AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules to ensure post quality. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: County Route J4 and un-built CA 239  (Read 1344 times)

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 17108
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 01:36:24 AM
    • Gribblenation
County Route J4 and un-built CA 239
« on: July 27, 2019, 04:20:12 PM »

The final drive of the Fourth of July holiday weekend was on most of Signed County Route J4 from CA 4 in Contra Costa County southeast to I-5 in San Joaquin County.  J4 between CA 4 and I-205 on Byron Highway is aligned along the corridor of un-built CA 239.  CA 239 unlike most derelict State Highway ideas has some substantial interest behind it and still stands a somewhat realistic chance of becoming a reality.  J4 and particularly Byron Highway is extremely under capacity and a somewhat haggard roadway.  The highlight of J4 are the older rail sidings such as Byron and Banta.  Small segments of J4 incorporate parts of the original alignments of the Lincoln Highway, US 48 and early US 50.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/07/signed-county-route-j4-and-un-built.html
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8495
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: September 12, 2021, 12:44:33 AM
Re: County Route J4 and un-built CA 239
« Reply #1 on: August 10, 2019, 10:29:21 PM »

With the housing growth of that area, it's likely that some sort of expressway or even freeway facility following the general CA 239 pathway is developed in the foreseeable future.  There's little to no chance that there would be plans to develop CA 4 as such a facility -- or even do much to increase capacity -- east of where it turns east from Vasco Road to its original alignment.  Too many logistic and/or environmental issues would crop up with any cross-Delta upgrades; so barring some action to expand Vasco Road into a freeway or expressway (CA 84?) SW toward Livermore, the next extension will likely be southeast toward the I-580/205 junction, which would provide a high-capacity eastward outlet from the Brentwood area.  Although a formal alignment for the CA 239 corridor has yet to be adopted, it will probably simply parallel J4 to the west -- and far enough up into the foothills to not affect the Mountain House developmental area.   
Logged

Techknow

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 180
  • Location: San Francisco, CA
  • Last Login: January 19, 2022, 07:10:03 PM
Re: County Route J4 and un-built CA 239
« Reply #2 on: January 09, 2022, 12:14:06 AM »

2.3 years later... looks like CA 239 is moving forward in the planning stage!

According to a Draft Environmental Document (a notice that a draft EIR for CA 239 is in progress), this road would follow the Byron Highway but can either follow Byron Road  (alternative B) and connect to I-205 with a new interchange or a new alignment (alternative A) will intersect with I-205 and I-580 with a new interchange.

There will be a Virtual Environmental Scoping Meeting on Jan 22 about the route, links below!

Site website with virtual scoping meeting info: https://sr239project.net/

Contra Costa Herald article

CCTA link

CEQA (CA Environmental Quality Act) link with Draft Environmental Document

Screencap from the Draft Environmental Document:

« Last Edit: January 09, 2022, 12:21:45 AM by Techknow »
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 17108
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 01:36:24 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: County Route J4 and un-built CA 239
« Reply #3 on: January 09, 2022, 12:19:26 AM »

That corridor really canít wait any longer.  Even the slightest improvement along Byron Highway would be a massive leap in access for the area. 
Logged

mrsman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3630
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: January 19, 2022, 08:59:31 PM
Re: County Route J4 and un-built CA 239
« Reply #4 on: January 10, 2022, 11:31:48 AM »

A connection like this would be wonderful.  Providing direct freeway/tollway access from the Central Valley to northern Contra Costa via CA-4.  Such a routing would even out the traffic flow between CA-4 and I-580 for traffic between Central Valley and Bay Area.
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 17108
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 01:36:24 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: County Route J4 and un-built CA 239
« Reply #5 on: January 10, 2022, 11:59:37 AM »

A connection like this would be wonderful.  Providing direct freeway/tollway access from the Central Valley to northern Contra Costa via CA-4.  Such a routing would even out the traffic flow between CA-4 and I-580 for traffic between Central Valley and Bay Area.

Really this is about the only way to connect the end of the limited access segment of 4 to anything else.  I canít fathom 4 in the San Joaquin River Delta would ever make through the environmental red tape to upgrade.
Logged

jdbx

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 128
  • Location: Pleasant Hill, CA
  • Last Login: January 19, 2022, 01:28:38 PM
Re: County Route J4 and un-built CA 239
« Reply #6 on: January 10, 2022, 04:28:03 PM »

Logically, a connection at the 580/205 split makes the most sense, but it will be interesting to see what the results of the study and public feedback reveal.  At minimum, some way of easily transiting from the 239 corridor to I-5 south would yield the greatest utility of this route for long-distance travel.

 

« Last Edit: January 18, 2022, 12:19:20 PM by jdbx »
Logged

mrsman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3630
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: January 19, 2022, 08:59:31 PM
Re: County Route J4 and un-built CA 239
« Reply #7 on: January 12, 2022, 09:57:46 PM »

Logically, a connection at the 580/205 split makes the most sense, but it will be interesting to see what the results of the study and public feedback reveal.  At minimum, some way of easily transiting from the 239 corridor to I-5 south would make yield the greatest utility of this route for long-distance travel.

I remember a proposal about 20 years ago for a toll road along this corridor, more or less.  It was meant to provide a direct connection from 580/205 to 505/80 in Vacaville.  It was designed as a way of providing a straight line connection through the marsh from 580 to 505.  Part of the idea was to provide better connections to different parts of the Bay Area for both I-5 north (Redding) and I-5 south (LA) corridors.  Another idea was to provide a route that was likely to avoid traffic congestion by providing a route for L.A. to Oregon traffic to avoid Sacramento.

Unfortunately, I cannot see today's CA (super anti-freeway) supporting a new freeway or toll road here, even though I think it will relieve some other congested routes.
Logged

cahwyguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 559
  • California Highway Guy

  • Age: 61
  • Location: Northridge, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:50:28 AM
    • California Highways
Re: County Route J4 and un-built CA 239
« Reply #8 on: January 13, 2022, 03:13:52 PM »

Logically, a connection at the 580/205 split makes the most sense, but it will be interesting to see what the results of the study and public feedback reveal.  At minimum, some way of easily transiting from the 239 corridor to I-5 south would make yield the greatest utility of this route for long-distance travel.

I remember a proposal about 20 years ago for a toll road along this corridor, more or less.  It was meant to provide a direct connection from 580/205 to 505/80 in Vacaville.  It was designed as a way of providing a straight line connection through the marsh from 580 to 505.  Part of the idea was to provide better connections to different parts of the Bay Area for both I-5 north (Redding) and I-5 south (LA) corridors.  Another idea was to provide a route that was likely to avoid traffic congestion by providing a route for L.A. to Oregon traffic to avoid Sacramento.

Unfortunately, I cannot see today's CA (super anti-freeway) supporting a new freeway or toll road here, even though I think it will relieve some other congested routes.

You're thinking of the Mid-State Tollway, which I discuss on my pages with Route 84. Here's the text pasted below; go to the page for the version with links.

There are some who believe that this section may be used to create the Mid State Tollway. The tollway is a proposal that would start off of I-680 near Sunol, cross I-580 west of Livermore (roughly along the alignment of the Livermore Bypass), and then will extend north to Route 4 near Antioch. A spur will come off the tollway near Brentwood and run SE to the junction of I-580 and I-205. The tollway could be designated Route 84, since it roughly follows the built and unbuilt portions of the route and the spur could be designated Route 239, since it follows the general routing for that unbuilt highway. The tollway was originally supposed to extend to I-80 between Vacaville and Dixon with a spur connecting with I-505 at the 80/505 junction, but that portion was killed due to the need for high-level crossings (150') of the San Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers plus environmental issues.

The EIR for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory noted the following regarding the project: "The Mid-State Tollway project involves a conceptual proposal for an 85-mile tollway connecting the Fremont area with the I-80 corridor near Vacaville, and the I-5 corridor, via I-580, with the I-80 corridor near Vacaville. These connections are proposed to occur approximately midway between I-680 and I-5. The Mid-State Tollway construction is projected to begin in 1994 and be completed in the late 1990s. "
(Source: Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Impact Report for Continued Operation of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratory, 1992)

This project was later reduced in scope to a $600 million, 40+ mile, initial four lane (ultimate 6-lane) toll road extending from Route 680 near Sunol to Route 4 near Antioch. The project developer, California Toll Road Company (CTRC), and Caltrans amended the original franchise agreement in 1993 to delete the portions of the original project that included an extension into Solano County. This amendment satisfied a condition imposed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in its review of the proposed transportation project. Work on the project was suspended due to serious political opposition and the franchise terminated on January 1, 2001
(Source: Mid-State Tollway Project Page)

On AAroads, Sparker noted that the tollway would have required twinning of the Antioch Bridge and a second high-level crossing of the Sacramento River several miles north. Much of the proposed alignment of the western Mid-State "branch" follows what has been suggested for a Route 84 extension north to Route 4 near Brentwood; the south(west) terminus of that branch was to have been the present Route 84/Route 680 interchange at Sunol; the eastern branch would have tracked the proposed Route 239 alignment, terminating at the I-580/I-205 Altamont interchange. The branches came together slightly south of the present Route 4/Vasco Road intersection between Brentwood and Discovery Bay and utilized Route 4 as a "free" connector between that point and the Antioch Bridge, where the tolled section would have resumed north toward Vacaville and Davis. Again, the facility was planned to split into two branches to separate termini -- one on I-505 just north of Vacaville and the other at the I-80/Route 113 (north) freeway interchange near Davis. Planning for this commenced circa 1991-92; included in the concept was a cable-stayed 4-lane bridge over the Sacramento River directly north of the present Antioch Bridge. Opponents included a large contingent of tomato farmers in the Dixon-Elmira area, which the facility would have bisected, the Alameda County planning department and the county board of supervisors, and UC Davis. Studies persisted for about 5 years and were shelved circa 1998; funding for the planning efforts were withdrawn in late 2001.
(Source: Sparker on AAroads, "Re: I-505", 2/26/2019)

Scott Parker noted on AAroads that the tollway would have utilized the path of the oft-considered Route 239, Route 4 between Byron and Antioch, the Antioch (Route 160) bridge, and diverged from Route 160 north of there to cross the Sacramento River. It would have had terminating "splits" at both ends; a Route 84-based branch along Vasco Road, passing between Livermore and Pleasanton, and terminating at the Route 84 interchange with I-680 was to be a SW branch, while the main trunk, after crossing the Sacramento River, would have headed toward Elmira, where it would split into two branches, one intersecting I-505 about a mile or two north of I-80 (after crossing the latter freeway) and the other heading toward Dixon and the I-80/Route 113 freeway interchange between Dixon and Davis -- the Route 113 freeway would have been its functional extension. The toll road idea, formulated in the late '80's and early '90's, would have required a doubling of the Antioch Bridge as well as a 4-lane high-level bridge (likely cable-stayed) across the Sacramento River north of there. Even in 1992, the cost for doing the full project was projected at well over $2 billion; with the center section along Route 4 remaining a free facility (the present Antioch Bridge toll facility would have marked the southern end of the northern toll section). The Route 84 branch was itself mired in controversy; in the '90's the development of the Brentwood area as an "overflow" housing region for Silicon Valley employment was in its initial stages; deploying a toll road to serve that commute traffic was seen as gratuitous money-grubbing and that a conventional freeway would be more appropriate. But by 1998 the entire project was functionally scrapped because of the enormous cost; projected toll revenue was far too meager to even cover the initial construction -- likely due to the myriad opportunities for shunpiking as well as the perception that the northern section had limited commuter value and what revenue would accrue would come from commercial usage -- the most likely candidates to avoid the tolled facility!
(Source: AARoads "Re: I-5 West Side Freeway", 12/29/2019)

Logged
Daniel - California Highway Guy ● Highway Site: http://www.cahighways.org/ ●  Blog: http://blog.cahighways.org/ ● Follow California Highways on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cahighways

theroadwayone

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 536
  • Location: San Diego, California
  • Last Login: Today at 12:17:41 AM
Re: County Route J4 and un-built CA 239
« Reply #9 on: January 15, 2022, 01:27:45 AM »

What would the CTRC have done about tolling had the road been built; a ticket system or barrier tolls, with the Antioch Bridge toll remaining as is, eventually going on to full ORT?
Logged

cahwyguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 559
  • California Highway Guy

  • Age: 61
  • Location: Northridge, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:50:28 AM
    • California Highways
Re: County Route J4 and un-built CA 239
« Reply #10 on: January 15, 2022, 12:47:13 PM »

What would the CTRC have done about tolling had the road been built; a ticket system or barrier tolls, with the Antioch Bridge toll remaining as is, eventually going on to full ORT?

It's hard to know, as any pages on the Mid-State Tollway were lost when Caltrans did their accessibility update. You might try looking in the Wayback machine ( https://web.archive.org/web/2020*/http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/paffairs/about/toll/midstate.htm ), but I'm not sure they ever got that far in the planning. If Sparker was still around he might know, but he hasn't posted since mid-September.
Logged
Daniel - California Highway Guy ● Highway Site: http://www.cahighways.org/ ●  Blog: http://blog.cahighways.org/ ● Follow California Highways on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cahighways

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.