California

[roadfro]

Article about removal of the catwalks in front of overhead signs..... this is happening all over San Diego right now.

https://www.foxla.com/amp/news/local-news/caltrans-hoping-to-remove-catwalks-from-freeway-signs

<snipped article text>

It's about time.  The level of graffiti on highway signs in California is so bad.  I've driven through bad neighborhoods in other states, that have graffiti all over the walls, but the highway signs are untouched.  I'm glad CA is finally doing something about it.

I'm surprised it's taken Caltrans this long to do start doing this...

In southern Nevada, NDOT removed catwalks from most sign bridges years ago for the very reason of deterring vandalism. Since most signs are still lit down there, they have installed a luminaire retrieval system so that workers can bring light fixtures over to the side of the road for maintenance instead of walking out over traffic to a light in a fixed position. The tracks used for these systems are fairly narrow, leaving vandals with less convenient walking access to the front of signs.

In northern Nevada, NDOT is increasingly using highly reflective signs that do not need separate lighting. As they install such signs, the bridge catwalks are removed.


EDIT: A youtube video showing how a luminaire retrieval system works.
https://youtu.be/Rwec269wyv4

[J N Winkler]

Just a quick observation regarding Caltrans contract 08-1F3724, which was advertised this Monday, and is a very large sign replacement with about 166 sheets of sign panel details.  There are, unfortunately, many misspellings (sheet numbers in parentheses):

Catheral City (15)
Aqua Caliente Indian Reservation (16)
Thousand Palm (22)
Bod Hope Dr (23)
Joshua Tree Natinal Park (35)
Ford Dry lake Rd (40)
Messa Drive (41-42)
Chiriaco Sumnit (57)
Elsinor (93)
Murrieta Hot Spring Rd (105, 134)
NEXT 2 EXIT (108)

I am a little perplexed as to how these errors have arisen since in most cases correct spellings are used for signs in the other direction.  (The signs are grouped in a way that suggests progression in one direction to a turnaround point, then return along the other direction.)

This contract calls for in-kind replacement of "other Desert Cities" (capitalization revised to "Other . . .") and a stippled-arrow diagrammatic (without actual stippling) for the I-15/I-215 split.

[SeriesE]

and a stippled-arrow diagrammatic (without actual stippling) for the I-15/I-215 split.

Why is Caltrans replacing a practically brand new sign?

[J N Winkler]

. . . and a stippled-arrow diagrammatic (without actual stippling) for the I-15/I-215 split.

Why is Caltrans replacing a practically brand new sign?

It is not.  The sign to be replaced is located on northbound I-15 at postmile Riv-6.00, mounted to the SR 79 overpass.  StreetView imagery from May 2019 shows framed button copy, so it presumably dates from the mid-1970's to about 2000.

[SeriesE]

. . . and a stippled-arrow diagrammatic (without actual stippling) for the I-15/I-215 split.

Why is Caltrans replacing a practically brand new sign?

It is not.  The sign to be replaced is located on northbound I-15 at postmile Riv-6.00, mounted to the SR 79 overpass.  StreetView imagery from May 2019 shows framed button copy, so it presumably dates from the mid-1970's to about 2000.

Ahh I see. I thought it was referring to the sign right at the northern split.

[ClassicHasClass]

so it presumably dates from the mid-1970's to about 2000.

That sign dates back to at least the first signage of I-215 (in those days it was "TO I-215") and I'm pretty sure it didn't have a 15E on it, so my guess is no earlier than 1982.

[J N Winkler]

The errors in 08-1F3724 have been referenced in a bidder inquiry and now addressed by Addendum 2.  Each sign sketch that has been corrected has the incorrect legend off to the side (next to the addendum marker, consisting of "2" within an inverted triangle) to show what has changed.

[Max Rockatansky]

Found a 1926 Rand McNally Map on David Rumsey browsing around which shows the early planned US Routes.  US 48 is shown as US 42 and US 66 is shown as US 60:

https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~214296~5501628:California-Nevada,-City-of-Santa-An?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:california%20road;sort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=233&trs=402

Interestingly it looks like US 99 was planned to be routed through Visalia (I think we have discussed this before) and there is no E/W split north of Sacramento.  The route of US 50 isn't clearly marked west of Fallon but I don't buy that wasn't ever intended to follow the South Lincoln Highway to Sacramento.  US 91 is shown ending at US 60 near Bannock out in the Mojave Desert. 

By comparison the 1927 Rand McNally Map is much more familiar.  US 99 is still shown as a singular route north of Sacramento and being routed through Sacramento:

https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~33770~1171486:California,-Nevada-?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:california%20road;sort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=312&trs=402

Jumping back to more well known State Highway Maps the 1918 addition clearly shows LRN 4 routed through Visalia. 

https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239613~5511905:Road-Map-of-the-State-of-California?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:california%20road;sort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=379&trs=402

BUT...the 1926 State Highway map shows a jump in LRN 4 away from Visalia south from Goshen to Tulare:

https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239604~5511901:Map-Showing-State-Highway-System--C?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=79&trs=86

So begs an interesting question, did the ACSC initially route US 99 through Visalia?  The ACSC certainly wasn't bound to sign routes on State Maintained Highways at the time (as evidenced by the fact the Division of Highways couldn't even maintain roads in cities until 1933) and there certainly seems to be some evidence that it was at least "planned" to go through Visalia. 

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^^
If so, it would be the only instance where US 99 alignment deviated from the Southern Pacific Fresno Division tracks south of Manteca.  The map does show the Tulare-Goshen direct trackside alignment as a secondary highway in any case; but state ownership/maintenance isn't indicated on these earlier maps, so there's no indication whether the direct route was to become a "bypass" or other bannered facility.  Speaking of non-state routes being "promoted" with these maps, up through 1927 it looks like the Modesto-Crows Landing route (aka the CA 108 extension that has never been adopted or built on new alignment) was shown as part of a major route from Modesto to Pacheco Pass.  Nevertheless, Visalia was one of the fastest-growing cities in the Valley back then due to being the center of the orange-growing region; it's not surprising that plans at the state system's inception included it as part of LRN 4; but it may be the same dynamic that later prompted the new-alignment I-5 on the west side of the valley that rerouted US 99 direct from Tulare to Goshen -- the notion of the major Valley route functioning more as a long-distance artery than as a local server; Visalia had to be content to be the junction of SSR's 63 & 198.   

[Max Rockatansky]

A lot of maps of the era promoted the route through Crows Landing.  From Crow's Landing southward to CA 152 part of that highway did make it into the early alignment of LRN 41/CA 33.  It can even be see on the 1934 State Highway Map:

http://www.davidrumsey.com/ll/thumbnailView.html?startUrl=%2F%2Fwww.davidrumsey.com%2Fluna%2Fservlet%2Fas%2Fsearch%3Fos%3D0%26lc%3DRUMSEY~8~1%26q%3DCALTRANs%201918%26sort%3DPub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No%26bs%3D10#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0&r=0&xywh=3425%2C6120%2C1039%2C1841

[sparker]

A lot of maps of the era promoted the route through Crows Landing.  From Crow's Landing southward to CA 152 part of that highway did make it into the early alignment of LRN 41/CA 33.  It can even be see on the 1934 State Highway Map:

http://www.davidrumsey.com/ll/thumbnailView.html?startUrl=%2F%2Fwww.davidrumsey.com%2Fluna%2Fservlet%2Fas%2Fsearch%3Fos%3D0%26lc%3DRUMSEY~8~1%26q%3DCALTRANs%201918%26sort%3DPub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No%26bs%3D10#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0&r=0&xywh=3425%2C6120%2C1039%2C1841

Actually, in that edition of the state map, roads marked as red were considered "high-grade improved" (likely meaning fully paved) regardless of who was responsible for maintenance.  The current CA 33 (old LRN 41) is shown as a slightly heavier line intersecting (then) US 48 near Tracy; this would have been the original LRN 41 (at least according to the definition accompanying the map).  While an early example of an intraregional paved road, there's no indication that in '34 Modesto to Crows Landing was ever under state maintenance or was at the time considered for inclusion in the state system.  What it did show was that the U.S. highways (the only ones cited on the map; this was published prior to the state numbering systems' finalization) were shown as the thickest of the red lines (and some "yellow", or suboptimal standard), separating them from "lesser" roads regardless of ownership or maintenance status; by that time, the main LRN 4 route had bypassed Visalia in favor of the direct Tulare-Goshen route generally followed today. 

[Max Rockatansky]

One hell of a haul this past weekend for road photos in Southern California.  Some of the Gribblenation blogs will just be updated (such as CA 18 today) but I'll have a ton coming up on Riverside/San Bernardino Counties.


Old US 466 on Tehachapi Boulevard through Monolith

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmHkX7CJ

-  Cool section of former US Route, too bad the Sand Canyon Exit was closed to CA 58 eastbound traffic.


CA 14 from Mojave to Palmdale (this extends the previous album which was from Palmdale to I-5)

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmHm1hCD

-  This gets a full photo clinch of the Antelope Valley Freeway.  Really Mojave didn't feel like the slog I've remembered it to be...but it could be me just being irked by CA 138 in Palmdale.


Rebuilt Cajon Boulevard (Old US 66/91/395) south of Kenwood Avenue

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmHmfKSb

-  The alignment isn't exact to how the US Routes were but I can see a functional Cajon Boulevard as being extremely handy. 


I-215 from CA 210 to I-15 (this extends the previous I-215 album from I-15 south to CA 210)

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmHmjmvy

-  Its been years since I've been on the full route I-215.  It feels surreal to see a full six lanes south of CA 60 to I-15. 


CA 79 from I-15 to CA 371

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmHnoREz

-  I needed a new way to get to CA 74 on the Pines to Palms Highway due to the closures east of Hemet and this was the ticket.


CA 371

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmHnqd5v

-  Likewise it was nice to try out a full route I've never been on before this past trip.  Somewhat scenic highway with what appeared to be an overload of traffic trying to get to Coachella Valley.


CA 74 Pines to Palms Highway

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmHnuurr

-  This highway never disappoints with the huge drop into Coachella Valley.  I don't know why it isn't valued more for it's scenery.


CA 111 Palm Springs

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmHoMkE3

-  I hit what is left of CA 111 in Palm Springs, most of my thoughts can be found in the Palm Springs thread.


CA 62 from I-10 to Joshua Tree

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmHoMGZn

-  I always enjoyed the climb over Morongo Valley through the San Bernardino Mountains.  Its too bad I barely have recovered any of my older photos east of 29 Palms.


Pinto Basin Road (Joshua Tree National Park)

https://www.flickr.com/gp/151828809@N08/3214u2

-  The latter part of the album below has all of Pinto Basin Road from Park Boulevard to Box Canyon Road.  Pinto Basin Road is kind of a neat transition between the Mojave and Sonoran Deserts.


Box Canyon Road (Old US 60/70 and CA 195 II)

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmHoMJzR

-  Box Canyon Road was washed out this past winter and has been repaved.  It was nice to have a smooth ride through Box Canyon for once on fresh pavement, it made it way easier to appreciate the obvious uplift in the rock formations.  Interestingly I did notice the newer CA 111 signage on 66th Avenue in Mecca tends to imply that CA 111 is continuous through to Palm Springs when it clear isn't anymore.


Former CA 231

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmHp5fgV

-  Really nothing too exciting, just a straight line jog on 66th Avenue between what was CA 195 and CA 86.


CA 86 Coachella Valley Expressway

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmHp5pcL

-  This alignment is highly functional to what CA 86 and CA 111 used to be.  CA 111 is briefly co-signed north of 66th Avenue before disappearing before 62nd Avenue.


1923 Whitewater Bridge

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmHp5v83

-  I wasn't able to cross the Whitewater Bridge due to a BLM ordered closure but did get some photos of it along with the old US 60/70/99 early era concrete road surface in Whitewater.


I-10 from CA 86 to CA 60

https://www.flickr.com/gp/151828809@N08/4N9881

-  Really not much has changed with I-10.  I did stop to see the Cabazon Dinosaurs in an attempt to replicate Pee Wee's Big Adventure and Wizard (my wife has the video).


CA 243 Banning

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmHoUHZ4

-  I was hoping to get a couple miles up the Panoramic Highway but Caltrans has a gate manned to filter local traffic only.


CA 60/Old US 60 from I-10 to CA 91

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmHpaWe5

-  The covered US 60 shield at I-10 west is still present.  Right now the Moreno Valley Badlands are going through a widening so a lot of the terrain is being worked over with some pretty strictly enforced 55 MPH zones.


CA 18 from CA 138 to CA 138 (continuation of my CA 18 from CA 210 to CA 138 album)

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmHpNmPe

-  CA 18 really speaks for itself with the Rim of the World Highway segment and drop to the Mojave Desert from Bear Valley.  I made a stop at the California Route 66 Museum in Victorville for good measure.


CA 189

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmHpbeLz

-  CA 189 has a neat story given it was LRN 189 before 1964.  There isn't much more to find here, interestingly the route isn't signed from either CA 18 or CA 173.


CA 173 in Lake Arrowhead

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmHoWoXY

-  I just took CA 173 from CA 18 to Lake Arrowhead Village.  In retrospect I should have gone all the way to the dirt surface closure but I did get it from the other side via CA 138 in May.

[Mark68]

Ah, memories...I used to live off of the Box Springs/Fair Isle exit on the 60 in MoVal.

My brother & parents still live in the area.

[Kniwt]

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that Caltrans will remove and rebuild part of US 101 in San Francisco next July, almost certainly leading to huge backups:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/You-ve-been-warned-Carmageddon-is-coming-14487298.php

Caltrans officials have one word to describe the planned rebuild of a deck of Highway 101 at Alemany Circle, north of the interchange with I-280: "Carmageddon."

The $25 million project, scheduled to take place in July, affects a spaghetti tangle of freeway often called the "Alemany Maze,"  with spiraling ramps to connect 101 with 280. Like a tentacled octopus, it stretches north to the Bay Bridge and south to Daly City and San Francisco International Airport, with prongs swooshing in every direction.

Built in 1950, it's starting to decay, with rebar rusting and concrete crumbling beneath the roadbed. Caltrans workers say they can't keep doing one patch job after another.

[jeffe]

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that Caltrans will remove and rebuild part of US 101 in San Francisco next July, almost certainly leading to huge backups:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/You-ve-been-warned-Carmageddon-is-coming-14487298.php

Caltrans has a project page about this:
https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-4/d4-projects/d4-101alemanyproject

As well as a video simulation of the closure stages:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7Xe8Gl-UEE

[jakeroot]

Jesus, can we stop with the "Carmageddon" taglines? It never happens: WA-99 in Seattle, the 405 in Los Angeles, etc.

Oh, and inb4 "this is different".

[SeriesE]

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that Caltrans will remove and rebuild part of US 101 in San Francisco next July, almost certainly leading to huge backups:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/You-ve-been-warned-Carmageddon-is-coming-14487298.php

Caltrans officials have one word to describe the planned rebuild of a deck of Highway 101 at Alemany Circle, north of the interchange with I-280: "Carmageddon."

The $25 million project, scheduled to take place in July, affects a spaghetti tangle of freeway often called the "Alemany Maze,"  with spiraling ramps to connect 101 with 280. Like a tentacled octopus, it stretches north to the Bay Bridge and south to Daly City and San Francisco International Airport, with prongs swooshing in every direction.

Built in 1950, it's starting to decay, with rebar rusting and concrete crumbling beneath the roadbed. Caltrans workers say they can't keep doing one patch job after another.

So the terrible left exits and other tight ramps in the area are staying the same. Nothing to see, moving on...

[TheStranger]

So the terrible left exits and other tight ramps in the area are staying the same. Nothing to see, moving on...

I wouldn't say that NB 280 to US 101 as a left exit is "terrible" for two reasons:

- This was the original US 101 mainline route before 1964, but more importantly...
- This is generally the flow of traffic anyway for those heading from Daly City and Pacifica to the Bay Bridge (as not everyone knows to use 280 to 6th and then to Bryant, which actually can be easier at many times of day).

As for the actual circle where Alemany Boulevard and 101 meet up, yeah, that set of ramps is messy (I'm surprised this isn't being converted to a more conventional design). 

[stevashe]

So the terrible left exits and other tight ramps in the area are staying the same. Nothing to see, moving on...

I wouldn't say that NB 280 to US 101 as a left exit is "terrible" for two reasons:

- This was the original US 101 mainline route before 1964, but more importantly...
- This is generally the flow of traffic anyway for those heading from Daly City and Pacifica to the Bay Bridge (as not everyone knows to use 280 to 6th and then to Bryant, which actually can be easier at many times of day).

As for the actual circle where Alemany Boulevard and 101 meet up, yeah, that set of ramps is messy (I'm surprised this isn't being converted to a more conventional design).

Well I'd say ramp reconfigurations are outside the scope of this project anyway. They're really just replacing those two mainline bridges due to structural deficiencies, as opposed to looking at a redesign of the whole interchange...

[Kniwt]

The Daily Post of Palo Alto reports that city officials in East Palo Alto are considering imposing congestion pricing on University Avenue (part of which is unsigned CA 109).
https://padailypost.com/2019/10/21/east-palo-alto-looking-into-making-university-avenue-a-toll-road/

Commuters who use University Avenue in East Palo Alto may have to pay to use the road if city officials decide to continue down the path of a toll for the road.

East Palo Alto's City Council last week discussed ways to reduce and manage traffic in the town, and one of the options discussed was whether to have a type of toll, called congestion pricing, on University Avenue as a way to deter commuters.

... East Palo Alto officials have not picked which option they would like to pursue, but many obstacles still stand in the way of being able to enact such a plan.

... According to consultant Michelle Hunt, local agencies cannot charge for people to use a public road unless given permission by the legislature.

[Max Rockatansky]

The Daily Post of Palo Alto reports that city officials in East Palo Alto are considering imposing congestion pricing on University Avenue (part of which is unsigned CA 109).
https://padailypost.com/2019/10/21/east-palo-alto-looking-into-making-university-avenue-a-toll-road/

Commuters who use University Avenue in East Palo Alto may have to pay to use the road if city officials decide to continue down the path of a toll for the road.

East Palo Alto's City Council last week discussed ways to reduce and manage traffic in the town, and one of the options discussed was whether to have a type of toll, called congestion pricing, on University Avenue as a way to deter commuters.

... East Palo Alto officials have not picked which option they would like to pursue, but many obstacles still stand in the way of being able to enact such a plan.

... According to consultant Michelle Hunt, local agencies cannot charge for people to use a public road unless given permission by the legislature.

If that's the case then East Palo Alto really ought to take over the Caltrans maintained portion of the roadway which technically isn't even their city limits.   

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^
The only part of the whole University Avenue facility that is state-maintained as CA 109 is the portion just south of CA 84 down through the old RR crossing; once it exits open land into housing it passes into local jurisdiction.  109 wouldn't exist in the field without the state-constructed University extension, intended to provide access to the Dumbarton Bridge from the south.  D4 has no intention of assuming ownership/maintenance of University Avenue down to US 101 -- and it's pretty clear the city of East Palo Alto wasn't too keen about the extension to begin with; they never liked the idea of through traffic traipsing through their town.  And since the CA 114 extension to El Camino Real/CA 82 was NIMBY'd to death back in the '80's, a lot of the traffic headed for Stanford and the business area south of the university along Page Mill Road (where HP has their HQ as well as numerous administrative and design facilities) now takes the "shortcut" through EPA.  And since it's arguably cheaper to live on the east side of the bay compared with the Peninsula, Dumbarton has become one of the more notorious chokepoints in the region.  So the fact that a quarter-mile or so of University Avenue is actually CA 109 is in reality irrelevant; that corridor simply provides the shortest way from employment centers to what is marginally more affordable housing (but a location where the housing supply is actually increasing, particularly right along the east side of the bay in Newark and Union City -- but nevertheless few bargains are to be found!).  So EPA is currently SOL -- and legally there's little they can do about it aside from even more drastic traffic-calming measures along East University Avenue. 

[Max Rockatansky]

Nonetheless if another agency went to Caltrans dangling the carrot of removing more urban surface mileage I'm sure that is one they would gladly try to take the legislature.  Congestion pricing isn't going to solve the traffic problem on University but it would fund it's maintenance.  As much as I disagree with rolling surface roads (Lombard Street being a major exception) it seems like it is really just inevitable now in the Bay Area with all the limited capacity and even more limited capacity to do anything about it.  Of course East Palo Alto would need to annex the rest of University up to CA 84...  And let's not forget a certain internet company sure hasn't helped traffic flow on CA 109, 84, and 114 by sticking their headquarters there. 

[sparker]

Nonetheless if another agency went to Caltrans dangling the carrot of removing more urban surface mileage I'm sure that is one they would gladly try to take the legislature.  Congestion pricing isn't going to solve the traffic problem on University but it would fund it's maintenance.  As much as I disagree with rolling surface roads (Lombard Street being a major exception) it seems like it is really just inevitable now in the Bay Area with all the limited capacity and even more limited capacity to do anything about it.  Of course East Palo Alto would need to annex the rest of University up to CA 84...  And let's not forget a certain internet company sure hasn't helped traffic flow on CA 109, 84, and 114 by sticking their headquarters there. 

Under "normal" circumstances Caltrans would have zero issues with ceding their surface-street property to whatever local jurisdiction that applied for the "privilege" of assuming maintenance -- as long as that jurisdiction also assumed any transitional costs such as exchange of technical information, inspections, certifications -- things that combined can sometimes run into the millions, depending upon the size of the transferred property -- one thing that has in some cases stopped the transfer in its tracks.  Cities and counties that aren't in dire financial straits can take this in stride (like L.A. assuming maintenance of Lincoln Ave./former CA 1 in Venice) -- but this certainly doesn't apply to EPA, which has one of the lowest tax bases in San Mateo County.   Since the sole reason CA 109 was commissioned in the first place was as a Dumbarton-Palo Alto connecting piece as part of the reconfiguration of the west Dumbarton approach network -- and the state-maintained length is only a few hundred yards,  this would be one of those exceptions where Caltrans would simply do the necessary paperwork and hand title over to EPA or San Mateo County, depending upon the city boundaries (haven't been up there for a couple or years, so I don't know precisely where EPA's city limits are delineated in relation to CA 109 -- that wasn't on my radar at the time).  In any case, it would be Caltrans who would make the first move regarding relinquishment; no "carrot" necessary here.  The issue with tolling of a surface street deals with both logistics and access plus having the necessary funds to implement -- and enforce -- the concept.  Locals, of course, would need to be exempt from the tolling; because of the relative ease of "shunstreeting", so to speak, some sort of access control to University Ave. would need to be installed (which may arouse the ire of local residents).  The only relatively simple way to implement some sort of "congestion pricing" would be to set up a transponder/plate-reader system on the former CA 109 connector from the city up to CA 84! -- essentially a "commuter gauntlet" intended to put tariffs on those who actually use that stretch of road to get to the Dumbarton Bridge (with locals still being exempted).  It could be operative during the same peak periods applied to express/HOV lanes in the area: 5-9 am and 3-7 pm; FasTrack responders could be utilized; otherwise one's plate would be read and a bill sent out.  But the installation of this would likely have to be heavily subsidized by Caltrans or other state entity; doing so on its own would likely put a big and untenable hole in EPA's budget.  As I see it, something like this is the only realistic way of implementing any form of controls -- punitive or pricing -- in this particular situation. 

[Max Rockatansky]

Notre Dame Avenue is the present point where Caltrans owner CA 109 begins north to CA 84.  What's interesting rereading the back story of 109 is that there has been a recommendation to EPA at least once that they relinquish the rest of University to US 101 to Caltrans, talk about a deviation from the regular norm.  Regardless of there was congestion pricing or whoever maintains University it is now a route to the Dumbarton Bridge.  The only real solution would be to get a fully limited access connection between US 101 and the Dumbarton Bridge.  That said 84, 109 and 114 lie on some very expensive developed land that which wouldn't fit the criteria for acquisition.  Looking at the surrounding terrain there doesn't appear to be an answer to relieving the traffic woes to any community with access to the Dumbarton Bridge.