New Old Redwood interchange finally complete

The project, more than two years in the making, created major traffic headaches for motorists and involved a funding challenge that is still playing out in state court. The focus now shifts south to the unfunded Highway 101 widening project through Petaluma.|

For the first time in more than two years, motorists navigating the Old Redwood Highway interchange at Highway 101 last week did so unencumbered by paving machines, heaping dirt mounds, complicated lane changes and stop sign-wielding workers.

Though mostly complete for the past month, the new $40.9 million overpass was ceremoniously christened last Thursday as Petaluma and regional officials recounted more than two years of disruptive construction, traffic headaches and a funding challenge that is still being waged in state courts.

Despite the nightmare drivers faced as they plodded through the work site on the key crosstown connector during the project, officials said that the shiny new four-lane bridge with sidewalks, bike lanes, decorative lighting and wide on- and off-ramps was well worth the inconvenience.

“You can see the improvements,” said Supervisor David Rabbitt, a board member of the Sonoma County Transportation Authority. “It was short-term pain for long-term gain.”

Ground broke on the project in spring 2013 using $19.7 million from the quarter-cent SCTA-authorized Measure M sales tax funds, $16.5 million from the city and $4.6 million from the state. Long-planned as part of the project to widen Highway 101 from Windsor to Novato, the city had budgeted redevelopment money for its portion of the interchange. A 2011 state law that dissolved redevelopment agencies - a key local funding mechanism - wiped away a significant piece of funding that Petaluma had earmarked for the Old Redwood Highway project and improvements to the East Washington Street interchange.

Petaluma subsequently sued the state over the use of the redevelopment money. That lawsuit pertains to $11 million in budgeted city redevelopment money, including $7 million for an extension of Rainier Avenue. Third District Court of Appeals Judge Elenna Duarte last week affirmed a lower court ruling that the city could not access the redevelopment money for planned infrastructure projects, including Rainier. City Attorney Eric Danly said his office was reviewing the ruling and awaiting direction from the city council on the next step in the lawsuit.

As the legal battle played out, the city financed the interchange project using proceeds from 2007 redevelopment bonds and traffic impact fees paid by developers of Petaluma’s two newest shopping centers.

The Old Redwood Highway interchange is part of the Highway 101 widening project, launched in Santa Rosa in 2000. Work continued north to Windsor and south to the Old Redwood Highway overpass at the northern edge of Petaluma.

But the southern phase of the project - a wider, six-lane freeway with frontage roads and interchange improvements through Petaluma to Novato, also called the Sonoma-Marin Narrows - faces a $225 million funding gap. Part of that work - widening the Petaluma River Bridge, extending frontage roads and rebuilding the Petaluma Boulevard South interchange - is underway. Other pieces, like a new bridge over San Antonio Creek at the Sonoma-Marin county line, are funded and will break ground in the coming months.

The stretch of highway from Old Redwood to the Petaluma River Bridge, through the heart of Petaluma, however, still lacks about $85 million, and officials remain perplexed as to where the money will come from or when it may be available. California’s main highway funding source known as the State Transportation Improvement Program, which in good years has made $1.8 billion available for projects, has only $30 million for the next two-year funding cycle beginning in 2016. Federal transportation money has been scarce in recent years, and the federal High Trust Fund was set to run dry last week until lawmakers passed a three-month stop-gap measure.

Sonoma County has leaned heavily on the SCTA and the Measure M sales tax that voters approved in 2004 to leverage funds for the highway project. But most of the Measure M funds have already been borrowed against through 2024, although the SCTA did recently receive $16 million from refinancing its bonds, which it says will go toward widening the Narrows.

Councilwoman Kathy Miller, Petaluma’s representative on the SCTA, said the agency is continuing to look for funding to complete the highway project. In the meantime, she said, residents have been enjoying the traffic relief that the new overpass has provided.

“I listened to a lot of complaints from people who got caught in a lot of traffic as it got reconfigured,” she said. “Now, I haven’t heard a thing. It’s beautiful and we’re happy to have it open. It will really improve traffic across town.”

Much of the congestion during the project was the result of trying to rebuild a road in the same spot as an existing one while keeping traffic moving, a challenging proposition, said Bijan Sartipi, district director for Caltrans.

“It’s ambitious,” he said. “We built a new interchange in the same footprint as the old interchange, while still keeping the facility open to the public.”

At the height of construction, when earthen mounds, confusing merges and temporary traffic signals created major jams at the interchange, Petaluma police reported fender-benders and road rage incidents that, on at least one occasion, devolved into fisticuffs.

“During all the gridlock, I thought this was going to be my Chris Christie moment,” Mayor David Glass said, referring to the New Jersey governor whose administration is accused of intentionally causing traffic jams on the George Washington Bridge. “Now people are happy. Their silence is golden.”

UPDATED: Please read and follow our commenting policy:
  • This is a family newspaper, please use a kind and respectful tone.
  • No profanity, hate speech or personal attacks. No off-topic remarks.
  • No disinformation about current events.
  • We will remove any comments — or commenters — that do not follow this commenting policy.