https://www.ktvu.com/news/state-senator-wants-to-turn-hwy-37-into-a-toll-road-because-of-climate-change (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.
The article is completely vague on what "improvements." Are they proposing a raised structure or something kind of like what the Tamiami Trail got?
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."
^ So where do you think the fossil fuel companies get their money?
You might start by looking in a mirror.
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 The road is really low to the water but more so really outdated between CA 121 East to CA 29.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.
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".
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.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 02, 2020, 05:48:49 PM
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.
^^^ 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?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 04, 2020, 09:33:30 AM
^^^ 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?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 04, 2020, 09:49:32 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 04, 2020, 09:33:30 AM
^^^ 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.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 04, 2020, 09:59:04 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 04, 2020, 09:49:32 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 04, 2020, 09:33:30 AM
^^^ 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.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 04, 2020, 10:06:07 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 04, 2020, 09:59:04 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 04, 2020, 09:49:32 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 04, 2020, 09:33:30 AM
^^^ 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.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 04, 2020, 11:04:31 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 04, 2020, 10:06:07 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 04, 2020, 09:59:04 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 04, 2020, 09:49:32 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 04, 2020, 09:33:30 AM
^^^ 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.
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.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 04, 2020, 10:06:07 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 04, 2020, 09:59:04 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 04, 2020, 09:49:32 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 04, 2020, 09:33:30 AM
^^^ 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!).
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.
Quote from: jdbx on March 10, 2020, 01:01:50 PM
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.
Quote from: SeriesE on March 10, 2020, 01:25:20 PM
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.
Quote from: jdbx on March 10, 2020, 01:34:02 PM
Quote from: SeriesE on March 10, 2020, 01:25:20 PM
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!
Quote from: coatimundi on March 09, 2020, 11:45:22 PM
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.
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. :bigass:
Quote from: Concrete Bob on March 12, 2020, 11:52:03 PM
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. :bigass:
You forgot about the all important sidewalks.
Quote from: SeriesE on March 13, 2020, 04:31:19 PM
Quote from: Concrete Bob on March 12, 2020, 11:52:03 PM
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. :bigass:
You forgot about the all important sidewalks.
Doh! Back to the drawing board. Extend that completion date from December 2098 to March 2122.
Quote from: Concrete Bob on March 12, 2020, 11:52:03 PM
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. :bigass:
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.
^^^^^^^^^
That would be a reasonable solution, if a toll structure comparable to the other tolled bridges in the area -- $6-8 per direction -- could be instituted and maintained for a while. If it were my call, I'd also construct a trumpet interchange at the 37/121 junction and an interchange at Lakeville Highway as well as raise the grade a bit on that section east of US 101 that perennially floods. In short, construct an all-weather usable freeway along 37 and bidirectionally tolling Sears Point to Mare Island (shunpikers are welcome to schlep through Schellville and south of Napa); that should provide some mitigation for the construction and maintenance expenses.
Quote from: sparker on March 14, 2020, 02:59:41 PM
^^^^^^^^^
That would be a reasonable solution, if a toll structure comparable to the other tolled bridges in the area -- $6-8 per direction -- could be instituted and maintained for a while. If it were my call, I'd also construct a trumpet interchange at the 37/121 junction and an interchange at Lakeville Highway as well as raise the grade a bit on that section east of US 101 that perennially floods. In short, construct an all-weather usable freeway along 37 and bidirectionally tolling Sears Point to Mare Island (shunpikers are welcome to schlep through Schellville and south of Napa); that should provide some mitigation for the construction and maintenance expenses.
You're way too conservative in your thinking. The trumpet interchange should be west of the Stone Tree Golf Club with the low-rise bridge running along the southwest corner of the club before going east across the bay to the east end of the refuge (https://www.scribblemaps.com/maps/view/CA_37_Low_Bridge_North_SF_Bay/Ao2XsxV3nN). The waters at the north end of the bay are <10 feet the entire distance, so the only issue is how deep you need to drive the pilings. Planners would need to be creative at the east end with the current interchange at Railroad Av/ Walnut Av. Sears Point Road would be removed from the west side of the Sonoma Creek bridge to the first road west of the Railroad Av interchange. (If that small bit at the east end of the refuge isn't needed, you can remove the need for a new interchange at the east end.) This makes a non-stop and practically cross-traffic-free CA 37 between US 101 and Vallejo and removes every dangerous intersection along CA 37. CA 121 would take over the part of Sears Point Road between the Stone Tree Golf Club and the current CA 37/CA 121 intersection. A new access would be needed for the Navy communications station, but the Navy would probably like that anyway. I think most drivers wouldn't mind paying a $6-8 toll for a safer, non-stop journey across the north side of the bay.
While this looks extreme, it's similar to a plan for a recent bridge to bypass the Pea Island Refuge (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/bonner-bridge/Documents/SelectedAlternativeMap.pdf) on the North Carolina Outer Banks. A similar bridge (https://www.outerbanksvoice.com/2018/08/10/construction-of-jug-handle-bridge-slated-to-begin-next-month/) is now being built further south at the other end of the refuge for similar reasons.
Quote from: oscar on February 29, 2020, 03:24:59 PM
^ So where do you think the fossil fuel companies get their money?
You might start by looking in a mirror.
They get a LOT of money from Federal subsidies and other corporate welfare. Socialism in reverse.
And while I respect your opinion, please do me the same favor and spare me the lecture.
Quote from: skluth on March 14, 2020, 04:14:25 PM
Quote from: sparker on March 14, 2020, 02:59:41 PM
^^^^^^^^^
That would be a reasonable solution, if a toll structure comparable to the other tolled bridges in the area -- $6-8 per direction -- could be instituted and maintained for a while. If it were my call, I'd also construct a trumpet interchange at the 37/121 junction and an interchange at Lakeville Highway as well as raise the grade a bit on that section east of US 101 that perennially floods. In short, construct an all-weather usable freeway along 37 and bidirectionally tolling Sears Point to Mare Island (shunpikers are welcome to schlep through Schellville and south of Napa); that should provide some mitigation for the construction and maintenance expenses.
You're way too conservative in your thinking. The trumpet interchange should be west of the Stone Tree Golf Club with the low-rise bridge running along the southwest corner of the club before going east across the bay to the east end of the refuge (https://www.scribblemaps.com/maps/view/CA_37_Low_Bridge_North_SF_Bay/Ao2XsxV3nN). The waters at the north end of the bay are <10 feet the entire distance, so the only issue is how deep you need to drive the pilings. Planners would need to be creative at the east end with the current interchange at Railroad Av/ Walnut Av. Sears Point Road would be removed from the west side of the Sonoma Creek bridge to the first road west of the Railroad Av interchange. (If that small bit at the east end of the refuge isn't needed, you can remove the need for a new interchange at the east end.) This makes a non-stop and practically cross-traffic-free CA 37 between US 101 and Vallejo and removes every dangerous intersection along CA 37. CA 121 would take over the part of Sears Point Road between the Stone Tree Golf Club and the current CA 37/CA 121 intersection. A new access would be needed for the Navy communications station, but the Navy would probably like that anyway. I think most drivers wouldn't mind paying a $6-8 toll for a safer, non-stop journey across the north side of the bay.
While this looks extreme, it's similar to a plan for a recent bridge to bypass the Pea Island Refuge (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/bonner-bridge/Documents/SelectedAlternativeMap.pdf) on the North Carolina Outer Banks. A similar bridge (https://www.outerbanksvoice.com/2018/08/10/construction-of-jug-handle-bridge-slated-to-begin-next-month/) is now being built further south at the other end of the refuge for similar reasons.
One issue with this plan -- let's call it what it is, the "North San Pablo Bay Bridge" -- is that the Petaluma River is a navigable waterway; part of the bridge would have to be high-rise to accommodate river traffic -- with at least the clearance of the current CA 37 bridge near Black Point. That would increase the expense of such a bridge by at least a third. However, a totally new-alignment bridge promising a significant reduction of mileage may be somewhat more salable as a toll facility -- it crosses a body of water rather than bayside wetlands. Salable, that is, to the general public; likely less so to environmental activists. While this idea has some merit, it's likely that either (a) a tolled replacement for CA 37 on a close parallel alignment will be the final choice, or (b) a full abandonment of the route from Sears Point to Mare Island with an upgrade of CA 121 as a substitute, which is a choice few will deem optional -- or even remotely like -- but it may be foist upon Caltrans if an agreement among all parties can't be reached on a CA 37 format. If that happens, expect CA 29's street alignment through Vallejo to be relinquished and that route shunted east to I-80 on the existing CA 37 freeway -- and CA 121 extended SW to Novato over the remaining western end of CA 37.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I guess I'm used to Midwest and Mid-Atlantic environmentalists who would be happy with such a bridge. You sell it as improving the wetlands both directly by increasing the tidal interaction and indirectly as the impact to the bay is less than that of the current alignment. It's a matter of getting enough environmentalists on board. You'll never satisfy the crazies. Plus, environmentalists love tolls.
A short, more elevated section to accommodate navigation is common all along the Eastern Seaboard. It increases the cost but the rest of the bridge is pretty basic. I also looked at the East end of the bridge and think you could reuse much of the current interchange to handle all the local traffic.
Quote from: SSR_317 on March 14, 2020, 09:58:39 PM
Quote from: oscar on February 29, 2020, 03:24:59 PM
^ So where do you think the fossil fuel companies get their money?
You might start by looking in a mirror.
They get a LOT of money from Federal subsidies and other corporate welfare. Socialism in reverse.
That's capitalism for you.
Quote from: skluth on March 15, 2020, 04:01:07 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I guess I'm used to Midwest and Mid-Atlantic environmentalists who would be happy with such a bridge. You sell it as improving the wetlands both directly by increasing the tidal interaction and indirectly as the impact to the bay is less than that of the current alignment. It's a matter of getting enough environmentalists on board. You'll never satisfy the crazies. Plus, environmentalists love tolls.
A short, more elevated section to accommodate navigation is common all along the Eastern Seaboard. It increases the cost but the rest of the bridge is pretty basic. I also looked at the East end of the bridge and think you could reuse much of the current interchange to handle all the local traffic.
Since a wide swath of environmentalists are currently embedded within both Caltrans and local government entities (particularly the planning departments), a hell of a lot of convincing would have to be done, likely several times over as studies, reports, and cost analyses are presented. The bridge idea has a lot of merit -- and both San Mateo and Dumbarton bridges were designed with sections featuring navigable clearance, the former in relatively deep waters; so it
is technically feasible. One thing that could be an ancillary selling point -- a designation of the waters north of the bridge (and east of the navigable channel) as a protected preserve, possibly extending into the wetlands north of the existing CA 37 berm. In the current CA policy environment, combination packages like that have a better chance of becoming reality that stand-alone highway projects.
Quote from: sparker on March 15, 2020, 04:21:35 PM
Quote from: skluth on March 15, 2020, 04:01:07 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I guess I'm used to Midwest and Mid-Atlantic environmentalists who would be happy with such a bridge. You sell it as improving the wetlands both directly by increasing the tidal interaction and indirectly as the impact to the bay is less than that of the current alignment. It's a matter of getting enough environmentalists on board. You'll never satisfy the crazies. Plus, environmentalists love tolls.
A short, more elevated section to accommodate navigation is common all along the Eastern Seaboard. It increases the cost but the rest of the bridge is pretty basic. I also looked at the East end of the bridge and think you could reuse much of the current interchange to handle all the local traffic.
Since a wide swath of environmentalists are currently embedded within both Caltrans and local government entities (particularly the planning departments), a hell of a lot of convincing would have to be done, likely several times over as studies, reports, and cost analyses are presented. The bridge idea has a lot of merit -- and both San Mateo and Dumbarton bridges were designed with sections featuring navigable clearance, the former in relatively deep waters; so it is technically feasible. One thing that could be an ancillary selling point -- a designation of the waters north of the bridge (and east of the navigable channel) as a protected preserve, possibly extending into the wetlands north of the existing CA 37 berm. In the current CA policy environment, combination packages like that have a better chance of becoming reality that stand-alone highway projects.
Great idea. A bridge across the bay definitely lends itself to defining a protected area. I know new roads are a tough sell anywhere, especially California, so every insight helps.
One way or another there will need to be a replacement roadway for 37. Vallejo has been very vocal about eliminating the current alignment as they have grand plans for Mare Island and fear that a Hwy 12/Jameson Canyon/Hwy 121 alignment would further draw potential investment away from their community, in addition to how it would affect their residents commuting westward. Other than the most extreme of environmentalists, a viaduct does have support in concept because it would enable restoration of historic tidal flows and habitat on the inland side of the roadway. The amount of fill that would need to be imported to do a raised berm roadway would have significant environmental impacts of its own, not be much cheaper than a structure, and would need to be significantly surcharged to account for settlement over time since it's all on bay mud (except for the Black Point area, Sears Point area, and east of Sonoma Blvd/Hwy29). Cost would definitely be a factor; just doing the section between 101 and Black Point as a four-lane viaduct is estimated to be in the $1B neighborhood so some kind of tolling would be needed to generate the funds to pay for it; the corridor is just not as competitive for huge funding allocations when compared with many other highways across the state. Building a new bridge alignment over the bay would likely result in more environmental impact studies and mitigation since it would be something new in an undisturbed area as opposed to making "improvements" to an already compromised corridor (in an environmental sense).
Quote from: heynow415 on March 17, 2020, 11:23:14 AM
One way or another there will need to be a replacement roadway for 37. Vallejo has been very vocal about eliminating the current alignment as they have grand plans for Mare Island and fear that a Hwy 12/Jameson Canyon/Hwy 121 alignment would further draw potential investment away from their community, in addition to how it would affect their residents commuting westward. Other than the most extreme of environmentalists, a viaduct does have support in concept because it would enable restoration of historic tidal flows and habitat on the inland side of the roadway. The amount of fill that would need to be imported to do a raised berm roadway would have significant environmental impacts of its own, not be much cheaper than a structure, and would need to be significantly surcharged to account for settlement over time since it's all on bay mud (except for the Black Point area, Sears Point area, and east of Sonoma Blvd/Hwy29). Cost would definitely be a factor; just doing the section between 101 and Black Point as a four-lane viaduct is estimated to be in the $1B neighborhood so some kind of tolling would be needed to generate the funds to pay for it; the corridor is just not as competitive for huge funding allocations when compared with many other highways across the state. Building a new bridge alignment over the bay would likely result in more environmental impact studies and mitigation since it would be something new in an undisturbed area as opposed to making "improvements" to an already compromised corridor (in an environmental sense).
Regardless of a replacement on or near the existing alignment, or something farther out in the bay waters as described above, it'll be one of the more expensive projects in Caltrans history. At some point, there may well be pressure to simply throw up their collective hands and plan for a more inland route (121) despite the urgings from Vallejo, which
does have a lot to lose if CA 37 is abandoned. But 4 lanes from Sears Point via Schellville to Napa won't come cheap either; unless businesses south of Sonoma and around Schellville are uprooted, much of it would need to be on new alignment (and crossing the Carneros wine district would entail rather expensive ROW acquisition). And if a freeway rather than expressway is developed, figure a 50% premium for structures -- but both commute and local pressure may dictate such a facility. Cost-wise, there's no easy way out or clear choice. I wonder if the folks who decided to slap LRN 208 across the wetlands 80 years ago had any idea that their efforts would end up backing their successor agency into a rather uncomfortable corner! :hmm:
Quote from: sparker on March 17, 2020, 01:49:43 PM
Quote from: heynow415 on March 17, 2020, 11:23:14 AM
One way or another there will need to be a replacement roadway for 37. Vallejo has been very vocal about eliminating the current alignment as they have grand plans for Mare Island and fear that a Hwy 12/Jameson Canyon/Hwy 121 alignment would further draw potential investment away from their community, in addition to how it would affect their residents commuting westward. Other than the most extreme of environmentalists, a viaduct does have support in concept because it would enable restoration of historic tidal flows and habitat on the inland side of the roadway. The amount of fill that would need to be imported to do a raised berm roadway would have significant environmental impacts of its own, not be much cheaper than a structure, and would need to be significantly surcharged to account for settlement over time since it's all on bay mud (except for the Black Point area, Sears Point area, and east of Sonoma Blvd/Hwy29). Cost would definitely be a factor; just doing the section between 101 and Black Point as a four-lane viaduct is estimated to be in the $1B neighborhood so some kind of tolling would be needed to generate the funds to pay for it; the corridor is just not as competitive for huge funding allocations when compared with many other highways across the state. Building a new bridge alignment over the bay would likely result in more environmental impact studies and mitigation since it would be something new in an undisturbed area as opposed to making "improvements" to an already compromised corridor (in an environmental sense).
Regardless of a replacement on or near the existing alignment, or something farther out in the bay waters as described above, it'll be one of the more expensive projects in Caltrans history. At some point, there may well be pressure to simply throw up their collective hands and plan for a more inland route (121) despite the urgings from Vallejo, which does have a lot to lose if CA 37 is abandoned. But 4 lanes from Sears Point via Schellville to Napa won't come cheap either; unless businesses south of Sonoma and around Schellville are uprooted, much of it would need to be on new alignment (and crossing the Carneros wine district would entail rather expensive ROW acquisition). And if a freeway rather than expressway is developed, figure a 50% premium for structures -- but both commute and local pressure may dictate such a facility. Cost-wise, there's no easy way out or clear choice. I wonder if the folks who decided to slap LRN 208 across the wetlands 80 years ago had any idea that their efforts would end up backing their successor agency into a rather uncomfortable corner! :hmm:
Definitely agree this will be a huge undertaking. Politics aside, it would be interesting to see what the costs of an inland (121) alignment could be. While a raised structure for the entire segment would not be necessary, there would be substantial right of way acquisition costs; the current 12/29 bridge over the Napa River would likely need to be widened to at least six lanes as would Jameson Canyon/12; at least three new major interchanges would be needed (12/29/121, 29/12/221. 29/12/Jameson Cyn); several new smaller interchanges including @116, @12/Broadway to Sonoma, Napa Rd, Old Sonoma Rd; plus a viaduct or substantial berm in the Schellville area since that already floods regularly; and yet another redesign of the 12/80/680 entanglement in Fairfield. Open checkbook, start writing . . .
Quote from: heynow415 on March 18, 2020, 11:49:12 AM
Quote from: sparker on March 17, 2020, 01:49:43 PM
Quote from: heynow415 on March 17, 2020, 11:23:14 AM
One way or another there will need to be a replacement roadway for 37. Vallejo has been very vocal about eliminating the current alignment as they have grand plans for Mare Island and fear that a Hwy 12/Jameson Canyon/Hwy 121 alignment would further draw potential investment away from their community, in addition to how it would affect their residents commuting westward. Other than the most extreme of environmentalists, a viaduct does have support in concept because it would enable restoration of historic tidal flows and habitat on the inland side of the roadway. The amount of fill that would need to be imported to do a raised berm roadway would have significant environmental impacts of its own, not be much cheaper than a structure, and would need to be significantly surcharged to account for settlement over time since it's all on bay mud (except for the Black Point area, Sears Point area, and east of Sonoma Blvd/Hwy29). Cost would definitely be a factor; just doing the section between 101 and Black Point as a four-lane viaduct is estimated to be in the $1B neighborhood so some kind of tolling would be needed to generate the funds to pay for it; the corridor is just not as competitive for huge funding allocations when compared with many other highways across the state. Building a new bridge alignment over the bay would likely result in more environmental impact studies and mitigation since it would be something new in an undisturbed area as opposed to making "improvements" to an already compromised corridor (in an environmental sense).
Regardless of a replacement on or near the existing alignment, or something farther out in the bay waters as described above, it'll be one of the more expensive projects in Caltrans history. At some point, there may well be pressure to simply throw up their collective hands and plan for a more inland route (121) despite the urgings from Vallejo, which does have a lot to lose if CA 37 is abandoned. But 4 lanes from Sears Point via Schellville to Napa won't come cheap either; unless businesses south of Sonoma and around Schellville are uprooted, much of it would need to be on new alignment (and crossing the Carneros wine district would entail rather expensive ROW acquisition). And if a freeway rather than expressway is developed, figure a 50% premium for structures -- but both commute and local pressure may dictate such a facility. Cost-wise, there's no easy way out or clear choice. I wonder if the folks who decided to slap LRN 208 across the wetlands 80 years ago had any idea that their efforts would end up backing their successor agency into a rather uncomfortable corner! :hmm:
Definitely agree this will be a huge undertaking. Politics aside, it would be interesting to see what the costs of an inland (121) alignment could be. While a raised structure for the entire segment would not be necessary, there would be substantial right of way acquisition costs; the current 12/29 bridge over the Napa River would likely need to be widened to at least six lanes as would Jameson Canyon/12; at least three new major interchanges would be needed (12/29/121, 29/12/221. 29/12/Jameson Cyn); several new smaller interchanges including @116, @12/Broadway to Sonoma, Napa Rd, Old Sonoma Rd; plus a viaduct or substantial berm in the Schellville area since that already floods regularly; and yet another redesign of the 12/80/680 entanglement in Fairfield. Open checkbook, start writing . . .
The 680/12/80 interchange redesign is already in progress though construction hasn't started (essentially the 680 mainline will be realigned away in its last mile from the direct north-south trajectory to feed right into the 12 west mainline going towards Napa)
https://sta.ca.gov/project/i-80-i-680-sr-12-interchange/
There is also a proposed diamond-with-roundabout junction for 29/12 and 221:
https://napavalleyregister.com/news/local/caltrans-wants-napa-feedback-for-roundabout-design-for-highway-at/article_d9cb62e5-5513-5c7b-afba-1a2ee7bbdd19.html
https://napavalleyregister.com/news/local/napa-county-makes-a-transportation-wish-list-for-the-decades/article_4fc98b6b-b25f-5cfb-b11e-98d78c57d476.html
^^^^^^^^^
If by chance (or policy decision) the inland option of CA 121 segueing onto CA 12 from (effectively) Sears Point to Cordelia is selected, there will be a great deal of pressure from the cities along the I-80 corridor (Fairfield/Suisun, Vacaville) for that facility to be fully free-flowing -- meaning directional or trumpet interchanges at both locations where CA 12 departs from CA 29, plus a full build-out of Jameson Canyon (I lived in Napa in the very early '90's, and would have welcomed this 30 years ago!) in addition to the freeway along CA 121 via Schellville. The RE/T crowd would have a shit-fit, but the political pressure would likely tip the scales. The question would be possible tolling of this route; if most of the Sears Point-Napa section is constructed on new terrain, the potential for tolling would increase (using the existing 2-lane route for local service and/or shunpiking).
That being said, the most likely outcome for all this will be a 4-lane single bridge with a K-rail down the middle along or near the current 37 alignment, with ORT to (partially) offset the $1B+ cost of the facility. Caltrans will probably procrastinate about interchanges at CA 121 and Lakeville Highway per their usual mode, so the bidirectional commute backups will continue. Vallejo will breathe a sigh of relief, and North Bay life will go on -- but with additional out-of-pocket costs for some of the driving public.
Quote from: TheStranger on March 18, 2020, 12:47:23 PM
The 680/12/80 interchange redesign is already in progress though construction hasn't started (essentially the 680 mainline will be realigned away in its last mile from the direct north-south trajectory to feed right into the 12 west mainline going towards Napa)
https://sta.ca.gov/project/i-80-i-680-sr-12-interchange/
There is also a proposed diamond-with-roundabout junction for 29/12 and 221:
https://napavalleyregister.com/news/local/caltrans-wants-napa-feedback-for-roundabout-design-for-highway-at/article_d9cb62e5-5513-5c7b-afba-1a2ee7bbdd19.html
https://napavalleyregister.com/news/local/napa-county-makes-a-transportation-wish-list-for-the-decades/article_4fc98b6b-b25f-5cfb-b11e-98d78c57d476.html
The challenge with the in-progress improvements is that their designs are based on the current road network. If 37 from Seart Point to Mare Island were abandoned, then all those trips (~45,000 ADT) would be moved to the new corridor and thus significantly increase traffic volumes in some areas, such as getting close to doubling the current volume over the Napa River on 29. I doubt Solano's 680/80/12 design in its multiple phases assumed moving, say 50%, of the current 37/80 interchange volume to the the Jameson Canyon leg of SR12. On the plus side, an interchange at Sears Point would no longer be necessary and the dreaded at-grade RR xing would be bypassed. Lots of moving parts and secondary impacts to consider.
Quote from: heynow415 on March 19, 2020, 11:19:14 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on March 18, 2020, 12:47:23 PM
The 680/12/80 interchange redesign is already in progress though construction hasn't started (essentially the 680 mainline will be realigned away in its last mile from the direct north-south trajectory to feed right into the 12 west mainline going towards Napa)
https://sta.ca.gov/project/i-80-i-680-sr-12-interchange/
There is also a proposed diamond-with-roundabout junction for 29/12 and 221:
https://napavalleyregister.com/news/local/caltrans-wants-napa-feedback-for-roundabout-design-for-highway-at/article_d9cb62e5-5513-5c7b-afba-1a2ee7bbdd19.html
https://napavalleyregister.com/news/local/napa-county-makes-a-transportation-wish-list-for-the-decades/article_4fc98b6b-b25f-5cfb-b11e-98d78c57d476.html
The challenge with the in-progress improvements is that their designs are based on the current road network. If 37 from Seart Point to Mare Island were abandoned, then all those trips (~45,000 ADT) would be moved to the new corridor and thus significantly increase traffic volumes in some areas, such as getting close to doubling the current volume over the Napa River on 29. I doubt Solano's 680/80/12 design in its multiple phases assumed moving, say 50%, of the current 37/80 interchange volume to the the Jameson Canyon leg of SR12. On the plus side, an interchange at Sears Point would no longer be necessary and the dreaded at-grade RR xing would be bypassed. Lots of moving parts and secondary impacts to consider.
If the inland/121/12 option prevails, I for one wouldn't be surprised to see at least toll lanes applied to the new facility, seguing onto CA 12/29 across the Napa River (with bridge widening --
real expensive!) and onto the Jameson Canyon section of CA 12 -- essentially, a continuous toll lane (presuming the whole facility isn't tolled) from Novato to at least Fairfield -- including adding such lanes to the presently U.C. 80/680/12 interchange as separate flyovers. That'll be one of the major commute routes in the region (lots of folks use 37/101 as a S.F.-bound alternative to the almost perpetually congested I-80); if CA 37 is out of the picture, then the inland alternative would have to be prioritized in terms of both funding and developmental timeframe.
Quote from: skluth on March 12, 2020, 07:47:19 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on March 09, 2020, 11:45:22 PM
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.
Yes, I meant like in Louisiana on the causeway, or even I-10 west of Kenner, but hopefully Gavin Newsom doesn't have a brother or cousin in the road-building field, because that's the only thing that seems to get bridges in Louisiana built just so they can crumble.
Don't forget though, that those sidewalks absolutely must be ADA-compliant for all of those handicapped people wishing to trek the 12 miles across San Pablo Bay.
The only issue I see is in getting it from the existing roadway to the shore, since that would require new ROW. However, for that, you can pull the trick where you show the alternative - widening the existing roadway - in the worst possible way: 8-lane freeway with 40' median. It makes the causeway option a lot more attractive.