Routes 466 through 740
Click here for a key to the symbols used. "LRN" refers to the Pre-1964 Legislative Route Number. "US" refers to a US Shield signed route. "I" refers to an Eisenhower Interstate signed route. "Route" usually indicates a state shield signed route, but said route may be signed as US or I. Previous Federal Aid (pre-1992) categories: Federal Aid Interstate (FAI); Federal Aid Primary (FAP); Federal Aid Urban (FAU); and Federal Aid Secondary (FAS). Current Functional Classifications (used for aid purposes): Principal Arterial (PA); Minor Arterial (MA); Collector (Col); Rural Minor Collector/Local Road (RMC/LR). Note that ISTEA repealed the previous Federal-Aid System, effective in 1992, and established the functional classification system for all public roads.
466 · 480 · 505 · 580 · 605 · 680 · 710 · 740
No current routing. Note that the map to the right does not show some of the reroutings near Atascadero and Paso Robles, which are explained in the next map.
Until July 1, 1964, the following route was signed as US 466:
Prior to the late 1950s, LRN 125 between Atascadero and Shandon. There may have been a time this was routed along LRN 137 between Creston and a road 3 mi S of Creston, along what is Route 229, at least around 1938.
Around 1959, present-day Route 46 between US 101 near Paso Robles and present-day Route 99 near Famoso via Cholame Pass. Between Shandon and Cholame, the route was cosigned as Route 41/US 466. This segment was LRN 33, defined in 1915.
Present-day Route 58 between Bakersfield and Barstow. This was LRN 58, defined in 1919. According to Tom Fearer on the Sure Why Not? Blog, the routing of US 466 compared to modern Route 58 is substantially different from Tehachapi west to Bakersfield (the blog has a number of maps detailing the differences between Route 58 and US 466). Heading westward US 466 would have diverged from Route 58 onto Tehachapi Boulevard passing through the community of Monolith before entering the city of Tehachapi proper. Within Tehachapi US 466 turned south on Curry Street and west on Valley Boulevard.
Originally Route 202/LRN 144 would have started heading south from US 466 on Woodford-Tehachapi Road. Woodford-Tehachapi Road heads directly north through Old Town Tehachapi. When LRN 58 west extended west of Mojave in 1931, it used the existing county roads through Tehachapi Pass.
Bena Road starts at the Route 58 junction with Bealville Road. US 466 would have followed Bena Road westward as it crosses under the grade of Route 58. Bena Road and US 466 followed Caliente Creek into San Joaquin Valley. At Tower Line Road the designation of Bena Road changes to Edison Highway. US 466 continued west through the community of Edison on Edison Highway. West of Edison the alignment of US 466 on Edison Highway met LRN 143 at Weedpatch Highway. Weedpatch Highway is now signed as Route 184. At this at-grade railroad crossing US 466 on Edison Highway would have entered the City of Bakersfield. US 466 made a turn towards downtown Bakersfield on Sumner Street. Originally US 466 would have met Route 178 on Sumner Street at Beale Avenue at an at-grade intersection. Route 178 would have multiplexed US 466 west to 24th Street, today Beale Avenue is on a fly-over grade. At Union Avenue/Golden State Avenue US 466 met US 99 and US 399. US 399 had a northern terminus multiplexed on US 99 directly to the left on Union Avenue. US 466 would have split right on US 99 via Golden State Avenue, Route 178 would have followed to 24th Street until it was realigned in 1963.
US 99/466 multiplexed through Bakersfield on Golden State Avenue on what is now the routing of Route 204 to Route 99. From the end of Route 204 the alignment of US 466 followed US 99 on what is now the Route 99/Golden State Freeway to Famoso.
Source for the above: Sure Why Not? Blog: Legacy of US Route 466 Part 2; Tehachapi to Bakersfield.
Additionally, LRN 141 was the planned rerouting for US 466 to bypass downtown Bakersfield (back when LRN 4/US 99 (and US 399) was on the Route 204/Business Route 99 alignment) back in 1933; this rerouting only occured in the 1960s however with the construction of the freeways which are now Route 58 and Route 58/Route 99 (explaining why the definition of the route is from LRN 4 to LRN 4: from Brundage at Route 204 to the current Route 99/Route 58/Route 178 interchange at Rosedale Highway/24th Street, where Oak Street ends). Looking at the bridge log, the Route 204/Business Route 99 (former LRN 4) freeway in downtown Bakersfield between LRN 141's two termini (current Route 58 and Route 99) was built in stages: the first section, the Union Avenue Y, was finished in 1957, followed by the Truxtun Avenue crossing in 1959. Most of the section north of L Street and the Chester Avenue traffic circle was also built in 1957; so the construction of the LRN 141 (99/58) freeways occured only once CalTrans decided that the old downtown bypass was more suitable for the through routes. The interchanges connecting Business Route 99 with Route 99 were built in 1962 and 1963, as part of the Bakersfield bypass. Thus by 1964, former LRN 141 had been upgraded to freeway between Brundage Lane and Rosedale Highway; however, the portion from Union Avenue (Route 204/Business Route 99) west to Route 99 would not be built until 1976, at which point Route 58 was moved off of former US 466/LRN 58 (Edison Highway) and onto the new freeway, which is part of the Bakersfield-Tehachapi Highway.
One contributor (Rebecca K.) opined that Twenty-Mule Team Road may be a former routing of US 466 through Boron. This is also the claim of AARoads. It is also the claim of a resident of Mojave since 1948, so it is likely true.
This route was signed in 1934.
No current routing.
In 1963, Route 480 was defined as "Route 80 at the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge approach in San Francisco to the junction of Route 280, Funston approach, and the approach to the Golden Gate Bridge in the Presidio of San Francisco passing near the intersection of Lombard Street and Van Ness Avenue."
In 1968, Chapter 282 made a number of changes reflecting the reworking of
the freeway plans in San Francisco. Two of these changes were of concern to
Route 480. First, Route 280 moved off of Park Presidio/Veterans Blvd (signed as
Route 1) to a new route (former Route 82) on the E side of I-80. In doing so,
it gained the segment of Route 87 from Route 230 to Harrison Street (which is
the street just N of I-80); the remainder of Route 87 (from Harrison Street to
Route 480) became part of Route 480. This made the new version of Route 480:
Route 80 at the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge approach in San
Francisco to the junction of Route 280, Route 280 near Harrison
Street in San Francisco to the junction of Route 1, Funston approach, and
the approach to the Golden Gate Bridge in the Presidio of San Francisco passing
near the intersection of Lombard Street and Van Ness Avenue.”
In 1991, SB 181, Chapter 498 deleted the remainder of Route 480, from Route 280 near Harrison Street in San Francisco to the junction of Route 1, Funston approach, and the approach to the Golden Gate Bridge. The portion from Marina Boulevard to the approach to the Golden Gate Bridge was transferred to Route 101. The last signs for the route were removed in 1997.
Why did these changes occur? In 1955, it was planned to have the US 101/I-480 interchange (and co-signing) begin approximately at the Lombard/Van Ness junction (where the Embarcadero and Central Freeways would have intersected)—this is illustrated in the 1955 Trafficways Map. By 1965, there was a new plan (which was reflected in the 1968 changes) to have a Central Freeway crosstown tunnel from Turk Street to Richardson Avenue, resulting in a much shorter multiplex of Route 480 and US 101 on Doyle Drive only—as illustrated in this 1965 Caltrans Map. This is why it was Route 480 (not US 101) on Doyle Drive (for US 101 exited on Richardson and presumably to the crosstown tunnel).
This route was intended to provide a freeway connection between the Golden Gate and Bay bridges in San Francisco. It was a double-deck roadway design. Calls for the Embarcadero Freeway’s demolition rang out even before the first stretch opened in 1959. The SF Chronicle was against the freeway from the beginning. An editorial from Nov. 22, 1955, included two photos of a huge roadway in Seattle “to show San Franciscans what a double-decker freeway looks like, so that they can intelligently calculate the aesthetic price as they debate this and future freeway construction.” After its debut, the freeway was assailed in another Chronicle editorial, this one from Aug. 28, 1959. The headline: “The boobery goes on and on.” That gem provided a clear view of the piece’s thrust: “We oppose and have consistently opposed the hideous monstrosity which the State Highway Commission built along the Embarcadero in front of the Ferry Building, obscuring the tower and the World Trade Center from view. ... Such an evil is the Embarcadero Freeway, which as we said last Friday and here repeat, should be demolished.”
The demolition of the freeway was put to a vote in 1986, but San Francisco voters defeated the two ballot propositions to start the tear-down. The measures lost by large margins and were major setbacks for both Mayor Dianne Feinstein and the city’s environmental groups.
On Oct. 17, 1989, the Loma Prieta earthquake struck, severely damaging the
freeway. On Jan. 10, 1990, engineers hired by the state said it would cost
between $14 million and $15 million to make the structure sturdier than it was
before the quake and that the work would take about four months — quicker
than expected. A heated discussion continued, until finally, on Jan. 2, 1991,
Caltrans engineers conceded what local leaders had been saying all along:
fixing the Embarcadero Freeway would be nearly as expensive as rebuilding it
from scratch. This renewed assessment cleared the way for the demolition. A
gigantic battering ram knocked loose a chunk of the freeway on Feb. 27, 1991,
marking the beginning of the end for route.
(Source for some of the above: SF Chronicle, "An Ode to the Embarcadero Freeway, the Blight by the Bay", 8/1/2017)
The route, essentially, was doomed from the start, especially after January 1959 when the San Francisco Board of Supervisors Resolution 45-59 passed, which indicated opposition to certain freeway routes. Route 480 is one of the freeways opposed by the city; and was never included in the California Freeway and Expressway System, although it was a part of the Interstate system.
The Embarcadero Freeway (Route 480) ran north along the waterfront for nearly a mile, two thick lines of concrete 70 feet high and 52 feet wide. It started at Folsom Street and ended bluntly at Broadway, running right in front of the historic Ferry Building. The freeway was designed to make a turn inland and head west past Aquatic Park, all the way to the Golden Gate Bridge.
In 1998, there were brief plans to rebuild the Embacadero Freeway as a brief cut and cover tunnel. The proposal was to only extend to roughtly the point of where the elvated freeway structure was truncated.
The history of the route is fascinating; read the planning studies in the LINKS section for details. There were some plans to build it as a tube in the bay, or as a very narrow depressed highway, where there was little or no clearance to construct the road.
Some folks claim to have seen maps where I-480 looped around San Francisco after the Golden Gate Bridge, running S as the Park Presidio and Junipero Serra Freeways. This is unlikely. It is more likely that those freeways were to have been signed as part of Route 1. Note: According to Caltrans, Park-Presidio Boulevard possesses all the attributes of a freeway and was the first such thoroughfare in northern California. It was built through the Presidio of San Francisco as an approach to the Golden Gate Bridge.
Route 480 was LRN 224, defined in 1947.
Although the route no longer exists, the CalTrans bridge log for a time indicated that the route is signed as US 101 between post mile 2.85 and post 5.48. The Fremont St. exit off I-80 W is the former CA 480 exit. There is also a sealed-off CA 480 exit off of I-80 E.
As for what happened to what remains of the old Route 480... it is becoming
a farm. Specifically, at the old on/off ramp near Laguna Street in early 2010,
a number of urban farmers spread steaming piles of mulch over the edge of the
ramps formerly used by cars to enter and exit the elevated Central Freeway spur
above Octavia Street, arranging the soil in rows for planting vegetables and
filler crops. This has formed the "Hayes Valley Farm".
[Source: SF.Streetsblog.Org, 2/8/2010]
"Golden Gate" Freeway, Embarcadero Freeway.
Route 480 was approved as chargeable interstate sometime pre-1965; it was deleted as a chargeable route in August 1965 (hence, its signage after that date with a state shield (Route 480), as opposed to an interstate shield). The old Route 480 was demolished between 1991 and 1993.
[SHC 263.1] Originally, the entire route. Since deleted.
This was part of I-5W, which started at I-5/I-580 south of Stockton, followed I-580 to I-80 in Oakland, paired with I-80 east until I-505, and then reunited with I-5 where I-505 does now. I-580 and I-505 were signed with their current numbers around 1964 (although they were submitted and approved by AASHTO in 1947). Note that a 1968 map shows no freeway for I-505.
In 1963, Route 505 was defined as “Route 80 near Vacaville to Route 5 near Dunnigan”, and it retains its 1963 definition. Before 1972, it was signed as Temporary I-505, and was a two lane road between Vacaville to Dunnigan. The freeway was constructed in sections: the first one between Route 16 and Route 128; the next from I-5 to Route 16; and the final from Route 128 to I-80. The freeway was completed by 1978. Additionally, before 1972, there was actually two sections of constructed freeway: A 2 mile section at the junction of Route 128, and a 1 mile section at Route 16. At this time, the route was unsigned but had freeway status. I-505 freeway was finished in 1977.
This route was LRN 90, defined in 1933. It appears to have been unsigned before 1964.
The SAFETEA-LU act, enacted in August 2005 as the reauthorization of TEA-21, provided the following expenditures for this route:
High Priority Project #35: Replace the structurally unsafe Winters Bridge for vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians between Yolo and Solano Counties. The Sacramento Bee stated that this was the I-505 bridge over Putah Creek Road (~ YOL 0.028). However, this could be wrong, as the Winters Bridge is actually in town about 1 mile west of I-505 , and was built somewhere around 1903. It has a few humps and sags, but is still in use. As bicycles and pedestrians cannot use I-505, this is likely in town. The Winters bridge connects Railroad Avenue in town, with Winters Road and Putah Creek Road in Solano County.$1,600,000.
In April 2007, the CTC considered relinquishment of right of way in the county of Yolo, at County Road 24 (~ YOL 9.547), consisting of reconstructed and relocated county roads and frontage roads.
The interchange of I-80 and I-505 in the County of Solano (~ SOL R0.097) is named the "Lieutenant Colonel James C. Warren Memorial Interchange". It was named in memory of Lieutenant Colonel James C. Warren, who was born in August 1923 into the racially segregated community of Gurly, Alabama.Warren left the region at the age of 15 years, when his mother sent him to Island Park, Illinois, where he attended high school. Enlisting in 1943 to preflight with the Tuskegee Airmen, the all black United States Army Air Force unit that distinguished itself in combat during World War II, Lieutenant Colonel Warren was assigned to Indiana’s Freeman Field, where, after being eliminated from pilot training, he completed navigator training, through which he qualified as both a navigator and a bombardier. Lieutenant Colonel Warren was one of the 101 black officers at Freeman Field in 1945 who were arrested and charged with mutiny because they refused to comply with base regulations excluding black officers from a base officers’ club. The service records of Lieutenant Colonel Warren and the other 100 officers were cleared by the Air Force in 1995, an action that was announced that year during a convention of the Tuskegee Airmen. After serving with the 477th Bombardment Group of the Tuskegee Airmen, Lieutenant Colonel Warren spent 35 years with the United States Air Force, for which he flew 173 combat missions in Korea and Vietnam, earning such esteemed commendations and decorations as the Congressional Gold Medal, Distinguished Flying Cross with two Oak Leaf Clusters, and Air Force Commendation Medal, among numerous others. A University of Nebraska graduate who ultimately became the oldest individual to earn a pilot’s license at the age of 87 years, Lieutenant Colonel Warren distinguished himself through his community leadership and participation in the Nut Tree Airport’s Young Eagles program, as well as his membership with the Jimmy Doolittle Air and Space Museum Foundation, the Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, and Tuskegee Airmen Incorporated. Named by Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR) 24, Res. Chapter 108, Statutes of 2015, on July 16, 2015.
Approved as chargeable Interstate on 7/7/1947; Freeway. In August 1957, this was tentatively approved as I-5W. In November 1957, the designation I-7 was proposed as part of the first attempt to give urban routes numbers (there were no 3-digit routes at the time). In April 1958, it was proposed to be designated I-115 as part of the first attempts to assign 3-digit numbers. It was finally approved as I-5W, and later renumbered as I-505.
[SHC 253.1] Entire route. Added to the Freeway and Expressway system in 1959.
Overall statistics for Route 505:
From Route 5 southwest of Vernalis to Route 80 in Oakland via the vicinity of Dublin and Hayward.
At one time, portions of this route were signed as I-5W (from near Piedmont to N I-80). All of this segment was tentatively approved as I-5W in 1947, and given full approval in 1958. The I-5W designation was dropped in 1964 (when California regularized route numbers to match legislative definitions, and started dropping all "lettered" alternates to Interstates).
In 1984, Chapter 409 extended the route by transfer from Route 17: "(a) Route 5 southwest of Vernalis to Route 80 near Oakland via the vicinity of Dublin and Hayward. (b) Route 80 near Albany to Route 101 near San Rafael via the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge."
This includes the original four-lane Altamont Pass Road, which opened on 8/4/1938. On the eastern grade of the Altamont Pass, the eastbound and westbound I-580 lanes follow different alignments. The EB lanes are the original US 50 alignment. Between the I-580/I-205 split and the Business Route 205 split, most of the width of I-205 (both directions) was the old US 50. It was four-lane divided for some time before the Great Renumbering, and that section is quite a bit narrower than I-580. Of course this may not be original 1927 US 50, but it existed before I-580. US-50 (and possibly US-48) headed into Tracy via Grant Line Road and Byron Road. 11th Street in Tracy is still a divided road in some portions and has a number of old state traffic signals, signs, and lamp poles, including some with the original mercury vapor lamps still intact.
As for the railroad trackage: one of the two lines in the area is the former right-of-way of the Southern Pacific Railroad. These rails were abandoned in 1986 when SP obtained trackage rights over the current ACE route from the Union Pacific Railroad. The SP line, which was constructed in 1869, was actually the final link in the true Transcontinental Railroad. As the ACE Train crosses over, then under, the eastbound and westbound lanes of I-580, there is an abandoned tunnel on the SP right-of-way. The next large cut was actually WP's Tunnel 3. It was daylighted for clearance reasons in the early 1990's.
Note: I-580 is one of five routes in California that have "backwards" post miles: that is, the postmiles go from East to West, instead of the normal West to East.
In May 2016, the CTC approved $60,464,000 for a project near Livermore, on I-580 from the San Joaquin County line to the Greenville Overhead (PM ALA 0.1 to ALA R8.0); also on I-205 from Midway Road to the San Joaquin County line (PM 205 ALA L0.0 to 205 ALA 0.4); also near Castro Valley on Route 580 from Eden Canyon Road to Strobridge Avenue (PM ALA R26.1 to ALA 30.3); also in San Joaquin County near Tracy on Route 580 from Patterson Pass Road to the Alameda County line (PM SJ 13.5 to 15.3). Outcome/Output: Improve safety and ride quality by rehabilitating 54.6 lane miles of distressed mainline and ramp pavement and install signs, lighting, and vehicle pullouts. Also, install ramp metering at 12 locations.
In July 2008, Caltrans opened the I-580 truck bypass, separating slow-moving trucks from cars in the Altamont Pass. Two westbound truck-only lanes run for six miles from Mountain House Parkway to Grant Line Road (~ SJ 13.582 to ALA R1.491) on the right-hand side. This was added as part of widening I-205, and is part of the I-205 to I-580 transition.
Greenville Truck Lanes (~ ALA R4.907R to ALA R8.254)
In January 2011, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding a project in Alameda County that will construct a truck climbing lane in the eastbound direction on I-580 from one mile east of North Flynn Road to Greenville Road Undercrossing (~ ALA R4.907R to ALA R8.254). The project is programmed in the Trade Corridors Improvement Fund. Construction is estimated to begin in Fiscal Year 2011-12. Total estimated project cost is $63,000,000 for capital and support. The project will mitigate potential impacts to biological resources to a less than significant level. Potential impacts to seven animal species that are listed as threatened or endangered will be mitigated through replacement habitat. In addition, potential impacts to an existing wetland in the project area will be mitigated by restoration of the affected wetland. In October 2012, the CTC amended the schedule due to permitting problems. The new schedule shows construction completing in April 2015.
In March 2016, it was reported that Caltrans
expects to open a truck lane on eastbound I-580 in Livermore between Greenville
and North Flynn roads in June 2016. One more layer of asphalt needs to go in
(Source: SJ Mercury News, 3/12/2016)
In May 2012, the CTC authorized SHOPP funding on I-580, in Alameda County, 04-Ala-580 R8.4/R14.6 Near Livermore, from 0.1 mile west of Greenville Road to 0.2 mile west of San Ramon -Foothill Road. $16,400,000 to rehabilitate 51 lane miles of roadway to improve the ride quality, prevent further deterioration of the road surface, minimize the costly roadway repairs and extend the pavement service life.
Livermore HOV/Express Lanes (~ ALA R8.254 to ALA R21.435)
TCRP Project #12.3 is studying improvements for the I-580 Livermore Corridor (~ ALA R9.347 to ALA 17.943). The project is to construct eastbound and westbound High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes on I-580 from west of Tassajara Road in Pleasanton to east of Vasco Road in Livermore, a distance of approximately 18 kilometers (11 miles). The total estimated cost of the project depends on selection of preferred alternative at the conclusion of the environmental clearance process, and ranges from $109,500,000 (minimum project alternative) to $200,500,000 (ultimate project). The selection of the preferred alternative will be made in coordination with the Route 580 Transit Connectivity Study (TCRP #12.3). Included in the Transit Connectivity Study are alternative alignments for transit along the Route 580 corridor.
The minimum project alternative would add HOV lanes in the existing median. The ultimate project would include widening the median to 19.5 meters (64 feet) for future BART extension and 25.6 meters (84 feet) near Airway Boulevard for proposed West Livermore BART station. Widening of the freeway could be to the outside to accommodate shifting the existing lanes and construction of the new HOV lanes.
As of 2003, the TCRP funding was anticipated to fully fund Phases 1, 2, and right of way services (Phase 3), and partially fund construction support (Phase 4). Of the total maximum $200.5 million required for ultimate project implementation, a total of $119.5 million is identified as committed or proposed funding. The remaining $81 million could be an unmet balance for which funding source(s) is/are yet to be identified. The currently identified $119.5 million committed and potential funding sources would allow for the development and construction of a minimum project alternative and meeting the project purpose and needs.
The SAFETEA-LU act, enacted in August 2005 as the reauthorization of TEA-21, provided the following expenditures on or near this route:
In 2007, the CTC recommended $72.2M from the Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA) for an EB HOV Lane from Greenville Road in Livermore to Hacienda Drive in Pleasanton (~ ALA R8.254 to ALA 18.834), and $68M for a WB HOV Lane at the Isabel Ave (Route 84) interchange (~ ALA 14.15), and $101.7M for a WB HOV Lane from Greenville to Foothill Road (~ ALA R8.254 to ALA R21.435).
In October 2008, a segment of HOV lanes in Livermore opened.
In February 2009, the CTC amended the environmental work for the project. Specifically, on July 27, 2007, the CTC approved a resolution that revised the project schedule to show FY2008-09 as the completion date for Environmental portion of the project. At the same time, the CTC approved a resolution that allocated $3,000,000 for a Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (PEIR), which was proposed to be developed by December 2008. The purpose of the PEIR was to support the early acquisition of right of way along I-580 for a future transit corridor. However, the schedule required modification in 2009 as it was dependent on inclusion of a right of way preservation project-known as the “I-580 Transit Corridor”-in the regional transportation plan (RTP) currently being developed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). MTC is scheduled to adopt the Final Plan, EIR, and Conformity Analysis for the RTP on March 25, 2009. The amendment changed the completion date for the environmental phase to December 2009.
In February 2010, the CTC approved allocating $8,000,000 in Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) funds for the Route 580 project to construct an eastbound HOV lane from Tassjara Road/Santa Rita Road to Vasco Road in Alameda County (TCRP 31).
In April 2010, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding a project in Alameda County that will construct a westbound HOV lane on a 13.4 mile portion of Route 580 near the city of Dublin. The project is programmed in the Corridor Mobility Improvement Account and includes federal and local funds. Total estimated project cost is $137,886,000 for capital and support. Construction is estimated to begin in Fiscal Year 2011-12. There is a concurrent baseline amendment request to split the project into three contracts. The scope, as described for the preferred alternative, is consistent with the project scope set forth in the proposed project baseline agreement.
Overall, this project will construct a high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane from the San Ramon Road/Foothill Road Interchange to the Greenville Road Overhead; widen the inside and outside shoulders sufficiently to accommodate the HOV lane and allow for future conversion of the HOV lane to a high occupancy toll (HOT) lane; widen the existing bridge crossings over Tassajara Creek and Arroyo Las Positas Creek at various locations; and construct various westbound auxiliary lanes. It will also construct a westbound express bus ramp connection from the westbound HOV lane to the Dublin-Pleasanton BART Station; construct soundwalls as identified by the environmental document; and upgrade the drainage system in the freeway median to accommodate the HOV lane. In April 2010, the CTC approved amending the CMIA baseline agreement for the I-580 Westbound HOV Lane – Greenville to Foothill project (PPNO 0112B) to: (1) Update the project scope to eliminate the westbound I-580 express bus off-ramp to the Dublin-Pleasanton Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Station, funded by 12 million Regional Measure 2 (RM2) funds; add a westbound auxiliary lane at two locations: a) From Vasco Road to First Street and b) From Airway Boulevard to Fallon Road, to be funded by local funds; (2) Update the overall project funding plan; and (3) Split the updated project into three roadway contracts. The westbound express off-ramp to the BART station is being elminated because both the BART and the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority opposed the inclusion of these improvements in the project scope on concerns relating to pedestrian safety in the vicinity of the BART Station; this provided a cost savings of $12M. The auxiliary lanes were added to the scope of the overall project for coordination purposes; these lanes were originally a local project. Combining these two auxiliary lanes projects with the HOV lane project for construction will reduce throw-away costs such as roadway drainage improvements, signings, and erosion control measures and also avoid unnecessary disruption to the traveling public.
The overall project is proposed to be split into three segments.
Segment 2 (PPNO 0112F): In Alameda County in Livermore from just east of Isabel Avenue to just west of San Ramon Road/Foothill Road Interchange. Construct a westbound HOV lane from Isabel Avenue Overcrossing to San Ramon Road/Foothill Road Interchange. Widen the inside and outside shoulders sufficiently to accommodate the HOV lane and allow for future conversion to a HOT lane. Widen existing bridge crossing over Tassajara Creek. Construct westbound auxiliary lanes from Airway Boulevard to Fallon Road. Construct soundwalls as identified by the environmental document. Construct mitigation landscaping. Upgrade the freeway median drainage system in the freeway median to accommodate the HOV lane.
Segment 3 (PPNO 0112G): In Alameda County in Livermore from just west of First Street Overcrossing to just west of Isabel Avenue Overcrossing. Widen existing bridge crossings over Arroyo Las Positas Creek in the eastbound direction (at two locations).
In July 2010 it was reported that a 2.9-mile HOV lane segment opened in Livermore: EB from Airway Boulevard past Portola Road. Upon completion, the entire HOV lane will extend 11 miles from Hacienda Road in Pleasanton to Greenville Road in Livermore. It will eventually be turned into an express toll lane. The first lane segment from east of Portola Road to Greenville Road opened in October 2009. If construction continues as expected, the overall HOV project will open in Fall 2010, about one year ahead. In November 2010, it was reported that the second phase of the 11-mile carpool lane on eastbound I-580 between Pleasanton and Livermore was opened. The carpool lane is expected to ease traffic in the area, which currently sees more than 170,000 vehicles a day. The project cost $49 million, which is $23 million less than what had been budgeted, and was completed a year ahead of schedule. It was mostly funded by Proposition 1B, a $19.9 billion transportation bond that was approved by California voters in 2006. Transportation officials said the project was completed for far less than had been expected because of the highly competitive bidding market among contractors seeking business. The section that opened in November 2010 goes from Hacienda Drive in Pleasanton to Portola Road in Livermore. The first segment, which is from Portola Road to Greenville Road in Livermore, opened in October 2009.
In August 2010, the CTC approved amending the CMIA baseline agreement for Segment 2 (Construct HOV Lane, from Portola to Hacienda [PPNO 0112D]) of the Eastbound I-580 HOV Lane project to update the project delivery schedule, noting that construction started later than originally expected.
In April 2012, it was reported that construction on the $182 million-dollar HOV lane between Livermore and Dublin is scheduled to begin in August 2012 and be completed in mid-2015. Eastbound commuters -- who have benefited from an 11-mile carpool lane from Hacienda Drive to Greenville since 2009 -- will see the lane transformed into a combination carpool-toll lane. The cost to add the technology for the lane, which was $15 million to build, is $19 million, and it will open at the same time the westbound lane debuts.
In February 2013, it was reported that Caltrans plans to convert HOV lanes on I-580 into HOT ("Express" or High Occupancy/Toll) lanes -- specifically, I-580 in both directions between I-680 and Hacienda Road in Livermore. Express lanes work by continuing to allow carpoolers free access to the fast lane but then selling unused capacity to drivers who wouldn't normally qualify to drive in them. Tolls are collected electronically using FasTrak transponders, and electronic systems are used to monitor traffic and set tolls at a rate designed to keep traffic in the lanes flowing at 50 mph or faster. As the lanes get more congested, tolls rise, and as gridlock eases, they drop. Toll rates for the network have not been set yet, but on the existing lanes they have varied from a 30-cent minimum to about $5 or $6.
In mid-June 2013, A ceremony was held to mark the start of construction on the $145 million new HOV lanes between Greenville Road in Livermore and the Foothill Road over crossing in Dublin and Pleasanton. Completion is expected in late 2014, a year before the lane is to be converted into an express toll lane open to carpools for free and solo drivers for a toll. Contractors also will add an auxiliary lane on I-580 between Isabel Avenue and First Street in Livermore.
In September 2015, it was reported that the opening
of the I-580 HOT lanes along both directions of I-580 through Pleasanton,
Dublin and Livermore would be delayed. The I-580 project, which began
construction in June 2014, is converting the eastbound high-occupancy vehicle
(HOV) lane and another lane into two express lanes from Hacienda Drive to
Greenville Road in Livermore. For the westbound direction, a single express
lane will run from Greenville to the San Ramon/Foothill roads overcrossing,
creating the first HOV-specific lane on westbound I-580 through the corridor.
New driving lanes were previously built in each direction as part of separate
HOV and auxiliary lanes projects. The express lanes would be free to access for
carpools, vanpools, public transit, motorcycles and eligible clean-air vehicles
while other solo drivers could pay a toll to use the lanes from 5 a.m. to 8
p.m. Mondays through Fridays. The lanes would be open free-of-charge all other
times. Express lane access will be nearly continuous, except for limitations
eastbound between Hacienda and Fallon and El Charro roads and westbound between
Hacienda and San Ramon Road. The project had construction delays on the civil
infrastructure due to material shortages. Additionally, among the project
components still to be completed is the adoption of a toll fee schedule. The
agency will use dynamic pricing, with toll rates going up or down to help
traffic move smoothly. Tolls will increase as express lane congestion increases
-- in an effort to discourage solo drivers from using the express lanes. The
logic is reversed when congestion eases. A motorists' toll rate is locked in as
soon as they enter the lane, and the rate remains the same for the duration of
their trip, regardless of any rate changes during that time. Drivers who enter
the lanes will be required to use a FasTrak Flex reader, which offers
adjustable settings based on one, two or three-plus vehicle occupants.
(Source: Pleasanton Weekly, 9/25/2015)
In February 2016, it was reported that HOT lanes on
I-580 from Dublin to Livermore had opened. This marks the biggest expansion of
using carpool lanes as express lanes in the region, with two lanes eastbound
and one lane westbound for 12 miles or 36 miles in total. The express lanes
will operate from 5 a.m. to 8 p.m. weekdays. At other times, they'll be open to
all drivers. Minimum tolls will be in the $1.50 to $1.75 range. FasTrak will be
required by all users even carpoolers. FasTrak Flex toll tags (i.e., the type
used in Southern California) will be required. They can be set at one, two or
three to indicate the number of people in the car and can be used anywhere
FasTrak can be used, such as on I-680 through Fremont, Route 237 in Milpitas,
and the HOT lanes on I-15 and I-10. Operated by the Alameda County
Transportation Commission, these lanes were funded with federal, state,
regional and local dollars, including a voter-approved sales tax. The toll
lanes cost $55 million, but the overall cost to widen the freeway and add
numerous merging lanes raised the final bill to $345 million.
(Source: Mercury News, 1/22/2016, East Bay Times, 2/10/2016)
In an AAroads post on the subject, additional
informaton on the FasTrack Flex tag was provided. Joe Rouse (of m.t.r and
AAroads fame) came up with the name, inspired by what the EZPass group on the
East Coast did for their switchable tag for the express lanes on I–495
and I–95 in Virginia, with the special branding of EZPass Flex. The
California Toll Operators Committee (CTOC) adopted it after some market
research and approval by the Transportation Corridor Agencies (which owns the
FasTrak trademark). The branding came about as a result of an issue with the
I-10 and I-110 express lanes in Los Angeles. LA Metro offers only a switchable
tag to its customers. It was branded as FasTrak. Yet there are a substantial
number of older non-switchable tags in use in Southern California that were
issued by TCA and OCTA, also branded as FasTrak. The pricing signs on the 2
express lanes in Los Angeles were displaying a message that HOVs with FasTrak
didn't have to pay a toll. However, this was only applicable if you had the
switchable tag. No switch - you'd still pay. A few people had caught on to this
distinction, and there was concern that it could lead to legal action because
the signs were conveying a misleading message. The toll operators saw this same
risk and agreed that a separate brand would help. Guidance was developed on the
use of the brand and one of the things that I made very clear was that the
brand should only be used in messaging related to carpooling. For this reason,
when you drive the I-580 express lanes, most signs only say "FasTrak". The
FasTrak Flex brand is only displayed on messages pertaining to HOVs. The
messaging on those signs was taken from the I–495 express lanes in
Virginia. The Bay Area was the first region to adopt the FasTrak Flex branding.
The express lanes in Los Angeles will adopt it eventually. A couple of media
outlets reported that you could ONLY use the I-580 express lanes if you had the
FasTrak Flex. That's not true because that would violate California's
interoperability law. One final note: if you use a traditional toll facility
like a toll bridge or toll road, the setting on the switch tag doesn't matter.
The switch setting is tied in with one component of the tag that is typically
not scanned by the overhead readers. The tag readers on the LA express lanes
and the new express lanes in the Bay Area will scan that component. I'm not
sure about the existing express lanes on Route 237 and I-680. Eventually both
of those facilities will start requiring all users to carry a tag, though, and
require the Flex tag for toll-free travel.
(Source: Joe Rouse @ AAroads, 2/24/2016)
In August 2016, it was reported that notorists took
nearly 1.9 million trips on I-580's new express lanes in Alameda County in the
first four months the lanes opened to vehicle traffic. The first full month of
operation saw around 549,000 trips along the east- and westbound lanes, growing
to 647,000 trips in May -- an 18 percent increase from March -- according to a
report presented to the Alameda County Transportation Commission. Average
hourly speeds in the express lanes are estimated to be between 10 and 33 mph
faster than the average hourly speeds in general purpose lanes during the
morning rush-hour commute.
(Source: East Bay Times, 7/29/2016)
In March 2017, it was reported that since the
combination express and carpool lanes opened in February 2016 on I-580, along
the main route between the Bay Area and the Central Valley, more than 7.6
million drivers have taken advantage of them, according to a report released in
March 2017 by the Alameda County Transportation Commission, which operates the
lanes. By paying an average toll of $1.62 westbound and $2.13 eastbound,
drivers get to drive about 10 mph faster than those in the other lanes. On an
average day, about 11 percent of the vehicles traveling on I-580 through the
area use the express lanes. That’s about 30,000 cars and trucks a day.
Looking at February alone, the figures show that of the estimated 30,000
vehicles to use the 580 Express Lanes daily, 52 percent paid a toll and 38
percent legally traveled toll-free under diamond lane rules. The percent of
toll-lane cheats fell from about 30 percent when the lanes opened a year ago to
10 percent last month, the report said.
(Source: SF Chronicle, 3/16/2017)
The SAFETEA-LU act, enacted in August 2005 as the reauthorization of TEA-21, provided the following expenditures on or near this route:
In May 2013, the CTC relinquished right of way in the city of Livermore along Route 580 on Kitty Hawk Road and Portola Avenue, consisting of collateral facilities (~ 04-Ala-580-PM 13.2/14.3).
Isabel Avenue Interchange (~ ALA 14.15)
The SAFETEA-LU act, enacted in August 2005 as the reauthorization of TEA-21, provided the following expenditures on or near this route:
There are plans to add a new interchange as Isabel Avenue in Livermore, but this was deferred in June 2008 because the cost and scope of ED is not consistent with cost and scope of CMIA baseline agreement.. The project is fully programmed for $153 million with Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA) funds, federal Demonstration funds, and local funds. Construction is estimated to begin in Fiscal Year 2008-09.. There was a similar deferral of a project to construct roadway improvements on I-580 in the city of Livermore that would have extended out to I-205. The project is fully programmed for $154 million with Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA) funds; State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds; State Highway Operation Protection Program (SHOPP) funds; Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) funds; Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) funds; and local funds. Construction is estimated to begin in Fiscal Year 2007-08.
Specifically, the project will construct a new interchange at Isabel Avenue (Route 84) and Route 580 in the city of Livermore. The project will also remove the existing partial interchange at Portola Avenue and I- 580. This new interchange at Isabel Avenue will provide a permanent and more efficient connection between Route 580 and Route 84. These improvements will result in a congestion relief in the Route 580/Route 680 corridors by establishing an alternative route for traffic between the Central/Tri-Valleys and the South Bay areas. In October 2008, the CTC considered amending the project plan to reallocate funding between tasks and to divide the project into three segments. This was due to an increase in right of way (ROW) acquisition costs of $3.1 million, due to the refinement of ROW costs that are now based upon actual appraisals, negotiated property acquisition compensations, and updated utility relocation estimates. This brought the total ROW costs to $24M. Additionally, construction estimates have also increased by $10.9M to $96.6M. That's just for Construction Capital! Construction support is another $8M (but that's a decrease of $8M from the original estimate). The amendment proposed that the work relating to the construction of three foundations for the Isabel Avenue Overcrossing (estimated cost $1.75 million) be transferred from this project to another CMIA project, the Route 580 EB HOV Lane project (PPNO 0112A, Segment 2 [EA 04-290831]). Similarly, widening of the Arroyo Las Positas Bridge (estimated cost $1.70 million) was to be transferred from the Route 580 EB HOV Lane project to the Isabel Avenue interchange project. They also proposed splitting the project into three construction contracts, allowing the City of Livermore to administer construction of the work that is within its own right of way, and thus better deal with traffic controls and circulation impacts on the city roads.
So, the project will include (a) construction of a new interchange at Isabel Avenue (Route 84) in the Route 580 Corridor, replacing the existing temporary connection at Route 580/Airway Blvd; (b) construction of a new Portola Avenue overpass; (c) construction of eastbound and westbound auxiliary lanes between Isabel Avenue and Airway Boulevard, (d) removal of the partial interchange at Route 580/Portola Ave. for enhanced mainline operational efficiency and safety.; (e) widening and realigning of SR 84 south of Route 580, including relocation of utilities; (f) construction of new local roads necessary for the interchange operation north of Route 580; (g) widening an existing Route 580 bridge over the Arroyo Las Positas creek to accommodate the Route 580 EB HOV Lane project. The Arroyo Las Positas Creek Bridge widening was added from Route 580 EB HOV Lane project. Some foundation work in the median for the Route 580/Isabel Avenue Interchange project was deleted from this project and added to the Route 580 EB HOV Lane project. The three construction contracts are: (04-171311) Widen and realign Route 84 south of I-580, including relocation of utilities; (04-171321) Construct new local roads north of the I-580/Isabel Avenue Interchange, for proper operations of the interchange; and (04-171331) (a) Construct new interchange at I-580 and Isabel Avenue (Route 84) replacing the existing temporary connection at I-580/Airway Blvd; (b) construct a new Portola Avenue overpass; (c) construct eastbound and westbound auxiliary lanes between Isabel Avenue and Airway Boulevard; (d) remove the partial interchange at I-580/Portola Ave. (e) widen an existing I-580 bridge over the Arroyo Las Positas creek to accommodate the I-580 EB HOV project. The first two of these (171311 and 171321) would be done by the City of Livermore; the last by Caltrans.
In January 2010, it was noted that construction near I-580 and Route 84 was progressing nicely. it's visibly becoming an interchange with approach embankments looking done on both sides. Completion is scheduled for February 2011.
In August 2010, the CTC approved amending the CMIA baseline agreements for Segment 1 (Widen and realign SR-84/Isabel Avenue [PPNO 0115E]), Segment 2 (Construct new local roads north of I-580/Isabel Interchange [PPNO 0115F]) and Segment 3 (Construct new interchange at Isabel Avenue [PPNO 0115B]) of the I-580/ Isabel Interchange project to update the project delivery schedule for each project. All three segments received their allocations at the December 2008 Commission meeting. The contracts for Segment 1 and 2 were advertised on December 22, 2008. The Segment 3 was advertised in January 2009. But the bid openings had to be postponed because the Proposition 1B funding was suspended due to financial constraints of the State. For Segment 3, delay in bid opening was also caused by the issuance of three addenda. The contracts for Segment 1 and 2 were awarded in June 2009. The Segment 3 contract was awarded in July 2009. None of the changes affect the close-out dates, although the end of construction for Segment 1 is pushed out two months to March 2012.
In October 2011, the CTC recieved a request to amend the CMIA baseline agreements related to a project in this area; specifically, for Segment 1 (Widen and realign State Route 84 south of I-580 interchange and relocate utilities, PPNO 0115E), Segment 2 (Construct new local roads north of the I-580/Isabel Avenue Interchange, PPNO 0115F), and Segment 3 (Construct new interchange at Isabel Avenue and a new Portola Avenue Overcrossing, PPNO 0115B) of the I-580/Isabel Interchange project to: • Transfer a portion of the scope of work from Segment 3 to Segment 1. • Shift $600,000 CMIA and $400,000 local funds in close-out savings from Segment 2 to Segment 1 in order to complete this transferred scope of work.
In November 2011, Caltrans opened the new I-580/Route 84 ramps and the newly realigned Route 84 south of I-580 that will connect with the new interchange, and closed the westbound I-580 Portola Avenue onramp. The two new onramps will serve as new freeway access from Las Positas College and the businesses north of I-580. Commuters will be able to use the new interchange in lieu of cutting through downtown Livermore. Another project to widen Route 84 south of the interchange between Jack London Boulevard and Vallecitos Road is slated to begin in spring 2012.
In April 2012, the CTC authorized SHOPP funding on I-580, in Alameda County, 04-Ala-580 R14.6/R21.6 Near Livermore, from 0.1 mile west of Greenville Road to 0.2 mile west of San Ramon-Foothill Road. $13,000,000 to rehabilitate 38.5 lane miles of pavement to improve ride quality, prevent further deterioration of the road surface, minimize the costly roadway repairs, and extend the pavement life.
In June 2011, the CTC authorized relinquishment of right of way in the city of Pleasanton along Route 580 between Route 680 and Hopyard Road, consisting of collateral facilities. (4-Ala-580-PM 19.8/20.7)
In April 2012, it was reported that construction had started on on a $2.4 million trail segment providing the first off-road trail for people to walk or ride under I-580 in the Tri-Valley area (~ ALA 20.568). The new segment will close a 784-foot-long gap between two trails that stop on opposite sides of I-580. On the Dublin side, there is the Alamo Canal Trail, which connects to the Iron Horse Trail leading the way to Martinez. On the Pleasanton side, the Centennial Trail runs parallel to I-680 and a flood-control channel and leads toward central Pleasanton. To build the trail, crews will cut a notch out of the creek bank under the interstate and the BART tracks. Caltrans insisted that the trail have a railing to prevent users from falling into the creek, while Zone 7 Water District officials worried that the railing would trap floating debris and aggravate flood risks during heavy storms. Trail designers came up with a compromise plan for a collapsible rail with posts that can be removed before waters rise. Several agencies -- including Dublin, Pleasanton, the Alameda County Transportation Commission and the regional park district -- contributed funding toward the trail, but the largest allocation was $1 million in federal transportation dollars.
In May 2007, flames from an exploding gasoline tanker melted the steel
underbelly of the I-580 bridge that carried EB traffic from the Bay Bridge to
I-580, I-980, and Route 24 (~ ALA R047.53). The single-vehicle crash occurred
on the lower roadway when the tanker, loaded with 8,600 gallons of unleaded
gasoline and heading from a refinery in Benicia to a gas station on Hegenberger
Road in Oakland, hit a guardrail. Caltrans fast-tracked the repair
construction, which was expected to take 5-6 months. However, the contractor
(C.C. Myers) actually completed the work in twenty-six days, opening the I-580
bridge on 8:40 PM on May 24, 2007. How was this done?
Less than two days after the I-580 connector collapsed, demolition crews
removed the mangled section. A day later, Caltrans engineers clambered over the
charred section of I-880, drilling concrete core samples, X-raying parts of the
structure and dragging chains over the roadway -- all tests to determine the
extent of repairs needed. The results came back the next day -- the fourth day
after the collapse. I-880 had suffered no serious structural damage to the
concrete, Caltrans concluded. The freeway connector could be jacked up and
supported with temporary braces while workers used a heat-straightening
technique to repair warped steel girders underneath. Contractor ACC West
completed the work quickly, and I-880 was reopened to traffic after being
closed for just eight days. As for the I-580 overpass, Caltrans officials
worked to speed the process by preparing a list of potential contractors it
knew could do the work quickly and by streamlining its process, clearing as
much red tape as possible. Then they drew up a contract offering a $200,000
bonus -- with a limit of $5 million -- for each day the work was done in less
than 50 days and levying a $200,000 penalty for each day after that deadline.
The bids were opened and the winner was the fifth bid, from C.C. Myers Inc.,
which came in at $867,075. The original Caltrans estimate was $5.2 million.
Within hours of the bid award, Myers had workers on the site of the maze
collapse. Meanwhile, in Lathrop (San Joaquin County), concrete fabrication firm
ConFab started building what is essentially a big, rectangular concrete block.
The block, filled with steel reinforcement bars and cables, is what's known to
road builders as a bent cap -- a 243,750-pound beam that sits atop two columns
and supports the frame of the elevated roadway. While the beam was being built,
steel was being rushed from Pennsylvania and Texas to Stinger Welding, a steel
fabrication firm in Arizona. Carl Douglas, president of Stinger, found in
Pennsylvania the nation's only supply of the 2-inch steel plate needed to make
the bottom flange of the steel girders. He found the half-inch and 1-inch steel
needed for the rest of the girders in Texas. It was loaded onto trucks with two
drivers in each rig so they could make the trips with fewer stops. Once the
steel reached Arizona, Stinger crews began working two 10-hour shifts daily to
get the girders built. Caltrans sent inspectors and engineers -- all authorized
to make on-the-spot decisions -- to answer questions and ensure the quality of
the fabrication. The first two girders were done on May 14 -- just four days
after Stinger started working and seven days into C.C. Myers' contract -- and
around noon they were put on trucks bound for the Bay Area. Stinger finished
the girders in nine days -- a job that would normally have taken about 45. The
first two girders arrived early on May 15 at ABC Painting, an industrial paint
shop on the old Mare Island Naval Shipyard in Vallejo. Crews blasted the
girders with steel grit to rough them up enough to hold a good coat of paint.
Then they applied a zinc primer in "Caltrans gray," a sort of greenish gray. As
the girders were painted, the massive concrete bent cap began making its way
from Lathrop on an 18-axle truck. The load was so heavy that the truck wasn't
permitted on I-580 over the Altamont Pass and had to use rural roads to get to
the Tri-Valley. Still, the bent cap arrived about 15 minutes before Caltrans'
scheduled 8 p.m. closure May 15 of the I-880 connector for the installation,
and had to wait on the side of I-80 in Berkeley. Shortly after 8 p.m., the rig
pulled onto the closed I-880 connector and parked at an angle beneath the two
I-580 columns that survived the collapse and needed only minor repairs. After
the beam was untied and hooked to lifting cables, a pair of cranes raised it at
8:50 p.m. and had it in place by 9 p.m. Crane operators then dropped large
steel "pins" into holes in the bent cap and injected grout to secure the
connection. After the first four girders were lifted into place, two more
arrived each subsequent night, and they were put in place without difficulty.
As soon as each pair was secured, workers swarmed the steel beams and started
installing the wooden forms and steel-reinforcement bar for the concrete
roadway. On a typical job, the contractor would wait until the girders were all
installed before preparing for the concrete pour. After curing for 48 hours,
the concrete poured on Sunday had already attained the required strength --
3,500 pounds per square inch -- for the road deck. But Caltrans wanted it to
cure -- beneath burlap and plastic blankets to keep it damp -- for at least 96
hours. For this job, C.C. Myers will collect $5 million in bonus money. The job
is estimated to have cost the firm $2.5 million.
(Information obtained from a 5/25/2007 article in the San Francisco Chronicle)
The stretch of road that runs between the two segments of I-580 (starting at ALA 46.397R) has interesting trailblazers: West I-80 and East I-580 (or East I-80 and West I-580). You can find a picture of this here.
The portion of this route between Route 5 and Route 205 (~ SJ 0.08 to ALA 0.317R) is named the "William Elton 'Brownie' Brown Freeway". It was named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 74, Chapter 127, in 1985. William Elton "Brownie" Brown, (1912-1995), a lifetime resident of Tracy, served for 6 years as the President of the Highway 33 Association, and was instrumental in having I-5 located on the far west side of the San Joaquin valley, thus saving valuable farm land.
The portion of this route from North Flynn Road in Livermore to Airway Boulevard (ALA 6.00 WB to ALA 14.98 EB) is named the "CHP Officer John P. Miller Memorial Highway" It was named in memory of California Highway Patrol (CHP) Officer John Paul Miller. Born on January 29, 1975, to Larry and Caroline Miller, in Stockton, California, Officer Miller graduated from Linden High School in Linden, California, in 1994, and attended San Joaquin Delta College in Stockton, California, where he was a respected athlete and earned his Associate of Arts degree. Officer Miller was employed by Cherokee Freight Line of Stockton as a mechanic and delivery driver prior to becoming a California Highway Patrol Officer. Officer Miller was married to his best friend, Stephanie Bianchi, on July 21, 2001, and had two wonderful children, Chandler on March 18, 2003, and Reese on March 14, 2005. Officer Miller continued his education by attending California State University, Sacramento and the University of Phoenix where he graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Business Administration in 2004. Officer Miller entered the California Highway Patrol Academy on September 18, 2006, and upon graduation, was assigned to the Dublin Area Office in April 2007, serving the Dublin area for seven months. On November 16, 2007, Officer Miller was killed in the line of duty while he was attempting to apprehend a drunk driver in the Livermore Valley. As Officer Miller was driving south on North Livermore Avenue, north of I-580, he was involved in a patrol car collision causing fatal injuries. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution (ACR) 78, Resolution Chapter 110, on 9/23/2009.
The portion of this route between Livermore and Castro Valley (~ ALA R8.197 to ALA R33.444) is named the "Arthur H. Breed Jr. Freeway". Elected to both the California Assembly and Senate between 1935 and 1959, Arthur J. Breed, Jr., was a tireless advocate for the development of a high quality highway system in California. This section was named by Senate Concurrent Resolution 5, Chapter 73 in 1983.
The portion of this route between East Castro Valley Boulevard and Strobridge Avenue (~ ALA R27.062 to ALA 30.37) is named the "Sergeant Daniel Sakai Memorial Highway". It was named in memory of Daniel Sakai of Castro Valley. Born April 6, 1973, he grew up in Big Bear in San Bernardino County, where he developed a love for everything outdoors. Daniel Sakai moved to the San Francisco Bay Area to attend the University of California at Berkeley, where he received a degree in 1996 in forestry and natural resources and also worked as a community service officer. After graduating from the university, Daniel Sakai spent a year in Japan teaching English. Daniel Sakai attended the Oakland Police Department Academy, where he met his soulmate and future wife, Jennifer. Daniel Sakai quickly rose to the rank of sergeant of police and served the Oakland Police Department in various roles, including as a patrol officer, canine handler, patrol rifle and academy firearms instructor, and special weapons and tactics (SWAT) team member. Daniel Sakai was described as a "special young man who was clearly a born leader. He was committed to public service and making a difference in other people's lives". He was also described as a "person that everyone looked up to and wanted to be. He had the highest ethics". On March 21, 2009, Sergeant Daniel Sakai was killed, along with another SWAT team member, Sergeant Ervin Romans, when the SWAT team attempted to apprehend a suspect that had earlier in the day shot and killed Sergeant Mark Dunakin and mortally wounded Officer John Hege, both of the Oakland Police Department, during a traffic stop. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution (ACR) 79, Resolution Chapter 111, on 9/23/2009.
The portion of this route from Route 238 in Hayward/Castro Valley to the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge distribution structure (a/k/a "the Maze") in Oakland (Route 80/Route 580/Route 880 interchange) (~ ALA R30.967 to ALA 46.487R) is named the "MacArthur Freeway". It is named for General Douglas MacArthur of WW II and the Korean War, as well as for MacArthur Boulevard which the freeway follows and was named for the general in the 1950's. It was named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 27, Chapter 156, in 1968. Douglas MacArthur (1880-1964) was a brilliant and controversial five-star U.S. Army General. Strongly dedicated to country and duty, and gifted with superior command ability, MacArthur's military service included important command assignments in the both World Wars and the Korean War. During World War One, MacArthur commanded the 42nd "Rainbow" Division of the Allied Expeditionary Force in France. After the War, MacArthur was superintendant of West Point from 1919-1922. In January of 1930 he was promoted to full General, 4 stars and named the U.S. Army's Chief of Staff. MacArthur retired from the Army in 1937, one year after the President of the Phillipines, Manuel Quezon, appointed him Field Marshall of the Phillipine Army. In 1941 MacArthur was recalled to active duty as the U.S. prepared to enter World War Two. By 1942 MacArthur was Supreme Allied Commander of the Southwest Pacific theater. In January of 1945, MacArthur was promoted to the rank of five star General. On September 2, 1945 on board the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay, MacArthur accepted Japan's unconditional surrender. In June 1950, with the beginning of the Korean War, MacArthur was appointed the Supreme United Nations commander. However, on April 11, 1951 he was relieved of his command by President Truman. This tunnel had been known as the "Presidio Tunnel". [Information on General MacArthur from http://members.tripod.com/~DARTO/macarthur/macarthur.html]
The Keller Avenue Bridge (Bridge 33-0340, ALA R037.80) that crosses I-580 in the City of Oakland is officially named the “Sergeant Mark Dunakin, Sergeant Ervin Romans, and Officer John Hege Memorial Bridge”. This structure was named in honor of Sergeant Mark Dunakin, Sergeant Ervin Romans, and Officer John Hege, who proudly served the Oakland Police Department for 18 years, 13 years, and 10 years, respectively. Sergeant Dunakin began his career with the department in May 1991. During his career, he was assigned to several units of the department, including the Patrol Division, the Crime Prevention Unit, the Robbery Section, and the Homicide Unit. In 1999, Dunakin was promoted to the rank of Sergeant of Police. While serving in the Homicide Unit, Dunakin acted as one of the lead investigators of the "Nut Cases" gang, a group that terrorized Oakland in a 10-week crime wave in 2002 and 2003. Dunakin's tireless work paid off when the gang was successfully arrested. Sergeant Ervin Romans started his career with the Oakland Police Department in 1996. Romans' sense of duty and commitment to the department never wavered; in 1999, he received the Medal of Valor, the department's highest honor, for evacuating endangered residents from a fire in West Oakland. Romans' expertise and attention to detail served the City of Oakland well when he become a Departmental Range Master, a position in which he trained hundreds of officers in the ethical and proper use of firearms and less lethal weapons. In 2005, Romans was promoted to the rank of Sergeant of Police. As a sergeant, he supervised one of Oakland's crime reduction teams and served as the entry team leader on the department's Tactical Operations Team. Officer John Hege started his career with the department as a volunteer reserve police officer in 1993. He was hired as a full-time police officer in 1999. Upon graduating from the Oakland Police Academy, he was assigned to the Bureau of Field Operations/ After patrolling the streets of Oakland for 10 years, Hege fulfilled a lifelong dream when he was transferred to the Traffic Operations Section and assigned as a motorcycle officer. Hege gave his heart, soul, and a seemingly limitless amount of time to the Oakland Police Department, yet he always made time for his family and friends. Sergeant Dunakin, Sergeant Romans, and Officer Hege dedicated their lives to the pursuit of safety and justice; andon March 21, 2009, Sergeant Dunakin was shot and killed and Officer Hege was mortally wounded during a traffic stop. Efforts to apprehend the suspect resulted in the death of Sergeant Romans. Named by Assembly Concurrant Resolution (ACR) 146, 8/17/2010, Resolution Chapter 91.
The I-580 overpass at 38th Street in Oakland (actually, McArthurs Street Separation, Bridge 32-0281, ALA 045.99) is named the "Officer James Williams Memorial Overpass". This overpass is named in memory of Oakland Police Officer James Williams, Jr., who died in the line of duty on January 10, 1999. The incident started when a shotgun was discarded onto the freeway by suspects who were fleeing from the police. Officer Williams was helping to locate the weapon and was assisting in its recovery when a sniper began firing at the responding officers from the southwest side of the 38th Avenue I-580 overpass in Oakland. Officer Williams was hit by the sniper's bullets and died of those injuries. Officer Williams had a wife, Sabrina, and three small children: ten-year-old Alexander, five-year-old Aaron, and four-year-old Ariana. He was formerly a police officer in New Orleans, had just graduated from the police academy and was still in training at the time of his death. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 82, Chapter 12, filed 1/28/2000.
Although not specifically on Route 580, AB 348, Chaptered 9/21/2011 (Statute Chapter 290) designated (until January 1, 2017) the segment of county highway known as Vasco Road, between the Route 580 junction in Alameda County and the Walnut Boulevard intersection in Contra Costa County, as a Safety Enhancement-Double Fine Zone upon the approval of the boards of supervisors of Alameda County and Contra Costa County.
This route is part of the De Anza National Historic Trail.
This was part of the Lincoln Highway.
Approved as chargeable Interstate on 7/7/1947, later adjusted in 1955 and 1957. In August 1957, this was tentatively approved as I-5W. In November 1957, the designation I-72 was proposed as part of the first attempt to give urban routes numbers (there were no 3-digit routes at the time). The proposal went back to I-5W in August 1958, and it was finally approved as I-5W, and later renumbered as I-580.
In August 1958, the designation I-580 was proposed by the department for what is now I-680.
From Route 80 near Albany to Route 101 near San Rafael via the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge.
In 1984, Chapter 409 this segment was added by transfer from Route 17. The segment was originally submitted (1983) to have been I-180; however, state numbering rules changed it to be part of I-580. Before the transfer in 1984, the section from the junction of I-80 and I-580 ("McArthur Freeway" or "the Maze") to the interchange at Hoffman Blvd (approximately 3 miles), was signed as I-80 and Route 17.
Before the completion of the freeway portion between the Hoffman Blvd/I-80 Interchange to the foot of the San Rafael Bridge, the Route 17 routing was as follows: Hoffman Blvd, to Cutting Blvd, to Standard Ave, and then to the foot of the Richmond-San Rafael bridge. This was signed as "Temporary I-580" until construction of the freeway I-580 was completed. Prior to 1959, this segment was part of LRN 69 between US 101 and US 40. It wasn't until 1959 that Route 17 was extended over the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge to meet US 101.
The Richmond-San Rafael Bridge is a double deck truss bridge spanning 5.5 miles with a maximum clearance of 185 feet. The Richmond-San Rafael Bridge connects Richmond in Contra Costa County and San Rafael in Marin County. Construction on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge started in 1953 and was completed by 1956.
The most recent freeway routing of I-580 appears to have been LRN 257, defined in 1959. A previous routing was LRN 69, and the San Pablo surface street routing was LRN 114. Both LRN 69 and LRN 114 were defined in 1933. This was cosigned US 40/US 50.
Note: I-580 is one of five routes in California that have "backwards" post miles: that is, the postmiles go from East to West, instead of the normal West to East.
Richmond-San Rafael Bridge to Richmond
In December 2011, the CTC authorized relinquishment of right of way in the city of Richmond along Route 580 on Marina Bay Parkway, consisting of collateral facilities. (04-CC-580-PM R2.9)
In August 2012, the CTC approved SHOPP funding of $18,459,000 on I-580 PM 5.5/6.1 near Richmond, at Scofield Avenue (Bridge #28-140L/R) and at Western Drive (Bridge #28-141R). Outcome/Output: Rehabilitate three bridges by replacing bridge decks to maintain structure integrity and reduce the risk to lives and properties.
Richmond-San Rafael Bridge (~ CC 6.235 to MRN 2.499)
In April 2013, it was reported that deck replacement was about to begin on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge. The project will (a) Replace the concrete decks for three bridges; (b) refresh the eastbound and westbound Scofield Avenue Bridge Undercrossings; (c) refresh the Westbound Western Drive Bridge Undercrossing that approaches the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Toll Plaza; (d) Strengthen structural steel bridge members; (e) Re-paint structural steel for corrosion protection; and (f) Replace bridge deck joints and seals.
In September 2014, it was reported that BATA was considering a proposal to
restore a third lane to the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge. Specifically, the BATA
approved a contract with HNTB Corp. for up to $3 million to provide design
services regarding the third lane. A bike path on the upper deck is also part
of the design. Another lane would mean more traffic flowing onto the 4.2-mile
span, helping clear the congestion on US 101 and Sir Francis Drake Boulevard.
It would only be used for eastbound vehicle traffic during evening peak
periods. No construction would be involved, because there were originally three
lanes on each deck. Caltrans closed one lane in each direction for emergencies
and maintenance. In the mid-1970s, the lane was used for a pipe that was
stretched across the bridge to carry water from Contra Costa to parched Marin
during the drought. The third lane idea has been discussed for years, but
something is finally happening thanks to the transportation commission and the
Transportation Authority of Marin. There are two elements to the design
project. One is to provide an additional travel lane eastbound from the Sir
Francis Drake onramp from San Quentin to the Marine Street offramp in Richmond.
This mostly involves converting the right shoulder of the lower deck of the
bridge to a lane . The second element is more complicated, and would use the
right-hand shoulder on the upper deck for bidirectional bicyclist and
pedestrian crossings. This would require the installation of a movable median
barrier. It also requires developing a way to provide cyclists access from the
east side of the bridge.
(Source: Marin IJ, 9/21/2014)
In June 2015, it was reported that plans to add an additional commuter lane
and a bike-pedestrian path on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge are moving
forward. The $74 million improvement project would be fully funded with Bay
Area Toll Authority toll funds. Right now, the plan includes building a
concrete barrier system on the upper deck of the span for a bicycle and
pedestrian pathway. On the lower deck, the existing shoulder would be converted
to a commuter lane, expected to relieve traffic congestion during peak periods.
In August 2015, it was reported that Assembly Man Marc Levine believes that
third eastbound lane on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge should be opened by the
end of September 2015 at the latest, not in 2017 as Caltrans has proposed. He
has introduced a bill, AB9, in an attempt to push the agency into action.
Levine contends opening the third lane — which now is a shoulder —
is a simple fix: just paint in a new lane. The bridge initially had three lanes
when it opened in 1956, but when drought hit in 1977 a lane was closed so a
pipeline could be laid across the span to bring water to Marin. When the
pipeline was removed in 1978, the lane was converted to a shoulder given light
traffic. “The lane is there, they are just pretending it’s a
shoulder,” Levine said, adding the lane could be opened on a
“temporary” basis until a permanent fix is achieved. Caltrans
officials said simply painting in a new lane is not as easy as it sounds.
Caltrans noted the shoulder reduces in width from 10 feet on the bridge to just
over 2 feet on land in Richmond, which would create a bottleneck for cars.
Caltrans also says the existing shoulder is currently used as a bike path as it
comes off the bridge. That use would not be possible if the shoulder is widened
for vehicle use. They are also working over water, and now have to do the
required environmental planning. In October 2015, it was reported that the
estimated completion was October 2017.
(Source: KCBS, 6/24/2015, Marin I-J, 8/18/2015; SFGate, 10/31/2015)
On October 10, 2015, the Governor signed AB 157 (Chapter 393, Statues of 2015). This bill, if the CTC and Caltrans develop a project to open the third lane on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge to automobile traffic on the eastbound level and to bicycle traffic on the westbound level, would authorize the lead agency to complete the design work for the project simultaneously with the environmental review conducted pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
In July 2016, it was reported that a final design to open a third eastbound
lane on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge to ease traffic has gone to Caltrans,
clearing the way for a projected December 2017 opening. In the coming years the
bridge will undergo major changes with the addition of a third vehicle travel
lane on its lower deck and a bike lane on top. The two projects have a $74
million price tag. A contract for the project could be awarded as soon as
September, with construction starting in October. But issues with moving
utilities could cause delays. While opening the lane may sound simple,
officials note a state and federal rules environmental analysis is required. In
addition, new signs will have to go on the span and a retaining wall on the
Contra Costa side must be set back to create added space for cars heading off
the span. The added eastbound car lane would likely be open only during commute
hours, allowing Caltrans to retain a shoulder for maintenance work during other
times of the day. A second bridge project would bring a 10-foot-wide lane on
the north side of the roadway on the top deck of the span. Bicyclists and
pedestrians traveling east and west would use the space that would be separated
from car traffic by a movable median barrier. It would open in March 2018 under
the current plan. A movable barrier is needed to allow Caltrans to perform
maintenance work on the span. The bridge initially had three lanes when it
opened in 1956, but when drought hit in 1977 a lane on the top deck was closed
so a pipeline could be laid across the span to bring water to Marin. When the
pipeline was removed in 1978, the top and lower deck lanes were converted to
shoulders because of light traffic. The Richmond-San Rafael is the third
least-used of the Bay Area spans, ahead only of the Dumbarton and Antioch
bridges. But between 2011 and 2016, traffic has increased about 13 percent as
the economy has rebounded. The price tag for the lane is $30 million. The bike
path is $29 million, and there is a $15 million contingency. Once built, the
new configurations would be deemed a four-year pilot project and would be
analyzed after that time.
(Source: Marin I-J, 7/13/2016)
In August 2016, it was reported that state officials finalized project
approval and certified environmental documentation for the $73 million project
spearheaded by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), Caltrans, the
Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM) and the Contra Costa Transportation
Authority (CCTA). State approval clears the way for MTC this week to advertise
a trio of construction contracts and keeps the $73 million initiative on track
to begin construction this October, with the third eastbound lane slated to
open in October 2017. The third lane on eastbound I-580 will extend from the
Sir Francis Drake Blvd. on-ramp in Marin County to the Point Richmond exit in
Contra Costa County. Project elements include reconfiguring the Main Street
on-ramp from the San Quentin Village area of Marin County with a retaining wall
to improve the traffic merge with the new third eastbound lane; replacing
pavement on both the west and east sides of the bridge to accommodate heavier
traffic loads; relocating a retaining wall on the south side of I-580 in
Richmond to achieve safe sight distances for vehicles traveling in the new
right lane; constructing a barrier-separated bicycle/pedestrian path on the
north side of I-580 from Castro Street in Richmond to Point Molate; and
adapting the right shoulder of the westbound Richmond-San Rafael Bridge deck
for a bike/ped path that will become part of the Bay Trail network. To separate
bicyclists and pedestrians from westbound traffic on the upper deck of the
bridge, a moveable concrete barrier will be installed on the span. This will
allow Caltrans to conduct bridge maintenance work during short closures of the
path. The 10-foot-wide path will comply with Americans with Disabilities Act
(Source: Yahoo! Finance, 8/23/2016)
In September 2016, it was reported that a final design to open a third
eastbound lane on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge has been approved by Caltrans,
clearing the way for a project to start once a builder is found. In addition to
a third vehicle travel lane on its lower deck, a bike lane will go on top. The
two projects have a $74 million price tag. While opening the lane may sound
simple, officials note a state and federal rules environmental analysis is
required. In addition, new signs will have to go on the span and a retaining
wall on the Contra Costa side must be set back to create added space for cars
heading off the span. The added eastbound car lane would likely be open only
during commute hours, allowing Caltrans to retain a shoulder for maintenance
work during other times of the day. Other project elements in Marin include
reconfiguring the Main Street onramp from the San Quentin Village area with a
retaining wall to improve the traffic merge with the new lane, and replacing
pavement on the bridge approaches to accommodate heavier traffic loads,
according to officials. In later September, it was reported that a key bay
protection agency also gave its approval for the addition of an eastbound,
third traffic lane on the lower deck and a bike lane on the upper deck of the
span. The Bay Conservation and Development Commission reviews all projects that
are built in or over the bay and its approval was needed to allow the commute
relief plan to move forward.
(Source: Marin I-J, 9/6/2016, 9/17/2016)
In November 2016, it was reported that the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission’s Bay Area Toll Authority Oversight Committee approved a $27.2
million contract to Berkeley-based O.C. Jones and Sons Inc. in mid-November to
construct the third lane and associated work. It was one of five bids
submitted. The committee also approved a $5.6 million contingency fund to cover
any changes in the work that may be necessary. The third travel lane is slated
for completion within 200 working days of the start of construction, likely
(Source: Marin I-J, 11/11/2016)
In January 2017, it was reported that work on a project to create a third
eastbound lane on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge to ease traffic has started
and could be finished by fall 2017. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission
approved a $27.2 million contract to Berkeley-based O.C. Jones and Sons Inc. to
construct the third lane and associated work and that began the first week of
January 2017. Early phases of the project will include tree removal work near
San Quentin, and much of the initial work is occurring on the Contra Costa
side, where a retaining wall and a bike lane will be moved to accommodate the
third lane. Tree removal will also occur in that county as well. All trees will
be replaced. The added eastbound car lane only will be open during commute
hours, allowing Caltrans to retain a shoulder for maintenance work during other
times of the day. Other project elements in Marin include reconfiguring the
Main Street onramp from the San Quentin Village area with a retaining wall to
improve the traffic merge with the new lane, and replacing pavement on the
bridge approaches to accommodate heavier traffic loads, according to officials.
A second bridge project would bring a 10-foot-wide lane on the north side of
the roadway on the upper deck of the span. Bicyclists and pedestrians traveling
east and west would use the space that would be separated from car traffic by a
movable median barrier. The bike lane, a four-year experiment, will be
separated from traffic by a $25 million movable barrier like the one separating
the traffic lanes on the Golden Gate Bridge. That expensive movable barrier
comes with a $1 million mover. They’ll have to rev up the mover every
once in a while — to keep it in shape — and use it to move the
movable barrier, so it won’t get too stiff. A movable barrier is needed
to allow Caltrans to perform maintenance work on the span. So, once a month,
the 4.5-mile barrier will be shifted and then put back in place, just to keep
everything in working condition. It would open in March 2018 under the current
plan. January uncovered one additional complication: Hummingbirds! A
hummingbird nest was found on the Richmond side of the project, in one of about
two dozen trees that were to be removed to widen the right-of-way on I-580, a
half mile past the toll plaza. Construction workers built a rough fence around
the tree, and it will stay in place until the egg they found in the nest
hatches. The bridge initially had three lanes when it opened in 1956, but when
drought hit in 1977 a lane on the top deck was closed so a pipeline could be
placed across the span to bring water to Marin. When the pipeline was removed
in 1978, the top and lower deck lanes were converted to shoulders because of
(Source: Marin I-J, 1/16/2017; SF Chronicle, 1/30/2017)
In July 2017, it was reported that Commuters might have to wait until March
2018 to see that third lane on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge open up. In
January, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission approved a $27.2 million
contract with Berkeley-based O.C. Jones and Sons Inc. to construct the third
lane and associated work with a goal of opening the lane by November. But one
element of the work — pushing a retaining wall on the Richmond side back
15 feet to create sight lines for drivers in a third lane — is proving
more difficult than originally thought as crews carve away a hillside. The
project is a lot more than just restriping. Electrical work needed to hang
signs over the third lane has started. Signs will show a green arrow or red
“X” to indicate whether the lane is open. Once open, the added
eastbound car lane only will be available during commute hours, allowing
Caltrans to retain a shoulder for maintenance work during other times of the
(Source: Mercury News, 7/11/2017)
In January 2018, it was reported that by April 2018, drivers weary of the
eastbound crawl to and across the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge every evening
should get relief with the addition of a new traffic lane. But bicyclists, who
were supposed to get their own path on the upper deck at the same time, will
have to wait, perhaps up to a year, and they might have to surrender the path
to cars for a few hours each weekday morning. In 2015, the Bay Area Toll
Authority, Caltrans and Marin and Contra Costa transportation agencies agreed
to a $74 million project that would put the double-deck bridge’s wide
shoulders to use. The lower deck, which carries eastbound traffic, would get a
third lane of traffic while the upper deck would get a bike and pedestrian lane
protected by a barrier that would be movable to permit critical maintenance.
The additional lane for cars and trucks during peak afternoon and evening
commute times will open by April. The plan is to open the lane only from 2 to 7
p.m. each weekday, though operators in Caltrans’ Oakland traffic control
center will monitor cameras and lengthen the hours when it’s appropriate.
A red X or a green arrow will be displayed over the lane to let drivers know
when they can travel on it. For the time being, construction crews are
completing work on the lane, including wiring and testing the network of
cameras and inspecting cracks atop a retaining wall above the Richmond end of
the bridge. Traffic has swelled by about 13 percent over the past five years,
and backups have become common, especially with eastbound traffic in the
evening. Morning congestion, heading west, has also worsened. So Marin
transportation officials went to regional planners in January 2018 to consider
using the movable barrier to transform the bike path to a car lane in the
mornings to ease the backup. The Toll Authority is still committed to opening
both the third lane and the bike lane. Both are experimental projects that have
to be evaluated after four years. While the third lane of traffic is expected
to open by April, the bike and pedestrian path is projected to open late this
year or in early 2019. But changes could come to the bike path. The authority
will study what it would cost, how much work would be involved and how long it
would take for a project in which bikes and cars share the upper deck of the
(Source: SF Chronicle, 1/27/2018)
In March 2018, it was reported that the Bay Area Toll Authority’s
Oversight Committee authorized spending $100,000 to study whether adding an
additional WB traffic lane on the upper deck is feasible and what it would take
to accomplish the work. A third traffic lane on the bridge on the bottom,
eastbound deck, is set to open in April 2018 at a cost of $27 million.
It’s designed to ease evening commute traffic. A third lane on the north
side of the upper deck coming into Marin has been envisioned for bicyclists and
pedestrians, separated from car traffic by a movable median barrier. That work
has just started. However, Marin Supervisor Damon Connolly, who sits on the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Bay Area Toll Authority —
the agencies behind the lane plan — said in January the space should also
be used for westbound vehicles.
(Source: Marin I-J, 3/9/2018)
In April 2018, it was reported that the long-awaited eastbound third lane is
planned to open April 20, 2018. Drivers still face stop lights along Sir
Francis Drake Boulevard on the way to the span, but those signals have been
modified to allow for better traffic flow. Marin and other Bay Area voters will
be asked to approve a phased $3 toll increase in June 2018. Money from toll
hikes would be earmarked to finance transportation expansion projects,
including a connector between northbound US 101 and I-580 to the Richmond-San
Rafael Bridge. But that project is years away and it’s hoped by
transportation officials that the new traffic lane will provide some relief.
The added lane will likely be available from 2 to 7 p.m. every day of the week,
allowing Caltrans to retain a shoulder for maintenance work during other times
of the day. Twenty overhead signs on the span will show a green arrow or red
“X” to indicate whether the lane is open and a yellow
“X” and arrow during the transition. Cameras to watch traffic on
the span also have been added. Drivers should not be in the lane during off
hours and face citations from the California Highway Patrol if they are
(Source: East Bay Times, 4/16/2018)
In July 2018, it was reported that months before a planned bikeway on the
upper level of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge is scheduled to open, Bay Area
transit officials and Marin County politicians are talking about taking the
separated bike lane away during peak demand periods. Earlier in 2018, Marin
County Supervisor Damon Connolly, who sits on the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission and the Bay Area Toll Authority, brought up the possibility of
converting the soon-to-be bikeway — previously a highway shoulder —
into another vehicle lane during rush hour to help alleviate the hellish
traffic congestion that plagues the bridge. In early March 2018, the
commission's Bay Area Toll Authority Oversight Committee decided to study the
idea and allocated $100,000 to the task. The bike and pedestrian pathway, a
piece of infrastructure that cycling and walking advocates have anticipated for
decades, is the second part of a four-year pilot project run by the Bay Area
Toll Authority. The first phase of the pilot project was the addition earlier
in 2018 of a third lane of vehicular traffic on the lower-level eastbound deck
of the bridge. That project cost $53 million. The pilot aims to assess possible
strategies for improving the Bay Area's transportation infrastructure. The
10-foot cycling-walking pathway is still set to open in early 2019, and the
study is analyzing a scenario that would allow cyclists to continue using the
bridge the majority of the time. Still, the oversight committee's willingness
to consider excluding bicycles during commute hours worries some cycling
advocates. They say granting vehicles access to the lane — even if only
during peak commute times — interferes with the state-mandated project of
a trail around the San Francisco Bay. The westbound bikeway is projected to
cost about $28 million to install. The added car lane cost $53 million.
Legislation enacted nearly 30 years ago requires the Association of Bay Area
Governments to create and maintain a way for people to walk and ride bicycles
around San Francisco Bay. Now, the San Francisco Bay Trail is mostly finished,
with a few planned segments yet to be established. The long-awaited pathway
across the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge will form a critical link in the
(Source: East Bay Express, 7/11/2018)
Richmond-San Rafael Bridge to San Rafael
In September 2010, the CTC proposed amending the CMIA baseline agreements for Westbound I-580 to Northbound US 101 Connector Improvements project (PPNO 0342M) to • De-allocate $200,000 CMIA savings from Right of Way (R/W). • Reprogram these $200,000 CMIA savings from R/W to Construction. This project is located at theUS 101/I-580 interchange in Marin County. The project scope includes • Widen connector from westbound I-580 to northbound US 101. • Extend Bellam Boulevard off-ramp from westbound I-580. • Modify Bellam Boulevard (~ MRN 4.51) on-ramp to northbound US 101. • Replace Bellam Boulevard undercrossing on westbound I-580. • Construct associated bicycle and pedestrian improvements along Bellam Boulevard and East Francisco Street in this area. This project, funded 100 percent with CMIA funds, was allocated $13,200,000 CMIA for construction capital in May 2009. When the bids were opened in September 2009, the lowest bid came $2,148,000 below the allocated amount. The project allotment was $11,052,000. These award savings were subsequently de-allocated by the Commission at its May 2010 meeting. The construction contract was awarded in November 2009 and construction began in December 2009. Although the construction contract acceptance (CCA) milestone is scheduled for March 2011, it is anticipated that all the major construction activities will be completed and the facility opened to traffic by October 2010. The project is located on a site that was originally on the edge of the San Francisco Bay and currently sits atop an abandoned railroad alignment. These factors added to the risks associated with differing sub-surface conditions. Furthermore, the project location also experiences heavy pedestrian and bicycle traffic that comes from a disadvantaged community adjacent to the project site and also from a number of critical crossroads of regional and local traffic access to Route 580.
I-580 from I-80 to the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge through Richmond (~ ALA 47.86 to CC 6.348) is named the "John T. Knox Freeway". John J. Knox., elected to the California Assembly in 1960, made important legislative contributions to the upgrade of I-580 to meet interstate freeway standards. Named by Senate Concurrent Resolution 50, Chapter 78 in 1980.
Bridge 28-0100 (CC 006.22), the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge (named by Senate Concurrent Resolution 100 Chapter 243 in 1955) between Richmond and San Rafael in Contra Costa county.
It was officially renamed the "John F. McCarthy Memorial Bridge". John F. McCarthy served in the California Senate from 1950 to 1970 where he was instrumental in the creation of the Bay Area Rapid Transit District. It was built in 1956, and renamed by Senate Concurrent Resolution 19, Chapter 76 in 1981.
In Contra Costa County, HOV lanes once ran eastbound from Marine Street to W of Central Avenue, for a length of 4.5 mi. They ran westbound from E of Central Avenue to Marine Street for a length of 5.3 mi. They were opened in 1989, extended in 1992, and were closed through Richmond by February 2000.
There is also a HOV exclusive lane on the Richmond/San Rafael Bridge. It opened in October 1989. It requires three or more occupants (two for two-seater vehicles) and operates during rush hour.
The following segments are designated as Classified Landscaped Freeway:
|County||Route||Starting PM||Ending PM|
[SHC 253.1] Entire route. Added to the Freeway and Expressway system in 1959.
Overall statistics for Route 580:
From Route 1 near Seal Beach to Route 405.
In 1964, it was noted that "Similarly, the southern extension, from the San Diego Freeway to the Pacific Coast Highway, is noninterstate. It is now designated as Route 240. Studies leading to adoption of the route are in a preliminary stage."
In 1968, Chapter 282 added segment (a) and (c): "(a) Route 1 near Seal Beach to Route 405. (b) Route 405 to Route 10 near the San Gabriel River. (c) Route 10 to Route 210 near Duarte." Segment (a) was a transfer from Route 240 (defined in 1964).
The portion between Route 1 and Route 22 is unconstructed. The routing is roughly Seal Beach Blvd, although this does not meet the definition of a traversable highway. In 1965, it was planned to connect to the Pacific Coast Freeway (Route 1).
Additional information on this planned route was posted on AAroads by DTComposer in January 2018 (edited slightly):
There are several vestiges of this planned routing in the street and property lines: Nassau Drive curves as it does to accommodate where I-605 would come in just above it (which is why Leisure World didn't develop that part of their property). The concrete alignment appears to mean a new bridge for WB Route 22 would have been built between the existing bridge and College Park Drive, and EB Route 22 shifted north onto the current WB bridge. The existing EB Route 22 bridge would have been modified/removed to accommodate the ramp from EB Route 22 to SB I-605 (or Route 240 as it was on the books back then). Moving west, the freeway extension would have left 7th Street and curved southwest along Parima Street (6th Street was built on this curve to accommodate the freeway); Parima Street and Lausinda Avenue (as well as the developments to the west) were built after the freeway plans were abandoned. The extension would have met Pacific Coast Highway at Colorado Street (you can see the property line between Storybrook Villas and the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin curves to allow for a ramp (again, that church was not built until after the freeway was shelved)). It would have then followed/paralleled Colorado Street to Appian Way, where it would turn northwest and follow the old Pacific Electric right-of-way to somewhere between 10th Street and Anaheim Street, and would move within this corridor until it reached I-710 around Anaheim Street (somewhere there is a Thomas Bros. map that shows a precise corridor for this). It then continued west across Wilmington and Harbor City to until the Five Points intersection (Anaheim Street/Gaffey Street/Vermont Avenue/Palos Verdes Drive). This extension would have been Route 1 (Route 22 would have still ended in east Long Beach) and was known as the Crosstown Freeway and was originally part of the larger plan to make Route 1 a freeway from Santa Monica to Dana Point. Other sections of the freeway plan were dropped throughout the 1960s and '70s, and this "orphaned" section was finally dropped in 1978.
From Route 405 to Route 210 near Duarte.
In 1964, it was noted that "The northerly extension of the San Gabriel River Freeway, 5.4 miles in length, between the San Bernardino Freeway and the future Foothill Freeway, is being designed and right-of-way is being acquired. This section, not on the interstate system, is now designated as Route 243. Construction is about four years in the future (1968)."
In 1968, Chapter 282 added segment (a) and (c): "(a) Route 1 near Seal Beach to Route 405. (b) Route 405 to Route 10 near the San Gabriel River. (c) Route 10 to Route 210 near Duarte." Segment (c) was transferred from Route 243. The Route 243 segment was approved for interstate construction as part of the December 1968 Federal Aid Highway act, which provided $19.0 million for the 5.5 mile segment.
The freeway started construction in 1964, and was extended north to the I-210 in 1971.
This was LRN 170. The portion between Route 22 and I-10 was defined in 1933; the portion between Route 1 and Route 22 in 1957; and the remainder in 1959. On 12/15/1954, the CTC adopted a freeway routing for the future I-605 between the San Diego Freeway and the San Bernardino Freeway (Route 7 and US 70-99 then, now I-405 and I-10).
In December 2005, utilizing Measure M money, the OCTA authorized construction of HOV connector ramps between I-405 and I-605.
Katella Interchange (~ ORA R1.392)
In June 2017, it was reported that OCTA, in
partnership with Caltrans, has initiated an Improvement Project to enhance
safety, smooth traffic flow, and improve pedestrian and bicycle pathways
through the I-605/Katella Avenue interchange in the City of Los Alamitos. The
project is in the preliminary engineering and environmental review stage to
identify potential significant environmental effects and ways to avoid or
significantly reduce those effects. Funded by Measure M, Orange County’s
voter-approved transportation investment plan, the environmental review process
began in mid-2016 and is expected to be completed in late 2018. During this
time, improvements to Katella Avenue, freeway ramps and bicycle and pedestrian
facilities will be studied to determine their benefits, costs and impacts.
(Source: OCTA Blog, 6/20/2017)
In May 2018, public meetings started on the draft environmental document. The project proposes to improve the local interchange at I-605 and Katella Avenue, located in the western portion of the City which is located in western Orange County. The proposed project is intended to improve freeway access and arterial connection, improve interchange traffic operations, enhance safety, and improve pedestrian and bicycle facilities within the interchange area. According to the DED, the I-605/Katella Avenue interchange currently experiences roadway and operational deficiencies in the form of inefficient traffic operations and deficiencies in community mobility for automobiles, pedestrians, and bicycle traffic. Constructed approximately fifty years ago in the 1960’s in conjunction with the I-605 freeway improvements, the I-605/Katella Avenue interchange configuration is a mix of loop and direct ramp configurations that reflect the constraints of the Coyote Creek Channel. It is a modified full cloverleaf configuration with loop ramps in all quadrants except the southeast quadrant which contains a direct exit ramp from northbound I-605. Existing bridges over Katella Avenue are fourspan reinforced concrete box girder bridges supported on concrete pile foundations. A direct exit ramp from southbound I-605 is located to the west of the Coyote Creek Channel, outside the project limits. All ramp termini incorporate free-right movements.
The project area includes the interchange ramps and
Katella Avenue, from the Coyote Creek Channel Bridge to Civic Center Drive. The
project would modify interchange ramps and Katella Avenue. The existing I-605
mainline would not be modified, with the exception of the northbound No. 4 lane
at the northbound exit ramp. This lane would be restriped from a through lane
to a through lane/exit option lane to accommodate a proposed 2nd exit ramp
lane. Katella Avenue would be widened and lane geometries would be modified to
provide standard lanes and shoulders through the interchange and tie in with
proposed ramp improvements.
(Source: OCTA Blog, 5/1/2018)
Los Angeles County
In April 2012, the CTC authorized SHOPP funding on I-605, in Los Angeles County, 07-LA-605 R0.1/R16.6 In Los Angeles County through various cities, from Coyote Creek Bridge to Peck Road. $588,000 to construct 11,500 feet of metal beam guardrail, and 2,000 feet of concrete barrier at locations of high embankments, trees, and fixed objects. The project will improve safety by reducing the severity of run-off-the road collisions.
In August 2011, the CTC approved $2,033,000 in SHOPP funding for repairs in and near Pico Rivera, from 195th Street to Route 210 (~ LA R3.398 to LA 25.665), that will repair bridge decks and replace joint seals on 22 bridges to extend the service life of the structures.
Route 605 / Route 91 Interchange Improvements (~ LA R5.834 to LA R19.818)
In January 2018, it was reported that Metro and
Caltrans District 7, in collaboration with the Gateway Cities Council of
Governments (GCCOG), are proposing to make improvements along westbound Route
91, between the I-605/Route 91 (091 LA R16.935) Interchange and Shoemaker
Avenue (091 LA R19.818), and at the I-605 northbound exit to Alondra Boulevard
(605 LA R5.834). Proposed improvements in the Westbound SR-91
Improvement Project include adding auxiliary lanes, one new general purpose
lane in the westbound direction, a lane at the I-605/Route 91 interchange
off-ramp, enhancing freeway entrance and exit ramps, and additional
improvements on the arterial streets in the vicinity. Technical studies for the
project are still underway as of January 2018.
(Source: Metro "The Source", 1/25/2018)
In April 2018, it was reported that Metro was
applying for TCRP (Trade Corridor Relief Program) funds in addition to SB1
funds for Route 605 / Route 91 Interchange Improvement project.
(Source: Metro The Source, 4/19/2018)
In January 2016, the CTC approved the following SHOPP funding: 7-LA-605 R10.1/15.7 I-605: In Pico Rivera and Whittier, from Telegraph Road to Rose Hills Road; also in El Monte and Baldwin Park from Ramona Boulevard to Route 210 (PM 20.9/25.6). Replace damaged concrete slabs, grind and groove concrete pavement to increase roadway surface friction during wet conditions. $12K (R/W); $4,618K (C) Completion ~ Sep 2018.
In March 2012, Caltrans began construction of a $14-million sound wall project along the 605 freeway in the city of Whittier and unincorporated county (~ LA R12.971). The project consists of approximately three miles of sound walls on both sides of the freeway with a scheduled completion of winter 2013. Metro funded the entire $14 million from Prop C and Measure R monies.
Route 60/I-605 Connectors (~ LA R17.252)
In March 2016, the Los Angeles MTA presented its
full proposal for what transit lines could be built -- and when -- if Los
Angeles County voters approve a half-cent sales tax increase in November 2016.
This proposal included funding for Route 60/I-605 Interchange HOV Direct
Connectors. This project is from the North and Southbound on I-605 from Rose
Hills to I-10 and on East and Westbound Route 60 from Santa Anita to Turnbull
Canyon. The Interchange improvements include adding auxiliary lanes, widening
lanes and bridges, interchange connectors, ramp improvements and realignments.
(Source: Los Angeles Times 3/18/2016; Metro Board Report 3/24/2016)
I-10/I-605 Connectors (~ LA R20.102)
According to an article in the San Gabriel Tribune, the I-10/I-605 interchange was designed in 1964 and was supposed to accommodate traffic until 1984. No major changes have been undertaken there since it was built. An average of 438,000 cars use the interchange each day, making the intersection the 19th busiest in the state. According to a 1999 study by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the area directly around the interchange has one of the highest air-pollution- related cancer risk factors in the San Gabriel Valley. One of the main problems with the intersection is what engineers call "the weave,", where vehicles transferring from the I-10 west to the I-605 south have to weave across cars getting on the I-605 south from the I-10 east. Cars from both directions have only about 150 feet to change places with each other. Additionally, drivers who want to transfer from the southbound I-605 to the eastbound I-10 east have to take a left turn when leaving the I-605. According to Caltrans, the prospects for improvements are bleak. Caltrans is considering building a flyover from the I-605 south to the I-10 east, which would eliminate the weaving-in section. Construction for the $66 million direct connector should break ground in 2011.
In June 2009, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding this project. It will construct an elevated direct connector from southbound I-605 to eastbound I-10 that would replace the existing southbound I-605 to eastbound I-10 connector. The project is fully funded and is programmed on the 2008 State Highway Operation Protection Program Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicles (GARVEE) list. The estimated project cost is $76,460,000, capital and support. Construction is estimated to begin in Fiscal Year (FY) 2010-11.
In December 2012, construction started on the $66 million one-lane flyover ramp that will provide a direct connection from SB I-605 to the EB I-10. The ramp will be erected 70 feet above the freeway so that those driving along SB I-605 freeway will have their own ramp to connect with EB I-10 freeway without having to make lane changes that interfere with other drivers also merging on the interchange. The project is funded by the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP), with a combination of state and federal monies.
In November 2015, it was reported that the SB I-605 to EB I-10 flyover ramp opened.
In March 2016, the Los Angeles MTA presented its
full proposal for what transit lines could be built -- and when -- if Los
Angeles County voters approve a half-cent sales tax increase in November 2016.
This proposal included funding for the I-605/I-10 Interchange project that will
improve interchanges from Eastbound I-10 to Southbound I-605, Westbound I-10 to
Southbound I-605, Northbound I-605 to Eastbound I-10, and Northbound I-605 to
(Source: Los Angeles Times 3/18/2016; Metro Board Report 3/24/2016)
In January 2011, the CTC authorized relinquishment of right of way in the city of Irwindale along Route 605 between West Ramona Boulevard and Rivergrade Road (~ LA 21.067 to LA 22.575), consisting of collateral facilities.
The portion of this segment from Route 405 to Route 10 is officially designated as the "San Gabriel River Freeway." It was named by Senate Bill 99, Chapter 1101, in 1967. The first segment opened in 1964; the last in 1971.
The portion of I-605 between Carson Street and Del Amo Boulevard (~ LA R1.756 to LA R2.866), in the County of Los Angeles, is named the "John Sanford Todd Memorial Highway". It was named in memory of John Sanford Todd, who was active in the battle to presever the independence of the city of Lakewood in the early 1953s in the face of annexation elections by the city of Long Beach. With other community members, John Sanford Todd mounted a spirited campaign to prevent "piecemeal annexation." It was his strategy of appealing each annexation election as soon as it was announced stalled the City of Long Beach's plans, although Lakewood Village and a few other neighborhoods accepted annexation. Todd was also responsible for Lakewood Cityhood, including the idea that unincorporated communities did not have to choose between annexation by a big city or building a costly civic infrastructure from scratch. Instead, Todd believed that city councils could turn to the county to deliver municipal services through a system of contracts. Todd served as Lakewood's City Attorney from 1954 until 2004, a period of 50 years. As the city's legal counsel over that period of 50 years, John Sanford Todd drafted hundreds of ordinances, policies, regulations, and resolutions. The quality of everyday life in Lakewood can be directly attributed to the body of law of which John Sanford Todd was the principal author. John Sanford Todd served in other ways, including as an officer in the contract cities association and in the statewide League of California Cities. He was, for a time, the City Attorney of Pico Rivera as well as Lakewood. He was also the first legal counsel of the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority, an agency that provides member cities with insurance protection. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution (ACR) 15, Resolution Chapter 76, on 7/16/2009.
The portion of I-605 from the junction of I-5 to the Obregon Street
overcrossing (~ LA R9.612 to LA 13.982) in the County of Los Angeles is named
the "Officer Keith Boyer Memorial Highway". It was named in memory of
Officer Keith Wayne Boyer, who was born in November 1963, in San Gabriel,
California, who served in the Whittier Police Department for 27 years, and was
a lifelong resident of Whittier. Mr. Boyer was hired by the Whittier Police
Department in 1989 and rose up the ladder, starting as a dispatcher and a
jailer, and later as a reserve officer. Mr. Boyer reached his goal of becoming
a full-time officer, with special assignments including service with the Crime
Impact Team and SWAT and as a traffic officer and K9 handler. Mr. Boyer was a
graduate of the Whittier Union High School District, became a La Serna High
School alumnus in 1981, and later returned to the school during his tenure at
the Whittier Police Department as the La Serna High School Resource Officer.
Mr. Boyer was a dedicated mentor to other officers in the Whittier Police
Department and was instrumental as a Police Explorer adviser. Mr. Boyer was an
avid musician and often spent his time as the drummer for a community band. Mr.
Boyer’s life was cut tragically short in the line of duty on February 20,
2017. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution (ACR) 76, 8/31/2017, Res. Chapter
137, Statutes of 2017.
The portion between I-10 and I-210 (~ LA 20.263 to LA 25.721) was known during construction as the "Rivergrade Freeway", as it was virtually paved over the then-existing Rivergrade Road alignment that ran between Valley Blvd (South Terminus) and Arrow Highway (Northern Terminus). Today Rivergrade Road now only exists between Live Oak Ave and Arrow Highway, running along the eastern side of the San Gabriel River. The southern tiny portion at Valley Blvd is known as Perez Place which also intersects with Temple Ave.
The freeway interchange between Route 105 and Route 605 (~ LA R7.502) is officially designated the "Joe A. Gonsalves Memorial Interchange". Joe A. Gonsalves was born to Joaquim Gonsalves and Elvira Silva Gonsalves in Holtville, California, on October 13, 1919. He was elected to the City Council of the City of Dairy Valley, now known as the City of Cerritos, in 1958, and was twice elected the Mayor of Dairy Valley. In 1962, he was elected to the California State Assembly, representing the 66th Assembly District (making him the first person of Portuguese ancestry to be elected to the California State Legislature). During his 12 years in the California Legislature he served as Chair of the Assembly Rules Committee, Revenue and Taxation Committee, and the Joint Committee on Rules and, served as a member of the Assembly Education Committee, and the State Allocation Board. In 1963, during his legislative tenure, Section 405 of the Streets and Highways Code was enacted, describing Route 105 as running from Route 5, to the junction of Route 101 and Route 110, which would have caused Route 105 to cut through the Cities of Norwalk and La Mirada [Note: The above is from the resolution, and reflects poor research. The current incarnation of Route 105 wasn't defined as Route 105 in 1963; the closest routing was pre-1968 Route 42]. At the requests of the Cities of Norwalk and La Mirada and their residents, Joe A. Gonsalves was instrumental in having Section 405 of the Streets and Highways Code amended in 1968, so that Route 105 ended at Route 605 rather than cutting through the Cities of Norwalk and La Mirada (thus, those of you who complain that I-105 doesn't go through to I-5 have Mr. Gonsalves to blame). After leaving the legislature, Joe A. Gonsalves operated the only three-generation lobbying firm in Sacramento, with his son, Anthony Gonsalves, and his grandson, Jason Gonsalves. Joe A. Gonsalves passed away on July 7, 2000. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 96, Chapter 129, September 24, 2001.
The I-10 interchange with I-605 ( LA 31.151) in the County of Los Angeles is named the "CHP Officer William B. Wolff III Memorial Interchange". It was named in memory of CHP Officer William B. Wolff III, who was born in January 1946, in Akron, Ohio. Officer Wolff graduated from Upper Darby High School in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in 1964, and attended Cal Poly Pomona shortly thereafter, where he received a degree in kinesiology. Officer Wolff was a licensed vocational nurse and also served our country as a member of the United States Navy prior to becoming a California Highway Patrol officer. Officer Wolff is remembered as a proud father and grandfather. Officer Wolff, badge number 8342, entered the California Highway Patrol Academy on August 13, 1973, and, upon graduation, was assigned to the Baldwin Park area, where he served for approximately five years. Officer Wolff was killed in the line of duty on December 30, 1977, while making a traffic stop along the I-10 freeway in Baldwin Park, when he was struck by a drunk driver. The motorist who killed Officer Wolff was charged with felony drunk driving. Officer Wolff was a hard working, dedicated officer who loved his job and enjoyed the people he worked with. He was known for being a loyal family man and a wonderful father. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 86, Resolution Chapter 185, on 09/21/15.
The interchange of I-605 and I-210 (~ LA 25.721) is named the Los Angeles
County Deputy Sheriff David W. March Memorial Interchange. It was named in
memory of Deputy David W. March of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department,
who was killed in the line of duty at the age of 33 on April 29, 2002, in
Irwindale while conducting a "routine" traffic stop. He was a longtime resident
of Santa Clarita Valley and a 1988 graduate of Canyon High School where he
played football and baseball. He served seven years as a law enforcement
officer. It was named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 142, July 16, 2004.
Commuter lanes are under construction on this route between Telegraph Road and I-10. They are scheduled to open in April 1998.
Lanes are planned between the Los Angeles/Orange County line and South Street; construction starts in 1999. That date, however, was optimistic. In June 2002, there was a STIP proposal on the CTC agenda for constructing HOV lanes from Route 405 to the Los Angeles County line. This also shows on the regional transportation improvement plan.
The following segments are designated as Classified Landscaped Freeway:
|County||Route||Starting PM||Ending PM|
Approved as chargeable Interstate from Route 405 to Route 10 on 9/15/1955; the Route 10 to Route 210 portion was approved as chargeable in December 1968 as a result of the December 1968 Federal Aid Highway Act.
In November 1957, the California Department of Highways proposed this as I-13. When that was rejected for an urban route, the department tried it as a 3 digit interstate, I-105. This was before the numbering conventions were established, and sequential 3dis were being used. That number was also rejected. In August 1958, the department proposed I-605, which was accepted.
[SHC 253.1] Entire route. Added to the Freeway and Expressway system in 1959.
Overall statistics for I-605:
From Route 101 near San Jose to Route 780 at Benicia passing near Warm Springs, Mission San Jose, Scotts Corners and Sunol, and via Walnut Creek.
In 1963, Route 680 was defined as "Route 280 in San Jose to Route 80 in Vallejo passing near Warm Springs, Mission San Jose, Scotts Corners and Sunol, and via Walnut Creek and Benicia.". The 1964 routing is illustrated to the right.
In 1965, Chapter 1371 changed the origin of the route: "
280 Route 101 near San Jose to Route 80 in Vallejo passing near
Warm Springs, Mission San Jose, Scotts Corners and Sunol, and via Walnut Creek
In 1976, Chapter 1354 added a second segment and change terminus of (a):
"(a) Route 101 near San Jose to Route 780
at Benicia passing near Warm Springs, Mission San Jose, Scotts Corners,
and Sunol, and via Walnut Creek and Benecia. (b) Route 780
at Benicia to Route 80 near Cordelia." This was the result of a transfer
from Route 21, combined with a concurrent transfer to new I-780.
Portions of this segment was once signed as Route 21 (and for a while,
during the numbering changeover, was cosigned as Route 21). The beginning of
the 1963 segment (b) of Route 17 [Route 101 near San Jose...] (as opposed to
"at Story Road", which is in the definition of I-280) could imply that instead
of the second segment of Route 17 representing current I-680 between US 101 and
Route 262, the 1963 notion represented the surface street routing along Oakland
Road (later to be signed as Route 238), with I-680 being the only legislatively
defined number for all of current Route 262 and all of the Route 17/I-880 from
I-280 to Route 262. This might imply that the segment of I-680 from Route 262
to US 101 was first planned in 1965.* It appears the original plans were for
Route 17 to have turned east in San Jose onto what is now I-280, crossed US
101, and then joined with I-680 in Fremont using the present-day I-680
alignment. I-280 would have turned north on present-day I-880 (then signed as
Route 17) at Route 17, switched to I-680 at US 101, and then would have joined
the proposed Route 17 at Fremont near Route 262. Apparently, Route 17 would
have crossed over somewhere at that point to its then-existing routing up to
[*: Credit for the surmisings regarding 1963-1965 I-680 should go to Chris Sampang]
At this time (i.e., before the section south of Fremont opened), I-680 was routed along present-day I-880 to US 101 in San Jose. The section from Mission Blvd to Route 237 opened in 1971, and the section south of that opened in 1974. The I-280/US 101 interchange opened in 1982. For a time, I-680 was routed along Route 17 (now I-880) to Route 237, across Route 237, and then up the current I-680 from Route 237.
There is also a maintenance facility at the southwest corner of Scott Creek Road. It was originally acquired by Caltrans for a freeway that was going to connect I-680 to I-880. This freeway was killed by Gov. Jerry Brown in the 1970s.
After the new I-680 alignment was finalized, Oakland Road and Main Street were signed as Route 238, since that portion of Mission Blvd south of the present terminus of Route 238 was signed as Route 238 to Warm Springs. Today's I-880 freeway was signed as Route 17 and Temporary I-680 north of US 101 to the junction of Route 262 and Route 17 and Temporary I-280 south of US 101 to the junction of US 280. Note that Mission Blvd crosses I-680 twice. At the first (northern) crossing it is signed as Route 238 and this is the present terminus of Route 238. At the second (southern) crossing it is signed as a connection to I-880; this is the eastern terminus of (unsigned) Route 262. Also, the city of Milpitas built a new alignment for Main Street, so present-day maps do not show how Oakland Road connected with Mission Blvd in Warm Springs via Main Street.
When I-680 was built in the hills through Fremont's east side in the 1963-1964, an overpass and roadway was also constructed heading northwest where I-680 now turns east up through Mission Pass, between the Washington Boulevard and Auto Mall Parkway exits. That section, about 1,000 feet long, was the start of the aborted Mission Freeway that was to have run northwest under Lake Elizabeth through the middle of Fremont and Union City to connect with I-580 in Hayward. These plans were scuttled in the 1970s. This "bridge to nowhere" was demolished in 2002 to accomodate widening of I-680, and the southbound carpool lane construction. Caltrans still owns property on the north side of the curve east of Osgood that it has used for construction staging. However, the Caltrans Bridge Log dates the bridge as 1971, and refers to it as "FUTURE 238/680". This has left a mysterious exit-like area off I-680 in Fremont.
The Benicia-Martinez bridge opened on September 15, 1962, replacing a ferry. Concurrently, the Benicia-Martinez Ferry made its last trip across the Carquinez Straits. This marked not only the end of the state-operated ferry system, but also the end of 115 yeaxs of ferry service in the San Francisco Bay area (except for a new Tiburon commuter vessel). The M.V. Carquinez has been sold to the State of Florida for $86,001. It will be used as a part of the State of Florida's ferry system across the mouth of the St. Johns River on the Atlantic Coast east of Jacksonville.
They are working on a new Benicia Bridge, but it may not happen because of some the construction of the foundation piers may be interfering with salmon and delta smelt migration. The project experienced a delay in November 2002 due to rock boring problems and problems with the collapsing of mud in the underwater bores. These delays pushed back the opening seven years and increased the cost to nearly $1.3 billion. The first major construction problem came when the noise and vibration from pile-driving operations killed fish in the Carquinez Strait. The work stopped while engineers designed an air bubble curtain to protect aquatic life. Contractors then hit unexpectedly soft rock at the base of the pilings used to support the bridge's piers. To anchor the pilings deep beneath the riverbed, the contractor inserted steel sleeves into the pilings and filled them with concrete and rebar, a costly and time-consuming task. Later, as workers began pouring the first of 344 16-foot segments, the chemistry of the lightweight concrete produced too much heat. To cool down the concrete, the contractor pumped water from the river into a series of pipes to each segment until each cured properly. It opened at the end of August 2007. Details on the project can be found here and here. The basic project includes the following features:
This was the first bridge in Northern California to have FasTrak Express lanes. Unlike existing FasTrak lanes, which use treadles mounted in the pavement and laser-light curtains to count axles and measure vehicles, the technology used for open-road tolling does the job from above in a fraction of a second. And if it doesn't recognize the vehicle, it snaps photographs of it and its license numbers. Drivers, if they're paying attention, will hear the familiar "beep-beep" from their FasTrak transponder as they pass the toll plaza and speed toward the bridge. The new equipment can collect tolls at speeds up to 100 mph. A California Highway Patrol officer, testing the system by zipping through the plaza at 85 mph, had his toll collected electronically. The equipment also snapped a clear image of his license plate. Bridge officials also have tested the lanes by flooding them with vehicles to make sure the equipment works in crowded conditions. And they've installed cameras and detectors over the wide shoulders to make sure drivers straddling the line or trying to sneak through without paying will be charged.
The new Benicia-Martinez Bridge, funded with voter-approved toll increases, will carry northbound traffic, and the existing bridge will carry southbound traffic in three lanes. Over the next two years, crews will remove the median and convert the old span to four traffic lanes and one bicycle/pedestrian lane.
This project also includes replacement of the Marina Vista Bridge. This
bridge was the site of a horrific accident on May 21, 1976, when the driver of
a school bus full of choir students from Yuba City High School took the
off-ramp at Marina Vista in Martinez. The bus plunged over the railing, landing
upside down more than 20 feet below. Twenty eight students and one teacher
died. Twenty two were injured. Along with driver error and mechanical failure,
investigators ruled the severe curvature of the off-ramp was a contributing
factor in the crash. In May 2016, it was reported that the infamous offramp was
gone, and a new one should open by October 2015.
(Source: KGO, 5/21/2015)
In May 2003, the CTC considered relinquishment of the segment from PM 12.9 to PM 14.1 in the County of Alameda. This is likely an original surface street or frontage routing.
What was eventually signed as I-680 was built from the following LRNs:
The portion of LRN 5 between US 101 (Bypass US 101) and the vicinity of Irvington. This LRN was defined in 1909, and was originally part of Route 21. LRN 108 between Irvington and Sunol. This LRN was defined in 1933.
The portion of LRN 75 between Walnut Creek and Benecia. This segment of LRN 75 was defined in 1933. Portions of this were signed as Route 24/Route 21 (until where Route 242 now diverges), and the remainder to Benecia was signed as Route 21. This segment was signed as Route 24 before the interstate signage, starting in 1935.
From US 101 in San Jose to Fremont
The 2018 STIP, approved at the CTC March 2018 meeting, appears to adjust the timing of PPNO 0521, SCL M1.4/M2.3, I-680 Sound Walls - Capitol Expressway to Mueller -- In San Jose on I-680. Construct soundwalls at various locations between Capitol Expressway and Mueller Avenue. It pushes it back to FY20-21.
There is also a project to construct a northbound HOV lane over the Sunol Grade, Milpitas to Route 84 in Santa Clara and Alameda Counties. This was first discussed during the June 2001 CTC meeting under Agenda Item 2.1c.(1). It is TCRP Project #4, requested by the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency and authorized for $60,000,000. On June 6, 2001, the Commission designated the northbound and southbound Route 680 HOV lanes over the Sunol Grade in Alameda and Santa Clara Counties as one corridor project (STIP Amendment 00S-031). Both projects are proceeding concurrently. The northbound project is in the environmental process and the southbound project is under construction.
In January 2015, the CTC received notice of a draft EIR for the I-680 Northbound HOV/Express Lane Project, which willconstruct an approximately 15-mile HOV/Express Lane on northbound I-680 fromsouth of Route 237 in Santa Clara County to north of Route 84 (Vallecitos Road)in Alameda County. The alternatives are either build or no-build; the buildwould be in multiple phases. The EIR was prepared due to a substantial amountof public controversy surrounding the project associated with the proposedremoval of five historic trees. The routing appears to be approximately thesame segment that has the SB lanes. The project involves addition of the HOVlane, installation of electronic tolling equipment and signage, widening of existing paved surfaces in the median, construction of auxiliary lanes,demolition and replacement of the Sheridan Road overcrossing, widening the eastside of the Alameda Creek Bridge, construction of retaining walls, new andreplacement sound walls, modification of ramp metering, and pavementrehabilitation.
The plan is to build the HOV/express lanes in multiple phases, with the first phase being constructing the lanes from Auto Mall Parkway to Route 84 (from Post Mile 3.4 to the end of the project). It would also add an auxiliary lane between Washington Blvd and Route 238. Estimated construction costs are ~$205.789 Million for Phase 1, and $299,374 Million for the entire build.
In March 2015, it was reported that survey work has
begun for adding a fourth northbound lane between Auto Mall Parkway and Route
84. It will be a carpool/express lane, as there is in the southbound direction.
This is moving ahead because Alameda County voters approved funding for it in
November 2014. The environmental report will be ready in late 2015, and design
work will be completed in mid-2017. Construction will be done by 2019.
(Source: San Jose Mercury News, 3/27/2015)
In October 2015, the CTC approved this project for future consideration of funding: constructing a high occupancy vehicle/express lane and rehabilitate the existing roadway on Northbound I-680 in or near the cities of Milpitas, Fremont, and Pleasanton, and the community of Sunol. The project is programmed in the Traffic Congestion Relief Program and the 2014 State Highway Operation and Protection Program. The project is not fully funded. The total estimated cost is approximately $388,995,000 for capital and support. Depending on the availability of funding, construction is estimated to begin in Fiscal Year 2016-17.
In November 2017, it was reported that the Alameda
Transportation Commission approved a $107 million contract to begin work on
adding a carpool/express lane from Auto Mall Parkway to Route 84, widening one
of the most dreaded commutes in the Bay Area. Construction will begin in early
2018 and take two years to complete. The news was greeted with sighs of relief
from the East Bay to Silicon Valley — as the 9-mile stretch ranks as the
fourth most congested freeway in the entire region. It also holds the dubious
distinction of being the only freeway other than the approach to the Bay Bridge
to hold down the No. 1 most congested spot. That was in 1999 at the peak of the
dot-com boom when the I-680 drive through Fremont truly became a parking lot.
Money for the widening comes from two sales taxes approved by Alameda County
voters. If more funds can be found, work will begin in 2021 to extend the
fourth lane to Route 237. The project also includes upgrades to the adjacent
southbound I-680 Sunol express lane, which opened in 2010 as the first express
lane in the Bay Area.
(Source: Mercury News, 11/27/2018 (Image is from that article as well))
In April 2018, it was reported that construction of
a nine-mile carpool/express lane along a heavily congested stretch of I-680
officially kicked off in mid-April 2018. Representatives from the Alameda
County Transportation Commission, Caltrans, Alameda County Board of Supervisors
and other local officials attended a groundbreaking ceremony for the $205
million Sunol Northbound Express Lane project. The new lane, expected to be
done by fall of 2020, will span from Auto Mall Parkway in Fremont to north of
Route 84 in Sunol, near Pleasanton. The lane will serve double duty as a free,
high-occupancy lane for carpoolers and ride sharers as well as a speedier
alternative for solo drivers who pay to use it. County Supervisor Richard
Valle, who also chairs the commission, said the express lane will show voters
that the half-cent sales tax increases they approved in ballot measures B and
BB are producing tangible results. The state Traffic Congestion Relief Program
and Highway Operations and Protection Program meanwhile chipped in more than
$57 million for the entire project, which also includes resurfacing of all
northbound lanes in the nine-mile stretch. Construction of the new lane will
primarily take place behind cement railings off the left shoulder of the
freeway, Lengyel said, adding that Caltrans is working to minimize impact to
traffic flow during the more than two-year construction period.
(Source: East Bay Times, 4/19/2018)
In November 2002, the first section of this project opened: a carpool lane from Washington Blvd in Fremont to Route 237 in Milpitas—a 7 mile section only in the southbound direction. The southbound interim section from Washington Blvd to Route 84 opened in December 2002. The fourth and final phase of the southbound work is currently in design with a Ready to List target of August 2007. The northbound project’s final environmental document was completed in June 2005. However, the northbound HOV project has experienced delays due to a lawsuit that was filed in response to the environmental document. In April 2006, the CTC considered a proposal to amend the scope of work to continue with design on the northbound project and utilize $58,000,000 in TCRP funds to fully fund the southbound project and provide delivery in an earlier fiscal year. The increase in scope and shift of funds was to allow time for the legal challenges of the northbound environmental document to be resolved. The revised completion dates are: Phase 1: FY 2005/2006; Phase 2: FY 2009/2010; Phase 3: FY 2009/2010; Phase 4: FY 2012/2013. In June 2008, the CTC approved an adjustment in the financial allocations.
Note that High Occupancy/Toll lanes are proposed for I-680 SB from Route 84 to Route 237. For this project the current HOV lane (opened recently) would be converted to HOT, separated from general-purpose lanes by two double yellow lines, and outfitted with transponder devices a la EZPass/FastPass. Tolls would vary depending on congestion. Carpoolers would ride free.
As of August 2009, it was noted that the toll SB HOV lane is under construction in Fremont. An additional lane was getting carved out of the Sunol Grade, and the Mission Boulevard/Route 238 overpass has been widened.
In September 2010, HOT
lanes opened at the Sunol Grade, offering solo drivers the opportunity to buy
their way into the carpool lane. Tolls will planned to vary from less than a
dollar to several dollars - with an average toll of $3 to $5. Specific toll
amounts are determined using computerized models and the experience of existing
toll bridges and roads that use the system, known as "dynamic pricing."
Carpools, buses and hybrids with the appropriate permits will be able to use
the lanes free. CHP officers will use a combination of visual and electronic
monitoring to catch cheaters, who will face a $381 fine. Tolls are set
according to information gathered by sensors installed in the pavement that
measure traffic flow, including speed and level of congestion, in both the toll
and unrestricted lanes. Tolls rise along with congestion - and the value of a
trip around the backup. Drivers buying their way into the fast lane won't have
the option of paying cash. Express lanes require users to have a FasTrak tag in
their vehicle. Tolls will be collected electronically by a network of overhead
antennas mounted on gantries. Drivers will be able to enter the express lane at
Route 84 and at Washington Parkway and Mission Boulevard in Fremont. Exits will
be available at Auto Mall Parkway in Fremont and Jacklin Road and Route 237 in
Milpitas. The express lane will operate from 5 a.m. to 8 p.m. Monday through
Friday. Outside of those hours, the lanes will be open to all drivers. The toll
lane will not be separated by a barrier, cones or plastic stakes but by a
2-foot-wide stripe. The lanes have specific entry and exit points. Entries will
be at the start of the lane, 1 mile south of Route 84, just past Mission
Boulevard in Fremont and just past Auto Mall Parkway. Exits will be just past
Auto Mall Parkway, just past Jacklin Road, and at the end of the lane south of
Route 237. They will be marked with signs and special striping.
[Source: San Francisco Chronicle, 6/24/10 and 9/13/10]
In August 2014, the CTC reprogrammed some cost savings from the Sunol Grade HOV lane construction to the southbound lane project's landscaping contract.
In September 2015, it was reported that final
design was underway for a planned express lane on northbound I-680 from Auto
Mall Parkway in Fremont up the Sunol Grade -- the opposite direction from the
adjacent express lane on southbound I-680, which celebrated its fifth
anniversary this month. Alameda CTC plans a two-phased approach to creating an
express lane along northbound I-680 between Route 84 south of Pleasanton to
Route 237 in Milpitas -- a project that also calls for freeway widening and
several auxiliary lanes connecting on- and off-ramps. Officials just started
with final design for Phase 1, the 9-mile stretch from Auto Mall Parkway in
Fremont to Route 84. The project would add an express lane and eliminate two
bottlenecks in the area that cause heavy congestion during the evening commute.
The design stage is estimated to continue into next year, with construction to
follow in 2017 and opening in late 2018. Construction costs estimates haven't
been determined, but the overall I-680 northbound project has almost $120
million in funding designated from Measure B, Measure BB, state and federal
sources. Officials also plan to update the I-680 southbound express lane at the
same time, making it into a near-continuous access configuration to provide
additional access opportunities to and from local interchanges.
(Source: Pleasanton Weekly, 9/25/2015)
In August 2018, the CTC
approved for future consideration of funding the following project for which a
Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been completed: Route 84 and I-680
in Alameda County. Construct roadway improvements including widening to a
portion of Route 84 near the cities of Livermore and Pleasanton. (EA 29763)
This project proposes to widen and conform Route 84 to expressway standards
between Ruby Hill Drive and the I-680 interchange, in the vicinity of Sunol and
Pleasanton cities. The project proposes to improve interchange ramps and extend
the existing southbound I-680 High Occupancy Vehicle express lane. A complete
statutory designation as an expressway is expected for this segment of Route
84. The proposed project is estimated to cost in total approximately $220
million. The project is not fully funded, funding sources are anticipated to be
from local tax measures, Regional Transportation Improvement Program funds and
Alameda County. The project is estimated to begin construction in 2021.
(Source: August 2018 CTC Agenda Item 2.2c.(10))
In June 2016, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding a project in Alameda County that will rehabilitate the roadway mainline and on/off-ramps on a portion of I-680 (04-Ala-680 PM 0.0/4.0, roughly Scott Creek Road to Auto Mall Parkway) in the city of Fremont. The project is programmed in the 2016 State Highway Operation and Protection Program. The total programmed amount is $22,360,000 for capital and support. Construction is estimated to begin in Fiscal Year 2017-18. The scope, as described for the preferred alternative, is consistent with the project scope programmed by the Commission in the 2016 State Highway Operation and Protection Program. A copy of the MND has been provided to Commission staff. The project will result in less than significant impacts to the environment after mitigation. The following resource area may be impacted by the project: biological resources. Avoidance and minimization measures will reduce any potential effects on the environment. These measures include, but are not limited to, grassland and freshwater marsh habitat for the California red-legged frog and California salamander will be restored both on and off site. As a result, an MND was completed for this project.
Ramp Metering System
In January 2017, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding a project that will install ramp metering system for sixteen on-ramps/connectors along I-680 in Alameda County from Scott Creek Road Undercrossing in the City of Fremont to the Alcosta Boulevard Overcrossing in the City of Dublin 04-Ala-680, PM 0.0/21.9. These onramps connectors will be widened to provide for High Occupancy Vehicles (HOV) preferential lanes and/or additional mixed flow lanes. The project is programmed in the 2016 State Highway Operation Program for $27,753,000 in Construction (capital and support) and Right of Way (capital and support). Construction is estimated to begin in Fiscal Year 2018-19. The scope, as described for the preferred alternative, is consistent with the project scope programmed by the Commission in the 2016 State Highway Operation and Protection Program.
In August 2017, the CTC added the following to the SHOPP: 04-Ala-680 M0.0/R21.9 I-680: In and near Fremont, Pleasanton, and Dublin, from 0.3 mile south of Scott Creek Road to 0.3 mile north of Alcosta Boulevard. Install ramp meters, ramp HOV bypass lanes, and traffic operations systems (TOS). $800K (R/W) $28,300K (C) $11,300K (Support) PA&ED: 11/16/2016 R/W: 07/16/2018 RTL: 08/01/2018 BC: 03/04/2019
In July 2010, Caltrans removed a flag mural that had been painted on a concrete slab near the Sunol Grade (~ ALA R8.846) after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. Caltrans said it removed the mural, which was visible to passing motorists, after it belatedly discovered it was on state-owned land. Gov. Schwarzenegger said that it was "unconscionable" to remove the flag mural only a few days before the Fourth of July. The controversy grew. Caltrans then met with East Bay residents R.J. Waldron, Eric Noda and Thomas Hanley, who painted the mural in 2001, "to discuss a suitable location" for a flag mural. Meanwhile two other men repainted the flag mural without contacting Caltrans so it would be in place for the Fourth of July.
Route 84/I-680 Interchange Improvements: 4–ALA–680 (ALA 10.3/15.3)
The 2018 STIP, approved at the CTC March 2018 meeting, appears to modify this. It includes $11,114K funding in FY19-20 for PPNO 0080D, Widen, s/o Ruby Hill-Rt 680, Rt 84/680 IC Imprvs(TCEP). This is the "SR-84 Widening and SR-84/I-680 Interchange Improvements Project". This project proposes to proposes to conform Route 84 to expressway standards between south of Ruby Hill Drive and the I-680 interchange in southern Alameda County (4–ALA–84 (PM 17.9/22.9), 4–ALA–680 (PM 10.3/15.3)) by: (•) Widening Route 84 to accommodate one additional lane in each direction; (•) Implementing additional improvements to reduce weaving/merging conflicts and help address the additional traffic demand between I-680 and Route 84. The project would also improve the SR-84/I-680 interchange operations by: (•) Modifying ramps; and (•) Extending the existing southbound I-680 High Occupancy Vehicle/Express Lane northward by ~2 miles. Currently, the southbound express lanes extend from Route 84 south of Pleasanton to Route 237 in Milpitas. The amount of funding in the 2018 STIP agrees with the amount that the Alameda County Transportion Commission (ACTC) requested in regional improvement funding; it combines with $122,000K in Measure BB funding, $1,046K in Measure B funding, $14,940K in local (Tri-Valley Transportation Council) funding. ACTC has requested an additional $70,900K in SB1 funding for this. Currently, construction is scheduled for Winter 2021 - Winter 2023.
Note that most of the information on this project
is with Route 84. With respect to southbound I-680, the project would extend
the existing HOV/express lane northward from its current entry point at
approximately Calaveras Road to approximately 0.8 mile north of Koopman Road, a
distance of approximately 2 miles. The pavement in the center median of
southbound I-680 would be widened to accommodate the HOV/express lane.
Approximately six overhead signs (including variable toll message signs [VTMS]
with pricing information) and toll readers for FasTrak transponders would be
installed in the median of I-680. The northernmost overhead sign would be
approximately 1.8 miles north of Koopman Road (at 4-Ala-680 PM 14.2). Proposed
project activities between the northernmost overhead sign and the I-680/Sunol
Boulevard interchange would be limited to the placement of temporary
(Source: August 2017 Draft EIR)
From Fremont to Dublin
In January 2013, the CTC authorized relinquishment of right of way along Route 680 at St. Patrick Way (~ ALA R20.344), in the city of Dublin, consisting of collateral facilities.
Pleasanton Express Lanes (SB: ~ ALA R21.858 to CC R12.636; NB: to CC R11.297)
In February 2013, it was reported that Caltrans plans to convert HOV lanes on I-680 into HOT ("Express" or High Occupancy/Toll) lanes -- specifically, I-680 southbound from the Benicia-Martinez Bridge to I-580 and northbound from I-580 to south of Walnut Creek as well as a stretch from Concord to the Benicia-Martinez Bridge. Express lanes work by continuing to allow carpoolers free access to the fast lane but then selling unused capacity to drivers who wouldn't normally qualify to drive in them. Tolls are collected electronically using FasTrak transponders, and electronic systems are used to monitor traffic and set tolls at a rate designed to keep traffic in the lanes flowing at 50 mph or faster. As the lanes get more congested, tolls rise, and as gridlock eases, they drop. Toll rates for the network have not been set yet, but on the existing lanes they have varied from a 30-cent minimum to about $5 or $6.
In March 2014, it was reported that the first toll
lanes in Contra Costa County are expected to open on I-680 by mid-2016. The $45
million project, which is in the design stage, will create 23 miles of FasTrak
express lanes that solo drivers can pay to use -- as long as its traffic is
moving at least 45 mph. Construction should begin at the start of 2015. The
system would use the same FasTrak technology used on Bay Area bridges, with
electronic toll tags that charge fees but require no stopping at toll booths.
The toll lanes -- which will be free for carpoolers, motorcycles and electric
vehicles -- will run on southbound I-680 from Rudgear Road in Walnut Creek to
Alcosta Boulevard in San Ramon, and on northbound I-680 from Alcosta to Livorna
Road in Alamo. The I-680 project is proceeding quickly because it is relatively
inexpensive, with no need to build new lanes. Instead, existing HOV lanes would
be converted with the installation of FasTrak toll tag readers, signs,
traffic-monitoring video cameras, and observation areas for the California
Highway Patrol to monitor lanes.
(Source: Contra Costa Times)
In August 2015, it was reported that the project to
bring toll express lanes to I-680 through the San Ramon Valley is expected to
start construction in August 2015, with completion estimated for late 2016.The
MTC aims to convert existing high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes on I-680
between Alcosta Boulevard in San Ramon and Rudgear Road in southern Walnut
Creek into express lanes that would charge tolls for access during peak commute
times. The project does not include freeway widening.As proposed, the
congestion-relief project would replace existing HOV lanes with express lanes
on southbound I-680 from Rudgear Road to Alcosta Boulevard and on northbound
I-680 from Alcosta to Livorna Road in Alamo -- approximately 23 miles overall.
The express lanes would be free to access for carpools, vanpools, public
transit, motorcycles and eligible clean-air vehicles while other solo drivers
could pay a toll to use the lanes. Toll lane hours and rates have not been
finalized. Work by DeSilva Gates is set to include adding signage, overhead
toll readers, camera equipment and polls, median barriers, roadside lighting
and associated roadwork such as striping and paving. A total of 31 overhead
sign structures are planned for medians through the I-680 corridor. The
contract awarded to DeSilva Gates on June 24 is worth about $16.3 million for
construction, plus almost $2.2 million in contingency funding. There are three
express-lane segments that in time will extend from the Benicia Bridge to the
county border at Alcosta Boulevard in San Ramon. The first segment is on both
directions of I-680 from Walnut Creek to San Ramon. The first stage of the
installation is preparing the highway for installation of fiber optic cables
that will carry information to overhead signs that alert drivers to the
(Source: Pleasanton Weekly, 8/7/2015, Contra Costa Times, 8/12/2015)
In September 2015, it was reported that roadwork
signs and equipment have arrived to start on new express lanes along I-680
north of Pleasanton. The MTC-led project plans to convert existing HOV lanes
from Alcosta Boulevard in San Ramon to Rudgear Road in Walnut Creek
(southbound) and Livorna Road in Alamo (northbound), covering a distance of 23
miles. No freeway widening will occur. Construction is expected to last until
late 2016. The overall project cost is currently estimated at $49 million, with
about half going toward construction. Toll lane hours and rates have not been
finalized, but MTC expects to adopt a toll ordinance next June, laying the
groundwork for future approval of a dynamic-pricing toll structure. As for
I-680 north plans, the San Ramon-Walnut Creek segment is the first of three
proposed MTC projects aimed at creating express lanes most of the way from
Alcosta to the Benicia-Martinez Bridge.
(Source: Pleasanton Weekly, 9/25/2015)
In July 2017, it was reported that the Express
Lanes on the I-680 just north of Pleasanton are nearing completion, scheduled
to open in early fall 2017, though a hard date has not yet been specified. The
project converting carpool lanes into toll express lanes is intended to promote
carpooling and improve traffic congestion on the I-680 corridor, Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) project manager Barbara Laurenson said at the
San Ramon City Council meeting.The $45 million project involves converting
high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes into toll express lanes. Project
construction, which began in August 2015 and was initially expected to be
completed in late 2016, is now scheduled to be completed by late September or
early October 2017. Everyone can drive in the lanes, but only HOV and some
select others can use them for free during toll hours -- similar to the express
lanes on I-580 through the Tri-Valley and I-680 south of Pleasanton. In order
to use the express lanes, drivers will need to obtain a toll tag -- toll-exempt
vehicles must use a FasTrak Flex toll tag, set in the "2" position for 2-person
carpools and the "3+" position for everything else, while solo drivers can have
either a standard FasTrak toll tag or a FasTrak Flex tag set in the "1"
position. Solo drivers will be charged a toll fee to use the lanes, while
carpools, vanpools, eligible clean-air vehicles, motorcycles and buses can use
the lanes toll-free. The lanes will operate from 5 a.m. to 8 p.m. weekdays and
will be managed and monitored by MTC.
(Source: Pleasanton Weekly, 7/14/2017)
In October 2017, it was reported that, after over
two years of construction, the opening date for San Ramon Valley's I-680
express lanes are officially scheduled to open Oct. 9. The $56 million project
has involved converting the single high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each
direction into a toll express lane as a tool to help reduce congestion. It
includes one northbound express lane from Alcosta Boulevard in San Ramon to
Livorna Road in Alamo, and one southbound express lane from Rudgear Road in
Walnut Creek to Alcosta Boulevard. Everyone will be able to drive in the lanes,
but only HOVs and select others can use them for free during toll hours:
carpools, vanpools, eligible clean-air vehicles, motorcycles and buses all
count as HOV for tolling purposes. All vehicles will need a toll tag.
Toll-exempt vehicles can set the FasTrak Flex toll tag in the "2" position for
two-person carpools and the "3+" position for all other carpools, while solo
drivers can use either a standard FasTrak toll tag or a FasTrak Flex tag set in
the "1" position.
(Source: Danville/San Ramon Press, 10/9/2017)
From Dublin to Walnut Creek
San Ramon / Danville Auxilliary Lanes (~ CC R2.887 to CC R4.204)
There are plans to add NB and SB auxilliary lanes on Route 680 in San Ramon from Bollinger Canyon Road to Crow Canyon Road and in Danville from Sycamore Valley Road to Diablo Road. September 2005 CTC Agenda.
In December 2011, it was reported that Contra Costa County transit officials and Caltrans are exploring rebuilding the Norris Canyon Overpass to include new onramps and offramps tied directly to carpool lanes, with use restricted to buses and carpools. Neighbors near Norris Canyon Road, however, say it would worsen local traffic and make it unsafe for children to walk or bike across a freeway overpass.
In August 2012, the CTC approved $18,910 for I-680 Auxiliary Lanes - Segment 2. In the Cities of Danville and San Ramon. Construct auxiliary lanes in two both directions, between Sycamore Valley Road in Danville and Crow Canyon Road in San Ramon.
In March 2013, it was reported that construction
was about to being on the auxiliary lane project between Sycamore Valley Road
in Danville and Crow Canyon Road in San Ramon. Construction actually began in
April 2013. The construction contract permits the project to be finished in
mid-2014. The contractors -- a joint venture of Bay Cities Paving & Grading
and Inc/Myers J.V. — are pushing for an earlier completion if dry
weather allows. Half or $16 million of the cost is paid for with funds from
Contra Costa County's voter-approved half cent sales tax for transportation.
Another $9.2 million comes from developer fees collected in the Tri-Valley
region. Another $4.2 million comes from state and federal grants.
(Source: Contra Costa Times, 4/8/13)
In March 2013, it was reported that there were going to be community meetings on the HOV ramp project in San Ramon. The ramps were originally proposed for the Norris Canyon overpass, but were vigorously opposed by neighbors at public meetings last year. Neighbors said the ramps would negatively affect their quality of life by increasing traffic and noise. Others claimed the ramps would affect safety by increasing the number of buses and trucks on Norris Canyon Road, where children ride bikes to school. After these protests, Caltrans indicated they would reconsider an option for an HOV ramp at nearby Executive Parkway, previously considered a less suitable location.
In August 2013, the CTC received notice of preparation of an EIR for a proposed project in Contra Costa County that would construct High Occupancy Vehicle on- and off-ramps and auxiliary lanes on I-680 between Bollinger Canyon Road and Crow Canyon Road in the city of San Ramon. The project is not fully funded. The project is funded through the environmental phase with local funds. Funds for construction may be requested from the Commission in the future. The total estimated cost is $102,000,000 for capital and support. Depending on the availability of funds, construction is estimated to begin in Fiscal Year 2017-18. Three alternatives are being considered:
From Walnut Creek to I-780 near Benecia
I-680 Southbound HOV Lane Gap Closure Project / Walnut Creek (SB: ~ CC 11.2 to CC 16.6)
In December 2014, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding a project in Contra Costa County that will construct a 5.4 mile long HOV Lane on a portion of I-680 in the city of Walnut Creek. The project is programmed in the 2014 State Transportation Improvement Program. The total estimated cost is $84,657,000 for capital and support. Construction is estimated to begin in Fiscal Year 2016-17. The scope, as described for the preferred alternative, is consistent with the project scope programmed by the Commission in the 2014 State Transportation Improvement Program.
In December 2017, the CTC amended the HOV lane
closure project as follows: The I-680 Southbound HOV Lane Gap Closure project
will construct HOV lanes from Livorna Road to 0.2 miles north of Geary Road. It
is the highest priority project for the region and was originally programmed in
FY 2017-18, however the STIP funding was delayed as part of the 2016 STIP to FY
2019-20. The current schedule is to begin construction in FY 2017-18. The
project has been delivered with all constraints cleared and is on schedule to
be advertised in February 2018 and awarded no later than May 2018. The project
however, is being revised to convert the HOV lanes to HOT express lanes and to
combine this project with the adjacent I-680 North Express Lane project to the
north, for construction. The I-680 North Express Lane project converts the
existing southbound HOV lane into an express lane from Marina Vista Avenue to
Rudgear Road. An adjacent project to the south, converting the southbound HOV
lane to an express lane from Rudgear Road to Alcosta Boulevard, was completed
and open to traffic in October 2017. With the construction of this project,
I-680 will have a continuous southbound express lane from the city of Martinez
to the Alameda County line. The local funds being used in leiu of STIP funds
are committed or programmed to other projects and programs within CCTA’s
approved Measure J Expenditure Plan. The STIP funds will ultimately be needed
for CCTA to meet its commitments on these projects and programs and will be
requested per the AB 3090 reimburesement agreement at a future time specified
(Source: December 2017 CTC Agenda Item 2.1b.(2))
The 2018 STIP, approved at the CTC March 2018 meeting, appears to adjust the funding for PPNO 0222E: In Walnut Creek. Construct a HOV lane on southbound I-680, from Livorna Road to 0.2 miles north of Geary Road. Specifically, it transfers $15,557K from construction of N. Main (~ CC 15.6) to Livorna Road in FY19-20 to the Livorna Road to Geary Road in FY18-19.
In October 2018, it was reported that
transportation officials in Contra Costa County held a groundbreaking ceremony
on a $127 million project that will add 11 miles of a southbound carpool
express lane from Martinez to Walnut Creek, shortening drive times along I-680
by 10 to 15 minutes. When completed in 2021, the new carpool lane will connect
to the existing express lane that runs from Walnut Creek to San Ramon,
accommodating more than 500 additional cars per hour along I-680 in what is one
of the Bay Area's worst commutes. To complete the project, Caltrans has
partnered with the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission and the Federal Highway Administration. According to
MTC spokesman John Goodwin, the estimated project cost of $127 million includes
$55 million for converting the existing carpool lane from Martinez to Walnut
Creek, $60 million for widening southbound I-680 through Walnut Creek, and $12
million for "system integration," or tying the new infrastructure into the
existing carpool lane from Rudgear Road to the Alameda County line. Funding
sources include $51.3 million from the Bay Area Toll Authority, $36.9 million
from Contra Costa County's Measure J sales tax, $19.4 million from Regional
Measure 2 toll funds and $15.6 million from the Contra Costa Transportation
Authority's State Transportation Improvement Program. An additional $3.8
million is expected to by covered by other MTC funding.
(Source: SF Gate, 10/3/2018)
In August 2012, the CTC relinquished right of way in the city of Walnut Creek along Route 680 between Lancaster Road and San Luis Road (~ CC 13.152 to CC 15.708), consisting of collateral and nonmotorized transportation facilities.
In January 2008, the CTC relinquished right of way in the city of Walnut Creek, at North Main Street (~ CC 15.6) , from approximately 250 feet south of Sun Valley Drive to the Walnut Creek/Pleasant Hill city limit line, consisting of reconstructed city streets.
In 2007, the CTC considered a request for $10.5M from the Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA) to extend the NB HOV from North Main St. to Route 242 (~ CC 15.633 to CC R18.572) in Contra Costa County, but didn't recommend it for funding.
In March 2008, the CTC relinquished right of way in the city of Pleasant Hill, on North Main Street (~ CC 15.633), Contra Costa Boulevard (~ CC R17.339), and Monument Boulevard (~ CC R17.74), between the southerly city limit line and north to Monument Boulevard, consisting of relocated and reconstructed city streets, frontage roads, and other State constructed local roads.
In March 2016, it was reported that the I-680 crossing of Monument Boulevard
(~ CC R17.74), a long, thick concrete-and-steel structure built in 1998, made
the list of California's 25 most traveled bridges that are rated "structurally
deficient," according to a report from a Washington, D.C.-based trade group. In
the case of the Monument Boulevard overcrossing, cracks formed along its
girders during the construction of the bridge, which opened in 1998 as the key
part of a project to widen I-680 through Pleasant Hill from three to five lanes
in each direction. A bridge qualifies as "structurally deficient" if the
condition of any of these elements -- the bridge's deck, superstructure,
substructure or culvert and retaining walls -- is rated 4 or lower on a scale
of 9, or a 2 rating for overall structural condition or its clearance over any
waterway underneath, according to Nancy Singer, a spokeswoman for the Federal
Highway Administration. A 4 rating is considered poor; a zero is considered
failed condition and a 9 is excellent.
(Source: San Jose Mercury News, 3/23/2016)
Route 680/Route 4 Interchange (~ CC 21.116)
In April 2013, it was reported that there was
finally a path ahead to improving the interchange of I-680 and Route 4. This
interchange is so problematic that Contra Costa voters in 1988 approved a
half-cent sales tax to start planning its fix. Almost 25 years later, Contra
Costa County's congestion management agency says it has found a path to begin
the first phase of the $400 million freeway fix in about two years, pulling it
out of an indefinite limbo. Under earlier plans, the congestion agency and
Caltrans would have waited until the money was lined up to build the most
expensive yet effective parts of the five-phase project. To break the logjam,
the county agency revamped its construction staging and financing plans. The
agency plans to start smaller and have more money to spend because of the
improving economy. It would begin with widening three miles of Route 4 to add
an extra lane in each direction between Morello Avenue and Route 242. The
widening would cost some $50 million. The transportation authority also figures
it will have $186 million more than previously expected over the next 21 years
because of improvements in its financial picture. The agency is taking in more
sales tax revenues as the economy recovers. The authority also got an "AA+"
credit rating last fall from two rating agencies, enabling it to save millions
of dollars in selling $225 million in bonds in December, and refinancing $200
million of existing debt. With a rosier outlook ahead, the Transportation
Authority board on Wednesday is scheduled to authorize consultants to study
design on the highway widening. That action could lead to a widening contract
being awarded in 2015. In later phases of the freeway overhaul, contractors
will build new connector ramps, remove the cloverleaf connectors, and add a
flyover ramp so motorists can stay in a carpool lane continuously while merging
from one freeway to another. Getting started on the project makes it easier to
seek state and federal grants for later phases of construction.
(Source: Contra Costa Times, 4/14/13)
In March 2015, the CTC received notice of a future STIP amendment from the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA), which proposed to delay $36,610,000 in Regional Improvement Program (RIP) construction funds from Fiscal Year (FY) 2015-16 to FY 2016-17 for the I-680/Route 4 Interchange – Phase 3 project (PPNO 0298E) in Contra Costa County. As of March 2015, the Phase 3 project was programmed with $36,610,000 in RIP construction in FY 2015-16. This Phase 3 project scope consists of widening Route 4 in the median to construct an additional lane in each direction from Morello Avenue to Route 242. The current scope of work also includes widening of various bridge structures within the project limits. Originally, the highway bridge structure spanning the Grayson Creek was planned to be widened. However, based upon a detailed analysis and evaluation of the condition of this aged structure, was determined that it is necessary to replace it. Furthermore, permits from the US Army Corp of Engineers will now be needed for both the Grayson Creek bridge replacement and the Walnut Creek bridge widening work. The CCTA is actively seeking additional funds to cover the cost of replacing the Grayson Creek Bridge. However, if additional funding does not materialize, the overall project cost will be reduced by adjusting the westbound projects limits. As a result of additional design efforts and the above described permit requirements, the delivery of the project will be delayed from Fiscal Year 2015-16 to 2016-17. In May 2015, the STIP amendment showed up on the CTC agenda and was approved.
In March 2016, it was reported that the MTC, in
response to state budget cuts, had tentatively cut the I-680/Route 4 project,
putting off their funding until at least 2021. The project would construct a
new interchange where I-680 meets Route 4 in Contra Costa County. The
interchange would replace an outdated and overwhelmed cloverleaf design
that’s snarled with commuters forced to weave in and out of traffic.
(Source: SF Gate, 3/10/2016)
In March 2017, the CTC amended the STIP to change the implementing agency on the right of way portion of the project. That amended provided the following additional innformation: On March 20, 2014, the Commission adopted the 2014 STIP, which included the I-680/ Route 4 Interchange – Phase 3 project. It consists of widening Route 4 by constructing an additional lane in each direction from Morello Avenue to Route 242. The project was programmed with $36,610,000 in Regional Improvement Program (RIP) funding for construction and the R/W phase was funded 100 percent with local funds. Then in September 2014, CCTA decided to have the Department take the lead in doing the R/W work and amended their cooperative agreement to reflect the change. On May 18, 2016, the Commission adopted the 2016 STIP, and due to funding shortfalls, CCTA was forced to delete STIP funding from existing projects. CCTA deleted $31,510,000 in STIP RIP funding for construction of the I-680/ Route 4 Interchange project and replaced it with local funds. The remaining $5,100,000 in STIP RIP funding for construction was reprogrammed to fund cost increases for R/W in FY 2017-18. The cost increases resulted from additional utility work that had not been previously identified. Currently, R/W is still programmed with CCTA as the implementing agency however, this amendment revises the implementing agency from CCTA to have the Department take the lead. This amendment also splits R/W into $4,800,000 Capital and $300,000 support and also updates the local funding in the funding plan.
In May 2018, the CTC approved for future
consideration of funding the following project for which a Negative Declaration
(ND) has been completed: I-680 and Route 4 in Contra Costa County. Construct
interchange improvements on I-680 at Route 4 in Contra Costa County. (0298E)
(04-CC-680, PM 20.22/22.2, 04-CC-4, PM R10.5/15.1) This project is located at
the I-680/Route 4 interchange in Contra Costa County. The project proposes to
widen Route 4, widen five bridge structures and replace the Grayson Creek
Bridge. The existing I-680/Route 4 interchange has deficiencies that contribute
to traffic congestion and inefficient traffic operations. The project proposes
to reduce traffic congestion, improve operation efficiency and accommodate
existing and planned growth in travel demand. This project is proposed to be
implemented in five phases for an estimated cost of $297.6 million. The project
is not fully funded and is currently programmed for $102.6 million in STIP,
SHOPP, Senate Bill (SB) 1 Local Partnership Program (LPP) and Local programs.
Construction for Phase 3 is estimated to begin in 2018. The scope, as described
for the preferred alternative, is consistent with the project scope programmed
by the Commission in the 2018 STIP.
(Source: CTC Agenda, May 2018 Agenda Item 2.2c(1))
In May 2018, it was reported that upgrades to the
I-680/Route 4 interchange in Pacheco, considered a bottleneck for traffic in
Contra Costa County, are closer to reality after the California Transportation
Commission approved $34 million in funding for improvements. The funding,
approved by the CTC at its May meeting, comes about two and a half years after
a group of politicians, union leaders and transportation officials gathered in
a parking lot near the interchange to decry the proposed cut of more than $750
million from planned transportation projects statewide.
(Source: SF Gate, 5/21/2018)
In February 2010, the toll increased to $5 at all times on the Dumbarton, San Mateo, Richmond-San Rafael, Carquinez, Benicia-Martinez and Antioch bridges. In July 2010, the toll will be extended to carpoolers, who will pay $2.50.
The portion of this route from the Route 280/US 101 junction to the Santa Clara/Alameda County line (~ SCL M0.095 to SCL M9.906) is named the "Sinclair Freeway". Joseph P. Sinclair was District Engineer for the District 4 Division of Highways (now Caltrans) from 1952 to 1964. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 104, Chapt. 168 in 1967. His son, Mike Sinclair, provided more information regarding his father: This stretch of I-280 and I-680 provided San Jose with its first freeway service. The concept for the freeway took shape during the tenure of Joseph Sinclair as District Engineer in charge of District IV, California State Division of Highways (now Caltrans), from 1959 to 1964. Route location studies were initiated in 1955, and adopted as part of the Interstate System in 1962. Much planning and research went into the design of this freeway in order to provide both a beautiful and functional facility. The City of San Jose and the Division of Highways negotiated a cooperative agreement for the development of park and recreational facilities within the freeway right-of-way at six locations along this route in a precedent-setting Freeway/Parks concept. To make the freeway more compatible with the adjacent residential properties, the first noise barrier in the Bay Area was installed. The freeway passed through an old Olive orchard. Many of the trees were removed and replanted within the freeway right of way to preserve these old trees. The freeway was landscaped and was officially designated as a "landscape freeway". When a freeway gets this official designation it eliminates the possibility of outdoor advertising being placed adjacent to the freeway. Sinclair was a pioneer in the design and routing of the state's freeway system. Born in Minnesota in 1910, he joined the Division of Highways in 1932 as rodman on a survey party, after graduation from the University of Southern California as a civil engineer. Subsequently, he filled positions of increasing responsibility as a freeway planner, designer, and builder in San Diego and Los Angeles, prior to coming to San Francisco in 1952. During World War II he served as Lieutenant Commander in the US Navy Seabees, stationed in the South Pacific. At the time of his death in 1964 he had become nationally known in his profession. In designating a freeway in his honor, the legislature for the first time named a highway after a civil engineer.
Grimmer Boulevard Bridge in the City of Fremont on
I-680 (~ ALA M4.032) is named the "CHP Officers Fredrick Wayne
Enright and Adolfo Martinez Hernandez Memorial Bridge". It was named in
memory of Officers Frederick Wayne Enright and Adolfo Martinez Hernandez, who
made the ultimate sacrifice while performing their sworn duty. Officer
Frederick Wayne Enright was born August 27, 1944, to Francis Xavier and Mary
Alice, in Louisiana, Missouri. Officer Enright, badge number 7857, graduated
from the CHP Academy in March of 1972 with the Cadet Training Class V-71, and
upon graduation he was assigned to the West Valley area. After only six months
with the CHP, Officer Enright achieved the rank of pilot and was transferred to
the Golden Gate Division in the San Francisco Bay Area. As a helicopter pilot,
Officer Enright responded to numerous land and water rescue operations and
routinely flew commute traffic observation for bay area highways and freeways.
During one of Officer Enright’s patrols, he encountered a drunk pilot,
ordered him to land and escorted him to the ground, where the pilot was
arrested. Not only was this a dangerous encounter, but the aircraft suffered
power failure and Officer Enright successfully landed the helicopter without
damage or injury. The CHP subsequently commended him for his exceptional skill
and decisionmaking during this incident. Officer Adolfo Martinez Hernandez was
born September 27, 1940, to Tiburcio and Juana in Etiwanda, California, and is
one of 12 children. Officer Hernandez, badge number 4876, graduated from the
CHP Academy in 1966, and proudly served the citizens of California for nine
years. Officer Hernandez was a devoted officer, husband, and father. He was
known for his big heart and immense love for his family and friends, even when
some of them were “unlovable.” He enjoyed playing with his
children, motorcycles, refurbishing a Volks Wagen van, making wood carvings,
creating leather items including wallets, handbags, sandals, belts, and a
special holder for his CHP badge. He also loved “do-it-yourself”
projects and built a bicycle seat for his daughter, a bike rack for his car,
and a bookcase and small end table that his son still has in his home today. On
June 27, 1975, the State of California suffered a tragic loss when CHP Officers
Frederick Wayne Enright and Adolfo Martinez Hernandez were killed in a
helicopter crash caused by mechanical failure. Named by Assembly Concurrent
Resolution 100, Resolution Chapter 109, on September 4, 2012. .
The portion of this route between the intersection with I-580 and Alcosta Boulevard in San Ramon (~ ALA R20.007 to ALA R21.875) is officially named the "Officer John Paul Monego Memorial Freeway." It was named after Dublin Police Officer John Paul Monego, who died on December 12, 1998, in the line of duty at the age of 33 years, while responding to a takeover robbery. Named by Senate Concurrent Resolution 60, enrolled August 18, 2000.
The portion of this route from the Alcosta Blvd. interchange in San Ramon to about the Livorna Road interchange (~ ALA R21.875 to CC R11.309) in Walnut Creek/Alamo appears to be named the "Donald D. Doyle Highway". While serving in the California Assembly from 1953 to 1958, Donald D. Doyle co-authored the Short-Doyle Mental Health Act and authored legislation creating the ferry boat transportation system between Benecia and Martinez. The signs indicating this were erected in 1998.
The portion of I-680 from Bollinger Canyon Road to Crow Canyon Road (~ CC
R2.861 to CC R4.182) in the City of San Ramon in the County of Contra Costa is
named the "Detective Sergeant Thomas A. Smith, Jr. Memorial Highway".
It was named in memory of Detective Sergeant Thomas A. Smith, Jr., a 23-year
veteran for the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Police Department,
who was accidentally fatally shot by a fellow officer, at 42 years of age, when
he led a team of eight officers in a search of a robbery suspect’s
apartment at 6450 Dougherty Road in Dublin, California, at about 2 p.m. on
January 21, 2014. Born in Hayward, California, in 1971, Detective Sergeant
Thomas A. Smith Jr., known as Tommy to his family and friends, grew up to serve
as a police officer in the bay area. Shortly after graduating from Moreau
Catholic High School, he attended the police academy at the Alameda County
Regional Training Center to train for the BART Police Department. Detective
Smith dedicated himself to the BART Police Department. Joining the department
at 19 years of age as a cadet, he rose through the ranks, serving as a K-9
Handler, Field Training Officer, Recruit Training Officer for the Contra Costa
County Law Enforcement Training Center [Class No.158], before becoming a
detective and eventually being promoted to the rank of sergeant, where he
became the leader of the BART Police Department’s Detective Unit. On
January 21, 2014, members of the detective unit converged on an apartment in
Dublin, California, to perform a probation search belonging to a suspect in
several robberies on BART property. During the search, an officer fired a
single shot, which unfortunately hit Detective Sergeant Tommy Smith, missing
his protective vest. Tommy was rushed to a hospital, but succumbed to his wound
a short time later. He was the first BART police officer killed in the line of
duty in its 42-year history. As dedicated as he was to his career, Detective
Sergeant Tommy Smith made family his first priority. In 1995, he met his wife,
Kellie, a fellow BART police officer, whom he married in 2001. He made their
daughter Summer a top priority. So it was not surprising, when driving home one
day that Summer noticed that an exit number had been added to the Bollinger
Canyon Road exit along Interstate 680. The Bollinger Canyon Road exit is now
number “34.” Number 34 was Detective Sergeant Tommy
Smith’s badge number. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution (ACR) 22,
8/30/2017, Res. Chapter 127, Statutes of 2017.
The portion of I-680 that is between Route 24 in the City of Walnut Creek and the Benicia-Martinez Bridge in Contra Costa County (~ CC 14.359 to CC 025.04) is named the "Senator Daniel E. Boatwright Highway". This segment was named in honor of Senator Daniel E. Boatwright, who was elected to the California State Senate in 1980, and served for 16 years in the 7th Senate District, , as well as serving for eight years in the California State Assembly, to which he was first elected in 1972. Senator Boatwright was born in Harrison, Arkansas, but moved to Vallejo, California, as a child, where he attended public schools, where his education was interrupted by service in the United States Army as a combat member of the infantry in Korea. Boatwright attended Vallejo Junior College where he was chairman of the student council and Chairman of the California Community Colleges Student Council Association, and went on to receive both his B.A. degree and his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley. Boatwright served as deputy district attorney in Contra Costa County, becoming chief trial deputy under then District Attorney John Nejedly before opening his own law firm in Concord in 1970. Boatwright served as a city council member and Mayor of the City of Concord, Chairman of the Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire Board, and City Attorney for the City of Brentwood prior to his election to the California State Assembly. During his 24-year legislative career, he authored more than 350 laws and held several prominent committee chairmanships in each house, including chairmanships of the Assembly and Senate Revenue and Taxation Committees, the Assembly Ways and Means Committee, and the Senate Appropriations Committee, in which capacities he became legendary for his ability, year after year, to deliver state funding to cities, the county, and special districts for projects in his Contra Costa County-based district. From 1982 through 1992, Senator Boatwright worked tirelessly with the California Transportation Commission, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Finance to secure funding and accelerate the construction and completion of I-680 lane additions and the I-680 and Route 24 interchange in Contra Costa County. Following his retirement from the Legislature in 1996, Senator Boatwright served as the Senate's representative in 1997 and 1998 to the California Medical Assistance Commission, and has since resumed the practice of law and begun the practice of lobbying. Named by Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR) 4, Resolution Chapter 69, on 7/14/2009.
The interchange of I-680, I-280, and US 101 in the City of San Jose (~ SCL M0.095) is named the "Joe Colla Interchange." This interchange was named in memory of Joseph Anthony Colla, who actively served the San Jose community during the 1970s as a pharmacist, bike racer, bike race promoter, and San Jose City Council Member. Councilman Joe Colla worked in the 1970s alongside future mayors Norman Mineta and Janet Gray Hayes to help the City of San Jose develop economically and culturally and become described as "San Jose, a City with a Future". Colla is best known for a stunt involving the US 101/I-680/I-280 interchange. Construction started on that interchange, and then stopped as then-Gov. Jerry Brown suspended most highway building in the state in a cost-cutting measure. Road crews disappeared and what remained was a 200-foot ramp suspended in the air with rebar sticking out of both ends. The ramp was dubbed San Jose's "Monument to Nowhere." In the pre-dawn hours of a sunny but chilly January day, Colla got a crane operator to lift a Chevy on top of the unfinished ramp. Then the feisty councilman and drugstore owner jumped in a helicopter, which dropped him off next to the car. A photograph was snapped of Colla with arms outstretched and the caption: "Where Do We Go From Here?"As a direct result of Councilman Joe Colla's exploits, including posing the question, "Where do I drive from here?" from atop the unfinished interchange, and identifying the monolith as "A Monument to Nowhere." This made Colla a true urban legend. After the car stunt, he organized a 300-car caravan to Sacramento to push for the interchange's completion. Eventually the City of San Jose received the necessary funding and the interchange project was completed. Named by Assembly Concurrant Resolution (ACR) 102, August 30, 2010, Resolution Chapter 107.
The Fostoria Overcrossing on I-680 (Bridge 28-0316, CC R004.38) in the City of San Ramon is named the "Thomas E. Burnett, Jr. Memorial Bridge". Named in honor of Thomas E. Burnett, Jr., who lived with his wife Deena and daughters Halley, Madison, and Anna Claire in the City of San Ramon. On September 11, 2001, terrorists hijacked four civilian aircraft, crashing two of them into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, and a third into the Pentagon outside Washington, D.C., and a fourth hijacked aircraft that crashed in southwestern Pennsylvania. Thomas E. Burnett, Jr. was a passenger on the fourth flight (United Airlines 93), and led the passengers in trying to take control of the aircraft in order to prevent the hijackers from probably crashing the aircraft in Washington D.C.. These heroic actions taken by Thomas E. Burnett, Jr. and his fellow passengers likely prevented the further loss of life. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 38, Chaptered 7/2/2003, Chapter 84.
undercrossing over Livorna Road below Bridge No. 28-191 in
Contra Costa County (CC 014.24) is officially named the "CHP Officer Kenyon
Youngstrom Memorial Undercrossing." It was named in memory of California
Highway Patrol (CHP) Officer Kenyon Marc Youngstrom, who was born in October
1974 in Pasadena, California. CHP Officer Youngstrom graduated from Arlington
High School in Riverside in 1993, and attended California Baptist University in
Riverside, as well as Napa Valley College, in Napa. From a young age,
Youngstrom recognized the importance of public service, and was known as a hard
worker who always gave back to his community. He served as a member of the
United States Army Reserve for six years, achieving the rank of an E-4
Specialist. He entered the CHP Academy in August 2005 and graduated in February
2006 (badge number 18063), and was initially assigned to the Contra Costa area.
CHP Officer Youngstrom, after serving nearly three years in the Contra Costa
area, voluntarily transferred to the Golden Gate Division as a member of the
Field Support Unit, where he served as a distinguished member of the Protective
Services Detail, responsible for providing protection to various dignitaries,
heads of state, legislators, and other VIPs visiting the San Francisco Bay
Area. He transferred back to the Contra Costa area in August 2012 where he
spent the remainder of his career. CHP Officer Youngstrom performed several
duties over the course of his career, and because of his exceptional skills as
an officer, he served as a mentor and recruiter for new officers to the CHP, as
well as a RADAR and LIDAR instructor. While assisting a fellow officer on
September 4, 2012 with an enforcement stop on I-680, Officer Yongstrom was
critically shot by the driver of the stopped vehicle, and passed away the
following day at the John Muir Medical Center in Walnut Creek. Officer
Youngstrom, upon his death, gave the gift of life through organ and tissue
donation, helping to save the lives of four individuals. It was named on 09/06/13 by SCR 43, Res. Chapter 98, Statutes of 2013.
Bridge 28-0153 on Route 680 (CC 025.04) between Martinez and Benicia in Contra Costa and Solano counties is named the "George Miller Jr. Bridge", and is also known as the "Benicia-Martinez Bridge". George R. Miller, Jr., represented Contra Costa County in the State Assembly (1947-1949) and the State Senate (1947-1968). Benicia-Martinez refers to the cities connected by the bridge. They were named after the mid-19th century figures Ignacio Martinez—commandante of the Presidio at San Francisco and owner of Rancho El Pinole that extended from San Pablo Bay to Martinez—and General Mariano Vallejo's wife, Francisca Benicia. It was built in 1962, and was named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 59, Chapter 84 in 1975.
The new northbound Benicia-Martinez Bridge (SOL R000.99) is named the "Congressman George Miller Benicia-Martinez Bridge". This segment was named in honor of Congressman George Miller, who was born in Richmond, California, on May 17, 1945. Congressman Miller graduated from San Francisco State University and received his law degree from the University of California, Davis. He thereafter served on the staff of former State Senate Majority Leader George Moscone. He has been a member of the United States Congress, representing the Seventh District of California since 1975. His myriad achievements include authoring laws concerning environmental protection and resource management, energy policy, child care, mental health, aid to victims of domestic violence, and numerous education reforms. He has consistently championed federal support for California's diverse, multimodal transportation system. His work was instrumental in accomplishing all of the following: extending the BART rail system, upgrading the Vallejo Baylink ferry service, reconfiguring the interchange of I-680 and Route 24, establishing the intermodal rail and bus stations in Martinez and Richmond, widening Route 4 between Martinez and Hercules and between Pacheco and Pittsburg, and advancing the Vallejo Station complex. He has been a tireless advocate for children and was one of the four original authors of the historic No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which passed with strong bipartisan support in 2001 and was signed into law in 2002. Reflecting Congressman Miller's ability to reach across party lines, the act fulfilled many of his longstanding legislative efforts to improve teacher quality requirements, to hold schools accountable for the education of all children, and to provide federal financial support to meet the act's goals. In January 2007, Congressman Miller was elected by his colleagues to serve as chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, a panel on which he has served since his arrival in Congress and as Senior Democrat since 2001. Congressman Miller continues to serve on the House Natural Resources Committee, a panel he chaired from 1991 to 1994; in this capacity, he orchestrated a federal and state effort to meet technical and environmental challenges created by construction of the new Benicia-Martinez Bridge, an effort that led to several important engineering advances, including the use of pumped air to create a bubble curtain around underwater pile driving to protect migratory fish from potentially lethal shockwaves. The original Benicia-Martinez Bridge, which opened in 1962, was designated the George Miller, Jr., Memorial Bridge in 1975 to honor Congressman Miller's father, who represented Contra Costa County in the California State Assembly from 1947 to 1948, and in the California State Senate from 1949 until his death in 1969. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution (ACR) 62, Resolution Chapter 107, on 8/23/2007.
Approved as chargeable Interstate on 9/15/1955; routing in San Jose adjusted in 10/64; Freeway.
In the first attempt to number urban routes, the California Department of Highways proposed this as I-5. The first proposal as a 3-digit route was as I-113. Once the numbering scheme for 3-digit interstates was finalized, the proposal changed to I-580. AASHTO finally approved this as I-680.
[SHC 263.8] From the Santa Clara-Alameda county line to Route 24 in Walnut Creek.
From Route 780 at Benicia to Route 80 near Cordelia.
I-680 was originally adopted as a Freeway within Solano County in 1957.
In 1965, Chapter 1371 changed the origin of the route: "
280 Route 101 near San Jose to Route 80 in Vallejo passing near
Warm Springs, Mission San Jose, Scotts Corners and Sunol, and via Walnut Creek
I-680 was completed between Benicia and Cordelia in 1966.
In 1976, Chapter 1354 added a second segment and change terminus of (a):
"(a) Route 101 near San Jose to Route 780
at Benicia passing near Warm Springs, Mission San Jose, Scotts Corners,
and Sunol, and via Walnut Creek and Benecia. (b) Route 780
at Benicia to Route 80 near Cordelia." This was the result of a transfer
from Route 21, combined with a concurrent transfer to new I-780.
Interstate 680 Rehabilitation Project
In January 2016, it was reported that the I-680
Rehabilitation Project was complete. The $13 million California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) project rehabilitated and repaved about 13 miles of
northbound and southbound I-680. Construction started in spring 2015 with final
paving completed in mid-December 2015. The project resurfaced the two
northbound and two southbound traffic lanes of I-680, repaired the existing
median metal guardrails and roadway lighting.
(Source: East Bay Times, 1/11/2016)
The California Transportion Commission, in September 2000, considered a Traffic Congestion Relief Program proposal to reconstruct the I-80/I-680/Route 12 interchange; it would be a 12-interchange complex constructed in seven stages. The proposal was $1 million for stage 1; the total estimated cost was $13 million. This is TCRP Project #25, requested by the Solano Transportation Authority.
In January 2013, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding a project in Solano County that will improve the I-80/I-680/Route 12 Interchange, including the relocation of the westbound truck scales facility on I-80. For the preferred full-build alternative, the current total estimated cost for capital and support is $1,348,400,000. The project is not fully funded and will be developed in phases. Only Phase One of the full-build alternative is included in the financially constrained Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Within Phase One, the first construction contract's total estimated cost for capital and support is $100,400,000, which is funded by the 2012 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), the Trade Corridor Improvement Funds (TCIF) and local funding. The scope of the first construction contract includes the reconstruction of the I-80/Green Valley Interchange and construction of a two lane westbound I-80 to westbound Route 12 Connector with a new bridge over the I-80 Green Valley Road onramp. Construction is estimated to begin in fiscal year 2013-2014. The scope of the preferred alternative is consistent with the scope of the first construction contract that is programmed in the 2012 STIP and the TCIF.
In May 2013, it was reported that the funding outlook for the updated I-80/I-680/Route 12 interchange was improving. The required permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was obtained, and the Solano Transportation Authority had done what it is supposed to do to get the project ready for construction. The project is designed to improve traffic flow near the I-80 / I-680 interchange. It involves renovating the nearby Green Valley interchange and building ramps to sort traffic entering westbound I-80 from the Green Valley interchange from traffic exiting I-80 for Route 12 in Jameson Canyon. Construction work is to cost $60 million. The $24 million at risk is to come from Proposition 1B, the transportation bond passed by voters in 2006. The potential obstacle stems from the Buy America provisions, which requires that projects that receive federal dollars be built with materials made in America. Revisions in the 2012 federal transportation bill extend these provisions to contracts, including utility agreements, associated with the projects.
According to Sean Tongson in June 2004, they are constructing a new Northbound Benicia Bridge. The current structure, that carries North and Soutbound traffic, will revert to a 5 lane, southbound only bridge. The toll plaza, currrently located on the Northbound lanes at the North end of the bridge, will be reconstructed, still using the Northbound lanes, to the south start of the Bridge. In addition, the I-680/I-780 interchange is being re-configured. In particular, the EB I-780 to NB I-680 left exit connector will be eliminated in favor of a huge flyover ramp, soaring over the current but soon to moved toll plaza.
In December 2013, the CTC approved adoption of a new freeway route for Route 680 as part of the reconstruction of the I-680/I-80/Route 12 interchange in Solano County. I-680 was originally adopted as a freeway within Solano County in 1957, and was completed between Benicia and Cordelia in 1966. The intent of this project (and the route adoption) is to realign I-680 where it intersects I-80. The new I-680 alignment will tie into I-80 west of the current location at the intersection of Route 12 and I-80. The existing I-80/I-680/Route 12 interchange complex is the result of the connection of three separate highways, I-80, western and eastern segments of Route 12, and I-680. I-680 begins at Interstate 80 between the two interchange points of Route 12 and extends south. The I-80/I-680/Route 12 interchange is a confluence of interregional significance as it connects the San Francisco Bay Area and the Napa Valley with the Central Valley. Not only is this interchange at the convergence of several key interregional routes, but it also supports a developing Solano County community served by a series of local roadways that are interwoven with the interregional routes. Two components of this project include directly connecting I-680 northbound to Route 12 westbound (Jameson Canyon), adding connectors and reconstructing local interchanges, as well as providing auxiliary lanes on I-80 in eastbound and westbound directions from I-680 to Air Base Parkway (includes a new eastbound mixed-flow lane from Route 12 east to Air Base Parkway). The Project Report cost estimate is $2.2 billion for the full project and $664 million for a fundable Phase 1. The full project consists of 5.9 miles of I-80, 3.1 miles of I-680, 1.1 miles of Route 12 West and 3.0 miles of Route 12 East. Construction of the fundable first phase (Phase 1) is proposed to take place in a series of construction packages. Phase 1 would improve the connections from westbound I-80 to I-680 and Route 12 (West); directly connect northbound I-680 and Route 12 (West); connect the I-80/Red Top Road interchange with Business Center Drive; and construct or improve interchanges at Route 12 (West)/Red Top Road, I-80/Red Top Road, I-80/Green Valley Road, and I-680/Red Top Road. A third eastbound lane would be added to Route 12 (East) from the Chadbourne Road on ramp to the Webster Street off ramp.
In September 2014, construction started on the I-80/I-680 project. This initial project doesn’t include direct work on the I-80 and I-680 interchange structure itself, but rather replaces the nearby Green Valley interchange. Workers over the next one-and-a-half years will build a new Green Valley interchange slightly to the east of the existing one. This new interchange will have a four-lane overpass as opposed to two lanes. Workers will also build new onramps to better sort out traffic merging from Green Valley Road onto westbound I-80 and I-80 traffic exiting onto westbound Route 12 at Jameson Canyon. The connector ramp from westbound I-80 to Route 12 also will be widened from one lane to two lanes. This first round of improvements will cost about $65 million and could be completed by summer 2016. The project received $15 million from Proposition 1B, a 2006 voter-approved transportation bond. The remaining six phases will be constructed and completed as funding becomes available. Improvements in the upcoming phases will include: (1) New interchange at Red Top Road and I-680; (2) New westbound connector ramp from westbound I-80 to southbound I-680; (3) Realignment of I-680 between I-80 and the Lopes Road exit in Cordelia; (4) Realignment of the connector ramp from Route 12 to eastbound I-80; (5) New entrance/exit ramps; and (6) The extension of some local streets leading to I-80 and Route 12.
In April 2014, it was reported that significant
overhead work was recently completed on the I-80/I-680/Route 12 interchange
project, marking a major milestone in the first phase of construction. In
particular, pPreliminary overhead structures were installed earlier this month
for the new Green Valley Road overcrossing over I-80. Ground was broken for the
first phase of the project in June 2014. About 75% of the work should be
complete by the end of the year, a Caltrans engineer estimated in March. The
first phase should be complete by December 2016 or a little sooner depending on
the weather, he said.
(Source: Daily Republic, 4/23/2015)
In October 2015, the CTC again approved for future consideration of funding a project that will improve the I-80/I-680/Route 12 Interchange, including relocation of the westbound truck scales facility on I-80. For the preferred fullbuild alternative, the current total estimated cost for capital and support is $2,166,000,000. The project is not fully funded and will be developed in phases. Only Phase One of the full-build alternative is included in the financially constrained Regional Transportation Plan. Within Phase One, the first construction contract’s total estimated cost for capital and support is $100,400,000, which is funded by the 2012 State Transportation Improvement Program, the Trade Corridor Improvement Fund and local funding. Contract 1 of Phase One is currently under construction. The design phase of Contract 2 of Phase One is 35% complete. The scope of the first construction contract includes the reconstruction of the Interstate 80/Green Valley Interchange and construction of a two-lane westbound I-80 to westbound Route 12 Connector with a new bridge over the I-80 Green Valley Road onramp. The scope of the preferred alternative is consistent with the scope of the first construction contract that is programmed in the 2012 State Transportation Improvement Program and the Trade Corridor Improvement Fund. It was received again because an Addendum had been completed due to changes in the project since Commission approval of the Final Environmental Impacts Report (FEIR) in 2013.
Additionally, in October 2015, the CTC approved a new public road connection to I-680 as a result of the I-80/I-680/Route 12 interchange project. The Interchange Project Report (04-0A5300) proposes to realign I-680 where it intersects I-80 and to construct a new interchange at I-680 and Red Top Road. The new I-680 alignment will tie into I-80 west of the current location at the intersection of Route 12 and I-80. A new interchange is proposed to be constructed at I-680/Red Top Road. The two ramps proposed include an entrance ramp from eastbound Red Top Road to southbound I-680 and an exit ramp with a structure over I-680 from northbound I-680 to westbound Red Top Road. The proposed project is intended to address numerous existing and future traffic-related problems while minimizing environmental impacts to sensitive habitat in the vicinity of the project, including the Suisun Marsh.
Interstate 680 from Interstate 780 to Interstate 80 in Solano County is named the "Luther E. Gibson Freeway". Luther E. Gibson, State Senator from 1949 to 1966, was a long time proponent of transportation development and authored legislation which resulted in the construction of the Carquinez Bridge and the Benecia-Martinez Span. It was named by Senate Concurrent Resolution 21, Chapter 160 in 1967.
In Contra Costa County, HOV lanes run northbound from 0.4 mi S of the Alcosta on-ramp to the Livorna on-ramp, for a length of 11.9 mies. Southbound, they run from 0.5 mi N of the Livorna on-ramp to 0.6 mi S of the Alcosta Blvd on-ramp, for a length of 12.6 mi. These lanes were opened in 1994 and extended in 1995. These lanes operate weekdays between 6:00am and 9:00am, and between 3:00pm and 6:00pm.
HOV lanes exist in Solano County on the Benicia/Martinez Bridge. These require three or more occupants, and operate weekdays between 5:00am and 10:00am, and between 3:00pm and 7:00pm.
HOV lanes exist from the Junction of I-580 and I-680 in Dublin to near Alamo. As part of the Route 24/I-680 junction rebuild that has been going on for two years, commute lanes will be extended to above the junction of I-680 and Route 242 just north of Walnut Creek (Marina Vista Drive). Construction starts in January 1999. New car-pool lanes along Interstate 680 from Center Avenue in Concord to North Main Street in Walnut Creek opened in 2004.
In November 2011, Caltrans opened a $1.9 million carpool lane extension from Rudgear Road in Walnut Creek to Livorna Road in Alamo. With this addition, the southbound carpool lane extends from Rudgear to the Alameda County line. The project was paid for with funds from the Measure J transportation sales tax in Contra Costa. The lane extension is a small part of a $49.8 million project to overhaul and repave I-680 in the San Ramon Valley and southern Walnut Creek
There are also plans to add HOV lanes from Walnut Creek to Martinez (N Main Street to Marina Vista). [June 2002 CTC Agenda]
Approved as 139(a) non-chargeable milage in 1973.
The following segments are designated as Classified Landscaped Freeway:
|County||Route||Starting PM||Ending PM|
* Note: PM 0.51 is not the same thing as PM R0.50
The portion of this route from the Alameda county line to the Benicia-Martinez Bridge was designated as a "Blue Star Memorial Highway" by Senate Concurrent Resolution 38, Ch. 175 in 1970.
[SHC 253.1] Entire route. Added to the Freeway and Expressway system in 1959.
Overall statistics for Route 680:
The route also includes that portion of the freeway between Route 1 and the northern end of Harbor Scenic Drive, that portion of Harbor Scenic Drive to Ocean Boulevard, that portion of Ocean Boulevard west of its intersection with Harbor Scenic Drive to its junction with Seaside Boulevard, and that portion of Seaside Boulevard from the junction with Ocean Boulevard to Route 47.
Until July 1, 1964, this routing was signed as Route 15. When the Route 15 signage had to be applied to the new Interstate that had previously been US 91 (between I-10 and Las Vegas), the routing was renumbered as Route 7:
In 1963, Route 7 was defined as "from Route 11 [Present-Day Route 110] in San Pedro to Route 210 in Pasadena via Long Beach and including a bridge, with at least four lanes, from San Pedro at or near Boschke Slough to Terminal Island." In 1965 the southern end was truncated by Chapter 1372, transferring the San Pedro portion and bridge to Route 47. This left the route definition as "from Route 1 to Route 210 in Pasadena." In 1982, Chapter 914 extended the definition to include that portion of the freeway between Route 1 and the northern end of Harbor Scenic Drive, that portion of Harbor Scenic Drive to Ocean Boulevard, that portion of Ocean Boulevard west of its intersection with Harbor Scenic Drive to its junction with Seaside Boulevard, and that portion of Seaside Boulevard from the junction with Ocean Boulevard to Route 47. It was noted that this extension didn't become operative unless the commission approves a financial plan.
In 1984, Chapter 409 defined Route 710 as "Route 1 to Route 210 in Pasadena." The additional conditions regarding the Harbor Scenic Drive and the financial conditions were also transferred. This reflected the approval of Route 7 as 139(a) non-chargable interstate for continuity of numbering with Route 10 (I-10), off of which it spurs. [One might argue that it could have been considered a loop route around the center of the city, and as such, would more appropriately have an (even digit)05 number. However, all of the (even-digit)05 numbers are in use: I-205 (Sacramento), I-405 (Los Angeles), I-605 (Los Angeles), I-805 (San Diego).
The legislative description of Route 710 includes a portion between Route 1 and the northern end of Harbor Scenic Drive, a portion of Harbor Scenic Drive to Ocean Blvd, a portion of Ocean Blvd west of its intersection with Harbor Scenic Drive to its junction with Seaside Blvd, and a portion of Seaside Blvd from the junction with Ocean Blvd to Route 47. This will apparently be signed as part of the route after planned port-related improvements by the cities of Long Beach and Los Angeles. The segment from Ocean Blvd to Route 1 is non-chargeable 139(b) milage.
Note that the south end of I-710 actually follows the west riverbank, not the east riverbank (into downtown Long Beach). Caltrans only maintains the east riverbank spur until the 9th Street exit; the City of Long Beach has control of the road (Shoreline Drive) past this point. Route 710 is supposed to follow the Long Beach Freeway down to the Harbor Scenic Drive cutoff south of Anaheim Street, and then follow Harbor Scenic Drive to Ocean Blvd and then follow Ocean Blvd from Harbor Scenic Drive across the Gerald Desmond Bridge to the junction of Ocean and Seaside Blvds with the Terminal Island Freeway. According to Caltrans, once the replacement for the Gerald Desmond bridge is completed, Ocean Boulevard will be the westward extension of Route 710 to the Terminal Island Freeway (Route 47). Ocean Boulevard is currently operated by the City of Long Beach. After the bridge is completed, it and the segment of Ocean Boulevard between Route 47 and Route 710 will be adopted into the State Highway System and the roadway transferred to Caltrans. The southern extension (towards the Queen Mary) is Harbor Scenic Drive.
[In fact, the state did not construct the portion of I-710 S of Route 1. That portion was constructed to freeway standards by the City of Long Beach. The construction cost was $12 million.]
The route is unconstructed and unsigned between Columbia St and I-210 in Pasadena, although there is a stub of Route 710 (not Interstate) at the Route 134/I-210 junction. There has been intense local opposition to completion of this freeway as it would have a potentially adverse impact on historic homes in Pasadena and South Pasadena. On the other hand, it is a critical link in the overall Southern California freeway system. The traversable route is... oh hell, just read the mishegas below in the STATUS section.
In 2013, Chapter 525 (SB 788, 10/9/13) deleted the words in the route definition about a financial plan:
(b) Subdivision (a) shall not become operative, and this section shall be repealed on January 1, 1985, unless the commission approves, not later than December 31, 1984, a financial plan, which is submitted to them by the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission not later than January 1, 1984.
(c) The financial plan shall be prepared in cooperation with the department and shall include, but not be limited to, a cost estimate and the source of funding to make the route changes in subdivision (a) and any proposed improvements.
The following freeway-to-freeway connections were never constructed:
NB I-710 to SB I-5. Rationale: Illogical Reverse Move. The angle between the two freeways is too acute.
This was formerly signed as Route 15, and was LRN 167, defined in 1933. Until the construction of the freeway, Route 15 ran between Pacific Coast Highway and US 99 along Atlantic Blvd. In 1964, the freeway routing was renumbered as Route 7, and was later renumbered as Route 710 and I-710.
According to KCET, Route 710 can be traced back to the "Great Free-Harbor
Fight" of the 1890s, where Los Angeles City officials helped solidify the port
in San Pedro by annexing a sixteen-mile "shoestring district" that made the
harbor a legal part of the city. Los Angeles also spent $10 million on harbor
improvements, and proposed the construction of a truck highway for developing
the port. Although millions of dollars were poured into the port's
infrastructure by the early 1940s, not much was done to facilitate any port
highway. Before state planners (responsible for designing state freeways) could
map out a freeway from the ports to the Los Angeles metropolis, harbor interest
had already begun making preliminary maps as early as 1921; though nothing
materialized. Despite a 1939 California Freeway Law that gave "the state broad
powers of land acquisition for the construction [and financing] of freeways,"
it was the City of Long Beach that took it upon themselves to plan, construct,
and finance the port highway, to be called the Los Angeles River Freeway
because it hugged the natural waterways that were once the lifeblood of the
founding families. So, Route 710 is essentially the child of the City of Long
Beach, superseding legal precedents that had placed the state of California,
not local governments, as the principal investors and designers of state
freeways (note that Route 710 was originally just a state route: initially
Route 15, and then later renumbered as Route 7 in 1964. It was eventually
renumbered as non-chargable I-710).
(Source: KCET — History of the 710 Freeway, 2/12/2014)
An August 1941 report issued by the Regional Planning Commission of Los
Angeles County entitled “A Report on the Feasibility of a Freeway
Along the Channel of the Los Angeles River” proposed a four-lane
roadway on each levee from Anaheim Street in Long Beach north to Sepulveda
Boulevard in the San Fernando Valley; excepting between Soto Street and Dayton
Street in downtown Los Angeles, where, due to a lack of right-of-way along the
river, the alignment matches the future alignment of the US 101 portion of the
Santa Ana Freeway. There is no mention in the report of a master plan of
freeways like that issued in 1947, although the maps showed connections to the
already-completed Arroyo Seco Parkway and the proposed Ramona and Rio Hondo
(Thanks to Daniel Thomas for hunting down this information)
In the 1930s and 1940s, before the route was adopted as a freeway routing, the cities of Long Beach and Los Angeles knew the route was coming, and began preserving right of way along the Los Angeles River for the future route. This saved significant money for right of way acquisition.
1949, Long Beach had already invested $1,000,000 on the freeway, and the city's
Chamber of Commerce made reoccurring appeals to the California State Highway
Commission for continued support. This unorthodox practice of an independent
agency developing their own freeway was not unnoticed by the California
Division of Highways, the precursor to Caltrans. "The southerly extension of
the Los Angeles River Freeway," as noted in their bi-monthly publication
California Highway and Public Works, "requires special mention because the
construction work now in progress by the City of Long Beach is the only
instance since World War II of another governmental agency carrying out the
construction and financing of a complete unit on the Los Angeles Metropolitan
Freeway System." Several years before the Los Angeles River Freeway was
legislated into the California State Highway System in 1947, Long Beach
planners received general counsel from the Los Angeles County Regional Planning
Commission, but were largely free from state interference when designing the
freeway. Long Beach Harbor authorities even financed a "major portion" of the
freeway, in what the state acknowledged was a "staggering" amount, a figure
that reached approximately $12 million by 1953, according to a the Division of
Highways. Essentially, the freeway was constructed to serve business generated
by the harbor and local industry; commuter vehicular traffic was secondary, at
best. Any negative impact to communities during or after the construction of
the freeway was seen as all but non-existent. Segments of Route 710 eventually
connected with I-5, in the heart of the manufacturing district in East Los
Angeles, by the 1960s. This district housed extensive intermodal railyards from
the Union Pacific, and the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad. As such,
some of the early freeway construction of Route 710 required multiple bridges
over eighteen railroad tracks, requiring 1,100 parcels of real estate. Route
710 cut through established communities, such as East Los Angeles and City of
Commerce, that already housed dozen of freeway lane miles. In East Los Angeles,
nearly 11,000 residents were displaced due to freeway construction and
widenings, consuming some 7% of total land area.
(Source: KCET — History of the 710 Freeway, 2/12/2014)
The route was originally to be named the "Los Angeles River Freeway"; in 1952, the LA Board of Supervisors approved renaming it the Long Beach Freeway.
In June 2015, it was reported that, in its latest analysis of California
Highway Patrol data from 2012, the Southern California Associations of
Governments (SCAG) included sections of this route in its list of freeway
sections in L.A. County and the Inland Empire with the highest concentrations
of truck crashes per mile annually. These sections were I-710 at Route 60 in
the East L.A. Interchange, with 7.2 accidents; I-710 between I-105 and the
Route 91, with 5.8 accidents; the convergence of Route 60 and Route 57, with
six crashes; and I-5 between I-710 and I-10, also in the East L.A. Interchange,
with 6.6 crashes. The analysis also identified that the second-highest number
of truck crashes can be found on three parts of Route 60 between I-605 and
I-710, between the I-15 and Route 71 — the Chino Valley Highway, formerly
known as the Corona Expressway — and immediately east of I-215. That
category also includes I-10 between Route 71 and I-215, I-605 between Route 60
and I-10, and Route 710 between Route 91 and the Port of Long Beach as well as
between I-5 and I-105. With the nation's largest combined harbor, the Los
Angeles area also is one of the busiest in the country, if not the world, for
trucking. I-710 often handles more than 43,000 daily truck trips, Route 60 up
to 27,000 and I-5 about 21,500, according to Caltrans. In June 2015, it was
also reported that Caltrans and Metro are studying elevated truck lanes for
I-710 or rearranging lanes so trucks have a bypass lane.
(Source: LA Times, 6/2/2015, LA Magazine, 6/2/2015)
Gerald Desmond Bridge (~ LA 4.525)
The SAFETEA-LU act, enacted in August 2005 as the reauthorization of TEA-21, authorized $2,400,000 for High Priority Project #266: Reconstruct the southern terminus off ramps of I-710 in Long Beach. This was noted in the Long Beach Press Telegraph, and actually disappointed Long Beach. The disappointment arose because the bill did not provide funding for a multi-billion project to rebuild the Long Beach Freeway. The city lobbied for $395 million and got nothing. Another $3.2 million was awarded to widen and realign Cherry Avenue from 19th Street to one block south of Pacific Coast Highway. There was $4.8 million set aside for freight transportation management systems, part of $1.3 billion dedicated to freight movement in the state in the new bill. Lastly, there was $100 million to replace the Gerald Desmond Bridge.
Near Route 710, although not originally on Route 710, is the Gerald
Desmond Bridge"*. In August 2005, the SAFETEA-LEU act provided
$100 million in funding to replace the Gerald Desmond Bridge.
[*: That is, the original bridge. The replacement bridge was adopted into the highway system in November 2010.]
In February 2010, it was reported that Port of Long Beach officials want to tear down the bridge and replace it with one that is taller and wider to accommodate the biggest cargo ships. Currently, the bridge is so low that some container vessels barely fit under the bridge. Additional problems are the bridge's strategic location as a primary link between Terminal Island cargo facilities and Long Beach (officials at the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports estimate that the bridge carries 15% of all the nation's cargo that moves by sea). The bridge only has five traffic lanes, a walkway on one side, and no shoulders or emergency lanes. Any accident involving vehicles that can't be driven off can shut down one side or the other, diverting traffic onto adjacent streets that are easily jammed.
For years, there was no bridge at all, just a ferry. In 1944, the U.S. Navy erected a pontoon bridge that was supposed to be used for only six months. Instead, the pontoon bridge was in place for 24 years, sometimes with disastrous results. Some motorists, approaching it too fast, became airborne, landed in the water and drowned in their cars. In 1968, the Gerald Desmond Bridge was built, but planners expected only modest traffic -- mostly people going to and from the Long Beach Naval Shipyard on Terminal Island. But by the 1990s, the shipyards were closed and the fishing industry had all but disappeared. Long Beach then emerged as the nation's busiest container port, until 2001, when it was eclipsed by the neighboring port of Los Angeles. Due to the constant pounding of heavy trucks and commuter traffic, its Caltrans structural "sufficiency" rating is only 43 out of a possible 100 points as of August 2007, and the bridge wears nylon mesh "diapers" to catch chunks of concrete falling from its deck.
The plans for the new bridge would add a sixth traffic lane and two
emergency lanes and would clear the water by 200', an increase from 165'. Rep.
Laura Richardson (D-Long Beach) has used her membership on the House Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure to push for more than $375 million in
federal funds for the project.
[Source: "Bridge poses a tight squeeze for cargo ships", Los Angeles Times, 2/9/2010]
In late September 2010, the Long Beach City Council approved the $1.1billion port plan to replace the Gerald Desmond Bridge, clearing the way for Long Beach's largest public-works project in decades. Construction was expected to begin sometime in 2011 and take 5 to 6 years. The replacement bridge includes emergency shoulders in each direction, and it expands from four to six the total number of lanes. It will rise more than 50 feet higher than the existing span. The replacement will be constructed just several feet from the existing span, which will remain open throughout construction. The old bridge will then be taken down during a yearlong deconstruction starting in 2015. The bridge replacement project is expected to support about 4,000 jobs annually through 2016. Officials say it could last as long as 100 years, though strict maintenance will be needed to ensure a long life. The cost of the new bridge is estimated at $950 million. Of that, roughly $500 million will come from state highway transportation funds, $300 million from federal sources, $114 million from the Port of Long Beach and $28 million from Los Angeles County Metro.
In September 2010, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding and route adoption a project that will replace the existing Gerald Desmond Bridge with a new structurally sound bridge linking Terminal Island and Long Beach/Route 710; provide sufficient roadway capacity to handle current and projected vehicular traffic volume demand; and provide sufficient vertical clearance for safe navigation through the Back Channel to the Inner Harbor. The replacement bridge will be constructed just north of the existing bridge in order to maintain access between Terminal Island and the Route 710 during construction. As part of the project, existing connections to the Route 710 interchange, and Ocean Boulevard in downtown Long Beach would be replaced, as would the connector ramps between Route 710 and the bridge. A new hook ramp or loop ramp would be used to replace the existing on-ramp between Pico Avenue and the WB Gerald Desmond Bridge. The current ramp between Pico Avenue would be partially reconstructed to join the new connectors from Route 710. As part of the Project, the bridge and Ocean Boulevard would become part of Route 710 and would operate as a freeway facility with controlled access. The improvements between the existing Route 710 and Route 47, including the bridge, would be transferred to Caltrans by easement following route adoption and execution of a freeway agreement. It is estimated that the transfer would be completed within 2 years after construction. The project is programmed with TCIF and SHOPP funds. At the time of programming, the project was estimated to cost $1,125,200,000 and was programmed with Federal ($318,000,000), TCIF/SHOPP ($250,000,000), Local ($17,300,000), POLB ($375,100,000) and Port Intermodal Cargo Fees ($164,800,000). However, according to the POLB, the most recent cost estimate, developed in January 2010, resulted in a reduced project cost of $950,000,000. The new estimate reflects recent cost reductions related to the redesign of some elements, as well as current market conditions. Once a funding plan is approved for the project by the POLB, the POLB will request an amendment to the TCIF baseline agreement to reflect the approved funding plan. The POLB, in coordination with Caltrans, is currently developing a funding plan based on a design-build delivery method pursuant to Senate Bill 4, Second Extraordinary Session. The POLB intends to request design-build approval at a future Commission meeting. The project is estimated to begin construction in FY 2012/13.
In December 2011, it was reported that the Final Environmental Impact Report
for the new Gerald Desmond Bridge includes a bicycle and pedestrian walkway.
The proposed bike and pedestrian path is one of two revisions to the draft EIR
(the other includes sound mitigation measures for pile driving and drilling
during construction). The EIR includes the following description of the bike
path: “A single, continuous, non-motorized Class I bikeway (bike path)
connecting Route 47 to Pico Avenue. The Class I bikeway shall be a minimum of
12 feet wide, and signed and striped for two-way movement. The Class I bikeway
shall be located along the south side of the main span and approach bridges,
and shall be essentially the same elevation as the bridge deck. Protective
railings shall be of an open design that provides and protects public views
from the bridge.” The proposed bike path does not connect to the LA River
trail, which, in turn, connects to Downtown LA, although port planners have
already begun to look for ways to make the connection. At one point,
construction on the new bridge was expected to begin in 2011, but as it turns
out, an RFP for a design-build of the new bridge was sent to four pre-qualified
bidders earlier this fall. The bids are expected in February, with final
contractor selection in March. Design will take 12 to 18 months, and the bridge
is scheduled to open in March 2016.
(Source: Curbed LA, 12/13/11)
In May 2012, it was reported that a joint venture team is the "best value" bidder with a $649.5 million proposal to replace the Gerald Desmond Bridge. Major members of the joint venture team include Shimmick Construction Co. Inc., FCC Construction S.A., Impregilo S.p.A., Arup North America Ltd. and Biggs Cardosa Associates Inc. A decision by the board on the actual award of the contract is expected in late June, with construction to kick off in early 2013. The total cost of the overall bridge replacement project is estimated at about $1 billion.
In September 2012, the CTC updated the project schedule to reflect switching from Design-Bid-Build to Design Build delivery method. In addition, contract negotiations with the winning bidder added time to the schedule, as well as extensive utility relocations, and revalidation of the environmental documents caused by the addition of a Class 1 bicycle path to the project. The new schedule shows construction completion in June 2016 (6 months earlier), with closeout completed in September 2016.
In October 2012, the CTC approved $153,657,000 for bridge construction.
In January 2013, it was reported that ground was broken on the Gerald Desmond Bridge construction. The $1 billion project will replace the aging span with a new structure that will have towers reaching 500 feet above ground level, additional traffic lanes, a higher clearance to accommodate the new generation of cargo ships, dedicated bicycle paths and pedestrian walkways, including scenic overlooks 200 feet above the water, according to the port. The development is expected to create about 3,000 jobs a year between 2013 and 2016, and generate $2billion of regional economic activity, port officials say.
In October 2013, it was reported that crews started clearing the path for a
new Gerald Desmond Bridge encountered a mishmash of old and active oil wells
tangled with 10 miles of utility lines beneath the surface, many of them
unmapped or deeper than expected. The effort to cap and relocate the dozens of
wells and lines turned into months of labor intensive work to clear the way for
large steel-and-concrete piles as deep as an 18-story building. This raised the
bridge's budget by over $200 million. It’s part of the challenge of
building on one of the largest oil fields in the continental United States.
Stretching 13 miles long and 3 miles deep, the Wilmington Oil Field sprouted
with more than 6,000 oil wells in the 1930s, when oil was discovered beneath
the port and the city. The work has included removing the old casings one
section at a time while shoring up the soil so it doesn’t collapse on the
work crews are doing; handling pipes as deep as 50 feet and injecting liquid
nitrogen into the soil to keep water from flowing into a trench for a utility
line relocation; and filling a 10-foot tall and wide tunnel found near one of
the new bridge’s foundations that once flowed with sea water to cool a
nearby power plant. Completion of the bridge is expected in 2016.
(Source: LA Daily News, 10/6/13)
In November 2013, it was reported that the new bridge (not necessarily named
the Gerald Desmond) will be held upright by an extensive network of more than
300 steel and concrete support piles, built into the ground as deep as an
18-story building. To make room, port officials have directed a two-year blitz
to remove or cap dozens of oil wells and dig up miles of utility lines that lie
beneath the bridge's footprint. The work involves removing oil well casings as
deep as 200 feet, section by section. Engineers designed custom tools to cut
the steel pipes from inside and out, all while operating within a
7-foot-diameter drum to stabilize the surrounding soil. Once the casings are
removed, the void is filled with a soil-like mixture of sand and mud. Further
complicating the operation is that parts of the area sank as much as 30 feet in
the 1940s and 1950s, the result of a boom on one of the nation's largest oil
fields. Years later, soil was spread over the sunken landscape and new utility
lines crisscrossed those buried under the new fill. Many of them were
identified only with rough maps that pre-dated the precision of GPS, meaning
crews had to employ guesswork when navigating the maze of pipes, tunnels and
(Source: Los Angeles Times, 11/16/13)
In June 2014, it was reported that the massive $1.26 billion project to
replace the ailing Gerald Desmond Bridge in Long Beach will be delayed at least
a year, pushing back the opening and completion from the end of 2016, to late
2017 or early 2018. The delay has been attributed to design issues, including
delays in obtaining approval for designs from Caltrans officials, who have the
ultimate authority over plans. The operation has already been plagued with
complications and cost overruns from a maze of poorly mapped underground
utility lines and oil wells on Terminal Island.
(Source: Los Angeles Times, 6/27/14)
In October 2016, the CTC authorized an additional $57,166,000 in State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) funds for this project: $24,206,000 in additional funds for construction support and $32,960,000 for construction capital. This project will replace the Port of Long Beach owned Gerald Desmond Bridge with a new cable-stayed bridge that will be incorporated into the State Highway System when completed. The existing bridge accommodates approximately 10 percent of all U.S. waterborne container volume, via the trucking of containers between the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles and the inland warehousing, transloading and distribution centers. This bridge is vital to the Southern California and State economies and it is a nationally important transportation asset. As the future owner-operator of the new bridge, the Department has critical interest and compelling responsibility to ensure that the new bridge is designed and constructed to be durable, resilient and able to withstand seismic events. The overall project cost for the Port’s project has increased over 50 percent from $950 million in 2010 to approximately $1.5 billion today. The Department’s $57,166,000 increase is approximately 10 percent of the total cost increase of $541,901,000 ($1,491,901,000 - $950,000,000). In early 2013, the Department had concerns with the design-builder’s proposed design with regards to long-term durability and potential for failure of the hollow towers supporting the main span during a seismic event. It is a well-established design practice on highway bridges to limit the permanent axial load ratio to no more than 15 percent to achieve seismic design criteria ductility requirements. Caltrans seismic standards, and the primary national seismic standards and guidance are based on laboratory testing consistent with axial loads in this range. The design-builder’s proposed tower cross-section design resulted in axial load ratio ranges from 24 percent to 34 percent. An in-depth review of hollow column research and details of other California bridges supported on hollow towers confirmed that the proposed axial load range and column aspect ratios were unprecedented in the tower design and were based upon mathematical models that had not been validated through any known seismic testing. After consultation with internationally recognized seismic research experts and independent evaluations and analysis by Caltrans in-house experts and the Port’s consulting engineer, the recommendation to redesign the tower was presented to the Caltrans Directorate. After lengthy internal discussions, involving the State Bridge Engineer, the Chief Engineer, the Director, consult with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), as well as discussions between the Department, the Port and the design-builder, both partners finally agreed to require the design-builder to redesign the tower with a lower axial load ratio with an acceptable level of ductility to ensure seismic safety and the long term structural integrity of the bridge. The Department estimates the tower redesign cost at $63,293,000, and hired an independent estimator to validate this number. The Department’s initial contribution of $500,000,000 was 52.07 percent of the original project budget of $950,000,000. Using the original State contribution percentage, the Department is requesting 52.07 percent cost share of $63,293,000, totaling $32,960,000 in additional SHOPP funding for construction capital. This project was originally scheduled to open for use in under 4 years, meaning it would be open for traffic by now under the original schedule. Challenges encountered during the design and construction delayed the bridge completion. The design-builder’s current schedule for completion has been delayed two-and-one-half years, with further delays possible. The lengthiest schedule delays are due to the Bent 15 Foundation (the structure that anchors the cable) redesign due to differing site condition and the tower redesign.
In December 2017, it was reported that state, local and federal officials
joined construction crews for a “topping out” ceremony to celebrate
the completion of the two 515-foot-tall towers for the new Port of Long Beach
bridge, Port of Long Beach reports. The towers will be the centerpieces of
California’s first cable-stayed bridge for vehicular traffic, which will
be one of the tallest of its kind in the nation. In addition to the completion
of the towers, stretches of the new bridge’s westbound lanes have been
completed and construction of the eastbound lanes has began. The new bridge
will include six traffic lanes and four emergency shoulders, a higher clearance
to accommodate large cargo ships, more efficient transition ramps and
connectors to improve traffic flow, and a bike and pedestrian path with scenic
overlooks. The $1.47 billion bridge project, which is expected to be completed
in 2019, is a joint effort between Caltrans and the Port of Long Beach, with
additional funding from the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Los
Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. The replacement project
enables the Gerald Desmond Bridge to remain in use while the new bridge is
(Source: Equipment World, 12/13/2017)
In July 2018, it was reported that several large excavators equipped with
jackhammers and claws tore down the elevated ramp that connects eastbound Ocean
Boulevard to northbound I-710. The demolition marks the project's final
long-term road closure. Eastbound traffic leaving Terminal Island and San Pedro
to northbound I-710 will use the new bridge when the new bridge is complete.
(Source: NBC LA 7/5/2018)
Route 710 Other Long Beach
The 2018 STIP, approved at the CTC March 2018 meeting, appears to allocate $14,000K in Advance Project Development Element funds for PPNO 4071, Rt 710 S.Early Action-replace Shoemaker Br (LA 6.402).
The SAFETEA-LU act, enacted in August 2005 as the reauthorization of TEA-21, authorized $1,600,000 for High Priority Project #701: Develop and implement traffic calming measures for traffic exiting I-710 into Long Beach.
710 Corridor Mobility Improvements
The SAFETEA-LU act, enacted in August 2005 as the reauthorization of TEA-21, authorized $12,400,000 for High Priority Project #2178: Alameda Corridor East Gateway to America Trade Corridor Project, Highway-Railgrade separation along 35 mile corridor from Alameda Corridor (Hobart Junction) to Los Angeles/San Bernardino County Line.
Studies are currently ongoing (see the Gateway Council of Governments, http://www.gatewaycog.org/) regarding improving mobility in the 710 corridor. The plan is controversal ('natch), for some proposals involve the acquisition and demolition of nearly 700 homes and up to 259 businesses in Commerce, Bell Gardens, Bell, Long Beach and other cities. As many as 10,800 people could be affected in some way–of which 10,070 are minority residents. Commerce could lose two of its four parks, Bandini and Bristow. However, the actual improvement may be delayed due to the financial condition of the state, for according to the Los Angeles Times in October 2003:
"California's financial problems have stalled indefinitely a long-awaited $400- million plan to construct new barriers and shoulders along the Long Beach Freeway, sparking fresh concerns about safety on the truck-clogged route. The project would improve safety on most of the outmoded 24-mile freeway, including the area where six people recently died in a big-rig crash. Most of the freeway's medians and shoulders are narrower than state standards, and old wood-and-metal median barriers have not been replaced with the concrete barriers recommended for congested roadways with narrow medians, state Department of Transportation officials said. "
The project had been scheduled for completion in 2007. Most of the freeway has 16-foot medians, while current standards call for 22-foot medians. As for the shoulders, most of the freeway has 8-foot wide shoulders, while current standards call for 10-foot-wide shoulders. According to the LA Times article, I-710 carries 15% of the nation's seaborne cargo volume, or 47,000 trucks each day, a number projected to double or even triple in the coming years.
According to an article in the Los Angeles Times, in late January 2005, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority board approved a $5.5-billion plan to rebuild I-710, despite protests from residents. This plan would reconstruct an 18-mile stretch of the freeway from the harbors to rail yards in Commerce and East Los Angeles, transforming it from a 1950s-style road with six to 10 lanes to a modern 14-lane highway, with four lanes designed exclusively for trucks. Some portions of the truck lanes could be elevated. Construction would not begin until 2015 or later, and no one can say where funding would be found. Although most residents near the corridor agree the road needs to be rebuilt, many fear the project would create a massive truck artery without reducing air pollution. The Gateway Cities Council of Governments, made up of cities along the 710 corridor, made its first request to transportation officials to expand I-710 in 1999, and formal planning began a year later. But the process stalled in the spring of 2003, when residents learned that up to 800 homes could be demolished, and they accused officials of ignoring health concerns. The council then launched an elaborate process for community input. New design plans, meanwhile, call for the demolition of only five residential buildings and 61 industrial or commercial structures. Transportation officials say community health concerns will be addressed as part of the environmental review process, which could begin next year and take three to four years, at a cost of $35 million to $40 million.
In June 2006, the Metropolitan Transportation Agency Board of Directors authorized an environmental study of the project, which will cost $30 million and take three years. The ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, the MTA, Caltrans and the Gateway Cities Council of Governments each contributed $5 million to help fund the study of the work; the overall project could cost up to $5.5 billion. The final project will involve building 10 mixed-flow lanes, four exclusive truck lanes, improving interchanges and arteries and direct truck ramps into railroad yards in Vernon and Commerce.
In December 2010, LA Metro provided an update. The environmental study was launched in 2008. Among the alternatives being studied for the project is widening the freeway to 10 lanes (five lanes in each direction); adding four elevated truck-only lanes adjacent to I-710 (two lanes in each direction); restricting the truck-only lanes to be used by trucks with zero tailpipe emissions; and possibly tolling the truck-only lanes. The goal is to release the study in Fall 2011.There are still money challenges. The construction cost of some of the alternatives ranges from $3.8 billion to $6.7 billion, depending on which alternative is selected. As part of the Measure R sales tax increase approved by L.A. County voters in 2008, $590 million is available for the I-710 project. In order to help address the funding shortfall, this project and five others, is being studied for a public-private partnership – i.e. deals in which private firms help pay for a project’s upfront cost in exchange for payments later. This is one reason the tolling option for trucks is being studied.
In June 2011, it was reported that the latest proposal would expand the 18-mile long roadway to 10 lanes without taking homes or disrupting adjacent Blue Line light- rail operations. Authorities expect the project to cost up to $8 billion and take more than a decade to complete, though tolls on trucks could significantly reduce public costs. The plan deviates significantly from a roundly dismissed proposal nearly 10 years ago that included destroying nearly 300 homes and businesses in North Long Beach and Compton, among other cities, to accommodate widening. The basic plan is to add new lanes on existing (electric) utility rights-of-way along the Los Angeles River, add a truck freight corridor, and improve interchanges and generally overall traffic flow. Traffic engineers expect truck traffic to increase from about 25,000 rigs per day now to as many as 90,000 daily by 2035. One proposal calls for adding a $10 toll on most large big rigs using a new, separated toll road during peak hours, generally from early morning to late afternoon, and $5 during off- peak hours. Passenger vehicles would not be taxed for using general-purpose lanes, though trucks using those lanes could be charged up to $20 per trip under details outlined in one plan. More details may be found at http://www.metro.net/710.
In June 2012, Caltrans released the Draft EIR for the mobility improvements. The defined alternatives assessed were:
Subsequent to the completion of the Alternatives Screening Analysis described above, the I-710 Funding Partners agreed that a tolling option should be added to the freight corridor component of Alternatives 6A and 6B to provide a possible revenue source to fund the improvements. This alternative is known as Alternative 6C. Alternative 6C includes all the components of Alternative 6B as described above and consists of the same footprint as Alternatives 6A and 6B. Further, this alternative would toll trucks using the freight corridor. Per Federal statute, unless otherwise excepted, all Interstate highways must be toll-free. However, current exceptions relating to tolling of Interstate highways include Value Pricing Pilot Program; Express Lanes Demonstration Project; the Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program; and the Interstate System Construction Toll Pilot Program. Should Alternative 6C be selected as the preferred alternative, tolling would be implemented pursuant to one of these exceptions.
In August 2011, the CTC indicated that there were no comments to the Draft EIR, that the Findings were accepted and that consideration of funding should be brought forward to the CTC for approval of Public Private Partnership funds.
In February 2013, it was reported that, following thousands of comments from leaders within community health and environmental coalitions, the State-led project to expand I-710 from eight lanes to 14 lanes for 17 miles from Long Beach to Route 60 in East Los Angeles was delayed. The Project Committee, am advisory committee to Metro, Caltrans and the Southern California Association of Governments, halted the project with an astounding “no” on the proposed routes. Meanwhile, the Long Beach City Council I-710 Oversight Committee recommended that Caltrans and Metro recirculate the draft EIR, allowing for more public comment. At that meeting, two of the most exceptionally flawed alternatives–known as 5A and 6A–were recommended to be removed from the table.
In March 2015, it was reported that transportation officials are considering
two multibillion-dollar options to reconstruct an 18-mile stretch of I-710
between the harbor and rail yards near I-5. Both are designed to separate cars
and trucks as much as possible. One alternative under study by Caltrans and the
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority is an $8-billion
freight corridor that includes four elevated truck-only lanes that would
parallel I-710 between the highway and the Los Angeles River. The other option,
which is far cheaper at an estimated $3 billion to $4 billion, would add one
lane in each direction and a bypass that would take trucks around the I-405
interchange. I-710 now has anywhere from three to five lanes in each direction.
The proposals include extensive improvements to about a dozen interchanges and
redesigns of connector and ramp areas to eliminate weaving caused by merging
trucks and cars. Bikeways and walkways for pedestrians also are under
consideration. The two current proposals were essentially split off from a
broader 710 South project approved in 2005 by MTA directors. That $4.5-billion
proposal called not only for two elevated truck lanes but also for interchange
improvements and at least two regular lanes in each direction. It would take
about two years for the planning and environmental work to be completed. Once
an option is selected and money is found, a construction contract could be
awarded by 2018 or 2019.
(Source: Los Angeles Times, 3/16/2015)
In March 2016, the Los Angeles MTA presented its full proposal for what
transit lines could be built -- and when -- if Los Angeles County voters
approve a half-cent sales tax increase in November 2016. This proposal included
funding for the I-710 South Corridor Project. The project will add 2 Zero
Emission Truck lanes in each direction, from Pico/Anaheim in Long Beach to
Bandini/Washington in Commerce for a total of 18 miles, while maintaining the
current existing 4 Mixed-Flow lanes in each direction.
(Source: Los Angeles Times 3/18/2016; Metro Board Report 3/24/2016)
In July 2017, it was reported that a new set of alternatives to improve
I-710 between Ocean Boulevard in downtown Long Beach and Route 60 was released
in an environmental document by Caltrans. One alternative would add a general
purpose lane to the freeway, while another would also create a “Clean
Emissions” freight corridor for use by zero emission or near zero
emission trucks. Both alternatives propose other safety improvements to the
freeway and interchanges, as well as air quality and health benefits for
communities along the corridor. The document’s formal name is the
Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report/Supplemental Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (RDEIR/SDEIS). The RDEIR/SDEIS was prepared by Caltrans in
cooperation with Metro, the Gateway Cities Council of Governments, the Southern
California Association of Governments, the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach
and the Interstate 5 Joint Powers Authority. The RDEIR/SDEIS may be viewed
online at www.dot.ca.gov/d7/env-docs.
(Source: Metro "The Source", 7/20/2017)
In October 2017, it was reported that a public meeting on the EIR
highlighted the fact that the changes to the I-710 corridor will be the hardest
on the low-income areas of East LA. At the meeting, resident after resident
angrily said they are tired of not being listened to and their East Los Angeles
neighborhoods being forced to absorb the brunt of the region’s
transportation problems. County Supervisor Hilda Solis represents neighborhoods
and cities in the project area and sits on Metro’s Board of Directors,
and called the public meeting. She briefly circulated among the crowd before
the start of the meeting, which she opened by saying her office, Caltrans and
Metro are committed to working with the community, but then left before the
public comment portion of the meeting. Eastside residents have long feared
Caltrans and Metro would take homes in their neighborhoods for the project and
the alternatives added in the recirculated report show it could happen. If
chosen, Options 3A and 3B under Alternatives 5 and 7 respectively, would hit
residents on Sydney Drive in unincorporated East L.A. near the Commerce border
the hardest. Dozens of homes could be slated for removal or the freeway widened
to within a few feet of their front door step. Also potentially impacted are
residents in the Ayers neighborhood in Commerce, but the attention was on East
Los Angeles, where the crowd had one message for transportation officials,
“Leave East L.A. alone.” According to the presentation by Metro
spokesman Ernesto Chavez, the I-710 project will improve traffic safety, air
quality and prepare for growth in the goods movement. It would also improve
public health by reducing air pollutants from trucks through the I-710 Clean
Emissions Trucks Program. However, the crowd had a sense of injustice, noting
that plans to expand the I-710 north through Pasadena and San Marino were
scrapped because those more financially well-to-do communities didn’t
want the disruption to their communities. The sense of injustice is not without
merit. It’s even acknowledged in the Draft EIR (S.5.3.3 –
Environmental Justice Build Alternatives), which cites
“disproportionately high impact and adverse impacts on minority and
low-income populations in the Study Area,” even after taking into account
the overall “beneficial effects” of the project “on the
surrounding communities and I-710 corridor users when compared with current
conditions.” Funding to “alleviate project-related impacts to
environmental justice communities” is recommended. At this point,
however, according to Chavez the biggest obstacle to all of the proposals when
it comes up for review in February 2018 is lack of funding. According to the
I-710 Draft EIR, Alternative 5C would cost $6.5 billion to build while
Alternative 7 would cost $11 billion. Metro and Caltrans will provide $1.2
billion towards funding, according to Chavez, leaving residents to question
where the rest of the money will come from. Work will be done in stages,
explained Chavez, meaning they don’t have to have all the money upfront.
His words did not sit well with residents like Sylvia Corona, who complained
her neighborhood would probably get the short end of stick. “The nicer
areas get all the funding,” the 42-year resident of East L.A. warned her
neighbors. “Once they reach East L.A. they’ll run out of funds and
we’ll be left to deal with the closure of roads, dust and more
traffic.” [Note: The injustice is well merited. Caltrans has not treated
low income neighborhoods in Los Angeles well in the past, slicing through them
with the Harbor and Santa Ana freeways.]
(Source: EGP News, 10/26/2017)
In February 2018, it was reported that, in a report to the agency's board of
staff urged support for a massive, $6-billion proposal that would add a
lane in each direction along I-710 between Ocean Boulevard in Long Beach and
Route 60 in East Los Angeles. The price tag is one of the largest for a freeway
widening project in county history. The proposal calls for changes to 24 major
streets that cross I-710, as well as new interchanges with Route 91, I-5 and
I-405. A new, separated lane would allow truckers to bypass commuter traffic
near I-405. Transportation officials say the widening is necessary because a
soaring number of trucks is cramming each day onto an inefficient route that
needs to be modernized. Transportation
and environmental activists — many of whom have fought the project
for years — say Metro's preferred alternative would not do enough to
reduce emissions along a corridor known as the "diesel death zone" and would
displace people in some of Southern California's poorest and most polluted
areas. Caltrans and Metro would seize 109 homes and 158 businesses to expand
the freeway, displacing an estimated 436 people. Construction would have a
disproportionate effect on poor residents who are black and Latino, a Caltrans
environmental analysis found. The proposal has been under study for three years
and is cheaper than the other option Metro and Caltrans are considering: four
elevated, zero-emission truck lanes that would cost $10 billion and displace
about 484 people.
(Source: LA Times, 2/13/2018)
A bit later in February 2018, it was reported that, as part of the $6 billion widening of I-710, a Metro committee is asking the transit agency to add a lane dedicated to electric vehicles — cars, buses and trucks — which would use wireless power transmission pads placed in the roadway to recharge their batteries as they travel. While wireless charging is being used at transit yards, including in the Antelope Valley to power electric buses, the notion of a freeway lane embedded with devices that continuously recharge a moving vehicle’s battery pack would be a first in the United States. Janice Hahn, an LA County Supervisor, noted in a written statement that these so-called “rechargeable roadways” are under construction today in China, Israel and Norway. By the time the 19-mile, I-710 improvement project, stretching from Long Beach to Route 60 in East Los Angeles, is complete in 2040, such technology will be commonplace, she said.
In March 2018, the Metro board acted on the recommendation: it unanimously
approved a plan to revamp I-710 from Long Beach to East Los Angeles, but
it’s holding off on the most costly and contentious part of the plan:
widening much of the route to five lanes in each direction. Instead, the board
approved fast-tracking portions of the plan that would be cheaper to implement
and wouldn’t result in displacement for residents and business owners in
areas close to the freeway. The board still needs to nail down the projects,
but they could include parks, air filters in schools, and road improvements
near the freeway. The board also approved a motion to create a working group to
study how to reduce emissions along the entire 19-mile freeway—notorious
for its negative health effects on residents who live close by. The board also
asked Metro CEO Phil Washington to come up with a plan to quickly phase out
freeway access for smog-producing diesel trucks, mandating instead that
trucking companies use near-zero, and eventually zero-emission, trucks to haul
goods along the route. The board’s decision pushes forward with the
environmental review process for a $6 billion project that would widen the
freeway between I-405 and Route 60, overhauling numerous entrances and exits
along the way. Funds for the full I-710 project aren’t yet in place, and
members of the board stressed that the decision does not give Caltrans a green
light to begin widening the freeway.
(Source: Curbed LA, 3/1/2018)
Route 710 — Other Improvements
The Los Angeles Times provided more information the new pavement in an
article in September 2009. The project is called the "I-710 Long Life Pavement
Project", and started in 2001. Part of the problem is the traffic load on the
highway: On any given weekday, nearly 155,000 vehicles stream north and south
on the 710 past Pacific Coast Highway, 16% of which are 18-wheelers carrying up
to 40 tons to and from the Port of Long Beach and the Port of Los Angeles. The
pavement is using a new asphalt mix, the culmination of testing and
experimenting that goes back to the 1960s. The mix involves different types of
asphalt being layered onto the roadway, combined with significant thickness,
almost 12 inches sitting upon the old concrete roadbed. This approach serves to
disseminate weight from the point of impact, broadening and lessening the load
into the deeper layers. As the old concrete beneath the road jumps --
inevitable, beneath the weight of moving traffic -- the asphalt flexes and
recoils, preventing the formation of cracks. In addition, pieces of rubber have
been stirred into the top layer to mute the sound of traffic and divert water
to stop hydroplaning. With regular maintenance, scraping and replacing this
layer every eight to 12 years, the pavement is expected to last at least 30
years (the typical asphalt pavement lasts 10 years, and concrete, such as the
design used for I-710, can last 40 years with maintenance).
[Based on an article in the Los Angeles Times, "A smooth idea for the 710 Freeway", 2009-09-30]
In August 2011, the CTC approved $190,222,000 in SHOPP funding for I-710 from South Gate to Monterey Park from Los Angeles River Bridge to Ramona Boulevard (~ LA 17.397 to LA 26.399) that will rehabilitate 37 lane miles of roadway to improve safety and ride quality. The project will also replace ramp pavement, widen inside and outside shoulders and nine bridges to standard widths, and replace existing median barrier with concrete barrier. Lastly, the project will construct maintenance pullouts to reduce worker traffic exposure.
In August 2011, it was reported that the Long Life Pavement Project will require a number of closures in late Summer 2011. Specifically, I-710 between I-105 and the Atlantic Boulevard exit (~ LA 21.965) will be completely shut down for several hours at a time two times per weekend on 10 consecutive weekends from August 5 through October 17, 2011. There will be no construction on Labor Day weekend. The full freeway closures in both directions will begin each weekend at 11:59 p.m. Fridays and run through 6 a.m. on Saturdays. They will begin again Sundays at 11 p.m. and run through 5 a.m. on Mondays. During the initial closure each weekend, moveable median barriers will be installed. They will guide motorists to shift to the northbound side of the freeway to commute in a reduced number of lanes while construction crews work on the southbound 710 over the weekend. During the final closure, the moveable median barriers will be removed in time for the Monday morning commute.
According to the Daily News, new pavement will be laid in a $164.5 million project along nine miles of I-710. The project includes shoulder reconstruction, new concrete barriers, a soundwall and widening of the Atlantic Boulevard undercrossing and of the southbound lanes at the Compton Creek bridge. Construction is scheduled to start in summer 2007.
In November 2014, it was
reported that a subcontractor installed a new sign for the Olympic Boulevard
exit (~ LA 23.428) that read "Olimpic." A construction crew with the California
Department of Transportation spotted the mistake the next morning, but it was
too late. The misspelling was hard to miss, and drivers had already snapped and
tweeted photographs of the sign. Days later, a black tarp was thrown over the
sign in an attempt to cover the misspelling. The sign was one of many
improvements underway on I-710 as part of a pavement rehabilitation project.
The $120-million project, reaching from the Los Angeles River Bridge to I-10,
includes median barrier upgrades, shoulder widening and the installation of
fiber optics and precast concrete panels and slabs. All costs associated with
the removal, replacement and installation of the Olympic Boulevard sign will be
paid by the subcontractor who fabricated the sign, not taxpayers or the
(Source: LA Times, 11/24/2014)
The CTC in November 2002 considered $8,540,000 in improvements to local streets in Los Angeles, Alhambra, and South Pasadena (07S-LA-710-26.7/32.1). This would be a grant to the cities to fund improvements.
Route 710 "Gap" Completion / Route 710 Corridor (I-10 to Valley Blvd to Del Mar / Northern Stub)
The first mention of the extension of the route to Pasadena is in 1961, when CHPW notes that the extension was defined by SB 480, and Advance Planning was starting to determine potential routes. In 1964, it was reported that planning was underway for the Long Beach Freeway (Route 7, now Route 710) from the Foothill Freeway, Route 134 and Long Beach Freeway Interchange to Norwich Avenue. On June 3-4 1964, a routing was adopted for I-210, Route 134, and Route 710 (then Route 7). This routing extends the Long Beach Freeway four mi N-ly to Route 134, and then extends I-210 N-ly to Sunland. It also extends Route 2 to I-210. Starting at Huntington Drive, the route proceeds N-ly to connect with Route 134/I-210, swings W-ly just S of Devils Gate Dam and proceeding generally S of Foothill Blvd through the Verdugo Mtns and across Big Tujunga Wash to Wheatland Ave. Also noticable on the map is the inclusion of Route 159 (old Figueroa Blvd, and the connection on Linda Vista between Route 134 and I-210), Route 248 (which was the surface street routing of Colorado between Route 134 and I-210 near Monrovia), and Route 212 (which is the old Valley Blvd routing of US 60, former LRN 77). The legislative definitions were later amended to note that Route 159 and Route 248 ceased to be state highways after I-210 was completed. Note how this also still shows Route 118 in the area; that was later renumbered to Route 210.
Mike Ballard has a page with pictures of the Route 710 gap and stubs.
The detail below summarizes a long-standing, highly contentious back and forth. The April 1998 Record of Decision sums it up well:
The California Route 710 Freeway project is not a typical highway project. It provides a vital link in the nation’s most severely congested freeway system. It also causes impacts of a magnitude that is unusual in today’s highway program. Both proponents and opponents of the project have pursued their respective interests very forcefully, with lawsuits on each side.
In 1933, the Department of Highways (DOH, later known as the California Department of Transportation or Caltrans) defined what was to become Route 710 as LRN 167. Here's the history of that route from this site's entry on LRN 167 (indented), with some additional annotation:
In 1933, the route from "Long Beach via Atlantic Boulevard to [LRN 26] near Monterey Park" was added to the state highway system. In 1935, it was added to the highway code as LRN 167, with the same routing.
In 1947 (1st ex. sess.), Chapter 11 kept the same endpoints, but introduced a discontinuity at (former) Route 245/US 101: "(a) Long Beach to [LRN 166]; (b) (a) above, near Los Angeles River to [LRN 26] via Atlantic Boulevard"
In 1951, Chapter 1562 truncated the terminus to Huntington Drive: "… to Huntington Drive."
On July 24, 1953, the California Highway Commission adopted the location for the Long Beach Freeway from the Santa Ana Freeway to the Northerly terminus of the route at Huntington Drive.
In 1957, Chapter 1911 extended the origin to [LRN
165] (Harbor Freeway): “[LRN 165] in San Pedro
Beach to Huntington Drive via Long Beach”
In 1958, Chapter 74 added the San Pedro-Terminal Island Bridge: "[LRN 165] in San Pedro to Huntington Drive via Long Beach, and including a bridge with at least four lanes from San Pedro at or near Boschke Slough to Terminal Island"
In 1959, Chapter 1062 extended to LRN 9: "[LRN 165]
in San Pedro to
Huntington Drive [LRN 9] in Pasadena
via Long Beach, and including a bridge with at least four lanes from San Pedro
at or near Boschke Slough to Terminal Island" (This was the result of the 1959
freeway and expressway plan)
The Department of Highways began location studies in 1960. On April 21, 1960 the state formally notified the cities of Pasadena, South Pasadena, and Alhambra that studies were being initiated on the section of the Long Beach Freeway from Huntington Drive to the Foothill Freeway.
In the 1964 "Great Renumbering", the legislature changed LRN 167 (which was signed as Route 15) to Route 7, and issued its Project Report VII-232 (dated 2/19/1964) identifying seven alignments. During May 1964 hearings, it was suggested that the connection to I-210 be through Figueroa Canyon, but that was later dropped from consideration Following a couple of public hearings in Pasadena, the California Highway Commission (CHC) adopted the Green-Red-Green Line as documented in their report and findings dated 11/18/1964. This later was referred to as the “Meridian Route” (Huntington Drive to I-210).
The Long Beach Freeway opened between I-10 and Valley Blvd. in February 1965. The City of Los Angeles signed the Freeway Agreement in April 1965. Alhambra followed suit in May 1966. In February 1967, the City of Pasadena approved the "straight through" alignment requiring taking the Neighborhood Church, as recommended by Victor Gruen Associates. This was the basis for the Freeway Agreement executed by Pasadena on March 30, 1967. This was the "Meridian Avenue Line". The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) approved the state-adopted route in June 1967. South Pasadena requested a reconsideration, which was denied. Second and third requests for reconsideration in 1966 and 1967 were also denied.
In November 1969, the CHC directed the DOH to study the Westerly Route proposed by South Pasadena.
In the 1950s until 1978, Caltrans began purchasing more than 500 private houses and lots in Los Angeles, Alhambra, South Pasadena, and Pasadena with a plan to demolish them and build a surface freeway connecting Route 7 (later renumbered Route 710) in Alhambra to the I-210 in Pasadena.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was signed into law in January 1970, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was signed into law in November 1970.
DOH issued its Adopted Line Report in February 1972. Pasadena accepted the “Adopted Line” in March 1972. South Pasadena resolved to recommend the “Westerly Route” for the Route 7 (Route 710) extension in April 1972. CHC reaffirmed its adopted alignment the same month and concluded that the Westerly Route was not feasible in November 1972.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) was formed in January 1973 and released the EIR (I-10 to Huntington Drive) the same month. South Pasadena, et.al. sued to stop construction, also the same month, pending compliance with NEPA & CEQA. Construction was enjoined in 1973. After the injunction was issued in 1973, FHWA and Caltrans started the EIS process. The project has been analyzed in one Draft EIS, three Supplemental Draft EIS’s, one Final EIS, seven Section 4(f) Evaluations, and several Reevaluations.
The June 1993 Final Report from the Route 710 Meridian Variation Enhancement and Mitigation Advisory Committee recommended several mitigation measures which were adopted by Caltrans and resulted in changes to the preferred alternative identified in the FEIS. The refined preferred alternative was then called the Meridian Variation Alternative Reduced design variation. Notification of the Meridian Variation Enhancement and Mitigation Advisory Committee report availability was published in the Federal Register on July 9, 1993. The basic revision was the reduction of the design width of the facility’s cross section from 176 feet to 142, trucks were banned from the freeway except for local deliveries and the elimination of a proposed interchange between Route 710 and Route 110.
On January 15, 1993, before the Meridian Variation Enhancement and Mitigation Advisory Committee issued its Final Report, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) referred the Route 710 project to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) due to their concerns about the impact to historic properties and adequate evaluation of a Low-Build Alternative. The CEO did not accept the referral, but instead recommended that FHWA and ACHP work together on designing an acceptable methodology to update the historic inventory and to identify and evaluate one technically feasible Low-Build proposal.
After the Meridian Variation Enhancement and Mitigation Advisory Committee Final Report in June 1993, FHWA and Caltrans continued to seek ways to further reduce impacts of the project In a letter dated November 20,1995, the Keeper of the National Register determined that the Short Line Villa Tract Historic District was eligible for the National Register. Various design modifications, depressed profiles and alignment shifts were considered and reviewed in attempt to avoid and minimize impacts through this District. It was found that a shift in alignment will fully avoid any taking of the District. The shift will be about 400 feet from the original alignment at the widest point of departure. The 3700 feet (0.7 miles) of shift varies from zero feet near Huntington Drive to 400 feet near the Short Line Villa Tract Historic District and back to zero feet near Summit Drive. It has been determined that 116 properties (including a 43-apartment complex) which would have been taken by the original alignment would be spared. This design change is a further modification to the Meridian Variation Alternative Reduced design variation, and was referred to as the Meridian Variation Alternative Reduced with Shift design variation. Public outreach then occurred from December 27,1995 to January 11, 1996.
On October 3, 1997, a meeting of the impacted communities, key Federal agencies, and interested congressional representatives was held by the FHWA to discuss a potential approach for approving a Record of Decision (ROD) and advancing the project to final design. Based on comments received at that meeting and afterwards, the approach was refined and is incorporated in the April 1998 ROD. That decision was to select a modified version of the Meridian Variation Alternative as described in the FEIS, named the Depressed Meridian Variation Alternative Reduced with Shift design variation. This name reflects the adoption of the general alignment of the Meridian Variation Alternative with modifications that include a reduced highway width, a shift to avoid the Short Line Villa Tract Historic District and include a commitment to further depress the highway in the El Sereno and South Pasadena area. Each modification was based on a process to reduce overall impacts of the project. This selected alternative involves completing the Route 710 freeway gap between I-10, in the city of Alhambra and I-210 in the city of Pasadena, a distance of 6.2 miles (4.5 miles unconstructed). The freeway will also pass through the cities of Los Angeles (El Sereno community) and South Pasadena. The freeway will have six mixed-flow lanes and two high-occupancy-vehicle (HOV) lanes. Local service interchanges will be provided at various locations (Hellman Avenue and Valley Boulevard in the city of Alhambra, Alhambra Avenue/Mission Road and Huntington Drive in the city of Los Angeles, and Del Mar Boulevard in the city of Pasadena). The selected alternative will closely follow the alignment of the Meridian Variation Alternative identified as the preferred alternative in the FEIS. Starting on the southerly terminus at I-10, it will follow the alignment of the existing Long Beach Freeway northerly to Valley Boulevard. From Valley Boulevard to Huntington Drive, the alignment will generally parallel and run just west of the Los Angeles city limits. North of Huntington Drive, the alignment will approximately follow Meridian Avenue to Bank Street. At this point, the alignment will shift westward and run between Orange Grove Boulevard and Prospect Street north to the Arroyo Seco Parkway. The alignment will continue to parallel the now eastward-curving alignment of Orange Grove Boulevard to the Pasadena city limits, where it will continue shifting eastward to join with Pasadena Avenue at Madeline Street From here, the project will follow Pasadena Avenue north to Del Mar Boulevard, where it will connect to the existing Long Beach Freeway stub connecting to I-210/Route 134. The freeway is depressed for about 85% of the newly constructed 4.5 mile section and is fully depressed through Pasadena and South Pasadena except for the structure over Route 110. The freeway is depressed in virtually all of the residential areas. Approximately 25% of the 4.5 mile remaining gap closure is in cut-and-cover tunnels. There were loads of modification and conditions, all of which are detailed in the Record of Decision, April 1998.
The following were some of the alternatives in the FEIS, in addition to the "No Build" alternative:
Other alternatives that were eliminated as noted in the Record of Decision were:
In 1999 U.S. District Court Judge Pregerson issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting Caltrans from proceeding with the Route 710 Freeway Project. Judge Pregerson’s lengthy opinion identified numerous, substantial violations of federal law that would have to be remedied prior to completing the project, including violations of the Clean Air Act, Environmental Protection Act, and Historic Preservation Act. No attempt has been made by the defendants to satisfy the violations found by Judge Pregerson. FHWA rescinded their ROD IN 2003. In 2004 the CTC withdrew its Notice of Determination (NOD).
Originally, construction of the the 6.2 mile, $670 million extension was planned to start after the year 2000. There would be six lanes and two HOV lanes, with room for light rail in the median. Interchanges are planned at Hellman Ave., Valley Boulevard/Alhambra Ave., Huntington Dr., California Blvd, Del Mar Blvd., and Green St. To decrease the impact on South Pasadena, the proposed interchange with I-110 has been removed. There are also two tunnels planned: a 1200-foot "cut and cover" near South Pasadena High School, and a 100-foot tunnel near the Buena Vista district. There may be more tunneling if this speeds the project without destroying homes. In fact, the MTA has asked a consultant to study two parallel, 4.5-mile tunnels to close the gap.
In 2002, with plans to build a surface road connecting the two freeways shelved, Caltrans decided to move forward with a tunnel alternative. In 2004, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority selected a team of consultants, led by the engineering firm Parsons, Brinkerhoff, Quade & Douglas to conduct a feasibility study for the tunnel. The narrow scope of the study focused on connecting the freeway stubs in Alhambra and Pasadena, and failed to analyze the needs of the surrounding region. Metro issued its Route 710 Tunnel Technical Feasibility Assessment Report in 2006.
(Sources for the above: Record of Decision, April 1998; West Pasadena Residents Association, Response to DEIR (Historical Overview), 8/3/2015; Long Beach Freeway, Route 710 (formerly Route 7), Los Angeles County Draft EIS, 12/23/1974; Los Angeles Times, 4/27/1986; Long Beach Freeway, Route 710 (formerly Route 7), Los Angeles Final EIR, Volume 2, 1992; Route 710 Third Draft EIR Supplement, 1986)
In April 2004, the Pasadena Star News reported that the city of South Pasadena dropped its lawsuit against the state after receiving assurances that the state had withdrawn its approval of the 4.5-mile stretch of road. Although South Pasadena believed this killed the freeway, it actually moved the issue into the Legislature and the Congress. The only thing about which both sides agree is that the California Transportation Commission action put the entire issue back to square one. The California Transportation Commission withdrew its support four months after the Federal Highway Administration issued a letter saying that the state's environmental reviews were outdated, inadequate and had to be redone. Caltrans has said it intends to move forward with the new environmental reviews. Caltrans still holds 600 homes in the 710 corridor, and it still says it intends to demolish them so that the freeway can be built.
The SAFETEA-LU act, enacted in August 2005 as the reauthorization of TEA-21, authorized $2,400,000 for High Priority Project #2193: I-710 Freeway study to evaluate technical feasibility and impacts of a Tunnel Alternative to close I-710 freeway gap. It also authorized $1,600,000 for High Priority Project #3018: Valley Boulevard (former US 60) Capacity Improvement between I-710 Freeway and Marguerita Avenue, Alhambra. This is the route that takes the current end-traffic from I-710.
According to an article in the Los Angeles Times on 10 August 2005, a potential solution to the completion of I-710 lies in the SAFETEA-LUA bill approved in August. This bill contains an appropriation of $2.4 million to study the possibility of extending the freeway through a five-mile, $2-billion tunnel that would run under South Pasadena and part of Pasadena. This would be the longest continuous highway tunnel in the United States. After the feasibility study would be environmental impact reports, engineering plans and financial wrangles. Part of the problem is real estate values. Over the last 30 years, Caltrans purchased more than 500 homes that occupy the potential freeway right of way, many at prices in the $50,000 range. One was recently appraised for $780,000. Building a tunnel would allow Caltrans to sell most of the homes, although a change in state law would be needed to sell them at full-market prices. If the freeway were to be completed above ground, an additional 400 homes would need to be purchased, at a price of about $1 million each. These costs (or income), combeind with new techniques pioneered in Europe that lower the price of tunneling and the cost to taxpayers of putting the road 100 feet to 200 feet below ground may be not much more expensive than building on the surface. The five-mile tunnel, if built, would begin where the freeway ends in a stump on Valley Boulevard in Alhambra. It would surface between California and Del Mar avenues in Pasadena before connecting to a mile strip of the freeway that already exists south of the Foothill Freeway. Engineers said the tunnel would be unbroken, except for a possible interchange at Huntington Drive in El Sereno. The route would be nearly twice as long as Boston's Big Dig or a similarly long passageway in Alaska, the longest road tunnels in the United States. Exhaust from the underground roadway would be released and filtered through an elaborate venting system at ground level. The so-called air scrubbers would filter enough of the exhaust that it could actually result in cleaner emissions than with a surface freeway. Engineers said the tunnel could have two levels – one for northbound traffic, the other for southbound traffic. The tunnel idea has already been the subject of a study by the Southern California Council of Governments, which enlisted help from consultants who built the Chunnel that links England and France below the English Channel. The consultants believed the tunnel could be built using a technique popular in Europe in which a large machine bores through the Earth and coats the tunnel way with a steel membrane That technique is considered less expensive than other tunnel-digging methods.
According to the Los Angeles Times in June 2006, there are three possible routes for twin 4½-mile tunnels that would connect I-210 in Pasadena with current terminus of I-710 in Alhambra. The proposed tunnel routes are:
The tunnels would be as much as 72 feet in diameter to handle four lanes of traffic, and would be the world's largest. Parsons Brinckerhoff compared the proposal to giant tunnels being built underneath Seattle, Paris and Barcelona, Spain, and calculate that the L.A. tunnels would take nine to 11 years to construct. The study recommended that trucks be allowed to use the tunnels and that a proposed freeway exit at Huntington Drive be abandoned as too costly at an estimated $1 billion. The tunnels may require a toll to help pay for construction. The full report can be found at http://www.mta.net/images/710_final_report.pdf.
In May 2007, the Los Angeles Times reported that there are plans for a $20M project to create a connector from the current end of I-710 around Valley Boulevard to Mission Road. Supposedly, the City of Los Angeles will soon (Spring/Summer 2007) release a draft Environmental Impact Report on the project. The connector road would carry traffic another 1,400 feet from I-710 onto Mission Road, possibly sending 40,000 cars daily winding through residential streets like Westminster and Meridian Avenue. The road would alleviate traffic problems through some El Sereno neighborhoods, according to Los Angeles officials, but create others as Mission, a collector street, is not as wide as Valley, an arterial street. This road would be needed only until I-710 is completed and connected to I-210.
In April 2008, a radical proposal surfaced regarding Route 710. This
proposal would have the underground highway funded entirely by the private
sector. Metro officials have confirmed they have been approached by a financial
broker representing major international corporations interested in investing in
the plan, which would use giant tunnel-boring machines to build a completely
subterranean 6-mile, multi- lane roadway. The route would link the current
terminus of the northbound I-710 in Alhambra with a short northern Route 710
segment of the freeway in Pasadena. The discussions are very preliminary and
more details about the plan need to be hashed out before a private-partnership
could even be considered. Under some public-private partership agreements, the
private contractor pays for and builds the infrastructure in exchange for
future revenues, such as fees collected through tolls. This latest proposal
addresses all the concerns of South Pasadena residents and elected officials,
by being entirely subterranian, not cut and cover. However, Route 710 extension
plans also have to contend with opposition from nearby La Cañada Flintridge,
which has objected to any proposed tunnel plans because of officials' fears of
increased traffic on I-210 through their city.
[Source: Whittier Daily News, April 7, 2007]
In January 2009, Caltrans and the LA MTA conducted geotechnical exploratory borings in two locations in the City of Alhambra. This is part of the Exploration Program phase of the two-year I-710 Tunnel Technical Study that will involve research, exploration and technical analysis of the soil and sub-surface conditions found while tunneling at depths of more than 250 feet. The net goal is to see whether construction of the I-710 tunnels is feasible. The map of the routes being explored is show to the right.
The purpose of the study is to examine the possibility of constructing a tunnel to complete the route between the northern I-710 termini and the Foothill Freeway (I-210). The study is being conducted in a route neutral manner. This means that all reasonable and practicable alternatives for completing the route are being considered within the Study area, which encompasses the cities of Alhambra, Glendale, La Cañada-Flintridge, Los Angeles, Monterey Park, San Marino, South Pasadena and Pasadena. Information gathered throughout the Study will describe soil and sub-surface conditions and will determine the feasibility of building a tunnel to complete I-710.
In 2009, the LA Times (11/17/2009) reported that the tunnel study was completed. The study explored five zones, and concluded that a tunnel would be feasible (which is a far way from the start of construction). The draft report will be finalized in 2010, was based on the assumption that the tunnel would be about 200 feet below ground and about 50 feet in diameter. It looked at five potential construction zones:
Zone 1 (Northeast L.A.): There is one Superfund site in the northwest portion of the zone which could be a source of contaminated soil and groundwater in the tunnel. There is also a possibility of encountering naturally occurring gases such as methane and hydrogen sulfide. There are no active faults in the zone.
Zone 2 (Northeast L.A.): The active Raymond fault crosses the zone and there is also the potential of encountering naturally occurring gases. Some soil and groundwater contamination could result in hazardous materials being encountered.
Zone 3 (South Pasadena/Pasadena): The Raymond and San Rafael faults are groundwater barriers in this area, and there is one active and two potentially active faults in the area. There are two places with minor soil contamination in the northern limits of the zone.
Zone 4 (San Marino/Pasadena): Active faults that cross the zone are the Raymond and Alhambra Wash faults. There is one Superfund site in the southwestern end of the zone. There are also six other sites with various levels of soil contamination.
Zone 5 (Alhambra/San Gabriel/Temple City): The active Alhambra Wash fault is in this zone and so are the perennial Rio Hondo and San Gabriel rivers. There is one Superfund site in the south-central portion of the zone and seven other sites with various levels of soil and groundwater contamination.
The Glendale News Press reported in February 2010 that the debate over the alternative, an underground tunnel, was reinvigorated in late 2009 when Caltrans and Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority released a $6-million route feasibility study. The report showed tunneling was feasible within five potential route zones, which include connections to I-210 and Route 2. That sparked a wave of renewed protest from local stakeholders, who said the perception that plans for a 710 connector was too far flung and expensive didn’t match with what was happening in political circles. Already, $780 million in Measure R sales tax revenue has been earmarked for the connector. And in January 2010, the MTA instructed officials to explore private partnerships for additional funding. The next step is a series of community meetings for the final draft of the technical study, which will be presented this spring to the MTA and California Transportation Commission, which will decide whether to move forward with more in-depth environmental studies. Tunnel opponents argue there are better ways to address what they contend is largely a commercial freight issue. Assemblyman Anthony Portantino (D-Pasadena) said moving to the environmental study process would be a misuse of millions in taxpayer dollars. He also criticized the technical study for lacking important details on how and why tunneling is feasible, including costs and construction methods. La Cañada and South Pasadena are in court fighting the use of Measure R funds for tunnel studies or construction, and the Glendale City Council joined the legal fight in early March.
Details on the Tunnel Study may be found at http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist07/710study/index.php.
In October 2011, it was reported that LA Metro approved a $37.3 million contract to CH2MHill to examine a range of alternatives, prepare technical assessments, and environmental and engineering studies about alternatives to close the gap between the Route 210 and Route 710 freeways. The studies are expected to be completed in the fall of 2014.
In January 2012, it was reported that South Pasadena was lobbying to kill the surface routing of Route 710. LA Metro was indicating they had no plans to construct a surface routing, but didn't want to pull it off the table as an option quite yet. The city is also lobbying Caltrans to sell the more than 500 homes the agency bought decades ago along the proposed route in preparation for building the Route 710 Freeway extension to connect with I-210. In particular, at the request of Assemblyman Anthony Portantino (D-La Cañada Flintridge), a Joint Legislative Audit Committee is conducting an inquiry into Caltrans’ continued ownership of the homes. The state stands to gain $500 million if it sells the homes in Pasadena, South Pasadena and Los Angeles. However, Caltrans is not able to sell the homes until the Federal Highway Administration accepted the proposed route for a tunnel or whatever project was approved and the state determined which properties were "excess" and therefore available to be sold. If they are sold, under a state law passed in 1979, current tenants and past owners would be the first in line to buy them.
In May 2012, it was reported that debate was still going on regarding alternatives. There are currently twelve alternative concepts to relieve traffic congestion, including a “no build” freeway option and other projects still listed in the Regional Transportation Plan. Those options include alternate bus, light rail and freeway routes, highway and street artery concepts, non-infrastructure improvements and hybrid combinations of the other plans. All of the freeway alternative concepts will connect the terminus of I-710, north of I-10. The alignment can be a tunnel, depressed, at-grade, elevated or any combination. The LRT-4 concept proposes a partially subterranean light rail line that would travel from the East LA Civic Center Gold Line station to the Fillmore station, go north on Mednick at street level and it could stop at Cal State LA. The rail is a tunnel on the north end; the concept also includes two bus routes. The freeway alternatives are:
(Click Image for Larger Version)
(Source: State Route 710 Study, Alternatives Analysis Report, December 2012)
In August 2012, Metro and Caltrans eliminated 5 routes from the list of 12 possible routes:
The five remaining proposals include routes using bus rapid transit, light rail, or freeway tunnel and intelligent traffic systems (which includes strategies such as ride sharing and encouraging off peak traffic). The remaining alternatives are:
In September 2012, the Los Angeles city council voted to opposed any extension option -- surface or tunnel.
In January 2013, the LA MTA released its analysis of the first options above. In June 2013, MTA voted to block fast-track funding for the the route extension over the next 10 years. While the proposal to extend I-710 to I-210 will be prevented from getting a share of the $9.4 billion in accelerated funding, studies on five alternatives for closing the gap, including a controversial proposal for a tunnel, will continue. The studies are expected to be completed in 2015, but money to move forward after that has not been identified. Officials are using money generated by Measure R, a county-wide half-cent sales tax approved by voters in 2008, to pay for the studies.
In October 2013, a bill was approved directing Caltrans to sell some of the
nearly 500 properties it owns in Los Angeles, South Pasadena and Pasadena. The
homes are located in the so-called 710 gap, where transportation officials are
studying a 4.5-mile tunnel that would connect the Long Beach (Route 710) and
Foothill (I-210) freeways. The bill adds a change to existing law so that the
homes may be sold “as is,” at prices set according to their
condition, as opposed to having to be repaired and sold at market value. Almost
400 homes are occupied by tenants, but many others remain vacant and in
disrepair. The bill also states the current tenants of the homes will get the
first chance to purchase them. The properties were acquired by Caltrans over
the past several decades in anticipation of the possible construction of a
surface freeway to close the gap between Route 710 and I-210 freeways. The new
law also states that the surface freeway route will be taken off the table as
an option in any state environmental documents on the project (the original
surface routing is shown at the top of this entry).
(Source: Glendale News-Press, 10/2/13)
In October 2014, it was reported that authorities are considering completing
Route 710 with 4.9-mile-long twin tunnels. Light rail, enhanced bus service and
wider streets are also being explored. The 4.9-mile-long tunnel would be longer
than any other in California for auto traffic. As of October 2014, the longest
is the Wawona Tunnel in Yosemite National Park, which is less than 1 mile long.
Caltrans and Metro will release a draft environmental report in February 2015
evaluating the freeway tunnel, mass transit and street-widening options; the
public will have three months to provide comment.
(Source and Graphic: Los Angeles Times, 10/20/2014)
In March 2015, it was reported that any major modifications to the
unfinished Route 710 Freeway would cost billions of dollars and take years to
complete. The Draft EIR provides a number of options to address the 4.5-mile
gap through Alhambra and South Pasadena, including a bus system, a light-rail
line, a freeway tunnel and a range of upgrades to the existing route, as well
as the required "no build" option. Building an underground freeway would be the
most expensive option. Tunneling between I-10 Freeway and the current stub
Route 210/Route134 junction in Pasadena would cost between $3.1 billion and
$5.6 billion and would take about five years to complete. This option calls for
side-by-side, double-decker tunnels to separate northbound and southbound
traffic. The route would feature a 4.9-mile tunnel and 1.4 miles of
surface-level freeway. A less expensive option calls for one double-decker
freeway tunnel. Northbound traffic would use the two lanes on the upper level,
and southbound traffic would use the lower level. The 4.9-mile tunnel would be
the longest in California, and almost as long as downtown Boston's 5.1-mile Big
Dig tunnel. Under either option, drivers could be charged a toll and trucks
could be barred from the tunnels. Alternatively, the bus option provides a
12-mile rapid bus route linking Huntington Drive in San Marino to Whittier
Boulevard in Montebello. Buses would have some dedicated lanes, and could run
every 10 minutes during peak hours. Adding the bus routes would cost $241
million and take about two years. Lastly, a 7.5-mile light-rail line option
would cost $2.4 billion and would add seven stops to Los Angeles County’s
growing rail system, connecting the Gold Line’s Fillmore Station in
Pasadena with the East L.A. Civic Center stop. The route would run underground
through Pasadena and South Pasadena, then run on elevated tracks through
Monterey Park and East Los Angeles. Construction would take about six years.
The cheapest option would be to make the existing freeways and roads more
efficient without major construction. That could include meters for on-ramps,
synchronized traffic signals, and lanes that change direction during peak
hours. Those options would cost about $105 million and take two years to
complete. Caltrans was scheduling a number of open forums to get comments from
(Source: LA Times, 3/6/2015)
In June 2015, it was reported that Beyond the 710, a coalition of
community organizations, environmental attorneys, five San Gabriel Valley
cities, and the National Trust for Historic Preservation, had submitted a plan
that eschewed additional highways and tunnels, and proposed instead the notion
that expanding bus service, improving surface streets, adding bicycle routes
and developing more walkable communities would better address traffic
congestion, air pollution and the transportation needs of the west San Gabriel
Valley. Instead of constructing the extension, Beyond the 710 envisions
building several local surface-street projects, including a four-lane
thoroughfare called Golden Eagle Boulevard that would head 1.9 miles north from
the southern stub of Route 710 to Fremont Street in Alhambra. Golden Eagle
would intersect Valley Boulevard, Alhambra Avenue and East Mission Road,
allowing traffic to be distributed to other surface streets, thus protecting
residential neighborhoods. The northern stub of Route 710 in Pasadena would be
filled in, providing35 acres of open space or developable land for homes and
commercial buildings. They also proposed a north-south transit corridor that
meanders along the Route 710 route and would connect to major destinations as
well as Metrolink service, the El Monte busway and the MTA’s Gold, Green
and Blue light-rail lines.
(Source: LA Times, 5/28/2015)
In June 2015, the CTC received the opportunity to provide comments in response to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Route 710 North Study Project. The opportunity came with numerous letters from community officials and citizens recommending that the CTC take no position until a preferred alternative had been selected by Caltrans. These included letters from Assemblyman (Ret.) Anthony J. Portantino, the City of South Pasadena, the City of La Canada-Flintridge, the West Pasadena Residents Association, Gloria Valladolid, Melissa Michelson, and the No 710 Action Committee. The recommendation, which was accepted, was that the CTC make no comments regarding the environmental issues addressed in the DEIR. The recommendation also noted that the CTC should send a letter to Caltrans stating that (a) The Commission has no comments with respect to the alternatives or environmental impacts addressed in the DEIR; (b) The final environmental document should not be brought forward to the Commission for project funding decisions or other purposes until a cost benefit analysis is distributed through a process that ensures sufficient opportunity for the public to review and provide comment; (c) Early communication and coordination with the Commission is encouraged if it is anticipated that the Commission will be requested to approve the project for delivery through a public private partnership or for construction approval to allow for financing and tolling approval by the California Transportation Financing Authority; and (d) If, in the future, funds or other actions under the purview of the Commission are anticipated ,notification should be provided to the Commission as a Responsible Agency. The initial letter from Caltrans noted that the project is not fully funded: it has $780,000,000 in local funding available and the agency is working to identify additional funds. Depending on the alternative selected, the total estimated project cost is between $105,000,000 and $5,650,000,000.
In August 2015, it was reported that the South Coast Air Quality Management
District said the draft environmental impact report for the proposed Route 710
Freeway extension failed to estimate emissions of carbon monoxide and airborne
particulates and that the tunnel project would raise the cancer risk to
unacceptable levels. The eight-page letter from Ian MacMillan, the anti-smog
district’s planning and rules manager, says the lack of basic air quality
analysis renders the draft EIR useless to the agency or those deciding on a
tunnel or other transit options. One part of the EIR places the cancer risk of
the project at 149 chances per million people exposed to pollutants, well above
the district’s standard threshold of 10 chances per million. Yet, the
report concludes that the cancer risks are “less than significant”
based on faulty data. The agency has requested that Caltrans and the Los
Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority or Metro, which paid $40
million for the study released in March, revise the air quality portion of the
(Source: SGV Tribute, 8/13/2015)
In August 2015, it was also reported that group representing San Gabriel
Valley cities has removed the Route 710 freeway tunnel proposal from its wish
list of projects that might be funded by a new transportation sales tax. The
decades-old idea of extending Route 710 Freeway north from its Alhambra
terminus near Cal State Los Angeles to I-210 Freeway in Pasadena via an
underground tunnel has been divisive. Alhambra wants a tunnel, Pasadena
doesn't. Other cities have taken sides. Now all 31 San Gabriel Valley cities
united in taking the tunnel and other proposals for speeding traffic through
the western valley off the list of projects that would have priority for
funding with a potential new transportation sales tax. The vote by the San
Gabriel Valley Council of Governments does not kill the tunnel idea, but it has
the potential for limiting the means of paying for its construction, estimated
by Caltrans at more than $5 billion.
(Source: KPCC, 8/24/2015)
Lastly, also in August 2015, it was reported that Caltrans was preparing to
sell a number of properties it acquired for the right of way of the Route 710
completion. In the 1950s and '60s, Caltrans began buying up houses and plots of
land for what was expected to be the path of the I-710 Freeway. But in the
decades that followed, the 6.2-mile project was stalled by lobbying, lawsuits
and legislation. Earlier in 2015, closing the door on one portion of the
long-fought battle, officials decided that if anything is to be built to close
the transportation network gap from El Sereno to I-210 in Pasadena, it will be
underground. Those options include a light-rail line, a bus rapid-transit
system or a freeway tunnel. The final decision is expected in 2016. The land
occupied by many of the state's 460 properties along the corridor will no
longer be needed. Caltrans has made slow progress this summer in preparing to
sell some of those homes — many occupied, and some on the National
Register of Historic Places. Officials say if the state approves the sale
regulations quickly, most of the homes could go on the market as soon as
January 2016, and some sooner. A document prepared by Caltrans earlier in 2015
suggested that dozens of tenants could be priced out. Under a 1979 law,
low-income renters will receive a discounted rate, as could tenants who make
less than 150% of the county's median income: $45,350 for a single person, or
$64,800 for a family of four. Former owners and current tenants receiving a
reduced rate would have the first chance to buy the property. The next turn
would go to affordable housing development companies, then to tenants who would
pay market price, then to former tenants in reverse order of occupancy. The
final option would be a public auction. More than 35 Caltrans-owned homes are
considered uninhabitable, according to agency data, and residents have
complained of break-ins, mold and vermin infestations.
(Source: Los Angeles, 8/31/2015)
In August 2015, the CTC was provided the opportunity to comment on the DEIR regarding the sale of Route 710 properties. The transmittal from Caltrans noted that the DEIR proposed the sale of Department-owned surplus properties that are not impacted by the project alternatives being evaluated in the Route 710 (SR 710) North Study Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement for sale in the cities of Pasadena, South Pasadena, and the El Sereno neighborhood in the city of Los Angeles. These surplus properties are to be offered for sale in a manner that will preserve, upgrade, and expand the supply of housing available to affected persons and families of low or moderate income, in accordance with Senate Bill (SB) 86 (Roberti, 1979), SB 416 (Liu, 2014) and the Affordable Sales Program (ASP) regulations. Senate Bill 416 requires proceeds from the sale of surplus properties to be allocated to the SR 710 Rehabilitation Account for the rehabilitation of surplus single family homes being sold to low- and moderate-income occupants for which lenders of government housing assistance programs require repairs. The SR 710 Rehabilitation Account is continuously refilled with each sale. When the balance of this accounts reaches $500,000, additional proceeds go to the State Highway Account and are to be allocated by the California Transportation Commission exclusively for projects located in Pasadena, South Pasadena, Alhambra, La Canada Flintridge, and the 90032 Zip code area of Los Angeles (El Sereno). There were two options: selling or not selling. The CTC had no comments with respect to the DEIR’s purpose and need, the alternatives studied and the evaluation methods used.
In October 2015, it was reported that opponents to the completion of Route
710 have indicated that they will campaign against a proposed 2016 transit tax
measure if it includes funding for the completion of Route 710. This measure,
R2, is a future sales tax that would pump an extra $120 billion into Metro
coffers for rail and highway projects during the next 42 years. The message was
backed by a letter signed by 225 people and an online petition with 3,406
signees, said Janice SooHoo, a member of the No
710 Action Committee. Geoff Baum, president of the West Pasadena
Residents Association, representing 7,000 households, said his group also
would oppose Measure R2 if a 710 tunnel was listed. While Caltrans has proposed
“closing the 710 gap” for nearly 60 years, mostly as a surface
route, the tunnel route had gained momentum during the past six years until
recently. The EIR said the tunnel alternative would provide the greatest amount
of traffic relief and the fewest impacts of the five alternatives studied. A
tunnel would connect motorists from Alhambra/El Sereno to Pasadena but not have
exits. The tunnel would include a toll of $5.64 for cars and $15.23 for trucks
(if allowed), according to a 2008 tunnel financial feasibility assessment. The
opponents, speaking at the Metro board meeting, said they want to see the
tunnel eliminated from Metro’s long-range transportation plan and kept
off a list of R2 projects. The Beyond The 710 group wants to swap out a tunnel
with various surface street improvements, including a boulevard from the south
stub to Mission Road, more east-west thoroughfare connections, a rapid bus
going north-south between the stubs, a connection between the Gold Line
light-rail in Pasadena to Burbank and more dedicated bikeways. Currently, the
710 tunnel is not included in any of the transportation project lists submitted
by COGs from throughout the county to Metro.
(Source: San Gabriel Valley Tribune, 10/23/2015)
In December 2015, an interesting article in the LA Times asked not the
question "How should the highway be built?", but "What do we do with the
aboveground land now that a surface option is off the table completely?" It
noted that, over the years, Caltrans acquired about 400 residential properties,
most of them single-family houses, that it planned to demolish to make way for
the freeway. It also owns nearly 60 vacant residential lots as well as several
large open pieces of land, many alongside, between or near freeway ramps at
each end of the corridor. Caltrans has said that it plans to sell them in
batches over time, beginning with a group of about 50 early next year, to avoid
flooding the market and depressing their value. It also said current tenants
would have first crack at buying the houses, as long as they could pay what
Caltrans terms "appraised fair market value." The author posits that instead of
letting the property it controls melt back into the private realm, Caltrans
should work with Los Angeles County and the state of California to build a
combination of new parks and affordable and market-rate housing in the 710
corridor. New bike and walking paths could lead to the Arroyo Seco and rail
stations on the Gold Line, helping stitch back together neighborhoods long
separated by a no-man's land set aside for freeway construction. If the tunnel
plan is ultimately shelved, as many have predicted, large pieces of open land
would become available for new uses, including a sunken green space in Pasadena
stretching north from California Boulevard to the edge of the Old Town shopping
district. That land, like acreage near the corridor's southern end, could
accommodate apartment buildings as well as arrays of solar panels or space for
capturing and treating storm water. The overall conclusion is thus: More to the
point, it is not enough to oppose the 710 extension simply by arguing for the
status quo. Rising income inequality and homelessness, an acute shortage of
park space in Los Angeles County and the need for new approaches to energy and
water policy in an era of climate change: The pressing nature of each of these
issues means that alongside impassioned statements about what shouldn't be
built we need to hear wide-ranging ideas about what should be.
(Source: LA Times, 12/4/2015)
In January 2016, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group listed the Route
710 tunnel extension project as one of 12 highway boondoggles that represent a
waste of taxpayer dollars, outdated thinking and misplaced national
transportation priorities. The
report criticizes boring dual tunnels that would extend Route 710 from
where it currently ends at Valley Boulevard under El Sereno, a mostly Latino
neighborhood of Los Angeles, South Pasadena and Pasadena, where the 4.5-mile
tunnel project would reach the surface and connect at the I-210/Route 134
freeway interchange. Caltrans and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (Metro) place the cost of the tunnels at between $3.2
billion and $5.6 billion. At the high end of the estimate, it is the
second-most expensive project in the report, with the highest being an
I–95 Freeway widening in Connecticut estimated to cost $11.2 billion.
Third is the Tampa Bay Express Lanes at $3.3 billion and fourth is the
Puget Sound Gateway highway project in Washington at $2.8 billion to
$3.1 billion. The U.S. Public Interest Research Group’s report
says the 12 projects would outspend revenues from the Federal Highway Trust
Fund, mostly supported by the federal gasoline tax.
(Source: Pasadena Star News, 1/19/2016)
On the other hand, also in January 2016, cities belonging to the 710
Coalition have come out in support of the draft 2016 regional transportation
plan by the Southern California Association of Governments. The draft calls for
connecting the Long Beach (I-710) Freeway to the Foothill (I-210) Freeway in
Pasadena via a tunnel. Coalition member cities are Alhambra, Monterey Park,
Rosemead, San Gabriel and San Marino. They say not closing the gap between the
two freeways will result in more surface traffic on their streets. The draft
plan also accelerates the project completion date five years from 2030 to
(Source: Los Angeles Wave, 1/8/2016)
In March 2016, the question of whether the tunneling elsewhere in Los
Angeles County, as well as the tunneling in the State of Washington for the
Alaskan Way Viaduct might have any impact on the support for the I-710 Tunnel.
For I-710, two freeway tunnel options have been explored in a 26,000-page draft
environmental impact report released in March 2015. Twin-bore tunnels would be
excavated side by side — one northbound, one southbound — and each
tunnel would have two levels, with two lanes of traffic per level, for a total
of four lanes in each tunnel. A single-bore, double-decker tunnel would be one
tunnel with two levels: northbound traffic would use the upper level and
southbound traffic the lower level, amounting to two lanes in each direction
for a total of four lanes. Caltrans and Metro estimate the cost of the tunnels
between $3.2 billion and $5.6 billion. Transit tunnels are smaller than roadway
tunnels and therefore easier to complete. The Metro transit tunnels are 21.5
feet in diameter, compared with the Alaska Way Viaduct in Seattle, which is 57
feet. The larger a tunnel’s diameter, the more difficult it is to build.
The size of Seattle’s tunnel is one reason the tunneling there has
encountered delays. Either tunnel option for closing the 710 gap would require
a tunnel of an excavated diameter of about 60 feet, according to the EIR. Both
the single-bore and dual-bore variations would be about 6.3 miles long,
with 4.2 miles of bored tunnel, 0.7 miles of cut-and-cover tunnel
and 1.4 miles of at-grade portions, according to the EIR. The interior
diameter would be 52.5 feet and the outside diameter would be
58.5 feet. The extra width is required so the machine can maneuver. Twin
tunnels would require cross passages to allow first responders to reach each
tunnel in an emergency, the EIR states. A single-bore tunnel would need
emergency exits and ventilation pipes throughout.
(Source: SGV Tribune, 3/12/2016)
In May 2016, it was reported that a collection of Pasadena residents are
proposing to replace the Route 710 freeway stub (S of the junction with Route
134/I-210) with housing, businesses and a tree-covered boulevard. The
state-owned land between California Boulevard and I-210 represents nearly 2.5
million square feet of potential development next door to the city’s
thriving Old Pasadena district. Caltrans took ownership of the property decades
ago to build a surface freeway from Alhambra to Pasadena. The project stalled
and shifted over the years, but the most recent proposal suggests a more than
4-mile long tunnel from Valley Boulevard in Alhambra to the stub in Pasadena.
The proposed design starts with low density single-family homes on the south
end and increases in density as it gets closer to I-210.
(Source: Pasadena Star News, 5/19/2016)
In July 2016, it was reported that the Metro board of directors voted to
place the a proposed sales tax ballot measure (Measure R-2, later renamed
Measure M) on the November ballot with a provision that makes clear the funds
generated by the new measure will not fund the Route 710 tunnel. Local mayors
were encouraging the board to instruct its staff and Caltrans to add the
"Beyond the 710" proposal to the current Route 710 north study. This proposal
proposes to remove the Route 710 freeway stubs at the I-210/Route 134
interchange and the Valley Blvd stub, replacing them with four-lane great
streets, and using the freed-up land to build new parks and greenspace,
transit, bikeways, residential and commercial development, and affordable
housing, and providing extra room for local institutions such as Cal State Los
Angeles. The south stub transformation would replace the stub with a grand
boulevard that would better disperse local traffic, making it easier to get
where people want to go and relieving congestion that currently burdens
Alhambra and other nearby communities. The price tag is 10 percent of the cost
of a tunnel.
(Source: Pasadena Star News, 7/15/2016)
In August 2016, it was reported that under orders by both the governor and
the state Legislature, and after a years-long push by both cities and tenants,
Caltrans will soon begin selling houses along the path of a former surface
route of the Route 710 completion. The residential properties — most of
them occupied with tenants — are located in El Sereno, a neighborhood
spanning Los Angeles, South Pasadena and Pasadena. After years of challenges,
rewrites and delays, Caltrans on July 26 approved a final, state-required
environmental report on the sale of surplus properties along what
would’ve been the buildout of a surface freeway route from Valley
Boulevard in Alhambra to I-210 in west Pasadena. On the same date, Caltrans
Director Malcolm Dougherty signed off rules allowing the sale of 460 properties
in the same north-south strip under a state program. The first homes being sold
will lie outside “the scope” of those transportation options,
according to Caltrans. Properties closer to the new routes will be sold later,
as will properties considered excess if alternative routes are built or the
project is killed. A recent bill by state Sen. Carol Liu, D-La Canada
Flintridge, required Caltrans to remove itself from its landlord role and sell
the homes as is. But the opening of bids is likely to bring even more questions
about the properties and their residents. Some wonder whether the rent-paying
tenants will be able to afford the asking price for their homes. If not,
advocates worry that they’ll be forced out.
(Source: SGV Tribune, 8/29/2016)
In September 2016, it was reported that SB580, legislation that would
generate funding for affordable housing while preserving historical homes near
the proposed Route 710, had cleared the legislature. Caltrans currently owns
460 homes that are not within the scope of the remaining Route 710
alternatives. Nighty-seven of these homes are declared historic by the state or
federal government. The bill would allow a public affordable housing entity to
purchase, rehabilitate, and resell the homes in order to dedicate the profits
to build affordable housing in the same area. Historical homes would be offered
to a housing entity that can restore it for public use or resale; or to a
non-profit organization dedicated to rehabilitation and maintaining the home
for public and community access and use. Meanwhile, Caltrans will sell 42 of
the properties under orders by both the state Legislature and the governor.
Offers on the homes, including 39 single-family and three milti-family
residences, can reportedly be made at the end of September. The properties are
located in South Pasadena, Pasadena, El Sereno. The homes are no longer needed
since the Route 710 surface route is no longer a consideration.
(Source: South Pasadena Review, 9/1/2016)
When the sales are permitted, it will be significant in the lives of the
current renters. Those staying put to eventually purchase their rentals are
bending over backward to play within a complex set of rules that will allow
them to remain qualified to buy their homes at what Caltrans describes as an
“affordable price.” That means freezing incomes or somehow
maintaining the same number of tenants in their homes. Some have rejected
marriage proposals. Others have gotten divorced, while still more wrestle with
early retirement in order to keep household incomes low enough to qualify for
reduced rents. Anything to stay in their homes and keep alive a shot at buying
them at a low price. Caltrans has said 398 surplus single-family and
multi-family homes would be sold from 2016 to 2020 in bunches, but the agency
has not released the addresses with the year of sale. Two laws govern a
tenant’s ability to stay in their home. One was written after a 2012
audit found that Caltrans overspent on home improvements and undercharged for
rent on more than 500 properties along the Route 710 path. The agency raised
rents as a result. That led to rents increasing about 10 percent every six
months, which works out to about 21 percent each year. Only residents with an
income of 120 percent or lower than the median county income can qualify for
the affordable rental program. Under the Roberti bill’s affordable
purchase program, incomes must be 150 percent or lower. Those in that 30
percent gap continue to pay higher rents. If they leave, they risk losing the
chance at buying their homes.
(Source: Pasadena Star News, 9/27/2016)
In October 2016, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding the sale of Department-owned surplus properties that are not impacted by the project alternatives being evaluated in the Route 710 North Study Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement in the cities of Pasadena, South Pasadena, and El Sereno. These surplus properties are to be offered for sale in a manner that will preserve, upgrade, and expand the supply of housing available to affected persons and families of low or moderate income, in accordance with Senate Bill 416 (Liu, 2014) and the Affordable Sales Program regulations. Senate Bill 416 requires proceeds from the sale of surplus properties to be allocated to the Route 710 Rehabilitation Account for the rehabilitation of surplus single family homes being sold to low- and moderate-income occupants for which lenders of government housing assistance programs require repairs. The Route 710 Rehabilitation Account is continuously refilled with each sale. When the balance of this account reaches $500,000, additional proceeds go to the State Highway Account for allocation by the California Transportation Commission to be used exclusively for projects located in Pasadena, South Pasadena, Alhambra, La Canada Flintridge, and the 90032 Zip Code area of Los Angeles (El Sereno).
In December 2016, it was reported that Caltrans has started to sell off 42
homes it bought decades ago in anticipation of the planned Route 710 extension
through Pasadena, South Pasadena and Alhambra. The properties were purchased to
be demolished, as part of the plan to clear the area and extend Route 710
Freeway from Valley Boulevard in Alhambra to I-210 in Pasadena. Decades of
delays and legal challenges derailed the freeway extension, and Caltrans is now
exploring other options, including a tunnel, a light rail system or a busway.
The properties going up for sale are among 460 the department owns along the
proposed Route 710 Corridor but are outside the scope of any current plans
under consideration. Notices of conditional offers were mailed Friday to the
current occupants of the 42 residential properties that will be sold as part of
the Affordable Sales Program. Eligible occupants will have the opportunity to
purchase the homes at discounted prices. The department will also provide
affordable rental options for eligible occupants and establish a trust fund for
future affordable housing programs.
(Source: CBSLA.com (KCBS), 12/19/2016)
In February 2017, it was reported that Assemblyman Chris Holden introduced
legislation that would prohibit building a tunnel to close the 6.2-mile gap of
the Route 710 Freeway between the I-10 and I-210 freeways, the assemblyman
announced Thursday. This is the first time a piece of legislation would aim to
kill the controversial project proposed by Caltrans. The freeway tunnel project
would run through El Sereno, South Pasadena and Pasadena and has divided
communities in the San Gabriel Valley. Assembly Bill 287 would put the 710
Freeway project in the hands of an advisory committee that would recommend an
alternative, such as light-rail routes, dedicated busways, roadways and bike
lanes. The committee would be made up of three people from Caltrans, two from
the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), two
representatives each from Alhambra, Los Angeles, Pasadena and South Pasadena
appointed by those cities; two members of the Assembly as appointed by the
Speaker of the Assembly and two members of the Senate as appointed by the
Senate Rules Committee. Pasadena Mayor Terry Tornek said Holden switching to
the anti-freeway tunnel side may be the death knell for the project. He
advocated that about $700 million set aside for the tunnel in Measure R, a
county transit tax, be released for immediate roadway and possibly bus and rail
projects, instead of the tunnel “to create real jobs that can happen
before (union members) retire.”
(Source: San Gabriel Tribune, 2/9/2017)
In May 2017, it was reported that -- in short -- "It's dead,
Jim". In a unanimous vote at the end of May 2017, the LA
Metropolitan Transportation Agency (Metro) board approved a
motion submitted last week by chairman John Fasana calling on the agency to
pursue an alternative to the tunnel that focuses instead on smaller
infrastructure improvements in the area. Fasana previously supported building
the tunnel, but said Thursday it was simply too costly for Metro to finance. In
the works for well over a decade, the project, Fasana suggested, needed a
resolution. “I think we’ve reached a point where a decision needs
to be made,” he said. With the board’s vote, Metro will now pursue
the so-called “Transportation System Management/Transportation Demand
Management” alternative—one of five options proposed by Metro in a
2013 study that analyzed possibilities for closing the Route 710 freeway gap.
Metro will now pursue bringing smaller changes to the communities the tunnel
would have linked. Those include more frequent bus service, widening certain
streets, and better traffic signal synchronization. The infrastructure
improvements will be paid for with $780 million in funding set aside for the
Route 710 project through Measure R. Fasana’s original motion called for
the bulk of those funds to go toward “mobility improvement
projects” in the San Gabriel Valley, but was later amended to include
communities like El Sereno and unincorporated East LA that have been affected
by the project.
(Source: LA Curbed, 5/25/2017)
In June 2017: Well, remember "It's dead, Jim"?
Perhaps that was premature. Despite a historic vote by LA Metro to reject a car
tunnel to close the 4.5-mile gap between El Sereno and Pasadena, recent moves
from cities and local legislators indicate the two rival camps are still
jockeying to see the project built, or kill it for good. Rosemead, part of the
710 Coalition, the collection of east San Gabriel Valley cities pushing for the
construction of a $3 billion to $5 billion tunnel, voted on May 30 to hire a
law firm to look into the legality of Metro’s vote. Meanwhile, State Sen.
Anthony Portantino, D-La Cañada Flintridge, an opponent of the tunnel plan,
will meet with state transportation leaders early next week. “I am
looking forward to connecting with the secretary and the greater community to
meet the local transportation needs of the 710 communities, now that the tunnel
(Source: San Gabriel Tribune, 6/18/2017)
In July 2017, it was reported that the death of the 710 is creating new
coalitions. With the possibility of a freeway extension — either surface,
tunnel or otherwise — shot down by a 12-0 vote of the Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation Authority in May, cities on both sides came to a
meeting led by Supervisors Hilda Solis, Kathryn Barger and former LA Metro
board chairman and Duarte City Councilman John Fasana to talk about nonfreeway,
surface route improvements. Never before had Alhambra representatives agreed
the freeway option is dead, and instead, wanted to join hands with Pasadena,
South Pasadena and Metro to advance innovative projects that may help unclog
local traffic backups and restore green space. South Pasadena City Councilwoman
Marina Khubesrian said the cities against a freeway tunnel, part of the
Connected Cities and Communities Coalition, is extending an invitation to
Alhambra, as well as other former tunnel proponent cities, including San
Gabriel and San Marino, to join their group. Some of the projects discussed at
the meeting included:
(Source: San Gabriel Valley Tribune, 7/12/2017)
In August 2017, it was reported that the City of Monterey Park has
instructed their City Attorney to explore potentially joining the lawsuit filed
by the City of Rosemead to prevent Metro from diverting any funds away from the
Route 710 Tunnel. On August 2, 2017, during a special meeting of the Monterey
Park City Council, the instructions were given to the City Attorney to review
the writ of mandate filed by the City of Rosemead with the Los Angeles Superior
Court seeking to declare null and void the May 20, 2017 decision by the Los
Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority to divert funds away from
the completion of Route 710. The instructions included conferring with Rosemead
legal counsel and reporting back to the City Council by August 16, 2017.
(Source: Monterey Park News Release, 8/7/2017)
In November 2017, it was reported that with the Route 710 Freeway extension
all but dead, South Pasadena has finalized a wish list of road and transit
improvements that includes a new Route 110 Freeway onramp, widening Fair Oaks
Avenue by removing curb extensions and building two bridges spanning
intersections where the Metro Gold Line light-rail train holds up city traffic.
Los Angeles Metro requested the local road improvements from cities in the
Route 710 corridor after its board voted down a freeway extension in May. The
board opted instead for a host of smaller fixes to break the gridlock that
exists within the 4.5-mile north-south stretch from the Route 710 freeway
southern section terminus at Valley Boulevard in El Sereno through Alhambra,
South Pasadena and Pasadena. If there was one theme in South Pasadena’s
submission, it wasto get commuters off Fremont Avenue and onto Huntington Drive
and Fair Oaks Avenue, two wider thoroughfares that can handle more commuter and
truck traffic exiting Route 710 at Valley Boulevard. The city’s first
priority is to ask Caltrans for a “hook ramp” allowing vehicles to
enter southbound Route 110 toward Los Angeles from eastbound State Street at a
cost of $38 million. The new entrance would remove the current left turn lanes
from Fair Oaks and unclog the morning and evening jam-up that has created a
service level “F” intersection. The project would also widen the
northbound Route 110 exit ramp to two left-turn lanes, one through lane and one
right-turn lane, eliminating the queue of cars that extends onto freeway lanes
in the evening rush hours. Also a priority are road upgrades to Fremont Avenue,
both in South Pasadena and Alhambra, and removing curb extensions along Fair
Oaks that will allow for more capacity at a cost of $15 million to $20 million.
The city would take steps to discourage drivers from using Fremont and using
signs and turn lanes to nudge cars to Huntington Drive and Fair Oaks Avenue.
The city is asking Metro to study building two roadway overpasses at the Gold
Line tracks, over Monterey Road and Pasadena Avenue. These may cost $80 million
to $100 million and the city may run into competition with Pasadena, which may
ask for one at California Avenue, said Paul Boland, transit planner with
consulting group Nelson/Nygaard.
(Source: Pasadena Star News, 11/27/2017)
In January 2018, as a result of the termination of the Route 710 completion
project, the City of Pasadena was making recommendations regarding the Route
710 Stub near the interchange of Route 210 / Route 134 / Route 710.
Specifically, the City of Pasadena has made plans to permanently shut down the
popular offramp from the SB Route 710 at California Avenue. At City Council
Monday night, Pasadena’s Department of Transportation will ask that Mayor
Tornek send a letter to Los Angeles Metro on behalf of the City requesting
money from a pot of nearly $600 million remaining in Measure R sales tax funds
earmarked for Early Action Projects in lieu of the Route 710 North Extension
Tunnel Alternative. Removing access to the southbound Route 710 stub freeway
off-ramps at California Boulevard is on that list (although the article
mistakenly refers to it as I-210 at that point). The idea is that since the
Route 710 Tunnel was killed and surface street traffic between the I-210 and
the northward-most access to the Route 710 terminus (sic) at Valley Boulevard
in El Sereno is the final reality, that Measure R funds should be used to make
that 4.5-mile north-south transit as swift and efficient as possible. On the
action list by the City of South Pasadena in their Council-approved set of
projects sent to Metro in December area measures to limit traffic on Fremont
Avenue north of Huntington Drive and to direct traffic onto Huntington and Fair
Oaks Avenue. “One of the effects of limiting traffic on Fremont is to
cause traffic that uses the California Blvd ramps and the Pasadena/St. John
couplet to be redirected at the intersection of Columbia and Pasadena to a much
greater extent than it is today, which is already problematic,” a city
designer said in an email. Rather than simply perpetuate that pattern, the
consultant hired by the City recommended reconfiguring the stub ramps to direct
southbound traffic to Del Mar Boulevard and Fair Oaks Avenue relying upon the
available capacity of the ramp terminal and the section of Del Mar east to Fair
Oaks. Northbound traffic would still use Pasadena Ave north of California to
access the stub. The project list includes the following projects:
(Source: Pasadena News Now, 1/28/2018)
In March 2018, it was reported that, despite assurances that the project is
dead, South Pasadena has hired an outside attorney to help the city redouble
its efforts to fight a tunnel extension of Route 710 from Alhambra to Pasadena.
Douglas Carstens, an expert in California environmental law and part of the Los
Angeles-based Chatten-Brown & Carstens law firm, was hired by South
Pasadena to help with the city’s latest effort to respond to Caltrans
about how a 6.3-mile, north-south tunnel connecting the 10 Freeway with the
134/210 freeways in west Pasadena would adversely affect historical buildings.
The response noted that four historic buildings would be affected: (1) The
Markham Place Historic District, roughly bounded by California Street, Pasadena
Avenue, Bellefontaine Street and Orange Grove Boulevard; (2) Caroline Walkley
House, 696 S. Pasadena Ave.; (3) Driscoll House, 679 S. Pasadena Ave.; and (4)
Sequoyah School, 535 S. Pasadena Ave. Caltrans has not yet signed off on the
environmental analysis of the Route 710 completion. Until it does, the project
is not officially decided since Caltrans is the lead agency. The project was
dealt a major blow May 25 when the board of the funding agency, the Los Angeles
County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, voted unanimously not to build
the tunnel, saying the price tag, between $3 billion and $5 billion, was
prohibitive. Instead, the board voted for a preferred local alternative that
would improve affected roadways across city lines by adding capacity, new bus
lines, bike lanes and synchronized signals in the high-traffic areas of Fremont
and Garfield avenues and on Fair Oaks Avenue, as well as Pasadena Avenue and
St. John Avenue in Pasadena. Caltrans is preparing to augment a portion of the
environmental reports relating to historical resources and will begin
recirculating that portion in April. The public and various agencies will have
45 days to comment. This will push back the finalization of a project under
debate for nearly 60 years from spring to summer.
(Source: Pasadena Star News, 3/6/2018)
The 2018 STIP, approved at the CTC March 2018 meeting, appears to not continue the allocation for PPNO 0219M, South Pasadena, Rt 10-Rt 210, freeway. There is a bit of a leftover ~ $9,000K in Construction, but that could be closeout from 2016. It does not show in the 2018 proposed allocation at all. Perhaps it really is dead, Jim.
In June 2018, it was reported that six 710 route tenants were given the
green light by the California Transportation Commission in late May to buy the
homes they’ve rented from Caltrans — a first for multiple residents
since the ill-fated project’s 59-year-old saga began. These tenants are
scattered throughout the 6.3-mile route of the defunct freeway extension, once
proposed from the terminus at Valley Boulevard near Alhambra through El Sereno,
South Pasadena and Pasadena to the 210/134 freeways interchange. They are the
first tenants to buy homes among the 42 listed available almost two years ago
by Caltrans in a phased-in land sale that continues through 2020 and involves
about 460 properties, confirmed Lauren Wonder, Caltrans spokesperson. All six
homes are inhabited by long-time tenants, and all have qualified for the
affordable pricing program under special state laws enacted just for these
properties. Under what’s known as the “Roberti Law,” Caltrans
must offer the homes to tenants at a reduced sales price. The resident must not
own other property and have an income not more than 150 percent of the median
income in Los Angeles County. These and seven others who may qualify will be
getting some of the cheapest deals in Southern California existing real estate.
Homes worth $700,000 to $1 million are being sold to the tenants for $150,00 to
$300,000. This is unprecedented in today’s high-priced housing market, a
bargain that both raises eyebrows and gets applauded. Caltrans says it is
following the law. Low and moderate income tenants are supposed to be able to
buy the home they’re in, in order to preserve neighborhoods and reward
their patience. The program works like an affordable housing plan, keeping
residents in their homes instead of driving them out because they can’t
afford the price of Pasadena-area real estate, state officials say. The
long-awaited home sales are an indication that the extension — first
conceived by Caltrans in 1959 but opposed by many cities, environmental groups
and others for decades — is finally dead, say opponents. Complicated
rules do not allow the new homeowners to sell their homes until after the fifth
year and equity, the difference between what they paid and the affixed market
value, would go to the California Housing Finance Authority (CalHFA), which
reserves the money to help Pasadena, South Pasadena, Los Angeles, La Canada
Flintridge and Alhambra build affordable homes.
(Source: Press-Enterprise, 6/8/2018)
A later article clarified the ugly equity situation for those that do
purchase those houses. People who decide to buy under a plan engineered by the
state Legislature will not receive the equity on those homes if they sell them.
Furthermore, those homes will not stay in a family upon death of the owner,
according to local Attorney Chris Sutton. “No matter what price they pay,
the tenants don’t get the equity,” Sutton said. However, buyers do
get the original purchase funds back if they sell. If a buyer sells the house
one year after the purchase, the buyer would only receive the amount they paid
to purchase the home. In the second year, the owner would receive the purchase
amount and 20 percent of the property’s appreciation. After five years,
the owner would receive 100 percent of the appreciation of the home on top of
purchase price if they sell the house at market value. The rest of the money
would go to the California Housing Finance Agency (CHFA). So, on a house with a
fair market value of $600,000 selling for $200,000, the buyer would get a loan
for the $200,000, but a $400,000 lien would go to CHFA, who would get the
equity if the property were sold. Any money produced as part of the sales would
be spent by CHFA in Pasadena, South Pasadena, part of Los Angeles, Alhambra and
La Cañada Flintridge for affordable housing projects. According to Sutton, this
situation was created by a once supportive bill authored by former state Sen.
Carol Liu, D-La Cañada Flintridge, which changed the way the houses were sold.
Under the original bill authored by Liu, which the tenants endorsed, at the end
of the 30 years the owner would get the full equity in the house. In addition,
heirs could step in upon an owner’s death and continue to own the home.
But according to Sutton, Liu’s bill was changed during the legislative
process and heirs must now reapply to qualify for the affordable purchasing
program. If they don’t qualify, the home would be sold.
(Source: Pasadena Weekly, 6/28/2018)
Between June and October, two residents of one of the houses in the path of
Route 710 (Tim Ivison and Julia Tcharfus) created a site-specific art exhibit,
Before Present. This exhibit (which
used some source materials in the collection of cahighways.org) later
moved to the offices of a South Pasadena paper, and was written up on
LAist. The exhibit captured the story of a project that never came to
fruition. But all the work, both for and against the 710 extension has made a
lasting impression without having to be built. The extension may be the most
infamous local transit project that never actually was. 710, Beyond Present
captures the phantom imprint of the route and how it shaped the communities it
would have changed — or even destroyed. Tim and Julia also provided the
map scans of the Westerly Corridor and the Meridian Alignment above.
(Source: LAist, 7/17/2018)
In July 2018, it was reported that legislation that would have given
Alhambra and Pasadena control over the stubs of Route 710 died because of a
lack of support in a state committee. Currently, Route 710 ends at Valley
Boulevard in Alhambra, and it had been planned to extend to I-210 Freeway via a
stub Caltrans owns that currently ends at California Boulevard. Assembly Bill
533, authored by Assemblyman Chris Holden, D-Pasadena, would have removed that
long-planned portion of Route 710 from the state highway code and would have
given the land on which those stubs exist back to Alhambra, Pasadena and Los
Angeles in the El Sereno neighborhood. However, when Holden presented the bill
to the state Senate Transportation and Housing Committee in June 2018, the
committee took no action, effectively killing the bill for the current
legislative session. In making his recommendation that the committee take no
action, state Sen. Jim Beall, D-Campbell, mentioned that in making his decision
to recommend no action on AB 533, he considered that state Sen. Anthony
Portantino, D-La Cañada Flintridge, had opposed the bill. Portantino, who has
long opposed the completion of Route 710, couldn’t support the bill
because its amendments were made after the committee’s deadline, he said,
adding decisions about such a major issue should not be made so hastily. Holden
said he intends to seek other legislative options and will bring the bill
forward again in the 2019 legislative session.
(Source: Pasadena Star News, 6/24/2018)
In September 2018, it was reported that Caltrans had just sold the first of
hundreds of homes, purchased decades ago. The homes are being sold in a tiered
system that prioritizes current longtime tenants who qualify for affordable
housing. It was not an easy process. Of the first 42 homes on the sales block,
Caltrans says four more are near closing and another five in litigation.
Meanwhile, vacant lots that sold at auction are already seeing new
construction, but they went for considerably more, up to $650,000.
(Source: NBC LA, 9/8/2018)
In November 2018, it was reported that for the first time since LA Metro
killed the gap closure of Route 710, the agency approved 34 alternative
projects, saying improvements to roads and major thoroughfares affected by
traffic from the freeway’s northern terminus represents a new,
cities-driven approach that flies in the face of Caltrans’
more-than-60-year desire to complete the 4.1-mile gap between El Sereno, South
Pasadena and Pasadena. The Metro Ad Hoc Congestion, Highway and Roads Committee
unanimously approved the first set of projects worth a total of $514.4 million.
The list must be approved by the LA Metro Board of Directors at their meeting
in December. In west Pasadena, where the street-level Gold Line train blocks
traffic along east-west California Boulevard just east of Raymond Avenue, a
grade separation is recommended to remove the backup of cars waiting for the
trains to travel in and out of the Del Mar Station. The cost is $105 million,
the most expensive project on the list and the only one in Pasadena. The report
says building either an overpass or an underpass will help improve the flow of
pedestrians and cyclists between the eastern and western portions of the city.
In Alhambra, $100 million was approved to study the concept of reclaiming 51
acres of concrete freeway and turning it into a regional park shared by
Alhambra, Monterey Park and the city of Los Angeles. Alhambra would work with
Metro, Caltrans and the neighboring cities on the southern stud proposal. Other
(Source: Pasadena Star News, 11/14/2018)
It was also reported in November 2018 that the sale of hundreds of surplus
homes in the path of the extension have not moved ahead as quickly, with
revenues barely trickling into Caltrans coffers for use in road and freeway
improvements. In the eventual sale of about 460 properties listed as surplus in
El Sereno, South Pasadena and Pasadena, only 10 have been sold by Caltrans so
far, said Abdollah Ansari, managing executive officer of the highway program
for the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro),
during an agency ad-hoc meeting on the 710 “gap” plans. To
complicate things further, seven tenants who have waited nearly all their lives
to purchase their homes under a special state-enacted “affordable
housing” law specifically written for their benefit, have sued Caltrans.
They say the state agency violated the law by charging an
“inflation-adjusted price” that they say is illegal, egregious and
may raise the purchase price between 500 percent and 600 percent. Several
tenants asked for relief in protest letters sent in spring and summer but
Caltrans held its ground, saying accounting for inflation was proper government
procedure. As a result, the tenants and the United Caltrans Tenants, another
tenants’ group, filed an updated lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court.
They ask Caltrans to sell the homes without any inflation adjustment, saying
the added charge is a violation of a law that protects affordable housing sales
of the 710 extension homes known as “The Roberti Bill.” The lawsuit
argues Caltrans is reducing the equity in the home at the time of a future
re-sale, a form of theft. Equity mostly would flow to an agency charged with
building affordable housing, called the California Housing Finance Agency. The
lawyers are also arguing that Caltrans cannot use opinions of its staff to
override the Roberti Bill nor the state attorney general, who in 2009 was Jerry
(Source: Pasadena Star News, 11/16/2018)
The portion of this route between Route 1 and the northern end of Harbor Scenic Drive, from Harbor Scenic Drive to Ocean Boulevard, from Ocean Boulevard west of its intersection with Harbor Scenic Drive to its junction with Seaside Boulevard, and from Seaside Boulevard from the junction with Ocean Boulevard to Route 47 is not officially named.
The bicycle pedestrian path on the replacement Gerald Desmond Bridge (~ LA 4.513) on Route 710, in the County of Los Angeles, is named the "Mark Bixby Memorial Bicycle Pedestrian Path". It was named in memory of Mark Llewellyn Bixby, who was a member of one of the founding families of the City of Long Beach. Bixby was also a past president of the Long Beach Rotary Club, which was instrumental in raising money to build Rotary Centennial Park, located on Pacific Coast Highway (Route 1) and Junipero Avenue in the City of Long Beach. Bixby was also the director of the BikeFest Tour of Long Beach and was a vocal proponent of adding bicycle lanes to the replacement Gerald Desmond Bridge. Tragically, Mark Bixby lost his life in a plane crash in 2011 at 44 years of age. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 100, Resolution Chapter 109, on September 4, 2012.
The portion of I-710 that runs between Pico Avenue and the Pacific Coast Highway (Route 1) in the City of Long Beach (~ LA 5.213 to LA 6.842) is named the "Senator Jenny Oropeza Memorial Freeway". It was named in memory of Jenny Oropeza, who passed away on October 20, 2010. Oropeza was a lifelong public servant who was active in her community and was elected first to the Long Beach Unified School District Board of Education, then to the Long Beach City Council and the Assembly of the State of California, and finally to the Senate of the State of California. During her time as a Member of the Legislature, Jenny Oropeza was a champion for public transportation, health care, education, clean air, equality, and the prevention of cancer. Senator Oropeza was so admired by her constituents and community that she was posthumously awarded the Political Leadership Award in 2011 by the Democratic Women’s Study Club in Long Beach, which has renamed that award the Jenny Oropeza Political Leadership Award. The Long Beach Community Hispanic Association (Centro CHA) posthumously awarded Senator Oropeza the Create Change Community Service Excellence Award in 2011, which will in future years be called the Create Change: Jenny Oropeza Community Service Excellence Award. In recognition of Senator Oropeza, the Long Beach Lambda Democratic Club created the Jenny Oropeza Ally of the Year Award, which was first awarded in 2011. As a tribute to Senator Oropeza’s dedication to fostering protections for key state public health programs, the Los Angeles County Affiliate of Susan G. Komen for the Cure, in joint collaboration with the six other California-based Komen affiliates, known as “the California Collaborative,” established the Senator Jenny Oropeza Public Policy Internship position. The City of Long Beach named the community center in Cesar E. Chavez Park the Jenny Oropeza Community Center and the Los Angeles Unified School District dedicated the Jenny Oropeza Global Studies Academy at the Rancho Dominguez Preparatory School. Shortly after taking office in 2000, then Assembly Member Oropeza became aware that the Alameda Corridor would open in 2002 and that all the planned bridges, designed to prevent cars from having to wait for trains to pass at street level, would be completed, except for the bridge on the Pacific Coast Highway (Route 1) in the community of Wilmington, which was the busiest route along the Alameda Corridor. The bridge to be built at that location would bisect the Equilon Refinery and was therefore the most complicated and expensive bridge to build, and there was not enough funding to complete the bridge. Senator Oropeza brought together the interested parties, including the Department of Transportation, the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA), the Equilon Refinery, the Union Pacific Railroad, and the City of Los Angeles to solve this problem of completing the bridge and was able to help facilitate $107 million in funding from a combination of sources that included state transportation funds, state Proposition 116 bond funds, federal demonstration funds, LACMTA funds, and railroad funds. (Note that the indicated bridge on Route 1 is also named after her) Named by Senate Concurrent Resolution 115, Resolution Chapter 130, on August 28, 2014.
The portion of this route from the Pacific Coast Highway to Wardlow Road in the City of Long Beach (~ LA 6.924 to LA 9.053) is named the "Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriff Maria Cecilia Rosa Memorial Highway". It was named in memory of Deputy Maria Cecilia Rosa of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, who was killed in the line of duty on March 28, 2006 at the age of 30, in the City of Long Beach. Deputy Rosa was a resident of the City of Long Beach and was deeply committed to education. She was due to graduate from the California State University, Long Beach, with her Bachelors Degree. Deputy Rosa is remembered as a young woman who strived for perfection in life. She had a captivating smile that would brighten even the darkest of days. She was an extremely caring individual who was always willing to go the extra mile to cheer up a friend. In addition, she was a woman who committed her life to her family, friends, and her career to Los Angeles County and the safety of its residents. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution (ACR) 34, Resolution Chapter 48, on 6/9/2009.
The portion of this route from Route 1 to Route 5 (~ LA 6.924 to LA 22.938) is named the "Long Beach Freeway". It was named by the State Highway Commission on November 18, 1954. Long Beach refers to the route's terminus in Long Beach. Long Beach was first applied to the development (because of its beaches) in the boom year, 1887. The route was originally to be called the "Los Angeles River Freeway".
The portion of I-710 from Route 91 to Alondra Boulevard (~ LA 12.97 to LA 13.94) in the County of Los Angeles is named the "Kevin Burrell and James MacDonald Memorial Highway". Kevin Michael Burrell and James Wayne MacDonald were police officers employed by the City of Compton, who dedicated their lives to keeping its citizens safe. Kevin Michael Burrell realized that being a police officer meant more than just making arrests; he possessed a level of unparalleled compassion and understanding, taking advantage of every opportunity to help those less fortunate, and was lovingly known as the “Gentle Giant”. James Wayne MacDonald was admired by his peers, had an amazing personality, and, although he was only required to work two shifts per month, chose to work two shifts per week. James Wayne MacDonald loved being a police officer and Kevin Michael Burrell was his favorite partner with which to ride. On February 22, 1993, Kevin Michael Burrell and James Wayne MacDonald, ages 29 and 24, respectively, while working as patrol car partners in the City of Compton, were fatally shot by a violent gang member during a traffic stop at the intersection of Rosecrans Avenue and Dwight Avenue. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution (ACR) 178, Res. Chapter 161, Statutes of 2016, on September 1, 2016.
The portion of I-710 between Route 60 and East Cesar E. Chavez Avenue in the County of Los Angeles (~ LA 24.713 to LA 24.954) is named the Ruben Salazar Memorial Highway. This segment was named in memory of Ruben Salazar, who was born in Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, across the Rio Grande from El Paso on March 3, 1928. Eleven months later his parents, Luz Chavez and Salvador Salazar, a watch repairman, moved across the river to El Paso, Texas, where Ruben was raised. After high school he entered the United States Army, where he served a two-year tour of duty just before the Korean conflict. Out of the service and now an American citizen, Salazar entered the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) and received his bachelor of arts in journalism in 1954. During his last two years as a student at UTEP he worked as a reporter for the El Paso Herald Post, where he demonstrated both great interest and skill in investigative reporting, While working as a reporter at the El Paso Herald Post, he became deeply aware of police mistreatment of Mexicans and wrote extensively on the brutality against Mexican-Americans in Texas prisons. After graduation, Salazar took a job with the Press Democrat in Santa Rosa, California. Three years later, he left the staff of the Press Democrat for a reportorial position with the San Francisco News. Having served his seven years of apprenticeship, in 1959 he moved south as a reporter on the city staff of the Los Angeles Times. During his six years at the Los Angeles Times in the city room, he persuaded his superiors to allow him to write a column, sometimes troublesome for the Times, in which he gave voice to the problems and concerns of eastside Chicanos. He continued to give evidence of his ability as a reporter, writing a series of articles on the Los Angeles Latino community in 1963, for which he received an award from the California State Fair, the Los Angeles Press Club, and the Equal Opportunity Foundation. In addition to his awards, the series also earned him a well-deserved reputation for conscientious and objective reporting. In 1965, Salazar was sent to cover the civil war in the Dominican Republic, where he described the views of the rebels and the reaction to the U.S. involvement. Later that year, Salazar was sent by the Times to Vietnam as a foreign correspondent to cover the rapidly escalating American involvement there, of special interest to the Latino community because of the proportionately large number of Mexican-Americans in the U.S. forces and among the casualties. He was one of two Times correspondents in Vietnam during the period of increased U.S. involvement. In late 1966, Ruben Salazar left Vietnam and was called back by the Times and placed as the bureau chief in Mexico City, thus becoming the first Mexican-American to hold such a position at a major newspaper. He covered stories throughout Latin America including the first conference of the Latin American Solidarity Organization in Cuba in 1967. In 1968, he covered a student demonstration in Mexico City when Mexican soldiers opened fire. In late 1968, Salazar returned to Los Angeles with a special assignment to cover the Mexican-American community, in which the Chicano movement was beginning to move into high gear. Aware of the increasing importance and rising militancy of Mexican-Americans, in the following year the Times took steps, involving Salazar, to focus more sharply on the Chicano community. In early 1970, he began writing a weekly column featured on the Friday Opinion page explaining and interpreting Chicano life and culture to the greater Los Angeles community. In January of 1970, Salazar decided to accept a position as news director of station KMEX-TV and planned to leave the Times. The response of the Times was to suggest that in his new position Salazar continue writing his weekly column. He decided he could handle both jobs and subsequently used both forums to articulate the many grievances that Mexican-Americans had nursed for so long. A political moderate, he nevertheless spoke out fearlessly, condemning racism, prejudice, and segregation. Abuses by the police became the special target of his hard-hitting weekly essays, and he repeatedly pointed out in his column the much higher than average Mexican-American casualty rate in the Vietnam War. As a result of his articles, he was under investigation by the Los Angeles Police Department and the FBI, and pressure was put on him to tone down his language. When the National Chicano Moratorium, a committee of Chicanos who opposed the Vietnam War, called a march for August 29, 1970, in Los Angeles, Ruben Salazar naturally was present at the event in his dual capacity. Approximately 20,000 members from all over the United States had gathered to decry the Vietnam War since Chicanos had the highest number of casualties in proportion to their population. With his crew from KMEX he covered the march from Belvedere Park to Laguna Park. As trouble began at a nearby liquor store, it quickly led to a confrontation between the police and marchers, which led to rioting and looting covering 28 blocks. The violence led to 200 arrests, 60 injured, and three deaths. As the day grew late into the afternoon, the riot moved east on Whittier Boulevard toward the Silver Dollar Cafe. Attempting to avoid the riot-ridden streets, Ruben Salazar and his news crew stopped to have a drink in the Silver Dollar Cafe. Shortly after they entered the Silver Dollar Cafe, a deputy fired a high-velocity 10-inch tear gas projectile meant for piercing walls, into the cafe and hit Salazar in the head. Ruben Salazar was killed instantly, suffering a projectile wound of the temple area causing massive injury to the brain. The subsequent 16-day coroner's inquest ruled Salazar's death a homicide, but there was never any legal action. Salazar's tragic death was a consequence of the contentious and often racially heated period of time. His informed, articulate, and level-headed voice for social change inspired many in the Latino community, and his legacy has encouraged Latinos to enter the field of journalism. In 1971, he was posthumously awarded a special Robert F. Kennedy Journalism Award for his columns, which communicated the culture and alienation of Chicanos effectively and compassionately. He received the highest Raza accolade, a corrido describing his contributions to La Raza . Ruben Salazar's life and death has been recognized and honored with awards, scholarships, public schools, and community centers in his name. Most notably, after the controversy of his death had subsided, Laguna Park was renamed Salazar Park in his honor. In July of 1976, Salazar was honored by the California State University of Los Angeles in the renaming of South Hall to Ruben Salazar Memorial Hall. On the 10th anniversary of his death, his widow, Sally Salazar, was the guest of honor at the dedication of the Ruben Salazar Library in Santa Rosa, California. Named by Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR) 37, Resolution Chapter 78, on 7/12/2005.
Before 1954, the route was named the "Los Angeles River Freeway". The first segment opened in 1952. The Los Angeles River was named Rio de Porciuncula by the Portolá expedition, August 2, 1769, for it was the day of Nuestra Señora de los Angeles de Porciúncula (Our Lady of the Angels of Portiuncula). Portiuncula was the chapel in Assisi, Italy, cradle of the Franciscan Order. The full name of the river was recorded by Palou, December 10, 1773. The pueblo was founded in 1781 with the name Reina de los Angeles, but almost invariable appeared on maps and often in documents as Pueblo de los Angeles. Various forms of the name were used ("City of the Angels" in 1847) until the county and city became officially Los Angeles in 1850.
On Route 710, although not originally on Route 710 (~ LA 4.513), is the Gerald Desmond Bridge". Gerald Desmond was a prominent Long Beach civic leader who served on the Long Beach City Council and as Long Beach City Attorney.
Bridge 53-958 (if it were on I-710), the I-710/Route 91 interchange, is named the "Edmond J. Russ Interchange". It was built in 1985, and was named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 135, Chapter 162. [Note: According to the CalTrans logs, this bridge is actually on Route 110 at 110 LA 009.85; thus the named interchange is at the Route 110/Route 91 junction.] Ed Russ is a former mayor of Gardena; during his term (which ended in 1982) he was able to push for the extension of the then Redondo Beach Freeway to the Route 110. This extension relieved the traffic that plagued Atresia Blvd from the end of the freeway at Broadway to Route 110. When the extension was completed in 1985, it was given the legislative name in his honor, but it was up to the private sector to produce the funds to make and install the signs for the interchange. It wasn't until 1998-99 that a group of Gardena businesspeople and citizens, led by the Gardena Valley News, began a campaign to raise the money needed. The signs were installed in the latter half of 1999.
Overcrossing number 53-0822 (LA 013.95), which spans I-710 at Alondra Boulevard approximately at LA 13.945 in the County of Los Angeles is named the "Dess K. Phipps Memorial Overcrossing". Dess K. Phipps was a police officer employed by the City of Compton who dedicated his life to keeping the citizens of the City of Compton safe. Dess K. Phipps was born in June 1925, in the City of Stidham in the County of McIntosh, Oklahoma, and grew up on a working farm in the City of Yuma, Arizona. He was a member of the United States Navy from June 16, 1943, to December 29, 1944, and was a veteran of World War II. At the age of 37, Dess K. Phipps was killed in the line of duty during a high speed vehicle pursuit of a criminal on October 12, 1962. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution (ACR) 178, Res. Chapter 161, Statutes of 2016, on September 1, 2016.
The I-5/I-710 interchange (~ LA 023.2) in Los Angeles County is officially named the "Marco Antonio Firebaugh Interchange". This interchange was named in memory of Marco Antonio Firebaugh, who at the age of 39 years was running for the California State Senate when he succumbed to health ailments on March 21, 2006. Born in Tijuana, Mexico on October 13, 1966, Firebaugh emigrated to the United States when he was a young boy. He worked hard to pay his own way through school and earned his bachelor of arts degree in political science from the University of California, Berkeley and a law degree from the UCLA School of Law. He was the first in his family to attend college and was committed to the notion that free universal public education is the cornerstone of our democratic society and worked hard to improve educational opportunities for all California students. Firebaugh was elected to the California State Assembly at the age of 32 years; and he served in the California State Assembly from 1998 to 2004, representing the 50th Assembly District located in southeast Los Angeles County. During his tenure in the Assembly, Firebaugh was recognized for his impressive legislative and advocacy record on behalf of California's working families and their children, establishing him as a leader and role model in the Latino community. He demonstrated outstanding leadership in introducing legislation aimed at improving the lives of immigrants and low-income families including undocumented immigrants who come to California to work and give their children a better life. He authored air quality legislation that provides funding for the state's most important air emissions reductions programs and that ensures that state funding be targeted to low-income communities that are most severely impacted by air pollution. He also authored legislation funding a mobile asthma treatment clinic known as a Breathmobile to provide free screenings and treatment for school children in southeast Los Angeles and fought hard in the Legislature to make California the first state to outlaw smoking in a vehicle carrying young children to protect them from the hazards created by breathing secondhand smoke. In 2002, he championed AB540, which allowed undocumented California high school students to pursue a college education and pay in-state tuition fees. From 2002 to 2004, Firebaugh served as Chairman of the California Latino Legislative Caucus where he was responsible for managing the development of the Latino Caucus' annual "Agenda for California's Working Families" as a policy document that focuses on issues affecting California's diverse population. Because of his effectiveness both as a policymaker and political leader, Marco Antonio Firebaugh was appointed Majority Floor Leader in 2002, and served as Floor Leader from 2002 to 2004, making him the highest ranking Latino in the Assembly and one of the chief negotiators for Assembly Democrats. Firebaugh also served six years on the State Allocation Board, which provides funding for public school construction and modernization. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution (ACR) 142, Resolution Chapter 132, on 9/7/2006.
The interchange of I-10 and I-710 in the County of Los Angeles (LA 026.47) is named the "Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriff Thomas H. Pohlman Memorial Interchange". It was named in memory of Thomas H. Pohlman,a sheriff’s deputy with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. Deputy Sheriff Pohlman was born in July 1950, and was appointed as a sheriff’s deputy on May 29, 1973. On April 19, 1978, Deputy Sheriff Pohlman was on patrol when he smelled ether, used in the manufacture of the drug PCP, coming from a nearby house. As Deputy Sheriff Pohlman and his partner approached the house, a man bolted from the home. Deputy Sheriff Pohlman pursued the suspect on foot, while his partner went back to the squad car to radio for assistance. Deputy Sheriff Pohlman caught the suspect, and, while the suspect was being handcuffed, the suspect gained control of Deputy Sheriff Pohlman’s revolver and shot him. Deputy Sheriff Pohlman died at the scene. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 121, Res. Chapter 192, Statutes of 2016, 9/9/2016
The following segments are designated as Classified Landscaped Freeway:
|County||Route||Starting PM||Ending PM|
Approved as 139(a) non-chargeable interstate in 1983; the portion from Ocean Blvd in Long Beach to Route 710 was approved as 139(b) non-chargeable milage in 1984. The portion from Route 10 to Route 210 is a subject of a long legal battle and is not yet constructed, except for the stub Route 710 at the I-210/Route 134/Route 710 interchange.
[SHC 253.1] Entire route. Added to the Freeway and Expressway system in 1959.
Overall statistics for Route 710:
This number is not assigned to a post-1964 route.
The routing between Riverside and Perris was resigned as US 395 in around 1935.
Return to State Highway Routes