California 70 Marysville Improvements

[andy3175]

Four years ago in late 2010, there were the much-heralded completion of Highway 70  improvements south of Marysville:

http://www.yuba.org/eNotes/attachments/Yuba%20County%20eNote%20Fall%202010%209212010.pdf

The completion of the highway 70 expansion project will mark the first time Sacramento regional traffic going to and from Marysville will flow freely on separate, dual lanes ... major components during construction included a  new bridge over the Bear River, several highway overpasses, and a bypass around the town of East Nicolaus.

Fast forward to October 2014, and we find this article about California 70 and its entry into downtown Marysville:

http://www.appeal-democrat.com/news/no-easy-fix-for-traffic-jams/article_14939b48-4eb3-11e4-ad17-0017a43b2370.html

Now that Caltrans is mostly finished with its $46.5 million Marysville roadway project, motorists can see for themselves how smooth the highway is ... as they wait their turn to move.

Nobody was saying the two-year project to rebuild state highways in Marysville was going to help with the 50,000 vehicles a day that enter the city from Sacramento. It wasn't supposed to provide relief from backups resulting from the 25,000 to 30,000 motorists that enter each day from the 10th Street bridge.

That fix is more complicated than tearing out roadway and replacing it with new concrete.

Traffic signals can be tweaked and an undermanned Marysville Police Department might find funding to restore its traffic enforcement division to help keep intersections clear. But until a third bridge is constructed or a bypass is built, a massive number of vehicles will continue to flow through the city.

"In a way, that is what it is," said David Lamon, Marysville city services director. "Unfortunately, it's not like that a great deal of the traffic is going to be diverted. ... Lamon noted especially severe gridlock at 10th and E streets and Ninth and B streets, where state highways intersect. "A big part of it is signal coordination," he said. "But the problem is that at different times of the day, different sequences work better than others."

For almost all the calls we do, we end up going on the back roads," Marysville Battalion Chief Mike Demé said. "If something is across town, instead of going straight up Highway 20, we go up side streets." Demé said he doesn't see a short-term solution to the traffic issue. "The guys have been working at this station so long, they know all the back roads," he said. "At this point, the way the city is constituted, it is what it is."

I have not heard any recent updates on progress toward building the third bridge over the Feather River, nor about constructing a bypass of California 70 to the east of Marysville. Further, I've not heard of progress toward connecting the California 99 expressway/freeway segments together into a continuous, seamless fashion, although quite a bit has been completed in the past decade.

[jrouse]

I don't know if the third bridge is going to happen.  Caltrans has been selling or may have already sold the parcels it purchased for right of way for the new bridge.

A bypass to the east of Marysville running up to Oroville is also no longer in the works.  Instead, there are 2 new proposals.  The first is what is called Goldfields Parkway.  It follows what would have been the proposed alignment of the Marysville Bypass, from the CA-65/CA-70 junction, north across the Yuba River, and terminating at CA-20.  It would not extend beyond that.  This would be a four-lane, at-grade facility, built and owned by Yuba County.  Funding is the main issue. 

The second project being studied is to relocate  CA-70 onto the Yuba River levee and the Feather River levee, bypassing Marysville to the west and then, IIRC, rejoining the existing highway north of town.  Again, funding is the issue here.

[TheStranger]

I don't know if the third bridge is going to happen.  Caltrans has been selling or may have already sold the parcels it purchased for right of way for the new bridge.

I remember that project being revived (a Route 65 extension essentially) a few years ago, but not beyond the planning stage.

The second project being studied is to relocate  CA-70 onto the Yuba River levee and the Feather River levee, bypassing Marysville to the west and then, IIRC, rejoining the existing highway north of town.  Again, funding is the issue here.

Do you have any more info on this?  Kinda intriguing as I had figured that with the eastern bypass being nixed, I didn't know that there was available right of way west of town!

Also...will Route 99 ever bypass Yuba City (or have an upgrade of the at-grades south of Route 20)?  I know bypasses north of there (particularly Live Oak and Gridley) have been canceled over the years.

[jrouse]

For more info on the proposed improvements for Highway 70, I would direct you to the Transportation Concept Report developed by District 3 for their segment of the route.  It can be found at
http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist3/departments/planning/tcr/tcr70.pdf

I'm not aware of any significant upgrades to 99 in Yuba City other than eventually replacing the signalized intersection at 20 with an interchange.  North of there the volumes are too low to justify additional improvements (I know this from driving it frequently to Gridley and Biggs)

[andy3175]

AARoads Contributor Dominic offers the following observations on Route 70; he also mentions the recently updated corridor report:

I saw your comment on Routes 70 & 99 in/around Marysville & Yuba City so I thought I'd weigh in with some info.

There is a possible rerouting of 70 in Marysville - see page 45 of the TOC (http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist3/departments/planning/tcr/tcr70.pdf) for Route 70 that talks about the Feather River Expressway.  While it doesn't say specifically that Route 70 would use the new expressway, I think it could.  The same page also talks about the Yuba River Parkway that would be the eastern bypass of Marysville.  Note that this TOC is dated Aug. 2014 so the information is fresh.

As for Route 99, haven't heard much other than a new interchange at Pease Rd (between Queens Ave & Eager Rd).

And there is no political will for a 3rd bridge across the Feather River right now.  I've heard talk about upgrades to the 5th Street bridge but that is it.

More updates:

Riego Road interchange on Hwy 99 is getting close to being completed - maybe by end of the year.
Feather River interchange on Hwy 70, just north of Bear River - broke ground a month or so ago
Whitney Oaks interchange on Hwy 65 (eastern terminus of Placer Pkwy) - broke ground during summer
Cosumnes River interchange on I-5 - I think this one will be done in the Spring
Watt/U.S 50 interchange - reconfig. is almost done
Silva Valley Pkwy/U.S. 50 interchange (NE terminus of Sacto. SE connector) - construction continues

[andy3175]

A bit more on the Yuba River Parkway from the SR 70 TCR:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist3/departments/planning/tcr/tcr70.pdf (page 39):

Yuba County Department of Public Works proposed the Yuba River Parkway Project, which is shown in Figure 21. The proposal is a locally‐funded, four‐lane expressway that would parallel SR 70 from the Highway 65/70 Interchange near Olivehurst connecting to Highway 20 near Plantz Road east of Marysville.

In coordination with the Yuba River Parkway, two Project Study Reports (PSRs) were initiated by Yuba County. The first PSR, approved, March 2008, was for a new signalized intersection near Plantz Road at SR 20 just east of the Yuba Sutter Disposal site east of Marysville. The second PSR, completed in 2010, proposed reconstruction of the State Route 65/70 Interchange.

The Yuba River Parkway will:
- Relieve existing congestion in Marysville by providing an alternative route around Marysville.
- Reduce truck traffic through Marysville and Hallwood by providing a more direct route for trucks to access Routes 65 and 70 via a facility designed to accommodate all modes of traffic safely and efficiently.
- Mitigate future capacity needs from planned development.
- Provide an inter-regional route from the areas east of Marysville and an additional crossing of the Yuba River east of Marysville.
The purpose of the Yuba River Parkway is tied to planned and proposed corridor plans and projects, thus final implementation of the parkway will be dependent upon the rate of development and availability of developer funding.

It is unclear at this time if such a route will be county maintained or added to the state system as part of SR 65 or SR 70.

[TheStranger]

Looking at the maps from the PDF linked earlier by jrouse & Andy...the Feather River Expressway (page 45) seems to be a mix of potential Route 20 and Route 70 bypasses of Marysville.  With that "standard interchange ramps" phrasing there, I'm curious as to what the final design for those junctions will be.

[Indyroads]

I know its been a while since this has been commented on, but after looking at the plans for "Goldfields Parkway" it seems a rather inefficient way to move traffic from 70/65 jct to SR-20. besides it seems to be a glorified neighborhood surface boulevard where a section has been constructed and opened, rather than a limited access freeway or expressway. A mistake if you ask me. this "bypass" needs to have a 70 to 70 link and be a true expressway not a surface boulevard.

It seems with the CalTrans budget shortfall that important projects like these have fallen by the wayside. now Yuba County has taken charge and wants to do the surface boulevard instead.

http://www.co.yuba.ca.us/departments/community%20development/public%20works/documents/Yuba%20River%20Pkwy%20Combined.pdf

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1157731,-121.532738,1509m/data=!3m1!1e3

[mrsman]

Given all of this news, what is generally the best way between Chico and Sacramento, CA 99 or CA 70?

[TheStranger]

Given all of this news, what is generally the best way between Chico and Sacramento, CA 99 or CA 70?

With the upgrades to Route 149 north of Oroville over the last few years, and the addition of new exits/freeway segments to 70 just north of Catlett, 70 seems to be designed as the main through corridor in the Feather River Valley.  Biggest problem is that Marysville is still a bottleneck (where 99 through Yuba City, while laden with businesses, is 4 lanes throughout) - but proposed bypasses along 99 around Live Oak and Gridley have been shelved indefinitely.

[Concrete Bob]

Chris is definitely correct about SR 70 being the better route between Sacramento and Chico.  The last traffic light between Sacramento and Marysville was recently removed on SR 70 at Feather River Boulevard a few weeks ago.  An interchange is in the process of being finished up. 

Now there are total of only four minor at grade crossings on the stretch of SR 99 to the 70 split, continuing up SR 70 to Marysville.  One can easily drive from Downtown Sacramento to Marysville in about a half hour.   

There are roughly a dozen stoplights in Marysville on SR 70, and maybe three or four more between Marysville and Oroville.  Then, there are two or three more lights on SR 99 between the 99/149 interchange and South Chico. 

Around 1990 or so, Caltrans planned to make the SR 99/SR 149/SR 70/SR 99 from Chico in the north to Sacramento in the south a major freeway/expressway inter-regional route, with an east-side bypass of Marysville.  And, a lot of steps were taken to bring much of the route to freeway/expressway standards.  In more recent times, Caltrans decided that passing lanes between Oroville and Marysville would suffice for the upgrades. 

Lawmakers in California are considering a lot of different ways to increase revenues for road maintenance, upgrades and construction.  Should the lawmakers be successful in their quest to increase taxes/revenues, perhaps the lawmakers that govern the North Valley make sure that some of those additional funds be directed at a freeway/expressway upgrade on SR 70 between Oroville and Marysville as well as the Feather River Expressway around the west side of Downtown Marysville.  It would be cool if they could get rid of the damn traffic lights on SR 99 just south of Chico as well.

It would also be great to see a non-stop freeway/expressway between Sacramento and Chico in my lifetime. 

[andy3175]

I don't know if the third bridge is going to happen.  Caltrans has been selling or may have already sold the parcels it purchased for right of way for the new bridge.

A bypass to the east of Marysville running up to Oroville is also no longer in the works.  Instead, there are 2 new proposals.  The first is what is called Goldfields Parkway.  It follows what would have been the proposed alignment of the Marysville Bypass, from the CA-65/CA-70 junction, north across the Yuba River, and terminating at CA-20.  It would not extend beyond that.  This would be a four-lane, at-grade facility, built and owned by Yuba County.  Funding is the main issue. 

The second project being studied is to relocate  CA-70 onto the Yuba River levee and the Feather River levee, bypassing Marysville to the west and then, IIRC, rejoining the existing highway north of town.  Again, funding is the issue here.

More on the "third bridge" proposal (CA 65 extension from CA 70 west to CA 99) and the proposal to sell-off land from today's Appeal Democrat:

http://www.appeal-democrat.com/news/it-s-official-third-bridge-plan-scrapped-by-caltrans/article_637252c0-6bc4-11e5-b0be-2b00a9d79a03.html

The third bridge, for now, is dead over the water. Caltrans has officially washed its hands of the project. After selling the right-of-way designated for the project on the Yuba County side, the agency is now exploring its options to sell property marked for the third bridge in Sutter County, according to Liza Whitmore, public information officer for Caltrans.

The move is a dagger to the heart of the project in its current form, which was to connect the two counties near Bogue Road in Sutter County and Erie Road in Yuba County. "It's done. (Caltrans) put a fork in it long ago," said Mary Jane Griego, chairwoman of the Yuba County Board of Supervisors. ...

The dream of building a third bridge to connect Yuba City and Marysville has been around since the 1950s. It has died and been resurrected a number of times since then. It's been called everything from "impossibly expensive" to an "economic savior" that would limit congestion and attract business development.

Cost estimates for the project have ranged from $100 million to $250 million to $600 million, depending on the scope of the project, according to long-term planning documents and figures quoted by public officials in the past.

With the financial support of Caltrans no longer a possibility, any regional agency pursuing the project would likely have to go to the voters to secure funding, Griego said. ...

"People would rather see existing roads be fixed than see money spent on this project, and, personally, I feel the same way," Griego said. "We have enough roads that need to be maintained without turning around and asking voters to fund a project that would be so expensive." ...

But the third bridge idea isn't likely to die away.

"I believe the third bridge will always be a viable option for Sutter County and Yuba County," said Sutter County Supervisor Jim Whiteaker. "This particular site is no longer a viable option, but there are other sites that are available that we can look at to come up with another solution for our traffic issues."

Yuba City City Councilman John Buckland pointed out that a third bridge is part of the city's general plan. According to the city's plan, the bridge would be an extension of Lincoln Road, a location north of the Caltrans right of way.

But Buckland said that the bridge is still far from a reality.

"I'm going to guess a third bridge will not be in my lifetime," Buckland said.

[TheStranger]

So a portion of the Goldfields Parkway exists...albeit a very short, non-through portion in Linda from Erie Road going 3/4 mile north to a dead-end.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Goldfields+Pkwy,+Linda,+CA+95901/@39.1165393,-121.5446262,15.75z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x809b51f4491cf4f9:0x4b32236feb1e89e9

[andy3175]

SR 70 expansion north of Marysville leading to Oroville is in the works... phase 1 includes Palermo Road north to Ophir Road in Oroville. It will be widened to four-lane, expressway standards.

http://www.actionnewsnow.com/news/highway-70-expansion-projects-in-the-works/

Once completed, the section of highway will be two lanes in each direction with a center left turn lane...what Jon Clark, Executive Director of Butte County Association of Governments (BCAG) calls an "expressway standard."

"You still have a lot of driveways, agricultural business off of Highway 70 so you put those left turn lanes to get those turning movements out of the traffic lanes, to make it safer."  Preservation of these private residences played into the decision against the original plan for the highway, Clark explained; "years ago we were working on a bypass between Oroville and Marysville, mostly east of Highway 70, but the costs were so high and the environmental impact so high that we just couldn't afford to build it."

After two accidents on the highway in the past few weeks alone, Clark said this project is too important to put off. "The statistics for accidents on highway 70 are higher than the state average, so it's a needed project," said Clark. The BCAG director explained that once construction is underway, the project could take about 2 years, but they'll do the work in phases and keep a lane of the highway open until the expansion is complete.

[sparker]

Looks like BCAG is engaging in some serious conflation:  adding a version of the "superstreet" concept to the historic Caltrans definition of "expressway".  But if the plan as outlined reaches fruition, it essentially puts a big nail in the coffin of the previous regional plans that called for a continuous expressway (with some freeway sections in/near towns) along CA 70/149/99 north to at least Chico.  I can't see Caltrans deploying a 5-lane full-access facility along this stretch of 70 only to revisit the project in the future.
It may be that the lack of progress on a Marysville bypass played a large part in the decision to abandon the historic expressway option and select instead something to address present safety needs only.   

I wonder if, once completed, Caltrans themselves will consider this facility to be an "expressway" -- I'd guess not; they'd just leave it to BCAG to promote it as such.  The sole saving grace here is the fact that drivers won't have to get off on frontage roads to buy stone fruit from the many stands that line the highway.

[coatimundi]

It's weird to be working a 5-lane freeway bottleneck in an agricultural area that has become one of the more dangerous roadways in the state (126), and have the exact type of roadway being proposed in a different part of the same state as part of an "upgrade".
One hand not knowing... Seems like that should be Caltrans' motto.

Are these 5-lane facilities significantly cheaper than a raised median? It just seems like a raised median is so much safer.

[sparker]

It's likely that local pressure NOT to construct any facility that would limit all-directional local access -- and a median of any kind, expressway or not, is a barrier to free movement on, off, & across the roadway -- was the determining factor here.  Not only are there roadside businesses largely depending upon that level of free movement, but also a number of farms straddling the highway, needing access from one side to the other.  And the residents/business owners, particularly in a rural area such as Yuba County, can usually amass considerable clout to ensure that their needs are met.  Since an expressway on a new alignment had previously been rejected, anything based on the current alignment would be sub-optimal for high-speed through travel.  A 5-lane facility does (technically) increase capacity on the route, so it was likely seen as a realistic compromise, given that the likelihood that a new higher-capacity facility feeding into it from the south (Marysville) was not forthcoming. 

One needs to remember that this particular highway (old CA 24 and, later, Alternate US 40) has been around in essentially its present form since the 1930's and, as would be expected, has been the focal point around which area rural development & activities occur.  A new-alignment expressway would likely have hurt roadside-stand sales (unless they relocated to intersections or frontage roads) but would have left the farming operations based along CA 70 largely intact.  Once that was off the table, what is currently being proposed was likely one of the few broadly-acceptable solutions.   

[coatimundi]

CA 1 through northwestern Monterey County has exactly the same issues: lots of roadside of businesses that cater to tourists and depend on free traffic flow, solidly agricultural, some residential access... But we have a ridiculous amount of traffic for a 2-lane facility, with no real hope of changes due to the environmental sensitivity of Elkhorn Slough and the Coastal Commission's opposition. And we do periodically have fatal accidents, including one last month. Without the environmental barriers, which don't really similarly exist on CA 70, a controlled-access expressway would have been built a long time ago along the same corridor.

I get what you're saying, but it seems really irresponsible to disregard public safety and construct what is known to be an unsafe design just to preserve a business's driveway entrance from one direction or even save a little money. All you have to do is control the turns, and I think preventing a fatal accident is worth losing a few customers who don't want to turn around for whatever reason. Not looking for a full freeway bypass, but I think even some bollards periodically within the center lane would be a much safer option.

[TheStranger]

Not looking for a full freeway bypass, but I think even some bollards periodically within the center lane would be a much safer option.

While the design of US 101 in Prunedale isn't particular ideal for the terrain over there (divided highway with barrier but with very narrow right of way), I almost feel like that would be an acceptable approach for Route 70 through here - very few hills, long sight distances, etc.

I've driven that stretch of 70 from Marysville to Oroville during the day and also under heavy fog at 2 AM in the morning (once!) and some median barrier on portions of that road is certainly more than justified here IMO.

[sparker]

If the facility could be configured as 2+2 with a median barrier and periodic channelized left turns instead of the 5-lane flat roadway as currently planned, I'd certainly say that would be an improvement -- if it could be pushed through BCAG (which likely has been influenced by local interests).

Also, Caltrans may be doing some simple cost-cutting here; a 5-lane flat is significantly cheaper to construct than anything with a K-rail or thrie-beams.  One would have to delve into the plans as overlaid over current conditions to determine precisely what's going on here and how the particular decision to 5-lane CA 70 was made; my own previous analysis was speculation guided by prior Caltrans activities & policies.  If anyone here has the resources to extract District 3 documentation, please do so -- there may yet be some real light cast on this project.

[coatimundi]

Not looking for a full freeway bypass, but I think even some bollards periodically within the center lane would be a much safer option.

While the design of US 101 in Prunedale isn't particular ideal for the terrain over there (divided highway with barrier but with very narrow right of way), I almost feel like that would be an acceptable approach for Route 70 through here - very few hills, long sight distances, etc.

But 101 in Prunedale was already 4-lane divided. It was just a matter of removing the crossovers (though one still exists). I don't think they need to be that conservative - knock out every crossover - because I would seriously doubt that the traffic volumes warrant something like that. I like 101 in Prunedale though, and that's a good model for how to do an "almost-freeway" in an area that will absolutely not tolerate a true freeway, as well as keeping money for some nice, proper interchanges where necessary.
Using the center lane space for a barrier and minimizing the left shoulders is a good idea though, I think. You're not taking up much more ROW and you're keeping people safe.

It would be interesting to see the cost estimates on this though.

[TheStranger]

Not looking for a full freeway bypass, but I think even some bollards periodically within the center lane would be a much safer option.

While the design of US 101 in Prunedale isn't particular ideal for the terrain over there (divided highway with barrier but with very narrow right of way), I almost feel like that would be an acceptable approach for Route 70 through here - very few hills, long sight distances, etc.

But 101 in Prunedale was already 4-lane divided. It was just a matter of removing the crossovers (though one still exists). I don't think they need to be that conservative - knock out every crossover - because I would seriously doubt that the traffic volumes warrant something like that. I like 101 in Prunedale though, and that's a good model for how to do an "almost-freeway" in an area that will absolutely not tolerate a true freeway, as well as keeping money for some nice, proper interchanges where necessary.
Using the center lane space for a barrier and minimizing the left shoulders is a good idea though, I think. You're not taking up much more ROW and you're keeping people safe.

It would be interesting to see the cost estimates on this though.

I think we were actually on the same page: my idea for Route 70 is something akin to the current US 101 in Prunedale with barriers and at-grade intersections, given the flatter terrain from Marysville to Oroville.  There are some spots where the 5-lane plan that exists today is fine (I'd almost say like immediately north of Marysville), but also spots where having some sort of divider for high-speed traffic is a useful concept!

It's been about 7 years since I have been out there but I do recall there are some narrow underpasses leading into the city street section of 70 southbound into Marysville.  I presume the 5-lane project will begin north of there.

[Concrete Bob]

Over the past 10 years or so, State Route 99 was widened to a similar configuration between the 70/99 split and South Yuba City.  There is a wide enough space in the center turn lane to install a nice "Ontario Tall Wall" should the need ever happen.  As long as the area stays rural in nature, and no additional signal lights or grade crossings are added to 99, it will work fine. 

If 70 is widened in a similar manner, and no driveways or new crossroads are added. it will work well as long as the area remains rural.  If 70 is widened into Marysville and then tied into a four lane Feather River Expressway around the Marysville's west side, then we will have an adequate link from Oroville/Chico into the California Freeway and Expressway system.     

However, if I had it my way, both 70/149 and 99 would be solid freeway corridors between Chico and Sacramento.  : )

[sparker]

The problem with the CA 70 plans is not the possibility of more driveways and at-grade crossings, it's the ones that presently exist.  BCAG and Caltrans have apparently decided to deal with that issue by not dealing with that issue -- simply accommodating local access concerns by deploying the current "flat" 5-lane plan.  If indeed the Feather River Expressway concept comes to fruition (and, IMO, it's high time some Marysville bypass arrangement was actually done), there just might be a significant increase in traffic on CA 70 between Marysville and Oroville.  And that "adequate" 5-lane connection will suffice right up to when the first multiple-fatality T-bone collision occurs.  Some sort of median barrier, for at least most of the section's length, would be an appropriate balance of concern for the safety of through traffic and the access requirements of the folks residing or doing business along the route. 

[coatimundi]

I think we were actually on the same page: my idea for Route 70 is something akin to the current US 101 in Prunedale with barriers and at-grade intersections, given the flatter terrain from Marysville to Oroville.

Yes, that's what I was talking about. But the 101 through Prunedale - with the exception of the Rocks Road intersection in the eucalyptus grove - does not have any crossovers. The only intersections are on the right. Lefts and u-turns were removed in the most recent project. I was just saying that I think that level of restriction is too much.

The Feather River Expressway isn't going to help, as it stands. The existing Yuba River bridge coming out of Marysville is inadequate for the traffic volume, and it seems like the way they're going to plop it into that bridge will be by using the last ramp out of Marysville that causes backups due to it lacking a run lane and adequate merging space.
I think the later phases of the Feather River and the completion of the Goldfields Parkway would provide an adequate route for SR 70 thru traffic. Otherwise, there's no point.