congratulatory piece of fluff.  If anyone has such a diagram, please post it -- thanks!

See the PDF below. Last quarter of the document:

https://sta.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/04_Ch_2_80-680_DEIR_Vol_1_web.pdf

Awesome.  Thanks.

Fixed quoting. –Roadfro

[sparker]

Expected to see at least a diagram of the full project -- this was a bit of a self-congratulatory piece of fluff.  If anyone has such a diagram, please post it -- thanks!

Awesome.  Thanks.
See the PDF below. Last quarter of the document:

https://sta.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/04_Ch_2_80-680_DEIR_Vol_1_web.pdf

Wow!  And I though I got wordy sometimes (admittedly -- hangover from academic years!).  Still, the only graphics were a delineation of the affected area; thought Caltrans would at least provide a visual of the alternatives pondered as well as the one eventually selected.  Maybe down the line a bit, seeing as how ground has just broken on the main/central section.

[SeriesE]

Expected to see at least a diagram of the full project -- this was a bit of a self-congratulatory piece of fluff.  If anyone has such a diagram, please post it -- thanks!

Awesome.  Thanks.
See the PDF below. Last quarter of the document:

https://sta.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/04_Ch_2_80-680_DEIR_Vol_1_web.pdf

Wow!  And I though I got wordy sometimes (admittedly -- hangover from academic years!).  Still, the only graphics were a delineation of the affected area; thought Caltrans would at least provide a visual of the alternatives pondered as well as the one eventually selected.  Maybe down the line a bit, seeing as how ground has just broken on the main/central section.

Also the document was from August 2010 per the PDF so it's potentially too outdated.

[stevashe]

Expected to see at least a diagram of the full project -- this was a bit of a self-congratulatory piece of fluff.  If anyone has such a diagram, please post it -- thanks!

Awesome.  Thanks.
See the PDF below. Last quarter of the document:

https://sta.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/04_Ch_2_80-680_DEIR_Vol_1_web.pdf

Wow!  And I though I got wordy sometimes (admittedly -- hangover from academic years!).  Still, the only graphics were a delineation of the affected area; thought Caltrans would at least provide a visual of the alternatives pondered as well as the one eventually selected.  Maybe down the line a bit, seeing as how ground has just broken on the main/central section.

I believe this page has the final configuration (it's just a plan sheet though): https://sta.ca.gov/project/i-80-i-680-sr-12-interchange/i-80-i-680-sr-12-interchange-project-package-vii/

The project is broken up into seven "packages" though so you can see what improvements are included with each one if you want using the related projects link on that page.

[sparker]

Expected to see at least a diagram of the full project -- this was a bit of a self-congratulatory piece of fluff.  If anyone has such a diagram, please post it -- thanks!

Awesome.  Thanks.
See the PDF below. Last quarter of the document:

https://sta.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/04_Ch_2_80-680_DEIR_Vol_1_web.pdf

Wow!  And I though I got wordy sometimes (admittedly -- hangover from academic years!).  Still, the only graphics were a delineation of the affected area; thought Caltrans would at least provide a visual of the alternatives pondered as well as the one eventually selected.  Maybe down the line a bit, seeing as how ground has just broken on the main/central section.

I believe this page has the final configuration (it's just a plan sheet though): https://sta.ca.gov/project/i-80-i-680-sr-12-interchange/i-80-i-680-sr-12-interchange-project-package-vii/

The project is broken up into seven "packages" though so you can see what improvements are included with each one if you want using the related projects link on that page.

Thanks; that illustration clears up a lot of speculation.  It certainly appears that the I-680 realignment wipes out much of Cordelia's industrial zone;  wonder if Caltrans is footing the bill for local relocation in the general area?  Cordelia has always been an optimal spot for commercial distribution facilities, since all three routes traversing or emanating from the area are in themselves major commercial trunks serving disparate populated areas. 

[kkt]

When I looked at that interchange, it was a few years ago, when it might have been possible to move the ROW for 680 to the west side of the residential subdivisions along Gold Hill Road.  They are much bigger now, so I see why relocating a lot of the light industrial district is a better plan.

Glad that they plan to do something.  It should ease the congestion on I-80 having just one merge for both 680 and 12.

[heynow415]

When I looked at that interchange, it was a few years ago, when it might have been possible to move the ROW for 680 to the west side of the residential subdivisions along Gold Hill Road.  They are much bigger now, so I see why relocating a lot of the light industrial district is a better plan.

Glad that they plan to do something.  It should ease the congestion on I-80 having just one merge for both 680 and 12.

That whole segment is bad news.  With the 680 interchange, two SR12 interchanges, two truck scales, Suisun Valley Road ramps, and the Green Valley Road ramps, all within about 3.5 miles, it's no wonder there are problems and the fix is wildly expensive. Things done to date, like reconstructing the eastbound scales with a braided e/b 12 ramp and constructing the braided w/b 12 ramp to Jameson Canyon have helped with some of the weaving issues that contribute to backups but there's still lots to do.  With all the multiple components and phases and the time/funding horizon to complete them, this will hopefully not be one of those projects that when it is finished it will be functionally obsolete. 

[sparker]

When I looked at that interchange, it was a few years ago, when it might have been possible to move the ROW for 680 to the west side of the residential subdivisions along Gold Hill Road.  They are much bigger now, so I see why relocating a lot of the light industrial district is a better plan.

Glad that they plan to do something.  It should ease the congestion on I-80 having just one merge for both 680 and 12.

That whole segment is bad news.  With the 680 interchange, two SR12 interchanges, two truck scales, Suisun Valley Road ramps, and the Green Valley Road ramps, all within about 3.5 miles, it's no wonder there are problems and the fix is wildly expensive. Things done to date, like reconstructing the eastbound scales with a braided e/b 12 ramp and constructing the braided w/b 12 ramp to Jameson Canyon have helped with some of the weaving issues that contribute to backups but there's still lots to do.  With all the multiple components and phases and the time/funding horizon to complete them, this will hopefully not be one of those projects that when it is finished it will be functionally obsolete. 

The north end of I-680, even before its 1974 relocation onto former CA 21 from its former path that's now I-780, has always defined the term "underpowered".  Moving from a Vallejo cloverleaf (saving grace: C/D lanes) to a Cordelia trumpet intended for a much lighter traffic flow than it actually served was, despite the Contra Costa-Sacramento time/distance saving, not in any sense an upgrade in standards -- more of a "sideways" move.  What's proposed is long overdue; the fact that they're satisfactorily addressing the needs of all three routes is a feather in Caltrans' oft-soiled cap.  Let's just hope there are few time-consuming issues to pop up over the construction process.