NVR Logo
Highway 12/29 interchange's Caltrans plan given OK
Friday, February 22, 2008
Save and Share Share
Caltrans now has the blessing of the Napa County Transportation and Planning Agency to design a multi-level interchange at the junction of Highways 12 and 29 near the Napa County Airport.

A local citizen had suggested building a simple flyover for southbound traffic turning onto Jamieson Canyon Road. Because this design would be cheaper, it could be built sooner, saving money for other transportation priorities, Ginny Simms had told the board.
Ahmad Rahimi, a Caltrans project manager, shot down the flyover proposal Wednesday. After analyzing this concept three years ago, Caltrans concluded that a flyover would be inadequate to handle the higher volumes of traffic in coming decades, he said.

NCTPA directors unanimously endorsed Caltrans’ plan for a tight diamond interchange that would separate north-south traffic from east-west traffic.
If built today, the interchange would cost $61.4 million, Caltrans estimated. Costs will certainly escalate since there is no prospect of the interchange being built for years to come, Jim Leddy, NCTPA’s executive director, said.

Caltrans evaluated various designs in 2005, Rahimi said. The flyover concept was rejected because it cost a lot without solving the traffic problem, he said.
Simms questioned Caltrans’ analysis. Intuition said that a flyover would be much cheaper than a full-blown interchange, she said.

While a flyover might not be a perfect solution, it would allow traffic leaving Napa to turn onto Jamieson Canyon toward Fairfield without stopping, Simms said. Northbound vehicles on Highway 29 from American Canyon and Vallejo wouldn’t have to stop either, she said.

NCTPA could take the cost savings and apply it to finding ways to get people out of their cars, Simms said. The money could be used to improve transit and build park and ride lots, she said.

Even a small reduction in Highway 29 flows could significantly unclog the highway at peak periods, Simms said.

Simms, a former Napa County representative to the Golden Gate Bridge District, said traffic on the Golden Gate Bridge was greatly improved when transit options were expanded.

Supervisor Bill Dodd said Napa County needs to work to improve alternatives to cars while also building the interchange at the airport.

Because the county is sinking most of its discretionary highway funds into widening Jamieson Canyon Road, there won’t be any money for an airport interchange for many years, Leddy said.

Given today’s funding, it would be more than two decades from now.

Rahimi also said environmental studies for widening Jamieson Canyon from two to four lanes are done. Construction should start in the summer of 2010 and be completed three years later, he said.

The state is paying more than half the cost from bonds approved by California voters in November 2006. Napa and Solano counties are splitting the rest.
7 comment(s)

tiredofcomplainingnapkins wrote on Feb 21, 2008 3:22 PM:

" I don't see the point of the interchange or widening of jamison canyon. Traffic is horrible on I-80 they need to widen that freeway by two lanes in both directions, widening jamison canyon is just gonna send more cars through and backing up I-80 even worst. I think its a mess that has no resolve until mass public transit becomes more efficent to get cars off the road "

y2kcbr wrote on Feb 21, 2008 3:57 PM:

" @ tiredofcomplaining
For a person who is tired of complaing, you do it a lot in various posts I see.
However I agree with you to a certain extent. The traffic is bad, let's see what plans are out there and let CalTrans and Napa work out. Widening I-80 won't happen, and wouldn't help eliviate the congestion on this very bad corridor. "

Dwayne wrote on Feb 21, 2008 4:02 PM:

" Not to worry. The price of oil/gas will climb to the point where traffic is substantially reduced anyway within the next 10-20 years. "

musikluvr wrote on Feb 21, 2008 5:38 PM:

" So many inconsistencies here. We don't need someone who was on the GG Bridge board to tell us what to do. The bridge toll was to pay for the bridge 75 years ago. Now that its paid for they keep raising it to pay for god knows what. And now the supervisor quoted in the article wants "car alternatives" yet he pulled the light rail alternative the voters wanted in 06. And Leddy is "sinking" Napa County funds into Jameson Canyon widening, something the voters of this county rejected in 2006. Who are these people and what planet are they from? "

109823 wrote on Feb 21, 2008 8:55 PM:

" First of all I have my own ideas where our tax dollars are going that used to go for the upkeep of our highways. Secondly if you get a straight shot through the intersection of 12 and 29 you just get stopped at the 680/80 merge and if traffic rolls through to 80 without an interuption it will be backed up for miles into Jameison Canyon on busy days. "

mominapa wrote on Feb 22, 2008 7:34 AM:

" I drive Jamieson canyon road every morning at 6 am. Even then it is busy and treacherous. I drive a small car and when it is raining or foggy it is almost impossible to see through the windshield. I like the idea of the interchange. Unfortunately, it will happen about 20 years after I retire. I will probably never see it. I agree with the comment that stated that gas will be so prohibitively expensive by then that traffic will not be a problem. The problem is NOW and I am driving NOW. Anyone see the problem here? I bet my fellow Jamieson commuters do. "

jwk wrote on Feb 22, 2008 8:24 AM:

" napamom, We do need the Flyover but in the meantime, How about a bigger car and clean windshield for a few Millions less until then.. "

Comment Guidelines
The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.
What gets your comment posted?
• Staying on topic
• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less
• Avoiding name-calling
• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger
What gets your comment deleted?
• Personal attacks
• Derogatory remarks
• Name-calling of any sort
• Going off-topic
• Hate speech
• Racially-insensitive comments
• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict
• Posting e-mail addresses
• Posting comments of a commercial nature
• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS
• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.
The fine print
- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.
- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.
- Comments may take several hours to be posted.
- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.
- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.
- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.
Search:
Web Search Powered
By Yahoo! Search
Napa Valley Register on Facebook
Copyright © 2009 Napa Valley Publishing, a member of Lee Enterprises, Inc.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy