Massive CA-37 projects

[relaxok]

Pretty good article on the insanely massive plans for CA-37 improvements (eventually some 21 miles of raised causeway, but also lots of habitat work)

https://www.kneedeeptimes.org/state-route-37-renovation-sea-level-rise/

It's funny to see locals talk about this project as if there's climate alarmism going on when we have already had the highway closed for 3-4 weeks at a time from flooding.

[Plutonic Panda]

This won't increase VMTs? lol

[The Ghostbuster]

How will they get this monstrosity proposal funded and built? Wouldn't upgrades to the existing roadway be less costly while still reducing congestion?

[Max Rockatansky]

How will they get this monstrosity proposal funded and built? Wouldn't upgrades to the existing roadway be less costly while still reducing congestion?

Even if the existing highway was widened it doesn't solve that sea level rise issue that the viaduct does.  FWIW, I've been on 37 when it has been flooding.  The highway kind of reminds me of something I'd see in the coastal swamps of Louisiana.

[The Ghostbuster]

This CA 37 viaduct project is likely one of the most ambitious proposals California has ever come up with. Even if it does go forward, it would likely take a significant amount of time to fund, design, and construct.

[Rothman]

This CA 37 viaduct project is likely one of the most ambitious proposals California has ever come up with. Even if it does go forward, it would likely take a significant amount of time to fund, design, and construct.

You've been posting a decent number of "Captain Obvious" posts lately.

[pderocco]

This CA 37 viaduct project is likely one of the most ambitious proposals California has ever come up with. Even if it does go forward, it would likely take a significant amount of time to fund, design, and construct.

I'm not impressed. Building a viaduct will be staggeringly expensive, but it's not particularly complicated. It ain't the Big Dig.

But I think a viaduct is demented. Just building a new road that is wider and higher, by bringing in tons of dirt, or dredging it from the bay, would be a lot cheaper. Having water flow under the road isn't for the purpose of dealing with sea level rise, it's for altering the character of the bay behind the road, to indulge the preferences of environmentalists, which would be a colossal waste of money.

[Max Rockatansky]

This CA 37 viaduct project is likely one of the most ambitious proposals California has ever come up with. Even if it does go forward, it would likely take a significant amount of time to fund, design, and construct.

I'm not impressed. Building a viaduct will be staggeringly expensive, but it's not particularly complicated. It ain't the Big Dig.

But I think a viaduct is demented. Just building a new road that is wider and higher, by bringing in tons of dirt, or dredging it from the bay, would be a lot cheaper. Having water flow under the road isn't for the purpose of dealing with sea level rise, it's for altering the character of the bay behind the road, to indulge the preferences of environmentalists, which would be a colossal waste of money.

Me personally, I rather relent and modify 37 so it satisfies the environmental groups who are pushing restoration of San Pablo Bay.  The alternative seems to be the long-term abandonment of much 37 and rerouting all that traffic onto 121 and 29.  121 is pretty much choked to death during commute hours as is.

A solid consecutive viaduct does seem like overkill though.  Breaking it up into several viaducts with high fill in between would cost significantly less to construct.

[Plutonic Panda]

This CA 37 viaduct project is likely one of the most ambitious proposals California has ever come up with. Even if it does go forward, it would likely take a significant amount of time to fund, design, and construct.

I'm not impressed. Building a viaduct will be staggeringly expensive, but it's not particularly complicated. It ain't the Big Dig.

But I think a viaduct is demented. Just building a new road that is wider and higher, by bringing in tons of dirt, or dredging it from the bay, would be a lot cheaper. Having water flow under the road isn't for the purpose of dealing with sea level rise, it's for altering the character of the bay behind the road, to indulge the preferences of environmentalists, which would be a colossal waste of money.

Wouldn't a viaduct be more resilient though? A berm is subject to erosion.

[Plutonic Panda]

This CA 37 viaduct project is likely one of the most ambitious proposals California has ever come up with. Even if it does go forward, it would likely take a significant amount of time to fund, design, and construct.

I'm not impressed. Building a viaduct will be staggeringly expensive, but it's not particularly complicated. It ain't the Big Dig.

But I think a viaduct is demented. Just building a new road that is wider and higher, by bringing in tons of dirt, or dredging it from the bay, would be a lot cheaper. Having water flow under the road isn't for the purpose of dealing with sea level rise, it's for altering the character of the bay behind the road, to indulge the preferences of environmentalists, which would be a colossal waste of money.

Me personally, I rather relent and modify 37 so it satisfies the environmental groups who are pushing restoration of San Pablo Bay.  The alternative seems to be the long-term abandonment of much 37 and rerouting all that traffic onto 121 and 29.  121 is pretty much choked to death during commute hours as is.

A solid consecutive viaduct does seem like overkill though.  Breaking it up into several viaducts with high fill in between would cost significantly less to construct.

Wait, what? Why do you wanna satisfy the environmentalist exactly? And you think building a fire duct is overkill surely you're familiar with the traffic congestion that exist on the corridor.

[pderocco]

This CA 37 viaduct project is likely one of the most ambitious proposals California has ever come up with. Even if it does go forward, it would likely take a significant amount of time to fund, design, and construct.

I'm not impressed. Building a viaduct will be staggeringly expensive, but it's not particularly complicated. It ain't the Big Dig.

But I think a viaduct is demented. Just building a new road that is wider and higher, by bringing in tons of dirt, or dredging it from the bay, would be a lot cheaper. Having water flow under the road isn't for the purpose of dealing with sea level rise, it's for altering the character of the bay behind the road, to indulge the preferences of environmentalists, which would be a colossal waste of money.

Me personally, I rather relent and modify 37 so it satisfies the environmental groups who are pushing restoration of San Pablo Bay.  The alternative seems to be the long-term abandonment of much 37 and rerouting all that traffic onto 121 and 29.  121 is pretty much choked to death during commute hours as is.

A solid consecutive viaduct does seem like overkill though.  Breaking it up into several viaducts with high fill in between would cost significantly less to construct.

Wait, what? Why do you wanna satisfy the environmentalist exactly? And you think building a fire duct is overkill surely you're familiar with the traffic congestion that exist on the corridor.

All we need to deal with rising sea level is a higher road. All we need to deal with congestion is a wider road. Making a viaduct, which is really a long low bridge (like I-10 in Louisiana) is only for allowing water to flow freely under the road. That would be nice if it were cheap, but not for billions of dollars.

[Max Rockatansky]

37 is doomed if the environmental concerns aren't at least minimally placated.  Yes, I do think a fully continuous viaduct is overkill and that the environmental restoration could be addressed with something less grandiose.  I also don't think that anything less than a full viaduct will clear all the hurdles that will come up in EIRs.  So pick your poison, placate the environmentalists or say goodbye to 37 eventually.

Then again it probably is worth pointing out that the state hasn't exactly had a stellar record lately with ballooning costs related to projects involving viaducts.

[Plutonic Panda]

This CA 37 viaduct project is likely one of the most ambitious proposals California has ever come up with. Even if it does go forward, it would likely take a significant amount of time to fund, design, and construct.

I'm not impressed. Building a viaduct will be staggeringly expensive, but it's not particularly complicated. It ain't the Big Dig.

But I think a viaduct is demented. Just building a new road that is wider and higher, by bringing in tons of dirt, or dredging it from the bay, would be a lot cheaper. Having water flow under the road isn't for the purpose of dealing with sea level rise, it's for altering the character of the bay behind the road, to indulge the preferences of environmentalists, which would be a colossal waste of money.

Me personally, I rather relent and modify 37 so it satisfies the environmental groups who are pushing restoration of San Pablo Bay.  The alternative seems to be the long-term abandonment of much 37 and rerouting all that traffic onto 121 and 29.  121 is pretty much choked to death during commute hours as is.

A solid consecutive viaduct does seem like overkill though.  Breaking it up into several viaducts with high fill in between would cost significantly less to construct.

Wait, what? Why do you wanna satisfy the environmentalist exactly? And you think building a fire duct is overkill surely you're familiar with the traffic congestion that exist on the corridor.

All we need to deal with rising sea level is a higher road. All we need to deal with congestion is a wider road. Making a viaduct, which is really a long low bridge (like I-10 in Louisiana) is only for allowing water to flow freely under the road. That would be nice if it were cheap, but not for billions of dollars.

Look I'm not gonna get into the political aspect here. I already know what you're trying to say because I'm just gonna rotor it with yes combating sea level rise building higher roads combating capacity issues is adding additional capacity. It's that fucking simple. Widen the goddamn road and elevate it.

Again, I ask this to Max. Why are you wanting the pander to the environmentalist again?

[Max Rockatansky]

I already answered your question.  I'm unclear why you are asking again when you're the one that wants a continuous viaduct.

[Plutonic Panda]

I already answered your question.  I'm unclear why you are asking again when you're the one that wants a continuous viaduct.

First off it's not just me then once a continuous viaduct I'm questioning why there shouldn't be one. I don't see an answer to that. Sea levels are rising. The current roadway is woefully inadequate to serve the existing capacity. But here you are literally saying verbatim. I'm gonna decide with the environmentalist to not expand capacity. And not only that but you just think there shouldn't be a viaduct in the roadway should be eliminated. Am I seeing that right?

[Max Rockatansky]

I already answered your question.  I'm unclear why you are asking again when you're the one that wants a continuous viaduct.

First off it's not just me then once a continuous viaduct I'm questioning why there shouldn't be one. I don't see an answer to that. Sea levels are rising. The current roadway is woefully inadequate to serve the existing capacity. But here you are literally saying verbatim. I'm gonna decide with the environmentalist to not expand capacity. And not only that but you just think there shouldn't be a viaduct in the roadway should be eliminated. Am I seeing that right?

I didn't say that I personally think 37 shouldn't be widened or eliminated.

[Plutonic Panda]

I already answered your question.  I'm unclear why you are asking again when you're the one that wants a continuous viaduct.

First off it's not just me then once a continuous viaduct I'm questioning why there shouldn't be one. I don't see an answer to that. Sea levels are rising. The current roadway is woefully inadequate to serve the existing capacity. But here you are literally saying verbatim. I'm gonna decide with the environmentalist to not expand capacity. And not only that but you just think there shouldn't be a viaduct in the roadway should be eliminated. Am I seeing that right?

I didn't say that I personally think 37 shouldn't be widened or eliminated.

I already answered your question.  I'm unclear why you are asking again when you're the one that wants a continuous viaduct.

First off it's not just me then once a continuous viaduct I'm questioning why there shouldn't be one. I don't see an answer to that. Sea levels are rising. The current roadway is woefully inadequate to serve the existing capacity. But here you are literally saying verbatim. I'm gonna decide with the environmentalist to not expand capacity. And not only that but you just think there shouldn't be a viaduct in the roadway should be eliminated. Am I seeing that right?

I didn't say that I personally think 37 shouldn't be widened or eliminated.

OK, then my apologies. I'm gonna have to go back and reread what you said cause it seemed like you thought that a viaduct was overkill which I'm not quite understanding but you also said that you were willing to compromise with the environmentalist but it also seems like the state has decided to viaduct is the reasonable approach here. And that would involve a continuous four lane roadway. I mean if I had my way it would be 10 lanes. But obviously that's not even remotely realistic, but at the very least it seems like two lanes each way would be sufficient for some of the time.

[FredAkbar]

I would simply shove the environmentalist nerds into lockers and widen the damn road. Figuratively, of course. But I guess that will take several legal hurdles and California voters have not yet been driven to that. Give it another 10-20 years, maybe they'll come around.

[Max Rockatansky]

I would simply shove the environmentalist nerds into lockers and widen the damn road. Figuratively, of course. But I guess that will take several legal hurdles and California voters have not yet been driven to that. Give it another 10-20 years, maybe they'll come around.

That's the rub, I don't see a consensus coming around to that.  In twenty years the projections for 37 in San Pablo Bag aren't exactly rosy.

[relaxok]

But I think a viaduct is demented. Just building a new road that is wider and higher, by bringing in tons of dirt, or dredging it from the bay, would be a lot cheaper.

Whoever told you dredging from the bay is cheap and easy is sorely mistaken for about a million reasons - also we are talking about a huge area of protected wetlands on this route.

[heynow415]

But I think a viaduct is demented. Just building a new road that is wider and higher, by bringing in tons of dirt, or dredging it from the bay, would be a lot cheaper.

Whoever told you dredging from the bay is cheap and easy is sorely mistaken for about a million reasons - also we are talking about a huge area of protected wetlands on this route.

Other than relocating the road further north (generally along 121) the two lane segment has no easy choices.  The engineering problem is that the bay mud in this area is deep and not very stable. Any structure's pilings will need to be designed to accommodate that float or go all the way down to bedrock, neither of which is particularly cheap.

The problem with the berm concept (besides sourcing of the fill) is that importing that much fill weighs a lot.  That much added weight to the ground there will cause the mud underneath to displace as the berm sinks downward, which is what's happening on a lesser scale now. You could "surcharge" the berm fill (make it higher than it needs to be) to account for settlement over time, but that's just that much more fill and weight that will be loaded on it.  I don't recall the sheer volume of fill they calculated would be needed, but it was definitely not just digging a few holes here and there or harvesting bay mud.

It probably shouldn't have been built where it is in the first place, but it's there now and something's gotta happen.

[Scott5114]

Seems like the viaduct would be what's best for both the bay and the road, so it's kind of a no-brainer, even if it is expensive.

[cl94]

I would expect the viaduct to be what happens here. Yes, it'll be expensive AF, but there's really no alternative given soil and environmental conditions in the region, as well as the detour length to just bypass that altogether. My guess is that it would be a toll road, which could get around some of the VMT stuff if done in a certain way.

(personal opinion emphasized).

[Max Rockatansky]

I would expect the viaduct to be what happens here. Yes, it'll be expensive AF, but there's really no alternative given soil and environmental conditions in the region, as well as the detour length to just bypass that altogether. My guess is that it would be a toll road, which could get around some of the VMT stuff if done in a certain way.

(personal opinion emphasized).

Irony being it was originally a private toll road which was brought into the state highway system.

[DTComposer]

FWIW, here's a high tide along 37 yesterday:

https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/1u8sxux/driving_through_high_tide_on_highway_37/