California Highways

Click here for a key to the symbols used. “LRN” refers to the Pre-1964 Legislative Route Number. “US” refers to a US Shield signed route. “I” refers to an Eisenhower Interstate signed route. “Route” usually indicates a state shield signed route, but said route may be signed as US or I. Previous Federal Aid (pre-1992) categories: Federal Aid Interstate (FAI); Federal Aid Primary (FAP); Federal Aid Urban (FAU); and Federal Aid Secondary (FAS). Current Functional Classifications (used for aid purposes): Principal Arterial (PA); Minor Arterial (MA); Collector (Col); Rural Minor Collector/Local Road (RMC/LR). Note that ISTEA repealed the previous Federal-Aid System, effective in 1992, and established the functional classification system for all public roads.

Former US Highway 466

No current routing.

Until July 1, 1964, the following route was signed as US 466:

Present-day Route forty one inbetween Route one and US one hundred one near Atascadero. This was LRN 125, defined in 1933.

Prior to the late 1950s, LRN one hundred twenty five inbetween Atascadero and Shandon.

Around 1959, US four hundred sixty six was rerouted along present-day US one hundred one inbetween Atascadero and Paso Robles. This was LRN Two.

Around 1959, present-day Route forty six inbetween US one hundred one near Paso Robles and present-day Route ninety nine near Famoso via Cholame Pass. Inbetween Shandon and Cholame, the route was cosigned as Route 41/US 466. This segment was LRN 33, defined in 1915.

Present-day Route fifty eight inbetween Bakersfield and Barstow. This was LRN 58, defined in 1919.

Present-day I-15 (former US 91) inbetween Barstow and the Nevada state line. This was LRN 31, defined in 1925.

Additionally, LRN one hundred forty one was the planned rerouting for US four hundred sixty six to bypass downtown Bakersfield (back when LRN Four/US ninety nine (and US 399) was on the Route 204/Business Route ninety nine alignment) back in 1933; this rerouting only occured in the 1960s however with the construction of the freeways which are now Route fifty eight and Route 58/Route ninety nine (explaining why the definition of the route is from LRN four to LRN Four: from Brundage at Route two hundred four to the current Route 99/Route 58/Route one hundred seventy eight interchange at Rosedale Highway/24th Street, where Oak Street completes). Looking at the bridge log, the Route 204/Business Route ninety nine (former LRN Four) freeway in downtown Bakersfield inbetween LRN 141’s two termini (current Route fifty eight and Route 99) was built in stages: the very first section, the Union Avenue Y, was finished in 1957, followed by the Truxtun Avenue crossing in 1959. Most of the section north of L Street and the Chester Avenue traffic circle was also built in 1957; so the construction of the LRN one hundred forty one (99/58) freeways occured only once CalTrans determined that the old downtown bypass was more suitable for the through routes. The interchanges connecting Business Route ninety nine with Route ninety nine were built in one thousand nine hundred sixty two and 1963, as part of the Bakersfield bypass. Thus by 1964, former LRN one hundred forty one had been upgraded to freeway inbetween Brundage Lane and Rosedale Highway; however, the portion from Union Avenue (Route 204/Business Route 99) west to Route ninety nine would not be built until 1976, at which point Route fifty eight was moved off of former US 466/LRN fifty eight (Edison Highway) and onto the fresh freeway, which is part of the Bakersfield-Tehachapi Highway.

One contributor (Rebecca K.) opined that Twenty-Mule Team Road may be a former routing of US four hundred sixty six through Boron. This is also the claim of AARoads. I am presently looking for a map to confirm.

This route was signed in 1934.

• Casey Cooper’s Finding US 91
• Casey Cooper’s Finding US 466

Former State Route 480

No current routing.

In 1963, Route four hundred eighty was defined as “Route eighty at the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge treatment in San Francisco to the junction of Route 280, Funston treatment, and the treatment to the Golden Gate Bridge in the Presidio of San Francisco passing near the intersection of Lombard Street and Van Ness Avenue.”

In 1968, Chapter two hundred eighty two transferred the portion from Route eighty to Route two hundred eighty near Harrison Street to Route 280: “Route eighty at the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge treatment in San Francisco to the junction of Route 280, Route two hundred eighty near Harrison Street in San Francisco to the junction of Route 1, Funston treatment, and the treatment to the Golden Gate Bridge in the Presidio of San Francisco passing near the intersection of Lombard Street and Van Ness Avenue.”

In 1991, SB 181, Chapter four hundred ninety eight deleted the remainder of Route 480, from Route two hundred eighty near Harrison Street in San Francisco to the junction of Route 1, Funston treatment, and the treatment to the Golden Gate Bridge. The portion from Marina Boulevard to the treatment to the Golden Gate Bridge was transferred to Route 101. The last signs for the route were eliminated in 1997.

Why did these switches occur? In 1955, it was planned to have the US 101/I-480 interchange (and co-signing) begin approximately at the Lombard/Van Ness junction (where the Embarcadero and Central Freeways would have intersected)—this is illustrated in the one thousand nine hundred fifty five Trafficways Map. By 1965, there was a fresh plan (which was reflected in the one thousand nine hundred sixty eight switches) to have a Central Freeway crosstown tunnel from Turk Street to Richardson Avenue, resulting in a much shorter multiplex of Route four hundred eighty and US one hundred one on Doyle Drive only—as illustrated in this one thousand nine hundred sixty five Caltrans Map. This is why it was Route four hundred eighty (not US 101) on Doyle Drive (for US one hundred one exited on Richardson and presumably to the crosstown tunnel).

This route was intended to provide a freeway connection inbetween the Golden Gate and Bay bridges in San Francisco. It was a double-deck roadway design. The one thousand nine hundred eighty nine Loma Prieta quake condemned it, and it was later demolished. The route was never liked, and it was fated in January one thousand nine hundred fifty nine when the San Francisco Board of Supervisors Resolution 45-59 passed, which indicated opposition to certain freeway routes. Route four hundred eighty is one of the freeways opposed by the city; and was never included in the California Freeway and Expressway System, albeit it was a part of the Interstate system.

The Embarcadero Freeway (Route 480) ran north along the waterfront for almost a mile, two thick lines of concrete seventy feet high and fifty two feet broad. It embarked at Folsom Street and ended bluntly at Broadway, running right in front of the historic Ferry Building. The freeway was designed to make a turn inland and head west past Aquatic Park, all the way to the Golden Gate Bridge.

The history of the route is fascinating; read the planning studies in the LINKS section for details. There were some plans to build it as a tube in the bay, or as a very narrow depressed highway, where there was little or no clearance to construct the road.

In 1998, there were brief plans to rebuild the Embacadero Freeway as a brief cut and cover tunnel. The proposal was to only extend to roughtly the point of where the elvated freeway structure was truncated.

Some folks claim to have seen maps where I-480 looped around San Francisco after the Golden Gate Bridge, running S as the Park Presidio and Junipero Serra Freeways. This is unlikely. It is more likely that those freeways were to have been signed as part of Route 1. Note: According to Caltrans, Park-Presidio Boulevard possesses all the attributes of a freeway and was the very first such thoroughfare in northern California. It was built through the Presidio of San Francisco as an treatment to the Golden Gate Bridge.

Route four hundred eighty was LRN 224, defined in 1947.

Albeit the route no longer exists, the CalTrans bridge log indicates that the route is signed as US one hundred one inbetween post mile Two.85 and post Five.48. The Fremont St. exit off I-80 W is the former CA four hundred eighty exit. There is also a sealed-off CA four hundred eighty exit off of I-80 E.

As for what happened to what remains of the old Route 480. it is becoming a farm. Specifically, at the old on/off ramp near Laguna Street in early 2010, a number of urban farmers spread steaming piles of mulch over the edge of the ramps formerly used by cars to come in and exit the elevated Central Freeway spur above Octavia Street, arranging the soil in rows for planting vegetables and filler crops. This has formed the “Hayes Valley Farm”.

“Golden Gate” Freeway, Embarcadero Freeway.

Route four hundred eighty was approved as chargeable interstate sometime pre-1965; it was deleted as a chargeable route in August one thousand nine hundred sixty five (hence, its signage after that date with a state shield (Route 480), as opposed to an interstate shield). The old Route four hundred eighty was demolished inbetween one thousand nine hundred ninety one and 1993.

This route was very first proposed as I-110. After 3di numbering conventions were developed, this was proposed as I-380. AASHTO eventually approved it as I-480.

[SHC 263.1] Originally, the entire route. Since deleted.

Interstate 505

From Route eighty near Vacaville to Route five near Dunnigan.

This was part of I-5W, which commenced at I-5/I-580 south of Stockton, followed I-580 to I-80 in Oakland, paired with I-80 east until I-505, and then reunited with I-5 where I-505 does now. I-580 and I-505 were signed with their current numbers around one thousand nine hundred sixty four (albeit they were submitted and approved by AASHTO in 1947). Note that a one thousand nine hundred sixty eight map shows no freeway for I-505.

In 1963, Route five hundred five was defined as “Route eighty near Vacaville to Route five near Dunnigan”, and it retains its one thousand nine hundred sixty three definition. Before 1972, it was signed as Improvised I-505, and was a two lane road inbetween Vacaville to Dunnigan. The freeway was constructed in sections: the very first one inbetween Route sixteen and Route 128; the next from I-5 to Route 16; and the final from Route sixteen to I-80. The freeway was finished by 1978. Additionally, before 1972, there was actually two sections of constructed freeway: A two mile section at the junction of Route 128, and a one mile section at Route 16. At this time, the route was unsigned but had freeway status. I-505 freeway was finished in 1977.

This route was LRN 90, defined in 1933. It shows up to have been unsigned before 1964.

In April 2007, the CTC considered relinquishment of right of way in the county of Yolo, at County Road 24, consisting of reconstructed and relocated county roads and frontage roads.

The SAFETEA-LU act, enacted in August two thousand five as the reauthorization of TEA-21, provided the following expenditures for this route:

High Priority Project #35: Substitute the structurally unsafe Winters Bridge for vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians inbetween Yolo and Solano Counties. The Sacramento Bee stated that this was the I-505 bridge over Putah Creek Road. However, this could be wrong, as the Winters Bridge is actually in town about one mile west of I-505 , and was built somewhere around 1903. It has a few humps and sags, but is still in use. As bicycles and pedestrians cannot use I-505, this is likely in town. The Winters bridge connects Railroad Avenue in town, with Winters Road and Putah Creek Road in Solano County. $1,600,000 .

The interchange of I-80 and I-505 in the County of Solano 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 one thousand nine hundred twenty three into the racially segregated community of Gurly, Alabama.Warren left the region at the age of fifteen years, when his mother sent him to Island Park, Illinois, where he attended high school. Enlisting in one thousand nine hundred forty three 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 finished navigator training, through which he qualified as both a navigator and a bombardier. Lieutenant Colonel Warren was one of the one hundred one black officers at Freeman Field in one thousand nine hundred forty five who were arrested and charged with mutiny because they refused to serve with base regulations excluding black officers from a base officers` club. The service records of Lieutenant Colonel Warren and the other one hundred officers were cleared by the Air Force in 1995, an activity 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 thirty five years with the United States Air Force, for which he flew one hundred seventy three 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 eighty seven years, Lieutenant Colonel Warren distinguished himself through his community leadership and participation in the Nut Tree Airport`s Youthful 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.

• Cal-NExUS Exit Numbering: Route 505
• De-robe Chart: I-505 (Andrew Tompkins)

• California @ AARoads: Interstate 505
• Three Digit Interstates: I-505

Approved as chargeable Interstate on 7/7/1947; Freeway. In August 1957, this was tentatively approved as I-5W. In November 1957, the designation I-7 was proposed as part of the very first attempt to give urban routes numbers (there were no 3-digit routes at the time). In April 1958, it was proposed to be designated I-115 as part of the very first attempts to assign 3-digit numbers. It was eventually approved as I-5W, and later renumbered as I-505.

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

Overall statistics for Route 505:

• Total Length (1995): thirty three miles
• Average Daily Traffic (1992): 8,900 to 20,800
• Milage Classification: Rural: 30; Sm. Urban: 0; Urbanized: Trio.
• Previous Federal Aid Milage: FAI: thirty three mi.
• Functional Classification: Prin. Arterial: thirty three mi.
• Counties Traversed: Solano, Yolo.

Interstate 580

From Route five southwest of Vernalis to Route eighty in Oakland via the surroundings of Dublin and Hayward.

At one time, this route was signed as I-5W. The I-5W designation was dropped in one thousand nine hundred sixty four (when California regularized route numbers to match legislative definitions, and embarked pulling down all “lettered” alternates to Interstates).

In 1963, I-580 was defined as “Route five southwest of Vernalis to Route eighty near Oakland via the surroundings of Dublin and Hayward.”

In 1984, Chapter four hundred nine extended the route by transfer from Route 17: “(a) Route five southwest of Vernalis to Route eighty near Oakland via the surroundings of Dublin and Hayward. (b) Route eighty near Albany to Route one hundred one near San Rafael via the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge.“

In 1990, Chapter one thousand one hundred eighty seven clarified segment (a): “(a) Route five southwest of Vernalis to Route eighty in near Oakland via the neighborhood of Dublin and Hayward.”

The portion inbetween the I-580/I-205 junction and I-80 was LRN Five, defined in 1909. This was originally US 50. This routing was at one time US 48.

The portion of this route inbetween I-5 and the I-580/I-205 junction was LRN 110, defined in 1959.

This includes the original four-lane Altamont Pass Road, which opened on 8/Four/1938. On the eastern grade of the Altamont Pass, the eastbound and westbound I-580 lanes go after different alignments. The EB lanes are the original US fifty alignment. Inbetween the I-580/I-205 split and the Business Route two hundred five split, most of the width of I-205 (both directions) was the old US 50. It was four-lane divided for some time before the Fine Renumbering, and that section is fairly a bit narrower than I-580. Of course this may not be original one thousand nine hundred twenty seven US 50, but it existed before I-580. US-50 (and possibly US-48) headed into Tracy via Grant Line Road and Byron Road. 11th Street in Tracy is still a divided road in some portions and has a number of old state traffic signals, signs, and lamp poles, including some with the original mercury vapor lamps still intact.

As for the railroad trackage: one of the two lines in the area is the former right-of-way of the Southern Pacific Railroad. These rails were abandoned in one thousand nine hundred eighty six when SP obtained trackage rights over the current ACE route from the Union Pacific Railroad. The SP line, which was constructed in 1869, was actually the final link in the true Transcontinental Railroad. As the ACE Train crosses over, then under, the eastbound and westbound lanes of I-580, there is an abandoned tunnel on the SP right-of-way. The next large cut was actually WP’s Tunnel Trio. It was daylighted for clearance reasons in the early 1990’s.

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.

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

High Priority Project #1218: Upgrade and reconstruct I-580/Vasco Road Interchange, City of Livermore. $Two,000,000 .

High Priority Project #1371: I-580 Interchange Improvements in Castro Valley. $960,000 .

High Priority Project #1653: Engineering, right of way and construction of HOV lanes on I-580 in the Livermore Valley. $9,600,000 .

High Priority Project #3493: Construction at I-580 and Route eighty four (Isabel Avenue) Interchange. $Two,000,000 .

I-5 to I-205 (Southern Surroundings of Tracy)

In May 2016, the CTC approved $60,464,000 for a project near Livermore, on I-580 from the San Joaquin County line to the Greenville Overhead (PM0.1/R8.0); also on I-205 from Midway Road to the San Joaquin County line (PM L0.0/0.Four); also near Castro Valley on Route five hundred eighty from Eden Canyon Road to Strobridge Avenue (PM R26.1/30.Trio); also in San Joaquin County near Tracy on Route five hundred eighty from Patterson Pass Road to the Alameda County line (PM 13.Five/15.Three). Outcome/Output: Improve safety and rail quality by rehabilitating 54.6 lane miles of distressed mainline and ramp pavement and install signs, lighting, and vehicle pullouts. Also, install ramp metering at twelve locations.

I-205 to I-680 (Altamont Pass, Livermore, Pleasanton)

In July 2008, Caltrans opened the I-580 truck bypass, separating slow-moving trucks from cars in the Altamont Pass. Two westbound truck-only lanes run for six miles from Mountain House Parkway to Grant Line Road on the right-hand side. This was added as part of widening I-205, and is part of the I-205 to I-580 transition.

In April 2012, the CTC authorized SHOPP funding on I-580, in Alameda County, 04-Ala-580 R14.6/R21.6 Near Livermore, from 0.1 mile west of Greenville Road to 0.Two mile west of San Ramon-Foothill Road. $13,000,000 to rehabilitate 38.Five lane miles of pavement to improve rail quality, prevent further deterioration of the road surface, minimize the costly roadway repairs, and extend the pavement life.

In May 2012, the CTC authorized SHOPP funding on I-580, in Alameda County, 04-Ala-580 R8.Four/R14.6 Near Livermore, from 0.1 mile west of Greenville Road to 0.Two mile west of San Ramon -Foothill Road. $16,400,000 to rehabilitate fifty one lane miles of roadway to improve the rail quality, prevent further deterioration of the road surface, minimize the costly roadway repairs and extend the pavement service life.

In January 2011, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding a project in Alameda County that will construct a truck climbing lane in the eastbound direction on I-580 from one mile east of North Flynn Road to Greenville Road Undercrossing. The project is programmed in the Trade Corridors Improvement Fund. Construction is estimated to begin in Fiscal Year 2011-12. Total estimated project cost is $63,000,000 for capital and support. The project will mitigate potential impacts to biological resources to a less than significant level. Potential impacts to seven animal species that are listed as threatened or endangered will be mitigated through replacement habitat. In addition, potential impacts to an existing wetland in the project area will be mitigated by restoration of the affected wetland. In October 2012, the CTC amended the schedule due to permitting problems. The fresh schedule shows construction completing in April 2015.

In March 2016, it was reported that Caltrans expects to open a truck lane on eastbound I-580 in Livermore inbetween Greenville and North Flynn roads in June 2016. One more layer of asphalt needs to go in very first.

TCRP Project #12.Three is studying improvements for the I-580 Livermore Corridor. In February 2009, the CTC amended the environmental work for the project. Specifically, on July 27, 2007, the CTC approved a resolution that revised the project schedule to demonstrate FY2008-09 as the completion date for Environmental portion of the project. At the same time, the CTC approved a resolution that allocated $Three,000,000 for a Programmatic Environmental Influence Report (PEIR), which was proposed to be developed by December 2008. The purpose of the PEIR was to support the early acquisition of right of way along I-580 for a future transit corridor. However, the schedule required modification in two thousand nine as it was dependent on inclusion of a right of way preservation project-known as the “I-580 Transit Corridor”-in the regional transportation plan (RTP) presently being developed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). MTC is scheduled to adopt the Final Plan, EIR, and Conformity Analysis for the RTP on March 25, 2009. The amendment switched the completion date for the environmental phase to December 2009.

Isabel Avenue Interchange

There are plans to add a fresh interchange as Isabel Avenue in Livermore, but this was deferred in June two thousand eight because the cost and scope of ED is not consistent with cost and scope of CMIA baseline agreement.. The project is fully programmed for $153 million with Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA) funds, federal Demonstration funds, and local funds. Construction is estimated to begin in Fiscal Year 2008-09.. There was a similar deferral of a project to construct roadway improvements on I-580 in the city of Livermore that would have extended out to I-205. The project is fully programmed for $154 million with Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA) funds; State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds; State Highway Operation Protection Program (SHOPP) funds; Safe, Accountable, Supple, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) funds; Traffic Congestion Ease Program (TCRP) funds; and local funds. Construction is estimated to begin in Fiscal Year 2007-08.

Specifically, the project will construct a fresh interchange at Isabel Avenue (Route 84) and Route five hundred eighty in the city of Livermore. The project will also liquidate the existing partial interchange at Portola Avenue and I- 580. This fresh interchange at Isabel Avenue will provide a permanent and more efficient connection inbetween Route five hundred eighty and Route 84. These improvements will result in a congestion ease in the Route 580/Route six hundred eighty corridors by establishing an alternative route for traffic inbetween the Central/Tri-Valleys and the South Bay areas. In October 2008, the CTC considered amending the project plan to reallocate funding inbetween tasks and to divide the project into three segments. This was due to an increase in right of way (ROW) acquisition costs of $Trio.1 million, due to the refinement of ROW costs that are now based upon actual appraisals, negotiated property acquisition compensations, and updated utility relocation estimates. This brought the total ROW costs to $24M. Additionally, construction estimates have also enlargened by $Ten.9M to $96.6M. That’s just for Construction Capital! Construction support is another $8M (but that’s a decrease of $8M from the original estimate). The amendment proposed that the work relating to the construction of three foundations for the Isabel Avenue Overcrossing (estimated cost $1.75 million) be transferred from this project to another CMIA project, the Route five hundred eighty EB HOV Lane project (PPNO 0112A, Segment two [EA 04-290831]). Similarly, widening of the Arroyo Las Positas Bridge (estimated cost $1.70 million) was to be transferred from the Route five hundred eighty EB HOV Lane project to the Isabel Avenue interchange project. They also proposed splitting the project into three construction contracts, permitting the City of Livermore to administer construction of the work that is within its own right of way, and thus better deal with traffic controls and circulation impacts on the city roads.

So, the project will include (a) construction of a fresh interchange at Isabel Avenue (Route 84) in the Route five hundred eighty Corridor, substituting the existing makeshift connection at Route 580/Airway Blvd; (b) construction of a fresh Portola Avenue overpass; (c) construction of eastbound and westbound auxiliary lanes inbetween Isabel Avenue and Airway Boulevard, (d) removal of the partial interchange at Route 580/Portola Ave. for enhanced mainline operational efficiency and safety.; (e) widening and realigning of SR eighty four south of Route 580, including relocation of utilities; (f) construction of fresh local roads necessary for the interchange operation north of Route 580; (g) widening an existing Route five hundred eighty bridge over the Arroyo Las Positas creek to accommodate the Route five hundred eighty EB HOV Lane project. The Arroyo Las Positas Creek Bridge widening was added from Route five hundred eighty EB HOV Lane project. Some foundation work in the median for the Route 580/Isabel Avenue Interchange project was deleted from this project and added to the Route five hundred eighty EB HOV Lane project. The three construction contracts are: (04-171311) Widen and realign Route eighty four south of I-580, including relocation of utilities; (04-171321) Construct fresh local roads north of the I-580/Isabel Avenue Interchange, for decent operations of the interchange; and (04-171331) (a) Construct fresh interchange at I-580 and Isabel Avenue (Route 84) substituting the existing makeshift connection at I-580/Airway Blvd; (b) construct a fresh Portola Avenue overpass; (c) construct eastbound and westbound auxiliary lanes inbetween Isabel Avenue and Airway Boulevard; (d) eliminate the partial interchange at I-580/Portola Ave. (e) widen an existing I-580 bridge over the Arroyo Las Positas creek to accommodate the I-580 EB HOV project. The very first two of these (171311 and 171321) would be done by the City of Livermore; the last by Caltrans.

In January 2010, it was noted that construction near I-580 and Route eighty four was progressing nicely. it’s visibly becoming an interchange with treatment embankments looking done on both sides. Completion is scheduled for February 2011.

In August 2010, the CTC approved amending the CMIA baseline agreements for Segment one (Widen and realign SR-84/Isabel Avenue [PPNO 0115E]), Segment two (Construct fresh local roads north of I-580/Isabel Interchange [PPNO 0115F]) and Segment three (Construct fresh interchange at Isabel Avenue [PPNO 0115B]) of the I-580/ Isabel Interchange project to update the project delivery schedule for each project. All three segments received their allocations at the December two thousand eight Commission meeting. The contracts for Segment one and two were advertised on December 22, 2008. The Segment three was advertised in January 2009. But the bid openings had to be postponed because the Proposition 1B funding was suspended due to financial constraints of the State. For Segment Three, delay in bid opening was also caused by the issuance of three addenda. The contracts for Segment one and two were awarded in June 2009. The Segment three contract was awarded in July 2009. None of the switches affect the close-out dates, albeit the end of construction for Segment one is shoved out two months to March 2012.

In October 2011, the CTC recieved a request to amend the CMIA baseline agreements related to a project in this area; specifically, for Segment one (Widen and realign State Route eighty four south of I-580 interchange and relocate utilities, PPNO 0115E), Segment two (Construct fresh local roads north of the I-580/Isabel Avenue Interchange, PPNO 0115F), and Segment three (Construct fresh interchange at Isabel Avenue and a fresh Portola Avenue Overcrossing, PPNO 0115B) of the I-580/Isabel Interchange project to: • Transfer a portion of the scope of work from Segment three to Segment 1. • Shift $600,000 CMIA and $400,000 local funds in close-out savings from Segment two to Segment one in order to accomplish this transferred scope of work.

In November 2011, Caltrans opened the fresh I-580/Route eighty four ramps and the freshly realigned Route eighty four south of I-580 that will connect with the fresh interchange, and closed the westbound I-580 Portola Avenue onramp. The two fresh onramps will serve as fresh freeway access from Las Positas College and the businesses north of I-580. Commuters will be able to use the fresh interchange in lieu of cutting through downtown Livermore. Another project to widen Route eighty four south of the interchange inbetween Jack London Boulevard and Vallecitos Road is slated to begin in spring 2012.

In May 2013, the CTC relinquished right of way in the city of Livermore along Route five hundred eighty on Kitty Hawk Road and Portola Avenue, consisting of collateral facilities.

Livermore HOV/Express Lanes

In 2007, the CTC recommended $72.2M from the Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA) for an EB HOV Lane from Hacienda Drive in Pleasanton to to Greenville Road in Livermore, and $68M for a WB HOV Lane at the Isabel Ave (Route 84) interchange, and $101.7M for a WB HOV Lane from Greenville to Foothill.

In October 2008, a segment of HOV lanes in Livermore opened.

In February 2010, the CTC approved allocating $8,000,000 in Traffic Congestion Ease Program (TCRP) funds for the Route five hundred eighty project to construct an eastbound HOV lane from Tassjara Road/Santa Rita Road to Vasco Road in Alameda County (TCRP 31).

In April 2010, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding a project in Alameda County that will construct a westbound HOV lane on a 13.Four mile portion of Route five hundred eighty near the city of Dublin. The project is programmed in the Corridor Mobility Improvement Account and includes federal and local funds. Total estimated project cost is $137,886,000 for capital and support. Construction is estimated to begin in Fiscal Year 2011-12. There is a concurrent baseline amendment request to split the project into three contracts. The scope, as described for the preferred alternative, is consistent with the project scope set forward in the proposed project baseline agreement.

Overall, this project will construct a high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane from the San Ramon Road/Foothill Road Interchange to the Greenville Road Overhead; widen the inwards and outside shoulders adequately to accommodate the HOV lane and permit for future conversion of the HOV lane to a high occupancy toll (HOT) lane; widen the existing bridge crossings over Tassajara Creek and Arroyo Las Positas Creek at various locations; and construct various westbound auxiliary lanes. It will also construct a westbound express bus ramp connection from the westbound HOV lane to the Dublin-Pleasanton BART Station; construct soundwalls as identified by the environmental document; and upgrade the drainage system in the freeway median to accommodate the HOV lane. In April 2010, the CTC approved amending the CMIA baseline agreement for the I-580 Westbound HOV Lane – Greenville to Foothill project (PPNO 0112B) to: (1) Update the project scope to eliminate the westbound I-580 express bus off-ramp to the Dublin-Pleasanton Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Station, funded by twelve million Regional Measure two (RM2) funds; add a westbound auxiliary lane at two locations: a) From Vasco Road to Very first Street and b) From Airway Boulevard to Fallon Road, to be funded by local funds; (Two) Update the overall project funding plan; and (Three) Split the updated project into three roadway contracts. The westbound express off-ramp to the BART station is being elminated because both the BART and the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority opposed the inclusion of these improvements in the project scope on concerns relating to pedestrian safety in the surroundings of the BART Station; this provided a cost savings of $12M. The auxiliary lanes were added to the scope of the overall project for coordination purposes; these lanes were originally a local project. Combining these two auxiliary lanes projects with the HOV lane project for construction will reduce throw-away costs such as roadway drainage improvements, signings, and erosion control measures and also avoid unnecessary disruption to the traveling public.

The overall project is proposed to be split into three segments.

• Segment 1 (PPNO 0112B): In Alameda County in Livermore from Greenville Road to just east of Isabel Avenue. Construct a westbound HOV lane from the Greenville Overcrossing to Isabel Avenue Overcrossing. Widen the inwards and outside shoulders adequately to accommodate the HOV lane and permit for future conversion to a HOT lane. Construct westbound auxiliary lanes from Vasco Road to Very first Street, from Very first to North Livermore Avenue, and from North Livermore Avenue to Isabel Avenue. Construct soundwalls as identified by the environmental document. Construct mitigation landscaping. Upgrade the freeway median drainage system in the freeway median to accommodate the HOV lane.

Segment Two (PPNO 0112F): In Alameda County in Livermore from just east of Isabel Avenue to just west of San Ramon Road/Foothill Road Interchange. Construct a westbound HOV lane from Isabel Avenue Overcrossing to San Ramon Road/Foothill Road Interchange. Widen the inwards and outside shoulders reasonably to accommodate the HOV lane and permit for future conversion to a HOT lane. Widen existing bridge crossing over Tassajara Creek. Construct westbound auxiliary lanes from Airway Boulevard to Fallon Road. Construct soundwalls as identified by the environmental document. Construct mitigation landscaping. Upgrade the freeway median drainage system in the freeway median to accommodate the HOV lane.

Segment Three (PPNO 0112G): In Alameda County in Livermore from just west of Very first Street Overcrossing to just west of Isabel Avenue Overcrossing. Widen existing bridge crossings over Arroyo Las Positas Creek in the eastbound direction (at two locations).

In July two thousand ten it was reported that a Two.9-mile HOV lane segment opened in Livermore: EB from Airway Boulevard past Portola Road. Upon completion, the entire HOV lane will extend eleven miles from Hacienda Road in Pleasanton to Greenville Road in Livermore. It will eventually be turned into an express toll lane. The very first lane segment from east of Portola Road to Greenville Road opened in October 2009. If construction proceeds as expected, the overall HOV project will open in Fall 2010, about one year ahead. In November 2010, it was reported that the 2nd phase of the 11-mile carpool lane on eastbound I-580 inbetween Pleasanton and Livermore was opened. The carpool lane is expected to ease traffic in the area, which presently sees more than 170,000 vehicles a day. The project cost $49 million, which is $23 million less than what had been budgeted, and was ended a year ahead of schedule. It was mostly funded by Proposition 1B, a $Nineteen.9 billion transportation bond that was approved by California voters in 2006. Transportation officials said the project was finished for far less than had been expected because of the very competitive bidding market among contractors seeking business. The section that opened in November two thousand ten goes from Hacienda Drive in Pleasanton to Portola Road in Livermore. The very first segment, which is from Portola Road to Greenville Road in Livermore, opened in October 2009.

In August 2010, the CTC approved amending the CMIA baseline agreement for Segment two (Construct HOV Lane, from Portola to Hacienda [PPNO 0112D]) of the Eastbound I-580 HOV Lane project to update the project delivery schedule, noting that construction began later than originally expected.

In April 2012, it was reported that construction on the $182 million-dollar HOV lane inbetween Livermore and Dublin is scheduled to begin in August two thousand twelve and be finished in mid-2015. Eastbound commuters — who have benefited from an 11-mile carpool lane from Hacienda Drive to Greenville since two thousand nine — will see the lane transformed into a combination carpool-toll lane. The cost to add the technology for the lane, which was $15 million to build, is $Nineteen million, and it will open at the same time the westbound lane debuts.

In February 2013, it was reported that Caltrans plans to convert HOV lanes on I-580 into HOT (“Express” or High Occupancy/Toll) lanes — specifically, I-580 in both directions inbetween I-680 and Hacienda Road in Livermore. Express lanes work by continuing to permit carpoolers free access to the swift 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 fifty mph or quicker. 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 $Five or $6.

In mid-June 2013, A ceremony was held to mark the embark of construction on the $145 million fresh HOV lanes inbetween Greenville Road in Livermore and the Foothill Road over crossing in Dublin and Pleasanton. Completion is expected in late 2014, a year before the lane is to be converted into an express toll lane open to carpools for free and solo drivers for a toll. Contractors also will add an auxiliary lane on I-580 inbetween Isabel Avenue and Very first Street in Livermore.

In September 2015, it was reported that the opening of the I-580 HOT lanes along both directions of I-580 through Pleasanton, Dublin and Livermore would be delayed. The I-580 project, which began construction in June 2014, is converting the eastbound high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane and another lane into two express lanes from Hacienda Drive to Greenville Road in Livermore. For the westbound direction, a single express lane will run from Greenville to the San Ramon/Foothill roads overcrossing, creating the very first HOV-specific lane on westbound I-580 through the corridor. Fresh driving lanes were previously built in each direction as part of separate HOV and auxiliary lanes projects. The express lanes would be free to access for carpools, vanpools, public transit, motorcycles and eligible clean-air vehicles while other solo drivers could pay a toll to use the lanes from five a.m. to eight p.m. Mondays through Fridays. The lanes would be open free-of-charge all other times. Express lane access will be almost continuous, except for limitations eastbound inbetween Hacienda and Fallon and El Charro roads and westbound inbetween Hacienda and San Ramon Road. The project had construction delays on the civil infrastructure due to material shortages. Additionally, among the project components still to be ended is the adoption of a toll fee schedule. The agency will use dynamic pricing, with toll rates going up or down to help traffic stir slickly. Tolls will increase as express lane congestion increases — in an effort to discourage solo drivers from using the express lanes. The logic is reversed when congestion eases. A motorists’ toll rate is locked in as soon as they inject the lane, and the rate remains the same for the duration of their journey, regardless of any rate switches during that time. Drivers who come in the lanes will be required to use a FasTrak Ripple reader, which offers adjustable settings based on one, two or three-plus vehicle occupants.

In February 2016, it was reported that HOT lanes on I-580 from Dublin to Livermore had opened. This marks the thickest expansion of using carpool lanes as express lanes in the region, with two lanes eastbound and one lane westbound for twelve miles or thirty six miles in total. The express lanes will operate from five a.m. to eight p.m. weekdays. At other times, they’ll be open to all drivers. Minimum tolls will be in the $1.50 to $1.75 range. FasTrak will be required by all users even carpoolers. FasTrak Ripple toll tags (i.e., the type used in Southern California) will be required. They can be set at one, two or three to indicate the number of people in the car and can be used anywhere FasTrak can be used, such as on I-680 through Fremont, Route two hundred thirty seven in Milpitas, and the HOT lanes on I-15 and I-10. Operated by the Alameda County Transportation Commission, these lanes were funded with federal, state, regional and local dollars, including a voter-approved sales tax. The toll lanes cost $55 million, but the overall cost to widen the freeway and add numerous merging lanes raised the final bill to $345 million.

In an AAroads post on the subject, extra informaton on the FasTrack Ripple tag was provided. Joe Rouse (of m.t.r and AAroads fame) came up with the name, inspired by what the EZPass group on the East Coast did for their switchable tag for the express lanes on I–495 and I–95 in Virginia, with the special branding of EZPass Ripple. The California Toll Operators Committee (CTOC) adopted it after some market research and approval by the Transportation Corridor Agencies (which wields the FasTrak trademark). The branding came about as a result of an issue with the I-10 and I-110 express lanes in Los Angeles. LA Metro offers only a switchable tag to its customers. It was branded as FasTrak. Yet there are a substantial number of older non-switchable tags in use in Southern California that were issued by TCA and OCTA, also branded as FasTrak. The pricing signs on the two express lanes in Los Angeles were displaying a message that HOVs with FasTrak didn’t have to pay a toll. However, this was only applicable if you had the switchable tag. No switch – you’d still pay. A few people had caught on to this distinction, and there was concern that it could lead to legal activity because the signs were conveying a misleading message. The toll operators spotted this same risk and agreed that a separate brand would help. Guidance was developed on the use of the brand and one of the things that I made very clear was that the brand should only be used in messaging related to carpooling. For this reason, when you drive the I-580 express lanes, most signs only say “FasTrak”. The FasTrak Ripple brand is only displayed on messages pertaining to HOVs. The messaging on those signs was taken from the I–495 express lanes in Virginia. The Bay Area was the very first region to adopt the FasTrak Ripple branding. The express lanes in Los Angeles will adopt it eventually. A duo of media outlets reported that you could ONLY use the I-580 express lanes if you had the FasTrak Ripple. That’s not true because that would crack California’s interoperability law. One final note: if you use a traditional toll facility like a toll bridge or toll road, the setting on the switch tag doesn’t matter. The switch setting is tied in with one component of the tag that is typically not scanned by the overhead readers. The tag readers on the LA express lanes and the fresh express lanes in the Bay Area will scan that component. I’m not sure about the existing express lanes on Route two hundred thirty seven and I-680. Eventually both of those facilities will begin requiring all users to carry a tag, tho’, and require the Ripple tag for toll-free travel.

In August 2016, it was reported that notorists took almost 1.9 million trips on I-580’s fresh express lanes in Alameda County in the very first four months the lanes opened to vehicle traffic. The very first total month of operation spotted around 549,000 trips along the east- and westbound lanes, growing to 647,000 trips in May — an eighteen percent increase from March — according to a report introduced to the Alameda County Transportation Commission. Average hourly speeds in the express lanes are estimated to be inbetween ten and thirty three mph quicker than the average hourly speeds in general purpose lanes during the morning rush-hour commute.

In March 2017, it was reported that since the combination express and carpool lanes opened in February two thousand sixteen on I-580, along the main route inbetween the Bay Area and the Central Valley, more than 7.6 million drivers have taken advantage of them, according to a report released in March two thousand seventeen by the Alameda County Transportation Commission, which operates the lanes. By paying an average toll of $1.62 westbound and $Two.13 eastbound, drivers get to drive about ten mph swifter than those in the other lanes. On an average day, about eleven percent of the vehicles traveling on I-580 through the area use the express lanes. That`s about 30,000 cars and trucks a day. Looking at February alone, the figures showcase that of the estimated 30,000 vehicles to use the five hundred eighty Express Lanes daily, fifty two percent paid a toll and thirty eight percent legally traveled toll-free under diamond lane rules. The percent of toll-lane cheats fell from about thirty percent when the lanes opened a year ago to ten percent last month, the report said.

In June 2011, the CTC authorized relinquishment of right of way in the city of Pleasanton along Route five hundred eighty inbetween Route six hundred eighty and Hopyard Road, consisting of collateral facilities.

In April 2012, it was reported that construction had commenced on on a $Two.Four million trail segment providing the very first off-road trail for people to walk or rail under I-580 in the Tri-Valley area. The fresh segment will close a 784-foot-long gap inbetween two trails that stop on opposite sides of I-580. On the Dublin side, there is the Alamo Cavern Trail, which connects to the Metal Pony Trail leading the way to Martinez. On the Pleasanton side, the Centennial Trail runs parallel to I-680 and a flood-control channel and leads toward central Pleasanton. To build the trail, crews will cut a notch out of the creek bank under the interstate and the BART tracks. Caltrans insisted that the trail have a railing to prevent users from falling into the creek, while Zone seven Water District officials worried that the railing would trap floating debris and aggravate flood risks during strong storms. Trail designers came up with a compromise plan for a collapsible rail with posts that can be eliminated before waters rise. Several agencies — including Dublin, Pleasanton, the Alameda County Transportation Commission and the regional park district — contributed funding toward the trail, but the largest allocation was $1 million in federal transportation dollars.

I-680 to I-238 (Dougherty through Castro Valley)

In May 2007, flames from an exploding gasoline tanker melted the steel underbelly of the I-580 bridge that carried EB traffic from the Bay Bridge to I-580, I-980, and Route 24. The single-vehicle crash occurred on the lower roadway when the tanker, loaded with 8,600 gallons of unleaded gasoline and heading from a refinery in Benicia to a gas station on Hegenberger Road in Oakland, hit a guardrail. Caltrans fast-tracked the repair construction, which was expected to take 5-6 months. However, the contractor (C.C. Myers) actually finished the work in twenty-six days, opening the I-580 bridge on 8:40 PM on May 24, 2007. How was this done? Less than two days after the I-580 connector collapsed, demolition crews liquidated the mangled section. A day later, Caltrans engineers clambered over the charred section of I-880, drilling concrete core samples, X-raying parts of the structure and dragging chains over the roadway — all tests to determine the extent of repairs needed. The results came back the next day — the fourth day after the collapse. I-880 had suffered no serious structural harm to the concrete, Caltrans concluded. The freeway connector could be jacked up and supported with makeshift braces while workers used a heat-straightening technology to repair warped steel girders underneath. Contractor ACC West finished the work quickly, and I-880 was reopened to traffic after being closed for just eight days. As for the I-580 overpass, Caltrans officials worked to speed the process by preparing a list of potential contractors it knew could do the work quickly and by streamlining its process, clearing as much crimson gauze as possible. Then they drew up a contract suggesting a $200,000 bonus — with a limit of $Five million — for each day the work was done in less than fifty days and levying a $200,000 penalty for each day after that deadline. The bids were opened and the winner was the fifth bid, from C.C. Myers Inc., which came in at $867,075. The original Caltrans estimate was $Five.Two million. Within hours of the bid award, Myers had workers on the site of the labyrinth collapse. Meantime, in Lathrop (San Joaquin County), concrete fabrication rock-hard ConFab commenced building what is essentially a big, rectangular concrete block. The block, packed with steel reinforcement bars and cables, is what’s known to road builders as a arched cap — a 243,750-pound rafter that sits atop two columns and supports the framework of the elevated roadway. While the rafter was being built, steel was being rushed from Pennsylvania and Texas to Stinger Welding, a steel fabrication rock-hard in Arizona. Carl Douglas, president of Stinger, found in Pennsylvania the nation’s only supply of the 2-inch steel plate needed to make the bottom flange of the steel girders. He found the half-inch and 1-inch steel needed for the rest of the girders in Texas. It was loaded onto trucks with two drivers in each equipment so they could make the trips with fewer stops. Once the steel reached Arizona, Stinger crews began working two 10-hour shifts daily to get the girders built. Caltrans sent inspectors and engineers — all authorized to make on-the-spot decisions — to reaction questions and ensure the quality of the fabrication. The very first two girders were done on May fourteen — just four days after Stinger began working and seven days into C.C. Myers’ contract — and around noon they were put on trucks trussed for the Bay Area. Stinger finished the girders in nine days — a job that would normally have taken about 45. The very first two girders arrived early on May fifteen at ABC Painting, an industrial paint shop on the old Mare Island Naval Shipyard in Vallejo. Crews blasted the girders with steel grit to rough them up enough to hold a good decorate of paint. Then they applied a zinc primer in “Caltrans gray,” a sort of greenish gray. As the girders were painted, the massive concrete leaned cap began making its way from Lathrop on an 18-axle truck. The flow was so intense that the truck wasn’t permitted on I-580 over the Altamont Pass and had to use rural roads to get to the Tri-Valley. Still, the arched cap arrived about fifteen minutes before Caltrans’ scheduled eight p.m. closure May fifteen of the I-880 connector for the installation, and had to wait on the side of I-80 in Berkeley. Shortly after eight p.m., the equipment pulled onto the closed I-880 connector and parked at an angle underneath the two I-580 columns that survived the collapse and needed only minor repairs. After the slat was untied and hooked to lifting cables, a pair of cranes raised it at 8:50 p.m. and had it in place by nine p.m. Crane operators then dropped large steel “pins” into crevices in the leaned cap and injected grout to secure the connection. After the very first four girders were lifted into place, two more arrived each subsequent night, and they were put in place without difficulty. As soon as each pair was secured, workers swarmed the steel slats and embarked installing the wooden forms and steel-reinforcement bar for the concrete roadway. On a typical job, the contractor would wait until the girders were all installed before preparing for the concrete pour. After curing for forty eight hours, the concrete poured on Sunday had already attained the required strength — Three,500 pounds per square inch — for the road deck. But Caltrans desired it to cure — underneath burlap and plastic blankets to keep it damp — for at least ninety six hours. For this job, C.C. Myers will collect $Five million in bonus money. The job is estimated to have cost the rock hard $Two.Five million.

The portion of this route inbetween Route five and Route two hundred five is named the “William Elton ‘Brownie’ Brown Freeway“. It was named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 74, Chapter 127, in 1985. William Elton “Brownie” Brown, (1912-1995), a lifetime resident of Tracy, served for six years as the President of the Highway thirty three Association, and was instrumental in having I-5 located on the far west side of the San Joaquin valley, thus saving valuable farm land.

The portion of this route inbetween Castro Valley and Livermore is named the “Arthur H. Breed Jr. Freeway“. Elected to both the California Assembly and Senate inbetween one thousand nine hundred thirty five and 1959, Arthur J. Breed, Jr., was a tireless advocate for the development of a high quality highway system in California. This section was named by Senate Concurrent Resolution Five, Chapter seventy three in 1983.

The portion of this route from Airway Boulevard (eastbound milepost marker 14.98) to North Flynn Road (westbound milepost marker 6.00) in Livermore is named the “CHP Officer John P. Miller Memorial Highway” It was named in memory of California Highway Patrol (CHP) Officer John Paul Miller. Born on January 29, 1975, to Larry and Caroline Miller, in Stockton, California, Officer Miller graduated from Linden High School in Linden, California, in 1994, and attended San Joaquin Delta College in Stockton, California, where he was a respected athlete and earned his Associate of Arts degree. Officer Miller was employed by Cherokee Freight Line of Stockton as a mechanic and delivery driver prior to becoming a California Highway Patrol Officer. Officer Miller was married to his best friend, Stephanie Bianchi, on July 21, 2001, and had two wonderful children, Chandler on March Eighteen, 2003, and Reese on March 14, 2005. Officer Miller continued his education by attending California State University, Sacramento and the University of Phoenix where he graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Business Administration in 2004. Officer Miller entered the California Highway Patrol Academy on September Eighteen, 2006, and upon graduation, was assigned to the Dublin Area Office in April 2007, serving the Dublin area for seven months. On November 16, 2007, Officer Miller was killed in the line of duty while he was attempting to apprehend a buzzed driver in the Livermore Valley. As Officer Miller was driving south on North Livermore Avenue, north of I-580, he was involved in a patrol car collision causing fatal injuries. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution (ACR) 78, Resolution Chapter 110, on 9/23/2009.

The portion of this route inbetween Strobridge Avenue and East Castro Valley Boulevard is named the “Sergeant Daniel Sakai Memorial Highway“. It was named in memory of Daniel Sakai of Castro Valley. Born April 6, 1973, he grew up in Big Bear in San Bernardino County, where he developed a love for everything outdoors. Daniel Sakai moved to the San Francisco Bay Area to attend the University of California at Berkeley, where he received a degree in one thousand nine hundred ninety six in forestry and natural resources and also worked as a community service officer. After graduating from the university, Daniel Sakai spent a year in Japan instructing English. Daniel Sakai attended the Oakland Police Department Academy, where he met his soulmate and future wifey, Jennifer. Daniel Sakai quickly rose to the rank of sergeant of police and served the Oakland Police Department in various roles, including as a patrol officer, canine handler, patrol rifle and academy firearms instructor, and special weapons and tactics (SWAT) team member. Daniel Sakai was described as a “special youthful man who was clearly a born leader. He was committed to public service and making a difference in other people’s lives”. He was also described as a “person that everyone looked up to and dreamed to be. He had the highest ethics”. On March 21, 2009, Sergeant Daniel Sakai was killed, along with another SWAT team member, Sergeant Ervin Romans, when the SWAT team attempted to apprehend a suspect that had earlier in the day shot and killed Sergeant Mark Dunakin and mortally wounded Officer John Hege, both of the Oakland Police Department, during a traffic stop. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution (ACR) 79, Resolution Chapter 111, on 9/23/2009.

The portion of this route from San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge distribution structure (a/k/a “the Labyrinth”) in Oakland (Route 80/Route 580/Route eight hundred eighty interchange) to Route two hundred thirty eight in Hayward/Castro Valley is named the “MacArthur Freeway“. It is named for General Douglas MacArthur of WW II and the Korean War, as well as for MacArthur Boulevard which the freeway goes after and was named for the general in the 1950’s. It was named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 27, Chapter 156, in 1968. Douglas MacArthur (1880-1964) was a brilliant and controversial five-star U.S. Army General. Strongly dedicated to country and duty, and gifted with superior directive capability, MacArthur’s military service included significant guideline assignments in the both World Wars and the Korean War. During World War One, MacArthur commanded the 42nd “Rainbow” Division of the Allied Expeditionary Force in France. After the War, MacArthur was superintendant of West Point from 1919-1922. In January of one thousand nine hundred thirty he was promoted to utter General, four starlets and named the U.S. Army’s Chief of Staff. MacArthur retired from the Army in 1937, one year after the President of the Phillipines, Manuel Quezon, appointed him Field Marshall of the Phillipine Army. In one thousand nine hundred forty one MacArthur was recalled to active duty as the U.S. ready to inject World War Two. By one thousand nine hundred forty two MacArthur was Supreme Allied Commander of the Southwest Pacific theater. In January of 1945, MacArthur was promoted to the rank of five starlet General. On September Two, one thousand nine hundred forty five on board the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay, MacArthur accepted Japan’s unconditional capitulate. In June 1950, with the beginning of the Korean War, MacArthur was appointed the Supreme United Nations commander. However, on April 11, one thousand nine hundred fifty one he was eased of his guideline by President Truman. This tunnel had been known as the “Presidio Tunnel“. [Information on General MacArthur from http://members.tripod.com/

The I-580 overpass at thirty eight th Street in Oakland is named the “Officer James Williams Memorial Overpass“. This overpass is named in memory of Oakland Police Officer James Williams, Jr., who died in the line of duty on January Ten, 1999. The incident embarked when a shotgun was discarded onto the freeway by suspects who were fleeing from the police. Officer Williams was helping to locate the weapon and was assisting in its recovery when a sniper began firing at the responding officers from the southwest side of the 38th Avenue I-580 overpass in Oakland. Officer Williams was hit by the sniper’s bullets and died of those injuries. Officer Williams had a wifey, Sabrina, and three puny children: ten-year-old Alexander, five-year-old Aaron, and four-year-old Ariana. He was formerly a police officer in Fresh Orleans, had just graduated from the police academy and was still in training at the time of his death. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 82, Chapter 12, filed 1/28/2000.

The Keller Avenue Bridge that crosses I-580 in the City of Oakland is officially named the “Sergeant Mark Dunakin, Sergeant Ervin Romans, and Officer John Hege Memorial Bridge”. This structure was named in honor of Sergeant Mark Dunakin, Sergeant Ervin Romans, and Officer John Hege, who pridefully served the Oakland Police Department for eighteen years, thirteen years, and ten years, respectively. Sergeant Dunakin began his career with the department in May 1991. During his career, he was assigned to several units of the department, including the Patrol Division, the Crime Prevention Unit, the Robbery Section, and the Homicide Unit. In 1999, Dunakin was promoted to the rank of Sergeant of Police. While serving in the Homicide Unit, Dunakin acted as one of the lead investigators of the “Nut Cases” gang, a group that terrorized Oakland in a 10-week crime wave in two thousand two and 2003. Dunakin’s tireless work paid off when the gang was successfully arrested. Sergeant Ervin Romans embarked his career with the Oakland Police Department in 1996. Romans’ sense of duty and commitment to the department never wavered; in 1999, he received the Medal of Valor, the department’s highest honor, for evacuating endangered residents from a fire in West Oakland. Romans’ expertise and attention to detail served the City of Oakland well when he become a Departmental Range Master, a position in which he trained hundreds of officers in the ethical and decent use of firearms and less lethal weapons. In 2005, Romans was promoted to the rank of Sergeant of Police. As a sergeant, he supervised one of Oakland’s crime reduction teams and served as the entry team leader on the department’s Tactical Operations Team. Officer John Hege began his career with the department as a volunteer reserve police officer in 1993. He was hired as a full-time police officer in 1999. Upon graduating from the Oakland Police Academy, he was assigned to the Bureau of Field Operations/ After patrolling the streets of Oakland for ten years, Hege fulfilled a lifelong desire when he was transferred to the Traffic Operations Section and assigned as a motorcycle officer. Hege gave his heart, soul, and a seemingly limitless amount of time to the Oakland Police Department, yet he always made time for his family and friends. Sergeant Dunakin, Sergeant Romans, and Officer Hege dedicated their lives to the pursuit of safety and justice; andon March 21, 2009, Sergeant Dunakin was shot and killed and Officer Hege was mortally wounded during a traffic stop. Efforts to apprehend the suspect resulted in the death of Sergeant Romans. Named by Assembly Concurrant Resolution (ACR) 146, 8/17/2010, Resolution Chapter 91.

There are plans for eastbound and westbound HOV lanes from Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road to Vasco Road in Alameda County. This is TCRP Project #31, requested by the Alameda County Congestion Management Authority. In August 2005, the CTC considered a TCRP Application Amendment to revise the project scope for Project #31 – Route 580; construct eastbound and westbound HOV lanes from Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road to Vasco Road in Alameda County. Primarily, the overall project was to construct eastbound and westbound HOV lanes on I-580 from west of Tassajara Road in Pleasanton to east of Vasco Road in Livermore. However, the project will now be delivered as two segments; very first the eastbound direction using the TCR funds, followed by the westbound direction. The westbound segment will require extra improvements beyond the project boundaries of the Legislative description and will be delivered with other funds to be determined. In July 2006, the CTC considered an update to the project schedule due to delays in completing the environmental document, previously finished environmental studies have lapsed or expired and are required to be redone. This reschedules Phase one of the project to FY 2005/2006.

In September 2012, the CTC approved an addition $Ten,000 for this project. These funds will be used for two separate construction contracts: Segment one (Greenville to Isabel, PPNO 0112B, 04-2908C); Segment two (Isabel to Foothill, PPNO 0112F, 04-2908E).

• Finding US forty eight (Casey Cooper)
• Finding US fifty (Casey Cooper)
• Lincoln Highway (James Lin)

Albeit not specifically on Route 580, AB 348, Chaptered 9/21/2011 (Statute Chapter 290) designated (until January 1, 2017) the segment of county highway known as Vasco Road, inbetween the Route five hundred eighty junction in Alameda County and the Walnut Boulevard intersection in Contra Costa County, as a Safety Enhancement-Double Fine Zone upon the approval of the boards of supervisors of Alameda County and Contra Costa County.

[SHC 263.8] From Route five southwest of Vernalis to Route 80.

This was part of the Lincoln Highway.

This portion of this segment from I-80 (former US 50) to I-205 was part of the coast-to-coast “Victory Highway“.

Approved as chargeable Interstate on 7/7/1947, later adjusted in one thousand nine hundred fifty five and 1957. In August 1957, this was tentatively approved as I-5W. In November 1957, the designation I-72 was proposed as part of the very first attempt to give urban routes numbers (there were no 3-digit routes at the time). The proposal went back to I-5W in August 1958, and it was ultimately approved as I-5W, and later renumbered as I-580.

In August 1958, the designation I-580 was proposed by the department for what is now I-680.

From Route eighty near Albany to Route one hundred one near San Rafael via the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge.

In 1984, Chapter four hundred nine this segment was added by transfer from Route 17. The segment was originally submitted (1983) to have been I-180; however, state numbering rules switched it to be part of I-580. Before the transfer in 1984, the section from the junction of I-80 and I-580 (“McArthur Freeway” or “the Labyrinth”) to the interchange at Hoffman Blvd (approximately three miles), was signed as I-80 and Route 17.

Before the completion of the freeway portion inbetween the Hoffman Blvd/I-80 Interchange to the foot of the San Rafeal Bridge, the Route seventeen routing was as goes after: Hoffman Blvd, to Cutting Blvd, to Standard Ave, and then to the foot of the Richmond-San Rafael bridge. This was signed as “Improvised I-580” until construction of the freeway I-580 was ended.

The Four.0-mile Richmond-San Rafael Bridge opened in 1956.

The most latest freeway routing of I-580 emerges to have been LRN 257, defined in 1959. A previous routing was LRN Sixty nine, and the San Pablo surface street routing was LRN 114. Both LRN sixty nine and LRN one hundred fourteen were defined in 1933. This was cosigned US 40/US 50.

San Rafael to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge

In September 2010, the CTC proposed amending the CMIA baseline agreements for Westbound I-580 to Northbound US one hundred one Connector Improvements project (PPNO 0342M) to • De-allocate $200,000 CMIA savings from Right of Way (R/W). • Reprogram these $200,000 CMIA savings from R/W to Construction. This project is located at theUS 101/I-580 interchange in Marin County. The project scope includes • Widen connector from westbound I-580 to northbound US 101. • Extend Bellam Boulevard off-ramp from westbound I-580. • Modify Bellam Boulevard on-ramp to northbound US 101. • Substitute Bellam Boulevard undercrossing on westbound I-580. • Construct associated bicycle and pedestrian improvements along Bellam Boulevard and East Francisco Street in this area. This project, funded one hundred percent with CMIA funds, was allocated $13,200,000 CMIA for construction capital in May 2009. When the bids were opened in September 2009, the lowest bid came $Two,148,000 below the allocated amount. The project allotment was $11,052,000. These award savings were subsequently de-allocated by the Commission at its May two thousand ten meeting. The construction contract was awarded in November two thousand nine and construction began in December 2009. Albeit the construction contract acceptance (CCA) milestone is scheduled for March 2011, it is anticipated that all the major construction activities will be ended and the facility opened to traffic by October 2010. The project is located on a site that was originally on the edge of the San Francisco Bay and presently sits atop an abandoned railroad alignment. These factors added to the risks associated with differing sub-surface conditions. Furthermore, the project location also practices mighty pedestrian and bicycle traffic that comes from a disadvantaged community adjacent to the project site and also from a number of critical crossroads of regional and local traffic access to Route 580.

Richmond-San Rafael Bridge

In April 2013, it was reported that deck replacement was about to begin on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge. The project will (a) Substitute the concrete decks for three bridges; (b) refresh the eastbound and westbound Scofield Avenue Bridge Undercrossings; (c) refresh the Westbound Western Drive Bridge Undercrossing that approaches the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Toll Plaza; (d) Strengthen structural steel bridge members; (e) Re-paint structural steel for corrosion protection; and (f) Substitute bridge deck joints and seals.

In September 2014, it was reported that BATA was considering a proposal to restore a third lane to the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge. Specifically, the BATA approved a contract with HNTB Corp. for up to $Three million to provide design services regarding the third lane. A bike path on the upper deck is also part of the design. Another lane would mean more traffic flowing onto the Four.2-mile span, helping clear the congestion on US one hundred one and Master Francis Drake Boulevard. It would only be used for eastbound vehicle traffic during evening peak periods. No construction would be involved, because there were originally three lanes on each deck. Caltrans closed one lane in each direction for emergencies and maintenance. In the mid-1970s, the lane was used for a pipe that was opened up across the bridge to carry water from Contra Costa to parched Marin during the drought. The third lane idea has been discussed for years, but something is ultimately happening thanks to the transportation commission and the Transportation Authority of Marin. There are two elements to the design project. One is to provide an extra travel lane eastbound from the Master Francis Drake onramp from San Quentin to the Marine Street offramp in Richmond. This mostly involves converting the right shoulder of the lower deck of the bridge to a lane . The 2nd element is more complicated, and would use the right-hand shoulder on the upper deck for bidirectional bicyclist and pedestrian crossings. This would require the installation of a movable median barrier. It also requires developing a way to provide cyclists access from the east side of the bridge.

In June 2015, it was reported that plans to add an extra commuter lane and a bike-pedestrian path on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge are moving forward. The $74 million improvement project would be fully funded with Bay Area Toll Authority toll funds. Right now, the plan includes building a concrete barrier system on the upper deck of the span for a bicycle and pedestrian pathway. On the lower deck, the existing shoulder would be converted to a commuter lane, expected to relieve traffic congestion during peak periods. In August 2015, it was reported that Assembly Man Marc Levine believes that third eastbound lane on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge should be opened by the end of September two thousand fifteen at the latest, not in two thousand seventeen as Caltrans has proposed. He has introduced a bill, AB9, in an attempt to thrust the agency into activity. Levine contends opening the third lane – which now is a shoulder – is a elementary fix: just paint in a fresh lane. The bridge primarily had three lanes when it opened in 1956, but when drought hit in one thousand nine hundred seventy seven a lane was closed so a pipeline could be laid across the span to bring water to Marin. When the pipeline was liquidated in 1978, the lane was converted to a shoulder given light traffic. «The lane is there, they are just pretending it`s a shoulder,» Levine said, adding the lane could be opened on a «improvised» basis until a permanent fix is achieved. Caltrans officials said simply painting in a fresh lane is not as effortless as it sounds. Caltrans noted the shoulder reduces in width from ten feet on the bridge to just over two feet on land in Richmond, which would create a bottleneck for cars. Caltrans also says the existing shoulder is presently used as a bike path as it comes off the bridge. That use would not be possible if the shoulder is widened for vehicle use. They are also working over water, and now have to do the required environmental planning. In October 2015, it was reported that the estimated completion was October 2017.

On October Ten, 2015, the Governor signed AB one hundred fifty seven (Chapter 393, Statues of 2015). This bill, if the CTC and Caltrans develop a project to open the third lane on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge to automobile traffic on the eastbound level and to bicycle traffic on the westbound level, would authorize the lead agency to finish the design work for the project at the same time with the environmental review conducted pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.

In July 2016, it was reported that a final design to open a third eastbound lane on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge to ease traffic has gone to Caltrans, clearing the way for a projected December two thousand seventeen opening. In the coming years the bridge will fall under major switches with the addition of a third vehicle travel lane on its lower deck and a bike lane on top. The two projects have a $74 million price tag. A contract for the project could be awarded as soon as September, with construction embarking in October. But issues with moving utilities could cause delays. While opening the lane may sound ordinary, officials note a state and federal rules environmental analysis is required. In addition, fresh signs will have to go on the span and a retaining wall on the Contra Costa side must be set back to create added space for cars heading off the span. The added eastbound car lane would likely be open only during commute hours, permitting Caltrans to retain a shoulder for maintenance work during other times of the day. A 2nd bridge project would bring a 10-foot-wide lane on the north side of the roadway on the top deck of the span. Bicyclists and pedestrians traveling east and west would use the space that would be separated from car traffic by a movable median barrier. It would open in March two thousand eighteen under the current plan. A movable barrier is needed to permit Caltrans to perform maintenance work on the span. The bridge originally had three lanes when it opened in 1956, but when drought hit in one thousand nine hundred seventy seven a lane on the top deck was closed so a pipeline could be laid across the span to bring water to Marin. When the pipeline was eliminated in 1978, the top and lower deck lanes were converted to shoulders because of light traffic. The Richmond-San Rafael is the third least-used of the Bay Area spans, ahead only of the Dumbarton and Antioch bridges. But inbetween two thousand eleven and 2016, traffic has enhanced about thirteen percent as the economy has rebounded. The price tag for the lane is $30 million. The bike path is $29 million, and there is a $15 million contingency. Once built, the fresh configurations would be deemed a four-year pilot project and would be analyzed after that time.

In August 2016, it was reported that state officials finalized project approval and certified environmental documentation for the $73 million project spearheaded by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), Caltrans, the Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM) and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA). State approval clears the way for MTC this week to advertise a trio of construction contracts and keeps the $73 million initiative on track to begin construction this October, with the third eastbound lane slated to open in October 2017. The third lane on eastbound I-580 will extend from the Tormentor Francis Drake Blvd. on-ramp in Marin County to the Point Richmond exit in Contra Costa County. Project elements include reconfiguring the Main Street on-ramp from the San Quentin Village area of Marin County with a retaining wall to improve the traffic merge with the fresh third eastbound lane; substituting pavement on both the west and east sides of the bridge to accommodate stronger traffic explosions; relocating a retaining wall on the south side of I-580 in Richmond to achieve safe view distances for vehicles traveling in the fresh right lane; constructing a barrier-separated bicycle/pedestrian path on the north side of I-580 from Castro Street in Richmond to Point Molate; and adapting the right shoulder of the westbound Richmond-San Rafael Bridge deck for a bike/ped path that will become part of the Bay Trail network. To separate bicyclists and pedestrians from westbound traffic on the upper deck of the bridge, a moveable concrete barrier will be installed on the span. This will permit Caltrans to conduct bridge maintenance work during brief closures of the path. The 10-foot-wide path will obey with Americans with Disabilities Act standards.

In September 2016, it was reported that a final design to open a third eastbound lane on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge has been approved by Caltrans, clearing the way for a project to commence once a builder is found. In addition to a third vehicle travel lane on its lower deck, a bike lane will go on top. The two projects have a $74 million price tag. While opening the lane may sound plain, officials note a state and federal rules environmental analysis is required. In addition, fresh signs will have to go on the span and a retaining wall on the Contra Costa side must be set back to create added space for cars heading off the span. The added eastbound car lane would likely be open only during commute hours, permitting Caltrans to retain a shoulder for maintenance work during other times of the day. Other project elements in Marin include reconfiguring the Main Street onramp from the San Quentin Village area with a retaining wall to improve the traffic merge with the fresh lane, and substituting pavement on the bridge approaches to accommodate stronger traffic explosions, according to officials. In later September, it was reported that a key bay protection agency also gave its approval for the addition of an eastbound, third traffic lane on the lower deck and a bike lane on the upper deck of the span. The Bay Conservation and Development Commission reviews all projects that are built in or over the bay and its approval was needed to permit the commute ease plan to budge forward.

In November 2016, it was reported that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission`s Bay Area Toll Authority Oversight Committee approved a $27.Two million contract to Berkeley-based O.C. Jones and Sons Inc. in mid-November to construct the third lane and associated work. It was one of five bids submitted. The committee also approved a $Five.6 million contingency fund to cover any switches in the work that may be necessary. The third travel lane is slated for completion within two hundred working days of the commence of construction, likely Fall 2017.

In January 2017, it was reported that work on a project to create a third eastbound lane on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge to ease traffic has embarked and could be finished by fall 2017. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission approved a $27.Two million contract to Berkeley-based O.C. Jones and Sons Inc. to construct the third lane and associated work and that began the very first week of January 2017. Early phases of the project will include tree removal work near San Quentin, and much of the initial work is occurring on the Contra Costa side, where a retaining wall and a bike lane will be moved to accommodate the third lane. Tree removal will also occur in that county as well. All trees will be substituted. The added eastbound car lane only will be open during commute hours, permitting Caltrans to retain a shoulder for maintenance work during other times of the day. Other project elements in Marin include reconfiguring the Main Street onramp from the San Quentin Village area with a retaining wall to improve the traffic merge with the fresh lane, and substituting pavement on the bridge approaches to accommodate stronger traffic explosions, according to officials. A 2nd bridge project would bring a 10-foot-wide lane on the north side of the roadway on the upper deck of the span. Bicyclists and pedestrians traveling east and west would use the space that would be separated from car traffic by a movable median barrier. The bike lane, a four-year experiment, will be separated from traffic by a $25 million movable barrier like the one separating the traffic lanes on the Golden Gate Bridge. That expensive movable barrier comes with a $1 million mover. They`ll have to rev up the mover every once in a while – to keep it in form – and use it to stir the movable barrier, so it won`t get too stiff. A movable barrier is needed to permit Caltrans to perform maintenance work on the span. So, once a month, the Four.5-mile barrier will be shifted and then put back in place, just to keep everything in working condition. It would open in March two thousand eighteen under the current plan. January uncovered one extra complication: Hummingbirds! A hummingbird nest was found on the Richmond side of the project, in one of about two dozen trees that were to be liquidated to widen the right-of-way on I-580, a half mile past the toll plaza. Construction workers built a rough fence around the tree, and it will stay in place until the egg they found in the nest hatches. The bridge primarily had three lanes when it opened in 1956, but when drought hit in one thousand nine hundred seventy seven a lane on the top deck was closed so a pipeline could be placed across the span to bring water to Marin. When the pipeline was liquidated in 1978, the top and lower deck lanes were converted to shoulders because of light traffic.

Richmond-San Rafael Bridge to Richmond

In December 2011, the CTC authorized relinquishment of right of way in the city of Richmond along Route five hundred eighty on Marina Bay Parkway, consisting of collateral facilities.

In August 2012, the CTC approved SHOPP funding of $Eighteen,459,000 on I-580 PM Five.Five/6.1 near Richmond, at Scofield Avenue (Bridge #28-140L/R) and at Western Drive (Bridge #28-141R). Outcome/Output: Rehabilitate three bridges by substituting bridge decks to maintain structure integrity and reduce the risk to lives and properties.

I-580 from I-80 to the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge through Richmond is named the “John T. Knox Freeway“. John J. Knox., elected to the California Assembly in 1960, made significant legislative contributions to the upgrade of I-580 to meet interstate freeway standards. Named by Senate Concurrent Resolution 50, Chapter seventy eight in 1980.

Bridge 28-100, the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge (named by Senate Concurrent Resolution one hundred Chapter two hundred forty three in 1955) inbetween Richmond and San Rafael in Contra Costa county.

It was officially renamed the “John F. McCarthy Memorial Bridge“. John F. McCarthy served in the California Senate from one thousand nine hundred fifty to one thousand nine hundred seventy where he was instrumental in the creation of the Bay Area Rapid Transit District. It was built in 1956, and renamed by Senate Concurrent Resolution Nineteen, Chapter seventy six in 1981.

In Contra Costa County, HOV lanes once ran eastbound from Marine Street to W of Central Avenue, for a length of Four.Five mi. They ran westbound from E of Central Avenue to Marine Street for a length of Five.Three mi. They were opened in 1989, extended in 1992, and were closed through Richmond by February 2000.

There is also a HOV off the hook lane on the Richmond/San Rafael Bridge. It opened in October 1989. It requires three or more occupants (two for two-seater vehicles) and operates during rush hour.

Approved as chargeable interstate in April 1978; originally numbered as I-180; the portion inbetween Castro Street in Richmond and Route one hundred one is 139(a) non-chargeable milage.

The following segments are designated as Classified Landscaped Freeway:

• Cal-NExUS Exit Numbering: Route five hundred eighty East
• Cal-NExUS Exit Numbering: Route five hundred eighty West
• I-580 Disrobe Chart (Andrew Tompkins; XML Required )

• California @ AARoads: Interstate 580
• Three Digit Interstates: I-180
• Trio Digit Interstates: I-580

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

Overall statistics for Route 580:

• Total Length (1995): seventy six miles
• Average Daily Traffic (1992): 14,100 to 286,000
• Milage Classification: Rural: 28; Sm. Urban: 0; Urbanized: 48.
• Previous Federal Aid Milage: FAI: sixty eight mi; FAP: eight mi.
• Functional Classification: Prin. Arterial: seventy six mi.
• Counties Traversed: San Joaquin, Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin.

Interstate 605

From Route one near Seal Beach to Route 405.

In 1963, Route six hundred five was defined as “Route four hundred five to Route ten near the San Gabriel Sea.”

In 1964, it was noted that “Similarly, the southern extension, from the San Diego Freeway to the Pacific Coast Highway, is noninterstate. It is now designated as Route 240. Studies leading to adoption of the route are in a preliminary stage.”

In 1968, Chapter two hundred eighty two added segment (a) and (c): “(a) Route one near Seal Beach to Route 405. (b) Route four hundred five to Route ten near the San Gabriel Sea. (c) Route ten to Route two hundred ten near Duarte.” Segment (a) was a transfer from Route two hundred forty (defined in 1964).

This was LRN 170. The portion inbetween Route twenty two and I-10 was defined in 1933; the portion inbetween Route one and Route twenty two in 1957; and the remainder in 1959.

The portion inbetween Route one and Route twenty two is unconstructed. The routing is harshly Seal Beach Blvd, albeit this does not meet the definition of a traversable highway. In 1965, it was planned to connect to the Pacific Coast Freeway (Route 1).

From Route four hundred five to Route two hundred ten near Duarte.

In 1963, Route six hundred five was defined as “Route four hundred five to Route ten near the San Gabriel Sea.”

In 1964, it was noted that “The northerly extension of the San Gabriel Sea Freeway, Five.Four miles in length, inbetween the San Bernardino Freeway and the future Foothill Freeway, is being designed and right-of-way is being acquired. This section, not on the interstate system, is now designated as Route 243. Construction is about four years in the future (1968).”

In 1968, Chapter two hundred eighty two added segment (a) and (c): “(a) Route one near Seal Beach to Route 405. (b) Route four hundred five to Route ten near the San Gabriel Sea. (c) Route ten to Route two hundred ten near Duarte.” Segment (c) was transferred from Route 243. The Route two hundred forty three segment was approved for interstate construction as part of the December one thousand nine hundred sixty eight Federal Aid Highway act, which provided $Nineteen.0 million for the Five.Five mile segment.

In 1984, Chapter four hundred nine combined (b) and (c): “(b) Route four hundred five to Route two hundred ten near Duarte.”

The freeway began construction in 1964, and was extended north to the I-210 in 1971.

This was LRN 170. The portion inbetween Route twenty two and I-10 was defined in 1933; the portion inbetween Route one and Route twenty two in 1957; and the remainder in 1959. On 12/15/1954, the CTC adopted a freeway routing for the future I-605 inbetween the San Diego Freeway and the San Bernardino Freeway (Route seven and US 70-99 then, now I-405 and I-10).

In December 2005, utilizing Measure M money, the OCTA authorized construction of HOV connector ramps inbetween I-405 and I-605.

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

• High Priority Project #574: Construction funding for I-605 Interchange Capacity Improvements in Irwindale. $1,600,000 .
• High Priority Project #3175: Route 91/I-605 Needs Assesment Probe, Whittier, CA. $12,800 .

In August 2011, the CTC approved $Two,033,000 in SHOPP funding for repairs in and near Pico Rivera, from 195th Street to Route 210, that will repair bridge decks and substitute joint seals on twenty two bridges to extend the service life of the structures.

In January 2016, the CTC approved the following SHOPP funding: 7-LA-605 R10.1/15.7 I-605: In Pico Rivera and Whittier, from Telegraph Road to Rose Hills Road; also in El Monte and Baldwin Park from Ramona Boulevard to Route two hundred ten (PM 20.9/25.6). Substitute bruised concrete slabs, grind and groove concrete pavement to increase roadway surface friction during humid conditions. $12K (R/W); $Four,618K (C) Completion

In March 2012, Caltrans began construction of a $14-million sound wall project along the six hundred five freeway in the city of Whittier and unincorporated county. The project consists of approximately three miles of sound walls on both sides of the freeway with a scheduled completion of winter 2013. Metro funded the entire $14 million from Prop C and Measure R monies.

In March 2016, the Los Angeles MTA introduced its utter proposal for what transit lines could be built — and when — if Los Angeles County voters approve a half-cent sales tax increase in November 2016. This proposal included funding for Route 60/I-605 Interchange HOV Direct Connectors. This project is from the North and Southbound on I-605 from Rose Hills to I-10 and on East and Westbound Route sixty from Santa Anita to Turnbull Canyon. The Interchange improvements include adding auxiliary lanes, widening lanes and bridges, interchange connectors, ramp improvements and realignments.

In April 2012, the CTC authorized SHOPP funding on I-605, in Los Angeles County, 07-LA-605 R0.1/R16.6 In Los Angeles County through various cities, from Coyote Creek Bridge to Peck Road. $588,000 to construct 11,500 feet of metal slat guardrail, and Two,000 feet of concrete barrier at locations of high embankments, trees, and immobilized objects. The project will improve safety by reducing the severity of run-off-the road collisions.

According to an article in the San Gabriel Tribune, the I-10/I-605 interchange was designed in one thousand nine hundred sixty four and was supposed to accommodate traffic until 1984. No major switches have been undertaken there since it was built. An average of 438,000 cars use the interchange each day, making the intersection the 19th busiest in the state. According to a one thousand nine hundred ninety nine examine by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the area directly around the interchange has one of the highest air-pollution- related cancer risk factors in the San Gabriel Valley. One of the main problems with the intersection is what engineers call “the weave,”, where vehicles transferring from the I-10 west to the I-605 south have to weave across cars getting on the I-605 south from the I-10 east. Cars from both directions have only about one hundred fifty feet to switch places with each other. Additionally, drivers who want to transfer from the southbound I-605 to the eastbound I-10 east have to take a left turn when leaving the I-605. According to Caltrans, the prospects for improvements are bleak. Caltrans is considering building a flyover from the I-605 south to the I-10 east, which would eliminate the weaving-in section. Construction for the $66 million direct connector should break ground in 2011.

In June 2009, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding this project. It will construct an elevated direct connector from southbound I-605 to eastbound I-10 that would substitute the existing southbound I-605 to eastbound I-10 connector. The project is fully funded and is programmed on the two thousand eight State Highway Operation Protection Program Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicles (GARVEE) list. The estimated project cost is $76,460,000, capital and support. Construction is estimated to begin in Fiscal Year (FY) 2010-11.

In December 2012, construction embarked on the $66 million one-lane flyover ramp that will provide a direct connection from SB I-605 to the EB I-10. The ramp will be erected seventy feet above the freeway so that those driving along SB I-605 freeway will have their own ramp to connect with EB I-10 freeway without having to make lane switches that interfere with other drivers also merging on the interchange. The project is funded by the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP), with a combination of state and federal monies.

In November 2015, it was reported that the SB I-605 to EB I-10 flyover ramp opened.

In March 2016, the Los Angeles MTA introduced its utter proposal for what transit lines could be built — and when — if Los Angeles County voters approve a half-cent sales tax increase in November 2016. This proposal included funding for the I-605/I-10 Interchange project that will improve interchanges from Eastbound I-10 to Southbound I-605, Westbound I-10 to Southbound I-605, Northbound I-605 to Eastbound I-10, and Northbound I-605 to Westbound I-10.

In January 2011, the CTC authorized relinquishment of right of way in the city of Irwindale along Route six hundred five inbetween West Ramona Boulevard and Rivergrade Road, consisting of collateral facilities.

The portion of this segment from Route four hundred five to Route ten is officially designated as the “San Gabriel Sea Freeway.” It was named by Senate Bill 99, Chapter 1101, in 1967. The very first segment opened in 1964; the last in 1971.

The portion inbetween I-10 and I-210 was known during construction as the “Rivergrade Freeway“, as it was virtually paved over the then-existing Rivergrade Road alignment that ran inbetween Valley Blvd (South Terminus) and Arrow Highway (Northern Terminus). Today Rivergrade Road now only exists inbetween Live Oak Ave and Arrow Highway, running along the eastern side of the San Gabriel Sea. The southern lil’ portion at Valley Blvd is known as Perez Place which also intersects with Temple Ave.

The interchange of I-605 and I-210 is named the Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriff David W. March Memorial Interchange. It was named in memory of Deputy David W. March of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, who was killed in the line of duty at the age of thirty three on April 29, 2002, in Irwindale while conducting a “routine” traffic stop. He was a longtime resident of Santa Clarita Valley and a one thousand nine hundred eighty eight graduate of Canyon High School where he played football and baseball. He served seven years as a law enforcement officer. It was named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 142, July 16, 2004. Chapter 122.

The portion of I-605 inbetween Carson Street and Del Amo Boulevard, in the County of Los Angeles, is named the “John Sanford Todd Memorial Highway“. It was named in memory of John Sanford Todd, who was active in the battle to presever the independence of the city of Lakewood in the early 1953s in the face of annexation elections by the city of Long Beach. With other community members, John Sanford Todd mounted a spirited campaign to prevent “piecemeal annexation.” It was his strategy of appealing each annexation election as soon as it was announced stalled the City of Long Beach’s plans, albeit Lakewood Village and a few other neighborhoods accepted annexation. Todd was also responsible for Lakewood Cityhood, including the idea that unincorporated communities did not have to choose inbetween annexation by a big city or building a costly civic infrastructure from scrape. Instead, Todd believed that city councils could turn to the county to supply municipal services through a system of contracts. Todd served as Lakewood’s City Attorney from one thousand nine hundred fifty four until 2004, a period of fifty years. As the city’s legal counsel over that period of fifty years, John Sanford Todd drafted hundreds of ordinances, policies, regulations, and resolutions. The quality of everyday life in Lakewood can be directly attributed to the figure of law of which John Sanford Todd was the principal author. John Sanford Todd served in other ways, including as an officer in the contract cities association and in the statewide League of California Cities. He was, for a time, the City Attorney of Pico Rivera as well as Lakewood. He was also the very first legal counsel of the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority, an agency that provides member cities with insurance protection. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution (ACR) 15, Resolution Chapter 76, on 7/16/2009.

The portion from Route ten to Route two hundred ten is unnamed.

The freeway interchange inbetween Route one hundred five and Route six hundred five is officially designated the “Joe A. Gonsalves Memorial Interchange“. Joe A. Gonsalves was born to Joaquim Gonsalves and Elvira Silva Gonsalves in Holtville, California, on October 13, 1919. He was elected to the City Council of the City of Dairy Valley, now known as the City of Cerritos, in 1958, and was twice elected the Mayor of Dairy Valley. In 1962, he was elected to the California State Assembly, signifying the 66th Assembly District (making him the very first person of Portuguese ancestry to be elected to the California State Legislature). During his twelve years in the California Legislature he served as Chair of the Assembly Rules Committee, Revenue and Taxation Committee, and the Joint Committee on Rules and, served as a member of the Assembly Education Committee, and the State Allocation Board. In 1963, during his legislative tenure, Section four hundred five of the Streets and Highways Code was enacted, describing Route one hundred five as running from Route Five, to the junction of Route one hundred one and Route 110, which would have caused Route one hundred five to cut through the Cities of Norwalk and La Mirada [Note: The above is from the resolution, and reflects poor research. The current incarnation of Route one hundred five wasn’t defined as Route one hundred five in 1963; the closest routing was pre-1968 Route 42]. At the requests of the Cities of Norwalk and La Mirada and their residents, Joe A. Gonsalves was instrumental in having Section four hundred five of the Streets and Highways Code amended in 1968, so that Route one hundred five ended at Route six hundred five rather than cutting through the Cities of Norwalk and La Mirada (thus, those of you who complain that I-105 doesn’t go through to I-5 have Mr. Gonsalves to blame). After leaving the legislature, Joe A. Gonsalves operated the only three-generation lobbying hard in Sacramento, with his son, Anthony Gonsalves, and his grandson, Jason Gonsalves. Joe A. Gonsalves passed away on July 7, 2000. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 96, Chapter 129, September 24, 2001.

The I-10 interchange with I-605 at post mile 31.151 in the County of Los Angeles is named the “CHP Officer William B. Wolff III Memorial Interchange”. It was named in memory of CHP Officer William B. Wolff III, who was born in January 1946, in Akron, Ohio. Officer Wolff graduated from Upper Darby High School in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in 1964, and attended Cal Poly Pomona shortly thereafter, where he received a degree in kinesiology. Officer Wolff was a licensed vocational nurse and also served our country as a member of the United States Navy prior to becoming a California Highway Patrol officer. Officer Wolff is remembered as a proud father and grandfather. Officer Wolff, badge number 8342, entered the California Highway Patrol Academy on August 13, 1973, and, upon graduation, was assigned to the Baldwin Park area, where he served for approximately five years. Officer Wolff was killed in the line of duty on December 30, 1977, while making a traffic stop along the I-10 freeway in Baldwin Park, when he was struck by a tipsy driver. The motorist who killed Officer Wolff was charged with felony toasted driving. Officer Wolff was a hard working, dedicated officer who loved his job and loved the people he worked with. He was known for being a loyal family man and a wonderful father. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 86, Resolution Chapter 185, on 09/21/15.

• Cal-NExUS Exit Numbering: Route 605
• I-605 Undress Chart (Andrew Tompkins)

• California @ AARoads: Interstate 605
• Trio Digit Interstates: I-605

Commuter lanes are under construction on this route inbetween Telegraph Road and I-10. They are scheduled to open in April 1998.

Lanes are planned inbetween the Los Angeles/Orange County line and South Street; construction starts in 1999. That date, however, was optimistic. In June 2002, there was a STIP proposal on the CTC agenda for constructing HOV lanes from Route four hundred five to the Los Angeles County line. This also shows on the regional transportation improvement plan.

The following segments are designated as Classified Landscaped Freeway:

Approved as chargeable Interstate from Route four hundred five to Route ten on 9/15/1955; the Route ten to Route two hundred ten portion was approved as chargeable in December one thousand nine hundred sixty eight as a result of the December one thousand nine hundred sixty eight Federal Aid Highway Act.

In November 1957, the California Department of Highways proposed this as I-13. When that was rejected for an urban route, the department attempted it as a three digit interstate, I-105. This was before the numbering conventions were established, and sequential 3dis were being used. That number was also rejected. In August 1958, the department proposed I-605, which was accepted.

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

Overall statistics for I-605:

• Total Length (1995): twenty seven miles traversed; three miles unconstructed.
• Average Daily Traffic (1992): 34,000 to 247,000.
• Milage Classification: Rural: 0; Sm. Urban: 0; Urbanized: 30.
• Previous Federal Aid Milage: FAI: twenty seven mi.
• Functional Classification: Prin. Arterial: twenty seven mi.
• Counties Traversed: Los Angeles, Orange.

Interstate 680

From Route one hundred one near San Jose to Route seven hundred eighty at Benicia passing near Warm Springs, Mission San Jose, Scotts Corners and Sunol, and via Walnut Creek.

In 1963, Route six hundred eighty was defined as “Route two hundred eighty in San Jose to Route eighty in Vallejo passing near Warm Springs, Mission San Jose, Scotts Corners and Sunol, and via Walnut Creek and Benicia.”. The one thousand nine hundred sixty four routing is illustrated to the right.

In 1965, Chapter one thousand three hundred seventy one switched the origin of the route: “Route two hundred eighty Route 101 near San Jose to Route eighty in Vallejo passing near Warm Springs, Mission San Jose, Scotts Corners and Sunol, and via Walnut Creek and Benicia.”

In 1976, Chapter one thousand three hundred fifty four added a 2nd segment and switch terminus of (a): “(a) Route one hundred one near San Jose to Route seven hundred eighty in Vallejo at Benicia passing near Warm Springs, Mission San Jose, Scotts Corners, and Sunol, and via Walnut Creek and Benecia. (b) Route seven hundred eighty at Benicia to Route eighty near Cordelia.” This was the result of a transfer from Route 21, combined with a concurrent transfer to fresh I-780.

Portions of this segment was once signed as Route twenty one (and for a while, during the numbering changeover, was cosigned as Route 21). The beginning of the one thousand nine hundred sixty three segment (b) of Route seventeen [Route one hundred one near San Jose. ] (as opposed to “at Story Road”, which is in the definition of I-280) could imply that instead of the 2nd segment of Route seventeen signifying current I-680 inbetween US one hundred one and Route 262, the one thousand nine hundred sixty three notion represented the surface street routing along Oakland Road (later to be signed as Route 238), with I-680 being the only legislatively defined number for all of current Route two hundred sixty two and all of the Route 17/I-880 from I-280 to Route 262. This might imply that the segment of I-680 from Route two hundred sixty two to US one hundred one was very first planned in 1965.* It emerges the original plans were for Route seventeen to have turned east in San Jose onto what is now I-280, crossed US 101, and then joined with I-680 in Fremont using the present-day I-680 alignment. I-280 would have turned north on present-day I-880 (then signed as Route 17) at Route 17, switched to I-680 at US 101, and then would have joined the proposed Route seventeen at Fremont near Route 262. Evidently, Route seventeen would have crossed over somewhere at that point to its then-existing routing up to Oakland.

[ *: Credit for the surmisings regarding 1963-1965 I-680 should go to Chris Sampang ]

At this time (i.e., before the section south of Fremont opened), I-680 was routed along present-day I-880 to US one hundred one in San Jose. The section from Mission Blvd to Route two hundred thirty seven opened in 1971, and the section south of that opened in 1974. The I-280/US one hundred one interchange opened in 1982. For a time, I-680 was routed along Route seventeen (now I-880) to Route 237, across Route 237, and then up the current I-680 from Route 237.

There is also a maintenance facility at the southwest corner of Scott Creek Road. It was originally acquired by Caltrans for a freeway that was going to connect I-680 to I-880. This freeway was killed by Gov. Jerry Brown in the 1970s.

After the fresh I-680 alignment was finalized, Oakland Road and Main Street were signed as Route 238, since that portion of Mission Blvd south of the present terminus of Route two hundred thirty eight was signed as Route two hundred thirty eight to Warm Springs. Today’s I-880 freeway was signed as Route seventeen and Improvised I-680 north of US one hundred one to the junction of Route two hundred sixty two and Route seventeen and Improvised I-280 south of US one hundred one to the junction of US 280. Note that Mission Blvd crosses I-680 twice. At the very first (northern) crossing it is signed as Route two hundred thirty eight and this is the present terminus of Route 238. At the 2nd (southern) crossing it is signed as a connection to I-880; this is the eastern terminus of (unsigned) Route 262. Also, the city of Milpitas built a fresh alignment for Main Street, so present-day maps do not display how Oakland Road connected with Mission Blvd in Warm Springs via Main Street.

When I-680 was built in the hills through Fremont’s east side in the 1963-1964, an overpass and roadway was also constructed heading northwest where I-680 now turns east up through Mission Pass, inbetween the Washington Boulevard and Auto Mall Parkway exits. That section, about 1,000 feet long, was the begin of the aborted Mission Freeway that was to have run northwest under Lake Elizabeth through the middle of Fremont and Union City to connect with I-580 in Hayward. These plans were scuttled in the 1970s. This “bridge to nowhere” was demolished in two thousand two to accomodate widening of I-680, and the southbound carpool lane construction. Caltrans still wields property on the north side of the curve east of Osgood that it has used for construction staging. However, the Caltrans Bridge Log dates the bridge as 1971, and refers to it as “FUTURE 238/680”. This has left a mysterious exit-like area off I-680 in Fremont.

The Benicia-Martinez bridge opened on September 15, 1962, substituting a ferry. Concurrently, the Benicia-Martinez Ferry made its last journey across the Carquinez Straits. This marked not only the end of the state-operated ferry system, but also the end of one hundred fifteen yeaxs of ferry service in the San Francisco Bay area (except for a fresh Tiburon commuter vessel). The M.V. Carquinez has been sold to the State of Florida for $86,001. It will be used as a part of the State of Florida’s ferry system across the mouth of the St. Johns Sea on the Atlantic Coast east of Jacksonville.

They are working on a fresh Benicia Bridge, but it may not happen because of some the construction of the foundation piers may be interfering with salmon and delta smelt migration. The project experienced a delay in November two thousand two due to rock boring problems and problems with the collapsing of mud in the underwater bores. These delays shoved back the opening seven years and enhanced the cost to almost $1.Three billion. The very first major construction problem came when the noise and stimulation from pile-driving operations killed fish in the Carquinez Strait. The work stopped while engineers designed an air bubble curtain to protect aquatic life. Contractors then hit unexpectedly soft rock at the base of the pilings used to support the bridge’s piers. To anchor the pilings deep underneath the riverbed, the contractor inserted steel sleeves into the pilings and packed them with concrete and rebar, a costly and time-consuming task. Later, as workers began pouring the very first of three hundred forty four 16-foot segments, the chemistry of the lightweight concrete produced too much fever. To cool down the concrete, the contractor pumped water from the sea into a series of pipes to each segment until each cured decently. It opened at the end of August 2007. Details on the project can be found here and here. The basic project includes the following features:

• Construction of a fresh five lane bridge (four mixed-flow lanes one slow-vehicle lane), east of the existing bridge and rail span with provisions to accommodate future light rail
• Construction of a fresh 9-booth toll plaza – including one carpool bypass lane, two open road tolling lanes and accommodation for electronic toll collection – as well as an administration building at the southern treatment to the fresh bridge in Contra Costa County
• Reconstruction of the Interstate six hundred eighty interchanges at I-780 in Benicia and Marina Vista/Waterfront Road in Martinez to accommodate the fresh bridge and toll plaza
• Modifications of the existing bridge to accommodate four mixed-flow lanes of southbound traffic and two-way bicycle/pedestrian lane
• Restoration of a 22.8 acre parcel of tidal marsh in the City of Benicia

This was the very first bridge in Northern California to have FasTrak Express lanes. Unlike existing FasTrak lanes, which use treadles mounted in the pavement and laser-light curtains to count axles and measure vehicles, the technology used for open-road tolling does the job from above in a fraction of a 2nd. And if it doesn’t recognize the vehicle, it snaps photographs of it and its license numbers. Drivers, if they’re paying attention, will hear the familiar “beep-beep” from their FasTrak transponder as they pass the toll plaza and speed toward the bridge. The fresh equipment can collect tolls at speeds up to one hundred mph. A California Highway Patrol officer, testing the system by zipping through the plaza at eighty five mph, had his toll collected electronically. The equipment also snapped a clear pic of his license plate. Bridge officials also have tested the lanes by flooding them with vehicles to make sure the equipment works in crowded conditions. And they’ve installed cameras and detectors over the broad shoulders to make sure drivers sitting astride the line or attempting to sneak through without paying will be charged.

The fresh Benicia-Martinez Bridge, funded with voter-approved toll increases, will carry northbound traffic, and the existing bridge will carry southbound traffic in three lanes. Over the next two years, crews will liquidate the median and convert the old span to four traffic lanes and one bicycle/pedestrian lane.

This project also includes replacement of the Marina Vista Bridge. This bridge was the site of a horrific accident on May 21, 1976, when the driver of a school bus utter of choir students from Yuba City High School took the off-ramp at Marina Vista in Martinez. The bus plunged over the railing, landing upside down more than twenty feet below. Twenty eight students and one teacher died. Twenty two were injured. Along with driver error and mechanical failure, investigators ruled the severe curvature of the off-ramp was a contributing factor in the crash. In May 2016, it was reported that the infamous offramp was gone, and a fresh one should open by October 2015.

Before 1976, the north end of I-680 went along present-day I-780 to I-80 in Vallejo, and Route twenty one continued as a freeway to Fairfield.

In May 2003, the CTC considered relinquishment of the segment from PM 12.9 to PM 14.1 in the County of Alameda. This is likely an original surface street or frontage routing.

The portion of this route inbetween US one hundred one and present-day Route two hundred thirty eight was signed until one thousand nine hundred sixty four as Alternate US 101.

What was eventually signed as I-680 was built from the following LRNs:

The portion of LRN five inbetween US one hundred one (Bypass US 101) and the surroundings of Irvington. This LRN was defined in 1909, and was originally part of Route 21. LRN one hundred eight inbetween Irvington and Sunol. This LRN was defined in 1933.

LRN one hundred seven inbetween Sunol and Walnut Creek. This LRN was defined in 1933. This was originally signed as part of Route 21.

The portion of LRN seventy five inbetween Walnut Creek and Benecia. This segment of LRN seventy five was defined in 1933. Portions of this were signed as Route 24/Route twenty one (until where Route two hundred forty two now diverges), and the remainder to Benecia was signed as Route 21. This segment was signed as Route twenty four before the interstate signage, commencing in 1935.

From US one hundred one in San Jose to Fremont

The CTC is funding a probe for a cross connector freeway (Route 262) inbetween I-680 and I-880 near Warm Springs.

There is also a project to construct a northbound HOV lane over the Sunol Grade, Milpitas to Route eighty four in Santa Clara and Alameda Counties. This was very first discussed during the June two thousand one CTC meeting under Agenda Item Two.1c.(1). It is TCRP Project #Four, requested by the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency and authorized for $60,000,000. On June 6, 2001, the Commission designated the northbound and southbound Route six hundred eighty HOV lanes over the Sunol Grade in Alameda and Santa Clara Counties as one corridor project (STIP Amendment 00S-031). Both projects are proceeding concurrently. The northbound project is in the environmental process and the southbound project is under construction.

In January 2015, the CTC received notice of a draft EIR for the I-680 Northbound HOV/Express Lane Project, which will construct an approximately 15-mile HOV/Express Lane on northbound I-680 from south of Route two hundred thirty seven in Santa Clara County to north of Route eighty four (Vallecitos Road) in Alameda County. The alternatives are either build or no-build; the build would be in numerous phases. The EIR was ready due to a substantial amount of public controversy surrounding the project associated with the proposed removal of five historic trees. The routing emerges to be approximately the same segment that has the SB lanes. The project involves addition of the HOV lane, installation of electronic tolling equipment and signage, widening of existing paved surfaces in the median, construction of auxiliary lanes, demolition and replacement of the Sheridan Road overcrossing, widening the east side of the Alameda Creek Bridge, construction of retaining walls, fresh and replacement sound walls, modification of ramp metering, and pavement rehabilitation.

The plan is to build the HOV/express lanes in numerous phases, with the very first phase being constructing the lanes from Auto Mall Parkway to Route eighty four (from Post Mile Three.Four to the end of the project). It would also add an auxiliary lane inbetween Washington Blvd and Route 238. Estimated construction costs are

$205.789 Million for Phase 1, and $299,374 Million for the entire build.

In March 2015, it was reported that survey work has begun for adding a fourth northbound lane inbetween Auto Mall Parkway and Route 84. It will be a carpool/express lane, as there is in the southbound direction. This is moving ahead because Alameda County voters approved funding for it in November 2014. The environmental report will be ready in late 2015, and design work will be ended in mid-2017. Construction will be done by 2019.

In October 2015, the CTC approved this project for future consideration of funding: constructing a high occupancy vehicle/express lane and rehabilitate the existing roadway on Northbound I-680 in or near the cities of Milpitas, Fremont, and Pleasanton, and the community of Sunol. The project is programmed in the Traffic Congestion Ease Program and the two thousand fourteen State Highway Operation and Protection Program. The project is not fully funded. The total estimated cost is approximately $388,995,000 for capital and support. Depending on the availability of funding, construction is estimated to begin in Fiscal Year 2016-17.

I-680 SB HOV/Express Lanes: Route eighty four ⇒ Route two hundred thirty seven

In November 2002, the very first section of this project opened: a carpool lane from Washington Blvd in Fremont to Route two hundred thirty seven in Milpitas—a seven mile section only in the southbound direction. The southbound interim section from Washington Blvd to Route eighty four opened in December 2002. The fourth and final phase of the southbound work is presently in design with a Ready to List target of August 2007. The northbound project’s final environmental document was finished in June 2005. However, the northbound HOV project has experienced delays due to a lawsuit that was filed in response to the environmental document. In April 2006, the CTC considered a proposal to amend the scope of work to proceed with design on the northbound project and utilize $58,000,000 in TCRP funds to fully fund the southbound project and provide delivery in an earlier fiscal year. The increase in scope and shift of funds was to permit time for the legal challenges of the northbound environmental document to be resolved. The revised completion dates are: Phase 1: FY 2005/2006; Phase Two: FY 2009/2010; Phase Trio: FY 2009/2010; Phase Four: FY 2012/2013. In June 2008, the CTC approved an adjustment in the financial allocations.

Note that High Occupancy/Toll lanes are proposed for I-680 SB from Route eighty four to Route 237. For this project the current HOV lane (opened recently) would be converted to HOT, separated from general-purpose lanes by two dual yellow lines, and outfitted with transponder devices a la EZPass/FastPass. Tolls would vary depending on congestion. Carpoolers would rail free.

As of August 2009, it was noted that the toll SB HOV lane is under construction in Fremont. An extra lane was getting carved out of the Sunol Grade, and the Mission Boulevard/Route two hundred thirty eight overpass has been widened.

In September 2010, HOT lanes opened at the Sunol Grade, suggesting solo drivers the chance to buy their way into the carpool lane. Tolls will planned to vary from less than a dollar to several dollars – with an average toll of $Trio to $Five. Specific toll amounts are determined using computerized models and the practice of existing toll bridges and roads that use the system, known as “dynamic pricing.” Carpools, buses and hybrids with the adequate permits will be able to use the lanes free. CHP officers will use a combination of visual and electronic monitoring to catch cheaters, who will face a $381 fine. Tolls are set according to information gathered by sensors installed in the pavement that measure traffic flow, including speed and level of congestion, in both the toll and unrestricted lanes. Tolls rise along with congestion – and the value of a journey around the backup. Drivers buying their way into the rapid lane won’t have the option of paying cash. Express lanes require users to have a FasTrak tag in their vehicle. Tolls will be collected electronically by a network of overhead antennas mounted on gantries. Drivers will be able to come in the express lane at Route eighty four and at Washington Parkway and Mission Boulevard in Fremont. Exits will be available at Auto Mall Parkway in Fremont and Jacklin Road and Route two hundred thirty seven in Milpitas. The express lane will operate from five a.m. to eight p.m. Monday through Friday. Outside of those hours, the lanes will be open to all drivers. The toll lane will not be separated by a barrier, cones or plastic stakes but by a 2-foot-wide stripe. The lanes have specific entry and exit points. Entries will be at the commence of the lane, one mile south of Route 84, just past Mission Boulevard in Fremont and just past Auto Mall Parkway. Exits will be just past Auto Mall Parkway, just past Jacklin Road, and at the end of the lane south of Route 237. They will be marked with signs and special striping.

In August 2014, the CTC reprogrammed some cost savings from the Sunol Grade HOV lane construction to the southbound lane project’s landscaping contract.

In September 2015, it was reported that final design was underway for a planned express lane on northbound I-680 from Auto Mall Parkway in Fremont up the Sunol Grade — the opposite direction from the adjacent express lane on southbound I-680, which celebrated its fifth anniversary this month. Alameda CTC plans a two-phased treatment to creating an express lane along northbound I-680 inbetween Route eighty four south of Pleasanton to Route two hundred thirty seven in Milpitas — a project that also calls for freeway widening and several auxiliary lanes connecting on- and off-ramps. Officials just embarked with final design for Phase 1, the 9-mile open up from Auto Mall Parkway in Fremont to Route 84. The project would add an express lane and eliminate two bottlenecks in the area that cause intense congestion during the evening commute. The design stage is estimated to proceed into next year, with construction to go after in two thousand seventeen and opening in late 2018. Construction costs estimates haven’t been determined, but the overall I-680 northbound project has almost $120 million in funding designated from Measure B, Measure BB, state and federal sources. Officials also plan to update the I-680 southbound express lane at the same time, making it into a near-continuous access configuration to provide extra access opportunities to and from local interchanges.

In June 2016, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding a project in Alameda County that will rehabilitate the roadway mainline and on/off-ramps on a portion of I-680 (PM 0.0/Four.0, toughly Scott Creek Road to Auto Mall Parkway) in the city of Fremont. The project is programmed in the two thousand sixteen State Highway Operation and Protection Program. The total programmed amount is $22,360,000 for capital and support. Construction is estimated to begin in Fiscal Year 2017-18. The scope, as described for the preferred alternative, is consistent with the project scope programmed by the Commission in the two thousand sixteen State Highway Operation and Protection Program. A copy of the MND has been provided to Commission staff. The project will result in less than significant impacts to the environment after mitigation. The following resource area may be impacted by the project: biological resources. Avoidance and minimization measures will reduce any potential effects on the environment. These measures include, but are not limited to, grassland and freshwater marsh habitat for the California red-legged frog and California salamander will be restored both on and off site. As a result, an MND was ended for this project.

In July 2010, Caltrans liquidated a flag mural that had been painted on a concrete slab near the Sunol Grade after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. Caltrans said it liquidated the mural, which was visible to passing motorists, after it belatedly discovered it was on state-owned land. Gov. Schwarzenegger said that it was “unconscionable” to eliminate the flag mural only a few days before the Fourth of July. The controversy grew. Caltrans then met with East Bay residents R.J. Waldron, Eric Noda and Thomas Hanley, who painted the mural in 2001, “to discuss a suitable location” for a flag mural. Meantime two other dudes repainted the flag mural without contacting Caltrans so it would be in place for the Fourth of July.

In January 2017, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding a project that will install ramp metering system for sixteen on-ramps/connectors along I-680 in Alameda County from Scott Creek Road Undercrossing in the City of Fremont to the Alcosta Boulevard Overcrossing in the City of Dublin 04-Ala-680, PM 0.0/21.9. These onramps connectors will be widened to provide for High Occupancy Vehicles (HOV) preferential lanes and/or extra mixed flow lanes. The project is programmed in the two thousand sixteen State Highway Operation Program for $27,753,000 in Construction (capital and support) and Right of Way (capital and support). Construction is estimated to begin in Fiscal Year 2018-19. The scope, as described for the preferred alternative, is consistent with the project scope programmed by the Commission in the two thousand sixteen State Highway Operation and Protection Program.

From Dublin to Walnut Creek

In January 2013, the CTC authorized relinquishment of right of way along Route six hundred eighty at St. Patrick Way, in the city of Dublin, consisting of collateral facilities.

There are plans to add NB and SB auxilliary lanes on Route six hundred eighty in San Ramon from Bollinger Canyon Road to Crow Canyon Road and in Danville from Sycamore Valley Road to Diablo Road. September two thousand five CTC Agenda.

In February 2013, it was reported that Caltrans plans to convert HOV lanes on I-680 into HOT (“Express” or High Occupancy/Toll) lanes — specifically, I-680 southbound from the Benicia-Martinez Bridge to I-580 and northbound from I-580 to south of Walnut Creek as well as a spread from Concord to the Benicia-Martinez Bridge. Express lanes work by continuing to permit carpoolers free access to the quick 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 fifty mph or swifter. 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 $Five or $6.

In March 2014, it was reported that the very first toll lanes in Contra Costa County are expected to open on I-680 by mid-2016. The $45 million project, which is in the design stage, will create twenty three miles of FasTrak express lanes that solo drivers can pay to use — as long as its traffic is moving at least forty five mph. Construction should begin at the commence of 2015. The system would use the same FasTrak technology used on Bay Area bridges, with electronic toll tags that charge fees but require no stopping at toll booths. The toll lanes — which will be free for carpoolers, motorcycles and electrical vehicles — will run on southbound I-680 from Rudgear Road in Walnut Creek to Alcosta Boulevard in San Ramon, and on northbound I-680 from Alcosta to Livorna Road in Alamo. The I-680 project is proceeding quickly because it is relatively inexpensive, with no need to build fresh lanes. Instead, existing HOV lanes would be converted with the installation of FasTrak toll tag readers, signs, traffic-monitoring movie cameras, and observation areas for the California Highway Patrol to monitor lanes.

In August 2015, it was reported that the project to bring toll express lanes to I-680 through the San Ramon Valley is expected to embark construction in August 2015, with completion estimated for late 2016.The MTC aims to convert existing high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes on I-680 inbetween Alcosta Boulevard in San Ramon and Rudgear Road in southern Walnut Creek into express lanes that would charge tolls for access during peak commute times. The project does not include freeway widening.As proposed, the congestion-relief project would substitute existing HOV lanes with express lanes on southbound I-680 from Rudgear Road to Alcosta Boulevard and on northbound I-680 from Alcosta to Livorna Road in Alamo — approximately twenty three miles overall. The express lanes would be free to access for carpools, vanpools, public transit, motorcycles and eligible clean-air vehicles while other solo drivers could pay a toll to use the lanes. Toll lane hours and rates have not been finalized. Work by DeSilva Gates is set to include adding signage, overhead toll readers, camera equipment and polls, median barriers, roadside lighting and associated roadwork such as striping and paving. A total of thirty one overhead sign structures are planned for medians through the I-680 corridor. The contract awarded to DeSilva Gates on June twenty four is worth about $16.Three million for construction, plus almost $Two.Two million in contingency funding. There are three express-lane segments that in time will extend from the Benicia Bridge to the county border at Alcosta Boulevard in San Ramon. The very first segment is on both directions of I-680 from Walnut Creek to San Ramon. The very first stage of the installation is preparing the highway for installation of fiber optic cables that will carry information to overhead signs that alert drivers to the tolls.

In September 2015, it was reported that roadwork signs and equipment have arrived to embark on fresh express lanes along I-680 north of Pleasanton. The MTC-led project plans to convert existing HOV lanes from Alcosta Boulevard in San Ramon to Rudgear Road in Walnut Creek (southbound) and Livorna Road in Alamo (northbound), covering a distance of twenty three miles. No freeway widening will occur. Construction is expected to last until late 2016. The overall project cost is presently estimated at $49 million, with about half going toward construction. Toll lane hours and rates have not been finalized, but MTC expects to adopt a toll ordinance next June, laying the groundwork for future approval of a dynamic-pricing toll structure. As for I-680 north plans, the San Ramon-Walnut Creek segment is the very first of three proposed MTC projects aimed at creating express lanes most of the way from Alcosta to the Benicia-Martinez Bridge.

In August 2013, the CTC received notice of prep of an EIR for a proposed project in Contra Costa County that would construct High Occupancy Vehicle on- and off-ramps and auxiliary lanes on I-680 inbetween Bollinger Canyon Road and Crow Canyon Road in the city of San Ramon. The project is not fully funded. The project is funded through the environmental phase with local funds. Funds for construction may be requested from the Commission in the future. The total estimated cost is $102,000,000 for capital and support. Depending on the availability of funds, construction is estimated to begin in Fiscal Year 2017-18. Three alternatives are being considered:

1. Alternative one – North Canyon Alternative. This alternative would construct direct on- and off-ramps from the I-680 median HOV lanes in both northbound and southbound directions, at a substituted Norris Canyon Road Overcrossing.
2. Alternative two – Executive Parkway Alternative. This alternative would construct direct onand off-ramps from the I-680 median HOV lanes in both northbound and southbound directions, at a fresh overcrossing.
3. Alternative three – No-Build (No-Project).

In August 2012, the CTC approved $Legal,910 for I-680 Auxiliary Lanes – Segment Two. In the Cities of Danville and San Ramon. Construct auxiliary lanes in two both directions, inbetween Sycamore Valley Road in Danville and Crow Canyon Road in San Ramon.

In March 2013, it was reported that construction was about to being on the auxiliary lane project inbetween Sycamore Valley Road in Danville and Crow Canyon Road in San Ramon. Construction actually began in April 2013. The construction contract permits the project to be finished in mid-2014. The contractors — a joint venture of Bay Cities Paving & Grading and Inc/Myers J.V. — are pushing for an earlier completion if dry weather permits. Half or $16 million of the cost is paid for with funds from Contra Costa County’s voter-approved half cent sales tax for transportation. Another $9.Two million comes from developer fees collected in the Tri-Valley region. Another $Four.Two million comes from state and federal grants.

In December 2011, it was reported that Contra Costa County transit officials and Caltrans are exploring rebuilding the Norris Canyon Overpass to include fresh onramps and offramps tied directly to carpool lanes, with use restricted to buses and carpools. Neighbors near Norris Canyon Road, however, say it would worsen local traffic and make it unsafe for children to walk or bike across a freeway overpass.

In March 2013, it was reported that there were going to be community meetings on the HOV ramp project in San Ramon. The ramps were originally proposed for the Norris Canyon overpass, but were passionately opposed by neighbors at public meetings last year. Neighbors said the ramps would negatively affect their quality of life by enhancing traffic and noise. Others claimed the ramps would affect safety by enlargening the number of buses and trucks on Norris Canyon Road, where children rail bikes to school. After these protests, Caltrans indicated they would reconsider an option for an HOV ramp at nearby Executive Parkway, previously considered a less suitable location.

In 2007, the CTC considered a request for $Ten.5M from the Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA) to extend the NB HOV from North Main St. to Route two hundred forty two in Contra Costa County, but didn’t recommend it for funding.

From Walnut Creek to I-780 near Benecia

In December 2014, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding a project in Contra Costa County that will construct a Five.Four mile long HOV Lane on a portion of I-680 in the city of Walnut Creek. The project is programmed in the two thousand fourteen State Transportation Improvement Program. The total estimated cost is $84,657,000 for capital and support. Construction is estimated to begin in Fiscal Year 2016-17. The scope, as described for the preferred alternative, is consistent with the project scope programmed by the Commission in the two thousand fourteen State Transportation Improvement Program.

In January 2008, the CTC relinquished right of way in the city of Walnut Creek, at North Main Street, from approximately two hundred fifty feet south of Sun Valley Drive to the Walnut Creek/Pleasant Hill city limit line, consisting of reconstructed city streets.

In August 2012, the CTC relinquished right of way in the city of Walnut Creek along Route six hundred eighty inbetween Lancaster Road and San Luis Road, consisting of collateral and nonmotorized transportation facilities.

In March 2008, the CTC relinquished right of way in the city of Pleasant Hill, on North Main Street, Contra Costa Boulevard, and Monument Boulevard, inbetween the southerly city limit line and north to Monument Boulevard, consisting of relocated and reconstructed city streets, frontage roads, and other State constructed local roads.

In March 2016, it was reported that the I-680 crossing of Monument Boulevard, a long, thick concrete-and-steel structure built in 1998, made the list of California’s twenty five most traveled bridges that are rated “structurally deficient,” according to a report from a Washington, D.C.-based trade group. In the case of the Monument Boulevard overcrossing, cracks formed along its girders during the construction of the bridge, which opened in one thousand nine hundred ninety eight as the key part of a project to widen I-680 through Pleasant Hill from three to five lanes in each direction. A bridge qualifies as “structurally deficient” if the condition of any of these elements — the bridge’s deck, superstructure, substructure or culvert and retaining walls — is rated four or lower on a scale of 9, or a two rating for overall structural condition or its clearance over any waterway underneath, according to Nancy Singer, a spokeswoman for the Federal Highway Administration. A four rating is considered poor; a zero is considered failed condition and a nine is excellent.

Route 680/Route four Interchange.

In April 2013, it was reported that there was eventually a path ahead to improving the interchange of I-680 and Route Four. This interchange is so problematic that Contra Costa voters in one thousand nine hundred eighty eight approved a half-cent sales tax to embark planning its fix. Almost twenty five years later, Contra Costa County’s congestion management agency says it has found a path to begin the very first phase of the $400 million freeway fix in about two years, pulling it out of an indefinite limbo. Under earlier plans, the congestion agency and Caltrans would have waited until the money was lined up to build the most expensive yet effective parts of the five-phase project. To break the logjam, the county agency revamped its construction staging and financing plans. The agency plans to begin smaller and have more money to spend because of the improving economy. It would begin with widening three miles of Route four to add an extra lane in each direction inbetween Morello Avenue and Route 242. The widening would cost some $50 million. The transportation authority also figures it will have $186 million more than previously expected over the next twenty one years because of improvements in its financial picture. The agency is taking in more sales tax revenues as the economy recovers. The authority also got an “AA+” credit rating last fall from two rating agencies, enabling it to save millions of dollars in selling $225 million in bonds in December, and refinancing $200 million of existing debt. With a rosier outlook ahead, the Transportation Authority board on Wednesday is scheduled to authorize consultants to explore design on the highway widening. That activity could lead to a widening contract being awarded in 2015. In later phases of the freeway overhaul, contractors will build fresh connector ramps, eliminate the cloverleaf connectors, and add a flyover ramp so motorists can stay in a carpool lane continuously while merging from one freeway to another. Getting commenced on the project makes it lighter to seek state and federal grants for later phases of construction.

In March 2015, the CTC received notice of a future STIP amendment from the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA), which proposed to delay $36,610,000 in Regional Improvement Program (RIP) construction funds from Fiscal Year (FY) 2015-16 to FY 2016-17 for the I-680/Route four Interchange – Phase three project (PPNO 0298E) in Contra Costa County. As of March 2015, the Phase three project was programmed with $36,610,000 in RIP construction in FY 2015-16. This Phase three project scope consists of widening Route four in the median to construct an extra lane in each direction from Morello Avenue to Route 242. The current scope of work also includes widening of various bridge structures within the project boundaries. Originally, the highway bridge structure spanning the Grayson Creek was planned to be widened. However, based upon a detailed analysis and evaluation of the condition of this aged structure, was determined that it is necessary to substitute it. Furthermore, permits from the US Army Corp of Engineers will now be needed for both the Grayson Creek bridge replacement and the Walnut Creek bridge widening work. The CCTA is actively seeking extra funds to cover the cost of substituting the Grayson Creek Bridge. However, if extra funding does not materialize, the overall project cost will be diminished by adjusting the westbound projects boundaries. As a result of extra design efforts and the above described permit requirements, the delivery of the project will be delayed from Fiscal Year 2015-16 to 2016-17. In May 2015, the STIP amendment displayed up on the CTC agenda and was approved.

In March 2016, it was reported that the MTC, in response to state budget cuts, had tentatively cut the I-680/Route four project, putting off their funding until at least 2021. The project would construct a fresh interchange where I-680 meets Route four in Contra Costa County. The interchange would substitute an outdated and perplexed cloverleaf design that’s snarled with commuters compelled to weave in and out of traffic.

In March 2017, the CTC amended the STIP to switch the implementing agency on the right of way portion of the project. That amended provided the following extra innformation: On March 20, 2014, the Commission adopted the two thousand fourteen STIP, which included the I-680/ Route four Interchange – Phase three project. It consists of widening Route four by constructing an extra lane in each direction from Morello Avenue to Route 242. The project was programmed with $36,610,000 in Regional Improvement Program (RIP) funding for construction and the R/W phase was funded one hundred percent with local funds. Then in September 2014, CCTA determined to have the Department take the lead in doing the R/W work and amended their cooperative agreement to reflect the switch. On May Legitimate, 2016, the Commission adopted the two thousand sixteen STIP, and due to funding shortfalls, CCTA was compelled to delete STIP funding from existing projects. CCTA deleted $31,510,000 in STIP RIP funding for construction of the I-680/ Route four Interchange project and substituted it with local funds. The remaining $Five,100,000 in STIP RIP funding for construction was reprogrammed to fund cost increases for R/W in FY 2017-18. The cost increases resulted from extra utility work that had not been previously identified. Presently, R/W is still programmed with CCTA as the implementing agency however, this amendment revises the implementing agency from CCTA to have the Department take the lead. This amendment also splits R/W into $Four,800,000 Capital and $300,000 support and also updates the local funding in the funding plan.

In February 2010, the toll enhanced to $Five 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 $Two.50.

The portion of this route from the Route 280/US101 junction to the Santa Clara/Alameda County line is named the “Sinclair Freeway“. Joseph P. Sinclair was District Engineer for the District four Division of Highways (now Caltrans) from one thousand nine hundred fifty two to 1964. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 104, Chapt. One hundred sixty eight in 1967. His son, Mike Sinclair, provided more information regarding his father: This open up of I-280 and I-680 provided San Jose with its very first freeway service. The concept for the freeway took form during the tenure of Joseph Sinclair as District Engineer in charge of District IV, California State Division of Highways (now Caltrans), from one thousand nine hundred fifty nine to 1964. Route location studies were initiated in 1955, and adopted as part of the Interstate System in 1962. Much planning and research went into the design of this freeway in order to provide both a beautiful and functional facility. The City of San Jose and the Division of Highways negotiated a cooperative agreement for the development of park and recreational facilities within the freeway right-of-way at six locations along this route in a precedent-setting Freeway/Parks concept. To make the freeway more compatible with the adjacent residential properties, the very first noise barrier in the Bay Area was installed. The freeway passed through an old Olive orchard. Many of the trees were eliminated and replanted within the freeway right of way to preserve these old trees. The freeway was landscaped and was officially designated as a “landscape freeway”. When a freeway gets this official designation it eliminates the possibility of outdoor advertising being placed adjacent to the freeway. Sinclair was a pioneer in the design and routing of the state’s freeway system. Born in Minnesota in 1910, he joined the Division of Highways in one thousand nine hundred thirty two as rodman on a survey party, after graduation from the University of Southern California as a civil engineer. Subsequently, he packed positions of enlargening responsibility as a freeway planner, designer, and builder in San Diego and Los Angeles, prior to coming to San Francisco in 1952. During World War II he served as Lieutenant Commander in the US Navy Seabees, stationed in the South Pacific. At the time of his death in one thousand nine hundred sixty four he had become nationally known in his profession. In designating a freeway in his honor, the legislature for the very first time named a highway after a civil engineer.

The portion of this route inbetween Alcosta Boulevard and the intersection with I-580 is officially named the “Officer John Paul Monego Memorial Freeway.” It was named after Dublin Police Officer John Paul Monego, who died on December 12, 1998, in the line of duty at the age of thirty three years, while responding to a takeover robbery. Named by Senate Concurrent Resolution 60, enrolled August Eighteen, 2000.

The portion of this route from Route twenty four to Route four is historically part of “El Camino Sierra” (The Road to the Mountains).

The portion of this route from about the Livorna Road interchange in Walnut Creek/Alamo to the Alcosta Blvd. interchange in San Ramon shows up to be named the “Donald D. Doyle Highway“. While serving in the California Assembly from one thousand nine hundred fifty three to 1958, Donald D. Doyle co-authored the Short-Doyle Mental Health Act and authored legislation creating the ferry boat transportation system inbetween Benecia and Martinez. The signs indicating this were erected in 1998.

The Grimmer Boulevard Bridge in the City of Fremont on I-680 portion of I-680 at Auto Mall Parkway in the County of Alameda is named the “CHP Officers Fredrick Wayne Enright and Adolfo Martinez Hernandez Memorial Bridge”. It was named in memory of Officers Frederick Wayne Enright and Adolfo Martinez Hernandez, who made the ultimate sacrifice while performing their sworn duty. Officer Frederick Wayne Enright was born August 27, 1944, to Francis Xavier and Mary Alice, in Louisiana, Missouri. Officer Enright, badge number 7857, graduated from the CHP Academy in March of one thousand nine hundred seventy two with the Cadet Training Class V-71, and upon graduation he was assigned to the West Valley area. After only six months with the CHP, Officer Enright achieved the rank of pilot and was transferred to the Golden Gate Division in the San Francisco Bay Area. As a helicopter pilot, Officer Enright responded to numerous land and water rescue operations and routinely flew commute traffic observation for bay area highways and freeways. During one of Officer Enright’s patrols, he encountered a inebriated pilot, ordered him to land and escorted him to the ground, where the pilot was arrested. Not only was this a dangerous encounter, but the aircraft suffered power failure and Officer Enright successfully landed the helicopter without harm or injury. The CHP subsequently commended him for his exceptional skill and decisionmaking during this incident. Officer Adolfo Martinez Hernandez was born September 27, 1940, to Tiburcio and Juana in Etiwanda, California, and is one of twelve children. Officer Hernandez, badge number 4876, graduated from the CHP Academy in 1966, and pridefully served the citizens of California for nine years. Officer Hernandez was a loyal officer, hubby, and father. He was known for his big heart and immense love for his family and friends, even when some of them were “unlovable.” He liked playing with his children, motorcycles, refurbishing a Volks Wagen van, making wood carvings, creating leather items including wallets, handbags, sandals, belts, and a special holder for his CHP badge. He also loved “do-it-yourself” projects and built a bicycle seat for his daughter, a bike rack for his car, and a bookcase and puny end table that his son still has in his home today. On June 27, 1975, the State of California suffered a tragic loss when CHP Officers Frederick Wayne Enright and Adolfo Martinez Hernandez were killed in a helicopter crash caused by mechanical failure. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 100, Resolution Chapter 109, on September Four, 2012. Redesignated to Auto Mall Parkway by Senate Concurrent Resolution 125, Resolution Chapter 133, on August 28, two thousand fourteen .

The portion of I-680 that is inbetween the Benicia-Martinez Bridge in Contra Costa County and Route twenty four in the City of Walnut Creek is named the “Senator Daniel E. Boatwright Highway“. This segment was named in honor of Senator Daniel E. Boatwright, who was elected to the California State Senate in 1980, and served for sixteen years in the 7th Senate District, , as well as serving for eight years in the California State Assembly, to which he was very first elected in 1972. Senator Boatwright was born in Harrison, Arkansas, but moved to Vallejo, California, as a child, where he attended public schools, where his education was interrupted by service in the United States Army as a combat member of the infantry in Korea. Boatwright attended Vallejo Junior College where he was chairman of the student council and Chairman of the California Community Colleges Student Council Association, and went on to receive both his B.A. degree and his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley. Boatwright served as deputy district attorney in Contra Costa County, becoming chief trial deputy under then District Attorney John Nejedly before opening his own law rigid in Concord in 1970. Boatwright served as a city council member and Mayor of the City of Concord, Chairman of the Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire Board, and City Attorney for the City of Brentwood prior to his election to the California State Assembly. During his 24-year legislative career, he authored more than three hundred fifty laws and held several prominent committee chairmanships in each house, including chairmanships of the Assembly and Senate Revenue and Taxation Committees, the Assembly Ways and Means Committee, and the Senate Appropriations Committee, in which capacities he became legendary for his capability, year after year, to produce state funding to cities, the county, and special districts for projects in his Contra Costa County-based district. From one thousand nine hundred eighty two through 1992, Senator Boatwright worked tirelessly with the California Transportation Commission, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Finance to secure funding and accelerate the construction and completion of I-680 lane additions and the I-680 and Route twenty four interchange in Contra Costa County. Following his retirement from the Legislature in 1996, Senator Boatwright served as the Senate’s representative in one thousand nine hundred ninety seven and one thousand nine hundred ninety eight to the California Medical Assistance Commission, and has since resumed the practice of law and begun the practice of lobbying. Named by Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR) Four, Resolution Chapter Sixty-nine, on 7/14/2009.

The interchange of I-680, I-280, and US one hundred one in the City of San Jose is named the “Joe Colla Interchange.” This interchange was named in memory of Joseph Anthony Colla, who actively served the San Jose community during the 1970s as a pharmacist, bike racer, bike race promoter, and San Jose City Council Member. Councilman Joe Colla worked in the 1970s alongside future mayors Norman Mineta and Janet Gray Hayes to help the City of San Jose develop economically and culturally and become described as “San Jose, a City with a Future”. Colla is best known for a stunt involving the US 101/I-680/I-280 interchange. Construction began on that interchange, and then stopped as then-Gov. Jerry Brown suspended most highway building in the state in a cost-cutting measure. Road crews disappeared and what remained was a 200-foot ramp suspended in the air with rebar sticking out of both finishes. The ramp was dubbed San Jose’s “Monument to Nowhere.” In the pre-dawn hours of a sunny but chilly January day, Colla got a crane operator to lift a Chevy on top of the unfinished ramp. Then the feisty councilman and drugstore proprietor leaped in a helicopter, which dropped him off next to the car. A photograph was snapped of Colla with arms outstretched and the caption: “Where Do We Go From Here?”As a direct result of Councilman Joe Colla’s exploits, including posing the question, “Where do I drive from here?” from atop the unfinished interchange, and identifying the monolith as “A Monument to Nowhere.” This made Colla a true urban legend. After the car stunt, he organized a 300-car caravan to Sacramento to thrust for the interchange’s completion. Eventually the City of San Jose received the necessary funding and the interchange project was finished. Named by Assembly Concurrant Resolution (ACR) 102, August 30, 2010, Resolution Chapter 107.

Bridge 28-153 on Route six hundred eighty inbetween Martinez and Benicia in Contra Costa and Solano counties is named the “George Miller Jr. Bridge“, and is also known as the “Benicia-Martinez Bridge“. George R. Miller, Jr., represented Contra Costa County in the State Assembly (1947-1949) and the State Senate (1947-1968). Benicia-Martinez refers to the cities connected by the bridge. They were named after the mid-19th century figures Ignacio Martinez—commandante of the Presidio at San Francisco and proprietor of Rancho El Pinole that extended from San Pablo Bay to Martinez—and General Mariano Vallejo’s wifey, Francisca Benicia. It was built in 1962, and was named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 59, Chapter eighty four in 1975.

The fresh northbound Benicia-Martinez Bridge is named the “Congressman George Miller Benicia-Martinez Bridge“. This segment was named in honor of Congressman George Miller, who was born in Richmond, California, on May 17, 1945. Congressman Miller graduated from San Francisco State University and received his law degree from the University of California, Davis. He thereafter served on the staff of former State Senate Majority Leader George Moscone. He has been a member of the United States Congress, indicating the Seventh District of California since 1975. His myriad achievements include authoring laws concerning environmental protection and resource management, energy policy, child care, mental health, aid to victims of domestic violence, and numerous education reforms. He has consistently championed federal support for California’s diverse, multimodal transportation system. His work was instrumental in accomplishing all of the following: extending the BART rail system, upgrading the Vallejo Baylink ferry service, reconfiguring the interchange of I-680 and Route 24, establishing the intermodal rail and bus stations in Martinez and Richmond, widening Route four inbetween Martinez and Hercules and inbetween Pacheco and Pittsburg, and advancing the Vallejo Station complicated. He has been a tireless advocate for children and was one of the four original authors of the historic No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which passed with strong bipartisan support in two thousand one and was signed into law in 2002. Reflecting Congressman Miller’s capability to reach across party lines, the act fulfilled many of his longstanding legislative efforts to improve teacher quality requirements, to hold schools accountable for the education of all children, and to provide federal financial support to meet the act’s goals. In January 2007, Congressman Miller was elected by his colleagues to serve as chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, a panel on which he has served since his arrival in Congress and as Senior Democrat since 2001. Congressman Miller proceeds to serve on the House Natural Resources Committee, a panel he chaired from one thousand nine hundred ninety one to 1994; in this capacity, he orchestrated a federal and state effort to meet technical and environmental challenges created by construction of the fresh Benicia-Martinez Bridge, an effort that led to several significant engineering advances, including the use of pumped air to create a bubble curtain around underwater pile driving to protect migratory fish from potentially lethal shockwaves. The original Benicia-Martinez Bridge, which opened in 1962, was designated the George Miller, Jr., Memorial Bridge in one thousand nine hundred seventy five to honor Congressman Miller’s father, who represented Contra Costa County in the California State Assembly from one thousand nine hundred forty seven to 1948, and in the California State Senate from one thousand nine hundred forty nine until his death in 1969. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution (ACR) 62, Resolution Chapter 107, on 8/23/2007.

The Fostoria Overcrossing on I-680 in the City of San Ramon is named the “Thomas E. Burnett, Jr. Memorial Bridge“. Named in honor of Thomas E. Burnett, Jr., who lived with his wifey Deena and daughters Halley, Madison, and Anna Claire in the City of San Ramon. On September 11, 2001, terrorists hijacked four civilian aircraft, crashing two of them into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in Fresh York City, and a third into the Pentagon outside Washington, D.C., and a fourth hijacked aircraft that crashed in southwestern Pennsylvania. Thomas E. Burnett, Jr. was a passenger on the fourth flight (United Airlines 93), and led the passengers in attempting to take control of the aircraft in order to prevent the hijackers from very likely crashing the aircraft in Washington D.C.. These heroic deeds taken by Thomas E. Burnett, Jr. and his fellow passengers likely prevented the further loss of life. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 38, Chaptered 7/Two/2003, Chapter 84.

The I-680 undercrossing over Livorna Road below Bridge No. 28-191 in Contra Costa County interchange with Route twenty four in Contra Costa County is officially named the “CHP Officer Kenyon Youngstrom Memorial Undercrossing.” It was named in memory of California Highway Patrol (CHP) Officer Kenyon Marc Youngstrom, who was born in October one thousand nine hundred seventy four in Pasadena, California. CHP Officer Youngstrom graduated from Arlington High School in Riverside in 1993, and attended California Baptist University in Riverside, as well as Napa Valley College, in Napa. From a youthful age, Youngstrom recognized the importance of public service, and was known as a hard worker who always gave back to his community. He served as a member of the United States Army Reserve for six years, achieving the rank of an E-4 Specialist. He entered the CHP Academy in August two thousand five and graduated in February two thousand six (badge number 18063), and was originally assigned to the Contra Costa area. CHP Officer Youngstrom, after serving almost three years in the Contra Costa area, voluntarily transferred to the Golden Gate Division as a member of the Field Support Unit, where he served as a distinguished member of the Protective Services Detail, responsible for providing protection to various dignitaries, goes of state, legislators, and other VIPs visiting the San Francisco Bay Area. He transferred back to the Contra Costa area in August two thousand twelve where he spent the remainder of his career. CHP Officer Youngstrom performed several duties over the course of his career, and because of his exceptional abilities as an officer, he served as a mentor and recruiter for fresh officers to the CHP, as well as a RADAR and LIDAR instructor. While assisting a fellow officer on September Four, two thousand twelve with an enforcement stop on I-680, Officer Yongstrom was critically shot by the driver of the stopped vehicle, and passed away the following day at the John Muir Medical Center in Walnut Creek. Officer Youngstrom, upon his death, gave the bounty of life through organ and tissue donation, helping to save the lives of four individuals. It The undercrossing over Livorna Road was named on 09/06/13 by SCR 43, Res. Chapter 98, Statutes of 2013. The naming was transferred (redesignated) to the interchange with Route twenty four by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 67, Resolution Chapter 141, on September Two, 2014.

Approved as chargeable Interstate on 9/15/1955; routing in San Jose adjusted in Ten/64; Freeway.

In the very first attempt to number urban routes, the California Department of Highways proposed this as I-5. The very first proposal as a 3-digit route was as I-113. Once the numbering scheme for 3-digit interstates was finalized, the proposal switched to I-580. AASHTO eventually approved this as I-680.

[SHC 263.8] From the Santa Clara-Alameda county line to Route twenty four in Walnut Creek.

From Route seven hundred eighty at Benicia to Route eighty near Cordelia.

I-680 was originally adopted as a Freeway within Solano County in 1957.

In 1963, Route six hundred eighty was defined as “Route two hundred eighty in San Jose to Route eighty in Vallejo passing near Warm Springs, Mission San Jose, Scotts Corners and Sunol, and via Walnut Creek and Benicia.”

In 1965, Chapter one thousand three hundred seventy one switched the origin of the route: “Route two hundred eighty Route 101 near San Jose to Route eighty in Vallejo passing near Warm Springs, Mission San Jose, Scotts Corners and Sunol, and via Walnut Creek and Benicia.”

I-680 was ended inbetween Benicia and Cordelia in 1966.

In 1976, Chapter one thousand three hundred fifty four added a 2nd segment and switch terminus of (a): “(a) Route one hundred one near San Jose to Route seven hundred eighty in Vallejo at Benicia passing near Warm Springs, Mission San Jose, Scotts Corners, and Sunol, and via Walnut Creek and Benecia. (b) Route seven hundred eighty at Benicia to Route eighty near Cordelia.” This was the result of a transfer from Route 21, combined with a concurrent transfer to fresh I-780.

This was LRN seventy four (former Route 29) inbetween Benicia and I-80 (former US 40). This segment was defined in 1933.

Interstate six hundred eighty Rehabilitation Project

In January 2016, it was reported that the I-680 Rehabilitation Project was finish. The $13 million California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) project rehabilitated and repaved about thirteen miles of northbound and southbound I-680. Construction began in spring two thousand fifteen with final paving ended in mid-December 2015. The project resurfaced the two northbound and two southbound traffic lanes of I-680, repaired the existing median metal guardrails and roadway lighting.

The California Transportion Commission, in September 2000, considered a Traffic Congestion Ease Program proposal to reconstruct the I-80/I-680/Route twelve interchange; it would be a 12-interchange elaborate 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.

The SAFETEA-LU act, enacted in August two thousand five 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 twelve Interchange, Solano County. $17,480,000 .

In his two thousand six Strategic Growth Plan, Governor Schwartzenegger proposed constructing the I-80/I-680/Route twelve Interchange Elaborate, including HOV Connector Lanes.

In January 2013, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding a project in Solano County that will improve the I-80/I-680/Route twelve 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 very first construction contract’s total estimated cost for capital and support is $100,400,000, which is funded by the two thousand twelve State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), the Trade Corridor Improvement Funds (TCIF) and local funding. The scope of the very 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 twelve Connector with a fresh 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 very first construction contract that is programmed in the two thousand twelve STIP and the TCIF.

In May 2013, it was reported that the funding outlook for the updated I-80/I-680/Route twelve 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 coming in westbound I-80 from the Green Valley interchange from traffic exiting I-80 for Route twelve 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 two thousand twelve federal transportation bill extend these provisions to contracts, including utility agreements, associated with the projects.

According to Sean Tongson in June 2004, they are constructing a fresh Northbound Benicia Bridge. The current structure, that carries North and Soutbound traffic, will revert to a five lane, southbound only bridge. The toll plaza, currrently located on the Northbound lanes at the North end of the bridge, will be reconstructed, still using the Northbound lanes, to the south embark of the Bridge. In addition, the I-680/I-780 interchange is being re-configured. In particular, the EB I-780 to NB I-680 left exit connector will be eliminated in favor of a large flyover ramp, soaring over the current but soon to moved toll plaza.

In December 2013, the CTC approved adoption of a fresh freeway route for Route six hundred eighty as part of the reconstruction of the I-680/I-80/Route twelve interchange in Solano County. I-680 was originally adopted as a freeway within Solano County in 1957, and was ended inbetween Benicia and Cordelia in 1966. The intent of this project (and the route adoption) is to realign I-680 where it intersects I-80. The fresh I-680 alignment will tie into I-80 west of the current location at the intersection of Route twelve and I-80. The existing I-80/I-680/Route twelve interchange sophisticated is the result of the connection of three separate highways, I-80, western and eastern segments of Route 12, and I-680. I-680 starts at Interstate eighty inbetween the two interchange points of Route twelve and extends south. The I-80/I-680/Route twelve interchange is a confluence of interregional significance as it connects the San Francisco Bay Area and the Napa Valley with the Central Valley. Not only is this interchange at the convergence of several key interregional routes, but it also supports a developing Solano County community served by a series of local roadways that are interwoven with the interregional routes. Two components of this project include directly connecting I-680 northbound to Route twelve westbound (Jameson Canyon), adding connectors and reconstructing local interchanges, as well as providing auxiliary lanes on I-80 in eastbound and westbound directions from I-680 to Air Base Parkway (includes a fresh eastbound mixed-flow lane from Route twelve east to Air Base Parkway). The Project Report cost estimate is $Two.Two billion for the total project and $664 million for a fundable Phase 1. The utter project consists of Five.9 miles of I-80, Trio.1 miles of I-680, 1.1 miles of Route twelve West and Three.0 miles of Route twelve East. Construction of the fundable very first phase (Phase 1) is proposed to take place in a series of construction packages. Phase one would improve the connections from westbound I-80 to I-680 and Route twelve (West); directly connect northbound I-680 and Route twelve (West); connect the I-80/Crimson Top Road interchange with Business Center Drive; and construct or improve interchanges at Route twelve (West)/Crimson Top Road, I-80/Crimson Top Road, I-80/Green Valley Road, and I-680/Crimson Top Road. A third eastbound lane would be added to Route twelve (East) from the Chadbourne Road on ramp to the Webster Street off ramp.

In September 2014, construction commenced 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 substitutes the nearby Green Valley interchange. Workers over the next one-and-a-half years will build a fresh Green Valley interchange slightly to the east of the existing one. This fresh interchange will have a four-lane overpass as opposed to two lanes. Workers will also build fresh onramps to better sort out traffic merging from Green Valley Road onto westbound I-80 and I-80 traffic exiting onto westbound Route twelve at Jameson Canyon. The connector ramp from westbound I-80 to Route twelve also will be widened from one lane to two lanes. This very first round of improvements will cost about $65 million and could be ended by summer 2016. The project received $15 million from Proposition 1B, a two thousand six voter-approved transportation bond. The remaining six phases will be constructed and finished as funding becomes available. Improvements in the upcoming phases will include: (1) Fresh interchange at Crimson Top Road and I-680; (Two) Fresh westbound connector ramp from westbound I-80 to southbound I-680; (Trio) Realignment of I-680 inbetween I-80 and the Lopes Road exit in Cordelia; (Four) Realignment of the connector ramp from Route twelve to eastbound I-80; (Five) Fresh entrance/exit ramps; and (6) The extension of some local streets leading to I-80 and Route 12.

In April 2014, it was reported that significant overhead work was recently ended on the I-80/I-680/Route twelve interchange project, marking a major milestone in the very first phase of construction. In particular, pPreliminary overhead structures were installed earlier this month for the fresh Green Valley Road overcrossing over I-80. Ground was cracked for the very first phase of the project in June 2014. About 75% of the work should be finish by the end of the year, a Caltrans engineer estimated in March. The very first phase should be accomplish by December two thousand sixteen or a little sooner depending on the weather, he said.

In October 2015, the CTC again approved for future consideration of funding a project that will improve the I-80/I-680/Route twelve 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 $Two,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 very first construction contract’s total estimated cost for capital and support is $100,400,000, which is funded by the two thousand twelve State Transportation Improvement Program, the Trade Corridor Improvement Fund and local funding. Contract one of Phase One is presently under construction. The design phase of Contract two of Phase One is 35% accomplish. The scope of the very 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 twelve Connector with a fresh bridge over the I-80 Green Valley Road onramp. The scope of the preferred alternative is consistent with the scope of the very first construction contract that is programmed in the two thousand twelve State Transportation Improvement Program and the Trade Corridor Improvement Fund. It was received again because an Addendum had been finished due to switches in the project since Commission approval of the Final Environmental Impacts Report (FEIR) in 2013.

Additionally, in October 2015, the CTC approved a fresh public road connection to I-680 as a result of the I-80/I-680/Route twelve interchange project. The Interchange Project Report (04-0A5300) proposes to realign I-680 where it intersects I-80 and to construct a fresh interchange at I-680 and Crimson Top Road. The fresh I-680 alignment will tie into I-80 west of the current location at the intersection of Route twelve and I-80. A fresh interchange is proposed to be constructed at I-680/Crimson Top Road. The two ramps proposed include an entrance ramp from eastbound Crimson Top Road to southbound I-680 and an exit ramp with a structure over I-680 from northbound I-680 to westbound Crimson Top Road. The proposed project is intended to address numerous existing and future traffic-related problems while minimizing environmental impacts to sensitive habitat in the neighborhood of the project, including the Suisun Marsh.

Interstate six hundred eighty from Interstate seven hundred eighty to Interstate eighty in Solano County is named the “Luther E. Gibson Freeway“. Luther E. Gibson, State Senator from one thousand nine hundred forty nine to 1966, was a long time proponent of transportation development and authored legislation which resulted in the construction of the Carquinez Bridge and the Benecia-Martinez Span. It was named by Senate Concurrent Resolution 21, Chapter one hundred sixty in 1967.

In Contra Costa County, HOV lanes run northbound from 0.Four mi S of the Alcosta on-ramp to the Livorna on-ramp, for a length of 11.9 mies. Southbound, they run from 0.Five mi N of the Livorna on-ramp to 0.6 mi S of the Alcosta Blvd on-ramp, for a length of 12.6 mi. These lanes were opened in one thousand nine hundred ninety four and extended in 1995. These lanes operate weekdays inbetween 6:00am and 9:00am, and inbetween Trio:00pm and 6:00pm.

HOV lanes exist in Solano County on the Benicia/Martinez Bridge. These require three or more occupants, and operate weekdays inbetween Five:00am and Ten:00am, and inbetween Three:00pm and 7:00pm.

HOV lanes exist from the Junction of I-580 and I-680 in Dublin to near Alamo. As part of the Route 24/I-680 junction rebuild that has been going on for two years, commute lanes will be extended to above the junction of I-680 and Route two hundred forty two just north of Walnut Creek (Marina Vista Drive). Construction starts in January 1999. Fresh car-pool lanes along Interstate six hundred eighty from Center Avenue in Concord to North Main Street in Walnut Creek opened in 2004.

In November 2011, Caltrans opened a $1.9 million carpool lane extension from Rudgear Road in Walnut Creek to Livorna Road in Alamo. With this addition, the southbound carpool lane extends from Rudgear to the Alameda County line. The project was paid for with funds from the Measure J transportation sales tax in Contra Costa. The lane extension is a puny part of a $49.8 million project to overhaul and repave I-680 in the San Ramon Valley and southern Walnut Creek

There are also plans to add HOV lanes from Walnut Creek to Martinez (N Main Street to Marina Vista). [June two thousand two CTC Agenda]

Approved as 139(a) non-chargeable milage in 1973.

The following segments are designated as Classified Landscaped Freeway:

* Note: PM 0.51 is not the same thing as PM R0.50

• Cal-NExUS Exit Numbering: Route six hundred eighty North
• Cal-NExUS Exit Numbering: Route six hundred eighty South
• I-680 Disrobe Chart (Andrew Tompkins; XML Required )

• California @ AARoads: Interstate 680
• I-680 Page (Kurumi)

The portion of this route from the Alameda county line to the Benicia-Martinez Bridge was designated as a “Blue Starlet Memorial Highway” by Senate Concurrent Resolution 38, Ch. One hundred seventy five in 1970.

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

Overall statistics for Route 680:

• Total Length (1995): seventy one miles
• Average Daily Traffic (1993): 46,000 to 203,000
• Milage Classification: Rural: 13; Sm. Urban: 0; Urbanized: 58.
• Previous Federal Aid Milage: FAI: fifty eight mi; FAP: thirteen mi.
• Functional Classification: Prin. Arterial: seventy one mi.
• Counties Traversed: Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, Solano.

Interstate 710

From Route one to Route two hundred ten in Pasadena.

The route also includes that portion of the freeway inbetween Route one and the northern end of Harbor Scenic Drive, that portion of Harbor Scenic Drive to Ocean Boulevard, that portion of Ocean Boulevard west of its intersection with Harbor Scenic Drive to its junction with Seaside Boulevard, and that portion of Seaside Boulevard from the junction with Ocean Boulevard to Route 47.

Until July 1, 1964, this routing was signed as Route 15. When the Route fifteen signage had to be applied to the fresh Interstate that had previously been US ninety one (inbetween I-10 and Las Vegas), the routing was renumbered as Route 7:

In 1963, Route seven was defined as “from Route eleven [Present-Day Route 110] in San Pedro to Route two hundred ten in Pasadena via Long Beach and including a bridge, with at least four lanes, from San Pedro at or near Boschke Slough to Terminal Island.” In one thousand nine hundred sixty five the southern end was truncated by Chapter 1372, transferring the San Pedro portion and bridge to Route 47. This left the route definition as “from Route one to Route two hundred ten in Pasadena.” In 1982, Chapter nine hundred fourteen extended the definition to include that portion of the freeway inbetween Route one and the northern end of Harbor Scenic Drive, that portion of Harbor Scenic Drive to Ocean Boulevard, that portion of Ocean Boulevard west of its intersection with Harbor Scenic Drive to its junction with Seaside Boulevard, and that portion of Seaside Boulevard from the junction with Ocean Boulevard to Route 47. It was noted that this extension didn’t become operative unless the commission approves a financial plan.

In 1984, Chapter four hundred nine defined Route seven hundred ten as “Route one to Route two hundred ten in Pasadena.” The extra conditions regarding the Harbor Scenic Drive and the financial conditions were also transferred. This reflected the approval of Route seven as 139(a) non-chargable interstate for continuity of numbering with Route ten (I-10), off of which it spurs. [One might argue that it could have been considered a loop route around the center of the city, and as such, would more appropriately have an (even digit)05 number. However, all of the (even-digit)05 numbers are in use: I-205 (Sacramento), I-405 (Los Angeles), I-605 (Los Angeles), I-805 (San Diego).

The legislative description of Route seven hundred ten includes a portion inbetween Route one and the northern end of Harbor Scenic Drive, a portion of Harbor Scenic Drive to Ocean Blvd, a portion of Ocean Blvd west of its intersection with Harbor Scenic Drive to its junction with Seaside Blvd, and a portion of Seaside Blvd from the junction with Ocean Blvd to Route 47. This will evidently be signed as part of the route after planned port-related improvements by the cities of Long Beach and Los Angeles. The segment from Ocean Blvd to Route one is non-chargeable 139(b) milage.

Note that the south end of I-710 actually goes after the west riverbank, not the east riverbank (into downtown Long Beach). Caltrans only maintains the east riverbank spur until the 9th Street exit; the City of Long Beach has control of the road (Shoreline Drive) past this point. Route seven hundred ten is supposed to go after the Long Beach Freeway down to the Harbor Scenic Drive cutoff south of Anaheim Street, and then go after Harbor Scenic Drive to Ocean Blvd and then go after Ocean Blvd from Harbor Scenic Drive across the Gerald Desmond Bridge to the junction of Ocean and Seaside Blvds with the Terminal Island Freeway. According to Caltrans, once the replacement for the Gerald Desmond bridge is ended, Ocean Boulevard will be the westward extension of Route seven hundred ten to the Terminal Island Freeway (Route 47). Ocean Boulevard is presently operated by the City of Long Beach. After the bridge is finished, it and the segment of Ocean Boulevard inbetween Route forty seven and Route seven hundred ten will be adopted into the State Highway System and the roadway transferred to Caltrans. The southern extension (towards the Queen Mary) is Harbor Scenic Drive.

[In fact, the state did not construct the portion of I-710 S of Route 1. That portion was constructed to freeway standards by the City of Long Beach. The construction cost was $12 million.]

The route is unconstructed and unsigned inbetween Columbia St and I-210 in Pasadena, albeit there is a stub of Route seven hundred ten (not Interstate) at the Route 134/I-210 junction. There has been intense local opposition to completion of this freeway as it would have a potentially adverse influence on historic homes in Pasadena and South Pasadena. On the other palm, it is a critical link in the overall Southern California freeway system. The traversable route is. oh hell, just read the mishegas below.

The very first mention of the extension of the route to Pasadena is in 1961, when CHPW notes that the extension was defined by SB 480, and Advance Planning was commencing to determine potential routes. In 1964, it was reported that planning was underway for the Long Beach Freeway (Route 7, now Route 710) from the Foothill Freeway, Route one hundred thirty four and Long Beach Freeway Interchange to Norwich Avenue. On June 3-4 1964, a routing was adopted for I-210, Route 134, and Route seven hundred ten (then Route 7). This routing extends the Long Beach Freeway four mi N-ly to Route 134, and then extends I-210 N-ly to Sunland. It also extends Route two to I-210. Beginning at Huntington Drive, the route proceeds N-ly to connect with Route 134/I-210, swings W-ly just S of Satans Gate Dam and proceeding generally S of Foothill Blvd through the Verdugo Mtns and across Big Tujunga Wash to Wheatland Ave. Also noticable on the map is the inclusion of Route one hundred fifty nine (old Figueroa Blvd, and the connection on Linda Vista inbetween Route one hundred thirty four and I-210), Route two hundred forty eight (which was the surface street routing of Colorado inbetween Route one hundred thirty four and I-210 near Monrovia), and Route two hundred twelve (which is the old Valley Blvd routing of US 60, former LRN 77). The legislative definitions were later amended to note that Route one hundred fifty nine and Route two hundred forty eight ceased to be state highways after I-210 was finished. Note how this also still shows Route one hundred eighteen in the area; that was later renumbered to Route 210.

In 2013, Chapter five hundred twenty five (SB 788, Ten/9/13) deleted the words in the route definition about a financial plan:

(b) Subdivision (a) shall not become operative, and this section shall be repealed on January 1, 1985, unless the commission approves, not later than December 31, 1984, a financial plan, which is submitted to them by the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission not later than January 1, 1984.

(c) The financial plan shall be ready in cooperation with the department and shall include, but not be limited to, a cost estimate and the source of funding to make the route switches in subdivision (a) and any proposed improvements.

The following freeway-to-freeway connections were never constructed:

NB I-710 to SB I-5. Rationale: Illogical Switch roles Stir. The angle inbetween the two freeways is too acute.

This was formerly signed as Route 15, and was LRN 167, defined in 1933. Until the construction of the freeway, Route fifteen ran inbetween Pacific Coast Highway and US ninety nine along Atlantic Blvd. In 1964, the freeway routing was renumbered as Route 7, and was later renumbered as Route seven hundred ten and I-710.

According to KCET, Route seven hundred ten can be traced back to the “Superb Free-Harbor Fight” of the 1890s, where Los Angeles City officials helped solidify the port in San Pedro by annexing a sixteen-mile “shoestring district” that made the harbor a legal part of the city. Los Angeles also spent $Ten million on harbor improvements, and proposed the construction of a truck highway for developing the port. Albeit millions of dollars were poured into the port’s infrastructure by the early 1940s, not much was done to facilitate any port highway. Before state planners (responsible for designing state freeways) could map out a freeway from the ports to the Los Angeles metropolis, harbor interest had already begun making preliminary maps as early as 1921; however nothing materialized. Despite a one thousand nine hundred thirty nine California Freeway Law that gave “the state broad powers of land acquisition for the construction [and financing] of freeways,” it was the City of Long Beach that took it upon themselves to plan, construct, and finance the port highway, to be called the Los Angeles Sea Freeway because it hugged the natural waterways that were once the lifeblood of the founding families. So, Route seven hundred ten is essentially the child of the City of Long Beach, superseding legal precedents that had placed the state of California, not local governments, as the principal investors and designers of state freeways (note that Route seven hundred ten was originally just a state route: originally Route 15, and then later renumbered as Route seven in 1964. It was eventually renumbered as non-chargable I-710).

An August one thousand nine hundred forty one report issued by the Regional Planning Commission of Los Angeles County entitled «A Report on the Feasibility of a Freeway Along the Channel of the Los Angeles Sea» proposed a four-lane roadway on each levee from Anaheim Street in Long Beach north to Sepulveda Boulevard in the San Fernando Valley; excepting inbetween Soto Street and Dayton Street in downtown Los Angeles, where, due to a lack of right-of-way along the sea, the alignment matches the future alignment of the US one hundred one portion of the Santa Ana Freeway. There is no mention in the report of a master plan of freeways like that issued in 1947, albeit the maps showcased connections to the already-completed Arroyo Seco Parkway and the proposed Ramona and Rio Hondo Parkways.

(Thanks to Daniel Thomas for hunting down this information)

In the 1930s and 1940s, before the route was adopted as a freeway routing, the cities of Long Beach and Los Angeles knew the route was coming, and began preserving right of way along the Los Angeles Sea for the future route. This saved significant money for right of way acquisition.

By 1949, Long Beach had already invested $1,000,000 on the freeway, and the city’s Chamber of Commerce made reoccurring appeals to the California State Highway Commission for continued support. This unorthodox practice of an independent agency developing their own freeway was not unnoticed by the California Division of Highways, the precursor to Caltrans. “The southerly extension of the Los Angeles Sea Freeway,” as noted in their bi-monthly publication California Highway and Public Works, “requires special mention because the construction work now in progress by the City of Long Beach is the only example since World War II of another governmental agency carrying out the construction and financing of a accomplish unit on the Los Angeles Metropolitan Freeway System.” Several years before the Los Angeles Sea Freeway was legislated into the California State Highway System in 1947, Long Beach planners received general counsel from the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission, but were largely free from state interference when designing the freeway. Long Beach Harbor authorities even financed a “major portion” of the freeway, in what the state acknowledged was a “staggering” amount, a figure that reached approximately $12 million by 1953, according to a the Division of Highways. Essentially, the freeway was constructed to serve business generated by the harbor and local industry; commuter vehicular traffic was secondary, at best. Any negative influence to communities during or after the construction of the freeway was seen as all but non-existent. Segments of Route seven hundred ten eventually connected with I-5, in the heart of the manufacturing district in East Los Angeles, by the 1960s. This district housed extensive intermodal railyards from the Union Pacific, and the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad. As such, some of the early freeway construction of Route seven hundred ten required numerous bridges over eighteen railroad tracks, requiring 1,100 parcels of real estate. Route seven hundred ten cut through established communities, such as East Los Angeles and City of Commerce, that already housed dozen of freeway lane miles. In East Los Angeles, almost 11,000 residents were displaced due to freeway construction and widenings, consuming some 7% of total land area.

The route was originally to be named the “Los Angeles Sea Freeway”; in 1952, the LA Board of Supervisors approved renaming it the Long Beach Freeway.

In June 2015, it was reported that, in its latest analysis of California Highway Patrol data from 2012, the Southern California Associations of Governments (SCAG) included sections of this route in its list of freeway sections in L.A. County and the Inland Empire with the highest concentrations of truck crashes per mile annually. These sections were I-710 at Route sixty in the East L.A. Interchange, with 7.Two accidents; I-710 inbetween I-105 and the Route 91, with Five.8 accidents; the convergence of Route sixty and Route 57, with six crashes; and I-5 inbetween I-710 and I-10, also in the East L.A. Interchange, with 6.6 crashes. The analysis also identified that the second-highest number of truck crashes can be found on three parts of Route sixty inbetween I-605 and I-710, inbetween the I-15 and Route seventy one – the Chino Valley Highway, formerly known as the Corona Expressway – and instantly east of I-215. That category also includes I-10 inbetween Route seventy one and I-215, I-605 inbetween Route sixty and I-10, and Route seven hundred ten inbetween Route ninety one and the Port of Long Beach as well as inbetween I-5 and I-105. With the nation’s largest combined harbor, the Los Angeles area also is one of the busiest in the country, if not the world, for trucking. I-710 often treats more than 43,000 daily truck trips, Route sixty up to 27,000 and I-5 about 21,500, according to Caltrans. In June 2015, it was also reported that Caltrans and Metro are studying elevated truck lanes for I-710 or rearranging lanes so trucks have a bypass lane.

The SAFETEA-LU act, enacted in August two thousand five as the reauthorization of TEA-21, authorized $Two,400,000 for High Priority Project #266: Reconstruct the southern terminus off ramps of I-710 in Long Beach. This was noted in the Long Beach Press Telegraph, and actually disappointed Long Beach. The frustration arose because the bill did not provide funding for a multi-billion project to rebuild the Long Beach Freeway. The city lobbied for $395 million and got nothing. Another $Trio.Two million was awarded to widen and realign Cherry Avenue from 19th Street to one block south of Pacific Coast Highway. There was $Four.8 million set aside for freight transportation management systems, part of $1.Trio billion dedicated to freight movement in the state in the fresh bill. Lastly, there was $100 million to substitute the Gerald Desmond Bridge.

Near Route 710, albeit not on Route 710, is the Gerald Desmond Bridge” * . In August 2005, the SAFETEA-LEU act provided $100 million in funding to substitute the Gerald Desmond Bridge. [*: That is, the original bridge. The replacement bridge was adopted into the highway system in November 2010.

In February 2010, it was reported that Port of Long Beach officials want to rip down the bridge and substitute it with one that is taller and broader to accommodate the thickest cargo ships. Presently, the bridge is so low that some container vessels slightly fit under the bridge. Extra problems are the bridge’s strategic location as a primary link inbetween Terminal Island cargo facilities and Long Beach (officials at the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports estimate that the bridge carries 15% of all the nation’s cargo that moves by sea). The bridge only has five traffic lanes, a walkway on one side, and no shoulders or emergency lanes. Any accident involving vehicles that can’t be driven off can shut down one side or the other, diverting traffic onto adjacent streets that are lightly jammed.

For years, there was no bridge at all, just a ferry. In 1944, the U.S. Navy erected a pontoon bridge that was supposed to be used for only six months. Instead, the pontoon bridge was in place for twenty four years, sometimes with disastrous results. Some motorists, approaching it too quick, became airborne, landed in the water and drowned in their cars. In 1968, the Gerald Desmond Bridge was built, but planners expected only modest traffic — mostly people going to and from the Long Beach Naval Shipyard on Terminal Island. But by the 1990s, the shipyards were closed and the fishing industry had all but disappeared. Long Beach then emerged as the nation’s busiest container port, until 2001, when it was eclipsed by the neighboring port of Los Angeles. Due to the constant pounding of mighty trucks and commuter traffic, its Caltrans structural “sufficiency” rating is only forty three out of a possible one hundred points as of August 2007, and the bridge wears nylon mesh “diapers” to catch chunks of concrete falling from its deck.

The plans for the fresh bridge would add a sixth traffic lane and two emergency lanes and would clear the water by 200′, an increase from 165′. Rep. Laura Richardson (D-Long Beach) has used her membership on the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to shove for more than $375 million in federal funds for the project.

In late September 2010, the Long Beach City Council approved the $1.1billion port plan to substitute the Gerald Desmond Bridge, clearing the way for Long Beach’s largest public-works project in decades. Construction was expected to begin sometime in two thousand eleven and take five to six years. The replacement bridge includes emergency shoulders in each direction, and it expands from four to six the total number of lanes. It will rise more than fifty feet higher than the existing span. The replacement will be constructed just several feet from the existing span, which will remain open via construction. The old bridge will then be taken down during a yearlong deconstruction embarking in 2015. The bridge replacement project is expected to support about Four,000 jobs annually through 2016. Officials say it could last as long as one hundred years, however stringent maintenance will be needed to ensure a long life. The cost of the fresh bridge is estimated at $950 million. Of that, toughly $500 million will come from state highway transportation funds, $300 million from federal sources, $114 million from the Port of Long Beach and $28 million from Los Angeles County Metro.

In September 2010, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding and route adoption a project that will substitute the existing Gerald Desmond Bridge with a fresh structurally sound bridge linking Terminal Island and Long Beach/Route 710; provide sufficient roadway capacity to treat current and projected vehicular traffic volume request; and provide sufficient vertical clearance for safe navigation through the Back Channel to the Internal Harbor. The replacement bridge will be constructed just north of the existing bridge in order to maintain access inbetween Terminal Island and the Route seven hundred ten during construction. As part of the project, existing connections to the Route seven hundred ten interchange, and Ocean Boulevard in downtown Long Beach would be substituted, as would the connector ramps inbetween Route seven hundred ten and the bridge. A fresh hook ramp or loop ramp would be used to substitute the existing on-ramp inbetween Pico Avenue and the WB Gerald Desmond Bridge. The current ramp inbetween Pico Avenue would be partially reconstructed to join the fresh connectors from Route 710. As part of the Project, the bridge and Ocean Boulevard would become part of Route seven hundred ten and would operate as a freeway facility with managed access. The improvements inbetween the existing Route seven hundred ten and Route 47, including the bridge, would be transferred to Caltrans by easement following route adoption and execution of a freeway agreement. It is estimated that the transfer would be finished within two years after construction. The project is programmed with TCIF and SHOPP funds. At the time of programming, the project was estimated to cost $1,125,200,000 and was programmed with Federal ($318,000,000), TCIF/SHOPP ($250,000,000), Local ($17,300,000), POLB ($375,100,000) and Port Intermodal Cargo Fees ($164,800,000). However, according to the POLB, the most latest cost estimate, developed in January 2010, resulted in a diminished project cost of $950,000,000. The fresh estimate reflects latest cost reductions related to the redesign of some elements, as well as current market conditions. Once a funding plan is approved for the project by the POLB, the POLB will request an amendment to the TCIF baseline agreement to reflect the approved funding plan. The POLB, in coordination with Caltrans, is presently developing a funding plan based on a design-build delivery method pursuant to Senate Bill Four, 2nd Extreme Session. The POLB intends to request design-build approval at a future Commission meeting. The project is estimated to begin construction in FY 2012/13.

In December 2011, it was reported that the Final Environmental Influence Report for the fresh Gerald Desmond Bridge includes a bicycle and pedestrian walkway. The proposed bike and pedestrian path is one of two revisions to the draft EIR (the other includes sound mitigation measures for pile driving and drilling during construction). The EIR includes the following description of the bike path: «A single, continuous, non-motorized Class I bikeway (bike path) connecting Route forty seven to Pico Avenue. The Class I bikeway shall be a minimum of twelve feet broad, and signed and striped for two-way movement. The Class I bikeway shall be located along the south side of the main span and treatment bridges, and shall be essentially the same elevation as the bridge deck. Protective railings shall be of an open design that provides and protects public views from the bridge.» The proposed bike path does not connect to the LA Sea trail, which, in turn, connects to Downtown LA, albeit port planners have already begun to look for ways to make the connection. At one point, construction on the fresh bridge was expected to begin in 2011, but as it turns out, an RFP for a design-build of the fresh bridge was sent to four pre-qualified bidders earlier this fall. The bids are expected in February, with final contractor selection in March. Design will take twelve to eighteen months, and the bridge is scheduled to open in March 2016.

In May 2012, it was reported that a joint venture team is the “best value” bidder with a $649.Five million proposal to substitute the Gerald Desmond Bridge. Major members of the joint venture team include Shimmick Construction Co. Inc., FCC Construction S.A., Impregilo S.p.A., Arup North America Ltd. and Biggs Cardosa Associates Inc. A decision by the board on the actual award of the contract is expected in late June, with construction to kick off in early 2013. The total cost of the overall bridge replacement project is estimated at about $1 billion.

In September 2012, the CTC updated the project schedule to reflect switching from Design-Bid-Build to Design Build delivery method. In addition, contract negotiations with the winning bidder added time to the schedule, as well as extensive utility relocations, and revalidation of the environmental documents caused by the addition of a Class one bicycle path to the project. The fresh schedule shows construction completion in June two thousand sixteen (6 months earlier), with closeout finished in September 2016.

In October 2012, the CTC approved $153,657,000 for bridge construction.

In January 2013, it was reported that ground was violated on the Gerald Desmond Bridge construction. The $1 billion project will substitute the aging span with a fresh structure that will have towers reaching five hundred feet above ground level, extra traffic lanes, a higher clearance to accommodate the fresh generation of cargo ships, dedicated bicycle paths and pedestrian walkways, including scenic overlooks two hundred feet above the water, according to the port. The development is expected to create about Trio,000 jobs a year inbetween two thousand thirteen and 2016, and generate $2billion of regional economic activity, port officials say.

In October 2013, it was reported that crews commenced clearing the path for a fresh Gerald Desmond Bridge encountered a mishmash of old and active oil wells tangled with ten miles of utility lines underneath the surface, many of them unmapped or deeper than expected. The effort to cap and relocate the dozens of wells and lines turned into months of labor intensive work to clear the way for large steel-and-concrete piles as deep as an 18-story building. This raised the bridge’s budget by over $200 million. It`s part of the challenge of building on one of the largest oil fields in the continental United States. Opening up thirteen miles long and three miles deep, the Wilmington Oil Field sprouted with more than 6,000 oil wells in the 1930s, when oil was discovered underneath the port and the city. The work has included removing the old casings one section at a time while shoring up the soil so it doesn`t collapse on the work crews are doing; treating pipes as deep as fifty feet and injecting liquid nitrogen into the soil to keep water from flowing into a trench for a utility line relocation; and packing a 10-foot tall and broad tunnel found near one of the fresh bridge`s foundations that once flowed with sea water to cool a nearby power plant. Completion of the bridge is expected in 2016.

In November 2013, it was reported that the fresh bridge (not necessarily named the Gerald Desmond) will be held upright by an extensive network of more than three hundred steel and concrete support piles, built into the ground as deep as an 18-story building. To make room, port officials have directed a two-year blitz to liquidate or cap dozens of oil wells and dig up miles of utility lines that lie underneath the bridge’s footprint. The work involves removing oil well casings as deep as two hundred feet, section by section. Engineers designed custom-made contraptions to cut the steel pipes from inwards and out, all while operating within a 7-foot-diameter drum to stabilize the surrounding soil. Once the casings are liquidated, the void is packed with a soil-like combination of sand and mud. Further complicating the operation is that parts of the area sank as much as thirty feet in the 1940s and 1950s, the result of a boom on one of the nation’s largest oil fields. Years later, soil was spread over the sunken landscape and fresh utility lines crisscrossed those buried under the fresh pack. Many of them were identified only with rough maps that pre-dated the precision of GPS, meaning crews had to employ guesswork when navigating the labyrinth of pipes, tunnels and wires.

In June 2014, it was reported that the massive $1.26 billion project to substitute the ailing Gerald Desmond Bridge in Long Beach will be delayed at least a year, pushing back the opening and completion from the end of 2016, to late two thousand seventeen or early 2018. The delay has been attributed to design issues, including delays in obtaining approval for designs from Caltrans officials, who have the ultimate authority over plans. The operation has already been plagued with complications and cost overruns from a labyrinth of poorly mapped underground utility lines and oil wells on Terminal Island.

In October 2016, the CTC authorized an extra $57,166,000 in State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) funds for this project: $24,206,000 in extra funds for construction support and $32,960,000 for construction capital. This project will substitute the Port of Long Beach wielded Gerald Desmond Bridge with a fresh cable-stayed bridge that will be incorporated into the State Highway System when finished. The existing bridge accommodates approximately ten percent of all U.S. waterborne container volume, via the trucking of containers inbetween the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles and the inland warehousing, transloading and distribution centers. This bridge is vital to the Southern California and State economies and it is a nationally significant transportation asset. As the future owner-operator of the fresh bridge, the Department has critical interest and compelling responsibility to ensure that the fresh bridge is designed and constructed to be durable, resilient and able to withstand seismic events. The overall project cost for the Port`s project has enlargened over fifty percent from $950 million in two thousand ten to approximately $1.Five billion today. The Department`s $57,166,000 increase is approximately ten percent of the total cost increase of $541,901,000 ($1,491,901,000 – $950,000,000). In early 2013, the Department had concerns with the design-builder`s proposed design with regards to long-term durability and potential for failure of the hollow towers supporting the main span during a seismic event. It is a well-established design practice on highway bridges to limit the permanent axial flow ratio to no more than fifteen percent to achieve seismic design criteria ductility requirements. Caltrans seismic standards, and the primary national seismic standards and guidance are based on laboratory testing consistent with axial explosions in this range. The design-builder`s proposed tower cross-section design resulted in axial flow ratio ranges from twenty four percent to thirty four percent. An in-depth review of hollow column research and details of other California bridges supported on hollow towers confirmed that the proposed axial geyser range and column aspect ratios were unprecedented in the tower design and were based upon mathematical models that had not been validated through any known seismic testing. After consultation with internationally recognized seismic research experts and independent evaluations and analysis by Caltrans in-house experts and the Port`s consulting engineer, the recommendation to redesign the tower was introduced to the Caltrans Directorate. After lengthy internal discussions, involving the State Bridge Engineer, the Chief Engineer, the Director, consult with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), as well as discussions inbetween the Department, the Port and the design-builder, both fucking partners ultimately agreed to require the design-builder to redesign the tower with a lower axial flow ratio with an acceptable level of ductility to ensure seismic safety and the long term structural integrity of the bridge. The Department estimates the tower redesign cost at $63,293,000, and hired an independent estimator to validate this number. The Department`s initial contribution of $500,000,000 was 52.07 percent of the original project budget of $950,000,000. Using the original State contribution percentage, the Department is requesting 52.07 percent cost share of $63,293,000, totaling $32,960,000 in extra SHOPP funding for construction capital. This project was originally scheduled to open for use in under four years, meaning it would be open for traffic by now under the original schedule. Challenges encountered during the design and construction delayed the bridge completion. The design-builder`s current schedule for completion has been delayed two-and-one-half years, with further delays possible. The lengthiest schedule delays are due to the Leaned fifteen Foundation (the structure that anchors the cable) redesign due to differing site condition and the tower redesign.

Route seven hundred ten Other Long Beach

The SAFETEA-LU act, enacted in August two thousand five as the reauthorization of TEA-21, authorized $1,600,000 for High Priority Project #701: Develop and implement traffic calming measures for traffic exiting I-710 into Long Beach.

710 Corridor Mobility Improvements

The SAFETEA-LU act, enacted in August two thousand five as the reauthorization of TEA-21, authorized $12,400,000 for High Priority Project #2178: Alameda Corridor East Gateway to America Trade Corridor Project, Highway-Railgrade separation along thirty five mile corridor from Alameda Corridor (Hobart Junction) to Los Angeles/San Bernardino County Line.

Studies are presently ongoing (see the Gateway Council of Governments, http://www.gatewaycog.org/) regarding improving mobility in the seven hundred ten corridor. The plan is controversal (‘natch), for some proposals involve the acquisition and demolition of almost seven hundred homes and up to two hundred fifty nine businesses in Commerce, Bell Gardens, Bell, Long Beach and other cities. As many as Ten,800 people could be affected in some way–of which Ten,070 are minority residents. Commerce could lose two of its four parks, Bandini and Bristow. However, the actual improvement may be delayed due to the financial condition of the state, for according to the Los Angeles Times in October 2003:

“California’s financial problems have stalled indefinitely a long-awaited $400- million plan to construct fresh barriers and shoulders along the Long Beach Freeway, sparking fresh concerns about safety on the truck-clogged route. The project would improve safety on most of the outmoded 24-mile freeway, including the area where six people recently died in a big-rig crash. Most of the freeway’s medians and shoulders are narrower than state standards, and old wood-and-metal median barriers have not been substituted with the concrete barriers recommended for congested roadways with narrow medians, state Department of Transportation officials said. “

The project had been scheduled for completion in 2007. Most of the freeway has 16-foot medians, while current standards call for 22-foot medians. As for the shoulders, most of the freeway has 8-foot broad shoulders, while current standards call for 10-foot-wide shoulders. According to the LA Times article, I-710 carries 15% of the nation’s seaborne cargo volume, or 47,000 trucks each day, a number projected to dual or even triple in the coming years.

According to an article in the Los Angeles Times, in late January 2005, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority board approved a $Five.5-billion plan to rebuild I-710, despite protests from residents. This plan would reconstruct an 18-mile open up of the freeway from the harbors to rail yards in Commerce and East Los Angeles, converting it from a 1950s-style road with six to ten lanes to a modern 14-lane highway, with four lanes designed exclusively for trucks. Some portions of the truck lanes could be elevated. Construction would not begin until two thousand fifteen or later, and no one can say where funding would be found. Albeit most residents near the corridor agree the road needs to be rebuilt, many fear the project would create a massive truck artery without reducing air pollution. The Gateway Cities Council of Governments, made up of cities along the seven hundred ten corridor, made its very first request to transportation officials to expand I-710 in 1999, and formal planning began a year later. But the process stalled in the spring of 2003, when residents learned that up to eight hundred homes could be demolished, and they accused officials of disregarding health concerns. The council then launched an elaborate process for community input. Fresh design plans, meantime, call for the demolition of only five residential buildings and sixty one industrial or commercial structures. Transportation officials say community health concerns will be addressed as part of the environmental review process, which could begin next year and take three to four years, at a cost of $35 million to $40 million.

In June 2006, the Metropolitan Transportation Agency Board of Directors authorized an environmental explore of the project, which will cost $30 million and take three years. The ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, the MTA, Caltrans and the Gateway Cities Council of Governments each contributed $Five million to help fund the explore of the work; the overall project could cost up to $Five.Five billion. The final project will involve building ten mixed-flow lanes, four special truck lanes, improving interchanges and arteries and direct truck ramps into railroad yards in Vernon and Commerce.

In December 2010, LA Metro provided an update. The environmental probe was launched in 2008. Among the alternatives being studied for the project is widening the freeway to ten lanes (five lanes in each direction); adding four elevated truck-only lanes adjacent to I-710 (two lanes in each direction); restricting the truck-only lanes to be used by trucks with zero tailpipe emissions; and possibly tolling the truck-only lanes. The objective is to release the explore in Fall 2011.There are still money challenges. The construction cost of some of the alternatives ranges from $Three.8 billion to $6.7 billion, depending on which alternative is selected. As part of the Measure R sales tax increase approved by L.A. County voters in 2008, $590 million is available for the I-710 project. In order to help address the funding shortfall, this project and five others, is being studied for a public-private partnership – i.e. deals in which private firms help pay for a project’s upfront cost in exchange for payments later. This is one reason the tolling option for trucks is being studied.

In June 2011, it was reported that the latest proposal would expand the 18-mile long roadway to ten lanes without taking homes or disrupting adjacent Blue Line light- rail operations. Authorities expect the project to cost up to $8 billion and take more than a decade to finish, however tolls on trucks could significantly reduce public costs. The plan deviates significantly from a roundly dismissed proposal almost ten years ago that included demolishing almost three hundred homes and businesses in North Long Beach and Compton, among other cities, to accommodate widening. The basic plan is to add fresh lanes on existing (electrical) utility rights-of-way along the Los Angeles Sea, add a truck freight corridor, and improve interchanges and generally overall traffic flow. Traffic engineers expect truck traffic to increase from about 25,000 equipments per day now to as many as 90,000 daily by 2035. One proposal calls for adding a $Ten toll on most large big equipments using a fresh, separated toll road during peak hours, generally from early morning to late afternoon, and $Five during off- peak hours. Passenger vehicles would not be taxed for using general-purpose lanes, however trucks using those lanes could be charged up to $20 per tour under details outlined in one plan. More details may be found at http://www.metro.net/710.

In June 2012, Caltrans released the Draft EIR for the mobility improvements. The defined alternatives assessed were:

• √ ALTERNATIVE 1: NO BUILD. Carried forward. Alternative one would maintain the current configuration of the existing I-710 Corridor.
• Ч ALTERNATIVE Two: TSM/TDM/TRANSIT/ITS. Not carried forward as standalone alternative. Transportation Systems Management/Transportation Request Management (TSM/TDM), transit, and ITS improvements. The screening analysis demonstrated that these transportation improvements did not go far enough in resolving the worst of the congestion problems, air quality issues, design elements that need updating, and safety concerns that affect motorists and residents within the overall I-710 Corridor.
• Ч ALTERNATIVE Three:GOODS MOVEMENT ENHANCEMENT BY RAIL AND/OR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY. Not carried forward as standalone alternative. Alternative three did not adequately relieve traffic congestion on the I-710 mainline according to several of the mobility measures, nor did it address the existing safety and design elements that need updating on the I-710 compared to other alternatives.
• Ч ALTERNATIVE Four: ARTERIAL HIGHWAY AND I-710 CONGESTION Ease IMPROVEMENTS. Not carried forward as standalone alternative. This alternative would not accommodate the high future traffic volumes generated by population and employment growth and the forecasted cargo growth.
• √ ALTERNATIVE 5A: TEN GENERAL PURPOSE LANES. Recommended as standalone alternative. Contains all the components of Alternatives one through Four. Alternative 5A had the second-best spectacle on measures of congestion reduction (volume-to-capacity [v/c] ratio) and I-710 mainline travel time. It also ranked 2nd among the screened alternatives in air emission reductions. Alternative 5A proposes to widen the I-710 mainline eight general purpose lanes south of I-405 and up to ten general purpose lanes north of I-405 (on I-710 northbound and on I-710 southbound). This alternative will modernize the design at the I-405 and Route ninety one interchanges, modernize and reconfigure most local arterial interchanges across the I-710 corridor, modify freeway access at various locations, and shift the I-710 centerline at various locations to reduce right-of-way impacts. Specifically, it would widen the I-710 mainline (combined northbound and southbound) to eight general purpose lanes south of Pico Ave./Alondra Blvd. and ten general purpose lanes north of Del Amo Blvd. with the exception of the following: (1) Inbetween the Alondra Blvd. northbound off-ramp and the westbound Route ninety one to northbound I-710 connector; and (Two) Within the I-105 interchange, inbetween the eastbound and westbound I-105 connectors. It would shift the freeway centerline east horizontally at the following locations: Anaheim St. (100 feet), Pacific Coast Hwy. (200 feet), Willow St. (35 feet), Wardlow St. (45 feet), South of Artesia Blvd./Route ninety one (40 feet), Atlantic Blvd./Alondra Blvd. (80 feet), Imperial Hwy. (200 feet), and South of Southern Ave. (70 feet). It would shift the freeway centerline west horizontally at the following locations: Del Amo Blvd. (120 feet), Long Beach Blvd. (45 feet), North of Firestone Blvd. (45 feet), Florence Ave. (100 feet). Additionally, the mainline will be raised as much as eight feet above existing grade around Washington Blvd. over the BNSF Railroad`s Hobart Yard and as much as five feet above existing grade over UP Railroad`s East Yard. Extra auxiliary lanes will be provided at various locations inbetween the interchanges. The following improvements will be made to the I-710/I-405 interchange: The existing three-quadrant cloverleaf configuration will be substituted by a four-level configuration with direct connections; all eight existing connectors will be realigned and substituted; and all collector-distributor (CD) roads will be liquidated. The following improvements will be made to the I-710/Route ninety one interchange: The existing internal loop for the northbound I-710 to westbound Route ninety one connector will be substituted with a flyover connection; the westbound Route ninety one to northbound I-710 connector will retain an alignment close to its existing alignment, but will be braided with the northbound Alondra Blvd. off-ramp and the eastbound Route ninety one to the northbound I-710 connector; the eastbound Route ninety one to northbound I-710 connector will be moved to tie in north of the westbound Route ninety one to the northbound I-710 connector. This connector will also be braided with the northbound Alondra Blvd. off-ramp to separate the two movements. This will require fresh structures that proceed over Atlantic Blvd. The southbound I-710 to eastbound Route ninety one connector will be braided with the southbound Alondra Blvd. on-ramp to separate the two movements. There will also be a braid inbetween the fresh flyover northbound I-710 to the westbound Route ninety one connector and the Long Beach Blvd. on-ramp along westbound Route 91. The Route ninety one connectors will separate from northbound I-710 altogether and split into a fresh flyover connector, followed by a split in the Artesia Blvd. off-ramp, and will proceed to the existing alignment of the northbound I-710 to the eastbound Route ninety one connector. Lastly, the following improvements will be made to the I-710/I-105 interchange: The northbound I-710 to the eastbound I-105 connector will diverge near the existing divergence location. A fresh separation structure is required on the connector treatment to accommodate the fresh Rosecrans Ave. on-ramp alignment that will pass below. A fresh one-lane slip ramp will be added to connect the westbound I-105 to the southbound I-710 connector to the southbound Rosecrans Ave. off-ramp. The southbound divergence locations for the eastbound and westbound I-105 connectors will be reconstructed.
• Ч ALTERNATIVE 5B: EIGHT GENERAL PURPOSE LANES PLUS TWO HOV LANES. Not carried foward. The screening analysis demonstrated that Alternative 5B had lower benefits compared to Alternative 5A because the HOV lanes under Alternative 5B would not be utilized as much as the proposed general purpose lanes under Alternative 5A, most likely due to the parallel HOV lanes on both I-110 and I-605.
• √ ALTERNATIVE 6: ALTERNATIVE five WITH ADDITION OF FOUR SEPARATED FREIGHT MOVEMENT LANES. Carried forward. Alternative six was the only alternative estimated to reduce the peak-period v/c ratio on the I-710 mainline below the level indicating congestion conditions. It also was estimated to generate the lowest percentage of heavy-duty trucks sharing the general purpose lanes with automobiles and to result in the greatest reduction in freeway design elements that need updating, both of which are key indicators of improved traffic safety. Alternative six was recommended to have two variations: (1) Alternative 6A (previously labeled Alternative 6), which would include ten general purpose lanes and four separated freight movement lanes (freight corridor) for use by all heavy-duty trucks, whether powered by diesel engines or engines with lower or zero emissions; and (Two) Alternative 6B, which would include ten general purpose lanes and incorporate Alternative Trio`s advanced technology component by including four separated freight movement lanes. Alternative 6A includes all the components of Alternatives one and 5A as described above. In addition, this alternative includes a separated four-lane freight corridor to be used by conventional trucks. The freight corridor would be located on an elevated structure with two lanes in each direction inbetween Ocean Blvd. and the intermodal rail yards in the cities of Vernon and Commerce. Dedicated entry and exit points to and from the freight corridor within the project boundaries would be at (1) Harbor Scenic Dr. (Southern Terminus); (Two) Pico Ave; (Trio) Anaheim St.; (Four) I-710/I-405 Interchange; (Five) I-710/Route ninety one Interchange; (6) I-710/I-105 Interchange; (7) I-710/Patata St.; (8) Atlantic Blvd./Bandini Blvd./Washington Blvd.; and (9) Sheila St. (Northern Terminus). Alternative 6B includes all the components of Alternative 6A described above and consists of the same footprint as Alternative 6A. Further, this alternative would restrict the use of the freight corridor to zero-emission trucks rather than conventionally powered trucks.

Subsequent to the completion of the Alternatives Screening Analysis described above, the I-710 Funding Playmates agreed that a tolling option should be added to the freight corridor component of Alternatives 6A and 6B to provide a possible revenue source to fund the improvements. This alternative is known as Alternative 6C. Alternative 6C includes all the components of Alternative 6B as described above and consists of the same footprint as Alternatives 6A and 6B. Further, this alternative would toll trucks using the freight corridor. Per Federal statute, unless otherwise excepted, all Interstate highways must be toll-free. However, current exceptions relating to tolling of Interstate highways include Value Pricing Pilot Program; Express Lanes Demonstration Project; the Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program; and the Interstate System Construction Toll Pilot Program. Should Alternative 6C be selected as the preferred alternative, tolling would be implemented pursuant to one of these exceptions.

In August 2011, the CTC indicated that there were no comments to the Draft EIR, that the Findings were accepted and that consideration of funding should be brought forward to the CTC for approval of Public Private Partnership funds.

In February 2013, it was reported that, following thousands of comments from leaders within community health and environmental coalitions, the State-led project to expand I-710 from eight lanes to fourteen lanes for seventeen miles from Long Beach to Route sixty in East Los Angeles was delayed. The Project Committee, am advisory committee to Metro, Caltrans and the Southern California Association of Governments, halted the project with an astounding «no» on the proposed routes. Meantime, the Long Beach City Council I-710 Oversight Committee recommended that Caltrans and Metro recirculate the draft EIR, permitting for more public comment. At that meeting, two of the most exceptionally flawed alternatives–known as 5A and 6A–were recommended to be eliminated from the table.

In March 2015, it was reported that transportation officials are considering two multibillion-dollar options to reconstruct an 18-mile spread of I-710 inbetween the harbor and rail yards near I-5. Both are designed to separate cars and trucks as much as possible. One alternative under probe by Caltrans and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority is an $8-billion freight corridor that includes four elevated truck-only lanes that would parallel I-710 inbetween the highway and the Los Angeles Sea. The other option, which is far cheaper at an estimated $Three billion to $Four billion, would add one lane in each direction and a bypass that would take trucks around the I-405 interchange. I-710 now has anywhere from three to five lanes in each direction. The proposals include extensive improvements to about a dozen interchanges and redesigns of connector and ramp areas to eliminate weaving caused by merging trucks and cars. Bikeways and walkways for pedestrians also are under consideration. The two current proposals were essentially split off from a broader seven hundred ten South project approved in two thousand five by MTA directors. That $Four.5-billion proposal called not only for two elevated truck lanes but also for interchange improvements and at least two regular lanes in each direction. It would take about two years for the planning and environmental work to be ended. Once an option is selected and money is found, a construction contract could be awarded by two thousand eighteen or 2019.

In March 2016, the Los Angeles MTA introduced its total proposal for what transit lines could be built — and when — if Los Angeles County voters approve a half-cent sales tax increase in November 2016. This proposal included funding for the I-710 South Corridor Project. The project will add two Zero Emission Truck lanes in each direction, from Pico/Anaheim in Long Beach to Bandini/Washington in Commerce for a total of eighteen miles, while maintaining the current existing four Mixed-Flow lanes in each direction.

The SAFETEA-LU act, enacted in August two thousand five as the reauthorization of TEA-21, authorized $Five,500,000 for High Priority Project #3773: Reconstruct I-710 interchanges at I-405, at Route 91, and at I-105.

According to the Daily News, fresh pavement will be laid in a $164.Five million project along nine miles of I-710. The project includes shoulder reconstruction, fresh concrete barriers, a soundwall and widening of the Atlantic Boulevard undercrossing and of the southbound lanes at the Compton Creek bridge. Construction is scheduled to commence in summer 2007.

The Los Angeles Times provided more information the fresh pavement in an article in September 2009. The project is called the “I-710 Long Life Pavement Project”, and commenced in 2001. Part of the problem is the traffic blast on the highway: On any given weekday, almost 155,000 vehicles stream north and south on the seven hundred ten past Pacific Coast Highway, 16% of which are 18-wheelers carrying up to forty tons to and from the Port of Long Beach and the Port of Los Angeles. The pavement is using a fresh asphalt mix, the culmination of testing and experimenting that goes back to the 1960s. The mix involves different types of asphalt being layered onto the roadway, combined with significant thickness, almost twelve inches sitting upon the old concrete roadbed. This treatment serves to disseminate weight from the point of influence, broadening and lessening the stream into the deeper layers. As the old concrete underneath the road leaps — unpreventable, underneath the weight of moving traffic — the asphalt ripples and recoils, preventing the formation of cracks. In addition, lumps of rubber have been stirred into the top layer to mute the sound of traffic and divert water to stop hydroplaning. With regular maintenance, scraping and substituting this layer every eight to twelve years, the pavement is expected to last at least thirty years (the typical asphalt pavement lasts ten years, and concrete, such as the design used for I-710, can last forty years with maintenance).

[Based on an article in the Los Angeles Times, “A sleek idea for the seven hundred ten Freeway”, 2009-09-30]

In August 2011, it was reported that the Long Life Pavement Project will require a number of closures in late Summer 2011. Specifically, I-710 inbetween I-105 and the Atlantic Boulevard exit will be totally shut down for several hours at a time two times per weekend on ten consecutive weekends from August five through October 17, 2011. There will be no construction on Labor Day weekend. The utter freeway closures in both directions will begin each weekend at 11:59 p.m. Fridays and run through six a.m. on Saturdays. They will begin again Sundays at eleven p.m. and run through five a.m. on Mondays. During the initial closure each weekend, moveable median barriers will be installed. They will guide motorists to shift to the northbound side of the freeway to commute in a diminished number of lanes while construction crews work on the southbound seven hundred ten over the weekend. During the final closure, the moveable median barriers will be eliminated in time for the Monday morning commute.

The CTC in November two thousand two considered $8,540,000 in improvements to local streets in Los Angeles, Alhambra, and South Pasadena (07S-LA-710-26.7/32.1). This would be a grant to the cities to fund improvements.

In August 2011, the CTC approved $190,222,000 in SHOPP funding for I-710 from South Gate to Monterey Park from Los Angeles Sea Bridge to Ramona Boulevard that will rehabilitate thirty seven lane miles of roadway to improve safety and rail quality. The project will also substitute ramp pavement, widen inwards and outside shoulders and nine bridges to standard widths, and substitute existing median barrier with concrete barrier. Lastly, the project will construct maintenance pullouts to reduce worker traffic exposure.

In November 2014, it was reported that a subcontractor installed a fresh sign for the Olympic Boulevard exit that read “Olimpic.” A construction squad with the California Department of Transportation spotted the mistake the next morning, but it was too late. The misspelling was hard to miss, and drivers had already snapped and tweeted photographs of the sign. Days later, a black tarp was thrown over the sign in an attempt to cover the misspelling. The sign was one of many improvements underway on I-710 as part of a pavement rehabilitation project. The $120-million project, reaching from the Los Angeles Sea Bridge to I-10, includes median barrier upgrades, shoulder widening and the installation of fiber optics and precast concrete panels and slabs. All costs associated with the removal, replacement and installation of the Olympic Boulevard sign will be paid by the subcontractor who fabricated the sign, not taxpayers or the state.

Route seven hundred ten Completion (Segment from I-10 to I-210)

In May 2007, the Los Angeles Times reported that there are plans for a $20M project to create a connector from the current end of I-710 around Valley Boulevard to Mission Road. Supposedly, the City of Los Angeles will soon (Spring/Summer 2007) release a draft Environmental Influence Report on the project. The connector road would carry traffic another 1,400 feet from I-710 onto Mission Road, possibly sending 40,000 cars daily winding through residential streets like Westminster and Meridian Avenue. The road would alleviate traffic problems through some El Sereno neighborhoods, according to Los Angeles officials, but create others as Mission, a collector street, is not as broad as Valley, an arterial street. This road would be needed only until I-710 is ended and connected to I-210.

The SAFETEA-LU act, enacted in August two thousand five as the reauthorization of TEA-21, authorized $Two,400,000 for High Priority Project #2193: I-710 Freeway probe to evaluate technical feasibility and impacts of a Tunnel Alternative to close I-710 freeway gap. It also authorized $1,600,000 for High Priority Project #3018: Valley Boulevard (former US 60) Capacity Improvement inbetween I-710 Freeway and Marguerita Avenue, Alhambra. This is the route that takes the current end-traffic from I-710.

Originally, construction of the the 6.Two mile, $670 million extension was planned to embark after the year 2000. There would be six lanes and two HOV lanes, with room for light rail in the median. Interchanges are planned at Hellman Ave., Valley Boulevard/Alhambra Ave., Huntington Dr., California Blvd, Del Mar Blvd., and Green St. To decrease the influence on South Pasadena, the proposed interchange with I-110 has been eliminated. There are also two tunnels planned: a 1200-foot “cut and cover” near South Pasadena High School, and a 100-foot tunnel near the Buena Vista district. There may be more tunneling if this speeds the project without demolishing homes. In fact, the MTA has asked a consultant to examine two parallel, Four.5-mile tunnels to close the gap.

In April 2004, the Pasadena Starlet News reported that the city of South Pasadena dropped its lawsuit against the state after receiving assurances that the state had withdrawn its approval of the Four.5-mile open up of road. Albeit South Pasadena believed this killed the freeway, it actually moved the issue into the Legislature and the Congress. The only thing about which both sides agree is that the California Transportation Commission activity put the entire issue back to square one. The California Transportation Commission withdrew its support four months after the Federal Highway Administration issued a letter telling that the state’s environmental reviews were outdated, inadequate and had to be redone. Caltrans has said it intends to stir forward with the fresh environmental reviews. Caltrans still holds six hundred homes in the seven hundred ten corridor, and it still says it intends to demolish them so that the freeway can be built.

According to an article in the Los Angeles Times on ten August 2005, a potential solution to the completion of I-710 lies in the SAFETEA-LUA bill approved in August. This bill contains an appropriation of $Two.Four million to probe the possibility of extending the freeway through a five-mile, $2-billion tunnel that would run under South Pasadena and part of Pasadena. This would be the longest continuous highway tunnel in the United States. After the feasibility examine would be environmental influence reports, engineering plans and financial wrangles. Part of the problem is real estate values. Over the last thirty years, Caltrans purchased more than five hundred homes that occupy the potential freeway right of way, many at prices in the $50,000 range. One was recently appraised for $780,000. Building a tunnel would permit Caltrans to sell most of the homes, albeit a switch in state law would be needed to sell them at full-market prices. If the freeway were to be finished above ground, an extra four hundred homes would need to be purchased, at a price of about $1 million each. These costs (or income), combeind with fresh technologies pioneered in Europe that lower the price of tunneling and the cost to taxpayers of putting the road one hundred feet to two hundred feet below ground may be not much more expensive than building on the surface. The five-mile tunnel, if built, would begin where the freeway finishes in a stump on Valley Boulevard in Alhambra. It would surface inbetween California and Del Mar avenues in Pasadena before connecting to a mile unclothe of the freeway that already exists south of the Foothill Freeway. Engineers said the tunnel would be unbroken, except for a possible interchange at Huntington Drive in El Sereno. The route would be almost twice as long as Boston’s Big Dig or a similarly long passageway in Alaska, the longest road tunnels in the United States. Harass from the underground roadway would be released and filtered through an elaborate venting system at ground level. The so-called air scrubbers would filter enough of the harass that it could actually result in cleaner emissions than with a surface freeway. Engineers said the tunnel could have two levels – one for northbound traffic, the other for southbound traffic. The tunnel idea has already been the subject of a explore by the Southern California Council of Governments, which enlisted help from consultants who built the Chunnel that links England and France below the English Channel. The consultants believed the tunnel could be built using a mechanism popular in Europe in which a large machine bores through the Earth and glazes the tunnel way with a steel membrane That mechanism is considered less expensive than other tunnel-digging methods.

According to the Los Angeles Times in June 2006, there are three possible routes for twin 4Ѕ-mile tunnels that would connect I-210 in Pasadena with current terminus of I-710 in Alhambra. The proposed tunnel routes are:

Along the same path that had been suggested for the street-level extension, known as the Meridian alignment because it runs mostly along Meridian Avenue. At four miles, it is the shortest and most direct route. It would be built under more than 1,000 homes in Pasadena, South Pasadena and the El Sereno district of Los Angeles.

A slightly longer path that would pass under the existing Fremont Avenue corridor. It also would be under mostly residential and some commercial property.

A more eastern path that would go after under the Huntington Drive and Fair Oaks Avenue corridor, a mix of residential and commercial property.

The tunnels would be as much as seventy two feet in diameter to treat four lanes of traffic, and would be the world’s largest. Parsons Brinckerhoff compared the proposal to giant tunnels being built underneath Seattle, Paris and Barcelona, Spain, and calculate that the L.A. tunnels would take nine to eleven years to construct. The explore recommended that trucks be permitted to use the tunnels and that a proposed freeway exit at Huntington Drive be abandoned as too costly at an estimated $1 billion. The tunnels may require a toll to help pay for construction. The utter report can be found at http://www.mta.net/pictures/710_final_report.pdf.

In April 2008, a radical proposal surfaced regarding Route 710. This proposal would have the underground highway funded entirely by the private sector. Metro officials have confirmed they have been approached by a financial broker signifying major international corporations interested in investing in the plan, which would use giant tunnel-boring machines to build a totally subterranean 6-mile, multi- lane roadway. The route would link the current terminus of the northbound I-710 in Alhambra with a brief northern Route seven hundred ten segment of the freeway in Pasadena. The discussions are very preliminary and more details about the plan need to be hashed out before a private-partnership could even be considered. Under some public-private partership agreements, the private contractor pays for and builds the infrastructure in exchange for future revenues, such as fees collected through tolls. This latest proposal addresses all the concerns of South Pasadena residents and elected officials, by being entirely subterranian, not cut and cover. However, Route seven hundred ten extension plans also have to contend with opposition from nearby La Caсada Flintridge, which has objected to any proposed tunnel plans because of officials’ fears of enhanced traffic on I-210 through their city.

In January 2009, Caltrans and the LA MTA conducted geotechnical exploratory borings in two locations in the City of Alhambra. This is part of the Exploration Program phase of the two-year I-710 Tunnel Technical Explore that will involve research, exploration and technical analysis of the soil and sub-surface conditions found while tunneling at innards of more than two hundred fifty feet. The net objective is to see whether construction of the I-710 tunnels is feasible. The map of the routes being explored is as goes after:

The purpose of the investigate is to examine the possibility of constructing a tunnel to finish the route inbetween the northern I-710 termini and the Foothill Freeway (I-210). The probe is being conducted in a route neutral manner. This means that all reasonable and practicable alternatives for completing the route are being considered within the Examine area, which encompasses the cities of Alhambra, Glendale, La Caсada-Flintridge, Los Angeles, Monterey Park, San Marino, South Pasadena and Pasadena. Information gathered via the Explore will describe soil and sub-surface conditions and will determine the feasibility of building a tunnel to finish I-710.

In 2009, the LA Times ( 11/17/2009 ) reported that the tunnel examine was finished. The examine explored five zones, and concluded that a tunnel would be feasible (which is a far way from the begin of construction). The draft report will be finalized in 2010, was based on the assumption that the tunnel would be about two hundred feet below ground and about fifty feet in diameter. It looked at five potential construction zones:

Zone one (Northeast L.A.): There is one Superfund site in the northwest portion of the zone which could be a source of contaminated soil and groundwater in the tunnel. There is also a possibility of encountering naturally occurring gases such as methane and hydrogen sulfide. There are no active faults in the zone.

Zone two (Northeast L.A.): The active Raymond fault crosses the zone and there is also the potential of encountering naturally occurring gases. Some soil and groundwater contamination could result in hazardous materials being encountered.

Zone three (South Pasadena/Pasadena): The Raymond and San Rafael faults are groundwater barriers in this area, and there is one active and two potentially active faults in the area. There are two places with minor soil contamination in the northern thresholds of the zone.

Zone four (San Marino/Pasadena): Active faults that cross the zone are the Raymond and Alhambra Wash faults. There is one Superfund site in the southwestern end of the zone. There are also six other sites with various levels of soil contamination.

Zone five (Alhambra/San Gabriel/Temple City): The active Alhambra Wash fault is in this zone and so are the perennial Rio Hondo and San Gabriel rivers. There is one Superfund site in the south-central portion of the zone and seven other sites with various levels of soil and groundwater contamination.

The Glendale News Press reported in February two thousand ten that the debate over the alternative, an underground tunnel, was reinvigorated in late two thousand nine when Caltrans and Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority released a $6-million route feasibility investigate. The report demonstrated tunneling was feasible within five potential route zones, which include connections to I-210 and Route Two. That sparked a wave of renewed protest from local stakeholders, who said the perception that plans for a seven hundred ten connector was too far flung and expensive didn’t match with what was happening in political circles. Already, $780 million in Measure R sales tax revenue has been earmarked for the connector. And in January 2010, the MTA instructed officials to explore private partnerships for extra funding. The next step is a series of community meetings for the final draft of the technical examine, which will be introduced this spring to the MTA and California Transportation Commission, which will determine whether to stir forward with more in-depth environmental studies. Tunnel opponents argue there are better ways to address what they contend is largely a commercial freight issue. Assemblyman Anthony Portantino (D-Pasadena) said moving to the environmental investigate process would be a misuse of millions in taxpayer dollars. He also criticized the technical investigate for lacking significant details on how and why tunneling is feasible, including costs and construction methods. La Caсada and South Pasadena are in court fighting the use of Measure R funds for tunnel studies or construction, and the Glendale City Council joined the legal fight in early March.

In October 2011, it was reported that LA Metro approved a $37.Trio million contract to CH2MHill to examine a range of alternatives, prepare technical assessments, and environmental and engineering studies about alternatives to close the gap inbetween the Route two hundred ten and Route seven hundred ten freeways. The studies are expected to be ended in the fall of 2014.

In January 2012, it was reported that South Pasadena was lobbying to kill the surface routing of Route 710. LA Metro was indicating they had no plans to construct a surface routing, but didn’t want to pull it off the table as an option fairly yet. The city is also lobbying Caltrans to sell the more than five hundred homes the agency bought decades ago along the proposed route in prep for building the Route seven hundred ten Freeway extension to connect with I-210. In particular, at the request of Assemblyman Anthony Portantino (D-La Caсada Flintridge), a Joint Legislative Audit Committee is conducting an inquiry into Caltrans` continued ownership of the homes. The state stands to build up $500 million if it sells the homes in Pasadena, South Pasadena and Los Angeles. However, Caltrans is not able to sell the homes until the Federal Highway Administration accepted the proposed route for a tunnel or whatever project was approved and the state determined which properties were “excess” and therefore available to be sold. If they are sold, under a state law passed in 1979, current tenants and past owners would be the very first in line to buy them.

In May 2012, it was reported that debate was still going on regarding alternatives. There are presently twelve alternative concepts to relieve traffic congestion, including a «no build» freeway option and other projects still listed in the Regional Transportation Plan. Those options include alternate bus, light rail and freeway routes, highway and street artery concepts, non-infrastructure improvements and hybrid combinations of the other plans. All of the freeway alternative concepts will connect the terminus of I-710, north of I-10. The alignment can be a tunnel, depressed, at-grade, elevated or any combination. The LRT-4 concept proposes a partially subterranean light rail line that would travel from the East LA Civic Center Gold Line station to the Fillmore station, go north on Mednick at street level and it could stop at Cal State LA. The rail is a tunnel on the north end; the concept also includes two bus routes. The freeway alternatives are:

• Alternative Concept F-2: Connects to Route two (Glendale Freeway) inbetween Verdugo Road and Route one hundred thirty four with a fresh interchange. Performs well for traffic operations across the board, albeit somewhat weaker at addressing the north-south travel needs because of the alignment. Results in different impacts than the other freeway alternatives because of its location.
• Alternative Concept F-5: Connects to Route one hundred thirty four at a fresh interchange– just north of the intersection of Colorado Blvd/Avenue 64. Performs well for operations, similar to the other freeway alternatives. Results in different environmental and community impacts compared to the other alternative concepts.
• Alternative Concept F-6 and F-7: Share the same alignment–inbetween the north and south terminus of the existing Route 710. F-7 is the tunnel alignment, albeit it has depressed and at-grade sections at the north/south finishes, and performs well for travel time and travel served, and improves regional and local traffic operation. .F-6 is surface/depressed alignment (at-grade) very similar with even better operations and mobility, but results in more negative physical impacts.
• Alternative Concept H-6: This alignment is inbetween the termini on Huntington Drive, Fair Oaks Avenue, Columbia Street, Pasadena Avenue and St. Johns Avenue. Improvements would carry Route seven hundred ten traffic over Valley Boulevard and then connect directly to Huntington Drive inbetween Lowell Avenue and Sheffield Avenue. Performs well in traffic and transit operations, and was the strongest overall of the highway/arterial alternatives. It provides extra capacity as a direct route for north-south travel in the investigate area.
• Alternative Concept H-2: This alignment is situated to the west, but generally serves north-south traffic: Concord Avenue, Fremont Avenue, Monterey Road, Ave 64, Colorado Blvd. Improvements would carry Route seven hundred ten traffic over Valley Boulevard and the railroad, and then connect with Concord Avenue. Performs well in traffic and transit operations, serves a multitude of different trips, and improves a broad range of roads. It has fewer impacts than H-6.

In August 2012, Metro and Caltrans eliminated five routes from the list of twelve possible routes:

• F-2: Route from SR two (Glendale Freeway) inbetween Verdugo Road and Route one hundred thirty four with a fresh interchange.
• F-5: Route to SR one hundred thirty four at a fresh interchange–just north of the intersection of Colorado Blvd/Avenue 64.
• F-6: Route from north and south terminus of the existing I-710 to I-210
• H-2: Route from Concord Avenue, Fremont Avenue, Monterey Road, Ave 64, Colorado Blvd.
• H-6: Route inbetween the termini on Huntington Drive, Fair Oaks Avenue, Columbia Street, Pasadena Avenue and St. Johns Avenue.

The five remaining proposals include routes using bus rapid transit, light rail, or freeway tunnel and intelligent traffic systems (which includes strategies such as rail sharing and encouraging off peak traffic). The remaining alternatives are:

• «No build» option.
• Bus rapid transit route (BRT-6): from Los Angeles to Pasadena.
• Light Rail (LR-4): route from East Los Angeles to Pasadena.
• Intelligent traffic systems option: is considered a «low build» alternative (TSM TDM), for example light synchronization; enhanced bus line enhancements.
• F-7: tunnel alignment, albeit it has depressed and at-grade sections at the north/south completes. Route would go from the north and south terminus of the existing I-710, to north terminus at I-210.

In September 2012, the Los Angeles city council voted to opposed any extension option — surface or tunnel.

In January 2013, the LA MTA released its analysis of the very first options above. In June 2013, MTA voted to block fast-track funding for the the route extension over the next ten years. While the proposal to extend I-710 to I-210 will be prevented from getting a share of the $9.Four billion in accelerated funding, studies on five alternatives for closing the gap, including a controversial proposal for a tunnel, will proceed. The studies are expected to be finished in 2015, but money to stir forward after that has not been identified. Officials are using money generated by Measure R, a county-wide half-cent sales tax approved by voters in 2008, to pay for the studies.

In October 2013, a bill was approved directing Caltrans to sell some of the almost five hundred properties it wields in Los Angeles, South Pasadena and Pasadena. The homes are located in the so-called seven hundred ten gap, where transportation officials are studying a Four.5-mile tunnel that would connect the Long Beach (Route 710) and Foothill (I-210) freeways. The bill adds a switch to existing law so that the homes may be sold «as is,» at prices set according to their condition, as opposed to having to be repaired and sold at market value. Almost four hundred homes are occupied by tenants, but many others remain vacant and in disrepair. The bill also states the current tenants of the homes will get the very first chance to purchase them. The properties were acquired by Caltrans over the past several decades in anticipation of the possible construction of a surface freeway to close the gap inbetween Route seven hundred ten and I-210 freeways. The fresh law also states that the surface freeway route will be taken off the table as an option in any state environmental documents on the project (the original surface routing is shown at the top of this entry).

In October 2014, it was reported that authorities are considering completing Route seven hundred ten with Four.9-mile-long twin tunnels. Light rail, enhanced bus service and broader streets are also being explored. The Four.9-mile-long tunnel would be longer than any other in California for auto traffic. As of October 2014, the longest is the Wawona Tunnel in Yosemite National Park, which is less than one mile long. Caltrans and Metro will release a draft environmental report in February two thousand fifteen evaluating the freeway tunnel, mass transit and street-widening options; the public will have three months to provide comment.

In March 2015, it was reported that any major modifications to the unfinished Route seven hundred ten Freeway would cost billions of dollars and take years to finish. The Draft EIR provides a number of options to address the Four.5-mile gap through Alhambra and South Pasadena, including a bus system, a light-rail line, a freeway tunnel and a range of upgrades to the existing route, as well as the required “no build” option. Building an underground freeway would be the most expensive option. Tunneling inbetween I-10 Freeway and the current stub Route 210/Route134 junction in Pasadena would cost inbetween $Trio.1 billion and $Five.6 billion and would take about five years to finish. This option calls for side-by-side, double-decker tunnels to separate northbound and southbound traffic. The route would feature a Four.9-mile tunnel and 1.Four miles of surface-level freeway. A less expensive option calls for one double-decker freeway tunnel. Northbound traffic would use the two lanes on the upper level, and southbound traffic would use the lower level. The Four.9-mile tunnel would be the longest in California, and almost as long as downtown Boston’s Five.1-mile Big Dig tunnel. Under either option, drivers could be charged a toll and trucks could be barred from the tunnels. Alternatively, the bus option provides a 12-mile rapid bus route linking Huntington Drive in San Marino to Whittier Boulevard in Montebello. Buses would have some dedicated lanes, and could run every ten minutes during peak hours. Adding the bus routes would cost $241 million and take about two years. Lastly, a 7.5-mile light-rail line option would cost $Two.Four billion and would add seven stops to Los Angeles County`s growing rail system, connecting the Gold Line`s Fillmore Station in Pasadena with the East L.A. Civic Center stop. The route would run underground through Pasadena and South Pasadena, then run on elevated tracks through Monterey Park and East Los Angeles. Construction would take about six years. The cheapest option would be to make the existing freeways and roads more efficient without major construction. That could include meters for on-ramps, synchronized traffic signals, and lanes that switch direction during peak hours. Those options would cost about $105 million and take two years to finish. Caltrans was scheduling a number of open forums to get comments from the public.

In June 2015, it was reported that Beyond the 710, a coalition of community organizations, environmental attorneys, five San Gabriel Valley cities, and the National Trust for Historic Preservation, had submitted a plan that eschewed extra highways and tunnels, and proposed instead the notion that expanding bus service, improving surface streets, adding bicycle routes and developing more walkable communities would better address traffic congestion, air pollution and the transportation needs of the west San Gabriel Valley. Instead of constructing the extension, Beyond the seven hundred ten envisions building several local surface-street projects, including a four-lane thoroughfare called Golden Eagle Boulevard that would head 1.9 miles north from the southern stub of Route seven hundred ten to Fremont Street in Alhambra. Golden Eagle would intersect Valley Boulevard, Alhambra Avenue and East Mission Road, permitting traffic to be distributed to other surface streets, thus protecting residential neighborhoods. The northern stub of Route seven hundred ten in Pasadena would be packed in, providing35 acres of open space or developable land for homes and commercial buildings. They also proposed a north-south transit corridor that meanders along the Route seven hundred ten route and would connect to major destinations as well as Metrolink service, the El Monte busway and the MTA`s Gold, Green and Blue light-rail lines.

In June 2015, the CTC received the chance to provide comments in response to the Draft Environmental Influence Report (DEIR) for the Route seven hundred ten North Probe Project. The chance came with numerous letters from community officials and citizens recommending that the CTC take no position until a preferred alternative had been selected by Caltrans. These included letters from Assemblyman (Ret.) Anthony J. Portantino, the City of South Pasadena, the City of La Canada-Flintridge, the West Pasadena Residents Association, Gloria Valladolid, Melissa Michelson, and the No seven hundred ten Activity Committee. The recommendation, which was accepted, was that the CTC make no comments regarding the environmental issues addressed in the DEIR. The recommendation also noted that the CTC should send a letter to Caltrans stating that (a) The Commission has no comments with respect to the alternatives or environmental impacts addressed in the DEIR; (b) The final environmental document should not be brought forward to the Commission for project funding decisions or other purposes until a cost benefit analysis is distributed through a process that ensures sufficient chance for the public to review and provide comment; (c) Early communication and coordination with the Commission is encouraged if it is anticipated that the Commission will be requested to approve the project for delivery through a public private partnership or for construction approval to permit for financing and tolling approval by the California Transportation Financing Authority; and (d) If, in the future, funds or other deeds under the purview of the Commission are anticipated ,notification should be provided to the Commission as a Responsible Agency. The initial letter from Caltrans noted that the project is not fully funded: it has $780,000,000 in local funding available and the agency is working to identify extra funds. Depending on the alternative selected, the total estimated project cost is inbetween $105,000,000 and $Five,650,000,000.

In August 2015, it was reported that the South Coast Air Quality Management District said the draft environmental influence report for the proposed Route seven hundred ten Freeway extension failed to estimate emissions of carbon monoxide and airborne particulates and that the tunnel project would raise the cancer risk to unacceptable levels. The eight-page letter from Ian MacMillan, the anti-smog district`s planning and rules manager, says the lack of basic air quality analysis renders the draft EIR worthless to the agency or those determining on a tunnel or other transit options. One part of the EIR places the cancer risk of the project at one hundred forty nine chances per million people exposed to pollutants, well above the district`s standard threshold of ten chances per million. Yet, the report concludes that the cancer risks are «less than significant» based on faulty data. The agency has requested that Caltrans and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority or Metro, which paid $40 million for the investigate released in March, revise the air quality portion of the document.

In August 2015, it was also reported that group signifying San Gabriel Valley cities has liquidated the Route seven hundred ten freeway tunnel proposal from its wish list of projects that might be funded by a fresh transportation sales tax. The decades-old idea of extending Route seven hundred ten Freeway north from its Alhambra terminus near Cal State Los Angeles to I-210 Freeway in Pasadena via an underground tunnel has been divisive. Alhambra wants a tunnel, Pasadena doesn’t. Other cities have taken sides. Now all thirty one San Gabriel Valley cities united in taking the tunnel and other proposals for speeding traffic through the western valley off the list of projects that would have priority for funding with a potential fresh transportation sales tax. The vote by the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments does not kill the tunnel idea, but it has the potential for limiting the means of paying for its construction, estimated by Caltrans at more than $Five billion.

Lastly, also in August 2015, it was reported that Caltrans was preparing to sell a number of properties it acquired for the right of way of the Route seven hundred ten completion. In the 1950s and ’60s, Caltrans began buying up houses and plots of land for what was expected to be the path of the I-710 Freeway. But in the decades that followed, the 6.2-mile project was stalled by lobbying, lawsuits and legislation. Earlier in 2015, closing the door on one portion of the long-fought battle, officials determined that if anything is to be built to close the transportation network gap from El Sereno to I-210 in Pasadena, it will be underground. Those options include a light-rail line, a bus rapid-transit system or a freeway tunnel. The final decision is expected in 2016. The land occupied by many of the state’s four hundred sixty properties along the corridor will no longer be needed. Caltrans has made slow progress this summer in preparing to sell some of those homes – many occupied, and some on the National Register of Historic Places. Officials say if the state approves the sale regulations quickly, most of the homes could go on the market as soon as January 2016, and some sooner. A document ready by Caltrans earlier in two thousand fifteen suggested that dozens of tenants could be priced out. Under a one thousand nine hundred seventy nine law, low-income renters will receive a discounted rate, as could tenants who make less than 150% of the county’s median income: $45,350 for a single person, or $64,800 for a family of four. Former owners and current tenants receiving a diminished rate would have the very first chance to buy the property. The next turn would go to affordable housing development companies, then to tenants who would pay market price, then to former tenants in switch sides order of occupancy. The final option would be a public auction. More than thirty five Caltrans-owned homes are considered uninhabitable, according to agency data, and residents have complained of break-ins, mold and vermin infestations.

In August 2015, the CTC was provided the chance to comment on the DEIR regarding the sale of Route seven hundred ten properties. The transmittal from Caltrans noted that the DEIR proposed the sale of Department-owned surplus properties that are not impacted by the project alternatives being evaluated in the Route seven hundred ten (SR 710) North Probe Draft Environmental Influence Report/Environmental Influence Statement for sale in the cities of Pasadena, South Pasadena, and the El Sereno neighborhood in the city of Los Angeles. These surplus properties are to be suggested for sale in a manner that will preserve, upgrade, and expand the supply of housing available to affected persons and families of low or moderate income, in accordance with Senate Bill (SB) eighty six (Roberti, 1979), SB four hundred sixteen (Liu, 2014) and the Affordable Sales Program (ASP) regulations. Senate Bill four hundred sixteen requires proceeds from the sale of surplus properties to be allocated to the SR seven hundred ten Rehabilitation Account for the rehabilitation of surplus single family homes being sold to low- and moderate-income occupants for which lenders of government housing assistance programs require repairs. The SR seven hundred ten Rehabilitation Account is continuously refilled with each sale. When the balance of this accounts reaches $500,000, extra proceeds go to the State Highway Account and are to be allocated by the California Transportation Commission exclusively for projects located in Pasadena, South Pasadena, Alhambra, La Canada Flintridge, and the ninety thousand thirty two Zip code area of Los Angeles (El Sereno). There were two options: selling or not selling. The CTC had no comments with respect to the DEIR`s purpose and need, the alternatives studied and the evaluation methods used.

In October 2015, it was reported that opponents to the completion of Route seven hundred ten have indicated that they will campaign against a proposed two thousand sixteen transit tax measure if it includes funding for the completion of Route 710. This measure, R2, is a future sales tax that would pump an extra $120 billion into Metro coffers for rail and highway projects during the next forty two years. The message was backed by a letter signed by two hundred twenty five people and an online petition with Three,406 signees, said Janice SooHoo, a member of the No seven hundred ten Act Committee. Geoff Baum, president of the West Pasadena Residents Association, signifying 7,000 households, said his group also would oppose Measure R2 if a seven hundred ten tunnel was listed. While Caltrans has proposed «closing the seven hundred ten gap» for almost sixty years, mostly as a surface route, the tunnel route had gained momentum during the past six years until recently. The EIR said the tunnel alternative would provide the greatest amount of traffic ease and the fewest impacts of the five alternatives studied. A tunnel would connect motorists from Alhambra/El Sereno to Pasadena but not have exits. The tunnel would include a toll of $Five.64 for cars and $15.23 for trucks (if permitted), according to a two thousand eight tunnel financial feasibility assessment. The opponents, speaking at the Metro board meeting, said they want to see the tunnel eliminated from Metro`s long-range transportation plan and kept off a list of R2 projects. The Beyond The seven hundred ten group wants to exchange out a tunnel with various surface street improvements, including a boulevard from the south stub to Mission Road, more east-west thoroughfare connections, a rapid bus going north-south inbetween the stubs, a connection inbetween the Gold Line light-rail in Pasadena to Burbank and more dedicated bikeways. Presently, the seven hundred ten tunnel is not included in any of the transportation project lists submitted by COGs from across the county to Metro.

In December 2015, an interesting article in the LA Times asked not the question “How should the highway be built?”, but “What do we do with the aboveground land now that a surface option is off the table totally?” It noted that, over the years, Caltrans acquired about four hundred residential properties, most of them single-family houses, that it planned to demolish to make way for the freeway. It also wields almost sixty vacant residential lots as well as several large open chunks of land, many alongside, inbetween or near freeway ramps at each end of the corridor. Caltrans has said that it plans to sell them in batches over time, beginning with a group of about fifty early next year, to avoid flooding the market and depressing their value. It also said current tenants would have very first crack at buying the houses, as long as they could pay what Caltrans terms “appraised fair market value.” The author posits that instead of letting the property it controls melt back into the private sphere, Caltrans should work with Los Angeles County and the state of California to build a combination of fresh parks and affordable and market-rate housing in the seven hundred ten corridor. Fresh bike and walking paths could lead to the Arroyo Seco and rail stations on the Gold Line, helping stitch back together neighborhoods long separated by a no-man’s land set aside for freeway construction. If the tunnel plan is ultimately shelved, as many have predicted, large chunks of open land would become available for fresh uses, including a sunken green space in Pasadena spreading north from California Boulevard to the edge of the Old Town shopping district. That land, like acreage near the corridor’s southern end, could accommodate apartment buildings as well as arrays of solar panels or space for capturing and treating storm water. The overall conclusion is thus: More to the point, it is not enough to oppose the seven hundred ten extension simply by arguing for the status quo. Rising income inequality and homelessness, an acute shortage of park space in Los Angeles County and the need for fresh approaches to energy and water policy in an era of climate switch: The pressing nature of each of these issues means that alongside impassioned statements about what shouldn’t be built we need to hear wide-ranging ideas about what should be.

In January 2016, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group listed the Route seven hundred ten tunnel extension project as one of twelve highway boondoggles that represent a waste of taxpayer dollars, outdated thinking and misplaced national transportation priorities. The report criticizes boring dual tunnels that would extend Route seven hundred ten from where it presently finishes at Valley Boulevard under El Sereno, a mostly Latino neighborhood of Los Angeles, South Pasadena and Pasadena, where the Four.5-mile tunnel project would reach the surface and connect at the I-210/Route one hundred thirty four freeway interchange. Caltrans and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) place the cost of the tunnels at inbetween $Trio.Two billion and $Five.6 billion. At the high end of the estimate, it is the second-most expensive project in the report, with the highest being an I–95 Freeway widening in Connecticut estimated to cost $11.Two billion. Third is the Tampa Bay Express Lanes at $Three.Three billion and fourth is the Puget Sound Gateway highway project in Washington at $Two.8 billion to $Three.1 billion. The U.S. Public Interest Research Group`s report says the twelve projects would outspend revenues from the Federal Highway Trust Fund, mostly supported by the federal gasoline tax.

On the other palm, also in January 2016, cities belonging to the seven hundred ten Coalition have come out in support of the draft two thousand sixteen regional transportation plan by the Southern California Association of Governments. The draft calls for connecting the Long Beach (I-710) Freeway to the Foothill (I-210) Freeway in Pasadena via a tunnel. Coalition member cities are Alhambra, Monterey Park, Rosemead, San Gabriel and San Marino. They say not closing the gap inbetween the two freeways will result in more surface traffic on their streets. The draft plan also accelerates the project completion date five years from two thousand thirty to 2025.

In March 2016, the question of whether the tunneling elsewhere in Los Angeles County, as well as the tunneling in the State of Washington for the Alaskan Way Viaduct might have any influence on the support for the I-710 Tunnel. For I-710, two freeway tunnel options have been explored in a 26,000-page draft environmental influence report released in March 2015. Twin-bore tunnels would be excavated side by side – one northbound, one southbound – and each tunnel would have two levels, with two lanes of traffic per level, for a total of four lanes in each tunnel. A single-bore, double-decker tunnel would be one tunnel with two levels: northbound traffic would use the upper level and southbound traffic the lower level, amounting to two lanes in each direction for a total of four lanes. Caltrans and Metro estimate the cost of the tunnels inbetween $Trio.Two billion and $Five.6 billion. Transit tunnels are smaller than roadway tunnels and therefore lighter to finish. The Metro transit tunnels are 21.Five feet in diameter, compared with the Alaska Way Viaduct in Seattle, which is fifty seven feet. The larger a tunnel`s diameter, the more difficult it is to build. The size of Seattle`s tunnel is one reason the tunneling there has encountered delays. Either tunnel option for closing the seven hundred ten gap would require a tunnel of an excavated diameter of about sixty feet, according to the EIR. Both the single-bore and dual-bore variations would be about 6.Three miles long, with Four.Two miles of bored tunnel, 0.7 miles of cut-and-cover tunnel and 1.Four miles of at-grade portions, according to the EIR. The interior diameter would be 52.Five feet and the outside diameter would be 58.Five feet. The extra width is required so the machine can maneuver. Twin tunnels would require cross passages to permit very first responders to reach each tunnel in an emergency, the EIR states. A single-bore tunnel would need emergency exits and ventilation pipes across.

In May 2016, it was reported that a collection of Pasadena residents are proposing to substitute the Route seven hundred ten freeway stub (S of the junction with Route 134/I-210) with housing, businesses and a tree-covered boulevard. The state-owned land inbetween California Boulevard and I-210 represents almost Two.Five million square feet of potential development next door to the city`s thriving Old Pasadena district. Caltrans took ownership of the property decades ago to build a surface freeway from Alhambra to Pasadena. The project stalled and shifted over the years, but the most latest proposal suggests a more than 4-mile long tunnel from Valley Boulevard in Alhambra to the stub in Pasadena. The proposed design starts with low density single-family homes on the south end and increases in density as it gets closer to I-210.

In July 2016, it was reported that the Metro board of directors voted to place the a proposed sales tax ballot measure (Measure R-2, later renamed Measure M) on the November ballot with a provision that makes clear the funds generated by the fresh measure will not fund the Route seven hundred ten tunnel. Local mayors were encouraging the board to instruct its staff and Caltrans to add the “Beyond the 710” proposal to the current Route seven hundred ten north investigate. This proposal proposes to eliminate the Route seven hundred ten freeway stubs at the I-210/Route one hundred thirty four interchange and the Valley Blvd stub, substituting them with four-lane superb streets, and using the freed-up land to build fresh parks and greenspace, transit, bikeways, residential and commercial development, and affordable housing, and providing extra room for local institutions such as Cal State Los Angeles. The south stub transformation would substitute the stub with a grand boulevard that would better disperse local traffic, making it lighter to get where people want to go and relieving congestion that presently burdens Alhambra and other nearby communities. The price tag is ten percent of the cost of a tunnel.

In August 2016, it was reported that under orders by both the governor and the state Legislature, and after a years-long shove by both cities and tenants, Caltrans will soon begin selling houses along the path of a former surface route of the Route seven hundred ten completion. The residential properties – most of them occupied with tenants – are located in El Sereno, a neighborhood spanning Los Angeles, South Pasadena and Pasadena. After years of challenges, rewrites and delays, Caltrans on July twenty six approved a final, state-required environmental report on the sale of surplus properties along what would`ve been the buildout of a surface freeway route from Valley Boulevard in Alhambra to I-210 in west Pasadena. On the same date, Caltrans Director Malcolm Dougherty signed off rules permitting the sale of four hundred sixty properties in the same north-south unclothe under a state program. The very first homes being sold will lie outside «the scope» of those transportation options, according to Caltrans. Properties closer to the fresh routes will be sold later, as will properties considered excess if alternative routes are built or the project is killed. A latest bill by state Sen. Carol Liu, D-La Canada Flintridge, required Caltrans to liquidate itself from its landlord role and sell the homes as is. But the opening of bids is likely to bring even more questions about the properties and their residents. Some wonder whether the rent-paying tenants will be able to afford the asking price for their homes. If not, advocates worry that they`ll be coerced out.

In September 2016, it was reported that SB580, legislation that would generate funding for affordable housing while preserving historical homes near the proposed Route 710, had cleared the legislature. Caltrans presently possesses four hundred sixty homes that are not within the scope of the remaining Route seven hundred ten alternatives. Nighty-seven of these homes are proclaimed historic by the state or federal government. The bill would permit a public affordable housing entity to purchase, rehabilitate, and resell the homes in order to dedicate the profits to build affordable housing in the same area. Historical homes would be suggested to a housing entity that can restore it for public use or resale; or to a non-profit organization dedicated to rehabilitation and maintaining the home for public and community access and use. Meantime, Caltrans will sell forty two of the properties under orders by both the state Legislature and the governor. Offers on the homes, including thirty nine single-family and three milti-family residences, can reportedly be made at the end of September. The properties are located in South Pasadena, Pasadena, El Sereno. The homes are no longer needed since the Route seven hundred ten surface route is no longer a consideration.

When the sales are permitted, it will be significant in the lives of the current renters. Those staying put to eventually purchase their rentals are leaning over backward to play within a sophisticated set of rules that will permit them to remain qualified to buy their homes at what Caltrans describes as an «affordable price.» That means freezing incomes or somehow maintaining the same number of tenants in their homes. Some have rejected marriage proposals. Others have gotten divorced, while still more wrestle with early retirement in order to keep household incomes low enough to qualify for diminished rents. Anything to stay in their homes and keep alive a shot at buying them at a low price. Caltrans has said three hundred ninety eight surplus single-family and multi-family homes would be sold from two thousand sixteen to two thousand twenty in bunches, but the agency has not released the addresses with the year of sale. Two laws govern a tenant`s capability to stay in their home. One was written after a two thousand twelve audit found that Caltrans overspent on home improvements and undercharged for rent on more than five hundred properties along the Route seven hundred ten path. The agency raised rents as a result. That led to rents enlargening about ten percent every six months, which works out to about twenty one percent each year. Only residents with an income of one hundred twenty percent or lower than the median county income can qualify for the affordable rental program. Under the Roberti bill`s affordable purchase program, incomes must be one hundred fifty percent or lower. Those in that thirty percent gap proceed to pay higher rents. If they leave, they risk losing the chance at buying their homes.

In October 2016, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding the sale of Department-owned surplus properties that are not impacted by the project alternatives being evaluated in the Route seven hundred ten North Explore Draft Environmental Influence Report/Environmental Influence Statement in the cities of Pasadena, South Pasadena, and El Sereno. These surplus properties are to be suggested for sale in a manner that will preserve, upgrade, and expand the supply of housing available to affected persons and families of low or moderate income, in accordance with Senate Bill four hundred sixteen (Liu, 2014) and the Affordable Sales Program regulations. Senate Bill four hundred sixteen requires proceeds from the sale of surplus properties to be allocated to the Route seven hundred ten Rehabilitation Account for the rehabilitation of surplus single family homes being sold to low- and moderate-income occupants for which lenders of government housing assistance programs require repairs. The Route seven hundred ten Rehabilitation Account is continuously refilled with each sale. When the balance of this account reaches $500,000, extra proceeds go to the State Highway Account for allocation by the California Transportation Commission to be used exclusively for projects located in Pasadena, South Pasadena, Alhambra, La Canada Flintridge, and the ninety thousand thirty two Zip Code area of Los Angeles (El Sereno).

In December 2016, it was reported that Caltrans has commenced to sell off forty two homes it bought decades ago in anticipation of the planned Route seven hundred ten extension through Pasadena, South Pasadena and Alhambra. The properties were purchased to be demolished, as part of the plan to clear the area and extend Route seven hundred ten Freeway from Valley Boulevard in Alhambra to I-210 in Pasadena. Decades of delays and legal challenges derailed the freeway extension, and Caltrans is now exploring other options, including a tunnel, a light rail system or a busway. The properties going up for sale are among four hundred sixty the department possesses along the proposed Route seven hundred ten Corridor but are outside the scope of any current plans under consideration. Notices of conditional offers were mailed Friday to the current occupants of the forty two residential properties that will be sold as part of the Affordable Sales Program. Eligible occupants will have the chance to purchase the homes at discounted prices. The department will also provide affordable rental options for eligible occupants and establish a trust fund for future affordable housing programs.

In February 2017, it was reported that Assemblyman Chris Holden introduced legislation that would prohibit building a tunnel to close the 6.2-mile gap of the Route seven hundred ten Freeway inbetween the I-10 and I-210 freeways, the assemblyman announced Thursday. This is the very first time a lump of legislation would aim to kill the controversial project proposed by Caltrans. The freeway tunnel project would run through El Sereno, South Pasadena and Pasadena and has divided communities in the San Gabriel Valley. Assembly Bill two hundred eighty seven would put the seven hundred ten Freeway project in the mitts of an advisory committee that would recommend an alternative, such as light-rail routes, dedicated busways, roadways and bike lanes. The committee would be made up of three people from Caltrans, two from the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), two representatives each from Alhambra, Los Angeles, Pasadena and South Pasadena appointed by those cities; two members of the Assembly as appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly and two members of the Senate as appointed by the Senate Rules Committee. Pasadena Mayor Terry Tornek said Holden switching to the anti-freeway tunnel side may be the death knell for the project. He advocated that about $700 million set aside for the tunnel in Measure R, a county transit tax, be released for instantaneous roadway and possibly bus and rail projects, instead of the tunnel «to create real jobs that can happen before (union members) retire.»

In May 2017, it was reported that — in brief — “It’s dead, Jim“. In a unanimous vote at the end of May 2017, the LA Metropolitan Transportation Agency (Metro) board approved a movement submitted last week by chairman John Fasana calling on the agency to pursue an alternative to the tunnel that concentrates instead on smaller infrastructure improvements in the area. Fasana previously supported building the tunnel, but said Thursday it was simply too costly for Metro to finance. In the works for well over a decade, the project, Fasana suggested, needed a resolution. «I think we`ve reached a point where a decision needs to be made,» he said. With the board`s vote, Metro will now pursue the so-called «Transportation System Management/Transportation Request Management» alternative–one of five options proposed by Metro in a two thousand thirteen investigate that analyzed possibilities for closing the Route seven hundred ten freeway gap. Metro will now pursue bringing smaller switches to the communities the tunnel would have linked. Those include more frequent bus service, widening certain streets, and better traffic signal synchronization. The infrastructure improvements will be paid for with $780 million in funding set aside for the Route seven hundred ten project through Measure R. Fasana`s original movability called for the bulk of those funds to go toward «mobility improvement projects» in the San Gabriel Valley, but was later amended to include communities like El Sereno and unincorporated East LA that have been affected by the project.

The portion of this route inbetween Route one and the northern end of Harbor Scenic Drive, from Harbor Scenic Drive to Ocean Boulevard, from Ocean Boulevard west of its intersection with Harbor Scenic Drive to its junction with Seaside Boulevard, and from Seaside Boulevard from the junction with Ocean Boulevard to Route forty seven is not officially named.

The portion of I-710 that runs inbetween Pico Avenue and the Pacific Coast Highway (Route 1) in the City of Long Beach is named the “Senator Jenny Oropeza Memorial Freeway”. It was named in memory of Jenny Oropeza, who passed away on October 20, 2010. Oropeza was a lifelong public servant who was active in her community and was elected very first to the Long Beach Unified School District Board of Education, then to the Long Beach City Council and the Assembly of the State of California, and eventually to the Senate of the State of California. During her time as a Member of the Legislature, Jenny Oropeza was a champ for public transportation, health care, education, clean air, equality, and the prevention of cancer. Senator Oropeza was so admired by her constituents and community that she was posthumously awarded the Political Leadership Award in two thousand eleven by the Democratic Women`s Examine Club in Long Beach, which has renamed that award the Jenny Oropeza Political Leadership Award. The Long Beach Community Hispanic Association (Centro CHA) posthumously awarded Senator Oropeza the Create Switch Community Service Excellence Award in 2011, which will in future years be called the Create Switch: Jenny Oropeza Community Service Excellence Award. In recognition of Senator Oropeza, the Long Beach Lambda Democratic Club created the Jenny Oropeza Ally of the Year Award, which was very first awarded in 2011. As a tribute to Senator Oropeza`s dedication to fostering protections for key state public health programs, the Los Angeles County Affiliate of Susan G. Komen for the Cure, in joint collaboration with the six other California-based Komen affiliates, known as «the California Collaborative,» established the Senator Jenny Oropeza Public Policy Internship position. The City of Long Beach named the community center in Cesar E. Chavez Park the Jenny Oropeza Community Center and the Los Angeles Unified School District dedicated the Jenny Oropeza Global Studies Academy at the Rancho Dominguez Preparatory School. Shortly after taking office in 2000, then Assembly Member Oropeza became aware that the Alameda Corridor would open in two thousand two and that all the planned bridges, designed to prevent cars from having to wait for trains to pass at street level, would be finished, except for the bridge on the Pacific Coast Highway (Route 1) in the community of Wilmington, which was the busiest route along the Alameda Corridor. The bridge to be built at that location would bisect the Equilon Refinery and was therefore the most complicated and expensive bridge to build, and there was not enough funding to finish the bridge. Senator Oropeza brought together the interested parties, including the Department of Transportation, the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA), the Equilon Refinery, the Union Pacific Railroad, and the City of Los Angeles to solve this problem of completing the bridge and was able to help facilitate $107 million in funding from a combination of sources that included state transportation funds, state Proposition one hundred sixteen bond funds, federal demonstration funds, LACMTA funds, and railroad funds. (Note that the indicated bridge on Route one is also named after her) Named by Senate Concurrent Resolution 115, Resolution Chapter 130, on August 28, 2014.

The bicycle pedestrian path on the replacement Gerald Desmond Bridge on Route 710, in the County of Los Angeles, is named the “Mark Bixby Memorial Bicycle Pedestrian Path”. It was named in memory of Mark Llewellyn Bixby, who was a member of one of the founding families of the City of Long Beach. Bixby was also a past president of the Long Beach Rotary Club, which was instrumental in raising money to build Rotary Centennial Park, located on Pacific Coast Highway (Route 1) and Junipero Avenue in the City of Long Beach. Bixby was also the director of the BikeFest Tour of Long Beach and was a vocal proponent of adding bicycle lanes to the replacement Gerald Desmond Bridge. Tragically, Mark Bixby lost his life in a plane crash in two thousand eleven at forty four years of age. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 100, Resolution Chapter 109, on September Four, 2012.

The portion of this route from Wardlow Road to the Pacific Coast Highway in the City of Long Beach is named the “Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriff Maria Cecilia Rosa Memorial Highway“. It was named in memory of Deputy Maria Cecilia Rosa of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, who was killed in the line of duty on March 28, two thousand six at the age of 30, in the City of Long Beach. Deputy Rosa was a resident of the City of Long Beach and was deeply committed to education. She was due to graduate from the California State University, Long Beach, with her Bachelors Degree. Deputy Rosa is remembered as a youthfull woman who strived for perfection in life. She had a captivating smile that would brighten even the darkest of days. She was an utterly caring individual who was always willing to go the extra mile to cheer up a friend. In addition, she was a woman who committed her life to her family, friends, and her career to Los Angeles County and the safety of its residents. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution (ACR) 34, Resolution Chapter 48, on 6/9/2009.

The portion of this route from Route one to Route five is named the “Long Beach Freeway“. It was named by the State Highway Commission on November Legitimate, 1954. Long Beach refers to the route’s terminus in Long Beach. Long Beach was very first applied to the development (because of its beaches) in the boom year, 1887. The route was originally to be called the “Los Angeles Sea Freeway”.

The portion of I-710 from Route ninety one approximately at post mile 12.97 to Alondra Boulevard approximately at post mile 13.94 in the County of Los Angeles is named the “Kevin Burrell and James MacDonald Memorial Highway”. Kevin Michael Burrell and James Wayne MacDonald were police officers employed by the City of Compton, who dedicated their lives to keeping its citizens safe. Kevin Michael Burrell realized that being a police officer meant more than just making arrests; he possessed a level of unparalleled compassion and understanding, taking advantage of every chance to help those less fortunate, and was lovingly known as the «Gentle Giant». James Wayne MacDonald was admired by his peers, had an amazing personality, and, albeit he was only required to work two shifts per month, chose to work two shifts per week. James Wayne MacDonald loved being a police officer and Kevin Michael Burrell was his dearest fucking partner with which to rail. On February 22, 1993, Kevin Michael Burrell and James Wayne MacDonald, ages twenty nine and 24, respectively, while working as patrol car fucking partners in the City of Compton, were fatally shot by a violent gang member during a traffic stop at the intersection of Rosecrans Avenue and Dwight Avenue. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution (ACR) 178, Res. Chapter 161, Statutes of 2016, on September 1, 2016.

The portion of I-710 inbetween East Cesar E. Chavez Avenue and Route sixty in the County of Los Angeles is named the Ruben Salazar Memorial Highway. This segment was named in memory of Ruben Salazar, who was born in Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, across the Rio Grande from El Paso on March Trio, 1928. Eleven months later his parents, Luz Chavez and Salvador Salazar, a witness repairman, moved across the sea to El Paso, Texas, where Ruben was raised. After high school he entered the United States Army, where he served a two-year tour of duty just before the Korean conflict. Out of the service and now an American citizen, Salazar entered the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) and received his bachelor of arts in journalism in 1954. During his last two years as a student at UTEP he worked as a reporter for the El Paso Herald Post, where he demonstrated both good interest and skill in investigative reporting, While working as a reporter at the El Paso Herald Post, he became deeply aware of police mistreatment of Mexicans and wrote extensively on the cruelty against Mexican-Americans in Texas prisons. After graduation, Salazar took a job with the Press Democrat in Santa Rosa, California. Three years later, he left the staff of the Press Democrat for a reportorial position with the San Francisco News. Having served his seven years of apprenticeship, in one thousand nine hundred fifty nine he moved south as a reporter on the city staff of the Los Angeles Times. During his six years at the Los Angeles Times in the city room, he persuaded his superiors to permit him to write a column, sometimes troublesome for the Times, in which he gave voice to the problems and concerns of eastside Chicanos. He continued to give evidence of his capability as a reporter, writing a series of articles on the Los Angeles Latino community in 1963, for which he received an award from the California State Fair, the Los Angeles Press Club, and the Equal Chance Foundation. In addition to his awards, the series also earned him a well-deserved reputation for conscientious and objective reporting. In 1965, Salazar was sent to cover the civil war in the Dominican Republic, where he described the views of the rebels and the reaction to the U.S. involvement. Later that year, Salazar was sent by the Times to Vietnam as a foreign correspondent to cover the rapidly escalating American involvement there, of special interest to the Latino community because of the proportionately large number of Mexican-Americans in the U.S. coerces and among the casualties. He was one of two Times correspondents in Vietnam during the period of enlargened U.S. involvement. In late 1966, Ruben Salazar left Vietnam and was called back by the Times and placed as the bureau chief in Mexico City, thus becoming the very first Mexican-American to hold such a position at a major newspaper. He covered stories across Latin America including the very first conference of the Latin American Solidarity Organization in Cuba in 1967. In 1968, he covered a student demonstration in Mexico City when Mexican soldiers opened fire. In late 1968, Salazar returned to Los Angeles with a special assignment to cover the Mexican-American community, in which the Chicano movement was beginning to stir into high gear. Aware of the enhancing importance and rising militancy of Mexican-Americans, in the following year the Times took steps, involving Salazar, to concentrate more sharply on the Chicano community. In early 1970, he began writing a weekly column featured on the Friday Opinion page explaining and interpreting Chicano life and culture to the greater Los Angeles community. In January of 1970, Salazar determined to accept a position as news director of station KMEX-TV and planned to leave the Times. The response of the Times was to suggest that in his fresh position Salazar proceed writing his weekly column. He determined he could treat both jobs and subsequently used both forums to articulate the many grievances that Mexican-Americans had nursed for so long. A political moderate, he nevertheless spoke out fearlessly, condemning racism, prejudice, and segregation. Manhandles by the police became the special target of his hard-hitting weekly essays, and he repeatedly pointed out in his column the much higher than average Mexican-American casualty rate in the Vietnam War. As a result of his articles, he was under investigation by the Los Angeles Police Department and the FBI, and pressure was put on him to tone down his language. When the National Chicano Moratorium, a committee of Chicanos who opposed the Vietnam War, called a march for August 29, 1970, in Los Angeles, Ruben Salazar naturally was present at the event in his dual capacity. Approximately 20,000 members from all over the United States had gathered to decry the Vietnam War since Chicanos had the highest number of casualties in proportion to their population. With his squad from KMEX he covered the march from Belvedere Park to Laguna Park. As trouble began at a nearby liquor store, it quickly led to a confrontation inbetween the police and marchers, which led to rioting and looting covering twenty eight blocks. The violence led to two hundred arrests, sixty injured, and three deaths. As the day grew late into the afternoon, the riot moved east on Whittier Boulevard toward the Silver Dollar Cafe. Attempting to avoid the riot-ridden streets, Ruben Salazar and his news squad stopped to have a drink in the Silver Dollar Cafe. Shortly after they entered the Silver Dollar Cafe, a deputy fired a high-velocity 10-inch rip gas projectile meant for piercing walls, into the cafe and hit Salazar in the head. Ruben Salazar was killed instantly, suffering a projectile wound of the temple area causing massive injury to the brain. The subsequent 16-day coroner’s inquest ruled Salazar’s death a homicide, but there was never any legal activity. Salazar’s tragic death was a consequence of the contentious and often racially heated period of time. His informed, articulate, and level-headed voice for social switch inspired many in the Latino community, and his legacy has encouraged Latinos to inject the field of journalism. In 1971, he was posthumously awarded a special Robert F. Kennedy Journalism Award for his columns, which communicated the culture and alienation of Chicanos effectively and compassionately. He received the highest Raza accolade, a corrido describing his contributions to La Raza . Ruben Salazar’s life and death has been recognized and honored with awards, scholarships, public schools, and community centers in his name. Most notably, after the controversy of his death had subsided, Laguna Park was renamed Salazar Park in his honor. In July of 1976, Salazar was honored by the California State University of Los Angeles in the renaming of South Hall to Ruben Salazar Memorial Hall. On the 10th anniversary of his death, his widow, Sally Salazar, was the guest of honor at the dedication of the Ruben Salazar Library in Santa Rosa, California. Named by Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR) 37, Resolution Chapter 78, on 7/12/2005.

Before 1954, the route was named the “Los Angeles Sea Freeway“. The very first segment opened in 1952. The Los Angeles Sea was named Rio de Porciuncula by the Portolб expedition, August Two, 1769, for it was the day of Nuestra Seсora de los Angeles de Porciъncula (Our Lady of the Angels of Portiuncula). Portiuncula was the chapel in Assisi, Italy, cradle of the Franciscan Order. The total name of the sea was recorded by Palou, December Ten, 1773. The pueblo was founded in one thousand seven hundred eighty one with the name Reina de los Angeles, but almost invariable appeared on maps and often in documents as Pueblo de los Angeles. Various forms of the name were used (“City of the Angels” in 1847) until the county and city became officially Los Angeles in 1850.

The portion of this route from Route five to Route two hundred ten (not all constructed) is not officially named.

Near Route 710, albeit not on Route 710, is the Gerald Desmond Bridge”. Gerald Desmond was a prominent Long Beach civic leader who served on the Long Beach City Council and as Long Beach City Attorney.

Bridge 53-958 on I-710, the I-710/Route ninety one interchange, is named the “Edmond J. Russ Interchange“. It was built in 1985, and was named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 135, Chapter 162. [Note: According to the CalTrans logs, this bridge is actually on Route 110; thus the named interchange is at the Route 110/Route ninety one junction.] Ed Russ is a former mayor of Gardena; during his term (which ended in 1982) he was able to shove for the extension of the then Redondo Beach Freeway to the Route 110. This extension eased the traffic that plagued Atresia Blvd from the end of the freeway at Broadway to Route 110. When the extension was finished in 1985, it was given the legislative name in his honor, but it was up to the private sector to produce the funds to make and install the signs for the interchange. It wasn’t until 1998-99 that a group of Gardena businesspeople and citizens, led by the Gardena Valley News, began a campaign to raise the money needed. The signs were installed in the latter half of 1999.

Overcrossing number 53-822, which spans I-710 at Alondra Boulevard approximately at post mile 13.945 in the County of Los Angeles is named the “Dess K. Phipps Memorial Overcrossing”. Dess K. Phipps was a police officer employed by the City of Compton who dedicated his life to keeping the citizens of the City of Compton safe. Dess K. Phipps was born in June 1925, in the City of Stidham in the County of McIntosh, Oklahoma, and grew up on a working farm in the City of Yuma, Arizona. He was a member of the United States Navy from June 16, 1943, to December 29, 1944, and was a veteran of World War II. At the age of 37, Dess K. Phipps was killed in the line of duty during a high speed vehicle pursuit of a criminal on October 12, 1962. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution (ACR) 178, Res. Chapter 161, Statutes of 2016, on September 1, 2016.

The I-5/I-710 interchange in Los Angeles County is officially named the “Marco Antonio Firebaugh Interchange“. This interchange was named in memory of Marco Antonio Firebaugh, who at the age of thirty nine years was running for the California State Senate when he gave way to health ailments on March 21, 2006. Born in Tijuana, Mexico on October 13, 1966, Firebaugh emigrated to the United States when he was a youthfull boy. He worked hard to pay his own way through school and earned his bachelor of arts degree in political science from the University of California, Berkeley and a law degree from the UCLA School of Law. He was the very first in his family to attend college and was committed to the notion that free universal public education is the cornerstone of our democratic society and worked hard to improve educational opportunities for all California students. Firebaugh was elected to the California State Assembly at the age of thirty two years; and he served in the California State Assembly from one thousand nine hundred ninety eight to 2004, signifying the 50th Assembly District located in southeast Los Angeles County. During his tenure in the Assembly, Firebaugh was recognized for his astounding legislative and advocacy record on behalf of California’s working families and their children, establishing him as a leader and role model in the Latino community. He demonstrated outstanding leadership in introducing legislation aimed at improving the lives of immigrants and low-income families including undocumented immigrants who come to California to work and give their children a better life. He authored air quality legislation that provides funding for the state’s most significant air emissions reductions programs and that ensures that state funding be targeted to low-income communities that are most severely impacted by air pollution. He also authored legislation funding a mobile asthma treatment clinic known as a Breathmobile to provide free screenings and treatment for school children in southeast Los Angeles and fought hard in the Legislature to make California the very first state to outlaw smoking in a vehicle carrying youthfull children to protect them from the hazards created by breathing secondhand smoke. In 2002, he championed AB540, which permitted undocumented California high school students to pursue a college education and pay in-state tuition fees. From two thousand two to 2004, Firebaugh served as Chairman of the California Latino Legislative Caucus where he was responsible for managing the development of the Latino Caucus’ annual “Agenda for California’s Working Families” as a policy document that concentrates on issues affecting California’s diverse population. Because of his effectiveness both as a policymaker and political leader, Marco Antonio Firebaugh was appointed Majority Floor Leader in 2002, and served as Floor Leader from two thousand two to 2004, making him the highest ranking Latino in the Assembly and one of the chief negotiators for Assembly Democrats. Firebaugh also served six years on the State Allocation Board, which provides funding for public school construction and modernization. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution (ACR) 142, Resolution Chapter 132, on 9/7/2006.

The interchange of I-10 and I-710 in the County of Los Angeles is named the “Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriff Thomas H. Pohlman Memorial Interchange”. It was named in memory of Thomas H. Pohlman,a sheriff`s deputy with the Los Angeles County Sheriff`s Department. Deputy Sheriff Pohlman was born in July 1950, and was appointed as a sheriff`s deputy on May 29, 1973. On April Nineteen, 1978, Deputy Sheriff Pohlman was on patrol when he smelled ether, used in the manufacture of the drug PCP, coming from a nearby house. As Deputy Sheriff Pohlman and his fucking partner approached the house, a man bolted from the home. Deputy Sheriff Pohlman pursued the suspect on foot, while his playmate went back to the squad car to radio for assistance. Deputy Sheriff Pohlman caught the suspect, and, while the suspect was being cuffed, the suspect gained control of Deputy Sheriff Pohlman`s revolver and shot him. Deputy Sheriff Pohlman died at the scene. Named by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 121, Res. Chapter 192, Statutes of 2016, 9/9/2016

HOV lanes are planned inbetween I-10 and I-210.

Related movie: