California Highways (www.cahighways.org): Route 75

Southern Silver Strand, Imperial Beach, and the Southern Connection to I-5

San Diego Relinquishment (11-SD-75 8.9/10.0)

Rte 75 Relinquishment in San Diego In June 2019, the CTC approved the following SHOPP amendment: 11-SD-75 8.9/10.0 PPNO 1264 ProjID 1117000113. Route 75 In the city of San Diego, from 0.2 mile south of Route 5 (PM 8.930) to Georgia Street (San Diego city limit, PM 9.956). Financial Contribution Only (FCO) to City of San Diego to relinquish roadway. Total $5,100K.
(Source: June 2019 CTC Minutes, Agenda Item 2.1a.(1) Item 27)

In June 2019, the CTC authorized the following SHOPP support allocation: $100,000 11-SD-75 8.9/10.0 PPNO 1264 ProjID 1117000113. Route 75 In the city of San Diego, from 0.2 mile south of Route 5 (PM 8.930) to Georgia Street (San Diego city limit, PM 9.956). Relinquish roadway to the city of San Diego. PA&ED $100,000. (Concurrent amendment under SHOPP Amendment 18H-010.
(Source June 2019 CTC Minutes, Agenda Item 2.5b.(2a) Item 41)

In June 2020, the CTC authorized the following allocation with respect to this relinquishment: $5,000,000. 11-SD-75 8.9/10.0. PPNO 11-1264. ProjID 1117000113. EA 43000. Route 75 in the city of San Diego, from 0.1 mile south of Route 5 (PM 8.930) to Georgia Street (San Diego city limit, PM 9.956). Outcome/Output: Financial Contribution Only (FCO) to City of San Diego to relinquish roadway.
(Source: June 2020 CTC Agenda, Agenda Item 2.5b.(1) #34)

In August 2020, the CTC authorized relinquishment of right of way in the City of San Diego on Route 75 (11-SD-75-PM 9.1/9.9) under the terms and conditions as stated in the relinquishment agreement, effective June 24, 2020, determined to be in the best interest of the State. Authorized by Chapter 398, Statutes of 2016, which amended Section 375 of the Streets and Highways Code. This is basically from the end of the I-5 offramp to the San Diego city limit.
(Source: August 2020 CTC Agenda, Agenda Item 2.3c)

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.

Imperial Beach Relinquishment (SD 9.9/11.2)

Rte 75 Imperial Beach Relinquishment In January - March 2016, it was reported that plans are underway to decomission Route 75 (which would require some form of resolution, at minimum, at the state level). The Corondo Times noted that Imperial Beach is planning conversion of its portion of Route 75 to a city street. The City of San Diego is in process of relinquishment for their section of Route 75 on the San Diego Coronado Bay Bridge as well. However, Coronado is not interested in taking back its section of the state highway, even though Caltrans wants to relinquish the entirty of Route 75. The reason is believed to be that bridge maintenance and other costs fears have paralyzed Coronado elected city leaders. A 2009 planning report that discussed the the proposed Route 75/Route 282 Transportation Corridor Project encouraged the City of Imperial to determine at an early stage if any portions of this project will require relinquishment of Route 75, so that the City may begin consultations with the City of San Diego, and the City of Coronado for acceptance of portions of the route that may fall within their jurisdiction and require relinquishment as well. The relinqishment is addressed in AB 2075 (2016), which was initiated by Imperial Beach; Coronado has asked to be removed from the bill.
(Source: Andy3175 @ AAroads; CoronadoTimes, 12/30/2015)

In September 2016, it was reported that a transportation assembly bill (AB1500) that recently passed in the state legislature could give Imperial Beach local control of its portion of Route 75, a main thoroughfare into the small beach town. Also known as Palm Avenue, it connects the Silver Strand and Coronado. According to Imperial Beach, “It’s big for the city because we could move forward and implement improvements in the Palm Avenue Master Plan and we don’t have to get encroachment permits we can do it ourselves.” Although the state legislature giving the bill a thumbs up is a big deal it must get the seal of approval from the California Transportation Commission, expected to happen sometime this fall. Once approved by the Commission, Hall said city staff members would create a cost benefit analysis—essentially a list of pros and cons to taking on jurisdiction of the road to present to the City Council.
(Source: San Diego U-T, 9/15/2016)

In August 2018, the CTC authorized relinquishment of right of way in the city of Imperial Beach on Route 75 from near Georgia Street to Rainbow Drive (11-SD-75-PM 9.9/11.1), under terms and conditions as stated in the relinquishment agreement dated July 12, 2018, determined to be in the best interest of the State. Authorized by Chapter 398, Statutes of 2016, which amended Section 375 of the Streets and Highways Code.
(Source: August 2018 CTC Agenda Item 2.3c)

The following project was included in the final adopted 2018 SHOPP in March 2018: PPNO 1204. 11-San Diego-75 10.0/11.2. Route 75 In Imperial Beach, from Georgia Street to 0.2 mile north of Rainbow Drive. Relinquish roadway to Imperial Beach. Financial Contribution Only (FCO). Total Project Cost: $5,624K.

In June 2011, the CTC relinquished right of way in the city of Imperial Beach along Route 75 on and along Palm Avenue between 8th and 7th Streets (~ SD 10.641 to SD 10.79), 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 (Tulagi Rd) in Coronado (~ SD 10.993 to SD 17.454).

In Coronado and Along the Silver Strand

In June 2015, it was reported that Caltrans was presenting the results of its recently completed Engineering and Traffic Surveys of Route 75 and Route 282 in Coronado. The survey recommended a five-mph increase in the speed limit of Route 75 east of Orange Avenue (SD R19.729 to SD R20.533). All other segments of the state highways in Coronado are recommended to remain the same. Initially, the results of surveys indicated that a five-mph increase on Third and Fourth Streets west of Orange Avenue, and a 10-mph increase on Third and Fourth Streets east of Orange Avenue would be warranted. After consultation with City staff, Caltrans agreed that it was appropriate to apply a five-mph reduction along Third and Fourth Streets as allowed due to accident rates and residential density factors. The result is no change in the current speed limit of 25 mph for the sections of Third and Fourth Streets west of Orange Avenue (Route 282) and a five-mph increase to 30 mph for the sections of Third and Fourth Streets east of Orange Avenue (Route 75). Prior to 2005 the posted speed limit on the majority of Third and Fourth Streets was 30 mph and 35 mph on Fourth Street between Orange Avenue and the bridge. These speed limits were reduced to 25 mph for the entirety of Third and Fourth Streets after a speed survey performed by Caltrans in 2005.
(Source: eCoronado.com, 5/30/15)

Coronado Relinquishment (11-SD-75 PM 11.2/R20.1)

In February 2019, there was an update on the relinquishment question. The broad brush details include Caltrans, the State of California’s Transportation Agency would pay the city $16.95 million to repair Route 282 or Third and Fourth Streets west of Orange Avenue; Route 75 from the Toll Plaza to Tulagi Road; and Route 75 from Tulagi Road to the southern City Limit with Imperial Beach, to adequate levels. The city of Coronado would then take over all operations of highways. The deal would be in perpetuity, the highways could not be returned to State control and turning the highways over to Coronado would require legislative action at the state level. There’s a lot more to Relinquishment than that. There is past history which could charitably be described as ‘fractious,’ and there is a very real fear of the unknown. The financial risk cannot be quantified at this time, and information gathering is just now underway. Early discussions on relinquishment have found Councilmembers Bill Sandke and Mike Donovan on opposite ends of the thought spectrum on the issue, at least during council discussions on the topic.
(Source: Coronado Eagle and Journal, 2/22/2019)

In September 2019, it was reported that the topic of relinquishment was discussed at the September 2019 Coronado Council meeting. This relates to negotiations for Coronado to acquire control and operation of Route 75 and Route 282. Approved was an item that would authorize City Manager Blair King to engage in negotiations with Caltrans for the 9.79 miles of roadway in question: specifically, Route 75 from Tulagi Road to the Southern City limits; Route 75 from Glorietta Boulevard to Tulagi Road; and the full portion of Route 282 including Third, Fourth, and Alameda between Third and Fourth Streets. The staff recommendation was to pursue the relinquishment of all three segments of roadway. State Senator Toni Atkins (D-39th District) has agreed to facilitate the transaction, which ultimately requires legislative action, with the bill signed by Governor Gavin Newsom. The big turnaround for this council from the stance taken by their predecessors, was the fact that the now-public Caltrans operational numbers reflect the transaction to be cost positive for the City of Coronado. During a presentation to the Council by City Director of Public Services and Engineering Cliff Maurer, it was revealed that Caltrans receives an annual financial allotment through the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) of $900,000, of which a total of between $250,000 and $280,000 is actually spent in Coronado, with the balance of the funding directed to other areas within Caltrans. Upping the maintenance level to Coronado standards, essentially doubling the existing Caltrans expenditures, would still leave a projected balance Coronado could place into a sinking fund for future road maintenance. The other major financial component that may make this transaction financially feasible, is a potentially large lump-sum payment from Caltrans to the City of Coronado to bring the 9.79 miles of roadway to an acceptable condition. The first dollar figure run up the proverbial flagpole by Caltrans was for $16.95 million with a projected payout in 2020-21. Coronado’s consultants from Rick Engineering Company put the number for a 2022 payout at $24 million. Another issue Coronado would include in the transaction is that Caltrans would commit to providing catastrophic damage response capabilities, within the limitations of their available resources. The downside for Coronado is the city would now own 9.79 miles of roadway and a bridge near the Cays, with all of the related operations and maintenance expenses, forever. There are also insurance ramifications, as Coronado is part of a Joint Powers Agreement called the CSAC Excess Insurance Authority, which is a risk-sharing pool that proactively helps control losses and prepare for different exposures. Through that entity, the city is self-insured for a $250,000 deductible per incident, with coverage up to $50 million. The key factor is the amount of the lump sum payment. Coronado believes that thenumber (from Caltrans) is low. There is a fair amount of time between the completion of an agreement and when Coronado gets the road. In that time, the value of money is changing, and the city needs to negotiate an appropriate amount of money to get the road into good shape.
(Source: Coronado Eagle and Journal, 9/12/2019)

In June 2020, it was reported that during the City Council meeting of June 16, 2020, the Coronado City Council approved by a 5-0 vote, acceptance of the $22 million financial package from Caltrans to take over the operation of Route 75 and Route 282 in the city. Along with an internal transfer of $9.3 million from the Fiscal Year 2020-21 budget, the resulting $31.3 million fund, with interest, is projected to cover the annual maintenance for the two state routes that run through Coronado. The opening bid from Caltrans to bring the two state routes into good repair was $16.95 million. Specifically, the descriptions of the state routes that will be taken over by the City of Coronado include:
(Source: Coronado Eagle and Journal, 6/25/2020)

Route 75 from Glorietta Boulevard near the Toll Plaza, to Tulagi Road at the Naval Amphibious Base
Route 75 from Tulagi Road to the Coronado City limits at Imperial Beach and
Route 282 from Orange Avenue to, and including, the 300 block of Alameda Boulevard

The San Diego-Coronado Bay Bridge is not included in Relinquishment and will continue to be owned and operated by Caltrans. Relinquishment of Route 75 and Route 282, once completed, means the highways are owned by the City of Coronado in perpetuity. The City also assumes all liability for the highways.
(Source: Coronado Eagle and Journal, 6/25/2020)

In August 2020, the CTC approved the following addition to the SHOPP, which addressed the financial contribution for the relinquishment: 11-SD-75 PM 11.2/R20.1 PPNO 1304 ProjID 1118000008 EA 43021. Route 75 In Coronado, from 0.2 mile north of Rainbow Drive to Glorietta Boulevard; also the entirety of Route 282 (PM 0.0R/0.691R). Financial Contribution Only (FCO) to City of Coronado to relinquish roadway. PA&ED $160K Const Sup $22,000K TOTAL $22,160K. PA&ED 12/15/2020 Begin Const 9/6/2021.
(Source: August 2020 CTC Agenda, Agenda Item 2.1a.(2a) #12)

Related to the above, in August 2020 the CTC approved the following financial allocation: $160,000 for PA&ED 11-SD-75 11.2/R20.1 PPNO 1304 ProjID 1118000008 EA43021 Route 75 In Coronado, from 0.2 mile north of Rainbow Drive to Glorietta Boulevard; also the entirety of Route 282 (PM 0.0R/0.691R). Financial Contribution Only (FCO) to City of Coronado to relinquish roadway.
(Source: August 2020 CTC Agenda, Agenda Item 2.5b.(2a) #36)

In February 2021, it was reported that there was a hiccup in the relinquishment. SB 479 was introduced in the 2020 legislative session as the vehicle for Relinquishment to pass through the legislature. The bill passed through committees in the State Assembly and Senate and was sent up for a vote. Then a filibuster happened. This delay resulted in a whole group of bills not making it through before the recess of the legislative session at the end of the year. It was expected that when the new legislature began in 2021, the bill would quickly proceed. Unexpectedly, during that gap in time, the Navy raised new concerns and demanded that additional language be included in the legislation. The city was informed only after the fact when additional language had been introduced. The specifics of the language requested was not released, but the jist is that the Navy has demanded that any action taken (from road improvements to special events) receive concurrence (approval) from Naval Base Coronado. The city finds this untenable; in an effort to salvage the agreement already made with state entities, the city proposed the Navy and City agree on a side agreement that would attach to the bill. Specific language was already included the bill to “provide continuous and uninhibited defense access, continuity, and emergency capabilities for the movement of military personnel, material, and equipment in both peacetime and wartime... that the city shall not limit the type, weight, or dimensions of vehicles needed for defense purposes that may use the relinquished portion of Route 75 or Route 282.” The city continues to work on an agreement.
(Source: Coronado Eagle and Journal, 2/15/2021)

In December 2022, the CTC amended the SHOPP related to this project as follows: 11-SD-75 PM 11.2/R20.1 PPNO 1304 ProjID 1118000008 EA 43021. Route 75 In Coronado, from 0.2 mile north of Rainbow Drive to Glorietta Boulevard; also the entirety of Route 282 (PM 0.0R/0.691R). Financial Contribution Only (FCO) to City of Coronado to relinquish roadway. PA&ED $160K Const Sup $22,000K TOTAL $22,160K. PA&ED 12/15/2020 Begin Const 9/6/2021. Note: Delete project. The City of Coronado and US Navy did not reach an agreement on the transfer and the relinquishment was not included in legislation.
(Source: December 2022 CTC Agenda, Agenda Item 2.1a.(1d) #30)

Constructed as freeway from Route 282 in Coronado to the Northern Connection with Route 5 in San Diego (~ SD 19.56 to SD R22.172).

Coronado Tunnel:

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 (~ 282 SD 0.689R to 75 SD R19.729 to 75 SD R20.533). 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.

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.

Northern I-5 Terminus to Coronado Tidelands Park, including the Coronado Bridge

The San Diego-Coronado Bridge (Bridge 57-0857, SD R020.49) 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.

Coronado Bridge Suicide Barrier: (~ SD R20.49 to SD R21.664)

Rte 75 Suicide Barrier Plan In April 2015, it was reported that San Diego officials are moving forward with a study to determine whether suicide barriers or nets could be installed to catch jumpers on their way down. Since the San Diego-Coronado Bridge opened in 1969, the two-mile span has been the site of more than 360 suicides, with the numbers surging since 2011. The study would determine whether the state Department of Transportation could install nets similar to those that San Francisco plans to add to the Golden Gate Bridge to prevent suicides. The Coronado City Council recently made a similar endorsement, and the nonprofit Coronado Bridge Collaborative has launched an online campaign to raise the roughly $25,000 it estimates the study would cost.
(Source: LA Times, 4/27/2016; Image source: Caltrans District 11 Public Scoping Meeting Information)

In late May 2017, it was reported that Caltrans was initiating a study of ways to deter suicides off the Coronado bridge. Long sought by members of the island community, the study will evaluate the feasibility, cost, impacts and risks of fencing or other barriers. Steven Shultz, a Caltrans spokesman, said the study will take about 10 months to complete. Its cost has not yet been determined, pending final decisions on the scope of the work. More than 400 people have jumped to their deaths since the San Diego-Coronado Bridge opened in 1969, according to Wayne Strickland, a retired Coronado firefighter who is president of the Bridge Collaborative for Suicide Prevention. Hundreds more people over the years have gone to the bridge to die and changed their minds or were grabbed before they could go over the 3-foot-tall side. Many approaches have been done on different bridges, but in Coronado, the suicide-prevention collaborative has been eyeing as a possible solution the kind of inward-tilting, unclimbable fencing similar to the installation on the Cold Spring Canyon Bridge on Route 154 in Santa Barbara County. Built in 1963, the 1,200-foot-long steel-arch bridge spans a gorge on Route 154 and had been the site of more than 50 suicides before Caltrans installed a 10-foot high, $3 million fence in 2012. Engineering students at San Diego State University designed a Cold Spring-like barrier for the 2-mile-long Coronado bridge — high enough to deter jumpers, strong enough to keep cars from crashing through — and estimated it would cost about $11 million.
(Source: San Diego U-T, 5/20/2017)

In June 2018, it was noted that the study had been published. It describes the bridge as follows:

The Coronado Bridge is an iconic structure in the San Diego region. Its construction was completed in 1969 and it is part of Route 75 which connects the City of Coronado and the City of San Diego over the San Diego Bay. The bridge structure is of steel plate girder construction with a reinforced concrete deck. The route carries a large number of civilian and military commuters to Naval Air Station North Island and the Naval Amphibious Base in the City of Coronado.

The bridge main crossing of the San Diego Bay is approximately 7,400 feet in length spanning from Abutment 1 to Pier 30. The western approach (Coronado) which is approximately 1,900 feet long begins at the toll plaza in the City of Coronado and connects to the main crossing at Abutment 1. The eastern approach (San Diego) extends from the main crossing at Pier 30 and connects directly to I-5. Pier 30 also represents a transition from the main bridge to the east approach, and is the point at which the bridge superstructure transitions from steel to concrete. This portion of the bridge is approximately 2,000 feet long. The total length of the bridge, including both ends of approaches and the main crossing, is approximately 11,200 feet long.

The bridge horizontal alignment consists of a 2,800 foot long curve with an 1,800 foot radius between piers 4 and 17 connecting two perpendicular tangents. The vertical alignment of the bridge maintains a 4.67% max grade from both ends of approaches connected by a 2,100 foot vertical crest curve at the channel spans between Piers 18 and 21. The channel spans have a vertical clearance of approximately 200 feet.

The 2015 5-day annual average daily traffic (AADT) on the Coronado Bridge is approximately 83,000. The posted speed limit for this facility is 50mph. The bridge currently has a five lane configuration: two eastbound, two westbound, and a reversible middle lane with a moveable median barrier system installed in 1993 to facilitate weekday directional traffic demands. There are no existing shoulder widths on this bridge in order to accommodate the median barrier and reversible middle lane. The existing bridge railing is 34-inches high and is designed to redirect vehicles back onto the roadway if hit. There are no public pedestrian facilities and no bicycle access on the bridge except for special events.

The study notes numerous limitations that would impact a suicide barrier due to the need to perform maintenance operations on the bridge, such as inspections and painting. The study explored a number of options, including wire mesh fencing [an 8-9 foot modified Type 7 fence, with a tighter 1-inch mesh fencing material to restrict climbing and providing an 8-inch continuous gap at the bottom of the fence to facilitate Maintenance access to anchor bolts, air and water hook ups, and ropes used during their operations], wire mesh curved fencing (ala the Cold Springs Tavern Bridge, Route 154) [this adds an inward curve at the top towards the roadway to deter pedestrians from climbing over the barrier], Transparent Panel Barriers (as used in Aukland NZ) [8-9 feet minimum in height with perforations to reduce transverse and wind loading, using panels would be made of either glass (silicon based) or plexi-glass (petroleum based) materials, possibly curved at the top, with a possible 8-inch continuous gap at the bottom of the fence to facilitate Maintenance access to anchor bolts, air and water hook ups, and ropes used during their operations], a net system (as proposed for the Golden Gate Bridge, US 101) [a horizontal net system to the superstructure section at a location approximately 20-feet below the bridge deck and extend out from the bridge rail approximately 15-feet.], a "Thistle Barrier" [an alternative fence system that consists of deterrent spikes installed on top of the existing bridge rails], or just advisory signage.

In October 2019, the Governor signed SB 656 (Chapter 651, 10/8/2019), which required the Director of Transportation to select members for an advisory committee to provide input into the selection of a suicide deterrent system for the San Diego-Coronado Bridge that would include a representative from the Department of the California Highway Patrol, a mental health advocate, a member of a local suicide prevention group, residents of specified cities, and representatives of specified city and county governments. The bill would also provide for the selection to the advisory committee of one representative each by the Assembly Members or State Senators whose districts include the San Diego-Coronado Bridge.

In June 2020, a public scoping meeting was held regarding the suicide barrier. The notice indicates that although official figures have not been maintained since its opening in 1969, it is widely believed that there have been approximately 400 deaths by suicide that have occurred from the San Diego - Coronado Bridge on Route 75. After the Golden Gate Bridge, it is recognized as the second most frequently used bridge for suicide in the states. The Bridge does not have a permanent physical suicide deterrent system. The standard operating procedure for suicide attempts is closure of the Bridge. The Bridge has the highest concentration of fatalities for a spot location on the state highway system in Caltrans District 11 (San Diego and Imperial Counties) due to deaths by suicide. Fatalities caused by suicide do not qualify under current Highway Safety Improvement criteria and are not eligible for HSIP funding. The existing TMS elements on the Bridge consist of six cameras controlled exclusively by California Highway Patrol (CHP) staff stationed at the Bridge Toll Plaza in Coronado. When CHP staff is not available at the Toll Plaza, the cameras cannot be repositioned and are no longer effective for monitoring activity on the bridge. In addition, existing camera locations do not provide full coverage of the bridge and surrounding areas. Non-physical suicide deterrence measures have been implemented on the Bridge along with four-inch spikes installed on top of the bridge rail in early 2019 as an interim measure. However, multiple suicides and suicide attempts have still occurred from the Bridge. Many of these have resulted in a complete closure of the Bridge, sometimes for hours, requiring those traveling to or from Coronado Island, Naval Air Station North Island, and the Naval Amphibious Base, to reroute by way of the Silver Strand, a 23-mile detour adding 30 to 60 minutes of travel time per vehicle per incident. Route 75 is part of the Strategic Highway Network which provides defense access, continuity, and emergency capabilities for movement of personnel and equipment in both peace and war times. The plan is to install a permanent suicide deterrent on the San Diego – Coronado Bay Bridge (Bridge) in San Diego County. The Project also proposes to install minor improvements to the transportation management system (TMS) elements at the Glorietta Toll Plaza, the Bridge, and the I-5/Route 75 Interchange.
(Source: Caltrans District 11 Public Scoping Meeting Announcement, June 2020)

In January 2022, Caltrans released the draft San Diego – Coronado Bay Bridge Suicide Deterrent Project (11-SD-75 PM R20.1/R22.3 & 11-SD-5 PM R13.8/R14.3) environmental document for review. Comments were due at the beginning of March 2022. The report noted that during the initial planning phase of the proposed project, a range of potential alternatives were identified for evaluation, including the three physical concepts: a horizontal barrier, a vertical barrier on the existing bridge railings, and a vertical barrier on new bridge railings. Multiple design variations for the vertical barrier alternatives were also included, such as a wire mesh fence, pivoting wire mesh fence, sliding vertical cable fence, reverse folding wave fence, vertical net, and horizontal cable fence. With project refinements, the vertical net design variation of the vertical barrier alternative constructed on the existing bridge railing has been identified as the proposed project. This would affix a vertical net to the outside of the existing bridge railing. A Caltrans Headquarters Division of Engineering Services’ Division of Structures Design analysis resulted in a high confidence level that a new railing would not be required to support the net. The vertical net would be composed of an 8- to 10-foot-tall stainless-steel net affixed to top and bottom perimeter tension cables. The tension cables would be strung through and attached to fixed vertical posts approximately 20 or more feet apart. The vertical net would be offset 4 to 8 inches behind the existing bridge rail. The proposed project would include the following project features and parameters:
(Source: "San Diego–Coronado Bay Bridge Suicide Deterrent Project ... Initial Study with Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration", January 2022)

A metal continuous top plate would be installed on top of the existing railing to provide connection brackets for posts and anchorage for maintenance needs (base plate may be discontinuous at light pole locations).
Vertical posts would measure no more than 4 by 6 inches in diameter.
Posts would be similar in visual quality to brushed stainless-steel or brushed aluminum, with ground smooth welds the same color and reflective quality of adjacent material.
The vertical net would be composed of an unpainted stainless-steel netting, with a maximum 2-millimeter (mm) wire size.
The net may have a slight angle up to 15 degrees to follow the splay of the existing concrete rail.
The design would use top tension cables no larger than 19 mm that would hold the woven mesh netting between posts.
A minimum net transparency of 85 percent would be achieved.

The proposed project would also include minor improvements to the TMS elements at the Glorietta Toll Plaza, the Bridge, and the I-5/SR-75 Interchange. These improvements would include upgrades to the CCTV system using the existing conduit system, along with new CCTV cameras at five locations along the bridge spans and one on the eastern end of the Glorietta Toll Plaza. New vehicle detection systems (VDSs) would be installed at the I-5/Route 75 Interchange and the Glorietta Toll Plaza. A Changeable Message Sign would also be replaced at the Glorietta Toll Plaza. No other work is anticipated at the Glorietta Toll Plaza except the possibility of staging materials. Signage may be replaced or new signage installed as needed.
(Source: "San Diego–Coronado Bay Bridge Suicide Deterrent Project ... Initial Study with Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration", January 2022)

The proposed project design would require enclosed substructure bays beneath the Bridge to allow for maintenance of the Bridge, which would no longer be accessible from the bridge deck due to the vertical net. Spans 1 through 3 and Spans 18 through 20 (Box Girders) of the Bridge would not require enclosed bays. Spans 4 through 15 along with Spans 23 through 27 would require enclosed outer bays. Spans 16, 17, 21, 22, 28, and 29 would require enclosed center and outer bays. The enclosure method would be a grating “floor” and supports that would connect to the existing substructure. These bays would be enclosed using fiber-reinforced or noncorrosive metal punched plank grating. The fiber-reinforced grating would be a minimum of 70 percent open and a maximum of 2 inches in height. The fiber-reinforced grating would be a darker color than the existing grating on the structure.
(Source: "San Diego–Coronado Bay Bridge Suicide Deterrent Project ... Initial Study with Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration", January 2022)

Currently, a driver going in the westbound direction can see the tops of vehicles over the existing outside bridge rail along the curve of the Bridge. With the construction of a vertical net, this existing line of sight would be affected. Speed reduction from the current 50 miles per hour (mph) is being considered for both directions along the Bridge to account for this impact on line of sight. New speed limit signs and pavement delineation may also be needed for this speed limit change.
(Source: "San Diego–Coronado Bay Bridge Suicide Deterrent Project ... Initial Study with Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration", January 2022)

In December 2022, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding the following project for which a MND has been completed: Route 75 and I-5 in San Diego County (11-SD-75, PM R20.1/R22.3, 11-SD-5, PM R13.8/R14.3). Install a physical suicide deterrent on the San Diego-Coronado Bay Bridge and install minor improvements at the I-5/Route 75 interchange, in San Diego County. (PPNO 11-1352). The project is located on Route 75 in San Diego from postmile R20.1 to R22.3 and on I-5 from postmile R13.8 to R14.3, in San Diego County. The Department proposes to construct a vertical net as a suicide deterrence system along both sides of the Bridge, as well as minor improvements to the TMS elements at the Glorietta Toll Plaza. The estimated total overall cost of the project is $127,000,000. The project is not currently programmed in the SHOPP. The project is estimated to begin in 2026-27. A copy of the MND has been provided to Commission staff. The project will result in less than significant impacts to the environment after mitigation. The following resource areas may be impacted by the project: peregrine falcon. Avoidance and minimization measures will reduce any potential effects on the environment. These measures include, but are not limited to, avoid nesting season, pre-construction surveys, and implement exclusion zones. As a result, an MND was completed for this project.
(Source: December 2022 CTC Agenda, Agenda Item 2.2c.(1))

In January 2023, the CTC added the following SB1 project into the 2022 SHOPP: 11-SD-75 R20.1/R22.261. PPNO 11-1352; ProjID 1119000044; EA 43063. Route 75 In the city of San Diego, on San Diego-Coronado Bay Bridge № 57-0857 and EB Route 75 to NB I-5 Connector Overcrossing № 57-0912G; also on Route 5 at SB I-5 to SB Route 75 Connector Overcrossing № 57-0939H (PM R13.8/R14.3). Install suicide deterrent fences along bridges. Allocation ($ × 1,000): PA&ED $17,140; PS&E $20,900; R/W Sup $17; ⊘Con Sup $15,000; R/W Cap $331; ⊘Const Cap $94,800; TOTAL $124,200. FY25-26. Concurrent COS allocation under Resolution FP-22-45; January 2023. SB1 Baseline Agreement Required. Begin Const: 9/30/2026.
(Source: January 2023 CTC Agenda, Agenda Item 2.1a.(1b) #2)

In January 2023, the CTC approved SB1 pre-construction project phase allocation of $14,000,000. 11-SD-75 R20.1/R22.261. PPNO 11-1352; ProjID 1119000044; EA 43063. Route 75 In the city of San Diego on San Diego-Coronado Bay Bridge № 57-0857 and EB Route 75 to NB I-5 Connector Overcrossing № 57-0912G; also on Route 5 at SB I-5 to SB Route 75 Connector Overcrossing № 57-0939H (PM R13.8/R14.3). Install suicide deterrent fences along bridges. Future consideration of funding approved under Resolution E-22-101; December 2022. Concurrent Amendment under SHOPP Amendment 22H-006; January 2023. PS&E $14,000,000.
(Source: January 2023 CTC Agenda, Agenda Item 2.5b.(2b) #10)

Coronado Bridge Pedestrian and Bicycle Lanes: (~ SD R20.49 to SD R21.664)

In March 2017, it was reported that a report headed for a San Diego Assn. of Governments committee says the concept of pedestrian and bicycle lanes across the bridge — dreamed of even before the bridge opened in 1969 — contains no “fatal flaws” except perhaps this one: It could cost as much as $210 million and might require bringing back toll charges that ended 15 years ago. Funded by a $75,000 county grant, the study was conducted by architectural firm HNTB and outlined three ways to cross the bridge on bike or feet:

Build a tube through the bridge’s arch supports and include observation decks on the north and south sides. The tube would be 15 feet in diameter with the interior height at 8 feet and the riding/walk surface 10 feet wide.
Locate the tube alongside the top of the bridge piers, just below the riding surface. But the tube would be on only the north or south side, leaving users no chance to experience the opposite view. And the bridge painting and maintenance equipment system would have to be relocated.
Add the tube at the same level as the driving deck. But this might impede the view enjoyed by motorists on the side of the bridge where the tube is located.

Navy and Caltrans officials raised various issues in comment letters, such as blocked passage of Navy ships between two of the central piers in addition to security and safety concerns. Caltrans said 13 agencies would have some say in permits and permission. The tube concept was advanced by retired architect Lew Dominy and the good news, according to the study, is that the bridge can be structurally modified. But as Caltrans said in its comment letter, the bridge will become historic in 2019 and a visual impact analysis is needed to determine whether the original sleek, award-winning look would be diminished. Another concern was whether the 195-foot clearance could be retained for Navy ships and cargo traffic. One of the passages would not be clear because the tube would have to be lowered 30 feet to meet accessibility standards for the disabled. The tube could be routed around the affected piers to avoid that problem. But cost appears to be the biggest impediment.
(Source: San Diego U-T, 3/29/2017)