Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
118564848
label
Issue Papers - Public Works [includes Southern Crossing] (2 of 2)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118564848
contentType
document
title
Issue Papers - Public Works [includes Southern Crossing] (2 of 2)
citationUrl
identifierLocal
840
collections
Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit
Issue Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118564848
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-12-31
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1967-01-01
year
1967
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
80542481b3c23c7d
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,
1966-74: Press Unit
Folder Title: Issue Papers - Public Works
[includes Southern Crossing]
(2 of 2)
Box: P31
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
Public Works
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT - SOUTHERN CROSSING
1. Description of the proposed project and its purpose.
The Southern Crossing of San Francisco Bay is a proposed eight
lane highway crossing located south. of the San Francisco-Oakland
Bay Bridge. The proposed Crossing would extend from India Basin
in San Francisco to Alameda and Oakland and would connect San
Francisco and the Peninsula with the East Bay communities. It
would be a vital link in the regional highway network and would
connect with freeways now approved or under construction on both
sides of the Bay. Together with the San Francisco-Oakland Bay
Bridge and the Bay Area Rapid Transit System, the Southern Crossing
would provide capacity for transportation of people and goods until
after 1990.
In the West Bay, the Southern Crossing approach ramps would join
the Hunters Point Freeway (Route 230) which would provide direct
traffic connections to the north and to the south. To the north,
it would connect to the Southern Freeway and to other freeways and
arterials providing service throughout the San Francisco area. To
the south, it would tie into the Bayshore Freeway, providing service
to the industrial areas of San Francisco and northern San Mateo
County.
In the East Bay, the new Crossing would tie directly into the new
Grove-Shafter Freeway (Route 24) providing traffic service for the
City of Alameda, downtown Oakland, Berkeley and Contra Costa County.
To the south, it would connect to Bay Farm Island, Oakland Airport
and Davis Street in San Leandro.
From the San Francisco terminus of the Southern Crossing at India
Basin, the high level crossing would extend westward across the main
shipping channel providing a maximum horizontal clearance of 1200
feet and minimum vertical clearance of 220 feet.
East of the main shipping channel, the crossing would descend to a
low-level trestle and toll plaza. Navigation openings for small
craft would be provided at two locations in the trestles connecting
the Crossing to Alameda and Bay Farm Island.
The purpose of the Southern Crossing is to provide a new transbay
route which would improve distribution of motor vehicle traffic,
would provide more direct trips, would serve the needs of a growing
regional airport system, would relieve growing congestion on the
San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, and would provide an alternative
emergency route in the event of a closure of the San Francisco-Oakland
Bay Bridge.
2.
Probable impact of the proposed action on the natural environment
whether adverse or favorable, including impact on ecological
systems such as wildlife, fish and other marine life.
San Francisco Bay is a unique resource which gives the Bay
Area a sense of scale and beauty and provides a unifying
influence to the entire area. The unique quality of the San
Francisco Bay Area is not found in any other part of the world.
Breaking up the scale and feeling of openness that San Francisco
Bay imparts to the area by spanning its waters with bridges could
be detrimental to the environmental and inspirational qualities
of the region.
The unique quality of the Bay Region and its relationship to
the spatial quality and scale of San Francisco Bay itself should
be an important factor in the design of the bridge if the quality
of the area is to be preserved.
Design, color and scale of the Southern Crossing should be related
sympathetically to the total spatial quality of the regional
environment. Properly designed, the Crossing could intimately
relate those traveling on the bridge to the spatial and scenic
qualities of the Bay and provide them with an opportunity to
view and understand the scale of the Bay and the surrounding
mountains.
The bridge would be a prominent addition to the Bay Area scene and
is, according to the applicant, receiving expert architectural
attention. The criteria being carried out call for a design which
harmonizes with the Bay Area's other great bridges and provides
dramatic views from hillside vantage points and from the bridge
itself.
The applicant advises that the Southern Crossing has been planned
with full consideration of the many important regional factors
involving the natural environment that are of concern in a project
of this magnitude. During the planning phases of the project,
every effort has been made to design a bridge that would not only
serve the primary needs for additional transbay motor vehicle
traffic capacity but would be an attractive addition to the Bay's
beautiful bridges and cause no significant adverse impact on the
physical environment.
The applicant states that public access will be provided to shoreline
areas in India Basin and on Bay Farm Island. This access for fishing,
bird watching, and other marine oriented recreational activities will
be provided to shoreline areas included in the Crossing right-of-way.
It is proposed to have a private consultant develop a marine oriented
-2-
recreational area for India Basin in cooperation with local
civic groups and industry. The development of this recreational
area will be done in accordance with the guidelines set forth
in the proposed development plan of the South Bay Shore Study
which was prepared by the San Francisco Department of City
Planning. Development of the recreational area will be done in
close coordination with the Department of City Planning and the
San Francisco Redevelopment Agency whose Hunters Point Redevelop-
ment project is adjacent to the proposed recreational area.
The applicant states that recreational development in the East Bay
along the shores of Bay Farm Island will be developed as a part of
this project. It will be coordinated with the East Bay Regional
Park System and with city and county planning departments.
The applicant states that it consulted federal, state, and local
agencies which are concerned with, and have responsibility for,
the preservation of a natural environment.
At the federal level, coordination was provided by the U. S.
Department of Interior. The U. S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and
Wildlife advised that the design of the bridge would minimize
damage to the fish and wildlife resources of the Bay and that
disturbance of the bottom would be minimal and would have no
permanent adverse effects. The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
stated construction of the bridge would probably contribute to air
pollution, but the Department of the Interior, of which it is a
part, did not object to issuance of the permit.
At the state level, coordination was provided by the State Resources
Agency. Departments consulted include:
Department of Navigation and Ocean Development
Department of Parks and Recreation
State Water Resources Control Board
San Francisco Bay Region Water Quality Control Board
Department of Fish and Game
Department of Water Resources
Department of Public Health
Department of Conservation
Division of Highways
State Lands Division
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
Statements of concerns and conditions of units of the Resources
Agency were transmitted directly to the applicant to be considered
in planning and design of the project. Review and comment was
received from the departments concerned. With no adverse comments
-3-
reported, the State Resources Agency requested approval of the
navigation permit by letter to the Coast Guard.
The State Department of Fish and Game reported that the bridge piers
in the Bay would improve the area as far as support of marine
life is concerned.
The State Air Resources Board reported that the South Bay Crossing
would have little effect on general air pollution in the Bay
Area. Also, that through a reduction in traffic congestion,
the level of air pollution could be reduced.
3.
Any probable adverse effects on the natural environment which
cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented.
Adverse effects on the natural environment which may result directly
from the Southern Crossing are considered to be of no major signifi-
cance. Every effort is being made during the final design of the
structures to further minimize any adverse effects.
The applicant advises that no additional off-shore or bay front
freeways on either side of the Bay would be required as a consequence
of the construction of this project. Therefore, this environmental
statement is limited to comments on the proposed project only.
Provisions for Water Traffic
Before applying to the Coast Guard for the Southern Crossing permit,
a thorough study was made into the shipping and yachting requirements
for passage under the Crossing to determine the location and clear-
ance requirements for navigation spans. The main high level span
for major shipping is located over the natural deep water channel
on the west side of the Bay. Clearance requirements for the main
span were established after consultation with the U. S. Navy and
Marine Exchange. The vertical clearance of 220 feet is the same
as the Golden Gate Bridge and the Bay Bridge. There is adequate
clearance for the largest ships visiting the Hunters Point Naval
Shipyard. The Marine Exchange, representing commercial shipping
interests, surveyed its membership and reported that there are no
objections to the Crossing as proposed.
Pleasure craft are not restricted to the main navigation channel
spans. There is adequate clearance for the largest sailing craft
on the Bay for a considerable distance on either side of the
main span - over 60 feet of vertical clearance for a mile in
either direction.
Access to the waters offshore of Alameda and San Leandro Bay is
adequately provided by small craft channel spans in the East Bay
approach legs. In these shallower waters, deep draft vessels will
-4-
usually be confined to the dredged channels that dictated the
location of the small craft spans. Extensive study went into
determining clearance requirements for these spans. Economics and
the desire to least obstruct the view of the Bay from Alameda
required keeping the structure height to a minimum, yet adequate
clearance is required for the yachting interests. In order to
determine the proper clearances for small craft, a survey was
made of mast heights of sailboats in the area, boating registration
data was collected and evaluated, and plans for future marinas in
the area were reviewed. For the Alameda small craft channel,
a vertical clearance of 60 feet above mean high water was
determined adequate, since this clearance will safely pass a
boat with 55 foot mast in rough water conditions at high tide.
This provides for over 99 percent of all boats currently berthed
in the area and estimated for future berthing. The vertical
clearance for the Bay Farm Island channel has been set at 45
feet which will pass over 94 percent of the boats counted in
the survey. The few higher masted boats that might be berthed
in this area in the future have access to the Bay via the Alameda
channel opening or the Oakland Estuary.
Adequate navigation openings and clearances are to be provided
in the Crossing but there will be some loss in the freedom of
movement available to small craft in the vicinity of Alameda and
Bay Farm Island. During periods of low tide, shallow water depths
in this area currently restrict boating except for the smallest of
pleasure craft. A dredged channel is currently used by small
craft traversing the area at low tide to enter or leave the
Ballena Bay Yacht Harbor.
In general, boaters will experience little interference from the
Crossing. Standard navigation aids such as lights and horns will
be provided as required by the Coast Guard. Actually, the Crossing
could serve as an additional reference point for small craft during
periods of poor visibility in the rather vast expanse of Bay in
this area. The small craft channel spans will clearly indicate
the location of the dredged small boat channels.
Tidal Flow and Water Quality
The entire over-water section of the Southern Crossing will be on
piers or piling with no earth fill of the Bay required. Without
solid fill, the structure will have no appreciable effect on the
natural flushing action of the Bay tides and will therefore not be
detrimental to the quality of the Bay water.
The Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) was concerned
over the effect the Crossing piers might have on the tidal flow
even though the Corps of Engineers considered the effect too slight
to measure on their hydraulic model of the Bay. In granting the
construction permit for the Southern Crossing, BCDC included a
-5-
stipulation that mathematical model studies be conducted to
determine the effect of the piers on tidal flow and siltation.
The firm of Water Resources Engineers, Inc., specialists in this
field, were retained to conduct a mathematical model study. The
study is now essentially complete. Preliminary model analysis
indicated that the effect of the bridge would be minimal, so
further model analysis was made using the most stringent criteria
to insure the most conservative possible results. The conclusion
developed from these studies is that there will be no silting or
degradation of water quality in the South Bay. Also, the studies
indicate that local effects of the pilings can be alleviated by
design and maintenance procedures.
Operations during construction will probably cause some local
roiling of the Bay waters caused by the relocation of material
around the bridge foundations. Any adverse effects caused by
these operations will be minimized through effective control
procedures and the regulatory powers of the Corps of Engineers and
Regional Water Quality Control Board.
There is a fresh water-bearing aquifer sequence extending west-
ward from Alameda beneath the Bay to about mid-bay. This aquifer
appears to have some degree of hydrologic continuity with
similar zones which yield usable water to irrigation wells on
Bay Farm Island. Methods of construction of the Southern Crossing
will be such that they will not affect the ground water quality
and piezometric levels in this aquifer system.
Traffic Sound Level
Concern has been expressed regarding sound levels produced by
highway traffic and the resulting effect on the City of Alameda.
The Bay Conservation and Development Commission in granting their
construction permit for the Southern Crossing required that
studies be made to determine if noise suppression measures were
needed in this area. These studies have now been completed and
have included monitoring of the present noise level and comparing
the traffic sound levels predicted for the approaches to the
Southern Crossing. The studies reported that traffic noise generated
by the traffic will not exceed the present background noise. These
approaches are in a high background noise area due to the aircraft
activity at the Alameda Naval Air Station and Oakland International
Airport and the prevailing winds off the Bay.
Recognizing the possibility that background noise levels may be
reduced in the future by more effective aircraft noise suppression
devices, measures will be taken during construction to soundproof
Encinal High School buildings and to use landscaping for noise
screening. The end result will be an improvement over conditions
now existing, according to the applicant.
-6-
4.
Alternative to the proposed action which might avoid some or
all of the adverse effects on the natural environment.
Alternatives to Southern Crossing construction which have been
considered are: 1) not to build the Crossing, and 2) to build
the Crossing at an alternate location.
1) The applicant considers construction of the bridge to be
necessary to accomplish the purpose for which this project
has been proposed.
2)
Applicant states that construction of the bridge at another
location would not substantially change the impact of the project
on the natural environment.
5.
The relationship between the proposal as a local short-term
use of the human environment and the maintenance and enhance-
ment of long-term productivity of that environment.
Items which might be considered under this heading have been more
appropriately covered under preceding headings.
6.
Any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which
would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented.
In addition to the qualifications as noted above, the only irreversible
commitments of natural resources would be the effect of the bridge in
reducing the spatial expanse of the Bay.
-7-
Public Works
SOUTHERN CROSSING INFORMATION SUMMARY
This is a summary of the facts upon which the State is
going ahead with the Southern Crossing. The information was pre-
sented by E. R. (Mike) Foley, Chief Engineer of the Division of
Bay Toll Crossings, to the U. S. Coast Guard Public Hearing, March
4, 1970, in San Francisco.
The following were the main points:
THE SOUTHERN CROSSING IS NEEDED BECAUSE:
Bay Bridge Traffic congestion is intolerable.
-Traffic increase is inevitable because of population
growth.
--Transbay travel demand cannot be met just by the addition
of Bay Area Rapid Transit service.
--It is essential to open an additional corridor for re-
distribution of Bay Bridge traffic away from downtown congestion.
On the Bay Bridge
With comfortable capacity at 125,000, average daily traffic
has reached 165, 000 vehicles, with high volume days approaching
200,000.
During Peak Hours
Extreme congestion lasts 2-3 hours.
Any mishap stops traffic and causes long delays.
Freeway approaches and city streets are blocked.
Congestion costs bridge users 1.4 million hours a
year.
This occurs even though buses carry 53% of commuters.
The bridge has
Substandard lanes of under 12 feet with no shoulders.
An increasing accident rate.
Inadequate capacity for lane closures for maintenance
work.
BART will.
Divert 11% to 13% of Bay Bridge autos--3 to 5 years normal
traffic growth. ALL experts agree on these estimates.
Carry 58% to 62% of peakhour commuters. The existing bus
system now carries 53%
Not service commercial traffic.
Therefore, the Bay Bridge will remain congested even with
BART in service.
The Southern Crossing Will
Divert 36% of Bay Bridge traffic.
NOT compete for BART patronage.
-diverts only 2% from BART transbay service.
-serves areas not convenient to BART.
has insignificant effect on BART system revenues.
An Additional Transbay Corridor Will
Relieve tieups and delays on highways and city streets
connecting to the Bay Bridge.
Reduce costs to users for whom it is a shortcut (only
8% of Southern Crossing traffic will have a downtown San Francisco
destination).
Provide an alternative now lacking in case of a major
accident to the Bay Bridge.
THE SOUTHERN CROSSING PROJECT IS NOW
In the 4th year of major design work with contract plans
well under way.
Nearly $5 million spent to date.
- Right of Way understandings reached with involved
parties.
Permits obtained from Bay Conservation and Develop-
ment Commission and Corps of Engineers. Coast
Guard permit pending for main channel crossing.
Included in the plans of all regional and local agencies
BCDC Bay Plan.
BATS Committed Regional Highway System.
-ABAG Land Use Alternatives.
-Master Plans of Local Agencies.
THE SOUTHERN CROSSING!S EFFECT ON NAVIGATION AND BOATING -
The main channel span provides 1200-foot horizontal and
220-foot vertical clearances, meeting Navy requirements.
Long gradual iproaches provide 125-2000 vertical clearance
a mile on cither side of main span.
The Alomoda small-craft span's 150-Coot horizontal and
60-foot vertical clourance is adequate for all but four
of 1,500 sailboats berthed in the area.
The 45-foot vertical clearance of the Bay Farm Island
small-craft span will accomodate 94% of the boats berthed
in the area.
The Crossing will serve as an additional reference refint
for small craft during periods of poor visibilit
the small-craft spans will clearly indicate the
of dredged channels.
THE SOUTHERN CROSSING'S EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT-
No fill.
No air pollution
--less congestion
--shorter trips, fewer total miles driven
--will not of itself increase automobile ownership
significantly, the number of cars being largely
function of population.
BCDC conditions being met as to effect on tidal floor,
shore access and noise levels at Ballena Bay.
Esthetically pleasing and will provide a panoramic view
the Bay for users. Trestle girders will be three times as long
those on the San Mateo-Hayward Bridge.
Positions on Southern Crossing
Favor Project--Want To
Favor Delay for Study
Opposed to Project
Go Ahead on Schedule
Of Effects or Location
Senators
Senators
Senators
Clark L. Bradley
Richard J. Dolwig
Alfred E. Alquist
Lewis Sherman
Milton Marks
James Mills
Assemblymen
George Moscone
Tom Carrell
Carlos Bee
John Nejedly
Assemblymen
Don Mulford
Howard Way
Robert W. Crown
Nicholas Petris
Willie L. Brown, Jr.
City and County of
Assemblymen
Earle Crandall
San Francisco
Leo J. Ryan
George Milias
County of Alameda
Carl A. Britschgi
James W. Dent
County of Contra Costa
Robert Monagan
City of Cakland
Leo McCarthy
City of Alameda
City of Hayward
John T. Knox
City of Fremont
City of Walnut Creek
City of Berkeley
City of Richmond
City of Newark
City of San Pablo
City of Piedmont
Save Our Bay Action Comm.
City of El Cerrito
City of San Leandro
Sierra Club-Loma Prieta Ch.
City of Pittsburg
City of Livermore
Sierra Club-S.F. Bay Ch.
Save San Francisco Bay Assn.
Oakland Tribune
San Francisco Examiner
Committee for Green Foothill
Hayward Daily Review
Alameda Times-Star
Alameda Conservation Assn.
San Leandro Morning News
Burlingame Advance-Star
S. Lorenzo-Wash. Manor Assn.
Fremont News-Register
Assoc. Homeowners-S. Leandro
Castro Valley Reporter
San Francisco S.P.U.R.
Bay-O-Vista Improvement Assr
Livermore Herald-News
Alameda Jaycees
Peralta Citizens Assn.
The Argus (Newark)
Marine Fair Homeowners
Potrero Hill Homeowners
Bay Area Council
Bayview Neighborhood Comm.
Port of Oakland
Committee for Governmental
Contra Costa County
Responsibility
Mayors' Conference
Park St. Bus. Dist. Assn.
Central Business District
S. Lorenzo Unified Schools
Association of Oakland
S. Lorenzo Vill. Homes Assn.
Bay Area Lg. of Women Voters
Chambers of Commerce
Estudillo Estates Homeowners
Oakland
Mulford Gardens Imp. Assn.
Alameda
Hayward
Concord
Walnut Creek Area
San Bruno
Buhles
SOUTHERN
CROSSING
Of San Francisco Bay
COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW
Requested By
Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 26
Chapter 211, Statutes 1970
February 1971
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA TOLL BRIDGE AUTHORITY
OF THE
AUTHORIZED
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
POSITIONS ON SOUTHERN CROSSING
Favoring immediate
Favoring delay in
Opposed to
construction
construction
construction
CITIES:
Oakland
San Leandro
San Francisco
Walnut Creek
Fremont
San Jose
Union City
Alameda
Richmond
San Pablo
Berkeley
El Cerrito
Piedmont
Pittsburg
Livermore
Newark
Hayward
Redwood City
COUNTIES
Alameda
San Mateo
San Francisco
Contra Costa
GROUPS
Favoring Immediate Construction
Favoring delay or opposed to
construction
Bay Area Council
San Francisco Planning &
San Francisco Redevelopment
Urban Renewal
Agency
Save our Bay Action Committee
Walnut Creek Area Chamber of
Sierra Club
Commerce
Loma Brieta Chapter
Contra Costa County Mayor's
San Francisco Bay Chapter
Conference
Bay Area Planning Directors
Alameda Chamber of Commerce
Assoc.
Oakland Chamber of Commerce
Bay Area League of Women
Concord Chamber of Commerce
Voters
Central Business District
American Institute of Planners
Association of Oakland
Regional Parks Association
Hayward Chamber of Commerce
Save San Francisco Bay
East Bay Labor Council
Association
San Francisco Building and
Associated Homeowners of San
Construction Trades Council
Leandro
Teamster's Joint Council No. 7
Committee for Green Foothills
Downtown Association of San
Barristers Club of San
Francisco
Francisco
Institute of Traffic Engineers
Aeiolian Yacht Club
Airport Center (Oakland)
Mulford Gardens Improv. Assoc.
San Francisco Chamber of
San Mateo County Central Labor
Commerce
Council
San Bruno Chamber of Commerce
Ohlone Audubon Society
Port of Oakland
No. Calif. Society of Landscape
San Francisco Redevelopment
Architects
Agency
San, Francisco Tomorrow
Potrero Hill Residence & Homeowners
Council
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
RONALD REAGAN, Governor
BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY
1120 N STREET, P.O. BOX 1139, SACRAMENTO, 95805 (916) 445-1331
DEPARTMENTS OF THE AGENCY
Alcoholic Beverage Control
Banking
Corporations
BRIAN R. VAN CAMP
Housing and Community
Development
Acting Secretary
Insurance
Real Estate
Savings and Loan
Aeronautics
California Highway Patrol
Motor Vehicles
February 23, 1971
Public Works
Honorable Bob Moretti, Speaker
The State Assembly
State Capitol
Sacramento, California
Dear Assemblyman Moretti:
Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 26
Chapter 211 - Statutes of 1970
Relative to Southern Crossing
The enclosed report titled "Southern Crossing of San Francisco
Bay - Comprehensive Review" is submitted to you in response to
Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 26, Chapter 211, Statutes of
1970.
As requested by the resolution, the California Toll Bridge
Authority conducted a comprehensive reexamination of the project.
As part of the review, the Authority conducted public hearings
in San Francisco and Oakland.
On February 19, 1971, at a Toll Bridge Authority meeting in
Sacramento, the Authority adopted the enclosed report. The
conclusion of the Authority is that "It is in the public interest
to begin construction on this needed facility as soon as
possible".
Chairman, California
Toll Bridge Authority
Enclosure
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
RONALD REAGAN, Governor
BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY
1120 N STREET, P.O. BOX 1139, SACRAMENTO, 95805 (916) 445-1331
DEPARTMENTS OF THE AGENCY
Alcoholic Beverage Control
Banking
Corporations
BRIAN R. VAN CAMP
Housing and Community
Development
Acting Secretary
Insurance
Real Estate
Savings and Loan
Aeronautics
California Highway Patrol
Motor Vehicles
Public Works
February 23, 1971
Honorable James R. Mills
Senator Pro Tem of the Senate
State Capitol
Sacramento, California
Dear Senator Mills:
Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 26
Chapter 211 - Statutes of 1970
Relative to Southern Crossing
The enclosed report titled "Southern Crossing of San Francisco
Bay - Comprehensive Review" is submitted to you in response to
Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 26, Chapter 211, Statutes of
1970.
As requested by the resolution, the California Toll Bridge
Authority conducted a comprehensive reexamination of the project.
As part of the review, the Authority conducted public hearings
in San Francisco and Oakland.
On February 19, 1971, at a Toll Bridge Authority meeting in
Sacramento, the Authority adopted the enclosed report. The
conclusion of the Authority is that "It is in the public interest
to begin construction on this needed facility as soon as
possible".
Respectfully
Driam
BRIAN Plan
Chairman, California
Toll Bridge Authority
Enclosure
THE SOUTHERN CROSSING
A Report To The
California State Legislature
By
California Toll Bridge Authority
February, 1971
Brian R. Van Camp
Brian R. Van Camp, Chairman
Roy E. Demmon Vice Chairman
Mr. Verne Orr, Member
Mr James James C. C. Schmidt, Member
Mr. Floyd R. Sparks, Member
1.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION
3
II. EVALUATION OF NEED FOR THE SOUTHERN CROSSING
1. Current Transbay Traffic
4
2. Effect of BART.
4
3. Effect of Southern Crossing
5
III. EFFECT OF SOUTHERN CROSSING ON BART
1. BART's Revenue
7
2. BART's Future Bond Sales
7
IV. EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT
1. Air Quality
8
2. Tidal Flow and Water Quality
9
3. Fish and Wildlife
10
4. Recreation
11
5. Navigation
11
6. Noise Level
12
7. Aesthetics
13
V. SPECIFIC RESPONSES TO ACR 26
15
VI. CONCLUSIONS BY AUTHORITY.
17
VII. APPENDIX
1. Copy of ACR 26
19
2. Area Map
20
3. Project Status
21
4. Hearing Statements.
24
5. Correspondence with BCDC
28
2.
I. INTRODUCTION
The California Toll Bridge Authority has conducted a
comprehensive reexamination of the planned Southern Crossing
of San Francisco Bay. Of primary concern to the Authority were:
1. Evaluation of the need for this new transbay
crossing.
2. The project's effect on BART.
3. The project's effect on the environment.
This reexamination was requested by Assembly Concurrent
Resolution No. 26 (see copy in Appendix). As part of the review,
the Authority conducted public hearings in San Francisco on
December 14, 1970, and in Oakland on January 15, 1971, to insure
that all interested parties could present their view. Several
local legislators and representatives of cities, counties,
agencies, independent organizations and interested citizens
were heard. Copies of the transcripts and written statements
are available at the Office of the Assistant Secretary of
the Authority. The Authority also reviewed previous studies
and testimony relative to these issues. This brief report
summarizes the key issues considered and the Authority
findings.
The Southern Crossing of San Francisco Bay is a
proposed eight-lane toll bridge, south of the San Francisco-
Oakland Bay Bridge, extending from India Basin in San Francisco
to Alameda (see attached map). The project includes a high-
level bridge over the main shipping channel and an extensive
approach system including a multi-lane tube under the Oakland
Estuary. The new crossing will tie directly into the freeway
system on both sides of the Bay and provide a new East-West
crossing to complement the existing Bay Bridge.
3.
II. EVALUATION OF THE NEED FOR THE SOUTHERN CROSSING
The first and basic question to be considered: "Is
the Southern Crossing really needed and, if so, when?"
Current Transbay Traffic
There is general agreement that growing congestion
on the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge is a major Bay Area
problem. There is also every indication that this problem
will grow steadily worse with the Bay Area population expanding
in the next 20 years from the present 4-3/4 million to 7-1/2
million people. These population projection figures have been
questioned by people who believe that additional growth in the
Bay Region is not to the best interest of our society and will
not occur. However, long range land use plans adopted by cities
and local agencies in the Bay Area and the regional land use
plan of ABAG all point to this continued growth. Current
planning policies favoring growth of employment and high-rise
development in San Francisco tend to encourage the growth of
residential areas and support facilities through the Bay Region.
As growth and development occur, the need for additional well-
planned transportation facilities is inevitable.
According to Mr. E. R. Foley, Chief Engineer for
the Division of Bay Toll Crossings "the Bay Bridge is overloaded
to the point of being unable to adequately handle the traffic
demand. The bridge has substandard lane widths, no shoulders
and is now crowded during nearly all hours of the day. The
morning and evening peaks stretch to more than three hours
and the remainder of the day also has periods of congestion.
Any mishap now results in a traffic tie-up with long delays.
The average daily traffic on the bridge is now 165,000 vehicles
compared to an estimated comfortable capacity of approximately
125,000 vehicles. Every summer sees records broken and
a new high day set. The most recent record day was 205,000
vehicles. Because of this congestion, the travelling
public is now experiencing delays which are costing them
over $6 million a year in lost time and operating expense.
This congestion exists even though bus transit is now
carrying 54% of the peak-hour commuters."
Effect of BART
Estimates by BART and independent consultants have
indicated that BART's transbay service will raise the share
of public transit patronage to approximately 62% of the peak-
hour commuters. According to a recently completed study by
traffic consultants, Wilbur Smith and Associates, BART's trans-
bay service will result in an immediate diversion of 10% of
the Bay Bridge daily traffic to BART. This diversion will
provide the Bay Bridge with some relief from traffic congestion
for three to five years. By that time, natural growth of
the region will result in today's level of congestion again
on the Bay Bridge.
4.
According to testimony by Mr. Paul Bay of Wilbur
Smith and Associates,
"If the Southern Crossing were not built, but with
BART in operation, the traffic on the Bay Bridge would increase
from the present 165,000 vehicles per day to 190,000 vehicles
per day by 1980. Along with this increase in bridge traffic,
BART will also experience a ridership of 143,000 person trips
by 1980. This is a much higher projection than has previously
been made."
These detailed estimates confirm previous studies
and indicate that a successful BART system, although needed
for commuters between city centers, will not eliminate the
need for a new crossing. The Authority has no evidence of
any responsible traffic studies to the contrary.
In summary, BART will provide critical relief
for Bay Bridge traffic congestion, but this relief will
be dissipated in less than five years without the construction
of the Southern Crossing.
Effect of Southern Crossing
The basic purpose of the new crossing is to provide
long-term relief in transbay traffic congestion and to make more
efficient use of the Bay Area freeway system.
According to the new Wilbur Smith study:
"With the Southern Crossing and BART in operation the
traffic on the Bay Bridge will be substantially reduced. The
1980 traffic volume on the Bay Bridge will be 148,000 (compared
to 190,000 in 1980 without the Southern Crossing). In 1980
there will also be 105,000 vehicles per day on the Southern
Crossing and 138,000 passengers on BART.
After construction of the Southern Crossing, approxi-
mately 45% of the Bay Bridge trips will be oriented to
the central business district of San Francisco compared
to 9% on the Southern Crossing. The vast majority of
potential Southern Crossing users would be oriented more
toward the Peninsula and the southern part of San Francisco
rather than to the central business district."
Previous studies and testimony have also indicated
the following transportation benefits from the Southern Crossing:
The Southern Crossing will carry 75,000 vehicles
per day when it is open to traffic, primarily coming from the
Bay Bridge. It will provide a diversion of 36 percent in the
traffic demand from the congested Bay Bridge. It will allow
45,000 vehicles per day, now using the Bay Bridge, to bypass
the downtown area and proceed to their destination in
southern and western areas of San Francisco as well as northern
areas of San Mateo County. This relief will also be felt on
the connecting city streets in the dense core areas of San
Francisco and Oakland.
5.
The new Crossing will connect important Bay Area
commercial and recreational traffic generators such as the
India Basin Port Development, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, San
Francisco Airport, Candlestick Park, Cow Palace, Oakland
Airport, Oakland Coliseum, Alameda Naval Air Station, etc. It
will assist in the future coordination of regional airport
operations by improving transbay travel and providing a needed
highway connection to distribute passengers and freight between
the San Francisco and Oakland Airports. This is supported by
the recent Bay Area study of Airport requirements (BASAR), which
discusses in detail the need of the airports for improved
transbay transportation service.
The new crossing will provide an additional facility
for the transportation of commercial goods and services between
the two major commercial centers of the Bay Area. The BART
system will not accommodate transportation of commercial goods.
In the event of an emergency closure of the Bay Bridge,
the Southern Crossing will provide an alternate emergency
route across the Bay. The accident in 1968 which involved an
airplane colliding with the Bay Bridge shows that an additional
route is needed to obviate the major economic loss to
the Bay Region in case of an emergency closing of the
Bay Bridge.
In summary, the preponderance of evidence from
the most reliable sources indicates that the Southern Crossing
is needed, together with the Bay Bridge and BART to meet the
long-term transbay transportation needs of the area. With all
these facilities operating, traffic will flow freely. With only
the Bay Bridge and BART in operation, transbay traffic congestion
will become more intense each year.
6.
III. EFFECT OF SOUTHERN CROSSING ON BART
BART's Revenue
One of the most serious aspects of the Southern
Crossing which must be analyzed is its potentially harmful
effect on BART's revenues, compared to the overall need
which must be served.
The reduction in BART's revenue by the bridge has
been estimated by BART and independent consultants, including
Wilbur Smith and Associates, to be approximately 4% of
BART's transbay patronage, or less than 2% of BART's total
patronage.
The effect of the Southern Crossing on BART was
taken into consideration fully in BART's 1962 Composite Re-
port. This Report estimated Bay Bridge traffic in Fiscal
Year 1968-69 to be 43 million vehicles. This represented
a prime measure of BART's potential market. Bay Bridge
traffic for that period was actually almost 58 million. New
estimates of BART patronage by Wilbur Smith and Associates
indicate that BART's revenue, even with the Southern Crossing
diversion, will be considerably higher than previous BART
estimates.
In practice, however, the Southern Crossing will
not pose significant competition for BART patronage because
different areas and needs are served by each facility.
BART will essentially serve commuters to the downtown
areas, while the Southern Crossing will provide access
for passengers and commercial traffic to southern San
Francisco and the northern areas of San Mateo County.
BART's Future Bond Sales
Bond analysts historically do not consider revenue
debt when evaluating the tax-supported debt of any public
agency, and debt limits by law do not include revenue bonds.
Under these circumstances, there is no reason to believe that
financing of the Southern Crossing will in any way adversely
affect the bonding capacity of public entities in the San
Francisco Bay Area. On the contrary, the bridges financed
and constructed across various sections of the Bay by the
Authority with proceeds of revenue bonds have done much to
enhance the credit of the area served. The Authority has
established excellent bond credit based upon its reliable
record of repayment of past obligations.
The Southern Crossing will be financed from toll
revenue bonds. This is consistent with past Authority policy
since combined toll revenues have previously been used for the
improvement of transbay transportation facilities including:
$40 million for Bay Bridge reconstruction including approaches,
$70 million for the new San Mateo-Hayward Bridge and $180
million for BART's transbay tube.
7.
The toll revenue bond issue proposed to finance con-
struction of the Southern Crossing will be an obligation of the
California Toll Bridge Authority, secured only by toll revenues
available to the Authority. These bonds will have no recourse
to any other source of funds. Experts predict no problem in
the bond market's ability to absorb issues from both Authorities.
IV. EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT
Significant attention has been focused on and
detailed studies made of the environmental impact of the Southern
Crossing by the Division of Bay Toll Crossings, BCDC, and
other concerned Federal and State agencies. Some environmental
issues have required more detailed study by specialists. The
BCDC permit was conditioned on these further studies. These
have now been substantially completed and are included in the
analysis below.
The following is a summary of the environmental
considerations:
Air Quality
There are many continuing State and Federal efforts
now underway to limit auto exhaust pollutants and other sources
of air pollution. Standards have been set for 1975 that must
be met by the automobile industry. Many new devices are being
produced and tested which drastically curtail harmful emissions
from motor vehicles. Experts in the field predict that portions
of air pollution attributable to the motor vehicle will be
controlled within tolerable limits some time between 1975
and 1980. The opening of the Southern Crossing is planned
for the year 1976. By that time, motor vehicle air pollution
should no longer be a problem of significant proportions.
In commenting on this subject with regard to the
Southern Crossing, the California State Air Resources Board
reported in a letter dated January 5, 1970, to Senator Alquist:
"The number of automobiles in use is largely a
function of population. It does not seem
likely that a new crossing will increase the
vehicle population noticeably. Most people
using a new crossing would do so because it
shortened their trip or reduced congestion.
Both factors reduce somewhat the pollution
emitted."
The concluding statement in the above letter from
John A. Maga of the Air Resources Board was:
"It is my opinion, therefore, that the
proposed South Bay Crossing would have
little effect on general air pollution
in the Bay Area."
8.
Tidal Flow and Water Quality
The entire over-water section of the Southern
Crossing has been designed on piers or piling, without any
earth fill in the Bay to minimize the effects of the structure
on tidal flow and water quality. It was recognized, however,
that any structure in the Bay will have some effect on
these areas.
Consideration was given to measuring the effect
of the crossing on tidal flow by means of the Corps of
Engineers' hydraulic model of the Bay located in Sausalito.
However, the effect of the crossing was deemed too slight
to measure on the model. Col. Roberts of the Corps of
Engineers said at a BCDC hearing on October 16, 1969:
"the Corps did not make an off-the-cuff
determination of whether the Bay model
in Sausalito could study the flow patterns
as a result of the trestle, but rather
a very deliberate study was made and the
Corps' determination was that the cross-
section was so small it could not be
studied by the model."
In granting the construction permit for the
Southern Crossing, BCDC expressed their concern by including
the following stipulation in the permit:
"The applicant will provide the Commission with
the results of model studies to be undertaken
at the applicant's expense of the effects con-
struction of the crossing may have on tidal
currents and silt deposits in the Bay, and
its proposals for designing, constructing, and
maintaining the crossing and its environs so as
to alleviate any adverse effects, the Commission
will then decide on the adequacy of the proposed
alleviating steps."
Water Resources Engineers, Inc. were retained by
the Division of Bay Toll Crossings to perform the mathematical
model studies. The program is now essentially complete and
the conclusion is that there will be no areal silting
and no degradation of water quality in the Bay. Any local
effects of the trestle piling can be alleviated by design
and maintenance procedures.
The local governmental water quality jurisdictions
were primarily concerned with detrimental effects on the
Bay waters during construction, such as roiling of the waters
and allowing drifting timbers to become a hazard to small
craft. The BCDC permit provides safeguards against these
possibilities.
9.
Fish and Wildlife
After the State applied to the U. S. Coast Guard for
the Southern Crossing construction permit, the Coast Guard
issued a public notice alerting Federal, State, and local
agencies, private industry and individuals of the proposed
crossing. The U. S. Department of the Interior served as
coordinator for Federal agencies in responding to this notice,
with the State Resources Agency serving a similar function
for State agencies. The major concern appeared to be over
the access to the Bay shoreline that would be provided
for the public. Possible detrimental effect on fish and
wildlife was considered to be minimal.
The State Department of Fish and Game has said,
"The proposed construction of a new bridge
crossing complex from India Basin across San
Francisco Bay to Alameda and Bay Farm Island
will not adversely affect the fish and game
in those areas."
"From the information at hand, no detrimental
effects will be incurred by this project to
the wildlife in the Bay. Some fishery benefit
may be realized from the construction of the
trestle and piers."
The Federal Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
has indicated,
"We are pleased to see that the bridge has been
designed in a manner that would minimize damage
to the fish and wildlife resources of the Bay.
We realize that there would be some disturbance
of the Bay bottom during the construction of
the bridge, but we feel that it would be minimal
in amount and have no permanent adverse effects.
"We feel that this opportunity should be taken
for increasing public access to the bay."
Recreation
The State has planned public access to the
shoreline areas included in the crossing right-of-way
for fishing, bird watching, and other marine recreation
at India Basin and Bay Farm Island. A request for proposals
has recently been sent to private consultants to develop
a plan for a marine-oriented recreation area in India
Basin. This work will be done jointly by the State, local
civic groups and private industry. This work is in
accordance with BCDC permit provisions that,
"
the Divisions of Bay Toll Crossings and
Highways will provide public access to the
waterfront and beautification of the waterfront
in the India Basin area as part of the crossing
project and related freeway construction
"
10.
Navigation
The U. S. Coast Guard is the Federal Agency with
the responsibility for granting permits for construction of
bridges over navigable waters. Before the State applied
to the Coast Guard for the Southern Crossing permit, the
Division of Bay Toll Crossings made studies to determine
the shipping and yachting requirements for passage under
the crossing. Clearance requirements for the main high
level span for major shipping located over the natural
deep water channel on the west side of the Bay were
established after consultation with the U. S. Navy and
Marine Exchange. According to Captain W. E. Davidson, U. S.
Navy in November, 1966:
"Providing the center of the high level span is
located at the present deepest portion of the
bay at this point; these criteria (220 feet
vertical clearance and 1,200 feet horizontal
clearance) meet Navy requirements."
Mr. Robert Langner of the Marine Exchange made
the following comments in September 1969:
we have
circularized our Harbor Navigation Committee as to possible
objections concerning the Proposed Southern Crossing of
San Francisco Bay.
All replies received were favorable in their
comments and there were no objections to the Crossing
as proposed.
In setting clearances for the small craft channels
in the East Bay trestles, studies included surveys of mast
heights of sailboats berthed in the general area as well as
present and planned marinas. At the request of BCDC, the
horizontal clearance of the Bay Farm Island channel was
increased to 150 feet.
11.
Noise Level
The major portion of the crossing is at a considerable
distance from any residential areas, with the exception of
the Alameda-Oakland approach which passes within 500 feet
of the new Ballena Bay marina and townhouse development on the
Alameda shoreline.
Traffic noise in this area could be a problem and was
provided for in the BCDC permit by the following provision:
"
and plans for final alignment and/or noise
suppression in the Ballena Bay area will be
submitted to the Commission so that a final
route decision can be made later."
A noise study has now been concluded by the Materials
and Research Laboratory of the Division of Highways which
included monitoring of the present noise level at Ballena Bay
and predictions of the added noise from the Southern Crossing
traffic. Actual freeway traffic is used in determining in these
traffic noise predictions.
According to the Materials and Research Department:
"The results of this study indicate that
Alignment 1 (the planned alignment) will be
far enough away from the promontory to reduce
the traffic noise to levels that are similar
to the present background noise levels, or
about 15 to 20 dBA less than the present
peak noise levels from aircraft. Alignment
2 will be only 3 dBA quieter at a greater
distance. This is a barely noticeable
difference to the human ear and is not
sufficient to justify the expenditure of
extra funds for its achievement.
"The present background noise levels from existing
sources indicate that no useful purpose would
be served by attempting to add noise reducing
appurtenances to a trestle at either alignment
location.'
An additional noise study was also conducted at
Encinal High School in Alameda with the results still pending.
If sound proofing of buildings or sound screening measures are
needed, these would be undertaken as an integral part of the
crossing design and cost.
12.
Aesthetics
The appearance of the Southern Crossing is probably
the singly most important factor in the relationship of the
crossing to the environment of the Bay Area resident. The great
bridges of the Bay, especially the world famous Golden Gate
and San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridges, occupy a prominent
place in the panoramic view of the area and are viewed
daily by all - whether transbay traveler or not. Because
of its overall size and location, the Southern Crossing
will also be an important addition to the Bay Area scene.
Any structure of this magnitude is a spectacular engineering
achievement. Its design should reflect the dignity of its
presence and blend harmoniously with the surroundings.
The Division of Bay Toll Crossings developed more
than twenty feasible bridge designs for consideration. The
noted San Francisco architect, William Stephen Allen of
Anshen & Allen personally directed the architectural design
of these proposals. In his statement to the Toll Bridge
Authority, Mr. Allen indicated his criteria for the bridge:
"That the bridge in its design have a harmon-
ious relationship with the other bridges across
the Bay without superflous adornment.
That the main span of the bridge itself be of
good lines and excellent proportions, befitting
its prominent position
That the design of the main span be of such
a character that it will readily harmonize
with the lesser side spans and approaches."
He recommended the cable-stayed girder design with diamond
shaper towers, stating:
The orthotropic plate girder of the roadway
provides a continuity of design with the
lesser side spans and a relationship with the
design of the San Mateo-Hayward Bridge, while
the Diamond Tower is a thing of beauty in it-
self, as well as being a transitional form
between the great towers of the Bay Bridge to
the North and the San Mateo-Hayward Bridge to
the South which has no superstructure above
the roadway."
After considerable expression of different opinions
from local groups and the news media, the Authority followed
the architect's recommendation and approved the cable-stayed
girder design with diamond shaped towers.
13.
The following statement regarding appearance was
included in the BCDC staff report on the Southern Crossing
permit application:
"The crossing has been designed with the help of
outstanding architects, and the thousands of
motorists using it daily will enjoy panoramic
views of the Bay."
In accordance with BCDC criteria, the design includes
a low barrier railing on the bridge that will afford motorists
an unobstructed view of the Bay and the shorelines.
W.
to
14.
V.
SPECIFIC RESPONSES TO ACR 26
1. The Division of Bay Toll Crossings and the Depart-
ment of Public Works have been developing the Southern Crossing
project pursuant to directives of the Legislature and the Toll
Bridge Authority since September 1966. This has involved de-
tailed planning and design of the project with continuous
updating of data.
Traffic and revenue studies were made during 1970
by Wilbur Smith and Associates, traffic consultants, and
these data became available to the Toll Bridge Authority in
December 1970.
2. Competent studies show that the Southern Crossing's
effect on BART revenues will be minimal. (Diversion of less
than 4% of BART's transbay patronage and less than 2% of overall
BART revenues.) The impact of the fully operative BART system
has been thoroughly considered in several studies, including
the Wilbur Smith study of 1970.
3. Experts in the financial field report that the
revenue bond issue necessary to finance the Southern Crossing
will not adversely affect the bonding capacity of the San
Francisco-Bay Area in general nor will it impair the marketability
of any future bonds for the construction of the rapid transit
system.
4. Competent architectural assistance has been
obtained to ensure that the new crossing will be a worthy
addition to the Bay Area's beautiful bridges.
5. In this review the Authority has requested the
cooperation of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Develop-
ment Commission (BCDC).
On December 7, 1970, a letter was sent from the
Chairman of the Authority to Melvin Lane, Chairman of BCDC
requesting their review of previous findings and comments
relative to the effect that the project has on the Bay. It
also requested that BCDC review the progress that the Division
of Bay Toll Crossings has made in complying with the conditions
placed upon the BCDC permit.
The staffs of BCDC and the Division of Bay Toll
Crossings have been in contact to exchange information con-
cerning the development of the Southern Crossing.
15.
On January 13, 1971, the Division of Bay Toll Crossings
sent a progress report to BCDC to assist in their review proce-
dure.
During the hearings no new significant information
concerning the effect of the project on the Bay was presented
to the Authority by BCDC or anyone else.
In addition, during staff level contacts, no new
adverse environmental effects were uncovered which were not
included in the findings and conditions made relative to
the approval of the BCDC permit. Further remarks from BCDC
are anticipated in the near future.
6. The Southern Crossing, together with the San
Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge and the BARTD system will provide
the necessary balance of transportation facilities in the
east-west transbay corridor. Working in concert, these three
facilities will provide relief from present congestion and
adequate capacity to carry people and goods far into the future.
16.
VI. CONCLUSIONS BY AUTHORITY
1. Present congestion in the San Francisco-Oakland
Bay Bridge corridor will continue to increase with deteriorating
effect on the economy and livability of the area.
2. The Southern Crossing is a new element in the
regional transportation network urgently needed along with
the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge and BARTD to relieve
congestion and provide for unquestioned growth in transbay
transportation needs. The BARTD System, even though very
necessary, will not eliminate the need for the Southern Crossing.
3. BARTD will have significantly higher patronage
than predicted by BARTD consultants in 1962 because of greater
growth in transbay travel which has occurred since 1962.
4. Environmental effects of the Southern Crossing
have been reviewed by local, state and federal agencies with
responsibility for environmental matters. The overall
evaluation is that there will be only minimal effect on the
environment.
5. Any delay in the project will mean increased
construction costs as well as continued transbay traffic
congestion. Delay will also cause future problems in project
financing and be disruptive to the many planning programs
of other agencies now in progress.
6. Therefore, the Authority finds that it is in
the public interest to begin construction on this needed
facility as soon as possible.
17.
APPENDIX
Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 26
Adopted in Assembly June 18, 1970
Adopted in Senate August 19, 1970
RESOLUTION CHAPTER
Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 26-Relative to
the southern crossing.
WHEREAS, Pursuant to statutory authorization, engineering,
traffic, and financial studies have been conducted in connection
with construction of the southern crossing; and
WHEREAS, The Division of Bay Toll Crossings of the De-
partment of Public Works, in February 1966, issued the
Southern Crossing of San Francisco Bay Report, recommend-
ing the construction of the bridge, which report has not been
updated, even though construction will not commence until
the latter part of 1971, a time lapse of almost six years, and
will not be completed until 1975; and
WHEREAS, The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit Dis-
trict (BART) will begin operations in 1972; and
WHEREAS, The revenues of BART could be adversely af-
fected upon the opening of the southern crossing in 1975, since
people served by both BART and the bridge may elect to cross
the bay by using the bridge rather than the rapid transit
system; and
WHEREAS, The bond issue necessary to finance the construc-
tion of the $285,000,000 southern crossing will seriously af-
fect the bonding capacity of public entities in the San Fran-
cisco Bay area in general, which together with the potential
loss in revenue to BART, may seriously impair the market-
ability of any future bonds which might be necessary to
finance the construction of the rapid transit system; and
WHEREAS, On the basis of aesthetics, a cable-stayed girder
design was finally chosen for the 1,300-foot main span in
lieu of the original choice of a tied arch; and
WHEREAS, The lack of current information regarding the
role of the southern crossing in a balanced transportation
system which is highly essential to the future economic
growth of the San Francisco Bay area, the potential impair-
ment in the marketability of any future BART bond issues,
and the controversy over the type of structure to be used for
the 1,300-foot main span, seem to indicate that the impact of
the bridge, from a transportation, economical, ecological, and
financial standpoint, on the San Francisco Bay area was not
fully considered before authorization was granted to complete
the design and to commence construction in 1971; now, there-
fore, be it
Resolved by the Assembly of the State of California, the
Senate thereof concurring, That the members hereby request
the California Toll Bridge Authority to reconsider its deci-
sion to construct the southern crossing after the completion of
a comprehensive reexamination of all criteria relative to the
need for such a crossing, including, but not limited to, the im-
pact of a fully operative Bay Area Rapid Transit District
system; and be it further
Resolved, That the California Toll Bridge Authority re-
quest the cooperation of the San Francisco Bay Conservation
and Development Commission in conducting its comprehensive
reexamination; and be it further
Resolved, That the California Toll Bridge Authority, in
making its comprehensive reexamination, conduct public hear-
ings in the San Francisco Bay area SO that all interested par-
ties may have the opportunity to present their viewpoint; and
be it further
Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly transmit a
copy of this resolution to the California Toll Bridge Authority.
19.
SAN
RAFAEL
RICHMOND
680
80
101
WALNUT CREEK
24
OAKLAND
680
SAN
ALAMEDA
FRANCISCO
20
280
1
17
580
280
SOUTHERN
CROSSING
580
112
HAYWARD
N
+
Legislative
Route
101
61
1
17
280
238
SAN
MATEO
APPENDIX
PROJECT STATUS
The Division of Bay Toll Crossings is proceeding with
the development of contract plans and specification for the
major contracts of the project. Construction is scheduled to
begin in 1971 with the new bridge opening in 1976. Agreements
with the various public and private agencies are nearing com-
pletion. These interests include: the San Francisco and Oakland
ports, major utilities, railroads, the cities and counties,
the Navy, and private property owners.
The Southern Crossing is now in its fourth year of
active planning and design work. The crossing from India
Basin to Alameda and San Leandro was authorized by the Toll
Bridge Authority in April of 1966 following a study of
the need for additional traffic capacity in the East-
West Corridor of San Francisco Bay south of the Bay Bridge.
This study was made at the direction of the Authority
and the Legislature at a cost of $450,000. Public hearings
were held on two bridge location alternatives, India Basin-
Alameda and Sierra Point-Roberts Landing. The study included
detailed traffic estimates by an independent consultant
for each alternative, considering the effect of the BART
system. The Authority adopted the India Basin-Alameda alignment
primarily based on superior traffic service and greater
relief of Bay Bridge traffic congestion. The Legislature
then allocated $10 million for the preparation of final
contract plans and acquisition of right-of-way leading
toward construction of the Bridge.
Throughout the planning and design work, the Division
of Bay Toll Crossings has met with all of the Federal, State
and local agencies concerned with this project. At the Federal
level, project coordination was provided by the U. S. Department
of Interior. At the State level, the State Resources Agency
reviewed the project with all interested State agencies including:
Department of Harbors and Watercraft
Department of Parks and Recreation
State Water Resources Control Board
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control
Board
Department of Fish and Game
Department of Water Resources
Division of Highways
State Lands Division
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development
Commission
21.
The required permits for the project have been obtained
with the exception of the Coast Guard permit now pending. The
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)
was established by the State Legislature with the responsibility
of preserving the enviromental quality of San Francisco Bay.
Guidelines for all future construction in the Bay are set forth
in the San Francisco Bay Plan which was developed by the
Commission. The Southern Crossing is included in the BCDC
Bay Plan. After public hearings, BCDC permits were granted for
the new Estuary Tube between Oakland and Alameda on April 4,
1968, and for the main channel and overwater sections of the
Southern Crossing on November 6, 1969. The determination of
the need for the new crossing as a transportation facility
was previously made by the Legislature and the Toll Bridge
Authority and did not come within the purview of BCDC; however,
an extensive review was made by BCDC of the effect of the new
crossing on the environment of the Bay. As a basis for granting
the second permit, the following findings were adopted by the
Commission:
"This Permit is issued on the grounds that the work
would be consistent with the provisions of the McAteer-Petris
Act and with the provisions of the San Francisco Bay Plan
because (1) the Southern Crossing proposal as amended is con-
sistent with the transportation policies of the San Francisco
Bay Plan in that the entire crossing will be on bridge-like
structures rather than on fill, (2) there would be adequate
clearance for commercial and Navy ships in the main shipping
channel and for pleasure boats where such clearance is required
for them, (3) there is no feasible alternative to placing the
toll plaza in the water on piles, (4) the structure need not
contain provisions for adding mass transit facilities in the
future since it is adequately paralleled by such facilities,
(5) the design of the bridge would be consistent with the
specific notes to Plan Maps 4 and 10 relating to the Southern
Crossing, inasmuch as it would be designed so as to enable
motorists to see the Bay and shoreline and would have a slim
profile and a bridge-type structure, (6) the Divisions of Bay
Toll Crossings and Highways will provide public access to the
waterfront and beautification of the waterfront in the India
Basin area as part of the crossing project and related freeway
construction, (7) public access questions on the Bay Farm
Island segment will be reviewed as part of design on a subsequent
permit application, and (8) the project complies with the Bay
Plan policies on water surface area and volume since the proposed
piers will be "thoroughly evaluated to determine their effects
upon water circulation and then modified as necessary to improve
circulation or at least to minimize any harmful effects" and
the Commission retains jurisdiction to insure that this is
done."
22.
On October 29, 1968, the Corps of Engineers approved
a permit for the construction of the Estuary Tube. A public
hearing was held by the Coast Guard in March, 1970, on
navigation clearances and the State's application to con-
struct a high-level bridge is now under consideration.
The Southern Crossing has also been the subject of
repeated public hearings and reviews. Among these have included:
the Senate Rapid Transit Subcommittee hearing in January, 1970,
the Alameda County Board of Supervisors in January, 1970, the
Oakland City Council in January, 1970, the ABAG meeting
in March, 1970, and the San Francisco Board of Supervisor's
hearing in June, 1970 and January 1971. Based upon resolutions
and testimony, the following positions have been taken
by the various cities and counties:
Favoring immediate
Favoring delay in
Opposed to
construction
construction
construction
CITIES:
Oakland
San Leandro
San Francisco
Walnut Creek
Fremont
San Jose
San Pablo
Alameda
Richmond
El Cerrito
Piedmont
Pittsburg
Berkeley
Union City
Livermore
Newark
Hayward
Redwood City
COUNTIES: Alameda
San Mateo
San Francisco
Contra Costa
23.
APPENDIX
HEARING STATEMENTS
Based upon the testimony and statements at the recent
hearings by the Authority, as well as previous hearings and
comments on the Southern Crossing, the following topics are
the main areas of contention between opponents and proponents
of immediate bridge construction:
Effect of BART
Opponents say:
1. BART will relieve Bay Bridge traffic congestion
to 1980 and Southern Crossing should be delayed
to "give BART a chance".
2. Public transit patronage will be better than
estimates. BART estimates are low. BART has
high capacity.
Proponents say:
1. BART's relief of Bay Bridge traffic will be
temporary. Present congested level to
return in 3 to 5 years.
2. BART will serve downtown areas. Southern Crossing
serves needs and areas not served by BART. The
BART system, however successful, cannot provide
on alternative to the Southern Crossing and related
highway system.
Effect of Southern Crossing on Transportation
Opponents say:
1. Southern Crossing will perpetuate the current
inbalance between the auto and mass transit
by committing more auto facilities.
2. Southern Crossing will bring more autos to an
already congested San Francisco.
3. Southern Crossing will compete with BART patronage
with an annual loss of $500,000 in BART revenue.
4. Southern Crossing will add to need for additional
freeways on both sides of the Bay.
5. Southern Crossing will impair any future BART
bond issues for transit extensions.
24.
Proponents say:
1. Southern Crossing is needed along with the Bay
Bridge and BART to meet transbay transportation
demand.
2. Southern Crossing will provide a by-pass for
45,000 cars per day who presently use the
congested Bay Bridge. (relief to Bay Bridge
of 36% compared to 10% relief by BART). Only
9% of Southern Crossing traffic to downtown
San Francisco.
3. Southern Crossing will divert only 4% of BART's
transbay patronage, which is less than 2% of
the total annual BART revenue ($30 million).
This insignificant amount will not be a factor
in the financial success of BART. New BART
revenue estimates, even with diversion, are
much higher than BART's previous reports.
4. Southern Crossing will connect important
Bay Area commercial and recreational traffic
generators such as, Airports, India Basin Port
Development, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard,
Candlestick Park, Cow Palace, Oakland Coliseum,
Alameda Naval Air Station, etc. It will make
more efficient use of the existing freeways. It
is not dependent upon or commit the Bay Area to
any new shoreline freeways.
5. Toll revenue bonds for Southern Crossing will
have no effect on future BART bonds.
Effect of Southern Crossing on Environment
Opponents say:
1. Southern Crossing will encourage auto growth
which will add more smog to Bay Area.
2. Southern Crossing and approaches will take more
land for freeways, streets and parking facilities
with attendant noise pollution, street litter
and accidents.
3. Southern Crossing will interfere with tidal
currents, sedimentation and recreational uses
of the Bay.
4. Southern Crossing Approach freeways will take
R/W through residential areas.
25.
Proponents say:
1.
Southern Crossing will provide more direct
route for may users with less congestion
which tends to reduce exhaust pollution.
2. Southern Crossing will have little adverse
affect on the natural environment of the Bay.
Extensive studies and expert testimony have
proven this. BCDC approved Southern Crossing
with respect to the natural environment of the
Bay.
3.
Southern Crossing will not significantly increase
auto growth which is mainly a function of population.
4. Southern Crossing will provide new jobs for
4500 men for 4 years during construction as
well as providing access via autos and bus mass
transit to future employment centers on both
sides of the Bay.
5. Southern Crossing will provide an alternative
transbay highway route in case the Bay Bridge
is closed by an emergency.
PUBLIC REACTION
Opponents say:
1. Most local governments and almost all State
Legislators from the Bay Area now oppose
going ahead with the Southern Crossing at
this time.
2. BART has public endorsement, the Southern
Crossing does not. Most of the Bay Area
opposes the project and favor diversion of
highway funds to mass transit. (Backed by
constituency polls of Legislators.)
3. Most Bay Area conservation groups, including
the Sierra Club, are opposed to the Southern
Crossing.
Proponents say:
1. At least seven cities, including Oakland, and
two counties, Alameda and Contra Costa, are on
record in support of immediate Southern Crossing
construction.
2. Labor unions and business organizations, including
the Bay Area Council, are in favor of immediate
construction.
3. Southern Crossing design and construction is
proceeding at the direction of the Legislature
and the California Toll Bridge Authority.
26.
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
Opponents say:
1.
Southern Crossing should be delayed until the
new Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(M.T.C.) can develop a regional transportation
plan.
2. Bridge revenues should be used to extend mass
transit rather than build new auto facilities.
These funds can be used on a two for one matching
basis in securing Federal funds.
3. Recent census figures indicate that Bay Area
population growth will be much slower than has
been previously estimated.
Proponents say:
1. The Southern Crossing is included in all Bay Area
planning including BATS, ABAG and local master
plans. Southern Crossing was specifically ex-
cluded from the authority of the new M.T.C.
by the legislature.
2. Bridge revenue should be used to improve balanced
transbay transportation. Currently $200 million
of bridge revenues are being used to provide
construction funds for the BARTD Transbay Tube.
This is a substantial support of mass transit.
Bridge tolls will pay for the new Southern
Crossing entirely with no tax burden on Bay
Area residents.
3. Population estimates are the best available and
include information from the 1970 census.
4. A delay in the Southern Crossing will mean
escalated costs of construction and R/W of
more than $20 million per year. In addition
$6 million is the cost each year to Bay
Bridge users resulting from congestion delays.
27.
APPENDIX
SOUTHERN CROSSING
COPY
COPY
COPY
BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY
1120 N Street, P.O. Box 1139
Sacramento, 95805
December 7, 1970
Mr. Mel Lane, Chairman
San Francisco Bay Conservation and
Development Commission
507 Polk Street, Room 320
San Francisco, California 94102
Dear Mr. Lane:
On April 4, 1966, the California Toll Bridge Authority, after numerous public
hearings, adopted the India Basin-Alameda route for the Southern Crossing of
San Francisco Bay. A later action of the Authority on December 19, 1967, reaffirmed
this decision. Subsequently, the State Department of Public Works has been carrying
out the direction from the Legislature in preparing plans leading to the initiation of
construction of this project.
As part of the preliminary work leading to the construction, the Division of
Bay Toll Crossings of the Department of Public Works was granted approval by your
Commission for permission to construct this bridge over San Francisco Bay. A
review of this permit, indicates that your Commission made a number of findings
relative to the effect that the project would have on San Francisco Bay, and that certain
conditions were stipulated which must be complied with prior to initiating construction
work. The action by your Commission took place on November 6, 1969.
During the 1970 Session of the State Legislature, Assembly Concurrent Reso-
lution No. 26 was adopted by both houses of the Legislature. This resolution requests
that the Authority restudy all data relative to the construction of the Southern Crossing.
It states that because of the controversy that has arisen concerning this project, its
impact on the Bay Area from a transportation, economical, ecological, and financial
standpoint may not have been fully considered. Further, this resolution requests the
Authority to solicit the cooperation of your Commission in any re-examination of the
project.
It is the intention of this Authority to hold hearings and to obtain testimony from
official agencies and the public concerning the impact of this project from transportation,
economic, and environmental standpoints.
As part of this re-evaluation, this Authority requests the San Francisco Bay
Conservation and Development Commission to review the proposed construction as to its
impact on the ecology of the Bay. In particular, a review of the previous findings
contained in the permit for the project, and an evaluation of the progress made by the
Division of Bay Toll Crossings in complying with the conditions imposed upon its
construction would be of assistance to this Authority. As an accommodation to you and
your schedule, we would be happy to accept your comments in writing if you would prefer
this to a personal appearance.
Sincerely,
/s/ Brian R. Van Camp
Assistant Secretary
28
January 13, 1971
900.62
San Francisco Bay Conservation
and Development Commission
507 Polk Street, Room 320
San Francisco, California 94102
Attention Mr. Joseph E. Bodovitz
Executive Director
Gentlemen:
Reference is made to BCDC Permit No. 21-69 granted
on November 6, 1969, for the Southern Crossing of San Francisco
Bay. This permit contains a number of conditions, some of
which require additional investigation and studies prior to
construction of the Crossing. This letter will serve as an
interim report to indicate progress to date in satisfying the
conditions of the permit. The following progress has been
made:
Condition No. 1
An extensive mathematical model study has been under-
taken to determine what effect, if any, the Southern Crossing
structures will have on tidal currents and siltation in the
Bay. A contract for the mathematical model study was approved
in June 1970, with the firm of Water Resources Engineers, Inc.
This firm has had extensive experience in this type of work and
has previously developed mathematical models for the Bay in
connection with the San Francisco Bay-Delta water quality control
program.
In conjunction with the mathematical model studies
by Water Resources Engineers, field measurements of tidal
currents at the Southern Crossing site and the San Mateo-Hayward
Bridge have been made by the State Department of Water Resources.
Data gathered during this field program has been incorporated
in the model studies.
29
San Francisco Bay Conservation
and Development Commission
2
January 13, 1971
Studies by Water Resources Engineers are now essentially
complete. Preliminary model analysis indicated that the effect
of the bridge would be minimal, so further model analysis was
made using the most stringent criteria to insure the most
conservative possible results. Conclusions developed from
these studies indicate there will be no areal silting due to
the construction, but there is a possibility that some
shoaling could occur after a long period of time in one or
two isolated areas near or at the Crossing site. Review of
the design in these areas will continue as will plans for
monitoring and maintenance with dredging if necessary.
It is anticipated that the final results of the model
studies by Water Resources Engineers will be available in the
near future and the studies will be discussed in detail with
you at that time.
Condition No. 2
The Southern Crossing project will comply with the
public access provisions of the plans made by the City and
County of San Francisco for the India Basin area, including
the four conditions suggested in the letter dated October 24,
1969, from Allan Jacobs to BCDC. A number of meetings have
been held with the City Planning Department, the City Redevelopment
Agency and other agencies concerned with future developments
in India Basin. As a result of these meetings, work has been
initiated to retain a planning consultant to develop a specific
plan for a marine oriented recreational area at India Basin.
Attached is a preliminary draft of a request for proposals for
this planning study. It is anticipated that this request
for proposals will be sent to prospective planning consultants
during January 1971.
Condition No. 3
A. Plans for public access to the Bay as part of the
Crossing on Bay Farm Island will be prepared and
submitted to the Commission at a future date.
B. An investigation has been made to determine the
possibility of highway noise problems adjacent
to the Ballena Bay Development in Alameda. This
study which involved field measurements of existing
background noise levels at Ballena Bay, was recently
completed by the Division of Highways Materials
and Research Department. The study indicated that
the present Southern Crossing alignment will be
30
San Francisco Bay Conservation
and Development Commission
3
January 13, 1971
far enough away from Ballena Bay to reduce traffic
noise to levels that are similar to the present
background noise levels and no useful purpose
would be served by either shifting the alignment
or adding noise reducing appurtenances to the
trestle.
A complete report of this study will be forwarded
to the Commission in the near future.
Condition No. 4
The channel opening proposed for the Bay Farm Island
segment of the Crossing has been increased from 85 feet to
150 feet in width. Permit application drawings which were
submitted to the U. S. Coast Guard showing channel clearances,
have been revised accordingly and resubmitted.
Condition No. 5
No studies are required under this condition. However,
it should be noted that the Bayfront Freeway in San Mateo County
(Route 87) was deleted from the State Highway System during the
1970 legislative session.
Condition No. 6
No studies are required under this condition. All
required permits will be secured prior to commencement of
construction work on the Crossing.
Condition Nos. 7 through 12
These are standard conditions regarding time of
completion and notice of completion, etc. and no special studies
or investigations.
Studies which are now in progress to satisfy the
conditions of the BCDC Permit will be completed and the results
of these studies presented to the Commission prior to actual
construction work on the related portions of the projects. Other
conditions of the BCDC Permit which require no further investi-
gation or studies, will be closely followed and all work on the
Southern Crossing will be completed in strict compliance with
the conditions of the permit.
31
San Francisco Bay Conservation
and Development Commission
4
January 13, 1971
If you have any questions regarding the Southern
Crossing project or progress on studies that are being made
to satisfy the conditions of our permit, please let us know
and we would be happy to arrange a meeting to discuss these
matters at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
E. R. FOLEY
Chief Engineer
CC: Mr. E. R. Foley
RNM: al
32
Sacramento, California
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
4-2-71
#184
Governor Ronald Reagan today vetoed the so-called "Southern
Crossing" bill (AB-151, Crown) and sent the following veto message to
the members of the legislature:
"I am returning without my signature Assembly Bill No. 151
entitled, 'An act to add Section 30661 to the Streets and Highways Code,
relating to the southern crossing.'
"This bill prohibits construction of the southern crossing of
San Francisco Bay prior to statutory authorization for such construction.
"During recent weeks, I have had the opportunity to discuss
virtually every aspect of this important issue with individual citizens
and civic leaders representing every major segment of the life of the
communities which would be most directly affected by this legislation.
"What has impressed me most during the course of these discussions
is the extremely wide disparity of view which has been expressed.
"By now, the arguments advocated on both sides of the issue are
well known. They have been explored and discussed at length in the
public press on numerous occasions and over a considerable period of time.
"The intensity of the arguments and the emotional atmosphere in which
they have been debated point to how highly controversial the issue has
become and, therefore, how critical and far-reaching any final decision
will be. Because the divergence of opinion is so great and the matter so
important, I am convinced that the citizens who live in the area must be
given the opportunity to make the decision themselves at the ballot box.
"The judgment of the people was sought directly at the polls in the
creation of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system. Surely, their
judgment can be no less vital in making a decision of this magnitude.
"Therefore, I feel I must veto this bill. However, to encourage the
direct involvement of the people in any final decision on a Southern
crossing I am today issuing an executive order prohibiting any further
work on the development of the project, to be effective during the next
six months, which will give the legislature sufficient time to work out a
plan to bring the issue to a vote of the people in those counties which
would be most directly affected.
"Therefore, I am returning the bill unsigned."
######
EJG
1974 - 152
Ct newsrelease
Public Works
CALIFORNIA SUES FEDERAL COVERNMENT
California
OVER IMPOUNDING OF HIGHWAY FUNDS
Department of
Transportation
1120 N Street
Contact: Gene Berthelsen
Sacramento 95814
(916) 445-3523
Sacramento, March 12 -- The California Depart-
ment of Transportation (CALTRANS) today filed suit in
Federal District Court for the release of Highway Trust
Funds impounded by the federal government.
CALTRANS estimated that the amounts impounded by the
Federal Highway Administration could be as much as $75
million, based on comparisons between the money authorized
by Congress and early reports of spending authority to be
made available by the highway administration.
CALTRANS said that its suit was based on the language
of Federal Aid to Highways Acts which directed the govern-
ment to release the funds to the states six months before the
start of the fiscal year for which they are designated in
the federal budget.
(MORE)
This means that about $390 million of spending
authority should have been made available to California by
January 1 of this year. So far, none of this money has been
released, and recent practice by the federal government would
be to make part of the money available to California about
July 1.
Early reports on the President's budget, however,
indicate that there will be a nationwide impoundment of about
$1.1 billion. That would provide about $315 million to
California after July 1, with $75 million impounded.
If the suit is successful, it could mean the release
of the $75 million to the state's transportation department,
which has announced that the energy crisis is crippling its
ability to finance further highway building. It would also
mean that CALTRANS will get the total of $390 million as
much as a year before it is expected with current federal
practices.
The CALTRANS attorneys pointed to a similar case
which was decided in favor of the state of Missouri about 11
months ago. After an unsuccessful appeal in the Federal
Court of Appeals by the Federal Highway Administration to that
decision, the federal government decided to make the money
available to Missouri.
The attorneys said further that 37 other suits were
now pending against the federal government on matters
relating to impounding, and while only four of those actually
challenged the impounding of highway funds, all of them
involved a similar principle.
#####