State Route 128

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

Routing

1. From Route 1 near the mouth of the Navarro River to Route 101 near Cloverdale.

   Post 1964 Signage History

   As defined in 1963, this segment was "(a) The mouth of the Navarro River to Route 101 near Cloverdale via McDonald." Later in 1963, Chapter 1698 removed "via McDonald"

   In 1994, Chapter 1220 relaxed the origin: "(a) Route 1 near the mouth of the Navarro River to Route 101 near Cloverdale."

   Pre 1964 Signage History

   This segment was LRN 48, defined in 1919. It was originally signed as signed Route 28, and in 1952 was renumbered as signed Route 128 (permitting the route around Lake Tahoe to be numbered as Route 28 in coordination with Nevada 28. Between McDonald and US 101, this was originally part of LRN 1, but became part of LRN 48 in 1935 when LRN 1 was moved. Route 128 was not an original state signed route (although Route 28 was).

   The LRN 48 between the Navarro River to LRN 1 (US 101) began as the McDonald-to-the-Sea Highway.  LRN 48 essentially was an adoption of the existing Anderson Valley Trail that had long been in use.  This trail appears on 1917 CSAA maps running from Albion to McDonald. The Anderson Valley Trail differed from the planned route of the McDonald-to-the-Sea Highway as it utilized higher terrain west of Wendling as opposed to following the Navarro River. It shows as a state highway in 1920 state highway maps, reflecting the 1919 adoption. Starting in 1925, work was begun to bring the route to state standards. By 1928, major improvements were in process to straighten the road; the existing road was in a poor state of repair with many sections ungraded, and numerous poorly designed wooden bridges.  Work continued to improve road quality through 1930. See the linked Gribblenation blog for more details, including links to maps and pictures.
   (Source: Gribblenation Blog (Tom Fearer), “California State Route 128”, March 2021)

   In 1934, US 101 in Cloverdale was realigned off Mountain House Road to an alignment along the Russian River. This resulted in LRN 48 being extended along former LRN 1 from McDonald to Cloverdale in 1934, a change made legislatively in 1935.
   (Source: Gribblenation Blog (Tom Fearer), “California State Route 128”, March 2021)

   In 1961, the CHC considered adoption of a freeway routing for the relocation of 8.9 mi of Route 128 (Cloverdale to Mendocino Coast Road) in Mendocino County between 0.5 mi E of Lazy Creek and Anderson Creek, W of Boonville. The recommended route follows a more direct alignment along the general course of the existing highway. The recommended route is to the N of the present road from E of Lazy Creek to Indian Creek State Park, slightly S of it for about a mile, then again just N of the highway to Anderson Creek. The recommended routing is known as "FA", as it combines route F between Lazy Creek and Philo and route A between Philo and Anderson Creek. Note that although the freeway routing was adopted, it has not been constructed as of 2023.
   (Source: Cloverdale newspaper, 11/2/1961 via Joel Windmiller, 2/16/2023)

   Status

   In October 2018, it was reported that SB1 funding includes a project to revamp a bridge the Anderson Creek Bridge on Route 128 (MEN 028.29, Bridge 10-0132) in the town of Boonville in Mendocino County.
   (Source: Redheaded Blackbird, 10/2/2018)

   In June 2011, the CTC approved $9.9 million to repave about 24 miles of Route 128 from near Boonville (~ MEN 28.755) south to the Sonoma County line (~ MEN 50.886/SON 0.0).

   In December 2011, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding a project in Mendocino County that will repair a segment of roadway and the adjacent slope on Route 128, from Shearing Creek (~ MEN 34.527) to 0.7 mile west of Maple Creek Bridge (~ MEN 35.45), near Boonville. The project is programmed in the 2010 State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP). The total estimated project cost is $16,318,000 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. A copy of the MND has been provided to Commission staff. The project will mitigate potential impacts to riparian and waters of the U.S to a less than significant level. Potential impacts to wetlands in the project area will be mitigated by replacing impacted wetlands at a 1:1 ratio. Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) fencing will also be used in appropriate areas. Water quality impacts will be mitigated through implementation of Best Management Practices (BMP).

   Freeway

   [SHC 253.6] Entire portion. Added to the Freeway and Expressway system in 1959.

   ---

2. From Route 101 to Route 29 in Calistoga.

   Post 1964 Signage History

   In 1963, this segment was defined as "(b) Route 101 near Geyserville to Route 29 near Calistoga."

   In 1965, Chapter 1371 changed the origin to be "(b) Route 101 near Geyserville..."

   In 1990, Chapter 1187 clarified the terminus: "...to Route 29 near in Calistoga."

   Pre 1964 Signage History

   Note that the portion between Cloverdale (originally McDonald) and Geyserville was part of US 101 and cosigned with US 101.

   This segment was LRN 103, defined in 1933. It was originally signed as signed Route 28, and in 1952 was renumbered as signed Route 128 (permitting the route around Lake Tahoe to be numbered as Route 28 in coordination with Nevada 28. Route 128 was not an original state signed route (although Route 28 was).

   There were once plans for a bypass of St. Helena. The Napa Valley Register had a good article detailing the history:
   (Source: St. Helena Star/Napa Valley Register, 9/6/2022)

   In 1958, the Redwood Empire Association urged Napa County supervisors to submit highway projects in response to the Intercounty Master Schedule of Official Highway Recommendations to the California Highway Commission. Caltrans held a public hearing on the St. Helena bypass on Oct. 20, 1958, in the St. Helena High School auditorium. The sudden turn of events started when the state contacted Mayor Louis Stralla (who believed the project was not a priority for the state) to request a hearing. It was expected that the freeway would leave the existing right of way at Whitehall Lane, running northeast of St. Helena and rejoining the old route at Bale Lane. For two years, locals debated where the access roads and interchanges should be. The St. Helena Planning Commission recommended Pope Street and Fulton Lane as connectors. The St. Helena Chamber of Commerce pushed Dowdell Lane as the connector, then changed its stance and recommended Mills Lane. It also wanted the route to be east of the sewage treatment plant (then located at Hunt and Starr avenues) to avoid dividing the town, and to enclose a future development area. The extension of Deer Park Road across the valley was planned, so that would be the northern interchange of the freeway.
   (Source: St. Helena Star/Napa Valley Register, 9/6/2022)

   In January 1960, there were updates presented on the route. The proposed route at that time was a 9-mile bypass from half a mile south of Rutherford to 3.1 miles north of St. Helena. Two of the alternate routes showed a cloverleaf interchange on Pope Street. The easternmost route would pass behind Charles Krug Winery — cutting the vineyard in two — and rejoin the old highway at Bale Lane. An alternate western route would leave Main Street at the elm tunnel, paralleling the trees and then running eastward. Caltrans displayed maps showing how much traffic would increase between 1956 and 1980. The daily summer weekday vehicle count was 5,700 and was projected to increase to 8,600. Construction of the new freeway was prediced to be five years away; locals wouldn't know the route chosen until six months or less before construction began. The least costly route would cost $5.9 million.
   (Source: St. Helena Star/Napa Valley Register, 9/6/2022)

   The response centered on on the loss of vineyard land. The general agreement was that vineyards must be saved. The California Chamber of Commerce wanted routes to stay as close to downtowns as possible so visitors would patronize local business. The plan was that after a 30-day public comment period, Caltrans would decide the route and obtain freeway agreements with property owners. In March 1960, state highway engineers recommended a route that would have paralleled the existing highway until veering off at Manley Lane a half mile to the east until it reached Ritchie Creek at Bale Lane. This distance of 9.1 miles was lower in cost and disturbed less land than other alternatives, but still cost $5.1 million. The highway would be part of the California Freeway and Expressways System. This route was adopted by Caltrans in April 1960.
   (Source: St. Helena Star/Napa Valley Register, 9/6/2022)
   
   In June 1960, another Caltrans hearing was held. At the hearing, vineyardists voiced vehement opposition. Many preferred the Silverado Trail route, while others preferred whatever route was farthest from their properties. Favoring a more westerly route were Christian Brothers (Brother Timothy) and Charles Krug Winery (Peter Mondavi). Beringer (Roy Raymond and Otto Beringer) favored the recommended route. Paul and Virgil Galleron protested that it would bisect their vineyard. Robert Mondavi of Charles Krug Winery submitted a petition with 300 signatures demanding deferral of a final decision by Caltrans on the route. Some criticized locals for not fighting more forcefully. Geddes got the final adoption of the bypass route deferred until more study was made. No action was to be taken pending consultation between Geddes and the California Highway Commission. Funds would not be allocated until final adoption of the route.
   (Source: St. Helena Star/Napa Valley Register, 9/6/2022)

   The St. Helena City Council wrote to Caltrans urging postponement of final adoption of the route, but Caltrans approved the controversial route on a 5-2 vote. Council members met in January 1961 with Caltrans engineers on interchanges and approaches for the bypass of town. Mills Lane was viewed as better for an interchange instead of Pope Street because a new bridge was planned there to replace the Pope Street bridge across the Napa River. Work on surveying the St. Helena freeway bypass continued in March 1961, with aerial mapping and survey stakes along the present highway. No target date for beginning construction, which depended on gasoline tax funds, had been released. Napa County supervisors approved the freeway agreement in April, covering Route 29 between 2 miles north of Yountville and 0.2 mile north of Ritchie Creek at Bale Lane. In favor were supervisors Clark, Eby and Caiocca; Dickinson and Fagiani were absent. Planning commissioners met with Caltrans engineers again in December to discuss access routes to the freeway. Mills Lane was the site for an 86-foot-wide access road to the bypass. The city wanted to form a four-way intersection with Grayson, Main and Mills Lane. Other access roads were planned at Pratt Avenue and Deer Park Road.
   (Source: St. Helena Star/Napa Valley Register, 9/6/2022)

   In mid-1962 Caltrans budgeted $1.8 million for construction and rights of way in Napa County. The Redwood Empire Association continued to lobby Sacramento for new highways. Recommended for Napa County were survey and design funds for construction of the freeway between Rutherford and Ritchie Creek, particularly bypassing St. Helena. Throughout 1963 the four-lane highway was debated and discussed by officials from Sacramento on down to St. Helena citizens. In August, the City Council set another study session on the freeway access road, which the city wanted to be at Mills Lane. There were rumors that the entire bypass route through St. Helena might be reviewed. The state considered the matter to be settled with final adoption of the bypass in September 1960, but surveys, designs and rights of way were not done for the Rutherford-to-Ritchie Creek segment. By the end of 1963, the freeway route was determined and agreements were signed with all agencies concerned.
   (Source: St. Helena Star/Napa Valley Register, 9/6/2022)

   In 1965, St. Helena's Chamber of Commerce told Napa County planners that the freeway plan should be re-examined without delay. The plan was now five years old and needed to be revised and revisited.  There were numerous campaigns to kill the bypass. In early 1967, Allen Hart of Caltrans informed the St. Helena Rotary Club there would be no freeway up the valley for at least 10 to 12 years. There simply wouldn't be enough money and people could forget about it. The freeway would not be built until people demanded it or the needs were so great that it must be built. Most road funds were routed to Southern California, but the highway between St. Helena and Rutherford would be repaved.
   (Source: St. Helena Star/Napa Valley Register, 9/6/2022)

   By May 1968, Napa County supervisors formally requested that Caltrans to cancel plans for a freeway north of Yountville. The reason was that the Napa County Agricultural Preserve ordinance was approved and went into effect on Nov. 11, 1968, protecting 24,000 acres of farmland against development.
   (Source: St. Helena Star/Napa Valley Register, 9/6/2022)

   Status

   Robert Cruickshank noted that, on the road leading to the River Rock Casino (~ SON 8.221) (off of Route 128 in this area, known as the Alexander Valley) is a shield marking the road as Indian Rte 93.

   In November 2011, it was reported that Caltrans announced completion of two new bridges on Route 128 between Healdsburg and Calistoga. The Maacama Creek (~ SON 017.25) and Redwood Creek (~ SON 021.78) bridges, which had been under construction since summer 2010, are wider than the bridges they replaced. Total cost for both new bridges was $7 million.

   Freeway

   [SHC 253.6] Entire portion. Added to the Freeway and Expressway system in 1959.

   ---

3. From Route 29 near Rutherford to Route 113 near Davis via Sage Canyon.

   Post 1964 Signage History

   Unconstructed as state highway from Route 113 to Route 505, although the planned route exists as Yolo County Sign Route E6. This segment is unchanged from 1963. Note: The 2002 Traversable Highways Report indicates this segment will be considered for assumption of maintenance after a two-mile section of Russell Blvd just east of Route 505 is reconstructed. Yolo County will improve the roadway as funds permit. It is unclear if this ever happened.

   The 2013 Traversable Highways report noted the closest routing is County Roads 32, 93A and 31. District 3 has not receive a request from Yolo County and the City of Winters to discuss possible adoption of an alignment between the current end of Route 128 at I-505 in the City of Winters and Route 113 in the City of Davis.. The current County Roads do not appear to meet State Standards and new alignment appears to be infeasible.

   Pre 1964 Signage History

   This was LRN 102 between Rutherford and the junction with Route 37 (present-day Route 121; Steele Canyon Road, defined in 1933). It was LRN 6 (1933 extension) between Steele Canyon Road and I-505, and LRN 6 (1959 extension) from I-505 to Route 113 (former Alternate US 40). It was originally signed as signed Route 28, and in 1952 was renumbered as signed Route 128 (permitting the route around Lake Tahoe to be numbered as Route 28 in coordination with Nevada 28. It may also have been signed as part of Alternate US 40. Route 128 was not an original state signed route (although Route 28 was).

   Route 28 (Future Route 128)/LRN 102 saw a minor realignment just E of Rutherford when Conn Creek Dam was completed in 1948 and formed Lake Hennessey (~ NAP 9.035).  The creation of Lake Hennessey shifted the routing slightly southward and uphill from Conn Creek Dam east towards Sage Creek.  
   (Source: Gribblenation Blog (Tom Fearer), “California State Route 128”, March 2021)

   Another realignment occurred around 1955, where Route 128/LRN 6 required realignment at the site of the 270 foot high Monticello Dam (~ NAP 34.248).  The Monticello Dam project broke ground in 1953 along Putah Creek with the end goal of creating the Lake Berryessa Reservoir.  The construction of Monticello Dam required both Route 37 and Route 128 be realigned to the south of the planned Lake Berryessa.   Route 128/LRN 6 was heavily impacted by the Monticello Dam project as it followed Putah Creek from the outskirts of the Town of Monticello east to the Yolo County Line.  Additionally the Town of Monticello in Berryessa Valley was slated to be inundated by 100 feet of water.  In total 16.3 miles of new highway was constructed. The realigned Route 128 would make a brief swing into Solano County near the site of Monticello Dam.   Monticello Dam was topped out during November of 1957 but Lake Berryessa wouldn't fill to capacity until April of 1963.
   (Source: Gribblenation Blog (Tom Fearer), “California State Route 128”, March 2021)

   Prior to the 1940s, Route 28 (future Route 128) was signed to US 40 near Davis via Russell Road east of Winters. Route 28 east of Winters to US 40 near Davis last appears on the 1938 Division of Highways State Map. At that time, Russell from Road 98/Pedrick (now County Sign Route E7) was the Lincoln Highway/US 40, so this was a straight connection of Route 28 (Route 128) to US 40. But Russell Road was just a farm road between Winters and Davis. Projected development in that area and the construction of the Monticello Dam and Lake Berryessa, and all the recreation opportunities that went with it, suggested the need for better a better regional road.  In the late 1960s Davis was already trying to thwart through traffic with cul-de-sacs and greenbelt parks and encouraging bicycling.  Coupled with the narrow, two lane railroad underpass between downtown and US40/I-80, the solution was to create a bypass route around town instead of plowing through it.  As such, the county constructed Road 93A road was constructed to Road 31 (County Sign Route E6), which became Covell E of Route 113, which then curves onto Mace Blvd. on the east side of Davis. This was constructed circa 1969-70.  With that project and its intent to provide a northern route around Davis, the need to straighten out Russell pretty much went away.
   (Source: Gribblenation Blog (Tom Fearer), “California State Route 128”, March 2021; HeyNow415 on AARoads, “Re: CA 128”, 3/17/2021)

   Status

   The 2018 STIP, approved at the CTC March 2018 meeting, appears to adjust the funding for PPNO 2130M, Rt 128/Petrified Forest Rd Intersection Improv., from $425K to $475K, and delay construction to FY19-20. This project is in Calistoga at PM NAP 3.5/3.7. Install traffic signal and various ADA compliant pedestrian improvements at the Route 128/Petrified Forest Road Intersection.

   In March 2019, it was reported that Napa County was planning to start construction in Spring 2018 on the Conn Creek bridge (NAP R007.41, Bridge 21-0021, constructed in 1973) replacement on busy Silverado Trail. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Vital Signs report says 13.9 percent of the bridge-and-overpass deck area in Napa County is “structurally deficient.” That is the worst rate among nine Bay Area counties and above the region’s 6.7 percent. In the case of the Conn Creek bridge along Silverado Trail east of Rutherford, the remedy goes far beyond a patch job. The existing bridge has been affected by scouring of the creek bed, causing settlement and damage to its structure, and it is not possible to repair the damaged components. Caltrans plans to removed the early 1970s bridge and build a new one at a cost of $8.3 million. Construction is to begin in spring 2019 and last into 2020. Caltrans plans to demolish and reconstruct the bridge in two sections, so one side is available to carry traffic while work goes on. One lane will be open in each direction during most of the construction period, except during temporary closures, Mara said. There will be no shoulders.
   (Source: Napa Valley Register, 3/11/2019)

   Hopper Slough Bridge (04-Napa-128 PM 5.002/5.242)

   The following project was included in the final adopted 2018 SHOPP in March 2018: PPNO 1451C. 04-Napa-128 5.1. Route 128 Near Rutherford, at Hopper Slough Bridge No. 20-0019. Replace bridge. Begin Con: 12/1/2022. Total Project Cost: $15,660K.

   The 2020 SHOPP, approved in May 2020, included the following Bridge Restoration item of interest (carried over from the 2018 SHOPP): 04-Napa-128 PM 5.1 PPNO 1451C Proj ID 0416000038 EA 4J830. Route 128 near Rutherford, at Hopper Slough Bridge No. 21-0019. Replace bridge. Programmed in FY21-22, with construction scheduled to start in January 2023. Total project cost is $15,660K, with $9,378K being capital (const and right of way) and $6,282K being support (engineering, environmental, etc.).
   (Source: 2020 Approved SHOPP a/o May 2020)

   In January 2021, the CTC approved a supplemental allocation of $1,726,000 in Capital Outlay Support (COS), for 04-NAP-128 5.1 (PPNO 04-1451C; ProjID 0416000038; EA 4J830) “Route 128 Near Rutherford, at Hopper Slough Bridge No. 21-0019. Outcome/Output: Replace bridge.” to complete the Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED) project phase. The original PA&ED allocation was $2,074,000, making the revised PA&ED allocation $3,452,000. This project is located on Route 128 near the City of St. Helena in Napa County.  The project will replace the existing Hopper Slough Bridge.  The original replacement bridge was planned to be a single-span bridge supported by deep foundations. Upon further analysis, and taking into consideration potential scour at the bridge abutments and mid-stream bridge support, and constraints against construction in the stream, it was recommended that the Department should refrain from placing the bridge support in the middle of the stream to eliminate bridge scour risks, and should consider placing the abutments far from the banks of the creek to avoid constricting the creek flow during flood seasons which would result in bridge abutment wash-out.  In the Fall of 2020, the Department decided to change the bridge design to be a three-span bridge design, with a middle portion spanning over the entire creek would eliminates foundation work in the creek. This design concept would also eliminate placing any abutment embankments in the creek. This project was programmed into the 2018 SHOPP for delivery in Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-22. Funding for the PA&ED phase was allocated in March 2018 for $2,074,000.  At this time, a total of $1,948,000 of the budget has been expended, and as of December 2020, 45 percent of the PA&ED phase work has been completed. The remaining work to complete the PA&ED phase include conducting several tasks that were performed earlier for the single-span bridge, these tasks must be repeated for the larger footprint, three-span bridge due to change in geometry and locations of the bridge supports.  The remaining budget of $126,000 is not adequate to complete the PA&ED phase by the planned completion date of May 2022.  The amount needed to provide resources to complete the phase is $1,726,000. The primary reason for the PA&ED cost increase is the change in the bridge design to eliminate the risks of bridge hydraulic scour and abutment wash-out, provide un-obstructed area for flood level flow, and avoid construction risks in the stream bed. Additional efforts will be necessary to evaluate and minimize environmental impacts of the new bridge footprint, coordinate with resource and permitting agencies (California Department of Fish and Wildlife; Regional Water Quality Control Board, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), and conduct public engagement regarding bridge aesthetics and traffic closures and detours. The project team considered and recommended a more appropriate longer three-span bridge, which eliminates abutments in the creek, provides a larger opening under the bridge for higher flows, and reduces risks of scour and washout.
   (Source: January 2021 CTC Minutes, Agenda Item 2.5e.(1))

   In March 2021, the CTC amended this project in the SHOPP:  (1d) #15. 04-Nap-128 5.1 PPNO 1451C ProjID 0416000038 EA 4J830. Route 128 Near Rutherford, at Hopper Slough Bridge No. 21-0019. Replace bridge. This project was amended to adjust costs. Increase in construction support (from $2,014K to $3,900K) and capital (from $7,864K to $12,200K) is due to significant design change from a single-span to a three- span bridge with a longer structure and changed foundation type to address poor soil conditions. The proposed changes require additional environmental work, delaying the completion of PA&ED phase, thus delaying the project delivery. Revised total: $21,882K. Revised completion: FY23-24.
   (Source: March 2021 CTC Agenda, Agenda Item 2.1a.(1d) #15)

   In August 2022, the CTC approved this project for future consideration of funding: Hopper Slough Bridge Replacement Project (04-Nap-128, PM 5.12). Replace existing Hopper Slough Bridge with new bridge of  same vehicular capacity. Replace existing culvert with a 6-foot by 6-foot precast reinforced box culvert, install retaining walls, and update guardrails on Route 128, in Napa County. (PPNO 1451C). The project is located on Route 128 between postmile 5.002 and 5.242, in Napa County. The Department proposes to replace the existing Hopper Slough Bridge with a new bridge with the same vehicular capacity. The project would replace the existing culvert with a precast reinforced box culvert. The alignment of  the roadway would remain the same and the profile would be 2.8 feet higher than the existing bridge. Additionally retaining walls would be installed and guardrails would be updated. This project is currently programmed in the 2022 State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) f or a project total of  $21,882,000, which includes Right of  Way (capital) and Construction (capital and support). Construction is estimated to begin in 2023-24. The scope, as described for the preferred alternative, is consistent with the project scope as programmed by the Commission in the 2022 SHOPP.
   (Source: August 2022 CTC Agenda, Agenda Item 2.2c.(5))

   In August 2022, the CTC approved the following pre-construction phase allocation: $2,355,000. 04-Nap-128 5.1. PPNO 04-1451C; ProjID 0416000038; EA 4J830. Route 128 Near Rutherford, at Hopper Slough Bridge № 21-0019. Replace bridge. Programmed (Actual) Allocation: FY23-24 PS&E $1,988,000 ($2,355,000). Future consideration of funding approved under Resolution E-22-73; August 2022. Fourteen month time extension for PS&E approved under Waiver 21-59; June 2021.
   (Source: August 2022 CTC Agenda, Agenda Item 2.5b.(2b) #10)

   Capell Creek Bridge (04-Nap-128, PM 19.7/20.7)

   In August 2016, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding a project on Route 128 (04-Nap-128, PM 19.7/20.7) in Napa County that will replace the existing Capell Creek Bridge on Route 128 near the community of Rutherford. The project is programmed in the 2016 State Highway Operation and Protection Program. The total programmed amount is $18,225,000 for capital and support. Construction is estimated to begin in Fiscal Year 2018-19. The scope, as described for the preferred alternative, is consistent with the project scope programmed by the Commission in the 2016 State Highway Operation and Protection Program.

   In December 2018, the CTC approved an allocation request for $20,116,000 for the State Highway Operation Protection Program (SHOPP) Bridge Preservation project (PPNO 0830B) on Route 128 in Napa County. This is an increase of 22% over the Capitol allocated amount, and 80% over the Support allocated amount. This is a Bridge Rehabilitation project to replace the existing structurally deficient Capell Creek Bridge and install horizontal drains on Route 128, in unincorporated Napa County, approximately 10 miles from the community of Rutherford. Route 128 is a north-south, two-lane, undivided conventional highway. The bridge is located on an active landslide; earth movement in the adjacent hillside undermines the Capell Creek Bridge’s abutment and foundation. Past installation of horizontal drains and polystyrene cushions at the project site did not resolve the slide, nor prevent further damage to the bridge, and the bridge is now beyond repair.

   The proposed replacement bridge is approximately 44 feet wide and 242 feet long, with 3 spans on the existing alignment. The bridge will be widened to provide for standard lane and shoulder widths. Minor roadway widening will occur both to the north and south of the new bridge to taper the proposed bridge roadbed to the existing roadbed and provide for access to the temporary detour bridge. The existing reinforced concrete/steel girder bridge will be demolished to construct a new precast/prestressed I-girder bridge with cast-in-place/reinforced concrete bents on the existing alignment. To minimize traffic impacts, the new bridge will require construction of a temporary detour bridge immediately east of the existing bridge. In addition to the bridge replacement, 13 new horizontal drains will be installed along Capell Creek to stabilize the hillside.

   The project was programmed in the 2016 SHOPP for a Construction allocation in Fiscal Year 2017-18; which is from July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018. If the Department does not obtain an allocation during this programmed fiscal year, a time extension for the Construction Allocation is required to keep the project programming active. On June 28, 2018, the Commission approved an 18-month time extension for this project that will expire in December 2019. The Construction Capital cost increase is due to required design changes to the bridge foundations, construction staging changes, increased duration of project working days, and unexpected environmental permit requirements that resulted in a need to split the mitigation and monitoring scope into a separate follow-up project. The estimated Construction Support cost increase is due to additional working days to accommodate construction staging and to address environmental permit requirements.
   (Source: December 2018 CTC Minutes, Agenda Item 2.5d(1))

   In January 2021, the CTC approved Caltrans' request for an additional $1,500,000 in construction support cost for 04-Nap-128 20.1/20.4 PPNO 04-0830B ProjID 0413000051 EA 4G840 Route 128 Near Napa, at Capell Creek Bridge No. 21-0078. Outcome/Output: Rehabilitate bridge. Total revised amount $6,837,000. The existing three-span Capell Creek bridge was built in 1956; it is 32 feet wide and 205 feet long.  It was impacted by a slow-moving landslide that caused one of its abutments to move southerly toward the other abutment.  The landslide has been under continuous monitoring for many years, and the ongoing earth movement has led to the deterioration of the bridge supports and compromised the bridge structural integrity. Caltrans analyzed several options to overcome the on-going earth movement and concluded that the only solution was to replace the bridge with a new, three-span bridge, that is 44 feet wide and 242 feet long. In February 2019, the project contract was awarded for $13,539,000 in construction capital with a construction support budget in the amount of $4,670,000.  Currently, the remaining project budget consists of $826,000 in construction support; which includes $667,000 in G-12 funds, and $5,297,000 in construction capital. Construction for the project began in May 2019 with 750 working days, including a 250-day Plant Establishment Period (PEP), to be completed in two construction seasons. Currently, the project is 69 percent complete, and with 136 remaining working days, the project construction activities are expected to be completed by July 2021, however, to allow adequate period for plant establishment, the project contract is planned is planned to be completed and accepted by December 2022. The project has experienced delays and work stoppages due to two recent major wildfires that affected the construction site and critical path work. Also contributed to delays were environmental constraints associated with the bridge demolitions, modification of the access road, and approval of temporary/permanent bat housing, and extensive efforts to provide quality assurance on the use of an innovative temporary detour bridge. The primary reasons for the increase in construction support funds are to provide adequate resources and staff to perform the inspection and contract administration tasks to complete the construction contract.  Additional efforts were necessary to address impacts from wildfires, technical requirements, environmental permit conditions, constructability, and material availability and certification as follows: (1) Temporary Bridge (Prefabricated Modular Steel Truss Bridge) — a 230 foot long prefabricated Temporary Modular Steel Truss Bridge; a new contract item which was never in the Department’s historical pricing database prior to this project; (2) Wildfire Work Stoppages — the LNU Lightening Complex Fire and the Glass Fire; (3) Cement and fly ash shortages; (4) Access Road — the original contract included a 10-foot-wide access road that was insufficient for mobilization of material and equipment to construct the bridge foundations, and so a minimum width of 25 feet was needed to accommodate the large crane and drill rig to install Cast In Drilled Hole piling, 12 foot diameter permanent steel casings and 15.5 foot diameter isolation casing… which involved removal of additional vegetation adjacent to PG&E and AT&T aerial facilities, as well as environmental permits with regulatory agencies; (5) Falsework for Bent/Pier Cap; (6) Bridge Demolition approach for creek protection; and (6) Bat Housing.
   (Source: January 2021 CTC Agenda, Agenda Item 2.5e.(6))

   Freeway

   [SHC 253.6] From Route 121 to Route 113 near Davis. Added to the Freeway and Expressway system in 1959.

   ---

Scenic Route

Interregional Route

Other WWW Links

Statistics

Pre-1964 Legislative Route

Acronyms and Explanations:

• "LRN" refers to the Pre-1964 Legislative Route Number. "US" refers to a US Shield signed route. "I" refers to an Eisenhower Interstate signed route. "Route" usually indicates a state shield signed route, but said route may be signed as US or I.
• Previous Federal Aid (pre-1992) categories: Federal Aid Interstate (FAI); Federal Aid Primary (FAP); Federal Aid Urban (FAU); and Federal Aid Secondary (FAS). Current Functional Classifications (used for aid purposes): Principal Arterial (PA); Minor Arterial (MA); Collector (Col); Rural Minor Collector/Local Road (RMC/LR). Note that ISTEA repealed the previous Federal-Aid System, effective in 1992, and established the functional classification system for all public roads.
• Other frequently used terms: California Transportation Commission (Commission or CTC), California Department of Transportation (Department or Caltrans), Regional Improvement Program (RIP), Interregional Improvement Program (IIP), State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP), Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP), Clean Air and Transportation Improvement Act of 1990 (Proposition 116), High Speed Passenger Train Bond Program (Proposition 1A), Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006 (Proposition 1B), Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA), State Route 99 Bond Program (RTE or SR 99), Local Bridge Seismic Retrofit Account (LBSRA), Trade Corridors Improvement Fund (TCIF), Highway-Railroad Crossing Safety Account (HRCSA), State-Local Partnership Program (SLPP), Environmental Phase (PA&ED), Design Phase (PS&E), Right of Way (R/W), Fiscal Year (FY), Active Transportation Program (ATP), Trade Corridor Enhancement Program (TCEP), Local Partnership Program (LPP), Local Streets and Roads Program (LSRP), Solutions for Congested Corridors Program (SCCP).

Route 127 Route 129

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