California Highways
www.cahighways.org

California Highways

Routes 73 through 80

 
powered by FreeFind

California Highways Home Page
State Highway Routes
Numbered County Highways
State Highway Types
Interstate Types and History
Highway Numbering Conventions
State Highway Renumberings
State Highway Chronology
Maps Trails and Roads Related WWW Links Site Change Log Sources and Credits

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 Note that ISTEA repealed the previous Federal-Aid System, effective in 1992, and established the functional classification system for all public roads.


Quickindex

73 · 74 · 75 · 76 · 77 · 78 · 79 · 80


State Shield

State Route 73



Routing

From Route 5 near San Juan Capistrano to Route 405 via the San Joaquin Hills.

 

Post 1964 Signage History

In 1963, this route was defined as running “(a) Route 1 near Corona Del Mar to Route 405. (b) Route 405 to Route 5 in Santa Ana via Main Street.”

In 1965, Chapter 1372 deleted segment (b), thus terminating the route at I-405.

Until 1983, this route ran from Route 1 to MacArthur Blvd, and then along MacArthur Boulevard from Route 1 near Corona del Mar to San Diego Creek in Irvine.

In 1983, Chapter 849 changed the origin of the route and modified the routing to be "Route 5 near San Juan Capistrano to Route 405 via the San Joaquin Hills." It also noted that "MacArthur Boulevard from Route 1 near Corona del Mar to San Diego Creek in Irvine shall cease to be a state highway when the Route 73 freeway as described above is completed." This reflected the planned construction of the San Joaquin Hills Toll Road. A 1986 map does show the proposed tollway.

In 2003, Chapter 525 removed the text about the former portion of the route.

 

Pre 1964 Signage History

Much of the present routing was defined post-1964. The portion of the current routing from near UC Irvine to I-405 was LRN 184, defined in 1933 (as was the remainder of the since deleted 1963 routing)

Route 73 was not defined as part of the initial state signage of routes in 1934. It is unclear what (if any) route was signed as Route 73 between 1934 and 1964.

 

Status

In July 2005, the CTC considered relinquishment of right of way in the City of Newport Beach, along Bristol Street and North Bristol Street, from Jamboree Road to Irwin Avenue/Campus Drive, consisting of frontage roads. It also considered relinquishment of right of way in the County of Orange, along Bristol Street and North Bristol Street, consisting of frontage roads.

In August 2005, the CTC considered relinquishment of right of way in the City of Irvine, at University Drive South, consisting of reconstructed and relocated city streets.

In July 2007, the CTC relinquished right of way in the city of Costa Mesa, from the South City Limit to 0.4 mile North of Red Hill Avenue, consisting of reconstructed and relocated city streets. The City, by relinquishment cooperative agreement dated June 4, 2007, waived the 90-day notice requirement and agreed to accept title upon relinquishment by the State.

In September 2011, it was reported that a request by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to sign a freeway agreement related to the road that connects Newport Beach to Aliso Viejo was delayed at the Sept. 6, 2011 Laguna Beach City Council meeting. Laguna Beach officials opposed construction of the roadway and much of the sentiment against it remains. Route 73 was inherited by Caltrans from the Transportation Corridor Agency, which constructed it, but the standard freeway agreement was overlooked in the process, according to a Laguna Beach staff report. Now, the toll road is being termed a freeway because it is under Caltrans control. The proposed agreement imposes no future obligations on the city, according to the analysis by the city staff. However, there were had questions about references in the agreement to obligations for future funding and construction to be dealt with in a separate cooperative agreement, as well as the acquisition of city streets, frontage roads and other local roads required for the construction, reconstruction or alteration of the toll road. Further, the agreement states that the city agreed to the construction that traverses through the city's jurisdiction from the Aliso Viejo city limits to the Newport Beach city limits. In fact, Laguna Beach did not agree to either the construction or the design of the toll road and was the only city through which Route 73 ran that was not a member of the TCA. The corridor agency and Caltrans signed an agreement dated April 7, 1995, that said Caltrans would assume maintenance of Route 73 when it was completed. In May of 1996, the California Transportation Commission declared the toll road a "freeway."
(LA Times)

 

Naming

The portion of this freeway between MacArthur Blvd and Route 405 was named by the "Corona Del Mar" freeway by the local Caltrans District. The first freeway segment opened in 1977; the last segment in 1996. The named segment traverses the community of Corona Del Mar.

The pre-1983 routing (from Route 1 to Route 405 along MacArthur Blvd) was named the "Veterans Memorial Freeway". It was named by Senate Concurrent Resolution 2 in 1967. This segment is no longer in the state highway system.

Transportation Corridor The portion of this freeway between MacArthur Blvd and I-5 is named the "San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor". It is named because it traverse the San Jaoquin Hills. San Joaquin is the Spanish pronunciation of Saint Joachim - the Father of the Virgin Mary.

 

Classified Landcaped Freeway

The following segments are designated as Classified Landscaped Freeway:

County Route Starting PM Ending PM
Orange 73 10.00 10.25
Orange 73 10.75 12.15
Orange 73 12.50 14.61
Orange 73 15.64 17.08
Orange 73 22.24 22.56
Orange 73 23.36 24.31
Orange 73 24.58 27.77

 

exitinfo.gif

 

Other WWW Links

 

Freeway

[SHC 253.1] Entire route. Added to the Freeway and Expressway system in 1959.

State Shield This highway is freeway (no toll) between MacArthur Blvd and I-405.

Toll Road This highway is a toll road between MacArthur Blvd and I-5. The first segment of the tollway, running from Greenfield Drive in Laguna Niguel to Laguna Canyon road, opened on 24 July 1996. The reminder of the tollway (between Jamboree Road and Laguna Canyon Road (Route 133) and between Greenfield Drive and I-5, opened on 21 November 1996. There are plans to merge the operation of this route with the Foothill Toll Roads such as Route 241.

 


Overall statistics for Route 73:

  • Total Length (2000): 21 miles
  • Average Daily Traffic (1992): 34,000 to 100,000
  • Milage Classification: Urbanized: 21.
  • Previous Federal Aid Milage: FAP: 18 mi, but this includes the original non-toll routing from Jamboree to Route 1. It is unknown how much of the toll road construction received federal aid, if any.
  • Functional Classification: Prin. Arterial: 21 mi.
  • Counties Traversed: Orange.

 

Pre-1964 Legislative Route

The route that would become LRN 73 was first defined in 1931 by Chapter 82 as the route from Alturas to Oregon State Line near New Pine Creek. In 1933, it was extended from [LRN 28] at Alturas to [LRN 29]. In 1935, it was codified into the highway code as the following route:

“[LRN 29] to the Oregon State Line near New Pine Creek via Alturas”

This definition remained unchanged until the 1963 renumbering. The route was (and is) signed as US 395.


State Shield

State Route 74



Routing
  1. (a)(1) From Route 5 near San Juan Capistrano to Route 15 near Lake Elsinore.


    Post 1964 Signage History

    In 1963, this segment was defined as the route from “Route 5 near San Juan Capistrano to Route 71.”

    This segment was originally planned as freeway in 1965.

    In 1976, Chapter 1354, changed "Route 71" to "Route 15", reflecting the establishment of the route of the real I-15, and the renumbering of the old I-15 as I-15E (Route 194)

    In 1986, Chapter 928 clarified the terminus of this segment to be “Route 15 near Lake Elsinore.”

    In 2008, Chapter 635 (AB 1915, 9/30/2008) authorized the relinquishement of the portion within the City of Lake Elsinore with the usual language:

    (1) The commission may relinquish to the City of Lake Elsinore the portion of Route 74 located within the city limits of that city, upon terms and conditions the commission finds to be in the best interests of the state.

    (2) Any relinquishment agreement shall require that the City of Lake Elsinore administer the operation and maintenance of the highway in a manner consistent with professional traffic engineering standards.

    (3) Any relinquishment agreement shall require the City of Lake Elsinore to ensure that appropriate traffic studies or analyses will be performed to substantiate any decisions affecting the highway.

    (4) Any relinquishment agreement shall also require the City of Lake Elsinore to provide for public notice and the consideration of public input on the proximate effects of any proposed decision on traffic flow, residences, or businesses, other than a decision on routine maintenance.

    (5) Notwithstanding any of its other terms, any relinquishment agreement shall require the City of Lake Elsinore to indemnify and hold the department harmless from any liability for any claims made or damages suffered by any person, including a public entity, as a result of any decision made or action taken by the City of Lake Elsinore, its officers, employees, contractors, or agents, with respect to the design, maintenance, construction, or operation of that portion of Route 74 that is to be relinquished to the city.

    (6) A relinquishment under this subdivision shall become effective immediately after the county recorder records the relinquishment resolution that contains the commission's approval of the terms and conditions of the relinquishment.

    (7) On and after the effective date of the relinquishment, both of the following shall occur: (A) The portion of Route 74 relinquished shall cease to be a state highway. (B) The portion of Route 74 relinquished may not be considered for future adoption under Section 81.

    (8) The City of Lake Elsinore shall ensure the continuity of traffic flow on the relinquished portion of Route 74, including any traffic signal progression.

    (9) For relinquished portions of Route 74, the City of Lake Elsinore shall maintain signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 74.

     

    Pre 1964 Signage History

    In 1934, Route 74 was signed along the route from Jct. US 101 at San Juan Capestrano to Jct. Route 740 at Perris. The portion from Jct. Route 71 (US 395) to Perris may have been signed US 395. Route 740 was later renumbered as an eastern extension of Route 74. It was LRN 64, and was defined in 1933.

     

    Status

    In August 2011, the CTC approved $7,130,000 in SHOPP funding for repairs in San Juan Capistrano, from Route 5 to Calle Entradero Drive; also at PM 3.0/13.3 from west of Antonio Parkway to west of Hot Springs Canyon Road, that will rehabilitate 24.6 lane miles of pavement to improve safety and ride quality.

    There are regional transportation improvement plans to widen the portion of Route 74 in Orange County. There are also rumors that a tunnel might be constructed to replace Route 74 (or supplement it) to improve transportation in the Orange-Riverside County corridor. Current discussions propose a triple tunnel, dug for 10 to 14 miles beneath the Santa Ana Mountains - and the Cleveland National Forest - north of Camp Pendleton. The estimated cost would be $3.6 Billion. See Route 91 for more information.

    In December 2005, the OCTA, using Measure M money, authorized widening the I-5/Route 74 interchange and widening at San Antonio Parkway. However, they eliminated from consideration plans to widen Route 55, into which Route 91 feeds, and to widen Ortega Highway (Route 74) in South County.

    In July 2010, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding a project that would construct interchange improvements on Route 74 at I-5 (the I-5/Ortega Highway interchange) near the city of San Juan Capistrano. The project is programmed in the 2010 State Transportation Improvement Program and includes local funds. Construction is estimated to begin in FY 2012-13. Total estimated project cost is $84,514,000 for capital and support.

    Caltrans also has plans to widen lower Ortega Hwy (Route 74). The existing alignment consists of four through lanes from I-5 to approximately 330 feet (ft.) east of Calle Entradero where it transitions to two through lanes. The proposed project would widen Route 74 from two lanes to four through lanes from Calle Entradero (PM 1.0) in the City of San Juan Capistrano to the City/County line at PM 1.9. Route 74 was constructed circa 1930/32 from plans prepared for Joint Highway District 15. The road was originally designed to be two lanes; each lane being 31 ft. (6.7 m) wide with a maximum grade of 6%, for vehicle speeds of 25 miles per hour (mph) to 40 mph. In 1959, this route was included within the State Freeway and Expressway System. The project would involve some alignment shifts, construction of retaining walls, and clear soundwalls. Detail can be found in the EIR. Construction for this project would be expected to start in mid-2009 and be completed in the winter of 2011. The basic widening would occur primarily on the north side of Route 74 to minimize removal of mature trees and the existing sidewalk on the south side. Currently, there are two 12-ft. lanes in each direction and no median throughout the project area. The construction would provide one additional 12-ft. wide lane in each direction, as well as a 12-ft. wide painted median. A 5-ft.-wide paved shoulder would be provided on each side of the roadway to accommodate striped on-road bicycle facilities, except from Avenida Siega to the City/County limits where it would transition to an 8-ft.-wide shoulder to merge with the County portion of the project. The edge of the pavement would have concrete curbs on each side of the roadway.

    In August and September 2008, the CTC considered splitting the widening in San Juan Capestrano into two projects. As noted above, the project proposes to widen Route 74, in and near San Juan Capistrano, by adding one lane in each direction. This will eliminate traffic bottlenecks between Calle Entradero and the San Juan Capistrano city limits and will improve the general traffic flow within the project limits. The limits of the project extend approximately one mile inside and one mile outside the city limits of San Juan Capistrano. The segment outside the city limits (the Orange County segment) has obtained environmental clearance and is ready for construction as of August 2008. Environmental clearance for the segment within the city limits has been delayed due to the need for additional environmental studies. Orange County would like to proceed with construction of the segment outside the city limits. Therefore, it is proposed to split the project into two segments, a city segment and a county segment, as follows:

    • PPNO 4110 (city segment) – In Orange County, in the city of San Juan Capistrano from Calle Entradero to the San Juan Capistrano city limit – widen from two to four lanes.

    • PPNO 4110A (county segment) – In Orange County, near San Juan Capistrano, from the San Juan Capistrano city limit to Antonio Parkway/La Pata Avenue – widen from two to four lanes.

    Ortega Hwy Safety ZoneIn 2007, work was begun on the Caltrans Ortega Highway Safety Improvement Project, which involves a three-mile section from San Juan Hot Springs and the Orange County line. This stretch of road has a section of narrow lanes, limited turn-out areas and high accident rates. The project will add 4-foot shoulders to each side of the highway, add safety enhancements to reduce road closures due to rock slides, place rumble strips in the median, improve sight distances by removing protruding rock walls, widen the existing 10-foot lanes to standard 12-foot lanes, improve drainage facilities into San Juan Creek, and improve turnouts and add two new turnouts, one in each direction. This project was completed in 2008.

    In 2005, about 8,900 cars a day used the route, with traffic expected to swell to 28,700 cars a day by 2025, according to Caltrans.

    In August 2009, the CTC approved relinquishment of right of way in the city of Perris on Route 74, under terms and conditions as stated in the relinquishment cooperative agreement dated July 9, 2009, determined to be in the best interest of the State. Authorized by Chapter 635, Statutes of 2008, which amended Section 374 of the Streets and Highways Code.

    In March 2012, the CTC authorized SHOPP funding on Route 74 in Riverside County, 08-Riv-74 29.6/30.0 Near Perris, at Menifee Road. $1,229,000 to widen intersection; modify traffic signals; construct sidewalks; make Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements; install curb, gutter and bus stop to improve operations and safety of the intersection.

     

    Double Fine Zones

    Between Route 5 and the Riverside-Orange County Line. Authorized by Senate Bill 155, Chapter 169, on July 23, 1999.

     

    Naming

    This segment has been historically named the "Ortega Highway".

    The segment is also named the "California Wildland Firefighters Memorial Highway". On August 8, 1959, the Decker Canyon fire was ignited on when a car drove off a Route 74 embankment, crashing through brush to the canyon floor, some 200 feet below. The vehicle burst into flames, and winds whipped the flames into a firestorm racing uphill toward firefighters battling the blaze from above. Six firefighters made the ultimate sacrifice while protecting and serving the people of California by battling the Decker Canyon fire; twenty-seven other firefighters were injured in the fire. California experiences hundreds of wildland fires every year, and thousands of firefighters from local, state, and federal agencies fight these fires to protect lives and property. These men and women of the wildland firefighting services are dedicated in their efforts to save lives and property from destruction, and nearly every year wildland firefighters are injured and killed fighting wildland fires across the State of California. Named by Senate Concurrent Resolution 71, Chapter 22, Chaptered March 26, 2002.


  2. (a) (2) From Route 15 near Lake Elsinore to Route 215 near Perris.

    (c) (1) The commission may relinquish to the City of Lake Elsinore the portion of Route 74 located within the city limits of that city, upon terms and conditions the commission finds to be in the best interests of the state. (2) Any relinquishment agreement shall require that the City of Lake Elsinore administer the operation and maintenance of the highway in a manner consistent with professional traffic engineering standards. (3) Any relinquishment agreement shall require the City of Lake Elsinore to ensure that appropriate traffic studies or analyses will be performed to substantiate any decisions affecting the highway. (4) Any relinquishment agreement shall also require the City of Lake Elsinore to provide for public notice and the consideration of public input on the proximate effects of any proposed decision on traffic flow, residences, or businesses, other than a decision on routine maintenance. (5) Notwithstanding any of its other terms, any relinquishmen agreement shall require the City of Lake Elsinore to indemnify and hold the department harmless from any liability for any claims made or damages suffered by any person, including a public entity, as a result of any decision made or action taken by the City of Lake Elsinore, its officers, employees, contractors, or agents, with respect to the design, maintenance, construction, or operation of that portion of Route 74 that is to be relinquished to the city. (6) A relinquishment under this subdivision shall become effective immediately after the county recorder records the relinquishment resolution that contains the commission's approval of the terms and conditions of the relinquishment. (7) On and after the effective date of the relinquishment, both of the following shall occur: (A) The portion of Route 74 relinquished shall cease to be a state highway. (B) The portion of Route 74 relinquished may not be considered for future adoption under Section 81. (8) The City of Lake Elsinore shall ensure the continuity of traffic flow on the relinquished portion of Route 74, including any traffic signal progression. (9) For relinquished portions of Route 74, the City of Lake Elsinore shall maintain signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 74.


    Post 1964 Signage History

    In 1963, this segment was defined as “Route 71 to Route 395 near Perris”

    In 1969, Chapter 294 changed "Route 395" to "Route 15", reflecting the renumbering of US 395 as I-15.

    In 1976, Chapter 1354, changed "Route 71" to "Route 15", and "Route 15" to "Route 194", reflecting the establishment of the route of the real I-15, and the renumbering of the old I-15 as I-15E (Route 194)

    In 1982, Chapter 681 changed "Route 194" to "Route 215", reflecting the approval of former US 395 (a/k/a I-15E, Route 194) as non-chargable I-215.

    In 1986, Chapter 928 clarified the origin of the segment to be “Route 15 near Lake Elsinore”.

    In 2008, Chapter 635 (AB 1915, 9/30/2008) authorized the relinquishement of the portion within the City of Perris with the usual language:

    (1) The commission may relinquish to the City of Perris the portion of Route 74 located within the city limits of that city between Seventh Street and Redlands Avenue, upon terms and conditions the commission finds to be in the best interests of the state.

    (2) Any relinquishment agreement shall require that the City of Perris administer the operation and maintenance of the highway in a manner consistent with professional traffic engineering standards.

    (3) Any relinquishment agreement shall require the City of Perris to ensure that appropriate traffic studies or analyses will be performed to substantiate any decisions affecting the highway.

    (4) Any relinquishment agreement shall also require the City of Perris to provide for public notice and the consideration of public input on the proximate effects of any proposed decision on traffic flow, residences, or businesses, other than a decision on routine maintenance.

    (5) Notwithstanding any of its other terms, any relinquishment agreement shall require the City of Perris to indemnify and hold the department harmless from any liability for any claims made or damages suffered by any person, including a public entity, as a result of any decision made or action taken by the City of Perris, its officers, employees, contractors, or agents, with respect to the design, maintenance, construction, or operation of that portion of Route 74 that is to be relinquished to the city.

    (6) A relinquishment under this subdivision shall become effective immediately after the county recorder records the relinquishment resolution that contains the commission's approval of the terms and conditions of the relinquishment.

    (7) On and after the effective date of the relinquishment, both of the following shall occur: (A) The portion of Route 74 relinquished shall cease to be a state highway. (B) The portion of Route 74 relinquished may not be considered for future adoption under Section 81.

    (8) The City of Perris shall ensure the continuity of traffic flow on the relinquished portion of Route 74, including any traffic signal progression.

    (9) For relinquished portions of Route 74, the City of Perris shall maintain signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 74.

    The right of way in the city of Perris was relinquished in August 2009.

    In 2012, Chapter 769 (AB 2679, 9/29/2012) updated the relinquishment languge to reflect that the portion in Perris had been relinquished (see next segment).

     

    Pre 1964 Signage History

    In 1934, Route 74 was signed along the route from Jct. US 101 at San Juan Capestrano to Jct. Route 740 at Perris. Route 740 was later renumbered as an eastern extension of Route 74. This segment was established in 1931 as LRN 78, and was renumbered as part of LRN 64 in 1951 by Chapter 1562. Until 1950, this was also signed as US 395. It appears the US 395 signage started around 1935.

     

    Status

    The SAFETEA-LU act, enacted in August 2005 as the reauthorization of TEA-21, provided the following expenditures on or near this route:

    • High Priority Project #3209: Route 74/I-215 Interchange Project. $800,000.

    There are plans to relinquish this route in Lake Elsinore and Perris to give the city more control over the roadway. In June 2008, the state Senate Transportation and Housing Committee unanimously approved AB 1915, a bill sponsored by Assemblyman Kevin Jeffries, R-Lake Elsinore. The vote sends the relinquishment bill to the Senate Appropriations Committee, after which it will be voted on by the full Senate and then Gov. Schwarzenegger. Lake Elsinore has sought to control a portion of Route 74 from just east of I-15 to Grand Avenue since 2006, after Caltrans denied the city's request to put a traffic signal at a corner where a 9-year-old girl died in 2004. By acquiring the roadway, which runs along portions of Central Avenue, Collier Avenue and Riverside Drive, the city would be able to complete about $8 million in road improvements. Perris wants to control a portion of the highway between Redlands Avenue and Seventh Street to make similar improvements. (source)

    There are plans to improve the interchange of Route 74 and I-215 in Perris. In August 2009, it was reported that the non-shovel-ready status of a project to revamp Van Buren Boulevard's connection with Route 91 in Riverside meant that the $16 million in federal ARRA funds of that project could be reallocated to the next regional priority: the crossing of westbound Route 74 and I-215. The almost $40 million project at westbound Route 74 would also widen a freeway overcrossing to four lanes instead of two, as well as widen freeway on- and off-ramps.

    Mid-County Parkway

    Plans are underway for a major rerouting of this segment (or perhaps a new segment) to improve regional transportation. Information can be found at http://www.rctc.org/, which is the agenda for the Riverside County Transportation Commission. More information can also be found at the Riverside County Improvement Project pages, www.rcip.org. In short, the State Route 74 Realignment project is a Measure "A" project from Dexter Avenue in the City of Lake Elsinore to 7th Street in the City of Perris. The project will be constructed in two segments. Segment 1 is from Dexter Avenue in Lake Elsinore to approximately 1640 feet east of Wasson Canyon Road. Segment 2 is from approximately 1640 feet east of Wasson Canyon Road to 7th Street in Perris.

    According to a recent article in the Los Angeles Times, this proposal may have been the subject of some rerouting. Although Route 74 was not mentioned by number, the article discussed how the push for a new thoroughfare between Corona and Hemet has created trouble in Lake Elsinore, where there was an earlier proposal (i.e., the Route 74 propsoal) which would make the Lake Elsinore the western terminus of the route. Evidently, the RTCT originally supported a route north of Lake Mathews, but that ran into pricy homes and strong opposition from residents. The alternative would send the 40-mile, $700-million road south of the lake, through an endangered-species reserve, which naturally creates problems for environmentalists. The route now favored would expand the existing two-lane Cajalco Road through the nature preserve south of the lake. However, in Lake Elsinore, they are upset because the originally plan was a 22-mile route that would connect I-15 near Lake Elsinore to Route 79 near Diamond Valley Lake. However, because of the possibility of someday linking the route near Lake Mathews to a new thoroughfare running into Orange County, support for the Lake Elsinore-Diamond Valley Lake roadway declined.

    One alternative is the Mid-County Parkway. An option favored by the city to build a stretch of the proposed Mid County Parkway next to Perris Dam is considered to be is unsafe because of seismic dangers. Officials hope the future freeway will help relieve east-west traffic congestion in the rapidly growing corridor between San Jacinto and Corona. The project is expected to cost $2 billion and would extend 32 miles from Corona to San Jacinto. The six- to eight-lane parkway would serve as an alternate east-west freeway to State Routes 60 and 91. Construction is scheduled to start in 2011. State officials say routing the parkway via the dam ("North Perris Option") is out of the question, because of the risk of earthquakes and liquefaction of soils beneath the dam's eastern foundation. The RCTC would like the City of Perris to instead pick one of three remaining parkway routing options: via Placentia Avenue, via Rider Street, or via the city's storm drain canal. The storm drain route, however, would be the most expensive of the four options, for the drain passes through an area of town prone to flooding and the parkway would thus have to be elevated there to protect motorists from rising waters. The problem with the Rider Street option is it could require the construction of a road connecting Rider to Cajalco Road or Placentia Avenue on the west side of I-215 -- depending on if the parkway goes up along Cajalco or Placentia. The fourth option of routing the parkway through Perris along Placentia Avenue east of I-215 would be the cheapest and straightest through the city, but would require moving a state-of-art fire station out of the way, which city officials only dedicated in early 2007.

     

     

    Double Fine Zones

    Between Route 15 and 7th Street in Perris. Authorized by Senate Bill 1526, Chapter 446, September 14, 2000.

     

    Other WWW Links

    While in Perris, you really should visit the Orange Empire Railway Museum, on "A" Street. It is the west's largest operating railroad museum; you can see the trollycars that use to run in Los Angeles.


  3. (a) (3) From Route 215 near Perris to the southern city limit of Palm Desert.

    (b) The relinquished former portions of Route 74 within the City of Palm Desert and Perris are not state highways and are not eligible for adoption under Section 81. For the relinquished former portions of Route 74, the City of Palm Desert and Perris shall maintain within its jurisdiction signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 74 and shall ensure the continuity of traffic flow on the relinquished portions of Route 74, including any traffic signal progression..


    Post 1964 Signage History

    As defined in 1963, this segment ran from “Route 395 near Perris to Route 111.”

    Unconstructed In 1965, Chapter 1372 extended this segment to terminate at “Route 10 near Indio.” Note that the portion from Route 111 to Route 10 remains unconstructed.

    In 1969, Chapter 294 changed "Route 395" to "Route 15", reflecting the renumbering of US 395 as I-15.

    In 1976, Chapter 1354 changed "Route 15" to "Route 194", reflecting the establishment of the route of the real I-15, and the renumbering of the old I-15 as I-15E (Route 194)

    In 1982, Chapter 681 changed "Route 194" to "Route 215", reflecting the approval of former US 395 (a/k/a I-15E, Route 194) as non-chargable I-215.

    In 1986, Chapter 928 clarified the terminus of the segment to be “Route 10 near Thousand Palms via Hemet and Palm Desert”. Under this current routing, Monterey Avenue may be Route 74 between Route 111 and I-10.

    In 2005, Chapter 594 authorized relinquishment of the portion in Palm Desert. This segment was relinquished in February 2008:

    The commission may relinquish to the City of Palm Desert the portion of Route 74 that is located within the city limits of that city, upon terms and conditions the commission finds to be in the best interests of the state, if the department and the city enter into an agreement providing for that relinquishment. A relinquishment under this subdivision shall become effective immediately following the county recorder's recordation of the relinquishment resolution containing the commission's approval of the terms and conditions of the relinquishment. On and after the effective date of the relinquishment, the relinquished portion of Route 74 shall cease to be a state highway. The portion of Route 74 relinquished under this subdivision shall be ineligible for future adoption under Section 81. For the portion of Route 74 that is relinquished under this subdivision, the City of Palm Desert shall maintain within its jurisdiction signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 74. [SB 186, 10/6/2005, Chapter 594]. The Palm Desert segment was relinquished in February 2008.

    In 2010, Chapter 421 (SB 1318, 9/29/10) changed the terminus of this segment as follows: "to Route 10 near Thousand Palms via Hemet and Palm Desert the southern city limit of Palm Desert., and added a new segment on the other side of Palm Desert.

    In 2013, Chapter 525 (SB 788, 10/9/13) added words to the relinquishment text: "(b) The relinquished former portions of Route 74 within the Cities of Palm Desert and Perris are not state highways and are not eligible for adoption under Section 81. For the former portions of Route 74 relinquished under this subdivision, the Cities of Palm Desert and Perris shall maintain within their respective jurisdictions signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 74 and shall ensure the continuity of traffic flow on the relinquished portions of Route 74, including any traffic signal progression."

    Chapter 525 also deleted segment (4): "Route 111 in Palm Desert to Route 10 near Thousand Palms.", which had been created in 2010 as a split from segment (3) by Chapter 421, 9/29/10, SB 1318. Monterey Avenue provided a route between (former) Route 111 and I-10, but most of the route was annexed by the Cities of Rancho Mirage and Palm Desert. Rancho Mirage was not in favor of adoption of this route as a state highway. Further complicating matters was the 4-lane bridge over the Whitewater River along Monterey Avenue.

     

    Pre 1964 Signage History

    This segment was originally signed as Route 740 in the initial state signage of routes in 1934. This was later changed (sometime between 1939 and 1956) to Route 74. It was LRN 64, and was defined in 1933.

     

    Status

    As of August 2009, work is underway to transform the I-215/Route 74 EB interchange. Freshly raked dirt and still-bundled palm trees are the first signs of a $1 million facelift for the highway crossroads. The upgrade will bring reclaimed water lines to feed the new landscaping -- a drought-tolerant mix of palm, plum, pear trees, deer grass, and rocks that should be in place by November 2009. Although they look new with fronds still tied, the palm trees are the original trees from the property, which were pruned and moved. The property's old eucalyptus trees and shrubbery are long gone. The landscaping overhaul is the first of three phases for the Romoland Beautification Project, which has been seven years in the making and would, if completed, cost a total $3 million in redevelopment funds. The next two phases would improve an almost 2-mile stretch on eastbound Route 74 between Trumble and Palomar roads, adding sidewalks, trees, curbs and gutters to the highway's north side. New stoplights would be installed at the highway's intersection with Sherman and Antelope roads, where traffic has injured and killed pedestrians trying to cross.
    [Based on an article in the Riverside Press Enterprise, "Work started to create interchange oasis", 2009-08-19]

     

    Naming

    In Hemet, this is "Florida" Avenue in Hemet, and is "Idyllwild National Forest" Highway between Hemet and Route 243.

    Historically, the entire segment (from Perris to Route 111) has been named the "Pines to Palms Highway".

    The portion of Route 74 between milepost marker 91.00 and milepost marker 96.00 in the County of Riverside is named the "CHP Officer Michael Allen Brandt Memorial Highway". It was named in memory of Officer Michael Allen Brandt, who was born November 14, 1952, to Robert and Evelyn, in Bellingham, Washington. In 1980, Officer Michael Allen Brandt, graduated from the California Highway Patrol Academy with the Cadet Training Class IV-79 and was assigned to the El Centro area and later transferred to the Indio area, where he spent the remainder of his career. Throughout his career with the CHP, Officer Brandt held several titles, some of which included a Field Training Officer, Physical Methods of Arrest Instructor, Physical Performance Program Coordinator, and cardio pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) instructor. On April 6, 1987, Officer Brandt was killed in the line of duty. While pursuing a reported drunk driver, he lost control of his vehicle and struck a boulder, which caused his patrol vehicle to overturn. He was taken to a nearby hospital, but succumbed to his injuries while in transport. Officer Brandt was admired for his passion for life, loyalty to others, love for his job as a California Highway Patrolman, dedication to his family and friends, integrity, honesty, and quiet voice. He had a competitive nature about him, both in sports and in his personal life, and never turned down a challenge. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 100, Resolution Chapter 109, on September 4, 2012.

    The portion of Route 74 beginning at the entrance to the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument visitor center and extending four miles to the west thereof, in the City of Palm Desert and Riverside County is named the "Roy Wilson Memorial Highway". This segment was named in memory of Supervisor Roy Wilson, who was best known for his role as Riverside County Supervisor for the 4th District, where his commitment to serving his community greatly advanced the quality of life in Coachella Valley until his death in 2009. Roy Wilson was known to his constituents, colleagues, neighbors, and friends as an exceptional leader and a selfless, dedicated public servant in the Coachella Valley. Roy Wilson was also a strong advocate for conservation of the scenic lands along Route 74, including the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument. Roy Wilson was involved in ongoing efforts to protect the scenic beauty and improve the safety of Route 74 as well as promote involvement of the communities along Route 74 in its betterment. As Riverside County Supervisor for the 4th District, Roy Wilson was also instrumental in the successful effort to prepare and implement the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan, which will result in the establishment of a comprehensive and coherent Multiple Species Reserve System including lands along Route 74 in the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains. Roy Wilson also served on the governing board of the South Coast Air Quality Management District for 22 years Named by Assembly Concurrant Resolution (ACR) 109, 6/2/2010, Resolution Chapter 31.

Status

There is currently work underway to explore some realignments of this route, in particular, the portion from Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore.

 

Freeway

[SHC 253.1] Entire route. Added to the Freeway and Expressway system in 1959.

 

National Trails

De Anza Auto Route This route is part of the De Anza National Historic Trail.

 

Other WWW Links

 


Overall statistics for Route 74:

  • Total Length (1995): 112 miles traversable; 5 miles unconstructed
  • Average Daily Traffic (1992): 2,300 to 30,000
  • Milage Classification: Rural: 85; Sm. Urban 8; Urbanized: 24.
  • Previous Federal Aid Milage: FAP: 112 mi.
  • Functional Classification: Prin. Arterial: 33 mi; Minor Arterial: 79 mi.
  • Counties Traversed: Orange, Riverside.

 

Scenic Highway

[SHC 263.1] Entire route.

 

Interregional Route

[SHC 164.14] Entire route.

 

Pre-1964 Legislative Route

The route that was to become LRN 74 was first defined in 1931 by Chapter 82 as the route from Vallejo to [LRN 8] (although the April 1931 CHPW describes the route as being from LRN 8 near Cordelia via American Canyon to LRN 14). This eventually became part of signed Route 29. The situation in 1931 was that traffic between the Sacramento Valley and the bay cities could not find the direct and most advantageous passage from LRN 8 to LRN 14 over connected state highways. LRN 7 (roughly today's I-580) was available via the Martinez Ferry, but a better road and bridge facility implied almost exclusive use of a county highway from the Napa Wye to the Carquinez Straits. It was felt that a state route should be established to service the through traffic which was forced onto county roads. The route proposed for LRN 74 was a favorable route from Cordelia south to LRN 14 by way of American Canyon. This route was 5 miles shorter than the route using the Napa Wye and 9 miles shorter than the routing through Martinez. The new route avoided the disadvantageous passage over steep intersecting streets in Vallejo. It was considered appropriate to add it to the state highway system as it would serve a very large volume of state traffic now carried over a county highway.

In 1935, it was codified into the highway code as “Vallejo to [LRN 8]”, but was quickly amended by Chapter 274 to be the following:

“A point on [LRN 8] near the Napa Y to Cordelia via Vallejo and Benecia”

In 1947 during the 1st executive session, Chapter 13 added a branch to the ferry in Benicia: “including a connection from Vallejo to [LRN 7] near the Carquinez Bridge.”

In 1953, Chapter 1737 made the clause about the Benecia Ferry contingent on the acquisition by the Department of Public Works of the ferry system operated across the Carquinez Straights between the cities of Benecia and Martinez. This was done because the city of Martinez was about to close down the ferry system across the straights, and it was necessary to keep the ferry in operation to serve numerous refineries, chemical plants, steel companies, and other industries necessary for national defense, workers commuting both to and from such industries, and the extremely important Benecia Arsenal.

In 1959, Chapter 1062 extended the route to begin at [LRN 6] near Napa, and removed the contingency.

This route was signed as Route 29 between Vallejo and Napa, and was defined in 1931.

The segment between Benicia and Vallejo was originally signed as Route 29, and is present-day I-780.


State Shield

State Route 75



Routing

From Route 5 to Route 5 via the Silver Strand and the San Diego-Coronado Toll Bridge.

 

Post 1964 Signage History

125 75 adoptionAs defined in 1963, this route was defined as two segments “(a) Route 125 east of Brown Field to Route 5 near the south end of San Diego Bay. (b) Route 5 to the San Diego-Coronado Ferry in Coronado via Silver Strand.” However, later that year Chapter 1698 changed the origin of segment (a) to “Route 125 near Brown Field”.

In 1967, Chapter 1483 split segment (b) and added the bridge, giving “(b) Route 5 to Fourth Street in Coronado via Silver Strand. (c) Orange Avenue in Coronado to Route 5 in San Diego via the San Diego-Coronado Toll Bridge. Subdivision (c) of this section shall not become operative until the San Diego-Coronado Toll Bridge and approaches are completed and open for traffic.” It also added segment (d) as a temporary measure until the bridge was completed: “(d) Fourth Street to the San Diego-Coronado Ferry via Orange Avenue in Coronado. The portion of this route described in subdivision (d) shall cease to be a state highway when the portion of this route described in subdivision (c) is completed and open for traffic.”

In 1968, Chapter 1139 combined segments (b) and (c) and removed (d): “(b) Route 5 to Route 5 via the Silver Strand and the San Diego-Coronado Toll Bridge.”

In 1976, Chapter 1354 deleted segment (a) and transferred it to Route 117, renumbered in 1985 to Route 905 (non-chargable interstate). This part of the route was LRN 281.

 

Pre 1964 Signage History

This route was not part of the original state signage of routes in 1934, although it was signed as Route 75 as least since the early 1940s. The route was LRN 199, and was defined in 1933. It ran along Orange, Silver Strand Blvd, and Palm Avenue.

 

Status

Constructed as freeway from Route 282 to Route 5 in San Diego. The San Diego-Coronado Bridge was originally a toll bridge, but the toll was removed on June 27, 2002. SANDAG is currently considering reinstating the tolls. The tolls would raise money for a proposed tunnel and other projects aimed at easing traffic congestion. San Diego released an analysis in April 2009 that found that tolls could raise an initial $140 million with a rate of $1.50 each way during the four- year construction of the tunnel from 2014 to 2018. The most expensive of two proposed tunnel designs is projected to cost $590 million. If new, higher rates are in place by 2019, tolls could generate up to an additional $460 million over a 40-year period, the study says. That figure is based on rates that could range from $1.50 per crossing during off-peak traffic hours to $5 per trip in peak traffic. That means drivers would pay $10 round trip to cross the bridge during peak traffic hours.

There have been reports that there is a study regarding constructing a double tunnel that would run for a mile beneath Coronado, connecting the western side of the Coronado Bridge to the North Island Naval Air Station. Currently, surface streets between the bridge and the Navy base carry as many as 96,000 vehicles a day - far above the capacity they were designed for and more traffic than any other arterial road in San Diego County.

In June 2011, the CTC relinquished right of way in the city of Imperial Beach along Route 75 on and along Palm Avenue between 7th and 8th Streets, consisting of collateral facilities.

In September 2011, the CTC approved $2,159,000 for rehabilitation of 13 lane miles of Route 75, from Rainbow Drive in Imperial Beach to Naval Amphibious Base Gate 4 in Coronado.

In August 2012, the CTC approved SHOPP funding of $2,641,000 on Route 75 San Diego Cty PM 9.0 in the city of San Diego, on Route 75 at the E Route 75-N I-5 Connector Overcrossing (Bridge #57-0708F); and on Route 805 at the Kearny Villa Road Overcrossing (Bridge #57-0678). Outcome/Outputs: Seismic retrofit and rehabilitate two bridge structures to maintain structural integrity.

The SAFETEA-LU act, enacted in August 2005 as the reauthorization of TEA-21, provided the following expenditures on or near this route:

  • High Priority Project #866: Planning, design, engineering and construction of the Naval Air Station, North Island access tunnel on the Route 75/Route 282 corridor, San Diego. Additional funding provided by HPP #3789. $4,000,000.

  • High Priority Project #3789: Planning, design, engineering and construction of the Naval Air Station, North Island access tunnel on the Route 75/Route 282 corridor, San Diego. This seems to be additional funding for construction. $5,000,000.

 

 

Named Structures

Bridge 57-857, over the Coronado Bay in San Diego, is named the "San Diego-Coronado Bridge". It was built in 1969, and named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 85, Chapter 150, in 1989.

 

exitinfo.gif

 

Other WWW Links

 

Scenic Highway

[SHC 263.1] Entire route.

 


Overall statistics for Route 75:

  • Total Length (1995): 13 miles
  • Average Daily Traffic (1993): 20,100 to 68,000
  • Milage Classification: Urbanized: 13.
  • Previous Federal Aid Milage: FAU: 13 mi.
  • Functional Classification: Prin. Arterial: 13 mi.
  • Counties Traversed: San Diego.

 

Commuter Lanes

An HOV exclusive lane exists on the Toll Plaza at the Coronado Bridge. It requires two or more occupants, and is open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

 

Pre-1964 Legislative Route

The route that became LRN 75 was first defined in 1931 by Chapter 82 as the route from Walnut Creek to Oakland. California Highways and Public Works, in April 1931, reported that Joint Highway District Number 13, composed of Alameda and Contra Costa counties, had organized for construction of a public highway and tunnel to supersede the pre-1931 narrow, crooked and inadequate 'Tunnel road in Alameda County and to improve the Contra Costa County road from the tunnel to the town of Walnut Creek. The state proposed for inclusion as a state highway that portion of the route in Contra Costa County between. the tunnel and Walnut Creek, a distance of 9.6 miles. Based on the volume and class of traffic on the pre-1931 tunnel road and on the other highways leading into Oakland (one from Livermore via Hayward, the other from Martinez through Crockett), and estimating the effect of better facilities in the Walnut Creek area, the conservative 12 hour traffic was anticipated for 1940 as equivalent to a 24 hour traffic of 17K vehicles on Sundays and 10K on weekdays. The state felt this route qualified for state inclusion based on volume, importance, and character of 1931 and future traffic.

LRN 75 was extended in 1933 with two segments: one from [LRN 75] near Walnut Creek to [LRN 5] near Stockton via Antioch, and one from [LRN 4] near Stockton to [LRN 65] near Altaville. In 1935, the route was defined in the highway code as:

  1. Oakland to [LRN 5] near Stockton via Walnut Creek and Antioch
  2. [LRN 4] near Stockton via Copperopolis to [LRN 65] near Altaville

In 1949, Chapter 1467 added a branch to Martinez as segment (b): “Route (a) above, north of Walnut Creek to Martinez”

In 1951, Chapter 1562 changed “[LRN 5] near Stockton” to “[LRN 4] near Stockton”.

In 1953, Chapter 1737 reworded segment (b) [2] to be “Route (a) above, north of Walnut Creek to a connection with [LRN 74] in Benecia”. This change was contingent on the acquisition by the Department of Public Works of the ferry system operated across the Carquinez Straights between the cities of Benecia and Martinez. This was done because the city of Martinez was about to close down the ferry system across the straights, and it was necessary to keep the ferry in operation to serve numerous refineries, chemical plants, steel companies, and other industries necessary for national defense, workers commuting both to and from such industries, and the extremely important Benecia Arsenal. The chapter also mistakenly deleted (c), from [LRN 4] near Stockton to [LRN 65].

In 1954, Chapter 8 from the Extraordinary Session corrected the deletion of (c)

In 1957, Chapter 1911 changed "[LRN 74] at Benecia" to "near Benecia".

In 1959, Chapter 1698 would have changed the definition further, deleting the Benecia branch (segment (b)), and changing (c) to be "[LRN 4] near Stockton to [LRN 249] near Farmington", but that was overtaken by the 1963 renumbering.

Signage on this route was as follows:

  1. From Oakland to LRN 4 near Stockton via Walnut Creek and Antioch.

    This was signed as Route 24, later Route 4 between US 50 (present-day I-580) in Oakland and Walnut Creek. A brief portion in Stockton appears to be a duplicate with LRN 5 (specifically, Route 4 between El Dorado St and Mariposa St.). From Stockton proper, it ran S along Mariposa St to LRN 4 (US 99).

    LRN 75 was cosigned as Route 21/Route 24 between Walnut Creek and the vicinity of Pleasant Hill; this is present-day I-680.

    LRN 75 was signed as Route 24 between the vicinity of Pleasant Hill and Concord. The stretch from I-680 N of Concord to Route 4 is signed Route 242, but was previously signed as Route 24.

    LRN 75 was cosigned as Route 4/Route 24 between Concord and 4 mi E of Antioch. It was signed as Route 4 from 4 mi E of Antioch to Stockton.

  2. From segment 1 N of Walnut Creek to a connection with LRN 74 near Benicia.

    This segment was signed as Route 21 between Walnut Creek and Benicia. It was later signed as part of I-680.

  3. LRN 4 (US 99) near Stockton via Copperopolis to LRN 65 (Route 49) near Altaville.

    This was signed as Route 4. This left US 99 along Farmington Road.


State Shield

State Route 76



Routing

From Route 5 near Oceanside to Route 79 near Lake Henshaw.

 

Post 1964 Signage History

This segment remains as defined in 1963.

 

Pre 1964 Signage History

Route 76 was not defined in the initial 1934 state signage of routes. Portions of this route (US 395 (now I-15) to Route 79) were signed as Route 76 in the mid 1950s. The entire route was signed as Route 76 by 1963. The route was LRN 195, defined in 1933.

 

Status

According to observers, construction has started on Route 76 upgrade from a two lane road to an expressway between Melrose Drive in Oceanside (where the current expressway to I-5 ends) to South Mission Road in Bonsall. Pictures are available here.

Route 76 ImprovementsThere are plans to widen this route. The goal is to widen Route 76 from two to four lanes between Melrose Drive in Oceanside and I-15. The goal is to complete the 2˝-mile stretch between Melrose and East Vista Way in 2007. This length of time is due to bridge work and a number of culverts that will be constructed for stormwater runoff and to serve as wildlife corridors between the river and nearby upland areas. The widening from East Vista Way to South Mission Road in Bonsall, which connects that community with Fallbrook, won't begin before 2008, due to the length of time it takes to determine the route and acquire property.

In March 2009, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding a project to widen Route 76 from two to four lanes and construct roadway improvements from Melrose Drive and South Mission Road near the community of Bonsall. The project includes local Transnet and federal Demonstration funds. The total estimated cost is $230,908,000, capital and support. The Department and San Diego Association of Governments may consider pursuing federal stimulus dollars in lieu of local or other federal funds. Construction is estimated to begin in Fiscal Year 2009-10.

[Bonsall]In January 2010, Caltrans broke ground on a $182 million expansion that will add one lane in each direction, from Melrose Drive in Oceanside to South Mission Road in Bonsall. About 30,000 vehicles travel the five-mile stretch daily — a figure that’s expected to double by 2030 due to development. More than $75 million of the project cost will be covered by the federal government’s economic stimulus program, with an additional $17 million in federal contributions and $14 million in state transportation funds. About $76 million will come from TransNet, a half-cent, voter-approved sales tax in San Diego County. Completion is expected by the end of 2012.

As for the stretch between between South Mission and I-15—that 5 1/2-mile stretch could possibly see work started by 2009, with completion in 2011. There are four alternatives being considered in the EIR:

  • Existing Alternative: This alternative includes widening the roadway from a two-lane highway to a four-lane facility with improvements to the Route 15 interchange on and off ramps. The project would limit access to Route 76 from businesses and home driveways to frontage roads with signalized intersections. Additional improvements under this alternative would include soft-bottom culverts over creeks to allow drainage and to support wildlife movements between the San Luis Rey River and upland habitats.

  • Southern Alternative: This alternative includes constructing a four-lane facility south of the San Luis Rey River with two bridge structures. Additional improvements under this alternative would include soft-bottom culverts over creeks to allow drainage and to support wildlife movements between the San Luis Rey River and upland habitats.

  • No-Build Alternative. This alternative does not address the existing and future traffic demands.

There was originally a Split-Facility Alignment, which would build three westbound lanes along the existing alignment and three eastbound lanes on the proposed Southern Alignment, but that seems to have gone away. In Decmeber 2008, the CTC had no comments on the notice of preparation of the EIR for this project. The proposed project would construct roadway improvements consisting of lane additions and interchange ramp improvements along portions of Route 76 and Route 15 through the unincorporated communities of Bonsall and Fallbrook in San Diego County. Upon completion of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), a proposed route adoption will be presented to the Commission. The project is fully funded and utilizes local tax ordinance, TransNet and TransNet Extension funding through the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). Construction is expected to begin in Fiscal Year 2012.

South Mission to 15 ProjectIn April 2012, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding a project in San Diego County that will widen and realign Route 76 from two to four lanes, from South Mission Road in Bonsall to just east of the I-15 interchange, including interchange improvements. The project is fully funded with federal and local funds. The total estimated project cost is $201,000,000 for capital and support. Construction is estimated to begin in Fiscal Year 2012-13. Resources that may be impacted by the project include; land use, growth, noise, biological, socio-economics, farmlands, cultural, paleontological, and wetlands. Potential impacts associated with the project that cannot be mitigated to below significance through proposed mitigation measures include land use, community character and cohesion, growth, and visual. As a result, a Final Environmental Impact Report including a Statement of Overriding Considerations was prepared for the project.

In April 2012, the CTC authorized funding for the Route 76/I-15 Interchange Improvement. Near Bonsall and Fallbrook on Route 15 from 0.4 mile south to 0.8 mile north of Route 76/I-15 separation and on Route 76 from 0.5 mile west to 0.5 mile east of Route 76/I-15 separation. Modify interchange and widen bridge over I-5 to six lanes. This funding is contingent on the passage of the 2012 budget act.

In October 2011, it was reported that Caltrans has purchased the historical Rancho Lilac in Valley Center for $16.5 million and plans to keep the 902-acre site undeveloped. The purchase of the land, which includes Keys Creek, valleys and rolling hills, was part of an agreement to mitigate environmental losses from widening Route 76 between I-5 and I-15. The property includes a cluster of buildings with a rich history. Just how those buildings will be preserved and whether they will be open to the public has not been decided as of the time of purchase. The $16.5 million purchase is the largest so far made through Caltrans' Environmental Mitigation Program, which set aside $850 million to preserve and restore habitat near major roads. Mitigation efforts along Route 76 have included fencing and culverts that have reduced the number of animals killed on the road. The new purchase will provide a habitat for the endangered least Bell's vireo and coastal California gnatcatcher. The endangered Stephen's kangaroo rat also has been spotted on the property.
(Source: North County Times, 10/29/2011)

There is also work to expand the route east of I-15. In April 2008, blasting commenced related to improvements to Route 76 east of I-15 to straighten and widen Route 76 to 4 lanes with a center turn lane for about 2 miles. Later work will continue over to Valley Center Road that will make Route 76 two lanes with a center turn lane and full shoulders.The work is funded by impact fees assesed as part of expansions of 2 casinos, a quarry and a landfill to be built nearby.

A short, privately funded improvement is nearly complete on Route 76, for about 2 miles east of I-15 towards Pala. The new road is a striped 4 lane with left turn pockets where needed using modern geometry, there will be freeway style lighting at the intersections that have yet to be activated. Route 76 was a very narrow 2 lane road, that has had explosive traffic growth due to four major Indian casinos within 7 to 15 miles east of the interstate, three of which now have 10-15 floor hotel towers as part of the resorts. This project was totally funded by a soon to open quarry and the two casinos closest to the interstate, it eliminates some 90° bends that occur immediately east or the interstate. This project was a phase one, the next phase will extend the work to east of Couser Canyon road and will elimanate a sharp curve there by building the raod on a sweeping new alignment. Both phases were designed by Caltrans.

In April 2012, the CTC authorized vacation of right of way (prescriptive easement) in the county of San Diego along Route 76 between Pankey Road and 0.8 mile easterly thereof. In September 2009, a portion of Route 76 was realigned by a private developer as part of the Palomar Aggregates Quarry. The quarry developer was required to improve this portion of the two lane conventional highway per developer agreement. As a result of that realignment a segment of the old road was superseded and is no longer needed for State highway purposes.

The SAFETEA-LU act, enacted in August 2005 as the reauthorization of TEA-21, provided the following expenditures on or near this route:

  • High Priority Project #2719: Route 76 Road Widening, Melrose Drive to I-15. $4,000,000.

 

 

Naming

The portion of Route 76 between Route 5 and Route 15 is named the "San Luis Rey Mission Expressway". Mission San Luis Rey, founded in 1798, was the 18th of 21 missions established in California. It is situated between the existing missions at San Diego and San Juan Capistrano. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 6, Chapter 54, in 1995.

The portion of Route 76 between the North Coast Highway and Douglas Drive in the City of Oceanside is named the "Oceanside Police Officer Tony Zeppetella Memorial Highway". It was named in memory of Oceanside Police Officer Tony Zeppetella, who was shot and killed in the line of duty on June 13, 2003, during the course of a traffic stop. Tony Zeppetella was born on October 2, 1975, in Whittier, California. He was raised in Paso Robles, California where he attended and graduated from Paso Robles High School. Prior to beginning his career with the Oceanside Police Department, Tony Zeppetella served in the United States Navy for six years and attended Central Texas College and the University of Phoenix. He joined the Oceanside Police Department on May 13, 2002. After successfully completing his academy training in October, 2002, he reported to the Oceanside Police Department, where he made significant contributions to traffic safety and to the motoring public while assigned to the Oceanside Police Department. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 133, August 11, 2004, Chapter 137

 

Business Routes

The former surface routing of Route 76 is a business routing. It has been relinquished or vacated by Caltrans. This could relate to the relinquishments on the February 2003 CTC agenda: Relinquishment of the segment at PM 37.5 in the City of Oceanside, and vacation of the segment PM 6.7/7.4 in the City of Oceanside.

 

Other WWW Links

 

Freeway

[SHC 253.4] From Route 5 near Oceanside to Route 15. Added to the Freeway and Expressway system in 1959.

 

Interstate Submissions

In November 1957, the designation I-76 was proposed for what is now I-80, in order to not conflict with US 80. This was rejected by AASHTO.

 

Scenic Highway

[SHC 263.1] Entire route.

 


Overall statistics for Route 76:

  • Total Length (1995): 53 miles
  • Average Daily Traffic (1992): 1,500 to 48,000
  • Milage Classification: Rural: 41; Urbanized: 12.
  • Previous Federal Aid Milage: FAP: 35 mi; FAU: 13 mi; FAS: 5 mi.
  • Functional Classification: Prin. Arterial: 12 mi; Minor Arterial: 40 mi; Rural Minor Collector/Local Road: 0.5 mi.
  • Counties Traversed: San Diego.

 

Pre-1964 Legislative Route

The route that would become LRN 76 was first defined in 1931 by Chapter 82 as the route from Bishop to California-Nevada State line (Montgomery Pass). Although at times signed as part of Route 168, it was primarily signed as US 66. In 1931 (per April 1931 CHPW) the project was a routing from the Owens Valley to an interstate connection with a Nevada State Highway, and was viewed an alternative to LRN 63 (later signed as Route 168). As of 1931, the segment was a county road. Evidently, pre-1931, there was a lot of discussion between California and Nevada which route -- LRN 76/US 6 or LRN 63/Route 168 should be the ultimate interstate connection. Neither state highway department felt that a large outlay on the Westgard Pass Route (Route 168) other than maintenance and minor improvement was warranted for the traffic served; the Montgomery Pass route was deemed superior. For California, the principle value of the US 6 routing was the interstate connection during the winter months, where it was the only practical route. The Route 168 signage, pre-US 6, may have been temporary pending completion of the corresponding portion of Route 168, or it may have been signed as an alternative Route 168.

In 1933, the route was extended with two segments: Fresno-Yosemite Road at Shaw Avenue to Huntington Lake, and [LRN 23] to Camp Sabrina. In 1935, the route was codified in the highway code as follows:

  1. [LRN 23] near Bishop to Nevada State Line near Montgomery Pass
  2. [LRN 23] to Camp Sabrina
  3. [LRN 125] at Shaw Avenue to Huntington Lake

In 1959, Chapter 1841 changed segment (c) [3] to be “[LRN 125] near Fresno”.

In 1961, Chapter 1146 amended the definition, but didn't appear to make any changes.

The route was signed as follows:

  1. From LRN 23 near Bishop to the Nevada state line near Montgomery Pass.

    This was/is present-day US 6. Before the signage as US 6, this segment was signed as part of Route 168.

  2. From LRN 23 (US 395) to Camp Sabrina.

    This segment was signed as Route 168.

  3. From LRN 125 (Route 41) near Fresno to Huntington Lake.

    This segment was signed as Route 168.


State Shield

State Route 77



Routing
  1. From Route 880 near 42nd Avenue to a connection with Route 580 near High Street in Oakland.


    Post 1964 Signage History

    As defined in 1963, this segment was defined to be “Route 17 near 42nd Avenue to a connection with Route 580 near High Street in Oakland.”

    In 1984, Chapter 409 changed “Route 17” to “Route 880”.

     

    Pre 1964 Signage History

    Route 77 was not allocated as part of the original signage of state highways in 1934. This segment was a proposed route in 1963, and was LRN 235, defined in 1953.

     

    Status

    For a period before 2008, Route 77 between I-880 and post mile 0.45 was signed as Route 185. As of 2008, that segment has been resigned as Route 77. In terms of constructed length, this route is the shortest in the state system, beating Route 283 by 10 feet. There's a nice blog with pictures of this short segment at http://www.ptank.com/blog/2010/08/fun-with-highways-ca-77-oakland/.

    The route is unconstructed between Route 185 and Route 580. This was originally signed as Route 185 from Route 185 to I-880 via 42nd Avenue in Oakland; however, as of August 2008, it was signed as Route 77. Note that this signage is of the form of signs on the structures; it appears there are no reassurance markers. It follows the High Street corridor (including the portion that is Route 185) between I-880 and I-580. The constructed portion may be to freeway standards. The portion of High Street may be local traversable highway, not state maintained. As of 2002 the portion on 42nd Avenue was local traversable highway, but the 2008 signage might signal assumption of state maintenance.

    As of 2008, some work has (re)started on the Isabel Avenue ramp to I-580

    Note: 25th Ave does not go far enough north to meet I-580. 35th Ave, however, is the next exit up on I-580 from High St (segment 1) and turns into Redwood Rd (segment 2) at Jordan Rd. So there might be a typo in the route definition.


  2. From Route 580 in Oakland to Route 24 near Lafayette.


    Post 1964 Signage History

    In 1963, this segment was defined to be “Route 580 in Oakland to Route 242 near Concord passing near Lafayette.”

    In 1973, Chapter 447 changed the terminus of the segment to be “Route 24 near Lafayette.”

    Until 1973, segment (2) ended at Route 242. In 1973, the portion from Route 24 to Route 242 was deleted. At Taylor Boulevard and Pleasant Hill Road in Walnut Creek, there is a Y interchange. As Taylor Boulevard corresponds to the (pre-1973) extension of Route 77 to Route 242, this interchange might have been built in anticipation of the never-built extension. The deleted portion includes Taylor Boulevard (and its interchange with Pleasant Hill Road), Sunvalley Boulevard (between former Route 21 and I-680 at the Sun Valley Mall), and Willow Pass Road to Route 242.

    According to The Highway That Never Was (Mark Roberts), the route would have run through Shepherd Canyon. Originally, the Sacramento Northern Railroad ran an electrified route through the hills, with a tunnel at Gunn Drive. After the tunnel was sealed off in 1957, Caltrans then proposed a route through the area. Caltrans projected a daily traffic count of 100,000 vehicles per day by 1990. After extensive opposition, the plan was withdrawn in 1972.

    Preliminary studies were completed in 1956 covering the location for this future freeway. On December 19, 1956, after various public meetings and a hearing before the Highway Commission, the last gap in the route was adopted and declared a freeway. This future facility will consist of initially four lanes, future six lanes, and starting at the Mountain Boulevard Freeway in Oakland, will traverse Shepherd Canyon and tunnel some 1,400 feet through the Oakland hills. It will span the Redwood Canyon in Contra Costa County and traverse the range of hills easterly thereof entering and crossing the Moraga Valley just north of the present town site. It traverses close to St. Mary's College and terminates at a junction with Route 24 at Pleasant Hill Road. This would have been called the Shepherd Canyon Freeway.

     

    Pre 1964 Signage History

    Route 77 was not allocated as part of the original signage of state highways in 1934. This segment was a proposed route in 1963, and was LRN 235, defined in 1953.

     

    Status

    Unconstructed This routing is unconstructed from Route 580 to Route 24. The route is approximately 25th Avenue, Redwood Road, Pinehurst Road, and Canyon Road to Moraga; St. Mary's Road north to Lafayette. The official traversable local routing is Park Blvd, Sheperd Canyon Road, and Moraga Road. The portion from Route 580 to Route 93 was deleted from the Freeway and Expressway system in 1972, and the adopted freeway route was rescinded effective 7/18/1974. The adopted freeway routing from Route 93 to Route 24 was rescinded 7/17/1975. The town of Moraga has negotiated to lease a portion of the state right of way to construct a golf course. Construction of a conventional highway could be accomodated within the rescinded alignment. There are no plans to do so.

Freeway

Unconstructed [SHC 253.4] From Route 93 westerly of Moraga to Route 24 near Lafayette. Part (1) is unconstructed from Route 185 to Route 580, and all of part (2) is unconstructed. Added to the Freeway and Expressway system in 1959. Note that the portion deleted in 1973 (Route 580 to Route 93) is explicitly not part of the freeway and expressway system.

 

Other WWW Links

 


Overall statistics for Route 77:

  • Total Length (1995): 0.4 miles traversable; 13.4 miles unconstructed.
  • Average Daily Traffic (1992): 15,000 to 17,100
  • Milage Classification: Rural: 3; Sm. Urban 0; Urbanized: 11.
  • Functional Classification: Prin. Arterial: 0.4 mi.
  • Counties Traversed: Alameda, Contra Costa.

 

Pre-1964 Legislative Route

The route that would become LRN 77 was first defined in 1931 by Chapter 82. It was part of segment (l) (“Riverside to San Diego (Inland Route)”) and segment (m) (“Pomona to Temecula”).

Segment l (the Inland route from Riverside to San Diego) was an old established county routing that passed through many settlements and towns in plains and in narrow valleys lying in a semimountainous district between Riverside and San Diego. Riverside and San Diego counties had paved this route in the past, making a serviceable road for light traffic. The state still needed to improved the alignment, and the length of the ultimate State routing would be 20 miles shorter than the existing highway. It was added to the state highway system based on the volume of intercounty and intrastate traffic it carried, and by reason of relief it will afford to existing heavily traveled State roads and as an advantageous component of a comprehensive State system.

Segment m (the alternate route from Pomona to Temecula) was viewed as a valuable adjunct in state road systemization, providing a short cut to the Elsinore Lake district and to the Inland route from the territory between Corona and Pomona and the territory north and west of Pomona. The segment provided a convenient approach to the Inland route from Los Angeles and Pasadena vicinity. From extreme points in Los Angeles it offered an alternative passage to San Diego that, although longer than the coast route, avoided restriction to speed on the coast route that is caused by congestion and delays within more numerous cities (a rationale that was not only true in the early 1930s, but is true 80 years later). The proposed segment ran from the western terminus near Pomona to Santa Ana Canyoun near Prado (current Route 71 from Route 60 to Route 91), and through Temescal Canyon (present I-15 from Route 91 S to the I-215/I-15 jct) to Lake Elsinore and to Temecula on the inland route (recall that near Elsinore, US 395 did a job from the I-215 routing in Perris across to the I-15 routing). The plan was to use existing road facilities when possible. It was estimated that the route, by 1940, would carry 6450 vehicles on Sunday, and 3100 vehicles on weekdays (24 hr estimates).

In 1935, it was codified into the state highway code as:

“Pomona to San Diego via Temecula”

Note that at this time LRN 77 appears to have run into Vista, not Escondido, by some unknown routing. This is made clear by the definition of [LRN 196] as being "to [LRN 77] near Vista". LRN 197 started at "[LRN 77] near Escondido", so it appears that as of 1933, the route between Vista and Escondido appears to have been part of LRN 77.

That same year (1935), Chapter 626 added the following as Section 603 with no LRN:

“603. There is hereby added to the state highway system a new route or portion of route from the east city limits of Los Angeles on Valley Boulevard to [LRN 26] near El Monte via Valley Boulevard and Pomona Boulevard”

Note that the 1935 segment only runs as far E as the intersection of Valley and Garvey. It is discontiguous from the rest of LRN 77. .

In 1937, Chapter 841 repealed Section 603, and added the segment to [LRN 77] as segment (a) instead, numbering the 1935 segment as (b).

In 1951, Chapter 1562 extended LRN 196 to terminate at [LRN 77] near Escondido. This implied that by 1951, the portion from Vista to Escondido was no longer LRN 77, and LRN 77 had been rerouted (presumably to the US 395 routing). However, in 1947 Chapter 1233 changed LRN 196 to terminate at Vista, so the rerouting could have been as early as 1947.

In 1953, Chapter 237 changed the definition of (a) to drop the specific routings on Valley Boulevard and Pomona Boulevard.

This route was signed as follows:

  1. From the E city limit of Los Angeles to LRN 26 near El Monte.

    This route began at the proposed LRN 167 (eventual I-710) intersection with Valley Blvd (the present I-710 terminus). It ran E along Valley Blvd (US 70 or US 99) to cosigned US 60/US 70/US 99 near El Monte. This was likely signed as a business routing once the Ramona Freeway was completed.

  2. From Pomona to San Diego via Temecula.

    Between Pomona and Corona, this was and is signed as Route 71.

    Between Corona and Temecula, it was originally signed as Route 71; after 1964, it was signed as I-15.

    Between Temecula and San Diego, it was originally signed as Route 71, then as US 395, and is present-day I-15.


State Shield

State Route 78



Routing
  1. From Route 5 near Oceanside to Route 15 near Escondido.


    Post 1964 Signage History

    In 1963, this segment was defined as the route from “Route 5 near Oceanside to Route 395 near Escondido.”

    In 1969, Chapter 294 changed “Route 395” to “Route 15”.

     

    Pre 1964 Signage History

    In 1934, Route 78 was signed along the route from Jct. US 101 near Oceanside to Jct. US 99 near Kane Springs, via Ramona. This was once routed along Vista Way, Santa Fe, and Mission Road to Escondido. It was LRN 196, which was originally defined to run from LRN 2 (US 101) to LRN 77 in Vista. LRN 197 was defined to run from LRN 77 in Escondido, so it appears as if the portion between Vista and Escondido was part of the LRN 77 routing. However, in 1947 the definition of LRN 196 was changed to terminate simply at Vista, and in 1951 it was changed to terminate at LRN 77 near Escondido (US 395), making it likely that in 1951, the route between Vista and Escondido was transferred (with no change to LRN 77) from LRN 77 to LRN 196.

     

    Status

    In May 2012, the Oceanside Planning Commission approved plans to construct an interchange between Route 78 and Rancho Del Oro Drive. The interchange would be for westbound traffic only. Dropped from the plan was a proposal to connect segments of Melrose Drive south of Route 76 to create a link to the highway.

    There are plans to construct an eastbound auxiliary lane in Oceanside from the El Camino Real Overcross to east of El Camino Real Overcross. July 2005 CTC Agenda.

    There are early plans to expand this route in Escondido. The plans could result in either two car-pool lanes or two toll lanes from Oceanside to Escondido by 2020. If car-pool lanes are picked, they would provide designated space for buses, car pools, van pools and solo drivers willing to pay a fee. Toll lanes would be open to everyone... for a fee.The study should be completed in Spring 2012. In 2009, Route 78 handled an average of between 120,000 and 160,000 weekday vehicle trips, according to the California Department of Transportation. Route 78 was built in the 1970s and widened from four lanes to six in 1993.

    In January 2007, the CTC considered relinquishment of right of way in the City of Vista, at Melrose Drive, consisting of reconstructed and relocated city streets. The City, by freeway agreement dated February 13, 1996, agreed to accept title upon relinquishment by the State.

    The SAFETEA-LU act, enacted in August 2005 as the reauthorization of TEA-21, provided the following expenditures on or near this route: High Priority Project #3206: I-5 and Route 78 Interchange Improvements. $4,000,000.

     

     

    Naming

    This segment has often been called the "Anza" Freeway.

    It is officially named the "Ronald Packard Parkway". Ronald C. Packard was congressman from the 48th Congressional District beginning in 1982, serving as the chairperson of the North County Transit District in San Diego County. Ronald Packard was instrumental in obtaining funding for the San Diego Trolley and Coaster Rail systems and receiving needed supplemental funding for numerous highway interchanges throughout San Diego County. He was the primary person responsible for the improvements made to the State Highway Routes 76 and 78. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 165, Chapter 124, September 5, 2000.

     

    Named Structures

    The Twin Oaks Valley Road Bridge in the City of San Marcos, San Diego County is officially named the "Vicente "Vince" Andrade Memorial Bridge". Vicente "Vince" Andrade, originally from Winslow, Arizona was a powerful force both in the City of San Marcos and as a voice for North San Diego County's Latino community. In May 1998, he received the Making A Difference Award, lauding Mr. Andrade's leadership in founding El Grupo Sin Nombre, an umbrella organization aimed at giving 37 Latino groups a unified voice on political and social issues in North San Diego County. He served as Chairperson of the Board of Directors for North County Health Services, President of the Hispanic Advisory Council at California State University, San Marcos, and Chairperson of the Latino Coalition for Education. In 1996, after a three-year term on the planning commission, Vince Andrade was elected to the San Marcos City Council where he served with distinction and represented the city as a SANDAG board member and was instrumental in securing additional funds for construction of the Twin Oaks Valley Road interchange improvements. This outstanding community leader died on January 23, 1999 after a five year courageous battle against recurring cancer. Named by Senate Concurrent Resolution 9, Chaptered April 30, 2001, Resolution Chapter 46.


  2. From Route 15 near Escondido to Route 86 passing near Ramona, Santa Ysabel, and Julian.


    Post 1964 Signage History

    As defined in 1963, this segment was the route from “Route 395 near Escondido to Route 86 near Kane Springs passing near Romona and Santa Ysabel and via Julian.”

    In 1963, Chapter 1698 appears to have corrected a spelling error, changing "Romona" to "Ramona"

    In 1969, Chapter 294 changed “Route 395” to “Route 15”.

    In 1972, Chapter 1216 simplified the routing to be “Route 15 near Escondido to Route 86 near Kane Springs passing near Ramona, and Santa Ysabel, and via Julian.”

     

    Pre 1964 Signage History

    In 1934, Route 78 was signed along the route from Jct. US 101 near Oceanside to Jct. US 99 near Kane Springs, via Ramona. It was LRN 197 between Escondido and Ramona (junction Route 67). It was LRN 198 between Ramona and near Kane Springs and the junction with US 99 (LRN 26; now Route 86). Both LRN 197 and LRN 198 were defined in 1933.

     

    Status

    In October 2012, the CTC authorized relinquishment of right of way in the county of San Diego along Route 78 at Haverford Road near Ramona, consisting of collateral facilities.

     

    Naming

    The segment between Third Street and Route 67 is officially named the "Ramon Ojeda Memorial Highway". It was named in memory of Army Specialist Ramon Ojeda, who was killed in action in Baghdad, Iraq on May 1, 2004, at the age of 22, when his convoy was attacked by terrorists. Specialist Ojeda attended school in Ramona, California, and was survived by his wife, Lesliee, who was serving in the United States Army in Iraq, and by his 14-month-old son, Angel. He wrestled at Ramona High School and had a "can do" spirit, and a remarkable ability to disarm and cheer up others with his levity. Specialist Ojeda joined the United States Army and was assigned to the Army's 25th Infantry Division, and was the first Ramona resident killed in action in Iraq. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution (ACR) 47, Resolution Chapter 100, on 8/16/2006.

     

    Scenic Highway

    [SHC 263.5] From Route 79 near Santa Ysabel to Route 86 passing near Julian.


  3. From Route 86 near Brawley to Route 10 near Blythe.

    Note: Upon relinquishment of Route 86 in Brawley, the portion of Route 86 from 0.5 mile south of Fredricks Road to the north junction of Route 78 shall be redesignated as a part of Route 78.


    Post 1964 Signage History

    As defined in 1963, this segment was:

    Route 86 near Brawley to Route 10 near Blythe.

    Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 89 of Chapter 1062, Statutes of 1959, the department shall proceed with the construction of the unconstructed portion of said route described in subdivision (c) between the easterly junction of Route 115 and the Imperial-Riverside county line with the lowest practical cost for a hard surfaced road and as an interim project pending the later construction of the route to proper limited access standards; provided, that prior thereto the County of Imperial enters into a co-operative agreement with the department wherein the county agrees to maintain the road between the easterly junction of Route 115 and the Imperial-Riverside county line until a limited access highway is constructed by the department between said points. Upon the completion of construction of said interim road, and pursuant to said agreement, the county shall assume jurisdiction and all responsibilities of maintenance for the period above provided. The road shall be known and designated as the "Ben Hulse Highway."

    In 1965, Chapter 1371 seems to have just changed "co-operative" to "cooperative".

    In 1968, Chapter 281 removed the following text about county maintenance: "; provided, that prior thereto the County of Imperial enters into a co-operative agreement with the department wherein the county agrees to maintain the road between the easterly junction of Route 115 and the Imperial-Riverside county line until a limited access highway is constructed by the department between said points. Upon the completion of construction of said interim road, and pursuant to said agreement, the county shall assume jurisdiction and all responsibilities of maintenance for the period above provided."

    In 1976, Chapter 1354 removed all conditions.

    In 2013, Chapter 525 (SB 788, 10/9/13) permitted relinquishment of Route 86 in Brawley, and added the language "(d) Following the relinquishments authorized in subdivision (b), the portion of Route 86 from 0.5 mile south of Fredricks Road to the north junction of Route 78 shall be redesignated as a part of Route 78."

     

    Pre 1964 Signage History

    The small portion of this route within Brawley (from Route 86 to Route 115) was part of LRN 187, defined in 1933.

    The remainder of this segment was not part of the 1934 definition of signed Route 78. It was LRN 146, and was a proposed route between Brawley and Palo Verde, and constructed between Palo Verde and Blythe. It was unsigned until Palo Verde. From Palo Verde to Blythe, it was signed as Route 195 until the signage of Route 195 N from Blythe as US 95. It was defined from the Riverside County line to I-10 in 1933; the remainder was defined in 1959. A 1967 map shows the routing between Midway Well and Route 115 as County Route S78, with Route 78 signed with Route 115 between the Brawley area and US 80.

     

    Status

    In January 2012, the CTC authorized relinquishment of right of way in the city of Brawley along realigned Route78 from Best Road to Route 111, consisting of collateral facilities.

    In October 2012, the CTC authorized relinquishment of right of way in the city of Brawley on Route 78 (Main Street) between existing Route 86 and realigned Route 111, consisting of superseded highway right of way.

    It appears there are plans to convert at least part of this to freeway. The April 2003 CTC had on its agenda the route adoption of a Freeway location for Route 78, northwest of the City of Brawley, to Route 111, southwest of the City of Brawley, in Imperial County. [11-Imp-78 KP R14.6/R24.8 (PM R09.1/R15.4) and 11-Imp-111 KP R33.0/R39.7 (PM R20.5/R24.7)]. There was also an item related to a negative environment impact for the project.

    In his 2006 Strategic Growth Plan, Governor Schwartzenegger proposed completing stages 2 and 3 of the Brawley Bypass. In November 2007, bids went out for construction of a 4-lane divided expressway and interchange on Route 78 near Brawley from 0.6 Km East of Hovley Road to 0.4 Km North of the Route 78/Route 111 Junction

    In February 2009, the CTC was noticed that Caltrans and the Imperial Valley Association of Governments (IVAG) recommended that Brawley Bypass projects programmed in the 2008 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) be reprogrammed as a corridor, with funding levels to be based on the state funds previously allocated by the California Transportation Commission (Commission) and available local and federal funds: (a) Route 78 Brawley Bypass — Stage 2 project (PPNO 0021F) (b) Route 78 Brawley Bypass — Route 86 to Route 111 project (PPNO 0021).

    In May 2012, the CTC amended the the Trade Corridor Improvement Fund (TCIF) baseline agreement for Project No. 77 – Brawley Bypass (Route 78/Route 111 Expressway) – Stage 3 Project (PPNO 0021G) in Imperial County. The amendment revised the project schedule and split off a follow-up landscape mitigation project (PPNO 0021Y). The approved baseline schedule was been revised to update the end of construction and closeout phases. The original construction schedule was developed assuming minimal structural construction on the project. However, during the design phase, a bridge was added to allow for canal maintenance, triggering an extended construction period.

    In December 2011, the CTC authorized relinquishment of right of way in the county of Imperial along Route78 between Route 111 and the realigned 111, and along Route 111 between Mead Road and Route 78, consisting of superseded highway right of way and collateral facilities.

    2007 CMIA. The Brawley Bypass on Route 78 was submitted to the Corridor Mobility Improvement Account for funding ($46.1 million). It was not recommended for funding.

    The SAFETEA-LU act, enacted in August 2005 as the reauthorization of TEA-21, provided the following expenditures on or near this route:

    • High Priority Project #926: Construct highway connecting Route 78/Route 86 and Route 111, Brawley. This is likely the route being explored by the CTC back in April 2003. $7,600,000.

    In February 2010, the CTC approved some funding changes regarding the Brawley Bypass. Specifically, they amended the project agreement to reprogram $1,909,000 of Federal Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) Border Infrastructure Program (BIP) funds to the right of way phase on the Brawley Bypass (Stage 3) project (PPNO 0021G) in Imperial County. The purpose was to fund right of way activities related to additional impacts to agricultural land within the project vicinity. It should be noted this is a long project; the schedule shows environmental started in March 1993, and project closeout is expected to finish in January 2013 (construction should finish in February 2012). 

     

    Naming

    The portion of this part of the route between the junction of Route 78 and Route 111 (formerly Route 86, changed by Senate Concurrent Resolution 70, July 16, 2004, Chapter 121) upon its construction near Brawley and Route 10 near Blythe is officially designated the "Ben Hulse Highway." It was named by Assembly Bill 2499, Chapter 1387 in 1961 (for LRN 146); the name was transferred to Route 78 in 1963. California State Senator Ben Hulse served the people of Imperial County from 1933 to 1958.

    The portion of Route 78 "Brawley Bypass" from Route 86 near Brawley to the Highline Canal east of Brawley, in the County of Imperial is named the Victor V. Veysey Expressway. It was named in honor of Victor Vincent Veysey, who was born in Los Angeles in 1915, and earned degrees at the California Institute of Technology and Harvard University. After 11 years of teaching at the California Institute of Technology and Stanford University, he moved to the County of Imperial to begin a career in farming. In 1955 he was elected to the Brawley School District Board of Directors, and later in 1960 was elected to the Imperial Valley College Board where he served until 1962. From 1963 to 1971 he served in the California Assembly, as the last resident of the County of Imperial to serve in the Legislature. He was a Congressman in the United States House of Representatives from 1971 to 1975, representing the 38th and 43rd Districts of California. He then went on to serve in President Ford's administration as the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works until 1977, where he played a major role in the negotiations that eventually led to the agreement on the Panama Canal. Governor Deukmejian appointed Mr. Veysey to serve as the California Secretary for Industrial Relations in 1983; and he went on to serve as Director of the Industrial Relations Center and Lecturer in Business Economics, at the California Institute of Technology. He passed away on February 13, 2001, in Hemet, California. Named by Senate Concurrent Resolution 70, July 16, 2004, Chapter 121.

    The New River Bridge on the Route 78 Bypass in Imperial County is officially named the "Douglas B. Dunaway Memorial Bridge". This structure was named in memory of Douglas Brian Dunaway, who was born in Walsingham, England at Sculthorpe Air Base in 1959 to a military family serving abroad, who enlisted in the United States Army in 1977, and who was honorably discharged after four years of service. Upon discharge from the Army, Mr. Dunaway attended Oregon State University and earned a bachelor of science degree in civil engineering. Mr. Dunaway began his career with the Office of Structures Construction of the Department of Transportation in 1991. Mr. Dunaway was an exemplary employee who received numerous awards, including three superior accomplishment awards recognizing his ongoing efforts to deliver the highest quality product to the customers of the department, and for delivering specialized training and mentoring for staff. Mr. Dunaway gained the respect of supervisors, management, and peers for his commitment to high professional standards, and excelled as a mentor to all employees. Mr. Dunaway was one of the most experienced structure representatives in District 11 of the Department of Transportation, serving Imperial and San Diego Counties, and was named the Structure Representative of the Year in 2008. Over his 19-year career, Mr. Dunaway worked on some of the most complex structures throughout the state, including structures on Route 5, Route 14, Route 15, Route 78, Route 86, Route 94, and Route 905. Mr. Dunaway's passion was bridge building and he volunteered for several assignments in Imperial County over his career, where he enjoyed living and working. As a humanitarian, Mr. Dunaway was an avid supporter of Feed the Children, Toys for Tots, various battered women's shelters, and local shelters for the homeless. Mr. Dunaway passed away unexpectedly on March 5, 2010, while working on the Brawley Bypass as the structure representative, and is interred at the Dallas Cemetery in Dallas, Oregon. Named by Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR) 116, Resolution Chapter 128, on 9/7/2010.

exitinfo.gif

 

Other WWW Links

 

Freeway

[SHC 253.1] Entire route. Part (1) and the portion of part (2) from Route 15 to Escondido are constructed to freeway standards. Added to the Freeway and Expressway system in 1959.

 

Classified Landcaped Freeway

The following segments are designated as Classified Landscaped Freeway:

County Route Starting PM Ending PM
San Diego 78 0.00 0.73
San Diego 78 1.17 1.50
San Diego 78 3.20 3.62
San Diego 78 4.28 4.47
San Diego 78 6.76 7.05
San Diego 78 7.60 7.84
San Diego 78 8.96 9.24
San Diego 78 10.84 11.45
San Diego 78 11.82 12.40
San Diego 78 12.81 13.14
San Diego 78 R15.64 R16.91

 

National Trails

De Anza Auto Route This route is part of the De Anza National Historic Trail.

 

Interregional Route

[SHC 164.14] Entire route.

 


Overall statistics for Route 78:

  • Total Length (1995): 194 miles
  • Average Daily Traffic (1992): 680 to 115,000
  • Milage Classification: Rural: 166; Sm. Urban 5; Urbanized: 23.
  • Previous Federal Aid Milage: FAP: 194 mi.
  • Functional Classification: Prin. Arterial: 29 mi; Minor Arterial: 165 mi.
  • Counties Traversed: San Diego, Imperial, Riverside.

 

Pre-1964 Legislative Route

The route that was to become LRN 78 was first defined in 1931 by Chapter 82 as part of “(l) Riverside to San Diego (Inland Route)”. The Inland route from Riverside to San Diego was an old established county routing that passed through many settlements and towns in plains and in narrow valleys lying in a semimountainous district between Riverside and San Diego. Riverside and San Diego counties had paved this route in the past, making a serviceable road for light traffic. The state still needed to improved the alignment, and the length of the ultimate State routing would be 20 miles shorter than the existing highway. It was added to the state highway system based on the volume of intercounty and intrastate traffic it carried, and by reason of relief it will afford to existing heavily traveled State roads and as an advantageous component of a comprehensive State system.

In 1933, it was extended with a segment from [LRN 12] near Descanso to [LRN 77] near Temecula. In 1935, it was codified into the highway code as:

  1. Riverside to [LRN 77] near Temecula
  2. [LRN 12] near Descanso to [LRN 77] near Temecula

This definition remained until the 1963 renumbering. It was signed as follows:

  1. From Riverside to LRN 77 near Temecula.

    This was originally signed as US 395, and is present-day I-215 (for a short while, this was I-15E).

  2. From LRN 12 (US 80; present-day I-8) near Descanso to LRN 77 (US 395; present-day I-215 and I-15) near Temecula.

    This was/is signed as Route 79 between Descanso (US 80; present-day I-8) and Aguanga (present-day Route 79/Route 371 junction). Between Aguanga and Temecula, it was originally signed as Route 79, then resigned as Route 71 until 1974; it is present-day Route 79.


State Shield

State Route 79



Routing
  1. From Route 8 near Descanso to Route 78 near Julian.


    Post 1964 Signage History

    As defined in 1963, this segment ran from (a) Route 8 near Descanso to Route 78.

    In 1981, Chapter 292 changed the terminus of this segment to be "Route 78 near Julian".

     

    Pre 1964 Signage History

    State Shield Pre-1964 State Shield In 1934, Route 79 was signed along the route from Jct. US 80 near Descanso to Temecula via Aguanga. This segment was LRN 78, defined in 1933.

     

    Naming

    The portion of Route 79 from the intersection with Route 78 in Santa Ysabel to the intersection with Engineers Road in Cuyamaca in San Diego County is named the Firefighter Steven Rucker Memorial Highway. It was named in memory of Firefighter Steven Rucker of Novato, California. In late October 2003, Southern California experienced several devastating wildfires that exceeded the devastation of any fires in the past century. In San Diego County alone 400,000 acres burned, 2,600 homes where destroyed, and 17 lives were lost. Dedicated firefighters from across California and nationwide responded to the urgent call for assistance and put their lives and personal safety at risk to save the lives and property of the residents of San Diego County. Additionally, members of the Armed Forces courageously met their country's call to duty, providing valuable firefighting assets and assistance to California's emergency response efforts in keeping with the finest traditions of United States military service. Firefighters displayed courage and uncommon bravery in working the fire lines for long hours and with little rest, often while their own homes and families were in jeopardy elsewhere, and many of these firefighters lost their own homes to the fires while defending the lives and property of others. Through the tireless and heroic efforts of California's firefighters, volunteers, and members of the community, the historic town of Julian was ultimately saved from destruction by the wildfires. One of these firefighters, Steven Rucker of Novato, California gave the ultimate sacrifice and lost his life in San Diego County on October 29th, 2003 fighting the advancing fire line as it threatened the town of Julian and neighboring mountain communities. Named by Senate Concurrent Resolution 53, July 8, 2004, Chapter 114.

     

    Scenic Highway

    [SHC 263.5] Entire portion.

     

    Freeway

    [SHC 253.5] Entire portion. Added to the Freeway and Expressway system in 1959.


  2. Route 78 near Santa Ysabel to the Temecula city limits east of Butterfield Stage Road


    Post 1964 Signage History

    In 1963, this segment was defined as the route from "Route 78 to Route 71."

    Note: in 1965, Chapter 1372 changed (c) to start at "Route 395" instead of "Route 71", but did not change (b) to end at Route 395. This is an odd change, perhaps an error. In 1969, Chapter 294 changed (c) again to start at "Route 15" instead of "Route 395"... again, failing to change (b) to terminate at Route 15. Again, possibly an error.

    In 1974, Chapter 537 changed "Route 71" to "Route 15 near Temecula." This reflected the transfer of the portion of Route 71 from I-15 to Aguanga (present-day Route 79/Route 371 junction) from Route 71.

    In 1981, Chapter 292 changed the origin of this segment to be "Route 78 near Santa Ysabel"

    In 2004, SB 87, Chapter 386, September 8, 2004, relinquished the portion surrounding I-15 within the Temecula City Limits. The actual segment was up for relinquishment in January 2005. This changed the terminus to "the Temecula city limits east of Butterfield Stage Road".

     

    Pre 1964 Signage History

    State Shield Pre-1964 State Shield In 1934, Route 79 was signed along the route from Jct. US 80 near Descanso to Temecula via Aguanga.

    The portion between Aguanga and Route 15 in Temecula has a much more colorful signage history. Originally, this portion was also signed as Route 79. In 1939, US 395 was signed, and this portion became part of a longer Route 71 that ran to Route 74 E of Anza. At that time, Route 79 was rerouted up to US 60 near Beaumont using present-day Riverside County Route R3 and present-day Route 79 between Hemet and Beaumont, creating a short segment (between Aguanga and CR R3) that was cosigned as Route 71/Route 79, and as Route 71 between County Route R3 and Temecula. In 1964, the segment between County Route R3 and Temecula was cosigned Route 79 (although the route was officially Route 71), and County Route R3 was signed. That segement was resigned as Route 79 in 1974 when Route 71 was renumbered. This was part of LRN 78, defined in 1933.

     

    Status

    The intersection of Route 371 and Route 79 has demonstrated itself to be a high source of accidents, with four deaths occuring in the period from July 2001 to July 2002. As a result, the intersection is being redesigned. Two-lane Route 79 is the main link between Temecula and the Warner Springs and Santa Ysabel areas of San Diego County. Two-lane Route 371 is a well-traveled back road between Southwest County and Palm Springs. Currently, the two roads converge in Aguanga where an oddly configured intersection contributes greatly to the accident count. Westbound traffic on Route 79 must stop at the intersection, while eastbound traffic on Route 79 and traffic coming down a steep curvy grade from Anza on Route 371 proceed without stopping. Beginning in Summer 2003, the intersection will be reconfigured to force drivers heading toward Temecula to stop and turn either left of right at a "T" intersection with Route 371. Turning left would take them quickly back to Route 79. Long-term improvements will include a merger lane from Route 371 to Route 79.

    Note: Although SB 87 (9/8/2004) changed the legislative definition to eliminate the portion in the City of Temecula, the bill also noted that the portion within Temecula may (not is, so they wrote the bill wrong) be relinquished. The relinquishment agreement must require that the operations and maintenance of the highways will be administered consistent with professional traffic engineering standards, that appropriate traffic studies or analysis will be performed to substantiate decisions affecting the highways, and that there be allowances for public notice and the consideration of public input on the proximate effects of any proposed decision on traffic flow, residences, or businesses, other than a decision on routine maintenance.

    The SAFETEA-LU act, enacted in August 2005 as the reauthorization of TEA-21, provided the following expenditures on or near this route:

    • High Priority Project #1590: I-15 and Route 79 South Freeway Interchange and Ramp Improvement Project. $1,600,000.

     

     

    Scenic Highway

    [SHC 263.5] Entire portion.

     

    Freeway

    [SHC 253.5] From Route 371 near Aguanga to Route 15 near Temecula. Added to the Freeway and Expressway system in 1959.


  3. Temecula city limits south of Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Route 74 near Hemet

    (b) The relinquished former portions of Route 79 within the City of Temecula and the City of San Jacinto are not state highways and are not eligible for adoption under Section 81. For the relinquished former portions of Route 79, the City of Temecula and the City of San Jacinto shall maintain within their respective jurisdictions signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 79. The City of Temecula shall ensure the continuity of traffic flow on the relinquished former portions of Route 79 within its jurisdiction, including any traffic signal progression.


    Post 1964 Signage History

    As defined in 1963, this segment ran from "Route 71 east of Temecula to Route 74 near Hemet." This routing began 4 mi NW of Aguanga on Route 71 (at that time, Route 71 ran from Temecula to 5 mi E of Anza along present-day Route 79 and Route 371), and ran into Hemet via Sage.

    In 1965, Chapter 1372 changed this segment to start at "Route 395 near Temecula" instead of "Route 71 E of Temecula"

    In 1969, Chapter 294 changed (c) again to start at "Route 15" instead of "Route 395".

    In 2004, SB 87, Chapter 386, September 8, 2004, relinquished the portion surrounding I-15 within the Temecula City Limits. The actual segment was up for relinquishment in January 2005. This changed the origin to "Temecula city limits south of Murrieta Hot Springs Road": (b) (1) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the commission may relinquish to the City of Temecula the portion of Route 79 located within Temecula's city limits, upon terms and conditions the commission finds to be in the best interest of the state. (2) Any relinquishment agreement shall require that the City of Temecula administer the operation and maintenance of the highways in a manner consistent with professional traffic engineering standards. (3) Any relinquishment agreement shall require the City of Temecula to ensure that appropriate traffic studies or analysis will be performed to substantiate any decisions affecting the highways. (4) Any relinquishment agreement shall also require the City of Temecula to provide for public notice and the consideration of public input on the proximate effects of any proposed decision on traffic flow, residences, or businesses, other than a decision on routine maintenance. (5) Notwithstanding any of its other terms, any relinquishment agreement shall require the City of Temecula to indemnify and hold the department harmless from any liability for any claims made or damages suffered by any person, including a public entity, as a result of any decision made or damages suffered by any person, including a public entity, as a result of any decision made or action taken by the City of Temecula, its officers, employees, contractors, or agent, with respect to the design, maintenance, construction, or operation of that portion of Route 79 that is to be relinquished to the city. (6) Any relinquishment shall become effective immediately after the county recorder records the relinquishment resolution that contains the commission's approval of the terms and conditions of the relinquishment. (7) On and after the effective date of the relinquishment, both of the following shall occur: (A) The portion of Route 79 relinquished shall cease to be a state highway. (B) The portion of Route 79 relinquished may not be considered for future adoption under Section 81. (8) The City of Temecula shall ensure the continuity of traffic flow on the relinquished portion of Route 79, including any traffic signal progression. (9) For relinquished portions of Route 79, the City of Temecula shall maintain signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 79.

     

    Pre 1964 Signage History

    The original routing of Route 79 in this area (from Aguanga to Hemet via Sage) was LRN 194, defined in 1933. This route is now Riverside County Route R3. Route 79 was later changed to a more direct route from I-15 to Route 74 in Hemet; this route never had an LRN. Only the portion between Aguanga and Route 15 was signed as Route 79 in 1934; this was later Route 71.

     

    Status

    According to Don Hagstron in May 2003, there are discussions about a future southward extension of the Route 79 expressway that will bypass Downtown Hemet and San Jacinto and run towards Temecula. The project is delayed, perhaps due to the fact that Riverside County wants to run the expressway all the way up to the existing 6-lane highway portion of Winchester Road (Route 79) that takes you into Temecula and I-15. Don notes that any future Route 79 Freeway that would completely run east of I-215 and south of Hemet appears to be dead due to the protests of Menifee Valley residents who do not want a north-south freeway running through their unincorporated area. Andy Field has a diagram on his Route 125 page that show this proposal, it would be a new north-south freeway corridor that would lead from the current planned northern terminus of Route 125 in Poway north to I-10 in Riverside County, roughly paralleling Interstates 15 and 215 past Escondido, Temecula, and Perris.

     

    Other WWW Links

     

    Freeway

    [SHC 253.5] Entire portion. Added to the Freeway and Expressway system in 1959.


  4. Route 74 near Hemet to the San Jacinto city limit near Menlo Avenue.

    (b) The relinquished former portions of Route 79 within the City of Temecula and the City of San Jacinto are not state highways and are not eligible for adoption under Section 81. For the relinquished former portions of Route 79, the City of Temecula and the City of San Jacinto shall maintain within their respective jurisdictions signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 79. The City of Temecula shall ensure the continuity of traffic flow on the relinquished former portions of Route 79 within its jurisdiction, including any traffic signal progression.

    (c) (1) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the commission may relinquish to the City of Hemet the portion of Route 79 that is located within the city limits of that city, upon terms and conditions the commission finds to be in the best interests of the state, if the department and the city enter into an agreement providing for that relinquishment. (2) A relinquishment under this subdivision shall become effective immediately following the county recorder's recordation of the relinquishment resolution containing the commission's approval of the terms and conditions of the relinquishment. (3) On and after the effective date of the relinquishment, the relinquished portion of Route 79 shall cease to be a state highway. (4) The portion of Route 79 relinquished under this subdivision shall be ineligible for future adoption under Section 81. (5) For the portion of Route 79 that is relinquished under this subdivision, the City of Hemet shall maintain within its jurisdiction signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 79.


    Post 1964 Signage History

    In 2006, AB 1938, September 18, 2006, authorized relinquishment in San Jacinto: (c) (1) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the commission may relinquish to the City of San Jacinto any portion of Route 79 that is located within the city limits of that city, upon terms and conditions the commission finds to be in the best interests of the state, if the department and the city enter into an agreement providing for that relinquishment. (2) A relinquishment under this subdivision shall become effective immediately following the county recorder's recordation of the relinquishment resolution containing the commission's approval of the terms and conditions of the relinquishment. (3) On and after the effective date of the relinquishment, the relinquished portion of Route 79 shall cease to be a state highway. (4) The portion of Route 79 relinquished under this subdivision shall be ineligible for future adoption under Section 81. (5) For the portion of Route 79 that is relinquished under this subdivision, the City of San Jacinto shall maintain within its jurisdiction signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 79.

    In July 2007, the CTC relinquished right of way in the city of San Jacinto, under terms and conditions as stated in the cooperative agreement, dated June 4, 2007, determined to be in the best interest of the State. Authorized by Chapter 318, Statutes of 2006, which amended Section 379 of the Streets and Highways Code.

    In 2007, SB 224, 10/14/2007, Chapter 718, authorized relinquishment in Hemet: (d) (1) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the commission may relinquish to the City of Hemet the portion of Route 79 that is located within the city limits of that city, upon terms and conditions the commission finds to be in the best interests of the state, if the department and the city enter into an agreement providing for that relinquishment. (2) A relinquishment under this subdivision shall become effective immediately following the county recorder's recordation of the relinquishment resolution containing the commission's approval of the terms and conditions of the relinquishment. (3) On and after the effective date of the relinquishment, the relinquished portion of Route 79 shall cease to be a state highway. (4) The portion of Route 79 relinquished under this subdivision shall be ineligible for future adoption under Section 81. (5) For the portion of Route 79 that is relinquished under this subdivision, the City of Hemet shall maintain within its jurisdiction signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 79.

    In 2010, SB 1318 (Chapter 421, 9/29/10) split this segment, which was originally "From Route 74 near Hemet to Route 10 near Beaumont."

     

    Pre 1964 Signage History

    This segment was not part of the original definition of Route 79 in 1934. It originally was a surface route between Route 74 and US 60, and was LRN 186. Later, a direct route between Hemet and Beaumont was constructed, and was assigned LRN 194. Until the construction of the route betwen San Jacinto and Beaumont, however, the original LRN 186 was LRN 194. Once LRN 194 was defined, the definition of LRN 186 was truncated to begin at the LRN 194/LRN 186 junction. LRN 186 was defined in 1933. It is likely the rerouting of LRN 194 to I-10 near Beaumont occured in 1959.

     

    Status

    Between the Ramona Expressway and Gilman Springs Road, the routing for Route 79 was changed in July 2002. The original routing ran along Gilman Spring Road and State Street between Ramona Expressway and the Gilman Spring Road/Sanderson Road junction. This was an aging conventional highway with predominantly non-standard shoulders, non-standard horizontal and vertical curves, and an accident rate more than double similar state freeways. In 2002, this routing was relinquished in lieu of a new routing along Ramona Expressway and Sanderson Avenue. This new highway portion has a grade separated interchange and has recently been widened. The claim is that the new routing, in addition to being a better road, allows the property owners on the original routing to preseve the rural character of their area, while reducing vehicle speeds. The background and proposal do not note the rumor that the original routing was a problem for the Church of Scientology, as the Gilman Springs routing runs through the Golden Era Studio operated by the Church. This rerouting was addressed by the CTC in July 2002, when it defined a new routing that ran from 08-Riv-79 PM 29.9/R33.9 in the City of San Jacinto, and PM 29.9 to PM 13.2 in the County of Riverside, and relinquished the segments from from PM 29.9 to 30.9, and from PM 30.5 to 33.4

    It appears the routing ran longer along Gilman Springs Road than that. One 1955 map shows Route 79 as continuing along Gilman Springs Road from Sanderson/Lamb Canyon to Route 60 in Moreno. In 1964, that routing was transferred to Route 177, and deleted in 1965. Note that Gilman Springs Road used to be called Foothill Road. At some point, it was rerouted along Lamb Canyon Road to Route 10 near Beaumont.

    In May 2012, the CTC authorized SHOPP funding on Route 79, in Riverside County, 08-Riv-79 R34.2/40.1 In and near Beaumont, from 0.3 mile north of Gilman Springs Road to south of First Street. $190,000 to install ground-in rumble strips on shoulders and place reflective markers on median barrier to improve safety by reducing the number of run-off-the road collisions.

    Route 79 Alignment Build AlternativesIn February 2013, it was reported that there were feedback sessions on the Route 79 realignment project. The Route 79 Realignment Project is a proposed realignment of Route 79 between Domenigoni Parkway and Gilman Springs Road in the San Jacinto-Hemet area. The need for the project is based on a number of factors, including the following:

    • Regional traffic on the current Route 79 alignment traverses heavily developed areas in Winchester, Hemet, and San Jacinto. The regional traffic competes with local traffic for the limited Route 79 roadway capacity.
    • The current alignment of Route 79 between Domenigoni Parkway and Gilman Springs Road is circuitous, with numerous at-grade intersections, residential and commercial driveways, traffic signals, and other impediments that degrade the operational characteristics of the facility. With no viable alternative facilities, Sanderson Avenue and Warren Road have become default north-south routes for regional traffic, thereby adding more traffic onto local streets.
    • Route 79 and Route 74 are collocated as one facility for about 11.3 kilometers (km) (7 miles [mi]) along Florida Avenue. As a result, Route 74 east-west traffic and Route 79 north-south traffic are combined.
    • The geometric design of Route 79 does not support the movement of trucks exceeding the length of 40 feet, which are authorized under the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA). As such, STAA vehicles are diverted to Sanderson Avenue.

    The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), the agency responsible for transportation in Riverside County and the administrator of Measure A (Riverside County’s ½ cent sales tax for transportation), has completed environmental studies on a variety of alternatives for the Project. RCTC and Caltrans have prepared and released a Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIR/EIS) for public review and comment. The Draft EIR/EIS describes the four proposed Build alternatives and two design options to realign Route 79 to the western area of the San Jacinto Valley. The Build alternatives propose to construct a limited access expressway with two lanes in each direction, divided in the center, with on and off ramps for access. In addition, two of the Build alternatives were revised in response to agency and public input to include a variation (design option) with a lowered roadway profile to reduce visual impacts to surrounding communities, mainly in the area south of Florida Avenue. RCTC and Caltrans accepted comments on the Draft EIR/EIS for 45 days after the release of the document on February 8, 2013. The comment period ended on March 25, 2013.

    Mid County Parkway Project: Riverside County has a project in the words to construct a 16 mile west-east transportation corridor between I-215 and Route 79 connecting the Cities of San Jacinto and Perris. The project will consist of a divided highway including three lanes in each direction with on and off ramps as well as freeway-freeway type interchanges at I-215 and Route 79. This project is currently at the EIR stage.

    The SAFETEA-LU act, enacted in August 2005 as the reauthorization of TEA-21, provided the following expenditures on or near this route:

    • High Priority Project #1421: Development and construction of improvements to Route 79 in the San Jacinto Valley. $2,400,000.

     

     

    Freeway

    [SHC 253.5] Entire portion. Added to the Freeway and Expressway system in 1959.


  5. The San Jacinto city limit near Sanderson Avenue to Route 10 near Beaumont.


    Post 1964 Signage History

    This section was created in 2010 by a split from the preceeding segment (AB 1318, Chapter 421, 9/29/10).

     

    Freeway

    [SHC 253.5] Entire portion. Added to the Freeway and Expressway system in 1959.

Other WWW Links

 


Overall statistics for Route 79:

  • Total Length (1995): 107 miles
  • Average Daily Traffic (1992): 1,500 to 23,300
  • Milage Classification: Rural: 95; Sm. Urban 7; Urbanized: 5.
  • Previous Federal Aid Milage: FAP: 90 mi; FAU: 17 mi.
  • Functional Classification: Prin. Arterial: 35 mi; Minor Arterial: 72 mi.
  • Counties Traversed: San Diego, Riverside.

 

National Trails

De Anza Auto Route This route is part of the De Anza National Historic Trail.

 

Interregional Route

[SHC 164.14] Between Route 8 and Route 10.

 

Pre-1964 Legislative Route

The route that would become LRN 79 was first defined in 1931 by Chapter 82 as part of “(r) [LRN 2] near Ventura to [LRN 4] at Castaic Junction”. This was a well-traveled county highway that followed the Santa Clara River drainage from LRN 4 near Castaic Junction to LRN 2 near Ventura. It provided service for both local traffic (including trucking and domestic movement from ranches and orchards in the valley), as well as Inter-county traffic from points along the coast to points in northwest Los Angeles county. It also provided state-way traffic for travelers from Ventura to or from the state highway over the Tejon Pass into the San Joaquin Valley.

In 1935, this was codified into the highway code as:

“[LRN 2] near Ventura to [LRN 4] at Castaic Junction”

In 1939, Chapter 473 extended the routing east along the former [LRN 4] routing to terminate at "[LRN 23] via Castaic Junction and Saugus".

In 1957, Chapter 1911 changed the definition to eliminate the specific routing, terminating it at "[LRN 23] near Solamint".

This was the route between US 101 near Ventura and Route 14 near Solamint. It was signed as Route 126.


Interstate Shield

Interstate 80



Routing
  1. Interstate Shield X-Ed Out From Route 101 near Division Street in San Francisco to Route 280 near First Street in San Francisco.


    Interstate Submissions

    Approved as chargeable Interstate on 7/7/1947; deleted as chargeable interstate in August 1965.

     

    Post 1964 Signage History

    As defined in 1963, Route 80 was defined to run from "Route 280 in San Francisco to the Nevada state line near Verdi, Nevada, passing near Division Street in San Francisco, passing near Oakland, via Albany, via Sacramento, passing near North Sacramento, passing near Roseville, via Auburn, via Emigrant Gap, via Truckee and via the Truckee River Canyon." Note that I-280 is present-day Route 1.

    In 1968, Chapter 282 transferred the portion from I-280 (present-day Route 1) to US 101 (LRN 223) to Route 241. This was originally part of a much longer route, and would have formed the handle of the "Panhandle" Freeway. Additional history on the planned freeways for the San Francisco Bay area can be found here. This ended up splitting the definition of Route 80, giving the current segment. Note that, technically, this segment is not part of the interstate system; it is unclear how it is signed.

    According to Sean Tongson, there is further evidence of the planned I-80 extension onto the Central Freeway into Golden Gate Park. The mileposts at the termination of I-80 at US-101 read '4.05'. This indicates that further extension definetely was in mind, with the additional 4 miles accounting for the unconstructed segment going into Golden Gate Park. The mileposts at the junction with former Route 480/I-280 read '5.09'.

    Before 1968, maps indicate that I-80 was routed on the Central Freeway, and was cosigned with US 101 up to Fell Street.

     

    Pre 1964 Signage History

    State Shield US Highway Shield This segment was originally cosigned as US 40/US 50, dating back to the signage of US highways. It was LRN 68, defined in 1923. See below for the history of US 80.

    This segment was part of the Lincoln Highway, which originally terminated in Lincoln Park, six miles west of the ferry landing at the foot of Market Street. The Lincoln Highway ended opposite the Palace of the Legion of Honor at a small monument marking the spot. The last few miles (of the highway) were California Street.

     

    Status

    Signage for I-80 starts as one heads northbound on US-101 just past Vermont St. where the road splits. There's a "Jct 80" sign on the right shoulder and just north/east of there is an I-80 reassurance shield in the center divider. This is about at the 9th St. exit.

    There appear to be some plans to make a portion of the originally planned freeway routing in San Francisco (which is mostly unbuilt) into an underground tollway. The San Francisco Chronicle published an article on 2/18/2001 where it indicated that transportation planners "said the city should look into building ``supercorridor'' roads under Van Ness Avenue, 19th Avenue, and Fell and Oak streets." The suggested 19th Avenue tunnel would run five miles, from Junipero Serra Boulevard through Golden Gate Park and up to Lake Street, with exits at Brotherhood Way, Ocean Avenue, Quintara Street, Lincoln Way and Geary Boulevard. The Van Ness tunnel would run almost two miles, from about Fell to Lombard Street, with exits at Broadway and Geary Boulevard. Along Oak and Fell, the planners suggest an underground road running more than half a mile from Laguna to Divisadero streets. However, the roads would would violate the long-standing general plan for San Francisco, which calls for no new highway capacity.

     

    Naming

    This segment of I-80 is named the "James Lick Skyway". James Lick (1796-1876) worked in his youth as an expert organ and piano maker, following this trade some twenty years in Argentina, Chile and Peru. He arrived in San Francisco just before the gold rush with about $30,000 and made investments in what was then outlying real estate. He built the famous hotel known as the Lick House and continued to purchase real estate which kept being absorbed by the city as it grew. He also built a large flour mill in San Jose. As a result of investments he was very wealthy at the time of his death and left several million dollars for scientific, charitable and educational purposes. He financed the observatory atop Mt. Hamilton. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 37, Chapt. 122 in 1951.

    The entire route in California has been submitted to be part of the National Purple Heart Trail. The Military Order of the Purple Heart is working to establish a national commemorative trail for recipients of the Purple Heart medal, which honors veterans who were wounded in combat. All states in the union will designate highways for inclusion in the commemorative trail, and all of the designated highways will be interconnected to form the National Purple Heart Trail. Named by Senate Concurrent Resolution 14, Resolution Chapter 79, July 10, 2001.

     

    Other WWW Links
    • Freeways of San Francisco. Chris Sampang's site gives a lot of information about proposals for this route in the San Francisco area, including exit lists with hypothetical connections. This includes subpages on the James Lick, San Francisco Skyway, and Western freeways.


  2. Interstate Shield From Route 280 near First Street in San Francisco to the Nevada state line near Verdi, Nevada, passing near Oakland, via Albany, via Sacramento, passing near Roseville, via Auburn, via Emigrant Gap, via Truckee and via the Truckee River Canyon.


    Post 1964 Signage History

    As defined in 1963, Route 80 was defined to run from "Route 280 in San Francisco to the Nevada state line near Verdi, Nevada, passing near Division Street in San Francisco, passing near Oakland, via Albany, via Sacramento, passing near North Sacramento, passing near Roseville, via Auburn, via Emigrant Gap, via Truckee and via the Truckee River Canyon." Note that I-280 is present-day Route 1. Within Sacramento, the route ran along what had been LRN 6 and LRN 11, and also included all of LRN 98.

    In 1968, Chapter 282 transferred the portion from I-280 (present-day Route 1) to US 101 (LRN 223) to Route 241. This ended up splitting the definition of Route 80, giving the current segment.

    080 880 sacramentoIn Sacramento, this route (at times) was to have been Route 880. Here is the history related to that numbering. Note that none of this changed the actual legislative definition of Route 80, only the routing:

    • 1964. I-80 first appears in Sacramento, using the old US 40/US 99E joint section of freeway and a portion of the US 99E freeway (this latter portion is the former Elvas Freeway, a brief history of which is found under Route 51).

    • 1965. A plan is put forth to bypass the existing I-80 with a new alignment that would run in the median of I-880 in a dual freeway design from the I-80/I-880 split northeast of Sacarmento. The alignment would then separate onto the new alignment parallel to the Southern Pacific Railroad mainline to just south of the American River, where it would rejoin the existing I-80. A dual freeway design would have then been used to the north end of Downtown Sacramento. The realignment was needed because the existing I-80 alignment did not meet Interstate standards. A 1969 map shows this as under construction for I-880, with a portion parallel to I-80 (present Business Route 50) along Roseville Road, Auburn Blvd, and continuing across the American River. It appears a portion of this was constructed between Del Paso Park and near Catskill Way; it is unclear what this is today.

      At this time, there were a number of differences from the present-day interchanges, visible from the historic aerials site. The I-80/Riverside interchange had a left exit from the EB lanes. There were also shows ramps from EB lanes to Auburn Blvd via what is now Whyte Avenue, as well as ramps at what is now Cirby Way. At the I-80/Watt Ave South interchange, the EB offramp was aligned directly onto EB Auburn Blvd. For traffic on WB Auburn Blvd to continue WB, the right lane swung right and then back to the left to an intersection with the traffic exiting the EB freeway. I-80 NE corridor (current BR-80/CA 51) had old configurations for almost all interchanges. The only interchanges that remain the same in 2009 are the junction with Route 160, Marconi Ave, Howe Ave EB, and Auburn/Bell EB.

    • 1972. I-880 (present-day I-80) was completed; I-80 in the median was completed but was not opened to traffic, ending at a long viaduct to nowhere just south of where it left then I-880. Note: The I-880 numbering actually makes sense, and the route would have connected with Route 244 (never constructed) and then with Route 143, forming a loop back to US 50. It would have continued as Route 244, and continued to Route 65.

    • 1979. The Sacramento City Council voted to delete the new I-80 alignment and use the funding and right-of-way for rail transit. The portion of ROW that was constructed between Roseville Road at Catskill Way and the Split (244/51/80) is now used for three SacRT rail stations: the Roseville Road, Watt/I-80 West and Watt/I-80 stations. (Watt/I-80 is the easternmost SacRT light rail station, placed directly in the median of I-80 over Watt Avenue in what would've been the new I-80 lanes.)

    • 1980. The new alignment was withdrawn from the Interstate system. The need for route continuity for I-80 means that I-880 was redesignated I-80. The portion of I-80 from the end of the new alignment south of the American River to Highway 99 was classified as FAP (Federal Aid Primary) 51 (present-day Route 51). The portion of I-80 west of Route 99 to the former I-80/I-880 junction in West Sacramento is kept in the interstate system and classified as FAI (Federal-aid Interstate) 305 (briefly I-305, part of present-day US 50). No signage changes take place because the changes have not been made in the state highway system.

    • 1981. The 1980 FHWA action made no change to FAU (Federal-aid Urban) 6380 (the old I-80 alignment) other than reclassifying it as part of FAP 51. State Senate Bill 191 makes changes in the state highway system refelcting the FHWA actions. I-880 is deleted and I-80 is rerouted over it. The FAP 51 segment of the old I-80 alignment is officially numbered as Route 51. The FAI 305 segment was designated as an extension of US 50. All of the old I-80 alignment was signed as Business Loop 80. FAI 305 was never signed as I-305, but its interstate designation remains today.

    • 1982. Signage changes are completed.

    • 1983. Caltrans asks FHWA to renumber Route 17 from San Jose to Oakland as I-880. FHWA classifies the route as FAP 880. Other changes made include signing the freeway portion of Route 238 as I-238 and extending I-580 over I-880. No signage change takes place because the changes have not been made in the state highway system.

    • 1984. State Assembly Bill 2741 renumbers Route 17 from San Jose to Oakland as I-880, as well as extending I-580.

    • 1985. The new signage of the routes affected by AB 2471 is completed.

    • 1987. RT Metro light rail opens in Sacramento, using the completed portions of the attempted I-80 realignment, as well as much of its right-of-way.

    • 1996. Business Route 80 in Sacramento is officially named Capitol City Freeway, though no changes are made to state route numbers, federal classifications, or the Business Loop designation. The new name is posted at several locations.

    Nathan Edgars looked at traffic counts, and came up with the following:

    • 1964: Route 16: I Street Bridge, down 3rd-5th and over Broadway to Route 160, then a break until the split from US 50

      Route 80: Tower Bridge, over Capitol/N to 29th-30th, then a break to Broadway at 29th-30th and up 29th-30th

      Route 99: from the south to Broadway, then west on Broadway, then a break to the east end of the I Street Bridge and up Jibboom Street

    • By 1966: Another piece of Route 99 added along P and Q Streets between Route 160 and Route 16. The changes to Route 80 are unclear.

    • By 1968: Route 80 moved to the new route, with the west part becoming Route 275

      Route 16 cut back to I-5 at the east end of the I Street Bridge

      Route 99 removed from P and Q Streets and instead routed back west on Broadway, replacing Route 16, but only to Route 275, where it broke until Jibboom Street

    • By 1970: Route 99 removed from Jibboom Street etc.

    In Roseville, it appears that I-80 had an exit that no longer exists. According to an article in the Sacramento Bee, back in the 1960s, EB I-80 had an exit to NB Riverside Boulevard, that was a left exit that went through a tunnel under the westbound lanes and up to Riverside.

     

    Pre 1964 Signage History

    Frank Lloyd Wright original submitted an alternative design for the Bay Bridge.The proposed Butterfly Bridge would have spanned from Army Street (now Chavez) and Third Street to its eastern terminus on Bay Farm Island, just north of the Oakland Airport. Wright and Polivka saw steel truss bridges as extravagant and obsolete, so the design was all reinforced concrete, resting on a series of giant hollow almond-shaped piers - which they claimed to be earthquake-proof construction. Long curved arms would carry six lanes of traffic and two pedestrian walkways, supported by two arches that would be connected by a butterfly-shaped garden park as "a pleasant relief and perhaps a stopping point for the traffic."

    State Shield US Highway Shield This segment of the route was originally signed as follows:

    1. As cosigned US 40/US 50 between San Franciso and Emeryville (current I-80/I-880 junction). This was LRN 68. This was mostly defined in 1923; the Bay Bridge was added in 1929.
    2. As US 40/Route 17 between Oakland (I-80/I-880 junction) and Richmond (former Route 17/US 40 junction, near the present I-580/I-80 junction). This was LRN 14, defined in 1909. The surface routing is now Route 123. This was bypassed by LRN 69, in 1923.
    3. As US 40 from near El Cerrito and 2 mi SW of Davis (junction Alt US 40/US 99W; now Route 113). This was signed as US 40; it is present-day I-80. This was LRN 7, defined in 1909. Note: The portion between LRN 14 near Crockett (southern end of Vallejo) to the American Canyon Route was also part of LRN 7, defined in 1931. This portion is now part of Route 29 and Route 12; it may have been signed as part of US 40 at times.
    4. As cosigned US 40/US 99W between Davis and Sacramento. This was LRN 6, defined in 1909.
    5. 40 in North SacAs cosigned US 40/US 50/US 99E between Sacramento and Roseville. This was LRN 3, defined in 1909.
    6. The freeway routing N of Sacramento did not exist before 1963, but was proposed LRN 242, defined in 1957.
    7. As US 40 between Sacramento and Auburn. This was LRN 17, defined in 1909.
    8. As US 40 between Auburn and Truckee. This was LRN 37, defined in 1919.
    9. As US 40 between Truckee and the Nevada state line. This was LRN 38, defined in 1923.

    The segment of US 40 (present-day I-80) between Reno and Sacramento was part of the Lincoln Highway.

    US Highway Shield There was also an Alternate US 40, also signed (apparently) in the mid-1930s. This ran N from 2 mi SW of Davis along present-day Route 113 to near Tudor (LRN 7 between US 40 and Route 16; LRN 87 between Route 16 and Tudor); then along present-day Route 70 between Marysville and US 395 (LRN 87 between Marysville and Oroville; LRN 21 between Oroville and US 395). It was cosigned with US 395 into Reno, NV.

     

    Status

    Oakland-Bay Bridge.

    There is work afoot on the Oakland-Bay Bridge. According to Tollroadnews, the new east span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge is already estimated to cost $3.4b with the price anticipated to rise with bids on the cable stayed or anchored suspension section. The East Span, a doubledecker of 5-lanes on top of 5-lanes was built by the California Toll Bridge Authority and opened in 1936. During the Loma Prieta earthquake of 1989, the bolts on the upper deck of one truss section sheered off and that deck section hinged down onto the lower deck closing the whole bridge for several weeks. Several of the main piers are weakened. Most are on wooden deep piles which are rotting. There was general agreement it was best to build a new span. But the agreement ended when it came to the design of the bridge. The cost has been going up, and there has been endless infighting on who will pay for what. It has gotten worse and worse. According to the Oakland Tribune, the most complete estimate as of January 2005 for the full cost to build, engineer and oversee construction of the new eastern span of the Bay Bridge: $5.9 billion. The skyway is costing $160,000 per foot. Extending it could cost $460,000 per foot. There are all sorts of accusations flying around about whether Caltrans hid the cost. For example, starting in August 2002, a consultant's mock bid placed the cost of the remaining tower at $934 million. By December 2003, Caltrans' own bridge cost specialist placed the bid at $1 billion and revised it to $1.3 billion in April. All the while, the agency stuck to its official figure of $780 million. The bid price May 26 was $1.4 billion. Currently, information on the Bay Bridge project may be found on the frontpage of the Caltrans Website. In July 2005, final agreement was reached. On July 18, 2005, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed legislation allowing construction to resume on a self-anchored suspension span to complete the new eastern portion of the bridge. The legislation calls for the state to contribute an additional $630 million to help cover the $3.6 billion in cost overruns on the new eastern span. Motorists will have to start paying a $1 extra in 2007 on all toll bridges in the Bay Area except for the Golden Gate to cover much of the rest of the cost of the $6.3 billion project. The increase will mean $4 bridge tolls.

    (Note: To compare with the original construction: In the early 1930s, California designed and built the 8-mile Bay Bridge -- west and east spans linked by the world's biggest bore tunnel -- in a mere 5˝ years. And workers did it ahead of schedule and for $78 million, well under budget. The replacement span took more than twice as long to construct, and the price tag -- $6.4 billion -- is 4˝ times higher than engineers estimated. The entire 1936 crossing cost $30,000 a foot in adjusted 2013 dollars while the shorter new span is setting back taxpayers $550,000 per foot. In the 1930s, 24 men died building the original bridge; none has perished on the new span. In the 1930s, Bay Bridge Chief Engineer Charles Purcell didn't need four years and $155 million for an environmental impact study. And 1930s-era politicians had little or no formal say about how the bridge would look. Additional comparisons may be found here.
    (Source: Contra Costa Times, 8/10/13))

    In late March 2006, it was reported that Caltrans received two bids to build the single-tower suspension span to complete the bridge, and the low offer was $1.43 billion, slightly less than estimated. The low bid comes from a joint venture between American Bridge Co. and Fluor Corp. of Coraopolis, Pa. Caltrans engineers had estimated the cost at $1.45 billion. The second bid, $1.68 billion, was from a joint venture between contractors Kiewit and Manson, two of the three companies in the consortium building the concrete skyway section of the bridge, and Koch and Skanska. Caltrans officials then began reviewing the bids, checking figures, examining lists of subcontractors and making sure the details match the agency's requirements. If all goes well, the contract would be offered to American Bridge/Fluor. If the low bid is determined to be flawed, Caltrans could either accept the higher offer or reject both bids and start over. Construction activity on the Bay Bridge probably won't be visible until mid-to-late 2007. The new eastern part of the Bay Bridge will be the world's largest self-anchored suspension span. The bridge is expected to open to westbound traffic in spring of 2012 with eastbound lanes opening about a year later. The state has two additional contracts to award on the bridge: one for the Oakland touchdown ramps, and a second to build connector lanes to Yerba Buena Island.

    In early 2009, it was reported that work on the Eastern span was delayed, due to problematic welds. Specifically, according to Caltrans records, inspectors hired by Caltrans to monitor the fabrication of steel girders that will support the tower's roadway reported finding cracked welds in 2008. Caltrans and others in charge of the bridge construction say the welds are safe and that fixes have been made - but also say the inspectors interpreted the welding standards too rigidly. Meanwhile, the inspection outfit that sounded the alarm has since been replaced. The welds in question are contained in 900 bridge panels that are being assembled into football field-size deck sections that will stretch across the 1,800-foot-long tower portion. The sections were supposed to have begun arriving from China in October 2008, but due to delays they weren't expected to arrive until at least April 2009. The panels are being made by the Zhenhua Port Machinery Co. of Shanghai, which is fabricating most of the steel for the $1.4 billion signature tower on behalf of the span's joint-venture builder, American Bridge-Fluor Enterprises. ZPMC, as the company is commonly known, is the same firm that built the mammoth cranes that tower over the Port of Oakland - indeed, it builds 80 percent of the container cranes used around the world. Soon after ZPMC started production in late 2007, however, the inspectors hired by Caltrans began finding problems - specifically, an unacceptably large number of welding flaws in the new panels. Specifically, as many as 65% of the more than 30 welded panel sections examined - either visually or using ultrasonic testing - failed to meet specifications. The memos also reveal that the inspectors questioned ZPMC's ability to handle the complex bridge construction job - and that they were frustrated by Caltrans officials' demands that the project proceed despite the allegedly substandard welds. Caltrans officials, working with ZPMC and MacTec inspectors, say they eventually worked out a program to tag and repair all the bad welds. But e-mails from inspectors show problems persisted. After consulting with a structural steel expert from Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, Caltrans officials concluded the decks will be safe, and that the earlier problems were the result of strict weld standards that essentially allowed for no cracks. In other words, a few minor cracks are OK.

    In July 2010, it was reported that a committee of the Bay Area Toll Authority approved funding bridge engineering firm T.Y. Lin $1 million to design a system of dampers that could be installed on the cantilever-style portion of the current east span to reduce the vibrations caused by wind and the relentless pounding of traffic. T.Y. Lin, which analyzed the failure of the cracked eyebar discovered over Labor Day weekend in 2009, and Caltrans engineers determined that vibrations caused by wind led to both the initial failure of the eyebar, which is a key structural piece, as well as the collapse of the repair job that flung tons of steel to the bridge's upper deck in October. The firm will also design, but not construct, a device that could be quickly fabricated and installed should another eyebar crack. Even though no additional cracks have been discovered, the potential always exists. To further reduce risk, bridge officials want to install dampers - devices that reduce vibrations - on some of the most flexible of the 16 diagonal arrays of eyebars on the east span's trestle section. T.Y. Lin will determine how and where the dampers would be most effectively placed, and estimate the cost. The authority, which is expected to approve the plan on July 28, 2010, would then seek a contractor to provide and install the dampers.

    [Replacement of Roadway]The construction technique used is interesting. Portions of the replacement roadway are constructed to the side of the bridge. The bridge is then closed, the old roadway demolished, and the new roadway rolled into place. This is illustrated to the right. It was done over Labor Day Weekend 2007, when at 8 p.m. Aug. 31, after the last Friday commute stragglers passed, Caltrans took the unprecedented step of completely closing the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge for 3˝ days and nights of major reconstruction. Crews then demolished a 100-yard bridge section just east of the Yerba Buena Island tunnel. Once the demolition was done and the rubble carted away, the new section was be rolled on seven rails into place, controlled by a computer. The 6,500-ton, five-lane section had already been constructed on the island adjacent to the bridge deck. The new piece was be jacked a few inches higher than the existing roadbed, and when it was in place, it was lowered onto new concrete supports. There was only 3 inches of clearance where the new deck met the existing deck. Unlike the old deck, the new one was designed with equal-length columns, sitting on top of pilings that are encased in an isolation base, surrounded by a few inches of open space in a concrete housing. This allows them to move side to side in an earthquake, hopefully without damage. The bridge reopened before 5:00am Tuesday for the return-to-work commute.

    I-80 Temporary BypassBy May 2008, work had begun on Yerba Buena Island on both a temporary bridge and a temporary bypass (see map on right; click on the image for the original from the SF Chronicle)). The temporary bypass is on the south side of the bridge; it will carry traffic in both directions for three years. In March 2008, crews installed the first piece of the bypass atop a pair of those columns. A double-deck steel span will take traffic on a curving 1,200-foot detour just south of the existing bridge. The bypass will extend from the end of the trestle section of the existing bridge to the tunnels. It will allow crews to demolish the current link to the island and build a connection for the new span. The bypass is being built on the ground, then will be hoisted into the air one piece at a time. The fifth and final piece will require a weekend bridge closure - possibly over Labor Day 2009 - as crews cut the existing span and slide it off its supports on a set of rails erected 150 feet in the sky. Then the new piece will be lifted onto another set of rails and rolled into place atop the bridge supports. To the north, a temporary bridge will be constructed. Workers are planting seven sets of temporary steel towers in the bay and the eastern end of the island. In June, steel girders arrived from Washington and were formed into a bridge reaching from near Yerba Buena Island to the already-completed skyway section of the new eastern span. This will look like a bridge, and will be a bridge, but won't ever carry traffic in this form. Instead, it will be used to assemble and support the 28 winglike steel pieces - 14 for eastbound lanes and 14 for westbound - that will make up the deck of the new Bay Bridge. Those sections will begin arriving from Shanghai, where the bridge is being manufactured, late 2008 along with the four steel sections of the tower. Once the 525-foot tower is assembled, a suspension cable will be hung and draped around the bridge deck. The temporary towers and girders will be removed, and the bridge will support itself.
    (Source: SF Chronicle, May 28, 2008)

    In August 2008, Caltrans released a bid to construct bridges, roadway and install electrical systems in the City and County of San Francisco from the Yerba Buena Tunnel to 0.6 km East of Yerba Buena Tunnel. This likely includes reconfiguration of the interchange and replacement of the original US 40/US 50 tunnel.

    I-80 Yerba Buena IslandOn Yerba Buena Island, there are plans to remove the westbound on-ramp and the westbound off-ramp located on the eastern side of the island and replace them with a new westbound on-ramp and a new westbound off-ramp that would address design standards and traffic safety requirements. This project has been proposed to address the geometric and operational deficiencies of the existing westbound on-ramp and existing westbound off-ramp on the eastern side of Yerba Buena Island and their effects on the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge (I-80) mainline, without degrading the mainline operation as compared to the noaction alternative. An EIR was being prepared as of October 2008. The Yerba Buena Island Ramps Improvement Project is estimated to cost $113,000,000. Funding is anticipated through the Proposition 1B Local Bridge Seismic Retrofit Program, Federal Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program and other local funding sources. Construction is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2011/12. There are two alternatives being considered (in addition to no-build):

    (2B) Alternative 2B would include removal of the existing westbound on- and off-ramps on the east side of Yerba Buena Island, construction of a westbound off-ramp to Macalla Court on the east side of Yerba Buena Island, and construction of a westbound hook on-ramp from Macalla Court on the east side of Yerba Buena Island. The feasibility of incorporating improvements to the current eastbound off-ramp on the eastern side of Yerba Buena Island to Hillcrest Road will be studied.

    (4) Alternative 4 would include removal of the existing westbound on- and off-ramps on the east side of Yerba Buena Island, construction of a westbound on-ramp from Hillcrest Road, and construction of a westbound off-ramp from Macalla Court on the east side of Yerba Buena Island. The feasibility of incorporating improvements to the current eastbound off-ramp on the eastern side of Yerba Buena Island to Hillcrest Road will be studied.

    In May 2012, the CTC approved reconstructing and reconfiguring the westbound on- and off-ramps from I-80 on the new east span of the Oakland Bay Bridge to Yerba Buena Island.

    According to the San Jose Mercury News, there are plans in early 2009 to raise tolls on the Bay Bridge, likely $1, and likely to be applied to carpoolers as well. They may also add congestion pricing. This is being done to help support the cost of retrofitting the Dumbarton and Antioch spans for earthquake improvements. Rates were raised again in February 2010, when the Bay Area Toll Authority bumped the cost of crossing the Bay Bridge to $6 during weekday commute hours - from 5 a.m. to 10 AM and 3 p.m. to 7 PM. During other weekday hours, the toll will remain at $4. On weekends, it will rise to $5. In July 2010, the rates carpoolers on all bridges will be charged $2.50. In November 2011, it was reported that the addition of tolls for carpools has resulted in the number of trips made by carpooling vehicles shrinking by 26% since the rate increase. Toll authority officials have several theories to account for the drop in carpoolers. Motorists may have opted to switch over to BART – morning ridership is up 8% at the transit agency since the advent of the carpool tolls. Others might be avoiding the toll by driving during off-peak times, such as the early morning and late evening. FasTrack transponders may have also affected the numbers, by reducing the number of people illegally using the HOV lanes. Toll authority officials are pretty sure the new toll hasn’t converted former carpoolers into drive-alone motorists, for if the average carpooling vehicle has three occupants, and all three of those occupants split up and drove alone following the carpool toll introduction, there would be an increase in traffic of 13,000 cars on the span... but noncarpool traffic on the bridge increased by only 3,000 people.
    (Source: HOV Lane Decrease information, SF Examiner, 11/4/11)

    In order to build the suspension bridge, a large amount of temporary construction is required. These include steel trusses starting to cross San Francisco Bay between Yerba Buena Island to the west and the new 1.2-mile-long precast concrete Skyway to the east, alongside the existing eastern steel truss span of the old Bay Bridge. The truss bridge must support the 28 steel-deck sections being fabricated in China. In addition to falsework for the SAS span, part of a $1.4-billion contract held by a joint venture of American Bridge Inc., Coroapolis, Pa., and Fluor Enterprises Inc., Aliso Viejo, Calif. Rancho Cordova, Calif.-based C.C. Myers Inc. will demolish and replace a 300-ft-long double-deck section of transition bridge over one weekend later this year. The 1.2-mile Skyway portion of the east span is just completed, and a $429-million seismic reconstruction of the west approach wrapped up in early 2009. Construction feats as of early 2009 include a 1,700-ton, 150-ft megapick of a steel-tub girder in 11 hours, a 2,100-ton steel foundation box for the 525-ft-tall single tower and a Labor Day lift-out of a 6,500-ton section of roadway. Later in the year, a custom-built crane from China will arrive with a 328-ft-long boom and the capacity to lift 1,700 metric tons. Even the barge had to be custom-built: it is 400 feet long, 100 feet wide and 22 feet deep.

    In May 2009, a group of about 70 architects pronounced the new east span of the Bay Bride "a beautiful landmark emerging from the morass of political and bureaucratic ugliness that has defined its creation." The architects used the terms "beautiful," "sleek" and "elegant" to describe the $6.3 billion new span, expected to open in 2013. Some of the highlights included the bicycle and pedestrian path, the steel structures on the underside of the new skyway to provide homes for cormorants, and the plans to illuminate the 525-foot tower and the cables supporting the new suspension span.
    (San Francisco Chronicle)

    In September 2009, the Bay Bridge closed to traffic to permit a complex construction maneuver 150 feet in the air. Specifically, over this weekend, workers cut a portion of the existing eastern span near Yerba Buena Island and slid it out. They rolled in a new section, rerouting traffic (via an S-curve) onto a temporary bypass for three to four years. Once the temporary bypass is completed, speeds will be limited to 40 mph, 10 mph below the current limit. Crews will demolish the existing tunnel approach and build a connection to the new bridge. This seems similar to what was done on the other end of the span. Note that during this construction some problems were found, necessistating closure of the Bay Bridge for a few days while they were repaired. This happened again in November 2009.

    [S-Curve]In October 2009, Caltrans begin installing more prominent warning signs near the Bay Bridge's recently opened S-curve to try to force drivers to slow down in the aftermath of a messy big-rig crash on the new stretch in early October that tied up westbound traffic for hours. State officials had already approved a plan to step up warnings to motorists that the speed limit on the S-curve is 40 mph, down from 50 mph on the rest of the span. One change will be radar-activated signs that alert drivers to their real-time speed along with the posted limit, to be in place by the end of October 2009. On the lower deck, Caltrans will install a large, yellow "40 mph" sign with a curved arrow, replacing the sign that had designated the now-closed Yerba Buena Island exit. If that doesn't do the trick, Caltrans may install reflective bumps on the pavement, known as "rumble strips," before the S-curve. Besides the warnings, Caltrans is planning to treat the metal panels at the beginning and the end of the curve with a mixture of epoxy and sand to improve traction. As of 11/9, there have been more than 42 accidents in the curved area since it opened Sept. 8 as part of the eastern span replacement project. On 11/9, the first fatal accident occurred when a big rig plunged 200 feet off the Bay Bridge, killing the driver and obliterating the truck. The truck was carrying a load of pears to San Francisco when the crash occurred about 3:30 a.m. that morning. The impact shattered the truck into pieces. Metal debris and boxes of pears littered the landing where the truck crashed. A mattress, presumably from the truck's cab, hung on a railing 200 feet above. The CHP said the truck driver lost control on the curve, possibly because he was traveling about 50 mph, about 10 mph above the posted speed limit.
    (11/2009 Information Source: SJMN 11/10/2009)

    In May 2010, it was reported that, by July 2010, the additional CHP patrols of the S-curve would be eliminated. After the crash described above, safety measures such as flashing lights, reduced speed signs, and reflective tape were installed. In late April 2010, rumble strips and underground speed sensors were installed. The sensors allow officials to monitor traffic speeds in real time, and patrols can be deployed as needed instead of constantly monitoring the bridge.

    In March 2010, it was reported that there are efforts to pick up the construction pace on the east span of the Bay Bridge, as evidenced by the steel deck pieces from China finally being lifted into place off Yerba Buena Island in early March. However, delays at the Chinese steel fabrication plant and a Canadian drafting firm have put the bridge 15 months behind schedule, and catching up could be difficult. It is rumored that incentives are being offered to speed the the production of the final two steel deck segments, which link the suspension span with the completed skyway section of the new bridge and support the suspension cable on the east end. There have also been difficulties with completing the construction drawings for the final two roadway sections in Vancouver, British Columbia. Fabrication of the pieces will be far more complex than producing the other deck segments, he said, because they connect the suspension span and skyway, will anchor the cable that supports the span, and are curved and slightly banked. They also weigh 1,500 tons - three times the average deck piece.
    [Source: "Push to build 2 crucial Bay Bridge parts faster", SF Chronicle, 3/10/2010]

    In June 2010, it was reported that the Eastern Span is beginning to take shape. In June 2010, the first five pieces of the 525-foot steel tower left the ZPMC steel fabrication plant in Shanghai to begin their transpacific journey. They're expected to arrive in the Bay Area by July 2010. The first tower pieces, once they arrive, will be inspected, taken to the construction site on barges, and tipped into place on a concrete tower foundation that sits in the bay. The 250-foot-tall steel segments, which comprise the lower level of the tower, will be slipped atop 150 steel dowels that stick out of the foundation and will be fastened down with 424 large anchor bolts. About 150 feet above the foundation, the new single-tower suspension span already is coming together. Crews have installed the wing-shaped boxes that will make up the bridge deck atop the temporary trestles that hold them in place and stretch from Yerba Buena Island to the already completed skyway section. The deck pieces, the first two shipments of steel from China, are among 28 that will be lowered into place by the huge Left Coast Lifter barge crane then joined together, with large crossbeams connecting the side-by-side decks. The deck and the tower will be completed over the next two years. The cable will be installed - anchored on the east end of the suspension span, strung across the tower, looped around the west end, back across the tower, then anchored again on the east end- and the temporary trestles will be removed, leaving the span essentially cradled by the suspension cable. The current plans as of June 2010, which are about a year behind schedule, call for the westbound lanes to be completed first - in April 2013 - with the eastbound lane opening in December 2013. Because of the configuration of the new bridge and its connection to the toll plaza, part of the existing bridge has to be razed to make way for Oakland-bound traffic.
    [Source: San Francisco Chronicle, 6/21/10]

    In August 2010, a reporter toured the 'abuildin' bridge, in particular the the aspects of construction visible from the hollow core that extends the length of the skyway. It's a space roughly 15 feet high and 85 feet wide, a ghostly gray tunnel that shrinks to 4 feet in height when you move from one 225-foot-long section to the next. Stretched into the dark void is a metal catwalk of sorts, with a trough for cables and utility wires underneath. The bridge is designed so that it will ride out even the largest earthquake that might hit the region, someday. One example: horizontal steel "hinge pipe beams" 6 feet in diameter and 60 feet long to reinforce the viaduct at six points along the way. They're there to absorb lateral movement that otherwise might stress individual sections during a major temblor.

    In December 2010, it was reported that a new approach will permit opening of the new east span to drivers traveling in both directions by the end of 2013 instead of the earlier plan to make eastbound motorists wait until 2014. This new approach will required a series of reconfigurations so that a portion of the incline section can be cut away to make way for construction of the eastbound landing of the new bridge. Those reconfigurations will bring changes in the alignments of the westbound approach to the existing bridge as well as the eastbound landing, both of which will take a turn to the south. The new eastbound alignment will probably premiere in May or June. The westbound change, which will include a temporary span, is likely to come at the end of 2011. The accelerated timeline comes after bridge officials offered a package of incentives to speed fabrication of the bridge's steel deck and tower segments in China. The steel deliveries have arrived on time or ahead of schedule. The increased speed of the steel deliveries, combined with the changes on the east end of the bridge, will enable the span to open in December 2013. The approach taken shifts everything to the south to make way for the eastbound landing of the new bridge to be built sooner than 2014. Some lane closures, and potentially a one-direction bridge closure, will be necessary. Crews are relocating utilities to accommodate the traffic changes that will begin in 2011. Early in 2011, access roads used by Caltrans crews and construction workers will be moved to the south. In May or June 2011, the eastbound lanes of traffic, after they come off the existing Bay Bridge, will also weave to the south. That will make way for crews to widen the incline section of the old bridge so a segment that blocks construction of the new landing can be cut away. Once traffic is shifted onto that temporary span, again, curving south, construction of the eastbound landing, officially known as the "Oakland touchdown," can commence.

    I80 Oakland Touchdown DetourIn March 2011, it was reported that traffic was going to be shifted on the Oakland end of the bridge to accomodate construction. Specifically, in late May 2011, Caltrans crews will move eastbound traffic coming off the bridge in Oakland to the south as the start of a complex effort to open both directions of the $6.3 billion new east span in 2013. The eastbound traffic shift in May will make room for construction crews to widen the westbound section of the bridge known as "the Incline" by building an extension to the south. That will allow workers to shift westbound traffic to the south (or left), which will permit crews to demolish the northern edge of the incline, and clear the way for completion of the eastbound landing, also called the Oakland Touchdown, of the new span. That detour will take place in early 2012. The original plan called for the westbound lanes of the bridge to open first, sometime in 2013, with the eastbound direction following at least four to six months later because a section of the westbound incline on the existing bridge stands in the path of the new eastbound span. But progress on the single-tower suspension span and the connection to Yerba Buena Island convinced Caltrans engineers they could speed completion of the Oakland landing and open both directions simultaneously.
    (SF Chronicle, 2/18/11)

    In March 2011, it was reported that the cost of completing the Bay Bridge early was about $106 million. This was due to a pair of cost increases - one on the Oakland touchdown of the bridge, the other on the connection to the Yerba Buena Island tunnels - that will allow both directions of the $6.3 billion span to open to traffic at the same time in 2013. The cost increases will be paid for out of the project's contingency fund, a pot of money set aside to cover cost overruns, unanticipated expenses or major changes or additions. The expenses will eat up a little more than half of the estimated $200 million remaining in the contingency fund.
    (SF Chronicle, 3/9/11)

    Bay BridgeIn August 2011, it was reported that construction lights have been turned on, illuminating the eventual outline of the bridge; specifically, there are about 100 large lights attached to the steep catwalks that will be used to install a giant cable over the top of the 525-foot-tall bridge tower. The four orange metal mesh catwalks are temporary but they mirror the route for stringing the bridge cable. Contractors are doing preparation work to begin installing a thick mile-long cable that will wrap up and over the tower twice before being anchored into the bridge deck to hold up the structure. Crews must do much of the cable work at night to avoid the sun that can heat up and expand parts of the huge cable, making it difficult to measure and tension during installation.
    (Source: Mercury News)

    In August 2011, the CTC approved $3,249,000 in SHOPP funding to onstruct 0.8 mile of bicycle/pedestrian facility in Oakland, from 0.3 mile west to 0.5 mile east of the San Francisco/Oakland Bay Bridge Toll Plaza to provide a critical connection from the new San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge (SFOBB) East Span to the local and regional bikeway system and to comply with the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) permit.

    In October 2011, it was reported that contractors installed the last deck segment for the suspension span. The 1,049-ton steel box gives the east span a nearly continuous surface from Oakland to Yerba Buena Island. Installing the 28th and last piece of the 2,007-foot bridge deck allows contractors to start stringing cable up and over a 525-foot tall bridge tower, starting in December 2011. This segment is the place where the cable actually comes in and locks into the bridge; specifically, the segment has a big hole where will the cable will go down and anchor.

    In November 2011, questions arose about the structural inspections of the Bay Bridge. In early November, Caltrans officials fired two employees after an investigation questioned the validity of structural integrity testing performed on the Bay Bridge tower by a technician who had falsified results on three other Caltrans construction projects. In response, Caltrans has decided to have its seismic safety review panel, an expert panel of structural engineers and academics, examine records of the inspections, which Caltrans defended. A UC Berkeley civil engineering professor agreed with their assessment, saying that it seemed unlikely that the technician allowed inferior work on the $6.3 billion Bay Bridge east span to pass the test, and that even if he had, the bridge was designed with additional support devices–or redundancies–to ensure its safety. A report in the Sacramento Bee said there was no evidence that the technician falsified Bay Bridge results but said he routinely used test devices without verifying their accuracy.
    (Source: SF Chronicle, 11/15/11)

    Old TrollNow that the construction of the $6.3 billion new east span is nearing completion, plans are starting for the demolition of the old Bay Bridge. Caltrans' goal is to start demolition as soon as traffic gets moving on the new bridge. The work is expected to cost $239 million and take about two years. Demolition crews will begin not at either end of the span, but with the cantilever section, the long stretch in the center. They're starting with that segment because it sits in the way of both the bicycle path and a new eastbound on-ramp from Treasure Island. The span will not be imploded; workers will dismantle the old bridge. It is up to the contractor to determine whether they'll take it apart piece by piece or remove large sections at a time and ship them by barge to dry land for dismemberment. One thing guaranteed is that the old span will not be reused in place for non-highway purposes, as it is seismically vulnerable. Caltrans will choose to save some pieces - possibly the start of the cantilever span or an entire section of the bridge - for display in a museum or the Gateway Park planned on the Oakland end. What Caltrans doesn't claim becomes the property of the contractors, who will most likely recycle the steel. One piece of steel sure to survive is the now-famous Bay Bridge troll, which lives out of drivers' sight on the north side of the part of the east span that collapsed during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. The troll, which an artist crafted from a chunk of metal during the bridge repair work, has a barrel-like body and spindly arms and legs. He's leaning forward slightly and holding what looks like a rod. The creature is supposed to bring good luck to the bridge, protecting it against future quakes. Caltrans has not yet decided whether to move the troll into a museum or to relocate him to the new east span. But it would clearly be bad luck - and bad PR - to get rid of the nameless guardian, which has many fans as well as his own Facebook page.
    (Source; SF Chronicle, 11/25/11)

    In August 2013, it was reported that the plan was to retain the troll on the Old Bay Bridge because there will be workers tearing down the old bridge and they will need protection. Later, it will be removed and put in a safe place somewhere near the bridge. The Bay Bridge managers have also proposed that a similar troll be created for the new span for "a possible extra measure of safety."  

    Old TrollIn September, it was reported that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission -- which doubles as the Bay Area Toll Authority -- confirmed that a new creature has come into the possession of "trusted guardians who can be counted upon to make the decisions that are truly in the best interests of the troll." It arrived at a construction site in an unmarked pickup, he said, stands about 2 feet tall and is made of solid steel. An MTC representated stated "It is a fact that there is a new Bay Bridge troll It is a fact that the new Bay Bridge troll was revealed last night to a small number of transportation officials and staff. It is a fact that this occurred under cover of darkness given the troll’s aversion to direct sunlight." The rumor is that the new troll has a temporary place to stay inside one of the many hollows of the new span while its "guardians" seek the perfect permanent location -- in shade, of course, but possibly also a perch that might be viewed from the pedestrian and bicycle path that made its debut Tuesday. As for the old troll, Ironworker James "Fish" Sturgeon, carefully -- and quietly -- removed the old troll from his perch on a shaded steel beam just after the old Bay Bridge closed. Sturgeon told its the creator of the old troll that after cutting the bolts and grinding down the welds, he grabbed the beast to pull it off and met resistance. "It was as if it was fighting back, not wanting to go, knowing there was still a bridge to protect," he told the artist. "I had to wrestle it off." Another odd thing, the troll's creator notes: When it was removed its shadow remained on the girder. "The protective and benevolent magical energy that the troll has been casting on the Bay Area commuters and all the bridge workers has etched the troll's image into the steel," according to Sturgeon. What will happen to the old troll. The favored plan, according to a detailed report, is to protect the former troll in a quiet setting open to the public at the Oakland toll plaza.

    In December 2011, it was reported that exploration has begun on how to add bike and pedestrian lanes to the segment of the Bay Bridge between Yerba Buena/Treasure Islands and San Francisco (the "west span"). The initial plan is that the paths could be cantilevered off both sides of the upper deck. Bicyclists and pedestrians would use the northern path and Caltrans could use the southern path, though it would be possible to share both paths. The additional weight of the two paths could cause the bridge to flatten a bit, reducing clearance through the main shipping channel, the study says. It could be solved by either shortening the suspender cables - something that hasn't been done on a similar bridge - or by replacing the bridge decks with a lighter material. To get from the east span to the west span, cyclists would take a route along the south side of the island, crossing over the tunnel, then looping around to the west span along one of two alignments cut out of the steep hillside. In San Francisco, the path could connect to one of six locations South of Market, including the rooftop garden of the new Transbay Terminal, the Beale Street dog park now being built or Folsom Street. The study on the bike path estimates the cost at $500 million to $550 million in 2011 dollars, with estimated timeframes of about 10 years of engineering, design and construction.

    In December 2011, it was reported that Leo Villareal, who has exhibited light sculptures at the National Gallery of Art and other major museums, would like to turn the western span of the Bay Bridge into the region's biggest light sculpture with 25,000 bulbs flickering from its cables in sequences inspired by the ebbs and flows of the bay environment. He has already has mapped out a framework for computer software to operate the network of LED lights. The project needs approval from Caltrans, as well as $7 million in private donations. Arts supporters kicked off a fundraising drive in late December, saying they hope to start the four-month-long light installation in spring 2011. The 25,000 white lights will shine, flicker and dim in sequences controlled by software Villareal is writing to reflect the moods and personality of the bay. Before work can begin, Caltrans must grant permits ensuring that the lights won't damage the bridge, block traffic or disrupt drivers with distractions. The 1-inch LED lights will be placed on the outside of bridge cables so they won't be visible to bridge drivers and distract them. Laborers secured by harnesses will attach the lights to bridge cables at night to minimize disruptions to the 280,000 vehicles a day that cross the bridge. A necklace of lights was installed across the Bay Bridge in the 1980s, but it is permanent, unlike the light sculpture that will be removed after two years. More information about the Bay Bridge light sculpture project may be found at www.thebaylights.org.

    The lights were turned on in March 2013. Each night between dusk and 2 a.m., the lights will appear to move along the north-side cables of the 1.8-mile span in patterns and sequences generated by artist Leo Villareal via programmed computers located in the central anchor of the bridge. It is a work of public art, funded without taxpayer dollars. As of March 2013, organizers have raised about $6 million to cover the costs, which include a little over $15 per night in electricity. The project was the brainchild of Ben Davis, a creative consultant, who pitched the idea as a gift to the community, and organized by Illuminate the Arts, a San Francisco nonprofit that promotes public art programs. The effort required a wide range of permits and cooperation from Caltrans, the Coast Guard and even the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Villareal has a two-year permit to operate the art installation on the bridge.

    On the eastern span, it was reported that Caltrans was going to show it off with $2 million worth of "aesthetic lights". Of the 7,800 LED lights installed along the bridge's suspension section, the first batch - 5,500 LEDs - is illuminating the span's 200 cables, giving the bridge its cathedral-like look. In November 2013, workers installed 800 lights at the tower's base at the waterline and another 1,500 at deck level. After some fine-tuning, Caltrans intends to have all the lights turned on by the end of the 2013. The light designer was Howard Brandston, who did the new lights for the Statue of Liberty. The custom-made fixtures for the span were produced by Musco Lighting, which also did fixtures for Yankee Stadium and the White House.

    In December 2011, work commenced on the installation of the the steel cable that will hold up the new eastern span of the Bay Bridge. The cable is 2.6 feet in diameter and nearly a mile long. It weighs 5,291 tons, or nearly 10.6 million pounds, and is made up of 137 steel strands, each one composed of 127 steel wires. Each wire is strong enough to hold up a large automobile. The cable will travel from the Oakland side of the span to the San Francisco side and back again. The 2,047-foot self-anchored suspension span will be the longest of its kind in the world. To install the cable, crews lifted a giant spool of steel strands from a barge onto the deck of the new span. Crews will anchor one end of each strand on the Oakland side of the span, underneath the deck. Using machinery that looks like a ski lift, they will then thread the strands along the path of bright orange catwalks that have been attached to the new tower for several months. The strands will go up to the top of the center tower and down to the San Francisco side of the span, where they will be looped underneath the deck of the bridge, then threaded back up to the tower and back down to the Oakland side of the bridge. There, crews will anchor the other end of the strands. It will take a few months to complete the installation. Once all the strands are installed, crews will bind them together and coat them with zinc paste. As with most of the steel on the bridge, the cable was made in China. It was manufactured by Shanghai Pujiang Cable Co. at a cost of $28 million.
    Source: The Bay Citizen)

    In January 2012, it was reported that demolition will take longer than expected. According to new projections, it will cost $244 million and take between five and seven years to remove the 75-year-old span of the Bay Bridge that connects Yerba Buena Island to Oakland. The original two-year timeline for the demolition was a very preliminary projection. The complexity of the plan — notably dismantling the cantilever segment — calls for a time-consuming project. Additionally, because the structure of the existing eastern span contains several hazardous materials, notably 75 years of lead paint, the demolished segments cannot just rest on the Bay floor. Updated estimates indicate that demolition will need three phases, with the first part starting in late 2013, when the cantilever superstructure of the eastern span is removed. A contract for that removal will go out to bid in Spring 2012, and is expected to be approved by summer, so demolition of the cantilever segment can begin “within days” of the new eastern span’s opening date in late 2013. Once the cantilever is removed, crews will take down the steel trusses that compose the bulk of the existing eastern span. Last, the foundation pilings of the bridge will be uprooted, completing the demolition project.
    (Source: San Francisco Examiner, 1/31/2012)

    In December 2012, it was reported that "the big lift" was completed. This was the complicated task of shifting the 35,200-ton weight of the new single-tower suspension span from temporary trestles that supported it from below to a single mile-long cable, draped across a 525-foot tower and anchored in the bridge deck that holds it from above. The lifting work, officially known as a load transfer, started in mid-August 2012 when crews from American Bridge/Fluor, the joint venture building the self-anchored suspension segment of the new $6.3 billion bridge, began using dozens of hydraulic jacks to gradually adjust the tension on 200 suspender cables that connect the decks of the bridge to the suspension cable. This involved tuning the bridge like a giant stringed instrument, resulting in the twin steel decks rising about 18 inches from the rusted trestles that have supported them for years. At the same time, the main cable moved about 30 feet out and 16 feet down. Crews are next coating the suspension cable -- 17,399 pencil-thick strands of compressed steel wire -- with zinc paste, wrapping it with steel wire then applying a thick coat of paint to make sure it withstands the elements. Next will be the process of "locking down" the span, connecting it to the concrete skyway segment of the bridge with special pipe-like seismic joints. Crews have already started to remove parts of the trestle beneath the bridge, though that work will proceed intermittently. It is anticipated that by Spring 2013, workers will begin to take down the scaffolding surrounding the span's gleaming white tower.
    (Source: SFGate.Com, 11/21/2012)

    In March 2013, it was reported that Caltrans made the final concrete pour on the eastern span of the Bay Bridge.

    In late March 2013, reports began surfacing of bolts snapping on the eastern span. According to a spokesperson for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, at least 30 of the 288 bolts have snapped. The bolts, also known as rods, anchor steel pieces to concrete. The bolts are 9 to 17 feet in length and about 2.5 inches in diameter. Caltrans officials acknowledged the snapping of one-third of the threaded steel rods used to bolt down two massive steel boxes - known as shear keys - below the new bridge deck. The problem now is that the failed rods, which are up to 17 feet long, can't be replaced easily as there is no longer room to put in new ones because the bridge's roadbed has already been installed. Engineers will have to fashion a fix. Caltrans toll bridge program manager Tony Anziano said the cost of that fix - creating two metal collars around the steel boxes to allow room for new rods to be inserted - will be about $1 million. The suspected problem: that hydrogen, a contaminant, had been introduced as bubbles during the manufacturing process, making the rods brittle. Caltrans officials suspect they know how the rods - which were heat treated after being forged to guard against any hydrogen contamination at the steel mill - had later become contaminated when galvanized in molten zinc. The rods were not bathed in acid before galvanization, when they could easily become contaminated. They were sand-blasted instead, he said, lowering the contamination risk.

    By May 2013, the blame was growing -- now Caltrans was being blamed for inadequate specifications. Blame is significant because if the fabricator or one of the contractors were to blame, Caltrans could seek reimbursement for the cost of delay and repairs. However, if manufacturers followed Caltrans' custom specifications, then (absent a private culprit), the costs will fall squarely on tollpayers' shoulders. Fabricated in 2008, the faulty steel bolts met custom Caltrans and industry specifications issued to the bridge contractors. But the material succumbed to a well-known chemical reaction with hydrogen that made them brittle, concluded a three-member team of metallurgists led by Salim Brahimi, a Canadian engineer and chairman of the ASTM International standards board on fasteners. The much-anticipated metallurgical forensics analysis found that the batch of galvanized rods fabricated in 2008 by Dyson Corp. in Ohio per Caltrans' specifications was particularly vulnerable to fracturing caused when hydrogen atoms squeeze into the spaces in steel's molecular crystalline structure and weaken its strength, according to the analysis. Tests showed the surface on the large rods -- 3 inches in diameter and 17 to 24 feet long -- was too hard. The harder the steel, the higher its susceptibility to hydrogen. The report points to galvanizing as the likely source of the hydrogen that led to the fractures. When the bolts came under tension, the trapped element started moving within the steel and triggered the cracks. Given that the rods broke within a week after contractors tightened them down in early March, the engineers said the source of the hydrogen was probably not the water that pooled in the casings while the rods sat on the bridge for five years. The bridge repair calls for installing a steel saddle on top of two shear keys -- which contain the broken rods -- positioned directly above the columns and below the bridge deck in the pier east of the main span tower. Shear keys help control sway during an earthquake. The saddle will cradle 430 steel rope strands made of steel twice as strong as the 96 anchor bolts, explained veteran Caltrans bridge engineer Brian Maroney following the meeting. The ends of the strands will be anchored on the outside of the pier cap and covered with reinforced concrete. The clamping force will match that of the original anchor rods. The estimated cost for the repair is between $5M and $10M.
    (Source: Contra Costa Times, 5/9/13)

    Over Labor Day weekend 2013, traffic on the Bay Bridge was shut down, and the approaches reworked to open the new Bay Bridge. The last car across the bridge belonged to Bob Faber, whose gold and brown Model A had been recruited to be the ceremonial last car to cross. As soon as Faber and his CHP and Caltrans escorts passed through the plaza, toll collectors abandoned their booths and the electronic signs above them all changed to read "closed." Construction crews that had assembled near the toll plaza immediately rolled into action, some heading out onto the old bridge, others starting to grind down the pavement, removing the old toll plaza strips and clearing a path for the new alignment to the new bridge. After that, the project to remove the Old Bay Bridge begins. Environmental restrictions bar dynamiting the old span, so it will have to be dismantled piece by piece - west to east and from the top to the bottom - to avoid a collapse. The first section to go will be the dreaded temporary S-curve detour. That permits construction of the bike connection to Treasure Island. Next comes dismantling the big cantilever truss section between the span's main towers. Then the road decks will go, and finally the foundations. The main visible portion will be gone in 9 months; it will be an additional two years before the old span is down to the mud line. Some of the old bridge pieces will be kept for historic purposes. But much of the concrete and steel will be recycled or sold for scrap - possibly to China - though the toxic lead paint that has coated the span for years could limit some of its reuse.

    Finally, in November 2013, demolition crews started work on taking down the old Bay Bridge. In mid-November, demolition crews, who had been preparing the 77-year-old bridge for its departure since its replacement,began ripping out the upper road deck of the cantilever section. Destruction started on the date that was the anniversary of the bridge's opening. Giant red jackhammers relentlessly pounded away at the pavement, occasionally causing the old steel span to shudder and shake. Trucks hauled away the debris to a remote site, where it will be beaten into smaller chunks, the steel rebar removed so the concrete can be recycled.

    Bay Bridge to Carquinez

    In May 2007, flames from an exploding gasoline tanker travelling S on the transition road from I-80 to SB I-880 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. 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. Amazingly, damage to the I-80 transition roadbed was minor, and Caltrans was able to reopen the span within two weeks.

    Note that there are some portions here that have 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.

    San Pablo Interchange ImprovementsIn June 2012, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding project in Contra Costa County will reconstruct the I-80/San Pablo Dam Road Interchange. It will also relocate the westbound I-80/El Portal Drive on-ramp, build a new westbound auxiliary lane from the relocated westbound El Portal Drive on-ramp to the San Pablo Dam Road off-ramp, add a frontage road between the I-80/San Pablo Dam Road on-ramp and McBryde Avenue and close the McBryde Avenue off-ramp, reconstruct the pedestrian overcrossing at Riverside Avenue, and construct pedestrian and bicycle facility improvements. The total estimated cost for the entire I-80/San Pablo Dam Road Interchange Project is $113,889,000 for capital and support. The project will be built in four phases. Phases 1 and 2 are fully funded. Phase 1 will construct the Riverside Boulevard Pedestrian Overcrossing over I-80 and complete right of way for the overall project. Phase 1 is programmed in the 2012 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The scope for Phase 1, as described for the preferred alternative, is consistent with the project scope programmed in the 2012 STIP. Construction for Phases 1 and 2 is estimated to begin in Fiscal Year 2013-14.

    In February 2012, Caltrans began holding open houses regarding the I-80 Integrated Corridor Mobility project. The project is designed to reduce congestion on I-80, including long delays and stop-and-go traffic; congestion-related traffic collisions; long emergency response times; unreliable commute times; and cut-through traffic. The agency plans a number of steps to achieve that goal, with the most noticeable being the addition of metering lights at onramps along I-80, and corresponding changes to signals on San Pablo Avenue and thoroughfares leading to I-80. In addition, Caltrans would add high-occupancy vehicle bypass lanes at ramp meters. The metering lights will use adaptive metering that can be activated as real-time conditions warrant, and also work in concert with traffic signals on streets leading to the ramps to control the number of cars trying to enter the freeway. In March 2012, the CTC approved $95.3 million in funding for this project.

    In October 2012, it was reported that further progress had been made on the I-80 Integrated Corridor Mobility project. The $80 million project is "a state-of-the-art technological solution to managing congestion and improving traffic conditions," according to the Alameda County Transportation Commission. A new type of adaptive metering light to be installed at all of the corridor's 40 onramps will allow entrance at rates determined by the current flow of traffic. Buses will have priority for entrance, using a transponder to turn the light green, as they do now on San Pablo Avenue. The freeway itself will have detectors to accurately monitor traffic; new signs on I-80 and San Pablo and other major connectors will inform motorists of current conditions, blocked lanes, speed recommendations and alternative routes; and updates will be available via car radio announcements. Work on most phases of the project has already started, with the last scheduled for completion in mid-2015.
    (Source: Contra-Costa Times, 10/22/12)

    I-80/SR 37 InterchangeIn December 2012, the CTC accepted a draft EIR on interchange improvements in Vallejo. The project will modify the existing I-80/Redwood Parkway interchange to a tight diamond configuration, realign Fairgrounds Drive to a tee intersection north of the I-80 westbound ramps, widen Fairgrounds Drive between Redwood Street and Route 37, widen the westbound exit ramp from Route 37 to Fairgrounds Drive, and improve the intersections at the Route 37/Fairgrounds Drive Interchange. The project is not yet funded; however, the project is expected to be fully funded with local funds. The total estimated cost for capital and support is $46,400,000. No alternatives (other than no-build) were considered due to the density of the area.

    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 March 2013, it was reported that the I-80/I-680 interchange project could be impacted by new Buy America regulations. The $700 million project involves an overall reconstruction of the I-80/680 and Route 12 interchange in Fairfield. Planned in seven segments, the work includes replacing the Green Valley Road interchange and placing new interchanges at Jameson Canyon and Red Top roads. Enacted last October, the new Buy America amendments require public agencies to buy domestically made products for all infrastructure work or else lose governmental funding. Previously, the act applied only to project portions receiving federal funding. In addition, the buying requirements now apply to public utility agreements needed when electric and gas lines must be moved -- a major portion of the upcoming interchange work in Fairfield. A major hurdle is figuring out how to amend utility agreements the agency signed with Pacific Gas & Electric before the new Buy America regulations.

    In June 2013, the CTC approved amending the baseline agreement for TCIF Project 89 (WB I-80 to Route 12 [West] Connector and Green Valley Road Interchange Improvements project (PPNO 5301L) in Solano County to revise the project funding plan and delivery schedule. This project will construct a two-lane WB I-80 to WB Route 12 Connector that will cross over the new WB I-80/Green Valley Road on-ramp. The project will also reconstruct the I-80/Green Valley interchange.

    In June 2008, the CTC approved relinquishment of right of way in the city of Vacaville, on the southeast side of East Monte Vista Avenue, between Browns Valley Parkway and the west bound State Route 80 off ramp, consisting of collateral facilities.

    [Fairfield HOV lanes]In January 2009, the CTC approved for future funding a project to construct High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes in both directions between Red Top Road and Air Base Parkway on Route 80 in Fairfield. The project will construct HOV lanes in both directions in the existing median along an 8.7 mile section of Route 80 in Solano County. The project is programmed with CMIA funds, federal demonstration funds, and Regional Measure 2 funds. The total estimated project cost is $80,000,000. The project has been split into three segments. The construction of the final segment (8320C) is estimated to begin in FY 2009-10. The scope as described for the preferred alternative is consistent with the project scope set forth in the approved project baseline agreement.

    In February 2013, it was reported that Caltrans plans to convert HOV lanes on I-80 into HOT ("Express" or High Occupancy/Toll) lanes -- specifically, I-80 in both directions - from around Air Base Parkway to I-680 in Fairfield and the Carquinez Bridge to the Bay Bridge toll plaza. 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 2013, there was a report on plans to turn on ramp metering lights in Fairfield and Vacaville. In 2011, Caltrans spent $4.9 million to install ramp metering lights in Fairfield. It is also installing ramp metering lights along I-80 in Vacaville and north Vallejo. The question is when these lights will get turned on. California Department of Transportation policy calls for the agency to first reach agreements with local cities on how to operate the lights. Agreements can address such issues as under what traffic conditions the lights are used. The current debate is whether this should be per-city or countywide. Caltrans favors having countywide agreements. This simplifies the job for Caltrans. Cities prefer local agreements. Communities have to deal with potential impacts such as backups onto local streets from the ramps and would have ideas on how to mitigate the situation. Caltrans hopes to activate the I-80 ramp meters in Fairfield in 2013 and the ones in Vacaville and north Vallejo in 2014. In Vacaville, the westbound Merchant Street on-ramp, by Caltrans standards, has too much traffic for a ramp meter unless another lane is added.

    In his 2006 Strategic Growth Plan, Governor Schwartzenegger proposed constructing the I-80/I-680/Route 12 Interchange Complex, including HOV Connector Lanes. He also proposed constructing HOV lanes in Sacramento County.

    Carquinez Straights Bridge

    There were two projects to retrofit and replace portions of the Carquinez Straights Bridge. This is because the Carquinez Bridges do not meet current seismic design or traffic safety standards:

    1. The first project involves retrofitted the existing eastbound bridge built in 1958 for safety and seismic stability. This bridge was built as part of the route's upgrade to interstate status. As of October 2003, it carries 53,000 vehicles per day in four eastbound lanes. The total bridge width is 52 feet, including 12-foot lanes and two 2-foot shoulders. The cantilever steel truss spans a total of 3,300 feet in length at 140 feet above the channel. The elements of the project are to replace and strengthen the steel truss members in the bridge superstructure and towers, reinforce pile foundations at Pier No. 5 at the south end of the bridge, retrofit the abutment where the bridge touches down on the northern end, and strengthen the Crockett Interchange eastbound on and off ramps and approach structure. The cost of retrofitting the 1958 structure was $70 million. The contract for this project was awarded on Friday, June 19, 1998 to Balfour Beatty Construction, Inc. of Vallejo, CA. Balfour Beatty began preliminary work on Monday, June 22, 1998. Retrofit construction on the 1958 bridge finished in August 2001.

    2. The second project replaced the existing westbound 1927 bridge with a suspension style bridge that incorporates the latest construction technology with public amenities such as a pedestrian bike lane and two new vista points. The 1927 bridge was constructed as a private toll bridge, and provided three lanes of westbound (to San Francisco) traffic. This structure had exhibited deterioration of its metal components, and accessibility to and maintenance of the bridge's structural members was difficult, with major rehabilitation virtually impossible. Retrofit of the existing structure was rejected in favor of replacement. The replacement required State Historic Preservation Officer and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation approval because the existing 1927 westbound main span and westbound Crockett off-ramp are listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The replacement opened November 11, 2003, which allowed the committee to side-step the problem of which Governor to invite to the opening: Governor Davis or Governor Schwartzenegger. The last date to certify the election was November 15, 2003.

    In mid-March 2006, after nearly 79 years on the job, the 1927 span of the Carquinez Bridge was retired. This was the Bay Area's first modern steel bridge, and is the center bridge of the three that carry I-80 traffic over the Carquinez Strait. It opened May 21, 1927, and was rendered unnecessary with the opening of the westbound Al Zampa Bridge in 2003. The original span's age prompted transportation officials to replace it rather than strengthening it against earthquakes. Crews have begun removing the deck of the 1927 bridge, and in a couple of weeks will lower part of the span onto barges and ship it to a nearby yard for final dismantling. The rest of the span will be lowered later, and the towers and piers are expected to disappear by late 2007. The bridge cannot be quickly demolished because the new Al Zampa Memorial Bridge sits to the west of the old bridge, and a 1958 span carrying westbound I-80 traffic sits to the east, leaving only so much room for crews to maneuver. Furthermore, workers also must be careful not to drop anything into the waters below, which serve as a salmon run and natural habitat for delta smelt. Parts of the old span are listed on the National Register of Historic Places and will be saved. After the spans have been lowered and removed by barge, attention will turn to the three towers, with their attached roadways, and the approaches to the bridge. Crews will install temporary support towers on the Crockett side to support the bridge approach during the dismantling. Then, using cranes, they'll remove the three towers and, finally, the approaches. Work is scheduled to be finished in September 2007. The cost of taking apart the bridge -- essentially in reverse order of its construction, according to Haus -- will cost an estimated $18 million, $10 million more than it cost to build.

    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.

    In September 2010, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding a project in Solano County that will rebuild and relocate the eastbound truck scales facility, build a four lane bridge across Suisun Creek, and construct braided ramps from the new truck scales facility to eastbound I-80 and eastbound Route 12 ramps. The project is programmed in the Trade Corridors Improvement Fund and the Traffic Congestion Relief Program and includes local funds. Construction is estimated to begin in Fiscal Year 2011-12. Total estimated project cost is $100,900,000 for capital and support. The scope as described for the preferred alternative is consistent with the project scope set forth in the proposed project baseline agreement. Resources that may be impacted by the project include; water quality, paleontology, cultural resources, visual resources hazardous waste, air quality, and noise. Potential impacts associated with the project can all be mitigated to below significance through proposed mitigation measures. Because of the sensitivity of the resources in the project area, a Final Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the project.

    Carquinez to Sacramento

    HOV LaneIn 2007, the CTC considered a number of requests for funding from the Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA). Two requests were funded: Integrated fwy/local road management near the Carquinez-Bay Bridge ($55.3M) and construction of HOV lanes from Fairfield (Route 80/I-680/Route 12 to Putah Creek) ($56.21M). In February 2008, the latter project was divided into three phases:

    1. Construction of 8.7 mi of HOV lanes in each direction.

    2. Addition of a new roadbed layer across all lanes.

    3. Addition of Ramp Metering.

    A request to reconstruct the Route 80/I-680/Route 12 interchange ($93.79M) was not recommended for funding. In the Sacramento area and points east, Phase 3A of the WB HOV and auxiliary lanes from Eureka to Route 65 ($31.3M) were recommended for funding. Not recommended for funding were HOV lanes from the Sacramento River to Longview Dr ($100M) and the Yolo bypass bicycle bridge ($25.3M). In July 2007, the CTC amended the program to fund the Placer Route 80 HOV and Aux lanes project.

    I-80/I-<a href=680/Route 12 Project" src="maps/080-680-012-project.jpg" style="float: right" hspace="10" vspace="5" width="350" height="279">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.

    In December 2009, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding a project that will construct ramp metering facilities and roadway improvements at existing interchange entrance and connector ramps of I-80 from Red Top Road to Air Base Parkway in the city of Fairfield. The project is programmed in the Corridor Mobility Improvement Account and includes local funds. Total estimated project cost is $10,026,000, capital and support. This ramp metering project is a child project of the parent I-80 HOV Lanes Project (PPNO 8320B). There was no Notice of Determination filed for this project. Instead, an Addendum to the MND for the parent project was prepared. The scope as described for the preferred alternative is consistent with the project scope set forth in the approved project baseline agreement.

    Near I-80 in Vacaville (at the Weber Road interchange) is the former Vaca Valley Raceway, which is currently abandoned as the SF chapter of the Sports Car Club of America cannot afford to refurbish it (although they may do so someday). It existed in the early 1970s near the now-abandoned Vaca-Dixon Airport.

    In September 2003, the CTC considered relinquishment of right of way in the City of Vacaville (City), at Bella Vista Road, consisting of frontage road.

    Sacramento to Placerville

    Sacto WideningIn July 2007, the CTC received notice of a draft EIR having been prepared for roadway improvements in and near Sacramento. The alternative under consideration would connect to the existing bus/carpool lanes that extend east from Watt Avenue to Placer County. It would add a 12-foot bus/carpool lane in each direction from Watt Avenue to West El Camino Avenue, add 12-foot eastbound and westbound auxiliary lanes in two locations, from West El Camino Avenue to I-5 and between Northgate Boulevard and Norwood Avenue, and install ramp metering and bus/carpool bypass lane on-ramps at selected interchanges if feasible. However, the project is not fully funded. The project is currently funded for Project Approval and Environmental Document and Plans, Specifications and Estimates for $9 million in Congestion Mitigation Air Quality funding. The total estimated project cost is $200 million. Construction is estimated to begin in Fiscal Year (FY) 2009-10. These were up for future consideration of funding, the EIR having been completed, in April 2008.

    There are plans for freeway improvements in the area of Citrus Heights and Rocklin. Alternatives being discussed are in the CTC Background. The goal is to improve traffic flow between Auburn and Douglas Blvds in that area.

    In 2006, the CTC discussed the scope of work for the I-80 Capacity/Operational Improvements parent project (PPNO 0146D), which includes the construction of eastbound and westbound HOV and auxiliary lanes from the Sacramento/Placer County line (PM 0.0) to Route 65 (PM 5.1). The project scope also includes upgrading the traffic monitoring system through the use of traffic sensors, closed circuit cameras, and changeable message signs. The estimate for the total project is currently $193,200,000. In December 2008, funding was reallocated to redistribute construction contract award savings realized from a low construction bid. The construction contract award savings will be used to cover the final expenditure costs of the environmental clearance and design components on Phase 2.

    In January 2012, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding a project in Placer County that will increase the vertical clearance of nine bridges on I-80 to meet the vertical clearance bridge height for permit vehicles. The project limits are approximately 29 miles long, running from Loomis to the Community of Magra, past Colfax, through Newcastle, and through Auburn. The project is programmed in the 2010 SHOPP. The total estimated project cost is $36,045,000 for capital and support. Construction is estimated to begin in Fiscal Year 2012-13. The scope, as described for the preferred alternative, is consistent with the project scope programmed by the Commission in the 2010 SHOPP.

    In September 2011, it was reported that Caltrans opened 2.8 miles of new "peak hour" bus/carpool lanes on I-80 in the Roseville Area. The eastbound and westbound HOV lanes are open from the Sacramento / Placer County line to just west of Miner's Ravine east of Douglas Boulevard.

    In May 2009, Caltrans advertised a project involving I-80 HOV lanes in Roseville and Rocklin ($35 million).

    In March 2008, right of way in Roseville, on Riverside Avenue between Cirby Way and I-80 was relinquished.

    In August 2011, the CTC approved $8,200,000 in SHOPP funding for repairs near Rocklin, from 1 mile east of Route 65 Junction to 0.2 mile east of Route 193 Junction, that will rehabilitate 56.4 lane miles of roadway to improve the ride quality, prevent further deterioration of the traveling surface, minimize costly roadway repairs and extend the pavement service life.

    In August 2011, the CTC approved $7,000,000 in SHOPP funding for repairs near Sacramento, from Madison Avenue Overcrossing to Placer County Line; also on Route 244 from Route 80 to Auburn Boulevard, that will rehabilitate 61.2 lane miles of roadway to improve the ride quality, prevent further deterioration of the traveling surface, minimize costly roadway repairs and extend the pavement service life.

    In October 2011, Caltrans broke ground on a $133 million freeway expansion project on I-80 through Natomas. Crews will build 10 miles of bus and carpool lanes on each side of the freeway, and add a one-mile auxiliary lane on the freeway between West El Camino Avenue ramps and the I-80 interchange with I-5. The freeway also will be repaved between West El Camino and Watt Avenue. Caltrans officials said they believe the project will reduce congestion and delays on the freeway. Officials intend to do most construction work at night to minimize daytime traffic delays. Project finish date is set for fall 2014. The project contractors are Bay Cities, Inc. of Concord and C.C. Myers Inc. of Rancho Cordova.

    Placerville to the Nevada State Line

    In Farad, there is a yellow warehouse building visible from I-80. This is the Farad Powerhouse, operated by Sierra Pacific Power Company. There was a dam on the Truckee River down at Floriston where water was diverted into a wooden flume that runs along the river between there and Farad. The dam was destroyed in a 1997 flood. There were plans to replace it.

    In November 2002, a new "Truckee Bypass" opened. According to Joe Rouse, the old Route 89/Route 267 interchange is now Exit 188A, an eastbound off/westbound on only, signed as "Truckee". The bypass is Exit 188B eastbound, Exit 188 westbound. The onramp to westbound I-80 from the bypass is the only unopened portion of the project. The old Route 89 and Route 267 into downtown Truckee are called Donner Pass Rd; old Route 267 from downtown Truckee south to the bypass is now called Brockway Road.

    Joe also reported in August 2002 that the huge West Boca-Boca-Floriston job east of Truckee is progressing slowly but surely. This project extends from the Truckee Bypass all the way to Floriston. It involves replacement of 12 bridges (6 pairs of bridges, 3 across the Truckee River and 3 across local roads) as well as a realignment of a small segment of I-80 east of the Donner Pass CHP Inspection Facility. The median portions of the replacement bridges were built first and those have all been completed and traffic has been switched onto them. The outside portions of the bridges are now being built. It appears that the eastbound lanes of the realignment have been paved.

    Photo of G61RI-80 is the only place to see California' first attempt at official mile marking, the G61R sign. There were two versions. The G61R-1 had white 6 inch whole numbers and a white 4 inch decimal on a green background and no other information. The G61R-2 was identical to the G61R-1 but it added a white 3 inch county abbreviation at the top, much like what we see on California postmile markers today. If the mileage had more than 3 digits, the county abbreviation was to be removed. The G61R-2 was not to be used on Interstate routes. An example of a G61R (see the picture to the right, courtesy of Jason Elliot of Oregon Roads and Reno Roads) may be seen along I-80 travelling east towards Reno from Truckee, at about 1—1˝ miles from the California-Nevada border on the California side, there is one of the original mile marker signs. This sign has a dark-green background with darkened text and reads 2080. The numbers on the side are rotated the same direction and way as modern postmiles. There is/was another along I-80 eastbound in Placer County, between PM 36.0 and 37.0: it reads 1430. According to Eric Buchanan's Highway Photo Page, there is another one around mile 155 (probably around PM 48.0 Placer or so) as well as one on Business Route 80 "just past 99 south."

    In October 2006, the CTC considered a resolution to vacate right of way near I-80 in the town of Truckee, between Truckee Airport Road and the Truckee River, consisting of highway right of way easement no longer needed for State highway purposes.

    SAFETEA-LU

    The SAFETEA-LU act, enacted in August 2005 as the reauthorization of TEA-21, provided the following expenditures on or near this route:

    • High Priority Project #592: Reconstruct the interchange for south-bound traffic entering I-80 from Central Avenue in the City of Richmond. $3,120,000.

    • High Priority Project #806: Replace the I-880 overpass at Davis St. in San Leandro. $600,000.

    • High Priority Project #1744: Construct I-80 Gilman Street interchange improvements in Berkeley. $1,200,000.

    • High Priority Project #1812: Upgrade and reconstruct the I-80/I-680/Route 12 Interchange, Solano County. $17,480,000.

    • High Priority Project #2209: Construct I-80 HOV lanes and interchange in Vallejo. HPP #3796 seems to provide additional funds.$800,000.

    • High Priority Project #2399: Improve access to I-80 at Eureka Road Interchange. $1,600,000.

    • High Priority Project #3649: Increase capacity on I-80 between Sacramento/Placer Cty Line and Route 65. This is related to NCI #13, below.$21,600,000.

    • High Priority Project #3791: Construct interchange at Harbor Boulevard/I-80 in West Sacramento. $1,000,000.

    • High Priority Project #3796: Construct I-80 HOV lanes and interchange in Vallejo. This seems to be additional funding for HPP #2209. $2,000,000.

    • National Corridor Infrastructure (NCI) Improvement Program #13: Increase capacity on I-80 between Sacramento/Placer City Line and Route 65. This is related to HPP #3649. $50,000,000.

    In October 2013, it was reported that Caltrans had completed rebuilding the entire roadbed from Auburn to the Nevada state line. It took 15 years, $820 million and countless lane closures and traffic slowdowns. The original I-80 was built between 1957 and 1964 as part of the Federal Highway Act. The old roadway was topped with 10-inch concrete slabs. The new one has slabs that are 12 inches thick in key high-mountain sections. That will give crews, in the years ahead, several extra inches of concrete to grind flat when ruts get deep. The department also installed slabs of different lengths on key sections of the freeway, in hopes of reducing the rhythmic bouncing that happens to trucks when crossing from slab to slab. Instead of same-length slabs, the new concrete sections are built in a sequence of 10, 12, 14 and 16 feet. That should reduce truck up-and-down movement. The series of renovation projects started in the late 1990s after highway officials decided the freeway had outlived its functional life. Caltrans first built a bypass route around Truckee. Since then, work crews have jumped from spot to spot along the highway east of Auburn. An estimated 3,000 workers participated, mainly from May to October each year. In some places, the entire freeway was removed and replaced. At several spots, the old freeway’s concrete was ground up and reused in the base of the new freeway. At other spots, workers left the old freeway in place, and glued a new concrete slab on top. Upgrades include numerous water run-off detention ponds and sediment basins so that freeway water is filtered before flowing to adjacent creeks. The agency put new traffic sensors in the pavement and better lighting at exit and entrance ramps. Workers replaced old post and cable barriers with concrete in potential crash areas, and in spots where snow removal equipment sometimes hits the barriers. Caltrans replaced bridge roadways and topped them with a “sacrificial layer” of polyester concrete that can be replaced every seven to 12 years without having to dig into the main road surface.
    (Source: Sacramento Bee, 10/2/13)

     

    Business Routes
    • Sacramento: The Capitol City Freeway, consisting of portions of US 50 and unsigned Route 51.
    • Truckee: Donner Pass Road (old US 40) and Route 267.

     

    Interstate Submissions

    Approved as chargeable Interstate on 7/7/1947, with a routing through Sacramento that followed what is now US 50 (the unsigned I-305 portion) to the Route 99/US 50 interchange, and then what is designated as Business 80 (Unsigned Route 51) north to the point where it rejoins I-80. The current routing of I-80 between the US 50/I-80 interchange and the Business Route 80 (Route 51)/I-80 interchange was originally designated at I-880 and was approved as chargeable interstate in July of 1958. I-305 was approved as chargeable interstate in May 1980; at the same time, the business route portion was removed from the interstate system. I-305 is currently signed as Business Route 80.

    In August 1957, this was tentatively approved as I-80; however, in November 1957 the California Department of Highways suggested that it be designated as I-76 to eliminate confusion with the existing US 80 in California. This was rejected by AASHTO, as was probably one of the factors leading to the "great renumbering".

     

    Naming

    The portion of part (2) of I-80 in San Francisco is named the "James Lick Skyway". James Lick (1796-1876) was a piano and organ maker from Pennsylvania who financed the observatory atop Mt. Hamilton. He moved to San Francisco in 1848 and made his fortune in real estate. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 37, Chapt. 122 in 1951.

    The entire route in California has been submitted to be part of the National Purple Heart Trail. The Military Order of the Purple Heart is working to establish a national commemorative trail for recipients of the Purple Heart medal, which honors veterans who were wounded in combat. All states in the union will designate highways for inclusion in the commemorative trail, and all of the designated highways will be interconnected to form the National Purple Heart Trail. Named by Senate Concurrent Resolution 14, Resolution Chapter 79, July 10, 2001.

    The bicycle-pedestrian path on the proposed new span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge (I-80) is named the "Alexander Zuckermann Bicycle-Pedestrian Path". Named in honor of Alexander Zuckermann, a member of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission Advisory Council and a founder of the East Bay Bicycle Coalition and a leader of the Regional Bicycle Advocacy Coalition, who was a tireless and articulate advocate in the design process to replace the east span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge (collapsed by the 1989 Loma Priata Earthquake). The well-organized and persistent efforts of Alexander Zuckermann were key factors in the final decision to include a bicycle-pedestrian path on the southern edge of the eastbound deck of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge between Yerba Buena Island and Oakland. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 39, Chaptered 7/11/2003, Chapter 94.

    There is the possibility that the Bay Bridge will be named the Emperor Norton Bridge. Currently, this effort is at the county level, where the San Francisco City/County Board of Supervisors voted 8-2 in December 2004 to recommend the name change. The resolution, if approved by Mayor Gavin Newsom, next will travel to the Oakland City Council and on to the California Legislature. The drive to rename the bridge was publicized by Chronicle cartoonist Phil Frank in his strip "Farley". Norton, who occupied a 10-by-6-foot front room of a Sacramento Street lodging house, would have been a present-day constituent of Supervisor Aaron Peskin. And so it was Peskin who picked up Frank's idea, molded it into a resolution and brought it to the Board of Supervisors. The naming would be in memory of Joshua Abraham Norton–who hailed from Scotland, and was a businessman who came to San Francisco by way of South Africa in 1849 to try his luck in the Gold Rush. It is said that he lost his fortune–and his mental stability–after making a bum investment in the rice market a few years later. In 1859, he proclaimed himself Emperor of the United States and, shortly thereafter, the Protector of Mexico. For the next 20 years, he issued proclamations defending minorities and championing civil rights, which were reproduced in local newspapers. He roamed the city accompanied by his dogs, Bummer and Lazarus, and some eateries honored Norton's own specially printed paper money. In 1872, Norton ordered "a bridge be built from Oakland Point to Goat (Yerba Buena) Island and thence to Telegraph Hill." Though his proclamation received little notice at the time, such a bridge would open in 1936, described by President Herbert Hoover as "the greatest bridge ever erected by the human race." Another of Norton's noted proclamations decreed that "Whoever after due and proper warning shall be heard to utter the abominable word 'Frisco,' which has no linguistic or other warrant, shall be deemed guilty of a High Misdemeanor." The penalty: $25.
    [Information on Emperor Norton from SFGate.Com, you can find more information at The Virtual Museum of the City of San Francisco.]

    The portion of I-80 from the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge through Richmond is named the "East Shore" Freeway. This section of freeway was named by Senate Concurrent Resolution 99, Chapt. 229 in 1968. It was named because it runs along the east short of the bay. This was the original name before the Nimitz name came into use.

    The portion of I-80 from the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge through Alameda County to the Contra Costa County Line is named the "Kent D. Pursel Memorial Freeway". Mr. Pursel was a Berkeley druggist and councilman. He was a delegate to the Republican National Convention in 1948. He held a succession of elected offices until his death on August 15, 1967. This should not be confused with Charles Purcell who oversaw the construction of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. Named by Senate Concurrent Resolution 99, Chapter 229 in 1968.

    The eastbound I-80/Route 37 interchange is named the "Gary L. Hughes Memorial Interchange". Officer Hughes was a CHP officer killed in the line of duty by a drunk driver during a traffic stop near the bridge. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 100, Chapter 124, in 1998.

    I-80 from Route 4 to the Carquinez Bridge in Contra Costa County is named the "Linus F. Claeys" Freeway. Linus F. Claeys, a 1932 graduate of St. Mary's College in Moraga, was a rancher, businessman, philanthropist and descendant of California pioneers whose land SR 80 traverses. Two residence halls at St. Mary's College bear his name. Named by Senate Concurrent Resolution 85, Chapter 80 in 1990.

    The portion of I-80 that passes through Vallejo, from the Carquinez Bridge to Columbus Parkway, is named the "Jeffrey Lynn Azuar Memorial Highway". Jeffrey Lynn Azuar was a Vallejo Police Officer who was killed in the line of duty on April 12, 2000. He was born and raised in Vallejo and served the community as an officer with the Vallejo Police Department for over 21 years, serving as a patrol officer, a narcotics officer, a member of the SWAT team, a member of the Honor Guard, and a K-9 officer. Named by Senate Concurrent Resolution 85, Chapter 155, on September 20, 2000.

    The portion of I-80 between the Solano County line (milepost marker 80 YOL 0.00) and County Road 32A (milepost marker 80 YOL 5.781) in the County of Yolo is named the "CHP Officer William “Ivan” Casselman Memorial Highway". It was named in memory of Officer William “Ivan” Casselman, who was born in 1902 to Anson and Lucy in Ontario, Canada. Officer “Ivan” Casselman, was killed in the line of duty on August 24, 1935, when his motorcycle struck the back of a truck. Officer Casselman was well liked and respected in the community. He was admired for his integrity and approachability. It was named in recognition of Officer Casselman’s contributions and sacrifice in serving the CHP and the citizens of California.Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 100, Resolution Chapter 109, on September 4, 2012.

    The portion of I-80 between Midway Road and the Route 12 interchange in the County of Solano as the Tuskegee Airmen Memorial Highway to honor the Tuskegee Airmen and the contributions they made during World War II. Named by Senate Concurrent Resolution 45, August 29, 2013. Resolution Chapter 92.

    The portion of I-80 W of the intersection with Route 51 (signed as Business 80) in Sacramento is named the "West Sacramento" Freeway. It was named after the city of West Sacramento. This city originally known as "East Yolo" in the early parts of the 20th century, later developed into three or four seperate communities: Bryte and Broderick, accessed by former Route 16/Route 84; West Sacramento, on West Capitol Avenue, and Southport, which developed when the Port of Sacramento was built in the 1950s. These communities merged to form an independent city in 1987. Sacramento refers to the City of Sacramento CA, which is based off of the name of the main river in the city. The Spanish name, "Holy Sacrament," was applied to the Feather River in 1808; it was later assumed that the lower Sacramento was the same stream. In 1817 the two main rivers of the valley were recorded as Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, but the course of the former was not identified with the name until the 1830s. The city was laid out in 1848-1849 and named after the river by John A. Sutter, Jr., and Sam Brannan. The county, one of the original 27, was named in 1850.

    The Rocklin Road interchange on I-80 in Placer County is named the "CHP Officer Raymond Carpenter Memorial Highway Interchange" This interchange was named in memory of Raymond Roy Carpenter, born on July 15, 1929, in the Wolf area of Placer County, between Auburn and Grass Valley. He was born in a small cabin with no inside plumbing and no electricity. The Carpenter family moved shortly after his birth to the Sullivan Ranch in Auburn, where Ray's father was the foreman. Ray learned the ways of a ranch hand, working with cattle, sheep, and the many different orchards at the ranch. In 1943 the family moved again to 831 Old Route 5 (now Dairy Road) in Auburn, a house which Ray later owned and which is owned and resided in by Ray's sister Pearl Burkett. Ray attended Placer High School and that is where his interest in the military began. He was a member of the Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps (JROTC). Ray graduated from Placer High and immediately joined the United States Air Force, serving as an enlisted man specializing in weather forecast and analysis. He was stationed in Chanute Air Force Base in Illinois, later in Virginia during which he changed his career field to security police. His last post was Elmendorf Air Force Base in Alaska. Alaska was a territory and not a state at the time, and Ray had the opportunity to be a homesteader, which meant that he homesteaded a piece of property, building a cabin with his own hands and living in it. Ray was an avid hunter and fisherman, so this suited his lifestyle perfectly. Ray served during the Korean War, and his service qualified him for membership in the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) organization. Ray was honorably discharged from the United States Air Force as a Technical Sergeant. Ray joined the Department of the California Highway Patrol (CHP) soon after his discharge from the United States Air Force. He was initially assigned to Bakersfield. He transferred to the Truckee area office and finally made his way to the Auburn office. Ray was soon back at home in the Auburn area patrolling the roads in his hometown. His widow Pat said that law enforcement and the CHP suited Ray perfectly, due to his great respect for authority. Ray's friend and coworker, retired officer Jim Mayhorn, relates that he and Ray were also very active in the early days of the Civil Air Patrol Squadron 60 in Auburn. Jim said that Ray was an aircraft observer and would often go up and assist with search and rescue missions in the area. Other than his seven-year service in the United States Air Force and the beginning of his CHP career, Ray lived in the Auburn area his whole life. In the early 1960s, Ray ran for the State Senate seat for the district that covers Auburn, and narrowly lost in his bid against the incumbent, Ron Cameron. Ray is described by all who knew him as the kind of guy who would look to help another out. When he came across someone less fortunate and in need, he would easily provide the person a ride, or a burger at the local burger place, or even take the person home for a couple of days to get the person back on his or her feet. His wife Pat tells the story of Ray and Ken Lawton. Ray pulled Ken over one Saturday morning for extremely high speed on eastbound I-80. The young United States Navy sailor explained, after a short pursuit and being handcuffed at gunpoint, that he was on a weekend pass and was attempting to go home to Provo, Utah. Ray explained that even if Ken didn't splatter himself and his motorcycle all over the Nevada desert and made it all the way home, he would only have 20 minutes with his family and have to turn around and come back. Ray convinced Ken to stay. He let Ken sleep on the couch at his house, and took him on a ride along with the patrol the next day. They became fast friends. Ray was an inspiration to Ken and after his tour with the United States Navy was over, Ken joined the Utah Highway Patrol (UHP). Ken retired as a captain with the UHP a few years ago, and he recounts that one of his prize possessions is Ray's service revolver, presented to him by Pat after Ray's death. On February 17, 1970, Ray Carpenter, a California Highway Patrol officer and loyal servant to the State of California, died after being shot by the driver of a vehicle he had stopped. Named by Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR) 50, Resolution Chapter 64, on 8/4/2010.

    The portion of this route from Sacramento to Route 65 was historically called the "Capitol Highway". Capitol refers to the fact that Sacramento is the Capital of California, and the Capitol is located there.

    The portion of I-80 between the Sacramento county line and the Nevada border is officially named the "Alan S. Hart" Freeway. During his 42 years of service as an engineer for Caltrans, Alan S. Hart accomplished the modernization of the Trans Sierra Highway (I-80 over Donner Summit) and the adoption of 50 miles of freeway on SR 101 through the redwoods of Humboldt County. Named by Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 102, Chapter 164, in 1986.

    The portion of this route between Route 113 in Davis and Route 65 in Roseville (i.e., the portions originally signed as part of US 99) are designated as part of "Historic US Highway 99" by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 19, Chapter 73, in 1993.

    The portion of this route that is former US 99 is, in local usage, called the "East Side Highway". This is because the US 99 routing ran along the east side of the valley.

    The portion of I-80 from Emigrant Gap to Donner Lake was originally named the "Dutch Flat-Donner Lake Wagon Road". This name was specified by Resolution Chapter 224 in 1909. It was named by location.

    The entire freeway between San Francisco and Nevada is named the "Dwight D. Eisenhower Highway". Dwight Eisenhower was the 34th President of the United States, and is believed to be the driving force behind the interstate system. He died in 1969. For more information, see President Eisenhower's official biography or visit the Eisenhower Library. Named by the Federal Highway Administration in 1973.

     

    Named Structures

    Bridge 34-003 over San Francisco Bay is called the "San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge", although it was never formally named. It was opened in 1936. The San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge is also unofficially named the "James "Sunny Jim" Rolph Bridge". James Rolph was mayor of San Francisco for 19 years from 1911 to 1931. He was elected Governor of California in 1931 and served until his death in 1934. The bridge wasn't dedicated to Rolph until 1986 because of a rivalry with Oakland Tribune publisher Joseph Knowland. Called "Sunny Jim" for his disposition, the former shipyard owner was known for his generosity and his success with projects such as building San Francisco's city hall in 1915 and promoting expansion of the Municipal Railway.

    Tunnel 34-004 under San Francisco Bay at the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge is called the "Yerba Buena Tunnel". It was built in 1936.

    The new western span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge is officially named the "Willie L. Brown, Jr. Bridge." It was named on 09/27/13 by ACR 65, Res. Chapter 140, Statutes of 2013. Although the Governor could not veto the resolution, the governor -- who says he has nothing against Willie Brown -- hopes Bay Area residents will continue to refer to the span as simply the Bay Bridge. Critics say it's not fitting to name the two-mile-long span, which opened in 1936 and was retrofitted in 2004, after a politician they say shares the blame for the delays and problems on the eastern half of the bridge. They note that Brown played a key role in planning the Oakland side of the span, which opened in September 2013 -- 24 years after a section of the roadway collapsed in the Loma Prieta earthquake -- after its cost skyrocketed five-fold, during a decade of planning, to $6.4 billion. But supporters, led by the NAACP, say decades of work by Brown -- an African-American -- merit the honor. Legislative staffers have dutifully pointed out to lawmakers that the plan violates four of the Legislature's own seven policy requirements for naming a span after somebody, including the fact that Brown is not dead. But the guideline that has proven most difficult for supporters to deal with is the lack of a "community consensus" for the new name. An online petition has gained more than 3,700 signatures urging the Legislature to reject the idea and instead name the western span after Joshua Abraham Norton, the self-proclaimed Emperor Norton I, who some credit with coming up with the idea for the bridge in the 19th century. Even the San Francisco Chronicle, for which Brown writes a column, editorialized against the plan. It was named after Willie L. Brown, Jr., who was born in March 1934, in Mineola, Texas. Mr. Brown received a bachelor of arts degree from San Francisco State University in 1955 and a juris doctor from the University of California, Hastings College of Law, in 1958. He was admitted to the practice of law in the State of California and to the federal court, including the United States Supreme Court. Mr. Brown was first elected in 1964 and served in all of the following capacities: as a Member of the California State Assembly from 1965 to 1995, as Speaker of the California State Assembly as the longest serving Speaker in California history, from 1980 to 1995, and the first African American; and two terms as the 41st Mayor of the City and County of San Francisco, from January 8, 1996, to January 8, 2004. Mr. Brown served as the Chair of the Assembly Ways and Means Committee and the Chair of the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee; served on the Board of Trustees of the California State University system and as a Regent of the University of California; and served on the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System. As mayor of California’s most cosmopolitan city, he refurbished and rebuilt one of the nation’s busiest transit systems, pioneered the use of bond measures to build affordable housing, created a model juvenile justice system, and paved the way for creating the expansion campus of the University of California, San Francisco, to serve as the anchor of a new development that would position the city as a center for the burgeoning field of biotechnology. The naming resolution notes that Mr. Brown is widely regarded as one of the most influential politicians of the late 20th century, and has been at the center of California politics, government, and civic life for an astonishing four decades. Mr. Brown’s career spans the American presidency from Lyndon Johnson to Barack Obama, and he has worked with every California Governor from Edmund Gerald “Pat” Brown, Sr., to Edmund Gerald “Jerry” Brown, Jr., and has left his imprimatur on every aspect of politics and public policy in the Golden State, including civil rights, education reform, tax policy, economic development, health care, international trade, domestic partnerships, and affirmative action. As of 2013, Mr. Brown headed the Willie L. Brown, Jr. Institute on Politics and Public Service, where he shares his vast political knowledge and skills with a new generation of California leaders. Note: the naming resolution requires that the signs be funded by donations from nonstate sources.

    The Carquinez Bridge was purchased in 1940. Tolls were eliminated in 1945. The parallel structure was opened in 1958. Tolls were reinstated at that time.

    The westbound span of the Carquinez Bridge is named the "Alfred Zampa Memorial Bridge" in honor and recognition of Alfred "Al" Zampa. Alfred "Al" Zampa was born on March 12, 1905, in Selby, California. After graduating from high school, Al Zampa went into business and became the owner of a meat market in Crockett, California until about 1924, when a customer asked him if he wanted to go to work for that customer on the bridge they were building from Crockett to Vallejo. Al Zampa decided to give it a try; and the first Carquinez Bridge opened in May of 1927, in part due to Al Zampa's efforts. That bridge was to be the first of many bridges Al Zampa would work on in his illustrious career as an iron worker. Al Zampa continued working with the company that built the Carquinez Bridge and worked on projects and bridges in Stockton, California and later in Arizona and Texas, returning to California in the early 1930's to work on the Oakland-San Francisco Bay Bridge and the Golden Gate Bridge. On October 20, 1936, this outstanding iron worker fell into the safety net while working on the Golden Gate Bridge and broke four vertebrae in his back. He later returned to iron work and worked on the second Carquinez Bridge in the 1950's with his two sons, Richard L. (Dick) and Gene. Al Zampa also worked on the Martinez Bridge and the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge and continued to work as a respected iron worker until he retired at the age of 65. In 1987, he was the subject of a stage play entitled "The Ace" that was performed at Fort Mason in San Francisco. Al Zampa was also interviewed for the History Channel on top of the building of the Golden Gate Bridge and more recently for a new show entitled "Suicide Missions: Skywalkers" which depicts the history of the Iron Worker Union. Al Zampa passed away on April 23, 2000, at the age of 95. Named by Senate Concurrent Resolution 97, Chapter 135, September 12, 2000.

    Bridge 23-0015 over the Carquinez Strait between Contra Costa and Solano counties is called the "Carquinez Bridge". It was built in 1927. On this bridge is the "Roger Van Den Broeke Memorial Plaque", named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 105, Chapter 99, in 1994. Robert Van Den Broeke, Caltrans Equipment Operator, was killed by an errant motorist while removing a disabled vehicle from the Carquinez Bridge toll plaza in Vallejo on August 12, 1983.

    According to Joe Rouse, the new Carquinez Bridge will be called the Alfred Zampa Bridge, named after an ironworker who helped build the original Carquinez Bridge as well as the Bay and Golden Gate Bridges.

    The Yolo Causeway (including bridges 22-044 and 22-045) on Route 80 in the County of Yolo is officially designated the "Blecher-Freeman Memorial Causeway". Roy P. Blecher and W. Michael Freeman were veteran California Highway Patrol officers shot to death during an enforcement stop on Route 80 near the Yolo Causeway in the early morning hours of December 22, 1978 at the hands of an armed felon. It was built in 1962, and named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 119, Chapter 147, in 1994.

    The Sacramento River Bridge and Overhead on I-80 in Sacramento and Yolo Counties, commonly known as the Bryte Bend Bridge, is officially named the "Caltrans Maintenance Worker Memorial Bridge", in honor of the deceased and injured workers of the Division of Maintenance of the Department of Transportation. The thousands of men and women who serve at all levels in the Division of Maintenance of the Department of Transportation are persons of knowledge, ability, and integrity. These employees are among those who must regularly work within the public right-of-way and in close proximity to traffic while performing their responsibilities, including the maintenance of streets, the maintenance and repair of water and sewer lines, the maintenance and replacement of traffic signs and signals, the application of pavement markings, and the maintenance and landscaping of street medians. They have paid a particularly harsh price for their dedicated service while working in conditions that have resulted in the highest death and accident rates in state service, with numerous deaths and injuries in the past 10 years. Accidents in highway work zones resulted in 1,093 deaths nationwide in 2000. This naming was done to promote the safety of Caltrans employees, and to encourage motorists traveling in and through the state to exercise caution and care when encountering a work zone. Named by Senate Concurrent Resolution 105, Chapter 161, September 11, 2002.

    The dedicated access enabling motorists to enter eastbound I-80 from Sunrise Boulevard, in the County of Placer, is officially named the "Harry Crabb Tunnel". The tunnel was named in honor of Former Roseville Mayor Harry Crabb, who retired in 2000 after 20 years of service as a city council member for the City of Roseville. He served on the Roseville City Council from 1980-1987, 1989-2000. During his 20 years on the Roseville City Council, Harry Crabb was a tireless supporter of the City of Roseville. Due to his experience working with the Department of Transportation, Harry Crabb also understood the importance of having well planned roads. The intersection of Douglas Boulevard and Sunrise Boulevard is Roseville's busiest intersection with more than 100,000 vehicles passing through it daily; Roseville began planning more than 15 years ago to improve circulation through the intersection. In anticipation of funding future road improvement projects, the Roseville City Council began collecting traffic mitigation fees from developers building in the City of Roseville; this fund, along with state and federal funds, provided funding for the construction of the $35 million Douglas Boulevard/I-80 project. This included an improvement plan that not only includes on and off ramps, but also provides a dedicated access for motorists trying to get to eastbound I-80 from Sunrise Boulevard. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution (ACR) 124, Resolution Chapter 87, on 07/11/2006.

    The "Elisha Stephens Historical Plaque" is located at the Donner Lake Overlook, in Nevada County, W of Truckee. It was named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 24, Chapter 76, in 1993. Elisha Stephens was the first man to lead a wagon train across the Sierras in 1844. All 50 of the pioneers survived the trip, as well as two infants born during the journey.

    This route also has the following Safety Roadside Rest Areas:

    • Hunter Hill, in Solano County, 7 mi. E of Vallejo.

    • Gold Run, in Placer County, near the Sawmill and Gold Run overcrossing.

    • Donner Summit, in Nevada County on Donner Pass. The name "Donner" refers to the Donner Party, which attempted to cross the Sierras in this area. The Donner Party was the most famous tragedy in the history of the westward migration. Almost ninety wagon train emigrants were unable to cross the Sierra Nevada before winter, and almost one-half starved to death. A good summary of the history of the Donner Party may be found at http://members.aol.com/DanMRosen/donner/.

     

    National Trails

    De Anza Auto Route This route is part of the De Anza National Historic Trail.

    Interstate Shield Lincoln Highway Sign As US 40, the portion of this route between the Nevada border and Sacramento was part of the "Lincoln Highway (Alternate)" (which started in Reno).

    Interstate Shield Lincoln Highway Sign Additionally, the segment of US 40 between San Francisco and Oakland was part of the "Lincoln Highway", which originally terminated in Lincoln Park, six miles west of the ferry landing at the foot of Market Street. The Lincoln Highway ended opposite the Palace of the Legion of Honor at a small monument marking the spot. The last few miles (of the highway) were California Street.

     

    Commuter Lanes

    There are a number of segments of this route that have commuter lanes, or for which commuter lanes are planned:

    • In Solano County, commuter lanes exist on the Carquinez Bride. These require three or more occupants (two for two-seater vehicles), and are in operation between 3:00 PM and 7:00 PM on weekdays.

    • In Alameda County, commuter lanes exist on westbound I-80 between West Grand Avenue and the Maritime on-ramp. Lanes also exist on the San Francisco Oakland Bay Bridge. These opened in April 1970, require three or more people (two for two-seater vehicles), and are in operation weekdays between 5:00 AM and 10:00 AM, and between 3:00 PM and 6:00 PM. Other lane segments and dates of opening are:

      • Eastbound: Between Cutting Boulevard and Pinole Valley Road (February 1997)
      • Westbound: Between Pinole Valley Road and Cutting Blvd (March 1997)
      • Both directions between Cutting Blvd and Central Ave (May 1997)
      • Eastbound: Between Pinole Valley Road and Route 4 (August 1997)
      • Westbound: Route 4 to Pinole Valley Road (September 1997)
      • Westbound: Central Ave to Bay Bridge Toll Plaza (February 1998)
      • Eastbound: Gilman Street to Central Ave (July 1998)
      • Eastbound: Powell Street to Gilman Ave (November 1998)
    • In Contra Costa County, commuter lanes exist between San Pablo Dame Road and Pinole Valley Road. These opened in February 1997 (EB) and March 1997 (WB), require three or more people, and are in operation weekdays between 5:00 AM and 10:00 AM (westbound), and between 3:00 PM and 7:00 PM (eastbound). Additional lanes are from Pinole Valley Road to Route 4, Eastbound and from Pinole Valley Road to Route 4, Westbound.

    HOV lanes are planned or under construction as follows:

    • Longview Road overcrossing in Sacramento to the Placer County line. Construction will begin in October 2001. Sacramento County. In October 2003, a five-mile portion of these lanes opened.

    • Long range plans are to have HOV lanes on I-80 from the Placer County line to Route 65.

    • There are plans to construct an HOV lane near Crockett, in Contra Costa County, from PM 9.4 to PM 13.6 (just before the Carquinez Bridge).

    In June 2002, the CTC had on its agenda a proposal to widen Route 80 from five to six lanes to extend HOV lane eastbound from the San Francisco/Oakland Bay Bridge Toll Plaza to Powell St.

    In July 2005, the CTC considered adding additional lanes for HOV to link westbound HOV lane west of Route 4 with the westbound HOV lane included in the Carquinez Bridge from Route 4 to Carquinez Bridge. These lanes were added in 2008. Eastbound, HOV lanes were added and opened in late May 2011. The $36 million project extended the eastbound carpool on I-80 by 4.7 miles from Route 4 to the Carquinez Bridge. Money for the project came from a $1 Bay Area bridge toll increase approved in 2004 by voters in the region to fund transportation projects. The project added capacity to the freeway segment, and provided a dedicated lane in rush hours for carpools with three or more riders.

    I-80 Sacramento ImprovementsIn September 2006, the CTC discussed the I-80 Capacity/Operational Improvements parent project (PPNO 0146D), which includes the construction of eastbound and westbound HOV and auxiliary lanes from the Sacramento/Placer County line (PM 0.0) to Route 65 (PM 5.1). The project scope also includes upgrading the traffic monitoring system through the use of traffic sensors, closed circuit cameras, and changeable message signs. The estimate for the total project is currently $193,200,000. The proposal was to split the parent project into two phases within available funding. Due to capital construction and right of way funding constraints, it is not feasible to fund the entire project within the time frame necessary to address the immediate needs. Phase I (PPNO 0146B), planned for construction this year, includes operational improvements and an eastbound auxiliary lane from the Sacramento/Placer County line Auburn Boulevard/Riverside onramp to the Douglas Boulevard northbound offramp. Phase II (PPNO 0146C) of the project, to start later (Spring 2008), includes eastbound and westbound HOV lanes, auxiliary lanes, and Traffic Operation System (TOS) elements from Auburn Boulevard/Riverside Avenue to just east of the Route 65 interchange west of Miner’s Ravine. The westbound direction other segment will be funded at a later date.

     

    Scenic Highway

    [SHC 263.5] From I-280 near First Street in San Francisco to Route 61 in Oakland; and from Route 20 near Emigrant Gap to the Nevada state line near Verdi, Nevada.

     

    Classified Landcaped Freeway

    The following segments are designated as Classified Landscaped Freeway:

    County Route Starting PM Ending PM
    Alameda 80 2.00 6.03
    Alameda 80 6.53 8.04
    Contra Costa 80 0.00 0.03
    Contra Costa 80 0.07 4.50
    Contra Costa 80 4.70 5.54
    Contra Costa 80 6.34 6.93
    Contra Costa 80 7.04 9.08
    Contra Costa 80 13.43 13.67
    Solano 80 0.57 4.65
    Solano 80 5.35 6.11
    Solano 80 15.52 15.90
    Solano 80 16.04 16.27
    Solano 80 17.03 19.71
    Solano 80 42.55 R43.22
    Solano 80 R43.35 R44.10
    Solano 80 R44.69 R44.72
    Yolo 80 0.00 0.45
    Yolo 80 2.52 2.81
    Yolo 80 8.97 R10.19
    Sacramento 80 M2.29 M2.88
    Sacramento 80 M4.76 M5.22
    Sacramento 80 M5.35 M5.61
    Sacramento 80 M5.69 M6.32
    Sacramento 80 M6.39 M6.84
    Sacramento 80 M7.06 M8.93
    Sacramento 80 M9.90 18.00
    Placer 80 0.00 1.70
    Placer 80 1.82 2.19
    Placer 80 2.88 3.16
    Placer 80 3.57 3.77
    Placer 80 17.09 17.30
    Placer 80 17.32 18.99
    Placer 80 R19.11 R20.36

Blue Star Memorial Highway

The portion of this route from San Francisco to the Nevada state line (i.e., former US 40) was designated as the "East-West Blue Star Memorial Highway" by Senate Concurrent Resolution 33, Ch. 82 in 1947.

 

exitinfo.gif

 

Other WWW Links

 

Freeway

[SHC 253.1] Entire route. Added to the Freeway and Expressway system in 1959.

 

Interregional Route

[SHC 164.14] Entire route.

 


Overall statistics for I-80:

  • Total Length (1995): 204 miles
  • Average Daily Traffic (1992): 21,500 to 250,000
  • Milage Classification: Rural: 112; Sm. Urban 5; Urbanized: 87.
  • Previous Federal Aid Milage: FAI: 202 mi; FAP: 2 mi.
  • Functional Classification: Prin. Arterial: 204 mi.
  • Significant Summits: Donner Summit (7240 ft).
  • Counties Traversed: San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa, Napa, Solano, Yolo, Sacramento, Placer, Nevada, Sierra.

 

Pre 1964 Signage History

Pre-1964 State Shield US Highway Shield Before the 1964 signage/legislative route alignment, signed route 80 was US 80, which roughly followed the route of the current I-8. US 80 was defined as part of the original set of US routes in 1926, running from Yuma AZ through El Centro to San Diego. It was first signed in 1928, with a routing defined to begin at San Diego to Jacumba, to the Arizona-California state line W of Yuma AZ via El Centro. The actual routing for US 80 began in California near Winterhaven at the Arizona State line, and continued W through Midway Wellls, Holtville, El Centro, Seeley, Dixieland, Plaster City, Jacumba, Boulevard, Paposta, Pine Valley, Guatay, Descanso, El Cajon, and into San Diego. This was LRN 12 (defined in 1909) between San Diego and El Centro, and LRN 27 (defined in 1915) between El Centro and Winterhaven. In San Diego, US 80 followed El Cajon and University to 4th Street, then went south on 4th Street to San Diego and US 101.

County Route Shield Note that there is a County Route S80 near El Centro; this is likely a former routing of US 80.

There is a plank road just off of the old US 80 routing; this it appears to be actually associated with the earlier Southern National Highway, which created the first all-season southern route across the U.S, between Washington, D.C., and San Diego. The named highway had its origins in the early 1910s, and came into prominence in 1915, predating the Old Spanish Trail by more than eight years. To arouse interest in the Pan-Pacific Exposition of 1915, a cross-country caravan set out from San Diego along the Southern National Highway in November 2, 1915, and reached D.C. in 32 days. More information on the plank road, including photographs, can be found in the Auto Club article.

The wooden plank road was initiated in 1912, and until 1926 was the only viable route was a wooden plank road (prior to the plank road, people wanting to reach the California coast first went north to sidestep the sands, before heading south, a trip that took two to three days). The initiator of the road was Edwin Boyd, Imperial County supervisor, called a meeting on Jan. 16, 1912 to propose a direct road over the sandhills to Yuma. Construction on the first plank road, which consisted of three-by-eight-inch planks about seven feet long, began Sept. 19, 1912, and was completed about three weeks later. The road went across the Algodones sand dunes, located in the middle of one of the hottest places on earth — the arid desert of the Imperial Valley. The planks of the road were placed on the sand about one foot apart, and two strips of track were nailed to each side to hold them in place. These strips consisted of planks nailed side by side and end to end to form a track 24 inches wide. The first road had one lane and covered six miles. It had turnouts every mile to give motorists a chance to pass. Travelers themselves maintained the road by stopping and fixing damaged areas. With 1915 construction of the Ocean-to-Ocean Bridge at Yuma, the first bridge across the Colorado River, traffic on the plank road increased substantially. The second road, built in 1915 and extended to eight miles, had planks nailed to runners, laid side by side and bolted together into 30-foot sections by a steel band. Turnouts were constructed every half mile. Signs posted the maximum speed of 10 miles per hour. It was officially adopted by state and federal agencies, meaning travelers no longer had to maintain it. Maintenance was turned over to crews of two men and four horses. Risks on the road included sand dunes, high wind pockets, oncoming cars, places where the road had been undermined by wind erosion, and the hazard of slipping off the planks into the sand, to be stuck until a fellow traveler arrived. From 1915 to 1919, travel to and from Yuma could be accomplished in three or four hours. But due to increasingly heavy traffic from 1919 to 1927, the trip lengthened considerably. Standard equipment for a trip in 1920 to 1927 consisted of “extra boards, two auto jacks, gunny sacks, a shovel, food and water for at least two days, and lastly — to be totally prepared — a set of boxing gloves.” In 1927, a new two-lane asphalt road from Holtville to Yuma was built, marking the end of that era in early transportation. This new paved road eventually became US 80, and later, I-8. A segment of the plank road can still be seen today though, off the Greys Well Road exit on I-8.
(Source: Yuma Sun, 2/1/2012, which drew heavily upon Casey Cooper's US 80 Plank Road pages, as well as the San Diego Historical Society's The Journal of San Diego History).

In 1925, it was reported that the state highway between California and Yuma was completed at the end of February 1925. This provided a graded and crushed rock surface at Yuma between the Sand Hills and the Yuma River.

According to [LJ User] patgund, if you drive Historic US 80, stop at Desert View Tower. A little way down a slope is a fairly intact section of the old highway with the 1920's contractor stamps still in place. Also, heading east, (Eastbound I-8 is mostly Historic US 80), stop at Mountain Springs to see two very well preserved portions of the 1910's alignment, and the 1930's alignment. Also, along Historic US 80 between Ocotillo and Plaster City, you'll see a stretch of concrete between the road and the railroad tracks. That's also part of the 1910's alignment.

On US 80, just east of Viejas Indian reservation and east of Alpine, there was a structure called the Viejas Grade Tunnel. It was used through the early to mid 1960's before the section of I-8 was completed just below it.

In San Diego, US 80 covered multiple LRNs, in particular, LRN 12, LRN 26, and LRN 27. LRN 12 is west of El Centro and LRN 27 is east of El Centro, but US 80 traveled on LRN 26 through El Centro. The same is true for LRN 12 in San Diego. It is not continuous. It existed in Point Loma from Barnett Ave west to Cabrillo National Monument, and from Market St and 12th St (Park Blvd) north then east to El Centro. It did not exist between those two segements, as that was LRN 2, US 101. In 1934, while US 101 was still going along Market, US 80 terminated at Market and 12th. Later during the war (in 1943) LRN 2 (US 101) was aligned down Harbor Blvd. This was not the current Harbor Blvd, but went closer to the shoreline behind the current convention center. At this time evidently, US 80 was extended west along Market to terminate at Market and Pacific Highway. In 1930, according to the state highway inset map of San Diego, LRN 2 seems to have gone down Broadway and 16th, not Market and 12th. It is likely that for just a couple years, US 80 had a terminus at Broadway and 12th St. (current Park Blvd). Before that it went down 4th St to terminate town on Broadway (for a short time in the 1920s).

The bypass along El Cajon Blvd (now mostly I-8) north of La Mesa was not built until 1937 and 1939. Before that, the state highway followed the main street, La Mesa Blvd (formerly Lookout), right through downtown. There is now an historic US 80 sign in the center of downtown on La Mesa Blvd. The right of way maps show the route, and later notations indicate when the road was relinquished by law back to the City of La Mesa. Per Steve Varner, there is a possible error as far as the University Ave alignment. One right of way map he has shows Euclid being relinquished back to the city in 1928. Dozens of commercial maps sent to him show University as the main route until well into the 1930s. The 1934 route description and the 1934 state map showed west El Cajon Blvd as US 80. Information from Sacramento showed the same thing. The final word, accord to Steve, is that a war for business traffic was going on. The businesses on University that had enjoyed the auto trail traffic wanted US 80 on University. However, the people on El Cajon Blvd formed the El Cajon Business Association in 1926, and pushed for US 80 to be routed down El Cajon. They won. LRN 12 was aligned down west El Cajon with the inception of US 80. The road later was improved and widened in two major construction projects. Thus, it seems that US 80 as a numbered US highway never officially went down University.

Note that the route was not signed as US 80 until 1932.

 

Historical Route

US Highway Shield ACR 123 (Resolution Chapter 104, 8/16/2006) designated segments of former U.S. Highway Route 80 in San Diego and Imperial Counties as Historic U.S. Highway Route 80, and requested the Department of Transportation to design and facilitate the posting of appropriate signs and take related actions in that regard. The resolution noted that US 80, largely parallel to current I-8, was a 180-mile highway spanning San Diego and Imperial Counties from San Diego Bay to the Colorado River, and played a major role in the development of this state during much of the 20th century. In 1909, California voters approved a statewide bond measure for road improvement purposes in the amount of $18 million, providing, among other things, funds to construct a road between San Diego and Imperial Counties, and their county seats of San Diego and El Centro. In 1915, a unique wood plank road was built over the Imperial Valley sand hills, resulting in a shorter route. In 1925, the federal government became involved in standardized highway route designations across the nation and even numbers were assigned to major highways running east and west, and odd numbers for highway running north and south. The numbering of highways proceeded in numerical order beginning in the north and east and continuing south and west, respectively, and, as a result, the routing along California's southern border was formally designated as US 80. This road, from San Diego to Tybee Island, Georgia, was adopted as US 80 on November 11, 1926. US 80 was the first ocean-to-ocean transcontinental highway to be completed, and portions of the route were known as the Bankhead, Broadway of America, Dixie, Lee, Old Spanish Trail, and Southern Transcontinental Highway.

 


[John Finn Sign]US Highway Shield A portion of Historic US 80 is a named the "John Finn Route". John Finn won the Medal of Honor for his actions on Dec 7 1941 during the attack on Pearl Harbor. He was born in Los Angeles in 1909 and had served at Naval Air Station, North Island. This section of US 80 was named for him because he resided in Live Oak Springs, which is near Pine Valley from 1956 to shortly before his death. He died May 27, 2010 at age 100. At the time of his death, Finn was the oldest living Medal of Honor recipient and the last living recipient from the attack on Pearl Harbor. A full biography may be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_William_Finn

 

National Trails

US Highway Shield Atlantic-Pacific Highway Sign US 80 was part of the "Atlantic-Pacific Highway".

US Highway Shield Old Spanish Trail Sign US 80 was part of the "Old Spanish Trail". This trail essentially followed the alignment of historic Spanish Colonial trails across Florida, Louisiana and Texas, and became the precursor to the present-day east-west route across the southern tier of the US. The early highway, which later became US 80 in California (now I-8), generally followed the Spanish Jornada de la Muerte across the state and terminated in downtown San Diego along Park Boulevard/12 Street, where it intersected with old US 101.

US Highway Shield Dixie Overland Highway Sign Lee Highway Sign Bankhead Highway Sign Lone Star Trail Sign US 80 appears to have been part of the "Bankhead Highway", the "Dixie Overland Highway", the "Lee Highway", and the "Lone Star Trail".

 

Other WWW Links

 

Pre-1964 Legislative Route

The route that would become LRN 80 was first defined in 1931 by Chapter 82 as “(v) Santa Barbara to [LRN 2] at Zaca via San Marco Pass”.

In 1933, it was extended from [LRN 80] to [LRN 2] via Foothill Road, and from Santa Barbara to Rincon-Santa Paula Road near Ventura-Santa Barbara County Line.

In 1935, it was codified into the highway code as:

  1. Santa Barbara to [LRN 2] at Zaca via San Marcos Pass
  2. That portion of [LRN 80] specified in [the first subdivision] to [LRN 2] via Foothill Road
  3. Santa Barbara to [LRN 151] near Ventura-Santa Barbara County Line

In 1959, Chapter 1841 changed the definition to be:

  1. Santa Barbara to [LRN 2] at near Zaca via San Marcos Pass
  2. That portion of [LRN 80] specified in [the first subdivision] to [LRN 2] [LRN 151] near Ventura-Santa Barbara County Line via Foothill Road
  3. That portion of [LRN 80] specified in [the first subdivision] to [LRN 2] via Sycamore Canyon

This route was signed as follows:

  1. From LRN 2 (US 101) near Santa Barbara to LRN 2 (US 101 near Zaca) via San Marcos Pass.

    The portion between Zaca and Santa Barbara is present-day Route 154. It was originally signed as part of Route 150 in 1934; in January 1961, it was reassigned to signedRoute 154.It was created as a state highway to provide relief for LRN 2 (US 101). By creating it, the state hoped that it would indefinitely postpone radical widening of the present state highway through Gaviota

  2. From segment 1 of LRN 80 to LRN 151 (Route 150) near the Ventura-Santa Barbara County line via Foothill Road.

    This also ran along Laurel Canyon Road, Stanwood Drive, Sycamore Canyon Road, and East Valley Road. This was originally signed as part of Route 150 in 1934; it is present-day Route 192. This was part of the 1933 extension of LRN 80.

  3. From segment 2 of LRN 80 to LRN 2 (US 101) via Sycamore Canyon.

    This is present-day Route 144. This ran along Milpas, Mason St, Salinas St., and Sycamore Canyon Road. This appears to have been part of the 1933 extension of LRN 80 as well.



Back Arrow
Highways 65-72
State Highway Routes
Return to State Highway Routes
Forward Arrow
Highways 81-88
© 1996-2012 Daniel P. Faigin.
Maintained by: Daniel P. Faigin <webmaster@cahighways.org>.