I-80 and the Carquinez Bridges

[Max Rockatansky]

This past November I paid a visit to the Carquinez Bridges which carry I-80 over the Carquinez Strait.  The first Carquinez Bridge was a private toll facility which opened in 1927 as part of the Lincoln Highway.  US 40 was realigned off the Martinez-Benicia Ferry onto the 1927 Carquinez Bridge in 1932 when the American Canyon Spur of Legislative Route 7 was completed.  In November 1958 the second Carquinez Bridge opened to traffic as part of a new freeway alignment which replaced US 40 on San Pablo Avenue.  The 1958 Carquinez Bridge become the eastbound lanes of I-80 whereas westbound I-80 was aligned on the 1927 structure.  The 1927 Carquinez Bridge was replaced in 2003 after an assessment following the Loma Prieta Earthquake determined it to be deficient.  On the blog below there is a brief history of the Carquinez Bridges, two Division of Highways articles, a photo log of the 1958 Carquinez Bridge in addition to a drive on the 2003 Bridge.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/01/interstate-80-west-over-carquinez.html

[nexus73]

Given the uberhigh property values in urban NorCal and the presence of a major freeway, I am curious as to why so much undeveloped land is present as I saw in some of the pix?  It would seem with housing being in very high demand that developers should fill in the blanks.  After all, where would you rather commute from, Stockton or someplace closer? 

Rick

[Max Rockatansky]

Given the uberhigh property values in urban NorCal and the presence of a major freeway, I am curious as to why so much undeveloped land is present as I saw in some of the pix?  It would seem with housing being in very high demand that developers should fill in the blanks.  After all, where would you rather commute from, Stockton or someplace closer? 

Rick

It seems that a lot of the land in the Diablo Range between Crockett and Martinez seems to be privately held ranches.  A lot of the shore line on the Carquinez Strait is railroad right of way or regional park land.  I can really account for how development south of CA 4 really never pushed uphill in the Diablo Range, the terrain is workable.  That said, it is kind of nice to be somewhere like Port Costa and feel like you're in the 1920s instead of a suburbia...even if it is only minutes away. 

[nexus73]

Given the uberhigh property values in urban NorCal and the presence of a major freeway, I am curious as to why so much undeveloped land is present as I saw in some of the pix?  It would seem with housing being in very high demand that developers should fill in the blanks.  After all, where would you rather commute from, Stockton or someplace closer? 

Rick

It seems that a lot of the land in the Diablo Range between Crockett and Martinez seems to be privately held ranches.  A lot of the shore line on the Carquinez Strait is railroad right of way or regional park land.  I can really account for how development south of CA 4 really never pushed uphill in the Diablo Range, the terrain is workable.  That said, it is kind of nice to be somewhere like Port Costa and feel like you’re in the 1920s instead of a suburbia...even if it is only minutes away. 

Ranches in an urban area?  Even smaller large parcels like drive-in movie theaters did not hold on very often when property values zoomed out of sight in metro area California.  The minimum price for a house in SF is going to be $1 mil in just a bit if it is not already.  What would a ranch be worth in 2020?  I am surprised there is any open land left given the prices and demand!

What the real story is would be interesting to know.  Now if this urban area was in Oregon, then one could say "urban growth boundary".

Rick

[Max Rockatansky]

Given the uberhigh property values in urban NorCal and the presence of a major freeway, I am curious as to why so much undeveloped land is present as I saw in some of the pix?  It would seem with housing being in very high demand that developers should fill in the blanks.  After all, where would you rather commute from, Stockton or someplace closer? 

Rick

It seems that a lot of the land in the Diablo Range between Crockett and Martinez seems to be privately held ranches.  A lot of the shore line on the Carquinez Strait is railroad right of way or regional park land.  I can really account for how development south of CA 4 really never pushed uphill in the Diablo Range, the terrain is workable.  That said, it is kind of nice to be somewhere like Port Costa and feel like you're in the 1920s instead of a suburbia...even if it is only minutes away. 

Ranches in an urban area?  Even smaller large parcels like drive-in movie theaters did not hold on very often when property values zoomed out of sight in metro area California.  The minimum price for a house in SF is going to be $1 mil in just a bit if it is not already.  What would a ranch be worth in 2020?  I am surprised there is any open land left given the prices and demand!

What the real story is would be interesting to know.  Now if this urban area was in Oregon, then one could say "urban growth boundary".

Rick

Similarly urban sprawl of the Bay Area dead ends at the Santa Cruz Mountains.  South of the Tom Lantos Tunnels on CA 1 aside from Half Moon Bay is devoid of anything that resembles the Bay Area urban sprawl.  I always found it interesting that one could be on a peaceful coastal cliff at Devil's Slide and be blissfully unaware that a mega city is just minutes to the north.  Similarly most of the Diablo Range has a similar feel to what you see around Crockett.  CA 130 in particular turns into a remote mountain wilderness pretty fast, especially beyond the terminus in Mount Hamilton.  It seems all the money in the world can't inspire Blade Runner-like development in the mountains around the Bay Area. 

[Buck87]

I drove across the westbound bridge back in August. Was certainly glad to find out that only the eastbound side has to pay a toll!

[jdbx]

Regarding the lack of development around CA 4 between Crockett and Martinez, Max's theory about an urban limit line is correct.  Contra Costa County voters enacted an urban limit line 30 years ago in 1990, outlined in the map below:

http://64.166.146.245/docs/2016/BOS/20161220_831/27024_Attachment%20A%20-%20ULL%20Map.pdf

More background:  https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/6357/Urban-Limit-Line-Review

The line has been adjusted a couple of times over the years, and is set to expire in 2026 unless it is renewed again by voters, but it is extremely unlikely that any of the open spaces along CA 4 will ever be developed.  The emphasis around the western ⅔ of Contra Costa County has been on urban infill development.  I expect the eastern ⅓ of the county which is not protected by the limit line to be built-out within 10-20 years.

[Max Rockatansky]

Regarding the lack of development around CA 4 between Crockett and Martinez, Max's theory about an urban limit line is correct.  Contra Costa County voters enacted an urban limit line 30 years ago in 1990, outlined in the map below:

http://64.166.146.245/docs/2016/BOS/20161220_831/27024_Attachment%20A%20-%20ULL%20Map.pdf

More background:  https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/6357/Urban-Limit-Line-Review

The line has been adjusted a couple of times over the years, and is set to expire in 2026 unless it is renewed again by voters, but it is extremely unlikely that any of the open spaces along CA 4 will ever be developed.  The emphasis around the western ⅔ of Contra Costa County has been on urban infill development.  I expect the eastern ⅓ of the county which is not protected by the limit line to be built-out within 10-20 years.

And I'd argue having that urban limit is ultimately a good thing even if it does push sprawl towards Tracy/Modesto/Stockton.  One of the bigger issues in the Los Angeles Area is the lack of outdoor recreational space (Griffith Park, the San Gabriels, and Dirt Mulholland being exceptions).  The Bay Area on the other hand has a glut of recreational locales which make the urban area much more livable despite the dense population and high living costs.  Besides, developing the Diablo Range would bring a whole bunch of people right into the middle of a wildfire area. 

[jdbx]

And I'd argue having that urban limit is ultimately a good thing even if it does push sprawl towards Tracy/Modesto/Stockton.  One of the bigger issues in the Los Angeles Area is the lack of outdoor recreational space (Griffith Park, the San Gabriels, and Dirt Mulholland being exceptions).  The Bay Area on the other hand has a glut of recreational locales which make the urban area much more livable despite the dense population and high living costs.  Besides, developing the Diablo Range would bring a whole bunch of people right into the middle of a wildfire area. 

I agree.  There is plenty of available land for infill and higher density, particularly adjacent to BART and the various highway corridors.  We are already seeing this happen in places like Walnut Creek and Concord where numerous higher-density developments have either been built or planned near their BART stations.  There is also a very contentious debate happening in Lafayette regarding similar plans.  Many residents are having a hard time coming to terms with the fact that it's not 1975 anymore and that you can't have the booming economy of the Bay Area without a place for those workers to live.

Back on topic, there has been lots of steady progress on the I-680 express lanes through the area as well as the CA 4 expansion between Morello and CA 242.

The most sorely needed improvement in this area is a rebuild of the 680/4 interchange, but funding to complete that is still years away.

[Max Rockatansky]

And I'd argue having that urban limit is ultimately a good thing even if it does push sprawl towards Tracy/Modesto/Stockton.  One of the bigger issues in the Los Angeles Area is the lack of outdoor recreational space (Griffith Park, the San Gabriels, and Dirt Mulholland being exceptions).  The Bay Area on the other hand has a glut of recreational locales which make the urban area much more livable despite the dense population and high living costs.  Besides, developing the Diablo Range would bring a whole bunch of people right into the middle of a wildfire area. 

I agree.  There is plenty of available land for infill and higher density, particularly adjacent to BART and the various highway corridors.  We are already seeing this happen in places like Walnut Creek and Concord where numerous higher-density developments have either been built or planned near their BART stations.  There is also a very contentious debate happening in Lafayette regarding similar plans.  Many residents are having a hard time coming to terms with the fact that it's not 1975 anymore and that you can't have the booming economy of the Bay Area without a place for those workers to live.

Back on topic, there has been lots of steady progress on the I-680 express lanes through the area as well as the CA 4 expansion between Morello and CA 242.

The most sorely needed improvement in this area is a rebuild of the 680/4 interchange, but funding to complete that is still years away.

Without looking at my notes, I was under the impression the I-680/CA 4 interchange rebuild began last year?  There certainly is massive construction at said interchange presently.

[SSR_317]

I drove across the westbound bridge back in August. Was certainly glad to find out that only the eastbound side has to pay a toll!

In case you didn't know, all of the Bay Area major bridges have tolls in only one direction. As you can probably guess from my avatar, I am not a fan of tolled roadway facilities, but if you have to have them, doing them in one direction only is better than charging all vehicles.

BTW, the Carquinez is the major exception to the toll inbound/free outbound system in place for the Bay Area's major water crossings.

[mrsman]

I drove across the westbound bridge back in August. Was certainly glad to find out that only the eastbound side has to pay a toll!

In case you didn't know, all of the Bay Area major bridges have tolls in only one direction. As you can probably guess from my avatar, I am not a fan of tolled roadway facilities, but if you have to have them, doing them in one direction only is better than charging all vehicles.

BTW, the Carquinez is the major exception to the toll inbound/free outbound system in place for the Bay Area's major water crossings.

The easiest way to think about the Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA) crossings is to view the Bay and the Straight and even the western portion of the San Joaquin River as being one water system.  To go "westbound" is the toll crossing and "eastbound" is free.  (for the eastern three bridges, that means northbound toll and southbound free.)  Basically you pay a toll to leave Alameda/Contra Costa when heading toward San Mateo, San Francisco, Marin, Solano, or Sacramento Counties. 

The Golden Gate is separate, and is only tolled in the southbound direction and does not connect to Alameda or CC counties.  It is not operated by the BATA.

And there is the rub.  Alameda/Contra Costa is one land mass, so you can charge a toll to leave it, but the other counties are basically two separate land masses, separated by the GG bridge.  You can avoid a BATA crossing if you drive from Solano to SF without going through Alameda and CC, but you may still be forced to use the GG bridge.  And in fact, the GG bridge is more expensive, so you may prefer to stay on I-80 and use the Bay Bridge.

I-80 crosses through Alameda/CC counties twice.  So if you go from SF to Vallejo on I-80, you will pay toll leaving CC at the Carquinez.  In the other direction, you will pay toll leaving Alameda on the Bay Bridge.  So if you stay on this main road, you will be paying the toll each time.

IN the era of cash tolls, one-way tolling is great since you only face the delays of toll booths once not twice.  The toll authorities operate under the assumption that the vast majority of traffic that goes over a bridge will come back the other way at some point in time, so you get the same money whether you charge $5 in one direction or $2.50 each way.  However, there is the possibility of gaming the system, since you can plan your travels to avoid the toll in one way, even while taking advantage of the toll in the other way -- if you are willing to drive a little further.

For example, you can cross the Dumbarton toll eastbound if that is the quickest way, but opt to go around the Bay on CA-237 westbound since it avoids the toll bridge.  Another example is going northbound on the GG and using CA-37 to Vallejo to avoid the toll on Carquinez Bridge. (IT doesn't work well in the other direction, and so one should stay on I-80 since the Bay Bridge toll is cheaper than the GG bridge toll.)

IMO, to the extent that all electronic tolling is implemented, there is less of a reason to maintain one way tolls.  Each individual trip over a crossing would be half the cost, but there would be no more free rides.  The biggest beneficiary of this would be in NYC, where the cash toll rate of the Verrazano Bridge is $19 (toll by mail for cars without EZ-Pass that don't qualify for resident discount) and actually induces traffic to go through Manhattan to avoid the toll.   

So I believe that it would be better to implement one-way tolling, to the extent that toll booths are being removed as a better way for the toll facilities to recoup their costs.

[US 89]

I drove across the westbound bridge back in August. Was certainly glad to find out that only the eastbound side has to pay a toll!

And the westbound bridge is cooler to drive over anyway.

[Revive 755]

And the westbound bridge is cooler to drive over anyway.

Debatable.  When I was out in the Bay Area, I was disappointed that the WB Bridge was the new one and would have preferred going over the older EB cantilever bridge.

[Max Rockatansky]

And the westbound bridge is cooler to drive over anyway.

Debatable.  When I was out in the Bay Area, I was disappointed that the WB Bridge was the new one and would have preferred going over the older EB cantilever bridge.

The 1927 bridge was even more distinct but unfortunately it's now gone.  At least the 2003 bridge has clearer sight lines. 

[jdbx]

The most sorely needed improvement in this area is a rebuild of the 680/4 interchange, but funding to complete that is still years away.

Without looking at my notes, I was under the impression the I-680/CA 4 interchange rebuild began last year?  There certainly is massive construction at said interchange presently.

The project is programmed in multiple phases.  The only work taking place there right now is the widening of CA 4 between Morello and CA 242.  While the widening also involves raising the elevation of the roadway and rebuilding the existing ramps at the I-680/CA 4 interchange, none of the other programmed improvements are funded at this time.  Unfortunately the result of this is that the badly-needed flyovers from 680 South to 4 East, and 680 North to 4 West are not programmed to be built any time soon.  I'd like to be wrong about this, but the last I read is that they are still searching for funding.

A lot of information about the project components and different phases is available at
https://ccta.net/2018/10/17/interstate-680-state-route-4-interchange-improvements/

[bing101]

Given the uberhigh property values in urban NorCal and the presence of a major freeway, I am curious as to why so much undeveloped land is present as I saw in some of the pix?  It would seem with housing being in very high demand that developers should fill in the blanks.  After all, where would you rather commute from, Stockton or someplace closer? 

Rick

There's Solano County on the north end on the Carquinez bridge, in the case of Solano County they have to deal with both Sacramento and Bay Area commuters at the same time and provide housing for both sets of commuters  on I-80.

[sparker]

Given the uberhigh property values in urban NorCal and the presence of a major freeway, I am curious as to why so much undeveloped land is present as I saw in some of the pix?  It would seem with housing being in very high demand that developers should fill in the blanks.  After all, where would you rather commute from, Stockton or someplace closer? 

Rick

There's Solano County on the north end on the Carquinez bridge, in the case of Solano County they have to deal with both Sacramento and Bay Area commuters at the same time and provide housing for both sets of commuters  on I-80.

Solano is growing quite rapidly; quite a bit of that is infill between Fairfield and Vacaville around the southern flank of the hills through which I-80 travels.  I'd venture that by 2030 at the latest virtually everything north of Travis AFB will be filled up.  Right now there's little chance that development between Vacaville & Dixon will increase at a similar pace; the farmland in that area (CA's tomato capital!) is simply too valuable to its current owners and in its current usage to sell off for housing -- although spot developments around the I-80 interchanges may happen over the next 10 years or so.   But the west side of Fairfield, particularly the Cordelia area, seems to be marching southward in terms of housing development along I-680 toward Benicia (it'll probably avoid the undeveloped hill area to the west because of the spate of fires in the North Bay, which have scared off speculative activity -- probably for the good in any case).  But I'll guess that from the north end of Benicia to somewhere out around I-505 there will be a marked continuity of development, with the result that in a few years the sub-regional population will be edging toward 500K (it's about 60% there now).  That'll be a lot of commuters heading SW toward the Bay Area or east toward Sacramento; the only thing that might mitigate that would be if some major employers deploy "satellite" facilities in the area -- or expedite working from home.  Even with ORT applied to the Carquinez and Benicia bridges, those will likely worsen as chokepoints; likewise, the Yolo Causeway heading east.   It won't be a picnic by any means!     

[stevashe]

Given the uberhigh property values in urban NorCal and the presence of a major freeway, I am curious as to why so much undeveloped land is present as I saw in some of the pix?  It would seem with housing being in very high demand that developers should fill in the blanks.  After all, where would you rather commute from, Stockton or someplace closer? 

Rick

It seems that a lot of the land in the Diablo Range between Crockett and Martinez seems to be privately held ranches.  A lot of the shore line on the Carquinez Strait is railroad right of way or regional park land.  I can really account for how development south of CA 4 really never pushed uphill in the Diablo Range, the terrain is workable.  That said, it is kind of nice to be somewhere like Port Costa and feel like you're in the 1920s instead of a suburbia...even if it is only minutes away.

I think it's for the best that they don't push development into those hills anyway. That terrain may be workable in that you could reasonably grade out subdivisions but the soil in the Bay Area can be rather unstable so any development in the hills would be prone to landslides...

[bing101]

Given the uberhigh property values in urban NorCal and the presence of a major freeway, I am curious as to why so much undeveloped land is present as I saw in some of the pix?  It would seem with housing being in very high demand that developers should fill in the blanks.  After all, where would you rather commute from, Stockton or someplace closer? 

Rick

There's Solano County on the north end on the Carquinez bridge, in the case of Solano County they have to deal with both Sacramento and Bay Area commuters at the same time and provide housing for both sets of commuters  on I-80.

Solano is growing quite rapidly; quite a bit of that is infill between Fairfield and Vacaville around the southern flank of the hills through which I-80 travels.  I'd venture that by 2030 at the latest virtually everything north of Travis AFB will be filled up.  Right now there's little chance that development between Vacaville & Dixon will increase at a similar pace; the farmland in that area (CA's tomato capital!) is simply too valuable to its current owners and in its current usage to sell off for housing -- although spot developments around the I-80 interchanges may happen over the next 10 years or so.   But the west side of Fairfield, particularly the Cordelia area, seems to be marching southward in terms of housing development along I-680 toward Benicia (it'll probably avoid the undeveloped hill area to the west because of the spate of fires in the North Bay, which have scared off speculative activity -- probably for the good in any case).  But I'll guess that from the north end of Benicia to somewhere out around I-505 there will be a marked continuity of development, with the result that in a few years the sub-regional population will be edging toward 500K (it's about 60% there now).  That'll be a lot of commuters heading SW toward the Bay Area or east toward Sacramento; the only thing that might mitigate that would be if some major employers deploy "satellite" facilities in the area -- or expedite working from home.  Even with ORT applied to the Carquinez and Benicia bridges, those will likely worsen as chokepoints; likewise, the Yolo Causeway heading east.   It won't be a picnic by any means!     

So far Roche's Genentech has opened a production facility in Vacaville while managements office is in South City.

https://www.roche.com/research_and_development/who_we_are_how_we_work/rnd_locations/research_location.htm?id=1b39f753-7c5c-4f9d-966a-be79f9755716
https://www.gene.com/contact-us/visit-us/vacaville
https://www.northbaybusinessjournal.com/northbay/solanocounty/9409856-181/solano-vacaville-biotech-real-estate

The Biotech industry in particular is considering either setting up startup operations or branch facilities in Solano County. One is to be halfway from major medical research institutions such as UCSF, and UC Davis.  The Other is to be halfway from industry lobbyists and regulators who have west coast offices in Sacramento and VC Investor access in San Francisco. 

Wait a 2-3 decades approx when this county end up on the same seat as San Mateo County  and Santa Clara County (Specifically Palo Alto and Menlo Park) where they boomed from being rural counties near San Francisco to the most expensive areas in the nation.

EDIT: Removed several extra line breaks. –Roadfro

[mrsman]

I agree the Fairfield area has a lot of growth potential being in the sweet spot btwn SF and Sac.

[jdbx]

I believe the most likely place for heavy development, aside from those already mentioned, is along the 505 corridor between Vacaville and Winters. 

At some point in the not-too-distant future, the Yolo Causeway is going to need to be widened.  I saw plans floated a couple of years ago for a HOT lane between Davis and Sacramento, but I think that the suggested cost of $400 Million is way too conservative considering the amount of bridge construction which would be required.

[sparker]

I believe the most likely place for heavy development, aside from those already mentioned, is along the 505 corridor between Vacaville and Winters. 

At some point in the not-too-distant future, the Yolo Causeway is going to need to be widened.  I saw plans floated a couple of years ago for a HOT lane between Davis and Sacramento, but I think that the suggested cost of $400 Million is way too conservative considering the amount of bridge construction which would be required.

Widening the causeway has been tossed around for years in D3; most plans involve filling in the space between the two parallel spans.  The spongy ground, requiring very long bents and some caisson construction for anchorages as well as protection for the verticals, renders any potential expansion an expensive prospect.  What will probably happen as a first step would be a restriping of the current dual structures (as well as the berm section connecting the bridges) to include a tolled lane, which would probably extend straight through the 80/50 interchange onto eastward US 50.  If a physical bridge expansion is designed and let, the cost would be probably half again to double that of the above cited $400M "guesstimate"; my guess is that such a figure actually did involve a restripe rather than a revised structure.

[jrouse]

BTW, the Carquinez is the major exception to the toll inbound/free outbound system in place for the Bay Area's major water crossings.

Nope.  The Benicia Bridge and the Antioch Bridge also are the same.  They all charge tolls to northbound traffic leaving the region.