This is a floating closed javascript menu.
Menu


Interstate Shield

Interstate 80

Click here for a key to the symbols used. An explanation of acronyms may be found at the bottom of the page.


Routing Routing

  1. Rte 80 Seg 1Interstate Shield X-Ed Out From Route 101 near Division Street in San Francisco to Route 280 near First Street in San Francisco.

    Interstate Submissions Interstate Submissions

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

    Post 1964 Signage History 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 the Route 280 in that definition 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'.

    Hoodline provides a good summary of the history of the Panhandle Freeway. The following is excerpted from that page: The Panhandle Freeway started with the existing road through the Panhandle called Avenue Drive. Oak and Fell were two-way streets on the sides. The California Department of Highways (now called Caltrans) and city planners envisioned a grand plan bringing the Central Freeway through Hayes Valley, semi-submerging it into the Panhandle, then curving into Golden Gate Park, passing underneath the Main Drive (what is now called John F. Kennedy Drive) and connecting with US 101 at 14th and Fulton. It was to be called the Panhandle Freeway. In 1945, the newly formed San Francisco Planning Commission adopted a ‘Master Plan’ that included designs for major thoroughfares along Bayshore, Embarcadero and the Panhandle. The first leg, the replacement of the Bayshore Highway system with a safer freeway, began in 1950 and was completed in 1958. When planners proposed an elevated “Western Freeway” along 19th Avenue in 1956, it was rejected by the Board of Supervisors in an 8-3 vote, led by William Blake. The double-deck Embarcadero freeway was opened 1958 and the elevated Central Freeway was opened the next year, bringing a freeway to Hayes Valley. In 1960, the Division of Highways and the Planning Commission renewed their calls for freeways running through the city, but instead they proposed depressed freeways or tunneled freeways through the Panhandle and 19th Ave. By 1962, both of these proposals were rejected by the Board of Supervisors, albeit by a smaller 6-5 margin. Supervisor William Blake instead proposed building a tunnel underneath Pacific Heights, towards the Golden Gate Bridge, thus eliminating the need for freeways on top of the city. As other efforts stalled, freeway advocates pushed forward with the Panhandle as the main artery to connect northwest San Francisco and the Golden Gate Bridge to the rest of the peninsula. Tthe City Recreation and Parks commission unanimously approved the Panhandle proposal on July 10th 1964, despite a large protest. Following this result, the Division of Highways renewed calls for studies into freeway proposals in March of 1965. One main factor that you can find in newspaper article of the era was that San Francisco had been earmarked $250 million ($1.86 billion in 2015 dollars) in Federal Interstate Highway Funds. This would be lost, Senator J. Eugene McAteer warned, if the city decided not to go forward with the proposals. Beyond the park’s destruction, between 415 and 500 people were to be removed from their homes and relocated away from the Panhandle corridor. The city had been busy bulldozing large swathes of Western Addition since the 40s in the name of urban renewal, and combined with the divisive effects of the Bayshore Freeway, many citizens were losing their appetite for sacrificing neighborhoods for grand civic projects. One lesser-known part of the Panhandle plan is that it was envisioned as a complement to the would-be recreated version of Western Addition. The Citizens Committee to Save Golden Gate Park (CCTSGGP) coalesced 26 civic groups in opposition to the freeway. This group organized a protest in May 17, 1964 at the Polo Grounds where folk singer Malvina Reynolds sang a song composed for the occasion, called the "Cement Octopus". The denouement of the struggle came on March 21, 1966, when the Board of Supervisors voted, 6-5, to reject both the Panhandle and the complementary Golden Gate Freeway. A plaque now stands in a grove at the western end of the Panhandle commemorating the vote.

    Before 1968, maps indicate that I-80 was routed on the Central Freeway, and was cosigned with US 101 up to Fell Street (which corresponds to the constructed portion shown on the 1964 State Highway Map).

    Pre 1964 Signage History Pre 1964 Signage History

    Interstate 80

    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.

    Note: For more information, see the section of the Route 40 page on US 40. Similarly, see the page on Route 40 (US 40 Sections) for information on freeway adoptions along the route.

    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.

    US 80 (1932-1964)

    U.S. 80 in 1959Pre-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 Sign 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 Patrick Gunderson (back in the days of Livejournal), if you drive Historic US 80, stop at Desert View Tower (~ IMP 8 R1.13L). 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 (~ IMP 8 R11.988 to IMP R20.523, although you might want to be on County Sign Route S80, the Ewan Hewes Highway), 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 were plans for a structure to be called the Viejas Grade Tunnel (near SD 8 R35.024L). According to Michael Ballard, plans for the tunnel were drawn up in the late 1940s to improve an alignment that hadn't changed much since 1932. The existing alignment had lots of sharp curves and steep grades. Some improvements were made between West Willows and East Willows. At the large curve, known as “Dead Man’s Curve”, the 1950 improvements ended. There were plans for a tunnel to be constructed to elide that curve, and grading was done at the west end of the planned approach.  East of the tunnel, there would have been a new alignment rejoining US 80 near Los Terrinitos, with a new bridge constructed over the Sweetwater River bridge, bypassing the original 1917 bridge to the south. East of Descanso, another realignment was planned. This all became moot with the construction of I-8 that bypassed the entire region. Information on the tunnel, as well as details of the construction that replaced it for I-8, may be found on Michael Ballard's page on the section.
    (Source: Southern California Regional Rocks & Roads "A Tunnel on US 80?")

    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.

    Status Status

    There appear to be some plans to make a portion of the originally planned freeway routing in San Francisco (i.e., the Panhandle Freeway, former Route 80, former Route 241, 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.

    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.

    In August 2019, it was reported that Caltrans crews were inspecting an elevated section of Route 80 near Harriet St (~ SF 4.606) where a chunk of concrete broke off, falling 25 feet onto a street in SoMa. The stretch of freeway that links the Bay Bridge to the US 101 split has dogged city and state officials for years. Officers who manage police parking lots adjacent to the Hall of Justice say that they have found large pieces of debris and bolts on the ground but that their complaints to Caltrans have gone largely unaddressed. The fist-size bit that peeled from Route 80 may have shaken loose over time, likely after a car hit that area of the structure. The incident was described as a “surface-level spall” — transportation-speak for concrete separating from a steel bar or other surface. A bridge crew that examined the area said the damage didn’t extend beyond one crack, and determined that the structure is safe. Construction techniques during the 20th century freeway boom were more primitive than they are today, said Andrew Fremier, deputy executive director of operations at the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Whereas modern bridges and overpasses have shear studs that connect the deck to the floor beams, their 1960s counterparts had a simpler design. Fremier noted that some of the concrete on the I-80 overpass in SoMa appears to lack steel reinforcement. It’s structurally sound, but “less composite” than a more contemporary structure — and more prone to crack, he said. Spalling has been a little-noticed issue at that overpass for years. The SFPD has collected hunks of concrete, bolts, washers and nuts that dropped from I-80 onto the parking lots that line Harrison Street between Sixth and Seventh streets. Many of them are coated in blue paint that matches the other bolts on the freeway structure. Records in the Hall of Justice basement show that the sheriff’s department called Caltrans that year to complain about concrete spattering the parking lot between Sixth and Morris streets. Engineers from the state agency set a date for repairs and “never showed up,” said the email from sheriff’s department representative Kevin Lyons.
    (Source: SF Chronicle, 5/1/2019)

    In June 2015, it was reported that the residents of the South Market community in San Francisco expressed concern to Caltrans about the configuration of the South Market exits from I-80. In June 2014, 62-year-old Wilbert Williams was sleeping in a tent next to a I-80 off-ramp at Fifth and Harrison Streets (~ SF 4.832) at about 1 a.m. when he was run over and killed by a drunk SUV driver who veered off the road. The Vision Zero Coalition, led by Walk SF and the SF Bicycle Coalition, called for urgent action from Caltrans, the state agency that controls highways and the city streets where freeway ramps touch down. With a decades-long legacy of gouging highways through cities, the agency still tends to disregard the burdens that grade-separated limited-access roads impose on urban neighborhoods like the South of Market District. The block between Fourth, Fifth, Harrison, and Bryant Streets is mostly occupied by four I-80 freeway ramps. At the corners where they touch down, 17 people were injured by drivers while walking between 2005 and 2012, according to CA Highway Patrol data. Twelve of those crashes involved “unsafe speed” as a primary factor. At the nearby intersection of Sixth and Brannan Streets, where I-280 ramps touch down in both directions, 29 pedestrians were injured by drivers traveling at unsafe speeds within the same period. On Sixth Street, which funnels freeway-bound drivers through one of the city’s densest neighborhoods, drivers injured 123 people on foot within those seven years.
    (Source: Streetsblog SF, 6/16/2015)

    Naming Naming

    James LickThis 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.
    (Image source: Found SF)

    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.


  2. Rte 80 Seg 2Interstate 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 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 Route 280 is the present-day Route 1 (see above). 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, and defined a new routing for Route 280 that turned into Route 480 at First Street and I-80. This ended up splitting the definition of Route 80, giving the current segment.

    Reroutings in Sacramento

    In 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 Sacramento. 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.

      The bypass I-80 realignment was pretty comprehensive; it followed the SP (now UP) rail line all the way up through North Sacramento to the present I-80/Route 51/Route 244 interchange. What is now Route 51 would have become an extension of Route 160 north of the Route 51/Route 160 split, while the present American River crossing would have been a "spur" ramp connecting the two facilities. The I-80 reroute would have been an "express" facility, with no interchanges between its north end at I-880/Route 244 and its merge with the original route south of the American River. Route 160 traffic would have had to depart I-80 where Business Route 80/Route 51 does today; the original I-80 facility would be primarily for local traffic access.
      (Source: Sparker on AAroad, 10/21/2018; Sparker on AAroads, 10/21/2018)

      One plan at the time showed an interchange at Marconi Avenue. There would have also been a connection to SB Route 160 and from NB Route 160 and an interchange at a proposed extension of Exposition Blvd under the SP tracks (the interchange with Route 160 would have eliminated the buttonhook ramps and horseshoe bridge on Route 160 at Royal Oaks Drive. At the junction with the old I-80, there would have been collector/distributor ramps down to E Street. Arden, El Camino, and Marconi would all have been reconfigured onto new overpasses over the SP railroad and the new freeway. All 3 bridges were eventually built on those proposed alignments in the early 80s in preparation for the light rail system.
      (Source: Joe Rouse on AAroads, 10/22/2018)

      The bridges on Arden Way and El Camino Real ended up, after the recission of the I-80 Bypass, being a functional gift from Caltrans to the City of Sacramento -- having been constructed to accommodate both the railroad and the proposed freeway. On Arden Way, they replaced a grade crossing where the gates were down about as much as they were up -- that rail line connected Elvas Junction, where the SP lines from Southern California (via Fresno & Stockton) and the Bay Area converged, to the destination of most manifest (non-container) trains: the sprawling Roseville Yard, then the largest in the SP system. The city had long sought an overpass; because the planned Bypass I-80 facility followed that rail line, Caltrans started construction on this by 1973, prior to Adriana Gianturco taking the reins at the agency. To the immediate north, El Camino Real (old US 40/99E and part of LRN 3) ducked under the tracks on a narrow 2-lane underpass that had long outlived its configuration; once again, construction began about '74, a year before Gianturco's administration. Both bridges had spans that were designed to accommodate the parallel double-track rail line plus 8 lanes of freeway. The original alignment of LRN 3 turned north from El Camino Real on a broad curve leading to Auburn Blvd. right at the east end of the original narrow underpass; this was covered up by the berm of the new bridge, requiring traffic wishing to access Auburn Blvd. to go a couple of blocks east and then north on a local street.
      (Source: Sparker on AAroads, 10/23/2018)

      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.

    • 080 880 sacramento1972. 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 (Route 244/Route 51/I-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 BR 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.

    Roseville

    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 Pre 1964 Signage History

    Bay Bridge

    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."

    Tom Fearer has an extensive history of the highway reroutings resulting from the construction of the Bay Bridge in his Gribblenation Blog Interstate 80 over the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. This details all the reroutings of US 101, US 40, US 50, and related state highways from the start of construction through the Interstate era.

    Signage History

    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.

    Alternate US 40

    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.

    Carquinez Bridge

    The initial routing of US 40 was aligned over LRN 7 into Benicia, over the Martinez-Benicia Ferry and LRN 14 towards Oakland. From Crockett US 40 followed LRN 14 west on San Pablo Avenue to Oakland to a terminus at 14th Street and Broadway. The primary driver of US 40 being routed away from Benicia and Martinez was the completion of the original Carquinez Bridge in 1927 (opening date: 5/21/1927). The Carquinez Bridge originally carried the final alignment of the Lincoln Highway when it opened as a private toll bridge (the Lincoln Highway was originally aligned over Altamont Pass on a route that eventually became US 48, then US 50, and is now I-580). US 40 was reported rerouted through Vallejo via the Carquinez Bridge and the American Canyon Route on the 8th Biannual Report by the Division of Highways in November 1932.
    (Source: Gribblenation Blog, "Interstate 80 west over the Carquinez Bridge to the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge")

    During June 1955, the California Senate authorized construction of a second Carquinez Bridge. The January/February 1956 California Highway and Public Works Guide discusses the upcoming project to upgrade US 40/LRN 14 from Richmond to the Carquinez Strait to Freeway Standards. The second Carquinez Bridge was projected to be completed in late 1958. The second Carquinez Bridge opened to traffic on November 25th, 1958. The second Carquinez Bridge would become the northbound lanes of the US 40/I-80 freeway and remain so on the modern Interstate.
    (Source: Gribblenation Blog, "Interstate 80 west over the Carquinez Bridge to the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge")

    The 1927 Carqueinz Bridge was determined to be seismically unstable following the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake. Subsequently a new Carquinez Bridge was built to carry westbound I-80, this structure opened on November 11th, 2003. Upon the completion of the 2003 Carquinez Bridge the 1927 structure was demolished piecemeal which was completed in 2007.
    (Source: Gribblenation Blog, "Interstate 80 west over the Carquinez Bridge to the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge")

    Donner Pass

    In June 2017, Tom Fearer provided some history of Donner Pass Road on AARoads, and there is more in his Gribblenation Blog Posts: Donner Pass had the first recorded wagon crossing in 1844. The whole saga of the Donner Party occurred in the Winter of 1846/1847. The first route over the Sierras via the Donner Pass area wasn't too much different than Donner Pass Road ultimately ended up being. The main difference was that the route for wagons was much steeper than the Lincoln Highway iteration ultimately ended up being. This was known as the Dutch Flat & Donner Lake Wagon Road, which was completed by 1864 to assist with construction of the First Trans-Continental Railroad. Visit this site for more details about the Dutch Flat & Donner Lake Wagon Road.

    The original purpose built road over Donner Pass was the Dutch Flat & Donner Lake Road (DF&DLR). The DF&DLR was a wagon route over Donner Pass that was constructed by the Central Pacific Railroad to assist in construction of the First Transcontinental Railroad. In 1861, the State of California granted the Central Pacific a 10 year franchise on toll rights to the DF&DLR, which completed by 1864. The DF&DLR was used to finance the Central Pacific's construction of the First Transcontinental Railroad from 1864 to 1868. The DF&DLR was likely not tolled after rail service opened to Reno in 1868. The DF&DLR became a public highway in 1871 and was only loosely maintained given rail service had become the easiest form of transportation over Donner Pass. The DF&DLR became one of the earliest California State Highways in 1909. The primary purpose of State Highway maintenance on the DF&DLR was to improve the roadway for ease of travel during the early automobile era.
    (Source: Gribblenation Blog: Donner Pass; hunting for the Dutch Flat & Donner Lake Road and abandoned Central Pacific Railroad Tunnels, 10/13/18)

    The infamous wagon train that lent its name to the Donner Pass crossed it in 1846-1847, but established wagon trails didn’t appear there until nearly 20 years later, built to support the Central Pacific Railroad as it crossed the Sierra Nevadas. The first automobile – driven by Alexander Winton – reportedly crossed those wagon trails in 1901, and California designated the wagon trail over the Donner Pass a state highway in 1909, so when Carl Fisher and his group pieced together the Lincoln Highway four years later, they simply used the same route for the northern branch between Fallon, Nevada, and Sacramento. This routing (when headed up to the summit from Donner Lake) entered the Central Pacific RR tunnel that bore underneath the pass itself, continued through a snow shed and another railroad tunnel, and only then diverged from the railroad to continue the climb up over the summit. Although there was a protocol for traversing the RR tunnel, the system resulted in a number of accidents – enough to warrant the construction of the country’s first auto road underpass beneath a railroad just a year later. The concrete underpass went in roughly where automobiles exited the snow shed near CPRR tunnel No. 8 and forced a minor re-routing of the Lincoln Highway. The railroad abandoned that section of line in 1993; the purpose-built US 40, now known as the Donner Pass Road, replaced the Lincoln Highway in 1926 and was itself replaced by I-80 in the 1960s.
    (Source: Hemmings Daily, 1/2/2018)

    In addition to the Dutch Flat & Donner Lake Wagon Road there was two additional wagon roads that were apparently used: Coldstream Pass and Roller Pass to the south of Donner Pass which were in use by 1846. This site has some really good links to maps showing all the wagon routes alongside Donner Pass Road in addition to the rail alignments. The Dutch Flat & Donner Lake Wagon Road became a state highway apparently in 1909 with a realignment due to rail crossing accidents in 1912.
    (Source for some: Max R on AAroads, June 2017)

    The first legislative appropriation to improve the DF&DLR was in 1911 followed by an act in 1913 (Chapter 619) to remove an at-grade crossing of the First Transcontinental Railroad. The 1913 legislation served to remove the at-grade rail crossing the DF&DLR took at Central Pacific Tunnel #6 (which was leased to the Southern Pacific in 1885) which was replaced by an underpass between Tunnel #7 and Tunnel #8. The 1913 DF&DLR is often cited as one of the first highway rail underpasses in the United States. 1913 was also when the route was chosen to be signed as the Northern Spur of the Lincoln Highway in California, aligned over Donner Pass Road. The 1918 State Highway Map is the earliest that shows a road going over Donner Pass but no route names. In 1921, the Victory Highway was co-signed with the Northern Lincoln Highway on the DF&DLR. By 1926, the DF&FLR over Donner Pass had been replaced by the newly constructed Donner Pass Road. The original routing of Donner Pass Road from Donner Pass east to Donner Lake used very little of the DL&DLR as the grades were far too high to facilitate increasing interstate travel. Donner Pass Road ultimately took out almost all of the really steep grades by using hairpins that approached the pass from Donner Lake. The DF&DLR remained south of Donner Pass Road from Donner Pass east to Donner Lake. The DF&DLR converged with Donner Pass Road at Old Highway Drive. Tom Fearer's blog page (from which this paragraph is condensed) has some good maps (and links to old maps) showing these older and former routings.
    (Source: Gribblenation Blog: Donner Pass; hunting for the Dutch Flat & Donner Lake Road and abandoned Central Pacific Railroad Tunnels, 10/13/18)

    Ultimately the Lincoln Highway was replaced by US 40. By 1926, Donner Pass Road is shown as unimproved west out of Truckee to Donner Lake but graded over Donner Pass. By 1930 US 40 appears on State Highway Maps and all of Donner Pass Road from Truckee to the actual Pass appears to be classified as "Improved." By 1934 all over US 40 over the Sierras appears to have been paved. Not much changes until the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 which of course led to the Interstate system. The first visual change that can be seen on the state highway map with Donner Pass Road being bypassed is in 1960 when a new stub of I-80 is shown running from the Nevada state line west past Truckee to Donner Lake. It isn't until the 1967 State Highway Map that US 40 completely disappears from California.
    (Source for some: Max R on AAroads, June 2017)

    Status Status

    San Francisco Approach and Western Span Oakland-Bay Bridge (~ SF 5.584L to SF 7.618)

    Western Span Bike Path

    Rte 80 Western Bike PathIn 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 February 2016, it was reported that Transportation officials were narrowing the final designs for a bike and pedestrian path on the western span of the Bay Bridge, but it could still be another decade before the 2.9-mile structure from Yerba Buena Island to San Francisco is funded and built, according to the Bay Area Toll Authority. The impetus to build a western path comes from a desire to make it possible to ride all the way from Oakland to San Francisco. The new eastern span's biking and walking path currently stops short of Yerba Buena Island because of a long series of construction delays. One big question is where the path should touch down in San Francisco. Engineers have narrowed those alternatives from 19 to six, including Essex Street, the Embarcadero or a Caltrans paint yard. biking and walking structure on the western span presents a number of engineering challenges. Attaching the main span to the Bay Bridge is the biggest challenge, because it's not easy to attach new steel to old steel. Old steel gets brittle. It can't be welded. The old bridge must be partially taken apart and the new parts must be integrated using bolts and plates to replace existing rivets. There's also the issue of sinkage. Adding new weight will cause the bridge to be six to eight inches lower, potentially endangering very tall ships and angering the Coast Guard. To solve this problem, the suspension wires could be tightened, raising the roadway back up six to eight inches. Another big question is how to get the path across Yerba Buena Island. The options include a bike and walking path that would be suspended from the ceiling of the Yerba Buena Tunnel, providing a direct connection to the west span. Less costly options include building paths above or below Hillcrest Road, which winds around steep terrain on the south side of the island. In San Francisco, the project would also feature "dual high-capacity and high-speed elevators" on the Embarcadero to quickly move people on and off the path. One option being considered would be to have the elevators open first, in lieu of a ramp touchdown, which could be built later. Engineers hope to come up with four alternative designs and present cost estimates at a meeting planned for September 2016, and then narrow them down to two options.
    (Source: SFGate, 2/2/2016)

    In November 2018, it was reported that a just released study shows the western bike path is technically possible to build — but it won’t be cheap, and it won’t be easy. Cost estimates for the roughly three-mile path range from $341 million to nearly $429 million, figures that could rise as the design gets closer to completion. There are numerous other challenges, including how to attach the new path to an 82-year-old bridge and how to manage construction in a corridor traversed by more than 266,000 motorists every day — not to mention how to pay for it. This study is not the first time the region’s transportation planners have looked at the potential of building a path along the Bay Bridge’s western span, but this presentation will be the closest they’ve come to understanding the full magnitude of construction and its associated costs. Two studies in 2001 and 2011 looked at options for a path, including where it might land in San Francisco, how it would connect to Yerba Buena Island, and how the path would attach to the bridge. Renewed interest for the west span path picked up in 2013, when the east span, with a bicycle and pedestrian path from Oakland on the south side of the bridge, first opened to the public. In 2016, the path reached Yerba Buena Island, where a suite of improvements are planned to accommodate a protected bikeway to Treasure Island. The most recent study takes it a step further by selecting a preferred alternative and completing up to 25 percent of the engineering designs in some places along the span. Under this plan, the path would meet the eastern span on the south side of Yerba Buena Island before wrapping around to the island’s north side. From there, cyclists and walkers could turn to Treasure Island or head west to San Francisco. The path would then follow the bridge to the Fremont Street off-ramp and finally touch down on Essex Street, where cyclists could connect to San Francisco’s network of bike lanes. Along the way, engineers would need to erect steel cantilevers on the north side of the bridge that would bolt into the bridge’s steel frame, said Peter Lee, the MTC’s project manager for the west span bike path. Because of the steel’s age, crews can’t weld onto it, he said. There’s layers of lead paint that need to be carefully managed and an increasingly shorter nightly construction window as worsening traffic congestion continues to lengthen the definition of “peak commute hours.” But, one of the biggest challenges is the extra weight, which could lower the height of the suspension bridge by as much as two feet and make it hard for large cargo ships to pass safely underneath. The weight of the path can be offset by lightening the load in other places, he said, such as resurfacing the roadway with a new, lighter-weight asphalt, which would be part of the bridge’s regular maintenance. This new study allows planners to take the potential path into account when making those upgrades.
    (Source: East Bay Times, 11/15/2018)

    In March 2019, the SF Chronicle summarized the status on this: It took nearly three years to open the Bay Bridge’s bike path on the eastern span. Until early 2017, impatient cyclists and pedestrians could only travel from Oakland to a spot short of Treasure Island while the old bridge was being demolished. And they’ll have to continue waiting to ride a bike, or walk, to San Francisco. After years of studying how a bike path across the western span of the bridge would work, planners and engineers finally came up with a design and unveiled it in November. The cost has been whittled down to about $300 million after earlier estimates of $1 billion. Finding that money will take years, though, and it may require funding from a future tax or bond measure that raises money for a new Transbay Tube for BART and other rail service. To access the bridge’s bike path, a trail will need to be built from the eastern span around Yerba Buena Island. Once across the bridge, pedestrians and bicyclists would take a path following the Fremont Street exit before sloping down to a landing near Essex Street.
    (Source: SF Chronicle, 3/14/2019)

    Yerba Buena Island (~ SF 7.618L to SF R8.237)

    Yerba Buena Route Adoption

    In March 2015, the CTC actually adopted the freeway route on Yerba Buena Island. Recently reconstructed entrance and exit ramps on Route 80 on Yerba Buena Island prompted a review of the existing Freeway Agreement. It then became apparent that neither a Freeway Agreement or a Route Adoption had ever been completed for this portion of Route 80. There was an Act of Congress in 1931 entitled “An Act granting the consent of Congress to the State of California to construct, maintain, and operate a bridge across the Bay of San Francisco from the Rincon Hill District in San Francisco by way of Goat Island to Oakland.” The San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge was built in 1936. On December 20, 1962, there was an Agreement signed between the United States of America (US Navy) and the State of California. The purpose of the Agreement was to outline the mutual rights and obligations relating to the crossing of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge (SFOBB) over Yerba Buena Island and the construction and maintenance of roadways connecting Yerba Buena Island to the Bridge. After searching for information in 1933 Breed Act, soliciting information from the city and county of San Francisco and looking through documents in the Caltrans’ HQ Division of Design, it appears no Route Adoption was ever done for this portion of Route 80. After completion of the reconstruction of the SFOBB interchange on Yerba Buena Island , which is currently under construction, the Navy will transfer ownership of the interchange right of way on Yerba Buena Island to the city and county of San Francisco. A Freeway Agreement with the city of county of San Francisco will be completed following the transfer of ownership of right of way and the Route 80 Freeway Adoption. The Freeway Agreement with the city and county of San Francisco is targeted for mid-April of 2015. The wording of the route adoption was:

    NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that pursuant to the authority vested in it by law, this Commission does hereby select, adopt, and determine the location of that segment of State Highway Route 80 from 0.1 miles east of Fifth Street to 1.7 miles west of W. Grand Avenue, in the city and county of San Francisco and in the county of Alameda, and officially designate it as 04-SF-80 and 04-Ala-80, a Freeway, as said location is shown on the Route Adoption map submitted by “Lenka” Culik-Caro Design Deputy District 4 Director

    Yerba Buena Tunnel Corrosion

    In February 2016, it was reported that Caltrans was investigating possible corrosion in the Bay Bridge’s Yerba Buena Island tunnel after a chunk of the concrete wall tumbled into the roadway and narrowly missed hitting a motorist. Of concern to Caltrans, and to an expert who examined a photo of the damage, is whether the incident is a sign that water is causing more widespread problems in the 80-year-old tunnel. The failure occurred at a point where the ceiling of the lower deck — which serves as the deck for the westbound lanes above — is connected to the tunnel wall. Since the investigation started, Caltrans has realized the tunnel has more issues than they originally thought. Thirteen problem areas have been identified; they range in size from a few inches to a few feet and are on both sides of the tunnel. Caltrans officials said rainwater is to blame for the corrosion. The water is leaking from the more than 250 drain openings on the upper deck down to the tunnel. The Yerba Buena Tunnel was built in the 1930s, the last major rehabilitation was done more than 50 years ago, in the early sixties. The upper and lower tunnels are separated by a deck that was installed in 1964, after rail service was eliminated on the lower deck. Reinforced-concrete sections that make up the deck sit atop 12-inch-wide concrete ledges on either side of the tunnel, cushioned at contact points by half-inch-thick Masonite pads. Over the years, rainwater leaking through the drain openings has apparently soaked some of those 512 pads, causing them to expand downward and create cracks in the lower tunnel’s concrete walls. Water can then flow into those cracks and corrode steel rebar, which expands and pushes the concrete away from the wall — a phenomenon known as “pop-out.” Besides replacing compromised concrete in the lower tunnel, Caltrans may have to remove hundreds of Masonite pads and replace them with rubberized pads. That should make it less likely that new cracks will form to allow rainwater to infiltrate the lower-tunnel walls. Adding to Caltrans’ challenge is that the 1960s drawings for the tunnel deck do not spell out exactly how the drainage system works.
    (Source: SFGate, 2/6/2016, KCBS 2/22/2016, KOGO 2/22/2016, SFGate 2/21/2016)

    Yerba Buena West Off Ramps (~ SF R8.004)

    Rte 80 Yerba Buena Island West Off RampsOn 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.

    Note that the Yerba Buena Island offramps are closely connected to the East Span Bike Path (see below).

    In October 2016, it was reported that drivers heading westbound on the Bay Bridge will now have new ramps to enter and exit Yerba Buena/Treasure Island. Two new westbound on and off-ramps on I-80 taking drivers to and from the Bay Bridge and Yerba Buena/Treasure Island will open on the morning of Saturday, Oct. 22, 2016.Once the new ramps have been opened, westbound drivers heading toward the island can exit from the far right lane of the bridge onto the new exit, which is slightly longer and curving. The current off-ramp, which is located on the bridge's far left lane will be closed once the new one has opened. Once off the bridge, drivers can turn right onto Macalla Road to access Treasure Island or turn left to access Northgate Road to the U.S. Coast Guard facilities on Yerba Buena Island. Drivers leaving Yerba Buena/Treasure Island and heading toward San Francisco can get onto the bridge through the new gently curving on-ramp, which provides a longer, safer distance for acceleration when merging with highway traffic. Additionally, drivers heading west on the bridge will still have the option of using the current, shorter on-ramp on the west side of the island. The current eastbound on and off-ramps will remain unchanged. Construction on the Yerba Buena Island East-Side Ramps Project first began in Jan. 2014. The total project cost $98.04 million.
    (Source: KTVU Fox 2 News, 10/15/2016)

    Approach to Eastern Span from Yerba Buena Island (~ SF R8.117 to SF R8.278)

    Rte 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.

    Yerba Buena Island / Treasure Island Tolls

    Treasure IslandIn September 2018, it was reported that -- starting in 2021 -- drivers travelling to or from Treasure Island will be forced to pay a toll in addition to the tolls they already pay to cross the Bay Bridge, according to the San Francisco County Transportation Authority. With numerous new housing developments already under construction, the island’s population is expected to increase in the coming decades from less than two thousand people today to an estimated 25,000 residents by 2035. The first of the new homes will be available in 2021, and SFCTA wants to have the toll in place “from day one,” said Rachel Hiatt, a transportation planner with the agency. Drivers will be charged in both directions, entering and leaving the island. On weekdays the toll will be $3.50 during peak hours and $2 off-peak. On weekends the price will drop to $1 during peak hours and free during off-peak. To compensate for the toll already paid by drivers coming from Oakland, trips to Treasure Island from Oakland only will be discounted by half. Toll collection will be automated using FastPass and license plate scanners, with no toll booths. Drivers without FastPass will be charged an extra $1. The toll and the addition of paid parking on the island are intended to discourage driving during congested times and avoid gridlock, Hiatt said. The money they raise will be used to help subsidize a new ferry service linking the island to the San Francisco Ferry Building and new AC Transit bus lines connecting Treasure Island to downtown Oakland, which is expected to cost roughly $6 million each year to operate. Until the toll and parking fees can cover the operating costs, developers will subsidize up to $4 million a year, Hiatt said. The toll system will cost $10 million to build, half of which will be covered by a federal grant. Residents who lived on Treasure Island prior to 2011 and all current residents in below market rate housing there will receive one free daily round-trip toll until 2026. Below-market rate residents will also receive a round-trip toll credit for every 20 one-way trips they take to or from Treasure Island by bus or ferry using a transit pass.
    (Source: SF Examiner, 9/19/2018)

    In December 2018, it was reported that a vote to charge vehicles a toll for entering and exiting Treasure Island was put on hold after island residents protested, saying it would hurt them financially. Residents who spoke at a hearing in early December 2018 said that for a community with only limited services – just a single grocery store, no pharmacy, no gas station and no public schools – adding additional barriers to entering and leaving the island would impose an unfair burden. The San Francisco County Transportation Authority held seven outreach events on the island between Sept. 9 and Nov. 27, but during public comment many residents said news of the proposed toll had taken them by surprise. Treasure Island is home to 600 households today, but that number is expected to climb to 8,000 households by 2035 with the planned construction of new housing developments. The toll, which wouldn’t start until 2021, is intended to alleviate additional congestion on the Bay Bridge and to pay for a new ferry service and AC transit line coming to the island. The plan calls for current Treasure Island households to receive a monthly $300 stipend for five years to help offset the additional costs, which would be the cash equivalent of making two round-trip journeys to the San Francisco mainland every weekday. But even with the stipend, many residents weren’t happy with the proposal. Several supervisors seemed to agree. The board will take up the matter again after several newly elected supervisors take their seats in January. A meeting date has not been set.
    (Source: SF Examiner, 12/11/2018)

    In November 2019, it was reported that the Treasure Island Mobility Management Agency Committee on Tuesday approved an exemption from a future congestion pricing toll for some 1,800 current Treasure Island residents. The benefit has been expanded so that current residents will not have to pay a toll of up to $3.50 for trips to the island until the first 4,000 units of a planned 8,000 unit development project on the island are constructed. The estimated date for the units’ completion is 2029. The proposed exemption must still be approved by the agency’s full board.
    (Source: SF Examiner, 11/12/2019)

    Temporary Constructions

    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.

    Eastern Span Tunnel Approach Replacement

    [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 3½ 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.

    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.
    (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.

    Eastern Span Oakland-Bay Bridge (~ SF R8.237 to ALA 2.345)

    Eastern Span Construction Notes

    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 5½ 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 4½ 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.)
    (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 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 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.

    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.

    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.
    (Source: 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 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)

    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 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.

    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.

    East Span Bike Path (Oakland to Yerba Buena Island)

    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 June 2016, it was reported that a committee tasked with overseeing seismic retrofit work on the Bay Bridge approved $6.3 million in additional changes to the bridge's pedestrian and bike path. The changes are the latest in a series of difficulties for the path, which has already seen more than $24 million in cost overruns for redesigns, adjustments and repairs to the railing, including $13.5 million in work on railing that had been previously installed, according to Caltrans documents. Of the most recent changes, aesthetic considerations on the bike path contributed $2.5 million in costs and will be used to change the architecture plan from a truss to a cantilever support system. Another $3.8 million will be used to address construction and aesthetic issues with the fabrication and installation of the railing, according to Caltrans documents. The cost also includes adding an access control gate and extending the railing at one location. Two-thirds of the pedestrian and bike path opened to the public in September 2013, allowing visitors to traverse just west of the bridge's signature tower, but for the past two and a half years, it has stopped short of Yerba Buena Island. The Bay Area Toll Authority Oversight Committee voted last week to contribute $1 million to enter into a funding agreement with the San Francisco County Transportation Authority, which also contributed $1 million, to construct a "temporary" landing for the Bay Bridge's pedestrian and bicycle path. The temporary landing is expected to be completed in the fall, said toll authority spokesman John Goodwin. A permanent landing could be years away while the toll authority, along with the San Francisco County Transportation Authority, considers a plan to extend the bike path from Yerba Buena Island into San Francisco.
    (Source: East Bay Times, 6/16/2016)

    In August 2016, it was reported that the opening of the Bay Bridge eastern span bike path connector to Yerba Buena Island is being delayed until mid-October 2016 — this time because the landing area is still a mess. As recently as May 2016, Caltrans officials said they expected to finally connect the 2.2-mile path from Oakland by September. In August, however, a Bay Bridge oversight panel decided construction crews needed more time to grade, pave and stripe the road where the bike path will touch down. Crews are also building a parking lot on Yerba Buena for bicyclists who choose to park their cars on the island and peddle east across the span. The path originally was supposed to be completed in fall 2014, a year after the eastern span opened to cars. But some work couldn’t be started until demolition workers took down the old eastern span, and subsequent questions about the safety rail, the path’s observation platform and even winter rains have been blamed for the sluggish construction of the final leg.
    (Source: SFGate, 8/23/2016)

    In October 2016, it was reported that the bicycle and pedestrian path across the eastern span of the Bay Bridge is done; however, the path from Oakland to Yerba Buena Island would not be opened until crews complete a few finishing touches on the island side of the route. The Bay Bridge Trail, as the cycling/walking path is formally known, opened in September 2013, immediately after the eastern span opened to motor vehicles. The path has been open past the eastern span’s suspension tower, about 2.5 miles west of the Bay Bridge Toll Plaza but a few hundred yards short of Yerba Buena Island. Construction delays and design tweaks have held up the path’s opening, which Caltrans initially scheduled for 2014. However, the trail’s Yerba Buena Island landing point is in the middle of a busy construction zone, with crews working on new ramps for traffic onto and off of the bridge. To complicate matters, the surface streets at which the path ends are narrow and steep. Cyclists who venture down Hillcrest Road, which leads to Treasure Island, can count on encountering traffic bound to or from the bridge. To improve the odds that path users will have that positive experience, the S.F. County Transportation Authority has built a temporary vista point, complete with bike racks, restrooms and water fountains, adjacent to an old Navy residence just to the southwest of the trail’s western end. SFCTA spokesman Eric Young that work on preparing the short route from the path to the vista point, which includes a 12-foot-wide crosswalk across Southgate Road and new directional and advisory signage, is nearly complete. The vista facility, which will look east and southeast over the Oakland waterfront, is expected to open by mid-November. The bike path is expected to be open by then (actually, it opened at the end of October, 2016).
    (Source: KQED, 10/11/2016)

    In May 2017, it was reported that in early May 2017, the 2.2-mile path along the eastern span of the Bay Bridge will open during weekdays. After three years of stopping a mere 525 feet shy of Yerba Buena Island, the path was finally completed in October, but it was only accessible on weekends while Caltrans disassembled the remaining portion of the old Bay Bridge. Path users will also be greeted with a new $2 million vista point where the path touches down on Yerba Buena Island. The landing pad is outfitted with restrooms, benches, a bike rack and a water fountain, said Eric Young, a spokesman for the San Francisco County Transportation Authority. Although the route is open to the island, the ultimate goal of an uninterrupted path to Treasure Island was still not complete. There is no cycling or pedestrian infrastructure on Yerba Buena Island past the vista point, which forces people to walk or ride down a steep and winding road. The SFCTA has plans to build such a connection between the two islands, but Young said that work is not expected to be finished until the end of 2019. In the meantime, path users can take a shuttle on the weekends from the vista point on Yerba Buena Island to Ninth Street and Avenue A on Treasure Island.
    (Source: East Bay Times, 5/1/2017)

    Bay Bridge Tolls

    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 September 2019, it was reported that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission gave the green light on a $4 million contract with a consultant for an all-electronic tolling system for all bay area bridges, except the Golden Gate which is its own district and has already gone cashless.. Drivers must pay with FasTrak only. For those without FasTrak, cameras will capture your license plate and you'll get a bill in the mall. The commission said it will save drivers time and the agency money. Drivers won't have to slow down to squeeze through a toll booth. Toll booths will be removed. The commission anticipates realistically it could take up to five years for the system to go into effect. The Carquinez Bridge will likely be the first to go cashless. MTC said engineers say it's a good test bed to move faster on the others. The Bay Bridge will be likely be last since it's the busiest. The toll authority first authorized the move to all-electronic, open road tolling in December 2018. The consultants jsut approved will be responsible for developing the toll system’s specifications, providing oversight of the program’s implementation, reviewing design plans, and help to develop policies for all-electronic tolling. Bridges under the purview of the toll authority include the Antioch Bridge, Benicia-Martinez Bridge, Carquinez Bridge, Dumbarton Bridge, Richmond-San Rafael Bridge, San Mateo-Hayward Bridge and the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge.
    (Source: KTVU, 9/1/2019; SFExaminer, 9/4/2019)

    Eastern Span Bolt Problems

    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)

    In May 2014, it was reported that steel rods that anchor the Bay Bridge eastern span's massive main cable have shifted since they were installed and are now perilously close to sharp-edged plates inside the belly of the new bridge, a problem Caltrans acknowledges could take months and millions of dollars to fix. Caltrans engineers say more than 200 high-strength rods could be jerked in a major earthquake into those sharp edges, risking damage to the main cable and possibly threatening the bridge's stability. Caltrans has known about the problem for several months, but Bay Area transportation officials who will soon be responsible for maintaining the bridge say they learned of it only recently. They want it dealt with before the state officially turns over the bridge to local authorities, which is supposed to happen in August 2014.
    (Source: SF Chronicle, 5/16/2014)

    In June 2014, Caltrans officials spoke about how crews will fix the anchoring rods of the new eastern span of the Bay Bridge and how much the procedure will cost. The primary issue is the problem with the span's anchor rods sitting in openings that are too small. Concerns have arisen over the small openings increasing the wear on the rods. Caltrans is now working to create larger openings. Caltrans plans to pick every rod up and move it over, a couple at a time, put them back down, and then resurvey them. If the survey shows that more space is needed, then Caltrans will cut them and make a larger opening. The fix will cost around $1.5 million. In September 2014, it was also reported that the steel rods are potentially sitting in corrosive water. Several of the high-strength, 25-foot-long rods inspected after the first signs of trouble appeared last month were found to be submerged in several feet of water, in part because not enough grout had been pumped into protective sleeves to keep them dry.

    In June 2015, it was reported that the Bay Bridge was still being plagued with rod failures. A second steel rod anchoring the foundation of the new Bay Bridge eastern span tower failed a critical strength test, making a popping noise, suggesting a crack. Caltrans officials downplayed the failure, stressing that 99% of the 407 rods that underwent testing passed, and said that the cause will need to be determined by further tests in a materials lab. But the failure of a second rod left open the possibility that more rods could eventually fail. Nearly all of the tower’s 424 high-strength rods — intended to provide added seismic protection for the landmark structure — stewed in water for a prolonged period, exposing them to possible corrosion. A botched grouting and sealing job left hundreds of rod sleeves flooded, and recently Caltrans discovered signs indicating that salt water may be leaching into the foundation from the bay.
    (Source: SF Chronicle, 5/28/2015)

    In July 2015, it was reported that the Toll Bridge Program Oversight Committee voted to spend an additional $1.1 million to come up with a plan to prevent further damage to bolts anchoring the eastern span’s signature tower to its foundation. The decision, approved on a 2-1 vote, came despite a statement from a seismic review panel that the bridge doesn’t need any of the 424 anchor rods to survive a major earthquake. At least four of the 424 rods connecting the tower to its foundation have been found to be damaged, with some suffering tiny cracks that are probably the result of sitting in saltwater that leaked into the foundation and others that were stripped during installation. The $1.1 million will be used to design a dehumidification system to dry the rods in the foundation, come up with a grout, lubricant or chemical that will protect the rods and the holes they sit in from water in the foundation, conduct more testing to determine the dangers posed by microscopic cracking discovered in the rods, and purchase jacking equipment to test, treat and aid in future repairs to the rods. Bridge officials are also trying to determine the extent of leaking in the foundation and are reviewing construction records. But that review will probably take several more months because some of the records are on paper and need to be converted to an electronic format.
    (Source: SFGate 7/9/2015)

    Corrosion DiagramIn September 2015, it was reported that a long-term fix for the waterlogged steel rods at the base of the new Bay Bridge eastern span’s tower will cost at least $15 million, much of which could come from toll payers. Caltrans issued its new cost estimate the day before a Bay Bridge oversight panel is scheduled to consider accepting the $6.4 billion span — warts and all — from the main contractor, a joint venture called American Bridge/Fluor. The long-delayed action could make it difficult for bridge officials to bring the contractor back to the job if more problems arise. Caltrans officials say if that happens, they will sign up new firms for the fixes. Toll-payer money would be in play as a funding source. In a memo to a three-member oversight panel, Caltrans recommends taking an unspecified deduction from American Bridge/Fluor’s payoff for the “unacceptable” state of the more than 400 anchor rods at the base of the tower.
    (Source: SFGate, 9/23/2015)

    In October 2015, it was reported that the bridge's lead designer warned Caltrans that the cable that holds up the new Bay Bridge eastern span is vulnerable to corrosion because of rainwater leaking into its anchorages. Caltrans has previously downplayed this threat to the the $6.4 billion project, as they were preoccupied with the possibility that rods at the base of the span’s tower could be corroded by water. However, lead designer Marwan Nader of the T.Y. Lin International design firm in San Francisco said the bigger concern is the cable — specifically, the twin steel boxes where the cable is anchored inside the span’s deck. It is those anchorages that are being exposed to water during storms. Nader’s fear is that if nothing is done, the water will corrode the cable at its base. The cable — a bundle of 137 strands of steel that form a figure-eight over the top of the tower — is critical to the bridge’s integrity. On the span, it is protected from the elements by a steel jacket. But in the anchorages on either side of the eastern end, the strands fan out and are exposed — and if water gets to them, they can corrode and fail. According to minutes of the meeting, released only recently, Caltrans officials acknowledged that rainwater has been flowing into the two anchorages because of design problems with the guardrail system. The anchorages are located inside the suspension span’s hollow deck. The enclosed area was supposed to be kept sealed from rainwater, but was left open during construction between December 2011 and December 2012, Caltrans officials have acknowledged. Caltrans has downplayed the risk of corrosion at the cable anchorages, saying the dehumidifiers can take care of any amount of water that gets into the twin boxes, each 90 feet wide, about 120 feet long and 25 feet deep. Inside the anchorages, the cable strands are attached to steel sockets that then are secured by 25-foot-long rods. Similar rods elsewhere on the span corroded and even broke after being exposed to water, but Caltrans says the cable rods are at comparatively low tension, putting them at far less risk of sudden failure.
    (Source: SFGate, 10/5/2015)

    Also in October 2015, it was reported that an engineer who studied tiny cracks found in flooded rods at the base of the bridge’s tower — a problem Caltrans has downplayed — discovered similar cracks in rods elsewhere on the $6.4 billion span. That cracking, experts say, could make the rods far more vulnerable to failure than the agency has acknowledged. Separately, Caltrans now concedes that it did not inspect the new bridge’s 2,000-plus rods when they were delivered to ensure their threads met industry specifications, and has since discovered that some if not all of them fall short. It’s a problem that experts warn could weaken the rods down the line, and may have damaged some already. Caltrans discovered the micro-cracks after water flooded many of the 400-plus sleeves that hold the tower rods, including one that failed. Although Caltrans dismissed the tiny cracks as unlikely to cause further problems, experts outside the agency cautioned that such cracks could be the harbinger of embrittlement — the process by which hydrogen invades the steel and causes it to corrode. Earlier in October, the three-member panel that oversees the eastern-span project authorized $685,000 for more testing to gauge the risk from the cracks in the tower. The board also decided to spend $250,000 for inspections and tests on another tower problem — the poor quality of threads on the rods. The threaded ends are where nuts secure the 25-foot-long pieces of steel to the tower and its foundation. Engineers have discovered stripped threads on three rods in the tower. It turns out that, like the micro-cracks, the problem of thread quality is not limited to the tower. In July, Caltrans engineers did a survey of the rod quality on the span and found that all 20 fasteners tested — 12 of them away from the tower — had thread problems. None satisfied tolerances set by the American National Standards Institute to assure durability. Some threads were too big, some were too small and some were not cut to the correct angle, the engineers found. Substandard connections can cause tearing damage if threads are too big. If too small, they can concentrate stress on what is left of the rod threads, causing damage that can make them prone to attack from hydrogen.
    (Source: SFGate, 10/25/2015)

    In December 2015, the oversight panel for the new eastern span of the Bay Bridge voted to consider the idea of installing a corrosion-fighting system on the main tower’s flooded foundation. The unexpected vote of the board — composed of the heads of Caltrans, the local Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the state Transportation Commission — came two months after the three rejected the same idea.
    (Source: SFGate, 12/18/2015)

    In May 2016, it was reported that a committee that oversees seismic retrofit work for the Bay Bridge approved a $15 million plan to keep water from corroding rods designed to keep the new eastern span’s tower safe in a major earthquake. The panel also approved $1 million to survey the foundation for additional corrosion. The $15 million plan will re-grout sleeves that hold more than 420 anchor rods at the base of the tower. Those high-strength steel rods, which are vulnerable to hydrogen-borne corrosion, failed after being exposed to rainwater for several years. Caltrans later discovered that saltwater was flooding the sleeves in the tower foundation that hold hundreds of similar rods, and that at least one of the rods had broken. Crews drained the water from the sleeves, but several soon became flooded again. Caltrans conceded that grout in the sleeves had been improperly sealed, and that some sleeves hadn’t been sealed at all. Caltrans examined whether to replace the rods, and initially thought that was the best course. However, testing on mockups showed that re-grouting would be sufficient to keep the tower relatively stable during a major earthquake. Caltrans has insisted that the rods are not vital to protect the bridge in an earthquake and that they simply provide an extra layer of protection.
    (Source: SFGate, 5/12/2016)

    Also in May 2016, it was reported that the builder of the new eastern span of the Bay Bridge now blames Caltrans for high profile troubles that have dogged the project since 2013 and claims the agency owes it $40 million as a result of bungling. In a complaint lodged to the state Office of Arbitrative Hearings, American Bridge/Fluor, the joint venture contractor that constructed the suspension bridge, says Caltrans owes it $40.7 million for various problems of its own making. One of the major issues now in dispute is over responsibility for dozens of high-strength steel rods that broke in 2013 – a debacle that ended up costing close to $50 million to fix. American Bridge has been told it owes $8 million back for the problem, as has Caltrans and the chief design firm on the project, T.Y. Lin International. Caltrans is refusing to pay, and T.Y. Lin’s $8 million remains uncollected. But, according to the complaint, Caltrans was to blame for the problem all along. Specifically, American Bridge/Fluor accuses the state agency of blundering by disregarding the risk of using high-strength, galvanized rods for various parts of the project. Such rods, experts say, are notorious for snapping after an electrochemical reaction that caused them to absorb hydrogen normally trapped in water.
    (Source: NBC Bay Area, 5/25/2016)

    In October 2018, the results of a $853,000 corrosion survey were delivered to the three-member board that oversees the bridge. As part of the study, a special team of divers swam underwater and used ultrasonic waves to test parts of the bridge. The survey found six holes, or rust pits, in two of the 160 casings for steel piles that stretch from the seafloor to the bridge’s sea-level support structures. The engineering team says the rust pits don’t pose a threat to the bridge’s integrity because they are small and limited to a few random spots. The six holes dig an average 3 millimeters into the 94-milimeter-thick steel pile sleeves. The survey also found steel pile sleeves lost about two millimeters of thickness in welded spots over the last 15 years. Engineers say that level of corrosion puts the bridge on target to survive its 150-year lifespan, which started when the bridge’s foundation structure was placed underwater in 2003. The discovery of corrosion-causing bacteria in underwater soil also failed to raise alarms for engineers. That’s because the bacteria haven’t yet led to higher than expected rust levels on tested parts of the bridge. Nevertheless, the team recommended California transportation officials consider installing steel coupons, or samples, into underwater soil near other Bay Area bridges. The steel samples could then be surveyed periodically for potential corrosion. The survey also found no unexpected corrosion in the pile cap, or steel-in-concrete frame that holds up the bridge’s only support tower. Board Chairman Steve Heminger had asked the engineering team to look into possibly installing a cathodic protection system to protect the bridge from corrosion. An active cathodic protection system would divert the corrosive effects of seawater from critical bridge structures to an insignificant, “sacrificial” piece of metal. Given the results of the recent corrosion survey, Bay Bridge Chief Engineer Brian Maroney insisted that a cathodic protection system is not necessary at this time. Engineers continue to monitor corrosion sensors in 18 of 424 anchor rods designed to provide an extra layer of protection during an earthquake. Two anchor rods failed critical strength tests in 2015 after a botched sealing and grouting job allowed corrosive saltwater to seep into shafts and weaken rods. Backfill that stabilizes the rods was replaced in June 2017 for $8.5 million, and two contractors were fined for shoddy construction work. No corrosion has been detected in the anchor rod shafts so far. The bridge panel also reported the results of a recent state auditor’s report that found its oversight of the seismic retrofit program has helped avoid more than $455 million in potential cost overruns and seven years of potential delays. The oversight panel was established by the state Legislature in 2005 amid frustrations about swelling costs and long delays. Not straying from its reputation for cost-cutting, the board refused to approve an extra $25.5 million for a $49 million project that aims to convert leftover structures from the now-demolished, former eastern span into publicly accessible docks. The board asked the project team to provide a more detailed list of costs and other cost-cutting options in two weeks. Additionally, the panel discussed dismantling the oversight panel now that the $9 billion seismic retrofit program is winding down.
    (Source: Courthouse News, 10/22/2018)

    In December 2018, it was reported that despite a $1 million dollar study, Caltrans cannot say whether or not microscopic organisms are gouging the pits found on some of the 13 giant steel piles whose performance is critical to assure that the new Bay Bridge fulfills its 150 year design lifespan – prompting another testing program to look for firm evidence of the phenomenon known as microbiologically influenced corrosion. The testing order came after Deepwater Corrosion Services, a Texas consulting firm, discovered pits near welds on several of the 13, 10-foot thick steel reinforced piles that hold up the new eastern span’s tower foundation. The piles are sunk down through Bay mud to near bedrock. The firm surveyed the San Francisco Bay and found it teeming with the virulent creatures that leave behind similar pits in steel, experts say that it is a far more unpredictable force than normal rust. Besides ordering the tests, Caltrans is also sending dive teams to inspect for similar pitting near welds on piles used to construct the Skyway part of the new bridge as well as the Richmond and San Mateo bridges during their five year inspections of those structures. Deepwater’s findings ruled out that the pits were there to begin with – leaving the suspicion that if microbes are to blame, the span’s 150 year lifespan could be at risk. Caltrans set aside about a quarter of the pile thickness to account for rust – about an inch. Some of the pits Deepwater’s report identified were so deep that as much as a quarter of that one-inch steel corrosion margin is already depleted -- in about 15 years. At that rate, parts of the entire reserve layer could be depleted in as little as 60 years.
    (Source: NBC Bay Area, 12/21/2018)

    Oakland Touchdown (~ ALA R1.082 to ALA 2.262)

    Rte 80 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.
    (Source: SF Chronicle, 2/18/11)

    The Bay Bridge Troll

    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 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 June 2019, a tweet revealed the location of the old Troll: It's in the CalTrans lobby! If you want to visit this dude, look in the east hallway (111 Grand Ave).
    (Source: East Bay Yesterday, 6/28/2019)

    Western Span Bay Bridge Lighting Installation

    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.

    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 2014, it was reported that the LED lights had been saved. The bridge’s official overseers, the Bay Area Toll Authority, gave its blessing to a proposal to reinstall the lights — in time for the January 2016 Super Bowl — as a permanent fixture on the four-tower suspension span. The “Bay Lights,” billed as the world’s largest light sculpture, uses 25,000 LED lights to turn the 1.8-mile span into a nightly light show displaying constantly changing abstract images. It was intended as a temporary, two-year installation. The authority’s oversight committee unanimously approved an agreement under which the artist and nonprofit that installed the work would take it down in March then reinstall it in a sturdier form by the start of 2016 and turn it over to Caltrans. It was first announced as a temporary two-year installation to be taken down in March 2015. Now, after some cable maintenance and repainting, it’s to be replaced with a sturdier set of lights that will begin glowing in time for Super Bowl 50, scheduled for February 2016 at Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara. The agency would the Lights, and the Bay Area Toll Authority would pay the $250,000 bill for maintenance and electricity — from toll revenues. The agreement required the nonprofit Illuminate the Arts foundation to raise $4 million; in mid-December, ITA announced that it had raised the needed funds to reinstall the “Bay Lights” as a permanent fixture on the western end of the bridge. The fundraising success was made possible by a $2 million matching gift from philanthropist Tad Taube of Woodside.
    (Source: SF Chronicle, 12/10/2014; 12/17/2014)

    In July 2015, it was reported that Bay Area Toll Authority approved a 10-year, $2.1 million contract for Philips Lighting North America Corporation to maintain the Bay Lights installation once it returns as a permanent fixture next year. The 25,000 lights were first installed in 2013 as part of the Bay Bridge 75th anniversary celebration. They turn on and off in patterns as programmed by artist Leo Villareal, invoking drifting clouds, sea creatures or just elaborate patterns. The lights quickly became a fixture of the San Francisco waterfront, and late in 2014, Caltrans and the Toll Authority agreed to take over the installation and make it permanent.
    (Source: KCBS, 7/8/2015)

    In October 2015, it was reported that the popular 1.8-mile-long LED light sculpture on the Bay Bridge known as The Bay Lights is shining again. The lights were removed in March to allow Caltrans crews to perform maintenance on the bridge cables of the Bay Bridge's western span. They were reinstalled and will continue shining at least through now Super Bowl 50, which will be played at Levi's Stadium in Santa Clara on Feb. 7.
    (Source: Pleasanton Weekly, 10/8/2015)

    In December 2015, it was reported that artist Leo Villareal is currently testing the Bay Lights on the Bay Bridge. Villareal works from Pier 14, where he has custom software to control the lights. After testing in mid-December, the lights will go dim until they are turned on again permanently on Jan. 30 as one of the events leading up to Super Bowl 50.
    (Source: SFGate, 12/16/2015)

    Demolition of the Old Eastern Span

    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)

    Once traffic was moved to the new bridge over Labor Day weekend in 2013, 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.

    In April 2014, it was reported that the old bridge has been cut in half by slicing through metal sections of the cantilever section east of Yerba Buena Island. Contractors are dismantling the 77-year-old span in reverse order of how it was constructed in the 1930s. Contractors first will take apart the cantilever section and demolish the S-curve near Yerba Buena Island before moving east to take apart two truss spans. Crews will then work downward to remove the piers and foundation. When the demolition is complete, in three to five years, more than 58,000 tons of steel and 245,000 tons of concrete will have been removed.

    In November 2014, it was reported that the new Bay Bridge eastern span will likely end up at least $35 million in the red, and officials are shifting money from other completed Caltrans bridge projects to make up the difference. Bridge officials were hopeful the span would cost less than the budgeted $6.4 billion. But there’s still as much as $110 million worth of unbudgeted work to be done on the span. Further, tearing down the old eastern span could end up costing $100 million more than estimated. It was also reported that Bay Area transportation officials are contemplating a plan to leave parts of the old eastern span of the Bay Bridge in place, a proposal that could preserve history and bring down the price of demolition by millions of dollars. Specifically, the MTC is considering leaving several of the old piers, built in the 1930's, near the Oakland shoreline. These piers could be repurposed into a walkway or left as historical pieces as part of the proposed Gateway Park. The issue is that the current demolition agreement requires the MTC remove all concrete, metal, every scrap of material; this includes going below the mud line, which is very expensive. If the Coast Guard, Bay Conservation and Development Commission and others agencies sign off on leaving some of the piers it could save millions.
    (Sources: KCBS, 10/30/2014, KTVUNovember 2014)

    Truss-Span Removal

    In February 2016, it was reported that work had begun on the second phase of the demolition of the bridge, with removal of the first 504-foot truss span. The process takes 2 14-hour days. On the first day, crews will focus on severing the truss from its towers and its slow decent toward the bay below. Crews will then concentrate on setting the truss down on barges and transporting it to the Port of Oakland for disassembly. Phase I was completed the end of 2015 when cantilever section and S-curve to Yerba Buena Island was demolished. Phase II continues with removal of the first five 504s and then removal of fourteen 288-foot truss span sections that extend to the Oakland shore. Phase III will focus on the demolition of the remaining marine foundations.
    (Source: KRON, 2/4/2016)

    By July 2016, it was being reported that crews were removing the fourth of five 504-foot sections of the old eastern span of the Bay Bridge.
    (Source: KRON, 7/6/2016)

    In August 2016, it was being reported that the largest remaining piece of the original east span of the Bay Bridge was being removed. Cables will lift the 3.2 million pound horizontal truss from its 60-year-old supports, swing it to the side and pivot it out to be lowered onto a pair of barges waiting below. The process should take 12 hours or so. The two barges then take a short voyage to the Port of Oakland, where the trussed section will be transferred to land and dismantled, with the individual beams winding up in recycling facilities across the Bay Area.
    (Source: SF Gate, 8/3/2016)

    Eastern Span Pillar Removal

    In February 2015, it was reported that Caltrans was exploring using explosives to remove a large concrete pillar from the old eastern span. They would be placed around the base of the pillar. Backers of the plan say the explosion would be a faster, more economical alternative to piecemeal demolition. Under this plan, the remaining roadway will be removed and the implosion would get rid of the big pier. Debris will collapse into a hole made by other charges in the ground. The traditional approach is to put a big metal tube around underwater piers, drain out the water, and lower work crews with big power tools knock the thing down. If approved, the explosions would take place in November 2015. Caltrans had originally intended to use cofferdams that would clear water from the area around Pier E so crews could gradually demolish it, but such work could take many months. The planned demolition procedure would involve setting up an "air curtain" of pipes blowing compressed air through the water around the pier. More than 600 small explosives would be set in the concrete and detonated simultaneously, collapsing the rubble within the air curtain. The biggest risk to surrounding wildlife -- including seals, sea lions and porpoises -- would be the sound of the explosion, which could injure or even kill the marine mammals. November was chosen to minimize the number of those animals in the water. Caltrans plans to monitor both visually and acoustically to make sure there are no animals in range, and would postpone the detonation if any were spotted. Baykeeper is working with Caltrans to come up with ways to mitigate the environmental impact as best as they can. There may be some trade off for water quality impact versus wildlife impact, and they will be monitoring closely how the process goes as Caltrans may use a similar method in demolishing a dozen remaining support piers. This pier, however, is the largest -- the equivalent of bringing down a 5-story building -- and will be the trickiest to bring down.
    (Source: KCBS 2/16/2015, InsideBay Area, 8/19/2015)

    In September 2015, it was reported that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has given Caltrans final permission to carry out the $160 million implosion of the largest concrete pier of the old Bay Bridge eastern span. The project had already gotten the go-ahead from the state boards of water quality, fish and wildlife as well as federal agencies, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Coast Guard. The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission also recently approved the plan.
    (Source: SF Chronicle, 10/2/2015)

    In November 2015, the implosion took place. Over six seconds, sprays of water shot into the air as workers set off 600 charges that had been placed in pre-drilled holes in Pier E-3, a hollow, reinforced concrete structure that stretched from the waterline to 175 feet beneath the bay floor. Planks were placed over E-3 to prevent debris from flying onto the bridge and Caltrans briefly stopped traffic during the demolition. Caltrans said most of the pier pieces either fell into or will be placed in the pier’s hollow casing below the bay floor. The agency decided to demolish the pier with explosives rather than mechanically remove it because the latter method would have taken years and required construction of a wall of piles to create dry space for workers.
    (Source: LA Times, 11/14/2015)

    In March 2016, it was reported that in the wake of the successful November 2015 implosion, Caltrans was seeking to demolish 15 remaining piers the same way at a cost of $130 million in what is expected to be the final steps of removing the old bridge. Specifically, Caltrans asked the Toll Bridge Oversight Committee, the three-member governing body for the Bay Bridge retrofit project, to approve a contract to a joint venture between construction and engineering firms Kiewit and Manson. The implosion of Pier E3 in November demolished the pier in a matter of six seconds, collapsing the pulverized concrete into the pier's own buried cavities and burying it at the bottom of the Bay. Caltrans officials said the method was not only more cost effective than mechanically demolishing the pier, but more environmentally friendly as well. Surrounding the pier with a dam, pumping the water out and dismantling the pier with construction equipment would take months and disrupt area wildlife in the process. If the contract is approved and Caltrans is granted the necessary permits from federal and state agencies, the next two piers would be removed this fall, followed by six more in the fall of 2017 and seven more in the fall of 2018.
    (Source: East Bay Times, 3/29/2016)

    In August 2016, it was reported that Caltrans has been granted permission to remove two piers of the old eastern span of the Bay Bridge using the same implosion technique that safely demolished the span’s largest pier in a matter of seconds last November. The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission signed off on the implosion technique for Piers E4 and E5, and the implosions could take place as early as October 2016. The BCDC also granted approval for Caltrans to remove 13 additional remaining piers over the next two years, some by implosion and some by mechanical means.
    (Source: SFBay.ca, 8/19/2016)

    In March 2017, it was reported that The last chunk of the old eastern half of the Bay Bridge, which over the years carried 3 billion motorists on their starry-eyed odysseys to San Francisco, was hauled off to the junkyard. There it will fetch 10 cents a pound. The job of doing away with the last remaining section of the bridge — a 288-foot-long truss section at the eastern end — was the stuff of high drama. Dozens of demolition workers, two rusty barges, three tugboats and a tall red crane worked together on a sparkling spring morning in an exquisitely choreographed dance of death. The plan called for the 850-ton chunk, after being cut free of its concrete pilings, to ride off to its fate on two barges. The barges would be lifted into position beneath the truss by the rising tide, which lifts all boats, barges included. It was something like jacking up a car for a tire change, with nature playing the role of the jack. Workers in orange vests were everywhere, and their Caltrans supervisors, who wore neckties under their orange vests, were supervising. There was nothing to do but wait, which everyone did for about five hours, while the moon and Earth got themselves lined up into their high tide arrangement. And then, shortly after 11 a.m., the water level crept high enough to lift the barges into contact with the truss and free it from its concrete pier. Shoved by three tugs and pulled by a winch, the entire hodgepodge inched into the open bay and began its half-mile journey to Pier 7, where the dismantlers with the blowtorches were waiting to administer their unkindest cuts of all.
    (Source: SF Gate, 3/28/2017)

    In August 2017, it was reported that thirteen little concrete islands that once helped hold up the old Bay Bridge east span will be blasted into history in a series of implosions over six weekend days beginning in September 2017 and concluding in November 2017. Five other foundations are expected to be spared. Tentative plans call for a large foundational pier near Treasure Island to be saved for conversion into public spaces. Four piers on the east end in Oakland would be saved for the same purpose. Caltrans also wants to spare as much bay wildlife as possible and has been working with natural resources agencies to come up with a suitable plan. The demolition work, which had been expected to extend through fall of 2018, will now be finished by the end of 2017 under the new plan that calls for imploding piers on certain weekends.
    (Source: SF Gate, 8/21/2017)

    In January 2018, it was reported that the public will soon get two new places to view San Francisco Bay when observation decks are built off Yerba Buena Island and Oakland on piers from the old Bay Bridge eastern span, according to a memo by the Toll Bridge Program Oversight Committee. The two projects involve building observation decks on piers that were part of the old eastern bridge span instead of demolishing the remaining piers. The oversight committee in December approved building a deck on Pier E2 off Yerba Buena Island. The deck in Oakland would be built on Piers E23 and E21, according to the latest recommendation. Piers E19 and E20 would be removed. Under the current project schedule, the construction contracts could be approved on or near March 1, major marine work would start on or near June 1 and the decks would be completed by the end of December. The $52 million project will cost slightly more than demolishing the piers. On Yerba Buena Island, the pier sits below the landing of the new bicycle and pedestrian path that extends from Oakland in the East Bay, and there are plans to add a cafe in the WWII-era building adjacent to the pier. On the Oakland side, the committee decided to keep three of the five remaining piers but demolish the two farthest out. It was too expensive to build the boardwalk out to the fifth pier, according to a staff report, and provide ongoing maintenance. The East Bay parks district has agreed to take over maintenance for the new boardwalk, with ongoing financial support from toll funds. The district is also designing a new “Gateway Park” that will extend from a historic building — a former rail car repair shop — to the new boardwalk. The district in December signed a 10-year-lease for the 1930s-era building. The structure will now serve as a visitors center and venue for conferences or other gatherings. In between the building and planned boardwalk are 21 acres of land that will be transformed into picnic, open space and seating areas. There are also plans for a cafe or concession stand for park visitors, along with bicycle and pedestrian trails. The district will release an environmental impact review for Gateway Park in early 2018. The district is still waiting on the U.S. Army to finish cleaning up parts of contaminated soil that will make up roughly half the park, he said, so it’s unclear when it will be fully completed.
    (Source: San Mateo Daily Journal, 1/23/2018; EastBay Times, 1/28/2018)

    Disposition of the old Bay Bridge Steel

    In September 2014, it was noted that at least 300 tons of the old Bay Bridge will live on in California public art projects that could include anything from light poles or street benches to large sculptures. The Oakland Museum of California will administer the program, including choosing the projects that seem most appropriate. Up to $2.2 million will be spent to salvage steel from the old span, cleanse it of toxic lead paint, stockpile it and distribute it to artists from all over the state who make proposals.
    (Source: SF Chronicle, 9/30/2014)

    In June 2015, it was reported that the Oakland Museum of California had announced it will work with transportation officials to connect artists, architects, civic planners and other designers throughout the state with sections of the still-being-demolished 1936 span. The idea is to repurpose the pieces in public installations that somehow commemorate the history of the bridge and its role in shaping the region as we know it today. The first of three rounds in the application process runs through Oct. 1, 2015. Entries may be submitted at www.museumca.org/bay-bridge-steel. The $2.2-million distribution program, titled the Bay Bridge Steel Program, will involve removing toxic led paint from the steel, and relocating and storing the hefty pieces. Administered by the museum in conjunction with the Toll Bridge Program Oversight Committee -- made up of representatives from Caltrans, the Bay Area Toll Authority and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission -- the program was indeed developed in response to requests from local artists. Early last year, Karen Cusolito, founder of American Steel Studios in West Oakland, launched BayBridgeSteel.org and started an online petition to generate support for preserving at least some of the vintage steel, "keeping it in the Bay Area for public art and civic installations for everybody to enjoy," the site says. Pieces of cleaned and salvaged steel will be distributed in mid-2016 at no charge to selected applicants. The program does not provide funding for the projects and is not involved in securing permission for placement of public artworks.
    (Source: Inside Bay Area, 6/2/2015)

    In December 2015, it was reported that salvaged steel from the old eastern span of the Bay Bridge has been awarded to five projects for public display, with more awards on the way. The chosen projects include a public sculpture near the Petaluma River, a gate for an arts center in Joshua Tree, two public installations near the bridge and an observation platform for a park in San Francisco’s Mission Bay neighborhood. The steel was salvaged from the ongoing dismantling of the old Bay Bridge, which started last summer. The Toll Bridge Program Oversight Committee, the governing body for the construction of the new eastern span, directed the museum to find artists to award the salvaged steel. The five projects chosen are the first of three rounds of awards of bridge steel. Applicants for future rounds must submit proposals by May 2 or Dec. 1 of next year. Among the recipients of this round are San Francisco landscape architecture firm SURFACEDESIGN, which is planning an overlook and viewing platform at a Mission Bay park. The platform will be constructed of bridge trusses and other steel and a series of interactive exhibits in the park will teach visitors about the history of the bridge and its construction. Another proposal by Oakland-based Hyphae Design Lab would create several installations in the redevelopment of the old Oakland Army Base. Development of that space as a new logistics center for the Port of Oakland is finally underway after the land was turned over to the city and port a decade ago. The proposed installations by Hyphae would incorporate the original 504-foot truss spans, fashioning them into a bridge tower that would frame the touchdown of the bicycle and pedestrian route on the new eastern span and an observation deck at Burma Road and Maritime Street with views of the port and bridge. Another proposed installation would be built near the bridge, possibly on Treasure Island. Bay Area artist Tom Loughlin designed a sound and light sculpture from an old Bay Bridge warning light that would incorporate top beams for seating around it. Loughlin hopes the piece will evoke thoughts of the natural landscape and the tools humans have built to help them traverse it, according to museum officials. Sculptor Paul Lorentz of Petaluma will build a sculpture from bridge trusses near the Petaluma River, a design that will feature two separate cantilevered structures with a space between them that will call to mind the power of the bridge just before its completion. The last award announced was to the Harrison House, an arts center just outside of Joshua Tree National Park, where the bridge’s top horizontal braces will be fashioned into an entry gate. No timeline was given for completion of the sculpture and structures approved. Applicants interested in future awards can find application materials at museumca.org/bay-bridge-steel.
    (Source: KCBS, 12/15/2015)

    In August 2016, it was reported that artists hoping to claim some of that salvaged steel took a tour of some of the 450 tons of metal awaiting its new home. Pritchett of the Oakland Museum of California is leading a new program administered by the museum to help the state distribute the steel to artists across California. The program has already allocated steel for six projects — with a second round of applications due in December. The newly removed steel bore marks where the dismantlers' cutting torches sliced through, creating a patina in the layers of paint applied over more than a quarter-century. Artist Graham Prentice is part of a group already selected to receive a portion of the salvaged steel. Prentice said his group plans to build a public structure at the Port of Oakland to welcome truckers, the public and bicyclists. The steel will go to a number of art projects ranging from massive installations to smaller pieces.
    (Source: NBC Bay Area, 8/18/2016)

    In January 2017, it was reported that The Oakland Museum of California had announced the final five winners of sections of steel, rivets and an old Bay Bridge warning light, all to be used in public projects around California. The Bay Area Toll Authority had put the museum in charge of sifting through applications from dozens of artists who wanted to work with material from the iconic cantilever section of the bridge. OMCA had picked some of the winners in earlier announcements. Fifteen artists and design teams will get a chance to build, among other things, playful structures on Treasure Island, artwork just north of the Ferry Building, a sundial at Laney College, a sculpture near the Petaluma River and the platform for a miniature railroad in Truckee. Among the newly chosen projects, one that seems timed to the inauguration of President Trump; “Building Bridges, Not Walls,” by the Living New Deal Project, highlighting the contributions of immigrant workers in building the bridge.
    (Source: KQED, 1/17/2017)

    In June 2017, it was reported that artists representing 14 art projects turned out at a Caltrans yard in Oakland — which sits in view of where the old span was replaced by a sleek new one — to claim their allotment of the bridge’s salvaged steel. The program required artists receiving steel to build public projects — and provide their own trucks to haul it away. One artist, for example, plans to build a metal wind chime for San Francisco’s Pier 3 that will pay tribute to the statue of Pacifica that stood at the Treasure Island World’s Fair. The beams getting distributed ranged in weight from a thousand pounds to twelve tons. Artist Tom Loughlin went for the top of the scale in picking out four twelve-ton pieces for the sound sculpture he plans to build for Treasure Island — which has allotted $50 million for public art. Each beam required its own big rig to haul it away. In addition to the large steel beams, the salvage included recognizable pieces such as the lights that sat atop the bridge’s towers. The various pieces would go to projects across the Bay Area and as far away as Truckee and Joshua Tree.
    (Source: NBC Bay Area, 6/20/2017)

    Bay Bridge As/Giants TrophyOne of the uses of the old Bay Bridge steel was to make a annual A/Giants Baseball Rivalry trophy. The twitter discussion played out over a few months, and resulted in a 26-lb trophy.

    The Double-Crested Cormorants

    In May 2017, it was reported that it took millions of dollars, the use of decoys, bird-call recordings and dried-out holiday wreaths — and a limitless amount of patience. But the Bay Bridge’s recalcitrant double-crested cormorants have finally moved to their new home on the sides of the bridge’s new east span. The demolition of the cormorants’ former home, the old bridge’s gray east span, may have been the determining factor in a successful relocation. Reality seems to have set in early last month, days after the last trestle of the old east span was hauled away. That’s when the black birds with orange and white faces and a 4-foot wingspan began settling in to the “cormorant condos” built for them on viaducts of the east span’s concrete skyway section in Oakland. More than $10 million from the new Bay Bridge budget was spent on the project. At first, just a couple of cormorants landed on $709,000 metal platforms contractors had attached to the sloping sides of the east span. But within weeks, at least 30 birds had followed the early settlers. Despite Caltrans’ best efforts to get the cormorants to relocate, the birds were stubborn as toddlers. Even after traffic moved to the new bridge in 2013, the birds stayed put. Caltrans and the MTC tried to lure them with decoys and recordings of bird calls. They even brought in mirrors to trick them into thinking there were others cormorants there when they saw their reflections. And they plopped down old holiday wreaths to make it look like other birds had previously nested on the platforms. But nothing worked — until the last truss section of the old east span was cut free on March 28, placed on a barge and floated into history. On Friday, hundreds of the birds were spread out along the rows of 4-foot-by-4-foot steel grate platforms that are bolted to the inside edges of the bridge between piers 6 and 8 near the eastern end of the span. The birds are believed to have settled in the Bay Area in 1984 from such places as Alaska, Mexico and Nova Scotia. Besides the Bay Bridge, colonies exist on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge and electrical towers in the South Bay. Rauzon said there may be as many as 700 birds residing on the new east span. The move cost millions, but exactly how much depends on what costs are counted. In addition to the cost of building the platforms, Caltrans and MTC spent $1 million to coax the cormorants into their new condos and another $1.6 million to place netting on the old span to drive the birds away from their old home. Caltrans also spent $12.8 million to get bridge demolition work done without interfering with the birds’ April-to-August breeding season.
    (Source: SF Chronicle, 5/19/2017)

    All That Remains Are The Lawsuits

    In June 2018, it was reported that, in the end, all that remains are the lawsuits. At a bridge oversight panel meeting in late June, Caltrans officials outlined an emerging dispute over the $11 million tab the U.S. Navy claims Caltrans should pay to clean up what had been its landfill site on Yerba Buena Island. That site was turned over to Caltrans to allow for bridge construction back in 2001 – without the Navy doing the promised cleanup. The Navy now asserts those cleanup costs should be footed by Caltrans because the so-called Site 11 has since been contaminated by bridge paint, waste and debris. That claim left bridge officials fuming. “We’re not going to pay a dime to clean up the Navy’s mess,” said Steve Heminger, Executive Director of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, after being briefed on the issue. “I just think that’s outrageous.” Heminger, who chairs the three member bridge project oversight panel, said the demand was especially galling given the Navy’s role in fighting the planned alignment of the new span in the early days, which he says contributed to delays in construction. Meanwhile, the oversight panel voted Thursday to settle a long-running dispute with the main contractor on the project, American Bridge/Fluor. Under the deal, the bridge builder will get $25 million -- half has much as it had sought in its claims against Caltrans. But Caltrans will not pursue $8 million it had argued the company owed to fix the high strength rods that failed on the span back in 2013. Caltrans is now promising to pay its $8 million share of the of the $24 million bill for the retrofit of the broken rods and has pledged to press bridge consultants TY Lin International to pay their one-third share of the fix. That sum could help bring in the seismic retrofit program without a deficit, or even with a surplus, thanks to $24 million in savings from other bridge projects.
    (Source: NBC Bay Area, June 22, 2018)

    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 (~ ALA 3.086 to ALA 3.348) 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.

    MacArthur Maze Vertical Clearance Project – 80 (PM 2.8)/580 (ALA PM 46.5R & 46.5L)/880 (ALA PM 34.5L)

    Rte 580 Rte 80 Rte 880 MacArthur MazeIn March 2019, Caltrans started holding public hearings on the MacArthur Maze Vertical Clearance Project, whichwould to increase the vertical clearances at three locations within the MacArthur Maze Interchange (MacArthur Maze or Maze) in the City of Oakland, Alameda County. Two of the locations are along the connector from westbound (WB) I-80 to southbound (SB) I-880, as it crosses below the WB and eastbound (EB) I-580 overcrossings. The third location is along the connector from WB I-80 to EB I-580 as it crosses below the connector from WB I-580 to WB I-80. The existing vertical clearance at these three locations does not meet the current Caltrans standard of 16 feet 6 inches and impedes the safe and efficient movement of oversized vehicles and loads through the Maze. The project is proposed to increase the vertical clearance of the structures in the Maze to allow for more efficient travel of oversized vehicles.
    (Source: MacArthur Maze Vertical Clearance Project, Initial Study with Proposed Negative Declaration/Environmental Assessment, January 2019)

    The alternatives are Alternative A: Bridge Lowering, Alternative B: Bridge Raising, Alternative C: Partial Bridge Replacement, Alternative D: Partial Deck Reconstruction, and the No-Build Alternative. The project proposes to increase the vertical clearances at three locations in the MacArthur Maze interchange to the current Caltrans standard of 16 feet 6 inches in order to allow for freight and oversized vehicles to travel through these major connectors. At present, the connector from WB I-80 to EB I-580 has 14 feet 9 inches of vertical clearance as it passes under the WB I-580 to WB I-80 connector. The connector from WB I-80 to SB I-880 has a vertical clearance of 15 feet 3 inches as it passes under the WB I-580 to WB I-80 connector, and a vertical clearance of 15 feet 6 inches as it passes under the EB I-80 to EB I-580 connector. Currently, The WB I-80 to SB I-880 connector is a two-lane freeway built in 1998 with 4-foot-wide left and right shoulders. The WB I580 to WB I-80 connector is a three-lane freeway built in 1935 and widened in 2006 with 3-footwide left and right shoulders. The EB I-80 to EB I-580 connector is a three-lane freeway built in 1955 and widened in 1962 with 2-foot-wide left and right shoulders.

    • Alternative A consists of lowering the WB I-80 to EB I-580 connector and the WB I-80 to SB I-880 connectors. The WB I-80 to EB I-580 connector currently has a vertical clearance of 14 feet 9 inches below the WB I-580 to WB I-80 connector. Under this alternative, the WB I-80 to EB I-580 connector would be lowered 1 foot 9 inches to achieve the Caltrans standard clearance of 16 feet 6 inches. The segment of this connector that would need to be lowered is approximately 665 feet long. The connector from WB I-80 to SB I-880 has a vertical clearance of 15 feet 3 inches below the WB I-580 to WB I-80 connector. Under this alternative, the WB I-80 to SB I-880 would be lowered 1 foot 3 inches to achieve the clearance standard. This same connector also has a vertical clearance of 15 feet 6 inches below the EB I-80 to EB I-580 connector and would need to be lowered 1 foot to achieve the Caltrans clearance standard. The segment of this connector that would need to be lowered is approximately 1,515 feet long. The WB I-80 to SB I-880 connector would need to be lowered in both locations simultaneously. For this alternative the connector dimensions would not change as the structure is not being rebuilt
    • Alternative B consists of raising the EB I-80 to EB I-580 connector and the WB I-580 to WB I-80 connector. The EB I-80 to EB I-580 connector currently has a vertical clearance of 15 feet 6 inches above the WB I-80 to SB I-880 connector and would need to be raised 1 foot to achieve the Caltrans clearance standard of 16 feet 6 inches. The segment of this connector that would need to be raised is approximately 790 feet long. The WB I-580 to WB I-80 connector currently has a vertical clearance of 14 feet 9 inches above the WB I-80 to EB I-580 connector and would be raised 1 foot 9 inches to achieve the Caltrans clearance standard. The WB I-580 to WB I-80 connector also has a vertical clearance of 15 feet 3 inches above the WB I-80 to SB I-880 connector and would need to be raised 1 foot 3 inches to achieve the Caltrans clearance standard. This segment of the connector that would need to be raised is approximately 800 feet long. Both connectors would be slowly raised until the desired clearance is achieved. The existing deck of this connector would be repaved under this alternative. For this alternative the connector dimensions would not change as the structure is not being rebuilt.
    • Alternative C consists of partially replacing and realigning the EB I-80 to EB I-580 connector and the WB I-580 to WB I-80 connector . The EB I-80 to EB I-580 connector currently has a vertical clearance of 15 feet 6 inches above the WB I-80 to SB I-880 connector. Approximately 2,000 linear feet of this connector would be rebuilt to achieve the Caltrans clearance standard of 16 feet 6 inches. The WB I-580 to WB I-80 connector currently has a vertical clearance of 14 feet 9 inches above the WB I-80 to EB I-580 connector and a vertical clearance of 15 feet 3 inches above the WB I-80 to SB I-880 connector. Approximately 2,800 linear feet of this connector would be rebuilt to achieve the Caltrans clearance standard. The rebuilt connectors would each be 60 feet wide and would consist of three 12-foot-wide lanes, two 10-foot-wide shoulders, and two 2-foot-wide bridge railings. Rebuilding the connectors would result in 1.22 acres of additional impervious surface compared to existing conditions. The design, color, and aesthetic treatment for the new connectors and support columns would match the existing connectors and columns so as to be visually compatible and consistent with the existing structures.
    • Alternative D consists of partially reconstructing the bridge decks of the EB I-80 to EB I-580 connector and the WB I-580 to WB I-80 connector. The EB I-80 to EB I-580 connector currently has a vertical clearance of 15 feet 6 inches above the WB I-80 to SB I-880 connector. The EB I-80 to EB I-580 connector bridge deck is currently 4 feet 6 inches thick. Approximately 160 linear feet of the EB I-80 to EB I-580 connector bridge deck would be reconstructed to reduce the thickness of the deck to 3 feet 6 inches to achieve the Caltrans clearance standard of 16 feet 6 inches. The WB I-580 to WB I-80 connector currently has a vertical clearance of 14 feet 9 inches above the WB I-80 to EB I-580 connector and a vertical clearance of 15 feet 3 inches above the WB I-80 to SB I-880 connector. The deck of the WB I-580 to WB I-80 connector is also currently 4 feet 6 inches thick. To achieve the Caltrans clearance standard, the existing profile grade would be raised approximately 9 inches. Additionally, the thickness of the deck would be reduced from 4 feet 6 inches to 3 feet 6 inches. Approximately 293 linear feet of the bridge deck of this connector would be reconstructed to achieve the Caltrans clearance standard. For this alternative the connector width would not change.

    In April 2019, it was reported that a Caltrans plan to rebuild portions of the MacArthur Maze to accommodate larger trucks has hit a roadblock in the form of angry local officials and community groups who say the agency failed to tell them the project was coming and performed only a cursory study of its potentially far-reaching environmental effects. Caltrans announced in mid-April 2019 that it is "pausing" its planning for the project, a decision that came after hearing from Oakland and Emeryville officials and others who are questioning whether the project is even necessary. Local communities say that Caltrans' preliminary study of the project, which could lead to partial closure of parts of the Maze and shunt traffic onto streets in Oakland and Emeryville, fails to analyze a wide range of predictable impacts on traffic, air quality, pedestrian and cyclist safety, and local businesses. West Oakland, where Caltrans suggests many of the potentially detoured vehicles would be routed, already suffers disproportionate pollution impacts from highway, railroad and cargo ship traffic. Opponents note that the agency, which has suggested that high-load trucks are being diverted around the Maze to avoid the lower-than-standard overpasses there, presented no data on how many trucks might be involved or evidence that trucks have been striking the overpasses. The agency also conceded there are no structural concerns with the Maze that would require the proposed work. Neither the Port of Oakland nor the California Trucking Association were aware of the project, and it was not something they asked for. Further, the Caltrans proposal runs counter to a new state law, AB 617, that has created a new plan for cleaning up an area of the city long burdened by excessive pollution.
    (Source: KQED, 4/24/2019)

    University Avenue Overcrossing (ALA 80 (PM 5.8/5.8))

    Rte 80 Univ Ave OvercrossingIn December 2018, it was reported that Caltrans was seeking public input on plans to replace the University Avenue overcrossing in Berkeley. The current overpass is only 14 feet, 4 inches high in the westbound direction and 14 feet, 5 inches high in the eastbound direction, according to Caltrans documents. The standard height of an overpass is 16 feet, 6 inches. The state agency has come up with a number of options and is looking for reactions to the various plans. Caltrans held an open house in Berkeley in late November. But the agency has also created a public meeting website with videos, renderings, and documents that do a good job explaining the options. Caltrans is looking at four options: raising the overpass by two feet; replacing the structure; replacing the structure and adding roundabouts. (Caltrans is considering two options of this design.) Only the last two options would improve the flow of traffic, according to Caltrans. The various options will cost from$33 million to $71 million and would take from 13 months to 25 months to complete.
    (Source: BerkeleySide, 12/12/2018)

    University Avenue is a four-lane road with a raised median that extends from the Berkeley Marina in the west, to the University of California, Berkeley, in the east. In the WB direction the existing I-80 overcrossing includes two 13 foot wide travel lanes and a 3 foot wide concrete curb. In the EB direction there is a 15 foot wide travel lane, a 12 foot wide shoulder and a 6 foot wide sidewalk. The structure has a 6 foot tall chain link fence on top of the barrier on the southern outer edge of the overcrossing. The overcrossing has a staircase on the southeast side of the structure that leads to an unpaved area underneath the overcrossing. The WB I-80 on and off-ramps intersect with University Avenue. The West Frontage Road and University Avenue intersection is located immediately to the west.

    For all build alternatives, work would include the following: replacing bridge railings, constructing a 6 foot tall chain link fence on top of the barrier on the outer edges on both sides of the overcrossing, removing the existing staircase and replacing it with an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant pedestrian ramp structure. Pavement on I-80 would be replaced under the University Avenue Overcrossing. All build alternatives would address liquefaction1 by constructing soil treatments and/or micropiles. Anticipated construction staging areas are between West Frontage Road and I-80, including the unpaved areas within the on and off-ramps. Any locations within the project area disturbed either by construction or staging would be landscaped after the construction has been completed to increase vertical clearance.
    (Source: Initial Study with Proposed Negative Declaration, November 2018, DISTRICT 4 – ALA – 80 (PM 5.8/5.8))

    • Alternative 1 (Raise Existing Structure) would involve raising the existing structure above I-80 to 16 feet 6 inches high. On the University Avenue Overcrossing and adjacent freeway on and off-ramps, the paving would be constructed to conform to the new height of the overcrossing. The existing raised median barrier on the University Avenue Overcrossing may be replaced with a similar barrier. The WB I-80 on and offramps would be reconfigured. A number of at-grade roadways and structures would be removed. The existing sidewalk and the proposed sidewalk, in solid red, that would be built to match the new elevation would lead to the proposed pedestrian ramp. The estimated construction duration would be 13 months, the estimated lifespan of the overcrossing after elevation would be 40 years, and the approximate cost would be 30.2 million.
    • Alternative 2 (Replace Existing Structure, with signalization of EB intersection) would replace the existing University Avenue Overcrossing structure with a new structure that would be 16 feet 6 inches above I-80. The WB I-80 on and off-ramps would be re-configured in the same manner as alternative 1. The current EB I-80 on and off-ramp structures would be completely replaced to attach to the new overcrossing structure. A traffic signal would be installed at the intersection of the University Overcrossing and the EB I-80 on and off-ramps. Some existing at-grade roadways and structures would be removed. The sidewalk would lead to the proposed pedestrian ramp. The estimated construction duration would be 25 months, the estimated lifespan of the overcrossing after replacement would be 75 years, and the approximate cost would be 53.5 million.
    • Alternative 3 (Replace Existing Structure with Two Roundabouts) proposes to replace the existing University Avenue overcrossing with a new structure that would be 16 feet 6 inches high above I-80. The new overcrossing would be constructed with two roundabouts. One roundabout would be on an elevated structure at the intersection of University Avenue and the EB I-80 on and offramps. The other roundabout would create a new intersection that could be accessed from University Avenue, the WB I-80 on and off-ramps, and the West Frontage Road. This alternative proposes an additional lane be constructed on the overcrossing in the EB direction, resulting in two lanes in each direction on the overcrossing. New structures would be constructed for the EB I-80 on and off-ramps to conform to the higher proposed overcrossing. The on and off-ramps for WB I-80 would be reconfigured. The roundabout on the west side of I-80 is currently at ground level and would be constructed to meet the new elevation of the overcrossing. Some existing at-grade roadways and structures would be removed. New sidewalks and pedestrian crosswalks are proposed to connect to the pedestrian ramp. The estimated construction duration would be 28 months, the estimated lifespan of the overcrossing after replacement would be 75 years, and the approximate cost would be 73.3 million.
    • Alternative 4 (Replace Existing Structure with One Roundabout) proposes to replace the existing University Avenue Overcrossing structure with a new structure that would be 16 feet 6 inches above I-80. The current EB I-80 on and off-ramp structures would be completely replaced and attached to the new overcrossing structure. A traffic signal would be installed at the intersection of the University Overcrossing and the EB I-80 on and off-ramps. A roundabout is proposed to create a new intersection that would be accessed from University Avenue, the WB I-80 on and off-ramps, and the West Frontage Road. The on and off-ramps for WB I-80 would be reconfigured. The roundabout on the west side of I-80 is would be constructed at ground level and to meet the new elevation of the overcrossing. Some existing at-grade roadways and structures would be removed. New sidewalks and pedestrian crosswalks are proposed to connect to pedestrian ramp. The estimated construction duration would be 25 months, the estimated lifespan of the overcrossing after replacement would be 75 years, and the approximate cost would be 54.5 million.

    In August 2019, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding the following project: 04-Ala-80, PM 5.8/5.8 I-80 in Alameda County. Replace existing overcrossing on I-80 at University Avenue in the city of Berkeley. (PPNO 1452H). This project is located above I-80 in the city of Berkeley in Alameda County. The project proposes to replace the existing University Avenue Overcrossing (UAOC) (Bridge No. 33-0023) with a new structure that will increase the vertical clearance above I-80. The proposed project will address the need to meet current required State vertical clearance standards and allow for more efficient and uninterrupted travel of oversized vehicles without detour and eliminate potential bridge structure impacts due to insufficient height clearance. This project also proposes to replace the existing on and off-ramp structures, replace the existing staircase with an Americans with Disabilities Act compliant pedestrian ramp structure, replace the concrete pavement on I-80 under the UAOC and replace bridge railings. This project is currently programmed in the 2018 SHOPP through the Project Approval/Environmental Document phase for $3.4 million. This proposed project is a candidate for Senate Bill 1 funding under the Trade Corridors Enhancement Program. Construction is estimated to begin in fiscal year 2022-23. The scope, as described for the preferred alternative, is consistent with the project scope programmed by the Commission in the 2018 SHOPP.
    (Source: August 2019 CTC Agenda/Minutes, Agenda Item 2.2c.(1))

    Gilman Street Roundabout (~ ALA 6.651)

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

    Roundabouts at Gilman Street InterchangeThere are plans to reconstruct the Gilman Street interchange with I-80 in Berkeley into a roundabout. Eight entry points currently lead into the intersection, which is regulated only by stop signs. Backups at the two intersections, at the east and west access points for I-80, are among the problematic interchanges in Berkeley and lead to a slowing of freeway traffic. The proposal includes two roundabouts. The project will now proceed to an environmental-impact study in order to assess the consequences of the proposed construction. The impact study and the engineering and design work will cost approximately $3.5 million, and the construction costs are estimated at $9 million to $10 million. Funding for the roundabouts is contingent on the passage of Measure BB, an Alameda County Transportation Commission sales tax. If the measure is passed by voters, the environmental review would be completed by 2017. Engineering and design work would then be finished by 2018, followed by groundbreaking in 2019.
    (Source: Daily Cal, 10/30/2014)

    In February 2018, it was reported that a series of public meetings were occurring regarding the Gillman Street Roundabout. One significant change under the current plans is that drivers would no longer be able to access Eastshore Highway east of the freeway, also called the frontage road, from Gilman Street going either north or south. That’s because it would create too much confusion for drivers accessing the roundabouts, and would also cause traffic to back up too far on Gilman Street. It would also add to project costs and likely result in the closure of a business at the northeast corner of Gilman and Eastshore because the building that houses that business would be in the way of construction and expansion plans. A new traffic signal is also planned for Gilman Street at Fourth Street. One piece of the project that’s still very much under discussion is the location of a U-shaped pedestrian and cyclist crossing — similar to the one over I-80 at University Avenue — that could swing either to the north or to the south. The north-side version would add about $5 million to the project costs but could one day link up with a bikeway near the Albany border with Berkeley. The south-side crossing would span .26 of a mile, while the north-side version would need to be 20% longer to work within the site’s spacial constraints. The south-side proposal is shorter and cheaper, and has been preferable to at least certain nearby business owners, but would still require cyclists and pedestrians to cross Second Street, which is set to remain an uncontrolled intersection. On the other hand, the idea has been floated to create an above-grade crossing over the railroad tracks at Harrison Street that could connect to the north-side over-crossing; that could eventually make crossing Second unnecessary. Construction is currently estimated to begin in 2019 and wrap up in 2022.
    (Source: Berkeleyside, 2/8/2018)

    The 2018 STIP, approved at the CTC March 2018 meeting, appears to allocate $25,784K in FY20-21 for the "Gilman IC Bike/Ped Overcrossing & Access Improvments (ATP)" (PPNO 2323) on I-80, no PM specified. Presumably, this is the new cyclist crossing at the Gilman Interchange.

    In January 2019, it was reported that more public meetings were being held to allow the community a chance to offer feedback on plans to build two roundabouts in Berkeley on Gilman Street at I-80 to improve a hairy traffic situation that’s renowned throughout the area. According to the latest project timeline, final approval is expected in Summer 2019. Construction is set to begin in late 2020 and finish in the summer of 2023. The project is expected to cost more than $55 million and will be funded in large part by the state’s Transportation Improvement Program and Measure BB. The source for about $12 million in costs has yet to be determined. As described in the project’s environmental analysis, the I-80/Gilman Street interchange “is a four-lane arterial roadway (Gilman Street) with two lanes in the east-west direction that are intersected with four I-80 on- and offramps.… Traffic controls on all approaches to Gilman Street consist of stop signs and pavement markings. These conditions, along with an overall increase in vehicle traffic, have created poor and confusing operations in the interchange area.” As far as safety, project documents describe the westbound off-ramp from I-80 as the most dangerous area of the interchange, with about two collisions per million vehicles. The plan to build two roundabouts has generated significant public pushback over the years, but the project team has said it’s the only feasible solution. Using traffic signals is not an option “because of engineering, right-of-way, and cost constraints,” according to project documents. “Under the Signalized Intersection Alternative, there would not have been sufficient space for left-turn pockets under the I-80 undercrossing, and it would have required removal and replacement of the structure. This would have caused significant traffic impacts and inconvenience for motorists. In addition, the cost of this alternative renders it infeasible.” The project is being done by the Alameda County Transportation Commission, in cooperation with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the cities of Berkeley and Albany.
    (Source: Berkeleyside, 1/4/2019)

    In October 2019, the CTC had on its agenda the following project for future consideration of funding: 04-Ala-80, PM 6.38/6.95 I-80 in Alameda County. Construct interchange and roadway improvements on I-80 at Gilman Street in the cities of Berkeley and Albany. (PPNO 2323). This project is located from Fourth Street on the east to west of West Frontage Road at the I-80/Gilman Street interchange in the cities of Berkeley and Albany in Alameda County. This project proposes to improve operations for vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians. The proposed project addresses the need to simplify and improve navigation, mobility and traffic operations as well as reduce congestion, vehicle queues and conflicts, improve local and regional bicycle connections, pedestrian facilities, and improve overall safely at the project location. The project is fully funded and anticipates funding from local Measure BB, the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), Federal demonstration funds and SB 1 funds. The project is currently programmed in the 2018 STIP program for an estimated total of $42.5 million which includes Construction (capital and support) and Right-of-Way (capital and support). Construction is estimated to begin in 2021. The scope, as described for the preferred alternative, is consistent with the project scope programmed by the California Transportation Commission (Commission) in the 2018 STIP.
    (Source: October 2019 CTC Agenda, Agenda Item 2.2c.(1))

    In March 2020, the CTC approved the 2020 STIP, which appears to remove PPNO 2323, Route 80 "Gilman IC Bike/Ped Overcrossing & Access Improvments (ATP)", replacing it with two items: PPNO 2323A Phase 1, and PPNO 2323B Phase 2. These are a mix of Caltrans and ACTC funding.
    (Source: March 2020 CTC Agenda, Item 4.7, 2020 STIP Adopted 3/25/2020)

    In May 2020, the CTC approved the following STIP funding requests:
    (Source: May 2020 CTC Agenda; Agenda Item 2.5c.(5))

    • #1. $2,125,000. 04-Ala-80 6.4/6.8. PPNO 04-2323A ProjID 0400020155 EA 0A770.  I-80/Gilman Interchange Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing and Access Improvements (Phase 1: Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing). In the city of Berkeley, along Gilman Street. Construct a bicycle/pedestrian Overcrossing over I-80.
    • #2. $320,000. 04-Ala-80 6.4/6.8. PPNO 04-2323B. ProjID 0400020155. EA 0A770. I-80/Gilman Interchange Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing and Access Improvements (Phase 2: Interchange). In the city of Berkeley, along Gilman Street, from Fourth Street to 350 feet west of the West Frontage Road. Construct double roundabout and roadway access to and from the roundabouts.

    In August 2020, the CTC approved the following financial allocation: $16,816,000. 04-Ala-80 PM 6.4/6.8. PPNO 04-2323A ProjID 0420000287 EA 0A771. I-80/Gilman Interchange Bicycle/Pedestrian Over-crossing and Access Improvements (Phase 1: Bicycle/Pedestrian Over-crossing). In the city of Berkeley, along Gilman Street. Construct a bicycle/pedestrian Overcrossing over I-80. $1,897,000 Con Eng; $14,919,000 Const.
    (August 2020 CTC Agenda, Agenda Item 2.5c.(1) #1)

    In September 2020, it was reported that the project to build two roundabouts to replace the chaotic intersections on Gilman Street at I-80 in West Berkeley is set to begin by the end of 2020, according to project materials. A September factsheet from the Alameda County Transportation Commission says the double roundabouts are needed because of “higher than average rates of injury collisions” and “significant roadway deficiencies,” among other factors. The project is slated to be completed in two phases, starting with a pedestrian and bicycle overcrossing to the south. Construction for that piece of the project is set to begin late in 2020 and wrap up by 2023, according to project materials. The second phase of the project involves improvements to the intersections and nearby local streets; better crossings for pedestrians and cyclists; the closure of a gap in the Bay Trail; and safety upgrades at the nearby Union Pacific railroad crossing. Work on that phase is set to begin in summer 2021 and end in 2023. The project is currently estimated to cost about $63 million, according to project materials. More than $40 million of the budget is coming from the state.
    (Source: Berkeleyside, 9/23/2020)

    In August 2020, the CTC authorized relinquishment of right of way, consisting of collateral facilities, in the City of Albany along Route 80 on Cleveland Avenue and Washington Avenue (04-Ala-80-PM R7.4) under the terms and conditions as stated in the Freeway Agreement dated September 7, 1994. The City, by Resolution No. 2020-32, signed April 10, 2020, agreed to waive the 90-day notice requirement and accept title upon relinquishment by the State.
    (Source: August 2020 CTC Agenda, Agenda Item 2.3c)

    Central Avenue Interchange (~ CC 0.177)

    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. (~ CC 0.177)

    In March 2020, the CTC approved the 2020 STIP, which appeared to continue funding for PPNO 2025H "Rt 80/Central Ave IC, Ph2 (local rd realign)". This may be a local road off I-80 that feeds into the interchange. $5,900K was allocated in prior year programming; $1,873K in FY21-22.
    (Source: March 2020 CTC Agenda, Item 4.7, 2020 STIP Adopted 3/25/2020)

    I-80 Integrated Corridor Mobility Project (~ CC 2.969 to CC 13.796)

    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 (CC 2.969) 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)

    In August 2014, it was reported that Caltrans is working to turn I-80 between Richmond and Emeryville into a "smart freeway". Much of this work is not visible; the primary visual element are 11 huge gantries - metal sign frames - that stretch across all westbound lanes of the freeway in the most consistently congested and collision-ridden stretch, from Richmond to Emeryville. Those gantries will hold an array of signs giving drivers information to help them steer clear of accidents, debris and blocked lanes. It will even let them know if it would be faster to take public transit. More signs will be scattered along the rest of the 19.5-mile stretch of the project between the Carquinez Bridge in Crockett and the Bay Bridge. When it's done in 2015, the I-80 Smart Corridor project will feature 133 large high-tech signs, but it's about much more than signs. The system will gather information from networks of sensors and cameras on the freeway, major side streets and ramps. That data, with the help of humans in the Caltrans Traffic Management Center in Oakland, will be used to meter traffic at all 44 on-ramps along the corridor, adjust the signs along I-80 and control traffic signals on nearby arterial streets to help combat congestion there, and steer it back toward the freeway. On San Pablo Avenue (Route 123), which parallels I-80 and becomes a popular alternate route when I-80 backs up, the operators will be able to speed up or slow down traffic signals to help keep traffic flowing. There are also signals to give transit buses priority. "Trailblazer" signs at major arterial streets that connect San Pablo to the freeway will direct drivers back to the freeway with the message "To I-80" and an arrow pointing the way. The project will also feature ramp metering, which is designed to keep traffic on the freeway moving while preventing it from backing up onto local streets, as well as improved traffic and transit information that can be displayed on the freeway to let drivers know when they'd be better off to park their cars and take BART. All pieces of the system are designed to work together. Construction of the system started in 2012, but much of it involved installing fiber-optic cables, working on traffic signals, manufacturing signs and creating computer applications. Work on San Pablo Avenue has been completed, though the trailblazer signs are covered, and the large freeway signs have all been manufactured and are being tested in a San Leandro warehouse.
    (Source: SF Gate, 8/4/14)

    In July 2016, it was reported that Caltrans has begun to unveil its I-80 "smart highway" project, phasing in 20 miles' worth of electronic improvements from the Carquinez Bridge to the Bay Bridge. The $79 million SMART Corridor project is the most intensive one in the state, with advanced metering lights and lane-closure warnings and even variable speed-limit signs that can be lowered to 55 mph, or 30 mph, or whatever conditions warrant. All of these real-time traffic-monitoring tools are located on the westbound side of the notorious freeway that carries 270,000 vehicles each weekday. The primary goal is to reduce the accident rate on this stretch; it's twice as high as the statewide average for comparable highways such as I-405 in Southern California. Caltrans engineers also hope to adjust and smooth the flow of traffic. Motorists will see large traffic information boards light up from Vallejo through Contra Costa and Alameda counties and onto the Bay Bridge approach in Berkeley-Emeryville. There will be metering lights at 44 ramps. Traffic signals will be adjusted on San Pablo Avenue to help motorists when they use that parallel thoroughfare as a detour; signs will activate on San Pablo when an incident has cleared and it's safe to return to the freeway. The price tag, while hefty, is many millions less than making the freeway 10 or 12 lanes. A similar effort can be seen in the I-15 smart corridor. The ramp meters will manage the flow of vehicles onto I-80 in real time, with traffic monitors in Caltrans' operation center in Oakland changing the messages on all those new signs almost instantly, making it safer for drivers to merge onto I-80 and alleviating backups on local streets.
    (Source: East Bay Times, 7/10/2016)

    In September 2016, it was reported that the Smart Highway project had been fully and officially, activated. The Smart Corridor project cost $79 million and includes 159 electronic signs mounted on 11 structures over the roadway. How it works is simple. Green arrows over your lane mean you’re good to go, a yellow X over your lane means there’s a problem ahead and you need to move lanes. A red X means a crash is blocking the lane and you need to move lanes. The Smart corridor project is designed to reduce secondary accidents, according to Caltrans officials.
    (Source: CBS San Francisco, 9/19/2016)

    San Pablo Interchange Improvement Project (Phase 1: 04-CC-80 PM 4.13; Phase 2: 04-CC-80 PM 3.8/5.3)

    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 May 2015, the CTC deferred an allocation of $15,000,000 towards this project. Additional funding is $6,227,000 from other sources. Although the local agency is ready to proceed with this project, the deferral was recommended because current year capacity is reserved for projects programmed in FY 2014-15.

    In April 2016, it was reported that elected officials and local transportation leaders gathered on 4/1/2016 to celebrate the beginning of reconstruction work on I-80’s more than 50-year-old San Pablo Dam Road interchange. Planning for this project began almost exactly 10 years ago; however, updating the infrastructure has been discussed as a priority of local leaders for longer than that — more than 20 years. Even after securing funding sources, the project is still $60 million short of what will be needed to continue with a second phase of the reconstruction after the first phase is completed, which is expected to be in spring 2017. The project’s first phase was paid in part by a $12 million infusion of Measure J funds, a continuation of a transportation sales tax that Contra Costa County voters passed in 2004. There was also an $8 million commitment from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission through its toll-based Regional Measure 2. State agencies and the city of San Pablo are helping pay for the project as well. During the project’s first phase, construction crews will relocate the highway’s El Portal Drive on-ramp (CC 5.26) and extend the extra lane between that onramp and the San Pablo Dam Road off-ramp. A pedestrian pathway on Riverside Avenue that crosses above the highway will also be redone in a way that transportation officials expect to provide safer access to Riverside Elementary School.
    (Source: KRON-TV, 4/1/2016)

    In March 2017, it was reported that a new El Portal on-ramp to westbound I-80 opened on March 20, 2017. The new on-ramp is located to the north of El Portal Drive. When it opened, the old on-ramp at El Portal Drive will close permanently. Signage will help redirect motorists from the old to the new ramp. The new westbound on-ramp, along with the extension of the auxiliary lane of westbound I-80 between the San Pablo Dam Road off-ramp and the El Portal Drive on-ramp, are part of the $42 million first phase of the CCTA-led I-80/San Pablo Dam Road Interchange Reconstruction Project. Caltrans, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), and the City of San Pablo are partners in the $118.8 million project. The first phase also includes the reconstruction of the Riverside Avenue pedestrian overcrossing, which opened to the public in October 2016.
    (Source: East Bay Times, 3/15/2017)

    The 2018 STIP, approved at the CTC March 2018 meeting, appears to delay the R/W acquisition phase for Phase 2 from FY19-20 to FY20-21. The Phase 2 project (PPNO 242K) includes acquisition of necessary Right of Way for Phase 2 scope of work which includes: Construct McBryde Connector Road, reconstruct San Pablo Dam Road overcrossing and ramps, construct Wild Cat Creek Bridge, widen San Pablo Dam Road and realign Amador Street.

    In Mid-May 1969, the land collapsed under the I-80 between Pinole's Hilltop Drive ramp and the Appian Way ramp (~ CC 5.931 to CC 7.603). Eventually, all the lanes of the freeway but one, broke off. It began in Tara Hills subdivision of homes nearby the freeway on Shamrock Drive. Specifically, a 500-ft section of I-80 collapsed halting SB traffic. Pictures of the collapse, detour, and rerouting of 6 lines may be found at http://collections.museumca.org/.

    Carquinez Straights Bridge (~ CC 13.616 to SOL 0.392)

    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 June 2014, it was reported that a seismic expansion joint on the westbound Carquinez Bridge - similar to a dozen used on the skyway portion of the new Bay Bridge eastern span - has cracked after less than 10 years of pounding by heavy trucks. The cracking on the joint of the $240 million steel suspension span - which was finished in 2003 and crosses the Carquinez Strait near Vallejo - started showing up in 2012. Another five of the 15 expansion joint supports on the bridge are showing signs of premature wear.

    In September 2019, it was reported that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission gave the green light on a $4 million contract with a consultant for an all-electronic tolling system for all bay area bridges, except the Golden Gate which is its own district and has already gone cashless.. Drivers must pay with FasTrak only. For those without FasTrak, cameras will capture your license plate and you'll get a bill in the mall. The commission said it will save drivers time and the agency money. Drivers won't have to slow down to squeeze through a toll booth. Toll booths will be removed. The commission anticipates realistically it could take up to five years for the system to go into effect. The Carquinez Bridge will likely be the first to go cashless. MTC said engineers say it's a good test bed to move faster on the others. The Bay Bridge will be likely be last since it's the busiest. The toll authority first authorized the move to all-electronic, open road tolling in December 2018. The consultants jsut approved will be responsible for developing the toll system’s specifications, providing oversight of the program’s implementation, reviewing design plans, and help to develop policies for all-electronic tolling. Bridges under the purview of the toll authority include the Antioch Bridge, Benicia-Martinez Bridge, Carquinez Bridge, Dumbarton Bridge, Richmond-San Rafael Bridge, San Mateo-Hayward Bridge and the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge.
    (Source: KTVU, 9/1/2019; SFExaminer, 9/4/2019)

    Carquinez to Sacramento

    The following project was included in the final adopted 2018 SHOPP in March 2018: PPNO 1452F. 04-Solano-80 1.1. Route 80 In Vallejo, at Route 80/Route 29 Separation Bridge No. 23-0087. Replace bridge. Begin Con: 1/15/2021. * Const, * R/W, * PS&E, * R/W Sup, * Con Sup phase(s) are NOT authorized. Total Project Cost: $19,056K.

    I-80 Freight Corridor Bridges / Vertical Clearance Project (04-Sol-80 1.8/4.4. PPNO 0481R)

    Rte 80 Six Bridge Project in VallejoIn August 2019, the CTC approved the following allocation: 04-Sol-80 1.8/4.4. PPNO 0481R. Proj ID 0414000029. EA 0J710. I-80 In Vallejo, from Magazine Street Overcrossing No. 23-0066 to Redwood Street Overcrossing No. 23-0114 (6 bridges). Increase vertical clearance at six overcrossing structures. (SB 1 Baseline Agreement approved under Resolution SHOPP-P-1819-04B; October 2018.) R/W Sup $154,000 $154,000.
    (Source: August 2019 CTC Agenda, Agenda Item 2.5b.(2b) #6; Image source: Interstate 80 Six Bridge Project Page)

    In October 2019, the CTC approved the following allocations for a projects with costs that exceed 20 percent of the programmed amount: $33,456,000 for the Freight Program project, on I-80 in Solano County (04-Sol-80 1.8/4.4 PPNO 0481R Proj ID 0414000029 EA 0J710). As part of the Department’s efforts to improve goods movement along the I-80 Freight Corridor in Solano County, accommodate large military and commercial permit vehicles, and to complete the last section of the Corridor upgrade from the Carquinez Strait to the Nevada border, this project will modify six bridges and approaches to increase the vertical clearances at six bridges. The six bridges are located at Magazine Street, Benicia Road, Georgia Street, Springs Street, Tennessee Street, and Redwood Street over-crossings. They will be upgraded to meet FHWA and Department standards as well as provide for U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) deployment needs for Strategic Highways and access to the Travis Air Force Base in Fairfield. The project is planned to be completed within 500 working days during two construction seasons. The project was programmed in the 2018 SHOPP for a construction allocation in Fiscal Year (FY) 2018-19. The programmed project funds were $15,951,000 in Construction Capital and $1,859,000 in Construction Support. The project’s Plans, Specifications and Estimate (PS&E) phase and an updated Engineer’s Estimate (EE) were completed in June 2019. The Commission approved a four-month time extension for construction allocation at the June 2019 meeting. However, based on the most recent Engineer’s Estimate (EE) and the updated estimates to deliver this project, the Department is requesting an allocation that exceeds the programmed funds by more than 20 percent. This allocation request is for $30,034,000 for Construction Capital, which includes state furnished materials, mobilization and 10 percent contingency, and $3,422,000 for Construction Support. There is an increase of $14,083,000 for Construction Capital and $1,563,000 for Construction Support, which is necessary for this project to complete the corridor upgrade in terms of updating bridges to the latest vertical clearance standards.
    (Source: October 2019 CTC Agenda, Agenda Item 2.5d.(1))

    In December 2019, it was reported that California Department of Transportation has begun planning a project to raise the vertical clearance of six bridges crossing over I-80; specifically, to raise the overpasses at Magazine Street (SOL 1.771), Benicia Road (SOL 2.446), Georgia Street (SOL 2.878), Springs Road (SOL 3.234), Tennessee Street (SOL 3.496), and Redwood Street (SOL 4.433) to the standard height of 16 feet 6 inches. The bridges currently have a clearance of 14.9 to 15.3 feet. The Springs Road overpass “has been hit various times” by commercial trucks. Traffic management plans include closing each bridge completely, day and night, for four months while under construction. Crews will install temporary supports, “jack up the superstructure,” then set it down on new permanent supports. Caltrans will also modify the bridge approaches to align them with the new bridge heights. The agency has already begun advertising for bids for the $23.2 million project. Officials expect to award the contract toward the end of March 2020 with construction tentatively to begin next spring and could last from two to four years. They said that one to two freeway lanes will be closed in each direction each night for one to two months during the elevation of each bridge. I-80 will be closed in one direction for three consecutive nights to elevate the bridge, plus and additional night to place the bridge on its new supports.
    (Source: Times Herald, 12/19/2019)

    In July 2020, it was reported that Caltrans will soon begin work on a four-year, six-bridge project in the city. The vertical clearance for I-80 overpasses at Magazine, Georgia, Tennessee and Redwood streets, as well as Benicia and Springs roads will be increased to the standard of 16 feet, 6 inches. The bridges will be elevated one at a time, taking about four months each to complete the work. The work will start with Springs Road in the fall. The whole project is expected to be completed in 2024.
    (Source: Daily Republic, 7/16/2020)

    Rte 80/Rte 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 (~ SOL 4.409) 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.

    HOV Lanes: Red Top Road to Air Base Parkway (~ SOL R11.388 to SOL 19.186)

    [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.

    The project was completed in November 2009, adding over eight miles of HOV lanes in both directions and widening the median on I-80 from approximately Red Top Road to Airbase Parkway. The HOV lanes are now open from 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday for vehicles with 2 or more occupants.

    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.

    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.

    HOV/HOT Lanes: Red Top Road / Air Base Parkway to I-505 (~ SOL R11.388 / SOL 19.186 to SOL R28.079)

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

    In April 2015, it was reported that the Solano Transportation Authority approved an agreement for preliminary engineering and final design work on an I-80 express lane project from Red Top Road to I-505. The project includes the conversion of an existing HOV lane to an express lane in the west segment from Red Top Road to Air Base Parkway and new construction of an express lane in the east segment from Air Base Parkway to I-505. The eastbound HOV lane currently ends at Air Base Parkway, where motorists encounter a significant bottleneck. The west segment will be funded with bridge toll funds already allocated; the authority will need to get an allocation of bridge funds, meanwhile, to cover the east segment. The project would provide approximately 18 miles of express lanes along the I-80 corridor through the conversion and highway widening. Plans call for the west segment of the project to be complete by the end of 2018 and construction of the east segment to be done by 2019.
    (Source: Daily Republic, 4/16/2015)

    In October 2016, there was a discussion on AAroads about the project to construct new express/HOT lanes from west of Exit 39A (Red Top Road) to just east of the I-505 interchange, and including relocation of the northern end of I-680 at I-80 to connect with the existing Route 12 interchange (this is actually a separate project; see above). Phase 1 of this project has already been completed. The express lane project has 2 components - conversion of the existing HOV lanes in Fairfield to HOT lanes and a new HOT lane in each direction from Fairfield to Vacaville. The anticipated construction start date is June 2018. The HOV lanes currently operate with continuous access - you can enter and exit from any point - and the HOT lanes will still have that feature, as will the new lanes. Bay Area planners believe that the continuous access will make the lanes more attractive to users. There is some risk of increased violations with this feature but they believe that it may not be much of a problem.
    (Source: Coatamundi and Joe Rouse at AAroads, October 2016)

    In October 2019, it was reported that the Solano Transportation Authority has proposed a project to create new managed lanes along I-80 in Solano County... and they were on a quest for funds. STA Executive Director Daryl Halls said he would be asking the two chambers to lend their support starting in early 2020 and that Fairfield Mayor Harry Price and Vacaville Mayor Ron Rowlett — who both sit on the STA Board with Supervisor Jim Spering and the other Solano mayors — would be leading the charge. The plan for Solano’s initial construction phase is to build 10 miles of new managed lanes — highway lanes such as express lanes, toll lanes and high-occupancy vehicle lanes where operational strategies are put in place and managed in response to changing conditions — along I-80 between Air Base Parkway and just east of I-505 as well as converting 8 miles of existing HOV lanes between Red Top Road and Air Base Parkway in Fairfield to managed lanes. Future phases would include expanding managed lanes through Dixon to the Yolo County line and through Vallejo to the Carquinez Bridge to create continuous managed lanes throughout Solano. The overall project is expected to cost about $228 million. An STA environmental report was completed in Dec. 2015 and revalidated in March 2018, and the design was completed in June of that year. Additionally, the project was submitted by Caltrans in July for a federal INFRA Congested Corridors grant. Halls said the next round of opportunity for funding would be as part of a Senate Bill 1 Congested Corridors and Trade Corridor Enhancement program in 2020. $75 million for this project has been committed out of money raised through Regional Measure 3, the initiative approved by voters in 2018 to increase tolls at Bay Area bridges to fund transportation projects. However, the measure remains tied up in court, STA will have to match the money if RM3 funds are not available by spring.
    (Source: The Reporter, 10/30/2019)

    The 2020 STIP, approved at the CTC March 2020 Meeting, included new programming for PPNO 0658L Solano 80 Managed Lanes (SB1), with $34,000K programmed for R/W and CONST in FY21-22.
    (Source: March 2020 CTC Agenda, Item 4.7, 2020 STIP Adopted 3/25/2020)

    In June 2020, the CTC noticed a STIP amendment to reprogram $16,700,000 in Regional Improvement Program (RIP) funds from the Solano I-80 Managed Lanes project (PPNO 0658L) to the Solano I-80/I-680/Route 12 Interchange – Package 2A project (PPNO 5301X) in Solano County (see below). The Solano I-80 Managed Lanes project is currently programmed in the 2020 STIP with $710,000 RIP for Right of  Way and $33,290,000 RIP for Construction; all funds programmed in 2021-22. The construction phase of this project is not fully funded at this time. The STA and the Department are planning to seek SB 1 funds during the upcoming cycle of SB 1 funding. The STA is committed to fully fund this project using RM3 funds once the litigation has been resolved. This amendment was approved at the August 2020 meeting.
    (Source: June 2020 CTC Agenda, Agenda Item 2.1b.(1); August 2020 CTC Agenda, Agenda Item 2.1a.(3))

    Cordelia Area Integrated Corridor Management (SOL 11.4 to SOL 20.1)

    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.

    Route 80/I-680/Route 12 Interchange (~ SOL R11.4 to SOL 16.575)

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

    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.

    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 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.

    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.

    Rte 80/Rte 680/Rte 12 ProjectIn 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 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 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 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 April 2014, it was reported that significant overhead work was recently completed on the I-80/I-680/Route 12 interchange project, marking a major milestone in the first phase of construction. In particular, preliminary overhead structures were installed earlier this month for the new Green Valley Road overcrossing over I-80. Ground was broken for the first phase of the project in June 2014. About 75% of the work should be complete by the end of the year, a Caltrans engineer estimated in March. The first phase should be complete by December 2016 or a little sooner depending on the weather, he said.
    (Source: Daily Republic, 4/23/2015)

    In September 2014, construction started on the I-80/I-680 project. This initial project doesn’t include direct work on the I-80 and I-680 interchange structure itself, but rather replaces the nearby Green Valley interchange. Workers over the next one-and-a-half years will build a new Green Valley interchange slightly to the east of the existing one. This new interchange will have a four-lane overpass as opposed to two lanes. Workers will also build new onramps to better sort out traffic merging from Green Valley Road onto westbound I-80 and I-80 traffic exiting onto westbound Route 12 at Jameson Canyon. The connector ramp from westbound I-80 to Route 12 also will be widened from one lane to two lanes. This first round of improvements will cost about $65 million and could be completed by summer 2016. The project received $15 million from Proposition 1B, a 2006 voter-approved transportation bond. The remaining six phases will be constructed and completed as funding becomes available. Improvements in the upcoming phases will include: (1) New interchange at Red Top Road and I-680; (2) New westbound connector ramp from westbound I-80 to southbound I-680; (3) Realignment of I-680 between I-80 and the Lopes Road exit in Cordelia; (4) Realignment of the connector ramp from Route 12 to eastbound I-80; (5) New entrance/exit ramps; and (6) The extension of some local streets leading to I-80 and Route 12.

    In October 2015, the CTC again approved for future consideration of funding a project that will improve the I-80/I-680/Route 12 Interchange, including relocation of the westbound truck scales facility on I-80. For the preferred fullbuild alternative, the current total estimated cost for capital and support is $2,166,000,000. The project is not fully funded and will be developed in phases. Only Phase One of the full-build alternative is included in the financially constrained Regional Transportation Plan. Within Phase One, the first construction contract’s total estimated cost for capital and support is $100,400,000, which is funded by the 2012 State Transportation Improvement Program, the Trade Corridor Improvement Fund and local funding. Contract 1 of Phase One is currently under construction. The design phase of Contract 2 of Phase One is 35% complete. The scope of the first construction contract includes the reconstruction of the Interstate 80/Green Valley Interchange and construction of a two-lane westbound I-80 to westbound Route 12 Connector with a new bridge over the I-80 Green Valley Road onramp. The scope of the preferred alternative is consistent with the scope of the first construction contract that is programmed in the 2012 State Transportation Improvement Program and the Trade Corridor Improvement Fund. It was received again because an Addendum had been completed due to changes in the project since Commission approval of the Final Environmental Impacts Report (FEIR) in 2013.

    In August 2016, it was reported that a new ramp in Fairfield connecting WB I-80 and WB Route 12 will be opening at the end of August, according to the California Department of Transportation. As part of the project, the new westbound I-80 onramp from Green Valley Road will also be opened. Caltrans will begin shifting westbound I-80 traffic to the new ramp, which along with the new Green Valley Road overcrossing completes the first of seven phases of the I-80/I-680/Route 12 Interchange Project. This first phase cost about $67 million, according to Caltrans. Some $15 million came from Proposition 1B, a transportation bond approved by California voters in 2006. Upcoming phases will include a new interchange at Red Top Road and I-680, a new westbound connector ramp from westbound I-80 to southbound I-680, a realignment of I-680 between I-80 and the Lopes Road exit, a realignment of the connector ramp from Route 12 to eastbound I-80, new entrance and exit ramps and the extension of some local streets leading to I-80 and Route 12. These next segments are still in need of funding, according to Caltrans.
    (Source: The Reporter, 8/9/2016)

    The 2018 STIP, approved at the CTC March 2018 meeting, appears to have allocated $9M in FY19-20 for PS&E for PPNO 5301X I-80/I-680/Route 12 Interchange - Package 2A

    In May 2018, it was reported that the California Transportation Commission approved $53 million for a project designed to help eliminate the Route 12/Jameson Canyon bottleneck at I-80. Construction to create a two-lane ramp from eastbound Route 12 to eastbound I-80 could begin in 2020, Solano Transportation Authority Executive Director Daryl Halls said. He estimated the project will cost about $70 million, with the remaining money coming from other sources. Caltrans in 2014 finished widening Route 12 from two to four lanes along the six-mile Jameson Canyon segment. But the two eastbound lanes squeeze down to one lane at the interchange ramp, causing backups that commuters say can top a mile.
    (Source: Napa Valley Register, 5/17/2018)

    The 2020 STIP, approved at the March 2020 CTC meeting, made no changes to the programming for PPNO 5301X Rt 80/680/12 Interchange - Package 2A (18S-03) and PPNO 5301L Rt 80/680/12 Interchange (2nd Supplemental); they are at $9,000K and $798K in prior years respectively. It did modify PPNO 5301V Jepson Pkwy, 4-lane widen, Elmira Rd-New Ulatis Crk, taking the funds programmed for FY20-21 and moving them to FY21-22.
    (Source: March 2020 CTC Agenda, Item 4.7, 2020 STIP Adopted 3/25/2020)

    In June 2020, the CTC noticed a STIP amendment to reprogram $16,700,000 in Regional Improvement Program (RIP) funds from the Solano I-80 Managed Lanes project (PPNO 0658L) to the Solano I-80/I-680/Route 12 Interchange – Package 2A project (PPNO 5301X) in Solano County. The I-80/I-680/Route 12 project will replace the existing single-lane eastbound Route 12 to eastbound I-80 connector structure with a new two-lane structure that meets the operational requirements for the ultimate configuration of this interchange. The project will also construct direct ramps to Green Valley Road that will improve safety by eliminating the existing weaving conflicts.  The construction funding plan for the project consists of Senate Bill (SB) 1 - Trade Corridor Enhancement Program (TCEP) and Regional Measure (RM) 2 funds, and construction is currently programmed in Fiscal Year 2019-20. The project is being delivered using the Construction Manager/General Contractor (CMGC) method of delivery. However, based upon the latest cost estimate, the construction capital cost has been revised from $50,300,000 to $67,000,000; which is an increase of $16,700,000. This increase is due to the following reasons: (1) Geotechnical (Earthwork and structural section): $8 Million — After the constructability review was conducted, an extensive redesign was needed that resulted in significant changes in quantities and upward revisions to unit prices. These designchanges have increased the cost of the structural section by $6,000,000. An additional $2,000,000 increase has resulted from more extensive soil stabilization requiring longer piles and wick drains to consolidate the unforeseen expansive and unstable soils at the abutment locations. (2) Drainage: $4.2 Million — Based upon the final design, new drainage system components are needed to better drain the flat gradients surrounding the new roadway and to avoid conflicts with the existing drainage systems. This includes two drainage crossings under the I-80 that require an open trench on the west end and micro-tunneling at the east end. (3) Traffic staging: $1.0 Million — The original design details did not fully anticipate detour complexity and resulting traffic staging challenges which require more extensive construction signing/striping and traffic handling measures. The revised estimate for temporary and permanent striping and staging requirements has resulted in a cost increase of $1.0 million. (4) Specialty items: $3.5 Million — To address the revised trash capture requirements from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, a large bioswale will be constructed adjacent to the Green Valley Road off-ramp. Additional erosion control measures are also needed to stabilize the embankments and cut sections. Finally, the cost of median barrier has gone up as a result of revised quantities and increase in unit prices. The amendment was approved at the August 2020 meeting.
    (Source: June 2020 CTC Agenda, Agenda Item 2.1b.(1); August 2020 CTC Agenda, Agenda Item 2.1a.(3))

    The STA has been working with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission to secure Regional Measure (RM) 3 funds to cover the cost increase. However, because of still-unresolved litigation of RM3 funds, those funds are not available at this time. Therefore, the STA is proposing to cover this funding shortfall by re-programming $16,700,000 RIP funds from the Solano I-80 Managed Lanes project (PPNO 0658L). The Solano I-80 Managed Lanes project is currently programmed in the 2020 STIP with $710,000 RIP for Right of  Way and $33,290,000 RIP for Construction; all funds programmed in 2021-22. The construction phase of this project is not fully funded at this time. The STA and the Department are planning to seek SB 1 funds during the upcoming cycle of SB 1 funding. The STA is committed to fully fund
    this project using RM3 funds once the litigation has been resolved. There are also minor changes in the project limits, with the new limits being 04-Sol-80 11.4/12.8.
    (Source: June 2020 CTC Agenda, Agenda Item 2.1b.(1))

    In August 2020, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) approved the allocation of $69,900,000 of funds for the second phase of the I-80/I-680/Route 12 Interchange Project. The next phase in the seven-phase project seeks to replace the existing single-lane eastbound Route 12 connector to eastbound I-80 with a new two-lane connector, in addition to constructing direct on and offramps from I-80 to Green Valley Road in Fairfield. The project was financed through funds from Senate Bill 1’s Trade Corridor Enhancement Program, State Transportation Improvement Program as well as regional bridge toll funds. It is expected to begin construction in September with the overall work estimated to last two years.
    (Source: August 2020 CTC Agenda, Agenda Item 2.5s.(5); The Reporter, 8/13/2020)

    In March 2016, the CTC allocated additional funding for a project located on I-80 from the I-80/Route 12 Separation to 0.7 mile east of Route 12 in the city of Fairfield in Solano County. The project will construct a two-lane west bound I-80 to westbound Route 12 connector and reconstruct the I-80/Green Valley Road interchange (~ SOL 12.776).

    In July 2019, it was reported that the High Occupancy Vehicle lane on westbound Interstate 80 will temporarily end at the Abernathy Road on-ramp (~ SOL 16.099). Caltrans crews are replacing concrete slab on the Dan Wilson Creek Bridge near the westbound I-80 Cordelia Truck Scales. The work, expected to continue to October 2019, will reduce the number of lanes from six to five, Caltrans announced.
    (Source: Daily Republic, 7/2/2019)

    In March 2013, there was a report on plans to turn on ramp metering lights in Fairfield and Vacaville (~ SOL 17.213 to SOL R27.985). 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 January 2015, the CTC authorized relinquishment of right of way in the city of Fairfield on Manuel Campos Parkway (~ SOL 20.922), consisting of collateral facilities.

    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 (~ SOL R25.753).

    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 (~ SOL R27.373).

    Vacaville TypeIn April 2015, there was a typo on a sign in Vacaville (~ SOL R27.774): Redding was spelled as “Reddinig.” The City of Vacaville posted a little note on Caltrans District 4’s Facebook page alerting them of the situation. The sign was corrected quickly. Post-fix pictures made it appear that Caltrans only covered up the extra “i,” leaving “Redding” looking a little disjointed.
    (Source: CBS Sacramento, 4/20/2016)

    Near I-80 in Vacaville (at the Weber Road interchange (~ SOL 31.307) 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 August 2016, the CTC approved $11,828,000 for Solano 04-Sol-80 31.4/32.6 I-80 near Vacaville, at Meridian Road Overcrossing No. 23-0147 and Midway Road Overcrossing No. 23-0148. Outcome/Output: Seismic retrofit for Meridian Road Overcrossing and replacement of the Midway Road Overcrossing to improve structure resistance to earthquakes and minimize the potential for collapse. Retrofit work will include polyester overlay, reconstruct barrier rail, construct approach slabs, improve existing drainage system and reconstruct deck overhang. Replacement work will include demolishing existing bridge.

    Roadway Widening - Davis to Sacramento (~ SOL 41.252 to YOL R9.708)

    80 improvements dixon to sacIn December 2017, it was reported that Caltrans is hoping to ease congestion on the stretch of highway on I-80 between Sacramento and Dixon by adding 21 miles of bus and carpool lanes on both the east and west bound sides of the freeway. The proposal – which would expand a portion of I-80 from 3 to 4 lanes on both sides – would extend from Kidwell Road near Dixon all the way to the corridor where I-80 meets I-5 and US 50. It would also expand the bike path through the Yolo Bypass. Caltrans says their projections show the additional carpool lanes could decrease traffic delays by as much as 38% during the evening traffic rush and by 53% in the morning. The proposal is estimated to cost between $500-$750 million, and Caltrans hopes more, if not all, of it would be covered by revenue from California’s new gas tax. If it gets approved, construction is expected to begin in the summer of 2021.
    (Source: KXTV ABC 10, 12/6/2017)

    In May 2018, it was reported that Caltrans has started to hold public meetings regarding a 16-mile widening of I-80 through Yolo and Solano counties. The initial idea, Caltrans says, is to build a carpool lane, also known as a high occupancy vehicle or diamond lane, east of Dixon to the Sacramento County line in West Sacramento. That would widen the freeway in key bottleneck spots that occur where I-80 merges down to three lanes. While the problem affects weekday commuters, some of the worst slowdowns occur when Bay Area and Sacramento residents alike cram onto I-80 for weekend getaways. The most challenging section would be the Yolo Causeway, the 3-mile elevated bridge and berm that crosses the Yolo floodplain between Davis and West Sacramento. A fourth lane in each direction would extend to the Sacramento River on I-80 at the Bryte Bend Bridge and on US 50 at the Pioneer Memorial Bridge, which carries commuter traffic into downtown Sacramento. The project could cost $400 million. Caltrans plans to apply for state and federal grants to cover the cost. Project officials said, they would consider charging a toll for peak-hour users if the state can't fund the project other ways — and if an economic analysis shows a toll lane makes sense. The state tentatively plans to begin construction of the I-80 Yolo/Solano widening project in 2024. The project will include improvements to the causeway bike and pedestrian path.
    (Source: Sacramento Bee, 6/4/2018)

    In November 2019, it was reported that Caltrans is moving ahead with plans to ease traffic congestion plaguing I-80 from Solano County through Natomas in north Sacramento. Besides making roadway improvements, it hopes to add a commuter lane in each direction on the Yolo Causeway, which is the source of slowdowns during commute hours and on weekends. It will present several ideas for public input at an I-80 improvement open house scheduled in November 2019. Among the solutions could be a toll lane or a two-way lane that would be switched according to the volume of vehicles going in one direction or the other. A bicycle or pedestrian add-on in the causeway is also possible because it would be cheaper than widening the causeway for vehicle traffic. The solutions could range from $100 million to $600 million. Additional public meetings are likely to be held in West Sacramento and Sacramento at later dates. Construction on the improvements is scheduled to begin in the summer of 2024.
    (Source: Fox 40 News, 11/15/2019)

    In February 2020, it was reported that Caltrans was holding community meetings on the Yolo/I-80 Corridor Improvement project. The Yolo/I-80 Corridor project proposes improvements to I-80 from Kidwell Road west of Davis to West El Camino Avenue, including US 50 to the I-5 interchange in Sacramento. Some of the options under consideration include adding additional lanes to the freeway between the Yolo-Solano County line and the Yolo Causeway, as well as adding lanes to the causeway itself and building a separated bicycle/pedestrian crossing over the bypass.
    (Source: Davis Enterprise, 2/19/2020)

    The 2020 STIP, approved at the March 2020 meeting, included a new programming allocation for PPNO 1810, Rt 80/Richards Blvd interchange improvements (~ YOL 0.19). The funding is $7,700K programmed for FY20-21.
    (Source: March 2020 CTC Agenda, Item 4.7, 2020 STIP Adopted 3/25/2020)

    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 #3791: Construct interchange at Harbor Boulevard/I-80 in West Sacramento. $1,000,000. (~ YOL R11.598)

    Sacramento to Auburn

    80 Across The Top (~ SAC M0.3 to M10.4)

    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.

    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.

    In January 2016, it was reported that C.C. Myers Inc., a Rancho Cordova-based construction company serving as lead contractor for the 80 Across the Top project, has been forced to step aside due to financial difficulties. Control of that project and several other projects in Northern California have been transitioned to partnering companies on Jan. 1, 2016. Bay Cities Paving and Grading of Concord, which has served as Myers’ partner on the north Sacramento freeway project, has taken over sole control. The project involves rebuilding and widening 10 miles of the freeway from the Sacramento/Yolo county line to just west of Watt Avenue. The project already has run into several delays and may finish a year behind its original schedule. The work began in 2011 and is currently scheduled to be finished in summer or fall 2016.
    (Source: Sacramento Bee, 1/11/2016)

    In August 2016, I-80 had significant lane closures over Labor Day weekendas part of this project. The closures were part of the $133 million “Across the Top” project scheduled to be completed in Fall 2016, according to the state Department of Transportation. The project will add about 10 miles of carpool lanes in both directions, repave the highway from east of the Sacramento River Bridge to Watt Avenue and add about 1 mile of new auxiliary lanes from West El Camino Avenue to the I-80 and I-5 interchange.
    (Source: Sacramento Bee, 8/19/2016)

    In November 2016, it was reported that Caltrans’ Across The Top freeway widening project will hit a landmark moment at the end of November 2016 with the opening of a 10-mile carpool lane on the westbound side, stretching from near Watt Avenue to the Yolo County line. A similar lane in the opposite direction will open a few weeks later. The project, launched in 2011, is now more than two years behind its originally projected fall 2014 finish date. While the likely opening of the carpool lanes in December is the last major step for the project, not all the work is done. Crews will return next spring for finish work, including smoothing out some rough sections of the new road surface. Caltrans officials say they believe the public will like the end product, which they described as two projects in one, a freeway widening coupled with major reconstruction work. Crews ripped out and replaced four of the freeway’s original six lanes, installed a new drainage system, built several miles of soundwalls and added a series of auxiliary outer lanes that run from one onramp to the next offramp. The main focus, though, is the 10 miles of carpool and bus lanes designed to reduce congestion.
    (Source: Sacramento Bee, 11/29/2016)

    Citrus Heights and Rocklin

    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. (~ SAC R11.193 to PLA 1.944)

    In August 2011, the CTC approved $7,000,000 in SHOPP funding for repairs near Sacramento, from Madison Avenue Overcrossing to Placer County Line (~ SAC 12.438 to PLA 0.000); 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 May 2009, Caltrans advertised a project involving I-80 HOV lanes in Roseville and Rocklin ($35 million). (~ SAC 16.766 to PLA 6.017 (WAG on PMs))

    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. (~ PLA 0.000 to PLA 1.944)

    I-80 Capacity/Operational Improvements: Sacramento/Placer County Line to Route 65 (~ PLA 0.000 to PLA 5.1)

    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 #3649: Increase capacity on I-80 between Sacramento/Placer Cty Line and Route 65. This is related to NCI #13, below.$21,600,000.
    • 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 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 (PLA 0.0) to Route 65 (PLA 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 May 2017, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding a project in Placer County that proposes to widen I-80 by adding an eastbound auxiliary lane between Route 65 and Rocklin Road, and by adding a westbound fifth through lane from 1,000 feet east of Douglas Boulevard to west of Riverside Avenue (03-Pla-80, PM 0.1/6.0). The project is not fully funded. The Project Approval and Environment Document is funded from local sources. The estimated capital outlay cost of the project is $14.4 million. Depending on the availability of funds, construction is estimated to begin in Fiscal Year 2019-20.

    In March 2008, right of way in Roseville, on Riverside Avenue between Cirby Way and I-80 was relinquished (~ PLA 0.571).

    Route 65/I-80 Interchange (~ PLA 3.039 to PLA 5.245)

    Rte 80 / 65 InterchangeIn March 2013, the CTC received notice of the preparation of an EIR. This EIR is for a project that would add High Occupancy Vehicle lanes and high-speed connections at the I-80/Route 65 Interchange in Placer County. The project is not fully funded; however, the project is fully funded through the Project Approval and Environmental Document phase with federal and local funds. The total estimated cost is $340,000,000 for capital and support. Construction is estimated to begin in Fiscal Year 2019-20, depending on the availability of funds. There are five alternatives being considered: (1) Taylor Road Full Access Interchange (Diamond-Shaped); (2) Taylor Road Full Access Interchange (Trumpet-Shaped); (3) Taylor Road Interchange Eliminated; (4) Transportation System Management; and (5) No-Build (No-Project).

    In December 2016, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding project in Placer County that will construct improvements to the I-80/Route 65 Interchange in the cities of Roseville and Rocklin. The overall project will be constructed in four phases. Phase 1 of this project will construct a northbound auxiliary lane from Route 80 to Galleria Boulevard/Stanford Ranch Road and install a ramp meter on Route 65. Phase 1 is programmed in the 2016 State Highway Operation and Protection Program. The total programmed amount for Phase 1 is $26,650,000 for capital and support. Construction is estimated to begin in Fiscal Year 2017-18. The scope, as described in the Purpose and Need of the environmental document, is consistent with the project scope programmed by the Commission in the 2016 State Highway Operation and Protection Program. Phases 2 through 4 are not fully funded. The total estimated cost for the overall project is $348,000,000 for capital and support.

    In August 2017, the CTC approved $3,600,000 from the Budget Act of 2016, Budget Act Item 2660-304-6056 for the following locally administered Proposition 1B TCIF Program project: I-80/Route 65 Interchange Phase 1- Third Lane. In and near Roseville and Rocklin, from 0.4 mile north of Route 80 to 0.5 mile south of the Pleasant Grove Boulevard Overcrossing. Construct third lane for 1.3 miles. (TCIF 126). The local agency was ready to proceed with this project, and is requesting an allocation at this time. The allocation is contingent upon the approval of a budget revision by the Department of Finance. Future Consideration of Funding approved under Resolution E-16-92; December 2016.

    In April 2018, construction was to begin on the Route 80/Route 65 interchange. The first phase will provide a third lane on northbound Route 65 from I-80 to Pleasant Grove Boulevard and improvements to the Galleria Boulevard/Stanford Ranch Road interchange. PCTPA and its partners garnered several funding sources to complete the $50 million first phase. The I-80 Bottleneck project through Roseville was completed in 2011 under budget, thus, PCTPA is able to use nearly $10 million dollars from that project savings. Other local funding sources include traffic mitigation fees assessed on local developments. The remaining $400 million cost will eventually add one lane to each of the four connectors between Route 65 and I-80. Future improvements also include maintaining the existing I-80 access at Taylor Road and eliminating the weaving movements on I-80 eastbound between Eureka Road and Route 65. However, in the first phase, the interchange will retain its present configuration as a trumpet with the heaviest movement around the loop rather than via the direct SB to EB ramp. The interchange design did not include a reversed connection to provide a higher-speed connection from I-80 east to Route 65 north. Apparently there was some concern about damage to the adjacent watershed immediately to the south of the interchange, so the plans were "massaged" to the present configuration to avoid impinging on the identified problematic area. Because of funding limitations, a directional interchange had not been considered, so the area required for the trumpet had not only needed to be shifted NE along I-80, but also "squeezed" into a tighter than usual profile so as not to impinge on an adjoining creekbed; this accounts for the low-speed loop from EB I-80 to NB Route 65. According to Caltrans sources, there's no near-term funded plans to effect basic changes to the present configuration except to expand capacity on Route 65 so that the proximity of the regional commercial center along that freeway to the north of the interchange doesn't result in additional backup issues around the loop. It does appear that in future phases, the interchange will become directional.
    (Sources: 80/65 Interchange Improvement Project Website, 4/2018; Sparkeron AAroads, 4/29/2018)

    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 #2399: Improve access to I-80 at Eureka Road Interchange. $1,600,000. (~ PLA 3.068)

    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. (~ PLA 5.017 to PLA 14.127)

    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 (~ PLA 8.721 to PLA 38.412). 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.

    Auburn to the Nevada State Line

    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)

    Weimar (~ 080 PLA 28.832) to Cisco Grove (~ 080 PLA R63.714) Bridge Replacement

    Intrste 80 Weimar-Cisco Bridge ReplacementIn January 2018, it was reported that Caltrans is targeting a 2021 start on a $53 million project to rehabilitate or replace seven bridges from Weimar to Cisco Grove. The Weimar overcrossing, just south of Colfax, along with bridges over the freeway at Crystal Springs, Baxter, Drum Forebay, Yuba Pass and Cisco are the subjects of a draft environmental report that is open for public comment through Jan. 26, 2018. The report, a precursor to further planning and construction, states the bridges are in need of major rehabilitation or replacement due to cracking in the concrete decks, crumbling concrete and high salt content that has leached into steel bridge components. One of the topics of discussion for people attending was the possibility of eliminating the Crystal Springs overcrossing and its eastbound ramp. The Baxter and Crystal Springs overcrossings are less than a mile apart and Caltrans is weighing the expenditure to rebuild the latter, Whitmore said. One of the points made by local residents was that the westbound offramp at Baxter is shorter than the one at Crystal Springs and has a tight turn at the end. When work begins, Caltrans will close down bridges in a way that motorists will be able to continue to the next overcrossing to reverse course.
    (Source: Auburn Journal, 1/15/2018)

    In August 2018, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding a project for which a Negative Declaration (ND) has been completed: I-80 in Placer and Nevada Counties (03-Pla-80, PM 28.7/63.5). Rehabilitate and/or replace six existing bridges on I-80 in Placer and Nevada Counties. (PPNO 5097) This project is located along I-80 in Placer and Nevada Counties. The project proposes to rehabilitate and/or replace six bridges. The bridges are the Weimar Overhead (No. 19-0038), Yuba Overhead (No. 17-0023), Crystal Springs Road Overcrossing (No. 19-0112), Baxter Overcrossing (No. 19-0113), Drum Overcrossing (No. 19-0114) and Cisco Overcrossing (No. 19-0118). The project proposes to address the issues of concrete deck cracks, spalling concrete, and high chloride content in the deck surfaces, superstructures and substructures. The proposed project is estimated to cost $53.7 million. This project is fully funded and is currently programmed in the 2018 SHOPP for approximately $48.4 million. Construction is estimated to begin in 2020. The scope, as described for the preferred alternative, is consistent with the project scope programmed by the Commission in the 2018 SHOPP. A copy of the ND has been provided to Commission staff. The project will result in less than significant impacts to the environment. As a result, an ND was completed for this project.
    (Source: August 2018 CTC Agenda Item 2.2c(1))

    In June 2019, the CTC approved the following SHOPP scope amendment: 03-Pla-80 46.3/R63.5 PPNO 5097 ProjID 0300020615. On I-80 In Placer County, at various locations. Replace bridges at four locations. It was discovered that at Crystal Springs Overcrossing, the north side abutment is situated on highly saturated, unstable slope. The foundation design necessitates the need for a cut-off wall and a series of horizontal drains, resulting in an increase for construction capital. Relocating fiber optic facilities at Cisco Overcrossing using boring and jacking method prior to construction will eliminate the risk of construction delays, but requires additional R/W capital. Updated total cost: $53,235K.
    (Source: June 2019 CTC Minutes, Agenda Item 2.1a.(1) Scope Item 31)

    In June 2020, the CTC approved the following allocation for CONST and CON ENG: $46,642,000. 03-Pla-80 46.3/R63.5. PPNO 03-5097 ProjID 0300020615. EA 2F570. On I-80 near Dutch Flat and Cisco Grove, at Crystal Springs Road Overcrossing No. 19-0112 (PM 46.3), Baxter Overcrossing No. 19-0113 (PM 46.9), Drum Forebay Overcrossing No. 19-0114 (PM 49.0), and Cisco Overcrossing No. 19-0118 (PM R63.5). Outcome/Output: Replace aging bridges at four locations. As part of this allocation request, the Department is requesting to extend the completion of CONST and CON ENG an additional 14 months beyond the 36 month deadline.
    (Source: June 2020 CTC Agenda, Agenda Item 2.5b.(1) #5)

    Placer County Truck Climbing Lanes (03-Placer-80 PM R26.5/28.8, 39.5/41.3, 53.0/54.7)

    The 2020 SHOPP, approved in May 2020, included the following NEW Roadway Preservation item of interest: 03-Placer-80 PM R26.5/28.8 PPNO 5131 Proj ID 0318000017 EA 3H590. I-80 near Applegate, from east of Crother Road Overcrossing to east of Weimar Overhead; also near Magra from PM 39.5 to PM 41.3; also near Emigrant Gap from PM 53.0 to PM 54.7. Rehabilitate roadway, construct truck climbing lanes in eastbound direction, widen shoulders, replace or widen structures, upgrade median barrier and Transportation Management System (TMS) elements. Programmed in FY22-23, with construction scheduled to start in October 2023... however, construction capital and construction support phases were not authorized. Total project cost is $113,500K, with $94,500K being capital (const and right of way) and $19,000K being support (engineering, environmental, etc.).
    (Source: 2020 Approved SHOPP a/o May 2020)

    Note: The middle segment of these lanes appears to connect with the Colfax Climbing Lanes (PLA 35.1/38.2) and the Gold Run Climbing Lanes (PLA 42.7/49.3)

    Colfax Roundabout (~ 03-Pla-080 PM 33.206)

    Colfax RoundaboutIn November 2017, it was reported that the City of Colfax plans to construct a roundabout that will tie in the existing I-80 ramps and provide access to the properties west of South Auburn Street (Approx 03-Pla-080 PM 33.206). Sidewalks will be included on the west side of the South Auburn Street, providing a safe route for pedestrians to walk and a more efficient and safe route for cars to navigate the intersection. Funding for this project was a combined effort between the City of Colfax, Caltrans, Maidu Village Travel Plaza and the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA). The intersection is currently controlled by an all-way stop (stop signs). Unfortunately, the intersection isn’t keeping-up with the increasing traffic demands and needs to be upgraded to a modern roundabout. The decision to move the project improvements forward was based on an October 2016 Study that evaluated different traffic control methods including a 4-way stop with more lanes, signalization, and a roundabout. A roundabout was clearly identified as the most suitable traffic control system. The project components include: (•) A dedicated southbound lane for the I-80 on-ramp; (•) Access to the undeveloped parcel to the west; (•) Pedestrian and bicycle facilities; (•) A precisely designed traffic roundabout that can accommodate semi-trucks; (•) Yield signs and traffic channelizers at all entry approaches of roundabout to regulate and deflect traffic; (•) High visibility pedestrian crosswalks, and (•) Resurfacing of South Auburn Street within project limits.
    (Source: PCTPA Facebook Post, 11/15/2017; City of Colfax Website)

    Colfax Climbing Lanes (PLA 35.1 to PLA 38.2)

    Colfax Climing LanesIn June 2014, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding a project in Placer County that will construct a three mile long truck climbing lane on eastbound I-80 between Long Ravine Underpass and Alpine Overcrossing-Secret Town Road (near Colfax), and replace the Cape Horn Undercrossing. The project is programmed in the 2014 State Highway Operation and Protection Program. The total estimated cost is $44,450,000 for capital and support. Construction is estimated to begin in Fiscal Year 2015-16. The scope, as described for the preferred alternative, is consistent with the project scope programmed by the Commission in the 2014 State Highway Operation and Protection Program.

    In August 2015, the CTC allocated $1,238,000 of federal earmarked Interstate Maintenance Discretionary (IMD) program dollars for the Colfax Truck Climbing Lane project. This was allocated from the Budget Act of 2014, Budget Act Item 2660-302-0890, for the State administered federal earmarked project.

    In August 2016, it was reported that Caltrans is making way for an additional right-hand lane to accommodate trucks as they slowly make their way up the steep grade E of Colfax. The three-mile truck climbing lane project will also add 10-foot-wide shoulders, widen the Cape Horn Undercrossing, construct a 1,100-foot retaining wall separating Magra Road from I-80 and result in other roadway improvements. The $50.3 million project should be completed in late 2018.
    (Source: SJ Mercury News/Mr. Roadshow, 8/26/2016)

    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—1½ 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."

    Gold Run Climbing Lanes (03-Placer-80 PM 42.7/49.3)

    The 2020 SHOPP, approved in May 2020, included the following NEW Roadway Preservation item of interest: 03-Placer-80 PM 42.7/49.3 PPNO 5133 Proj ID 0318000019 EA 3H610. I-80 near Gold Run, from west of Monte Vista Overcrossing to east of Drum Forebay Overcrossing (PM 42.7/49.3R). Rehabilitate roadway, construct truck climbing lane, replace or widen structures, upgrade median concrete barrier, sign panels, and Transportation Management System (TMS) elements, and rehabilitate drainage systems.. Programmed in FY22-23, with construction scheduled to start in September 2023. Total project cost is $76,860K, with $64,130K being capital (const and right of way) and $12,730K being support (engineering, environmental, etc.).
    (Source: 2020 Approved SHOPP a/o May 2020)

    The 2020 SHOPP, approved in May 2020, included the following NEW Roadway Preservation item of interest: 03-Nevada-80 PM 0.0/R2.7 PPNO 5111 Proj ID 0317000043 EA 1H990. I-80 near Kingvale, from Placer County line to east of Donner Pass Road (PM 0.0/R2.7L/R); also in Placer County, from west of Troy Road Undercrossing to Nevada County line (PM 68.5/69.7). Rehabilitate roadway, construct truck climbing lane in eastbound direction, widen Kingvale Undercrossing No. 19-0107R, replace sign panels, upgrade lighting and Transportation Management System (TMS) elements, and rehabilitate drainage systems. Programmed in FY22-23, with construction scheduled to start in September 2023. Total project cost is $85,590K, with $70,090K being capital (const and right of way) and $15,500K being support (engineering, environmental, etc.).
    (Source: 2020 Approved SHOPP a/o May 2020)

    The 2020 SHOPP, approved in May 2020, included the following NEW Roadway Preservation item of interest: 03-Nevada-80 PM 13.0/15.5 PPNO 4294 Proj ID 0316000064 EA 1H180. I-80 in Truckee, from west of Donner Pass Road Overcrossing to Bridge Street Undercrossing (PM 13.04/15.5). Rehabilitate roadway, construct auxiliary lane, upgrade Transportation Management System (TMS) elements, rehabilitate drainage systems, and upgrade facilities to Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. Programmed in FY22-23, with construction scheduled to start in August 2023. Total project cost is $20,795K, with $15,955K being capital (const and right of way) and $4,840K being support (engineering, environmental, etc.).
    (Source: 2020 Approved SHOPP a/o May 2020)

    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 (approx NEV 16.597), consisting of highway right of way easement no longer needed for State highway purposes.

    In November 2002, a new "Truckee Bypass" opened (approx NEV 16.676). 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 (approx NEV 16.676) all the way to Floriston (approx NEV 27.272). 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.

    In August 2017, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding the Floriston Sand and Salt House Demolition and Relocation Project (03-Nev-80, PM 19.0/19.4). This project : will demolish and rebuild the existing Floriston Sand and Salt House on I- 80 in the town of Truckee. The project is proposed to funded from State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) funds and is programmed in the 2016 SHOPP for an estimated $4.4 million Construction (capital and support) and Right of Way (capital and support). Construction is tentatively scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year 2018-19. The scope, as described for the preferred alternative, is consistent with the project scope programmed by the Commission in the 2016 SHOPP.

    The 2020 SHOPP, approved in May 2020, included the following NEW Long Lead Bridge Preservation item of interest: 03-Nevada-80 PM 27.6/28.5 PPNO 4306 Proj ID 0318000016 EA 3H580. I-80 near Floriston, at Truckee River Bridge No. 17-0063R/L. Replace two bridges with a single bridge. Note: A historic flume passes below the Truckee River Bridge. More advanced geotechnical and bridge studies may affect bridge layout with proximity to the flume thus requiring a higher level of environmental study and State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) involvement. Programmed in FY26-27, with construction scheduled to start the end of February 2027. Total project cost is $74,535K, with $59,270K being capital (const and right of way) and $15,265K being support (engineering, environmental, etc.). Only the PA&ED phase programming of $3,500K is allocated.
    (Source: 2020 Approved SHOPP a/o May 2020)

    In Farad (~ NEV 29.222), 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.

    The 2020 SHOPP, approved in May 2020, included the following NEW Bridge Preservation item of interest: 03-Nevada-80 PM R58.7/R60.2 PPNO 4305 Proj ID 0318000014 EA 3H560. I-80 Near Whitmore, from west of Crystal Lake Road to east of Route 20 Separation at Yuba Pass Separation and Overhead No. 17-0023L/R (PM R58.7L/R/PM R60.2); also in Placer County, from PM R58.5L/R to PM R58.6L/R.  Replace and widen bridge, construct retaining walls in the median, rehabilitate drainage systems, and install Roadway Weather Information Systems (RWIS). Programmed in FY22-23, with construction scheduled to start in August 2023. Total project cost is $101,780K, with $85,020K being capital (const and right of way) and $16,760K being support (engineering, environmental, etc.).
    (Source: 2020 Approved SHOPP a/o May 2020)

    In August 2015, the governor signed a bill (AB 223, Chapter 166, Statutes of 2015) that allowed the placement of information signs along I-80 within, or at exits leading to, the City of Truckee, until January 1, 2021.

    Commuter Lanes Commuter Lanes

    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 Powell St. to the the San Francisco/Oakland Bay Bridge Toll Plaza.

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

    • 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.

    • In Solano County, commuter lanes exist on the Carquinez Bridge. 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 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.

    HOV lanes are planned or under construction as follows:

    • 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).
    • 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.

    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.

    Business Routes Business Routes

    • Sacramento: The Capitol City Freeway, consisting of portions of US 50 and unsigned Route 51.

      In September 2015, it was reported that Caltrans was resigning the routes in Sacramento to de-emphasize Business Route 80 except where legislatively mandated (i.e., along Route 51). This is based on a desire to simplify things and just sign US 50 as one route and not a multitude of routes, especially as more and more people are referring to the joint US 50/BR 80 multiplex as simply US 50. However, the legislative description for Route 51 mandates that it be signed as Business Route 80; the legislative description of Route 50 includes no such requirement. So basically, BR 80 is becoming a Business spur, but there's no plans to update the signing to reflect such a change. The Capital City Freeway name will be emphasized on Route 51 and only Route 51.
      (Source: Joe Rouse @ AAroads, 9/25/2015)

    • Truckee: Donner Pass Road (old US 40) and Route 267.

    Interstate Submissions 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 (US 50 between I-80 and Route 99) 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 Naming

    Dwight D. EisenhowerThe 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.
    (Image source: Wikipedia)

    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.

    James LickThe portion of part (2) of I-80 in San Francisco (~ SF 5.567 to SF 5.932) 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.
    (Image source: Found SF)

    Alexander Zuckermann Bicycle-Pedestrian PathThe bicycle-pedestrian path on the proposed new span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge (I-80) (~ SF R8.245 to ALA 1.134L) 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.
    (Image sources: Komoot, SFGate)

    Emperor Norton Bridge.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. Image sources: Laughing Squid; History Channel)

    The portion of I-80 from the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge through Richmond (~ ALA 1.134L to CC 0.000) 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.

    Kent D. PurselThe portion of I-80 from the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge through Alameda County to the Contra Costa County Line (~ ALA 1.134L to CC 0.000) 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.
    (Image source: Calisphere)

    Linus F. and Ruth ClaeysI-80 from Route 4 to the Carquinez Bridge in Contra Costa County (~ CC 10.132 to CC 13.771) 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.
    (Image source: St. Marys College)

    Jeffrey Lynn AzuarThe portion of I-80 that passes through Vallejo, from the Carquinez Bridge to Columbus Parkway (~ SOL 0.036 to SOL 5.598), 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.
    (Image source: Officer Down Memorial Page)

    Officer Gary L. HughesThe eastbound I-80/Route 37 interchange (~ SOL 5.598) is named the "Gary L. Hughes Memorial Interchange". Officer Gary L. Hughes and his partner Officer Lancer R. Thelen stopped and arrested a suspected drunk driver along Interstate 80 in Vallejo. Hughes was sitting in the rear of the patrol car with the suspect when a pick-up truck camper plowed into the patrol car pinning Hughes against the front seat and causing massive head injuries. The 38-year-old Patrol officer died enroute to the hospital and the prisoner received minor injuries. Thelen was near the front of the patrol car with a tow truck operator completing paperwork for impounding the suspect's vehicle when they were struck by the patrol car as it was rammed by the truck camper. Thelen suffered a severe leg injury and the tow truck operator had a compound leg fracture. The driver of the truck camper was taken into custody on charges of felony drunk driving and manslaughter. Hughes was an 11-year veteran of the Patrol. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 100, Chapter 124, in 1998.
    (Image source: California Association of Highway Patrolmen)

    Tuskegee Airmen Memorial HighwayThe portion of I-80 between the Route 12 interchange and Midway Road in the County of Solano (~ SOL 15.863 to SOL 32.651) 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.
    (Image source: The Reporter, ABC 4 South Carolina)

    Lieutenant Colonel James C. WarrenThe interchange of I-80 and I-505 in the County of Solano (~ SOL R28.249) is named the "Lieutenant Colonel James C. Warren Memorial Interchange". It was named in memory of Lieutenant Colonel James C. Warren, who was born in August 1923 into the racially segregated community of Gurly, Alabama.Warren left the region at the age of 15 years, when his mother sent him to Island Park, Illinois, where he attended high school. Enlisting in 1943 to preflight with the Tuskegee Airmen, the all black United States Army Air Force unit that distinguished itself in combat during World War II, Lieutenant Colonel Warren was assigned to Indiana’s Freeman Field, where, after being eliminated from pilot training, he completed navigator training, through which he qualified as both a navigator and a bombardier. Lieutenant Colonel Warren was one of the 101 black officers at Freeman Field in 1945 who were arrested and charged with mutiny because they refused to comply with base regulations excluding black officers from a base officers’ club. The service records of Lieutenant Colonel Warren and the other 100 officers were cleared by the Air Force in 1995, an action that was announced that year during a convention of the Tuskegee Airmen. After serving with the 477th Bombardment Group of the Tuskegee Airmen, Lieutenant Colonel Warren spent 35 years with the United States Air Force, for which he flew 173 combat missions in Korea and Vietnam, earning such esteemed commendations and decorations as the Congressional Gold Medal, Distinguished Flying Cross with two Oak Leaf Clusters, and Air Force Commendation Medal, among numerous others. A University of Nebraska graduate who ultimately became the oldest individual to earn a pilot’s license at the age of 87 years, Lieutenant Colonel Warren distinguished himself through his community leadership and participation in the Nut Tree Airport’s Young Eagles program, as well as his membership with the Jimmy Doolittle Air and Space Museum Foundation, the Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, and Tuskegee Airmen Incorporated. Named by Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR) 24, Res. Chapter 108, Statutes of 2015, on July 16, 2015.
    (Image source: Solano Daily Republic)

    CHP Officer William (Ivan) Casselman Memorial HighwayThe portion of I-80 between the Solano County line (~YOL 0.00) and County Road 32A (~ 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.
    (Image source: Facebook, Yolo County Retired Police Officers Association)

    The portion of I-80 W of the intersection with Route 51 (signed as Business 80) in Sacramento (~ YOL R10.163 to SAC R10.891) 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 portion of this route from Sacramento to Route 65 (~ SAC M0.222 to PLA 4.017) 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 (~ PLA 0.000 and SIE 1.356) 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 US 101 through the redwoods of Humboldt County. Named by Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 102, Chapter 164, in 1986.

    CHP Officer Raymond Carpenter Memorial Highway InterchangeThe Rocklin Road interchange on I-80 in Placer County (~ PLA 6.027) is named the "CHP Officer Raymond Carpenter Memorial 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.
    (Image source: Facebook, Facebook)

    The portion of this route that is former US 99E is, in local usage, called the "East Side Highway" (Route 51 (former I-80), as well as ~ 080 SAC R11.109 to 080 PLA 4.065) . This is because the US 99 routing ran along the east side of the valley.

    Detective Michael D. Davis, Jr.The Horseshoe Bar Road Interchange on I-80 in Placer County (~ PLA 8.717) is named the "Detective Michael D. Davis, Jr. Memorial Highway". It was named in memory of Michael David Davis, Jr., born in Bellflower, California in October 1971. He moved to Placer County in 1995 to pursue a career in law enforcement. He was initially hired by the Auburn Police Department and joined the Placer County Sheriff’s Office in 1999 as a patrol deputy. A Roseville resident, Deputy Sheriff Davis coached baseball in the Woodcreek Little League for many years. Family and police work were “where his heart was,” said Placer County Sheriff Ed Bonner. Deputy Sheriff Davis’ brother Jason, his wife Jessica, and aunt and uncle worked for the department. Deputy Sheriff Davis was a model officer who had zero complaints from the public on his record and was known for his respect, tact, and empathy toward those he served. Off-duty, Deputy Sheriff Davis was the one who made everyone laugh at family gatherings. He had great stories, a quick wit, and no filter, according to his brother Jason. Deputy Sheriff Davis served his community with everything that he had. He was a loving husband and father who adored all of his children. As a coach he mentored other children. Deputy Sheriff Davis was just five days short of his 17th birthday when his father, for whom he was named, was killed while on assignment with the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department. Deputy Sheriff Davis had two younger brothers, Jason and Christopher. According to Jason, Michael instantly assumed a parental role as a big brother and helped raise his two younger brothers. When the younger boys were troubled or woke from nightmares, they went to Michael’s room for comfort. Michael taught them to play baseball, and he always included his two younger brothers in his group of older friends. Deputy Sheriff Davis was always coaching and inspiring those around him to be better. Deputy Sheriff Davis, who was on assignment as an acting detective, was gunned down in the City of Auburn at 42 years of age, on October 24, 2014, 26 years to the day after his father perished in a helicopter crash during a police mission in southern California. The shooting rampage that claimed Deputy Sheriff Davis’ life began in a Motel 6 parking lot in Sacramento and also killed Sacramento County Sheriff’s Deputy Danny Oliver. Authorities have charged Luis Enrique Monroy-Bracamonte and his wife, Janelle Marquez Monroy, with the murder of a peace officer. When he died, Deputy Sheriff Davis was on assignment as a homicide detective in the Crimes Against Persons unit. Named by Senate Concurrent Resolution 151, Res. Chapter 183, 9/9/2016.
    (Image Source: Officer Down Memorial Page)

    Dutch Flat-Donner Lake Wagon RoadThe portion of I-80 from Emigrant Gap to Donner Lake (~ PLA R55.28 to NEV R12.538) 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.
    (Image source: Donner Summit Historical Society)

    Named Structures Named Structures

    San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge / James (Sunny Jim) Rolph BridgeBridge 34-003 over San Francisco Bay (~ SF 006.35L) 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.
    (Image source: SF Curbed, Public Art and Architecture, Wikipedia)

     Willie Brown BridgeThe new western span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge (~SF 006.35) 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 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. But, in the end, the segment 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. Note: At the same time as the official sign naming the bridge after Willie Brown was dedicated, a group of unidentified artists installed a large sign at the Bay Bridge onramp at Fifth Street, commemorating Joshua A. Norton, not Willie L. Brown. Norton was a famed 19th Century San Francisco eccentric, known for his many, many proclamations, notably the one where he declared himself Emperor of the United States, and later tacked on "Protector of Mexico" to his title. In addition, Norton is best-known for his many decrees about bridges and tunnels that he had hoped to build, connecting San Francisco and Oakland. Following Norton's protocol, the group of artists who installed the Emperor Norton sign this week did just that: issued a proclamation. "In 1872 Emperor Norton decreed this Bridge." Along the bottom of the sign in small lettering, it reads: "A gift from the artists to the city of San Francisco, Feb. 11 2014."

    Tunnel 34-004 (~ SF 007.72L) under San Francisco Bay at the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge is called the "Yerba Buena Tunnel". It was built in 1936.

    Alfred Zampa Memorial BridgeThe westbound span of the Carquinez Bridge is named the "Alfred Zampa Memorial Bridge" (Bridge 28-0352L, ~ CC 013.80) 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.
    (Image source: Al Zampa Memorial Bridge Foundation; Wikipedia)

    The Carquinez Bridge (~ SOL 000.01) was purchased in 1940. Tolls were eliminated in 1945. The parallel structure was opened in 1958. Tolls were reinstated at that time.

    Bridge 23-0015 over the Carquinez Strait between Contra Costa and Solano counties (~ SOL 000.01) 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. Roger 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.

    Blecher-Freeman Memorial CausewayThe Yolo Causeway (including bridges 22-0044 and 22-0045, YOL 005.81 to 007.25) 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.
    (Image sources: Davis Enterprise, Facebook)

    Caltrans Maintenance Worker Memorial BridgeThe Sacramento River Bridge and Overhead on I-80 in Sacramento and Yolo Counties (Bridge 22-0026, YOL R011.31), 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.
    (Image source: Google Cache of a 404'd Flikr page)

    Mayor Harry CrabbThe dedicated access enabling motorists to enter eastbound I-80 from Sunrise Boulevard (19-0018, PLA 001.95) , 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.
    (Image source: Roseville Today)

    California Highway Patrol Officer Nathan Taylor Memorial OvercrossingThe I-80 overcrossing at Baxter Road (Bridge 19-0013, PLA 046.94) in the Village of Alta in Placer County is named the "California Highway Patrol Officer Nathan Taylor Memorial Overcrossing". It was named in memory of Officer Nathan Daniel Taylor, born in January 1981. Taylor graduated from Del Oro High School in Loomis, California, in 1997, and also graduated from Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, in 2006, where he earned a Bachelor’s Degree in history and Spanish. Taylor was a machinist and construction worker before becoming a California Highway Patrol Officer. Officer Taylor graduated from the California Highway Patrol Academy in 2010, and upon graduation, was assigned to the San Jose Area Office, where he proudly served for more than two years before being transferred to the Gold Run Area on January 31, 2013, and proudly served that area for more than three years. Officer Taylor, badge number 20154, was killed in the line of duty on March 13, 2016. He was directing traffic at the scene of a previous accident on March 12, 2016, on I-80, near Donner Summit when a vehicle suddenly changed lanes and accelerated past slowing traffic. The vehicle struck Officer Taylor, causing him to be thrown into the median. He suffered two broken legs and internal injuries and was transported to a local hospital where he succumbed to his injuries the following day. Officer Taylor is survived by his wife, three sons, parents, and siblings, one of whom is a CHP Officer in the Clear Lake Area. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution (ACR) 24, 8/30/2017, Res. Chapter 129, Statutes of 2017.
    (Image Source: Northern California C.O.P.S.; SacBee)

    Elisha Stephens Historical PlaqueThe "Elisha Stephens Historical Plaque" is located at the Donner Lake Overlook (~ NEV R8.111R), 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.
    (Image source: Historical Marker Database)

    This route also has the following Safety Roadside Rest Areas:

    • Hunter Hill, in Solano County, 7 mi. E of Vallejo. (~ SOL 6.532)
    • Gold Run, in Placer County, near the Sawmill and Gold Run overcrossing. (~ PLA 41.685)
    • Donner Summit, in Nevada County on Donner Pass (~ NEV R5.651R). 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.

    Historical Route Historical Route

    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) (~ SOL R42.921 to PLA 4.065) are designated as part of "Historic US Highway 99" by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 19, Chapter 73, in 1993.

    National Trails 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.

    Scenic Route Scenic Route

    [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 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 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.

Exit Information Exit Information

Other WWW Links Other WWW Links

Interstate 80

US 80

Freeway Freeway

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

Interregional Route Interregional Route

[SHC 164.14] Entire route.

Statistics Statistics

Overall statistics for I-80:

Historical Route 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.

Naming Naming

[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
(Source:Pearl River Ancient Order of Hibernians)

National Trails 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 US 80 appears to have been part of the "Bankhead Highway", the "Dixie Overland Highway", the "Lee Highway", and the "Jefferson Davis Highway". Many of these were attempts to commemorate the "Lost Cause" or "Southern Cause" narrative of the Civil War. Along US 80, monuments were located near the Arizona Border and at the terminus of US 80 at Horton Plaza. This is discussed in more detail on the Trails and Roads page.

US Highway Shield Lone Star Trail Sign  US 80 appears to have been part of the "Lone Star Trail".

Pre-1964 Legislative Route 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 signed Route 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.


Acronyms and Explanations:


Back Arrow Route 79 Forward Arrow Route 81

© 1996-2020 Daniel P. Faigin.
Maintained by: Daniel P. Faigin <webmaster@cahighways.org>.