New transbay bridge sought to ease traffic
Driving on the Bay Bridge during rush hour is an undiluted form of misery. Anyone who does it regularly knows the torture of slogging 5 feet, then sitting still — a pattern that repeats for nearly 5 miles.
With traffic getting worse, and rush hour now spanning several hours, Sen. Dianne Feinstein and East Bay Rep. Mark DeSaulnier have warmed up an idea that’s stewed since the 1940s: building another bridge south of the first one.
It would most likely link Highway 238 in San Lorenzo to
Interstate 380 near San Francisco International Airport, combining a roadway for cars with some form of mass transit, like BART. Feinstein and DeSaulnier say it would relieve congestion on both the Bay and San Mateo bridges.
The lawmakers’ push comes as Bay Area leaders rally to put a transportation megatax
measure on the November 2020 ballot, trying to generate $100 billion over four decades. One of the key projects under discussion is a new transbay crossing.
But the goals of transportation leaders are evolving, and many are eyeing concepts that don’t cater to automobiles. BART and Capitol Corridor are studying the possibility of a second underwater Transbay Tube, which could include rail tracks for Amtrak or Caltrain. Meanwhile, some mass transit enthusiasts envision a bridge that sends bullet trains across the water.
DeSaulnier, DConcord, said he’s open to the rail idea and even the second tube — if BART improves its performance. But he was dismayed that a recent report by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the regional planning and financing agency, recommended scrapping the car crossing.
Feinstein and DeSaulnier requested the report two years ago when the commission and other groups were pressing for Regional Measure 3, a series of bridgetoll hikes to fund transportation projects throughout the Bay Area.
They pitched the Southern Crossing as an ideal candidate for funding, saying it would alleviate soulcrushing jams. Traffic on Bay Area freeways has surged by 80% since 2010, according to the commission, as more people commute from homes in the East Bay to jobs in San Francisco or Silicon Valley.
“The level of congestion along Interstate 80 to Highway 101 is unacceptable,” DeSaulnier said in an interview. “And what do we do about that?”
The Southern Crossing is among the oldest of Bay Area transportation dreams. The idea started germinating back when regional transportation planning meant drawing lines on a map. It’s popped up — and been left for dead —at least half a dozen times over the past 72 years, with alternatives ranging from an identical twin Bay Bridge to an eightlane highway and BART route from San Leandro to San Bruno.
Some supporters have proposed leveling Yerba Buena Island for a giant freeway roundabout with bridges spinning off in many directions, perhaps linking San Leandro, on one side, and the foot of Telegraph Hill, on the other.
In 1962, the State Toll Bridge Authority — one of many antecedents to the MTC and Caltrans — released plans for two bridges, one connecting San Francisco to Tiburon by way of Angel Island, the other providing passage from San Francisco to Alameda. These fantasies, and others, never saw the light.
Democrat Feinstein entered the fray in 2000, calling for the Southern Crossing to serve a growing population of workers during the first tech boom. She has asked the MTC to study the idea three times, said the commission’s legislative director, Randy Rentschler. DeSaulnier, a former MTC commissioner, joined the conversation in 2017.
Last week, MTC released its most recent report on the matter, “Crossings: Transformative Investments for an Uncertain Future.” It analyzed seven alternatives for a new span.
The first two options centered on automobiles: a new southern bridge with two traffic lanes and one carpool lane in each direction, or a rebuilt and widened San Mateo Bridge. Also considered was a BARTautomobile hybrid, consisting of twin tunnels beneath the bay — one for cars, one for trains.
Two concepts were BART tubes from Alameda to downtown San Francisco, with one of them adding an extension to the city’s Mission Bay. Another was a rail bridge for Caltrain and Amtrak, and a final one combined a new BART tube with a conventional rail crossing.
MTC recommended advancing everything except the caronly ideas, saying they provided limited relief for drivers and no help for rushhour crowds that already overwhelm BART. The car proposals would increase greenhouse gas emissions, the agency said, and could prompt more collisions.
By contrast, the rail ideas carried environmental benefits and should be pursued, the report said.
As for a car tunnel, commission staff was not enthusiastic. Engineers would have to build new freeway interchanges on both sides of the bay that could displace lowincome residents and divide communities, the report said. The project could cost up to $53 billion.
DeSaulnier criticized the findings, saying the commission failed to look at the entire Interstate 80toHighway 101 corridor, from the Carquinez Bridge to San Francisco International Airport. In a joint statement, he and Feinstein argued that a Southern Crossing for cars and transit would “do more than any other project to alleviate congestion in the region.”
“The study released today answers some questions, but leaves many unanswered,” Feinstein and DeSaulnier said. “We still need a more detailed look at specific corridors and big, bold ideas to address this oversized problem.”
Officials at MTC said the current state of the freeways is intolerable but that a new highway bridge would do little to loosen up traffic.
“The proposed bridge is hemmed in by freeways that are maxed out on both sides,” Rentschler said. “We could build a 20lane bridge, and it would still perform poorly,” absent widening the freeways.
He noted that a highway bridge would require new freeway interchanges, “and a lot of communities are going to resist that.”
DeSaulnier pushed back: “That’s the MTC’s ‘can’t do’ attitude,” he said. “That’s just the organization’s culture.”
Supporters of the 2020 transportation ballot measure, called Faster Bay Area, tend to agree the Bay Area needs to move beyond automobiles. The campaign has listed many projects that could be funded if the measure passes, including a second BART tube or railroad tracks to bring Caltrain across the bay. One thing they aren’t touting is the expansion of freeways.
“We’re focused on a worldclass, integrated, seamless transit system to much better serve those who are transit-dependent, and that’s compelling enough to lure out those of us who are stuck in our cars,” said Carl Guardino, CEO of Silicon Valley Leadership Group, a business association that focuses on public policy.
DeSaulnier hasn’t taken a position on Faster Bay Area, mostly because he dislikes the way the region’s transportation system is currently managed.
“The level of congestion along Interstate 80 to Highway 101 is unacceptable . ... What do we do about that?”
Rep. Mark DeSaulnier