好 ​Cada any TRANSPORTATION LIBRARY TG 24 C2 A4 1929 64951 I A 759,411 DUPL Investigation and Report on Toll Bridges in the State of California CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY COMMISSION DEPARTMENT ROBVR STATE OF CALIFORNIA · DIRECTVM ** PUBLIC WORKS - VIA: SCIENTIA EST VISION OF HIGHWAYS A CALIFORNIA STATE PRINTING OFFICE SACRAMENTO, 1929 University of Michigan Libraries 1817 ARTES SCIENTIA VERITAS کو } TRANSPORTATION LIBRARY TG 24 .C2 A4 1929 64951 A 759,411 Investigation and Report on Toll Bridges in the State of California DUPL CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY COMMISSION • DEPARTMENT ROBVR STATE OF CALIFORNIA · DIRECTVM · OF PUBLIC EST ·SCIENTIA. HIGHWAYS VIA FORTUNAE · WORKS DIVISION CALIFORNIA STATE PRINTING OFFICE SACRAMENTO, 1929 PROPERTY OF University of Michigan Libraries 1817 ARTES SCIENTIA VERITAS Gun $ 7 RT. ZVALK HUMBOLST DEL NORTE MEN SHE NAM SA YARBA CREDDING RED BLUFF WILLOWS VILLIAMS NAPA FAIRFIELE CONTRA HIGHWAY CLASSIFICATION; Primary Roads Secondary Roads 1927 Plate 1-between 12 and 13. Jose SANTA CLARA CRUZ QUINCY BELL & QUIN ESTO WOLLISTER SAN MERCED ERCED .... ***. ALTURAS DOYNIE VILL BENITO SUSANVILLE EL DORADO LA MASO ADR ARI NTA LUIS~ ཙཱ ཊ8 ར་ཁོ ་ FRESNO AMDERA UMN NATIONAL VOSEMITE HANFORD BARBARAS MARKLEEVILLl VENTUR ļ +O baking! Bird Le sodios VENTURA URAN Dies Plate No.1 INVESTIGATION OF TOLL BRIDGES STATE OF CALIFORNIA General location of toll bridges ANGELES 043/S BIE PINE INDEPENDENCE LOS AND MULAVE #6 SANTA T SAN DIEGO 15 RIVERSID BARSTOW AN BERNARDINO INO Kich MEEDLES CENTRO 14. BLYTHE Fameck PUMA P PLATE NO 1-General Location of Toll Bridges. Opp. p. 12. } " 1 L 21 64951. Investigation and Report on Toll Bridges in the State of California CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY COMMISSION • DEPARTMENT ROBVR STATE OF CALIFORNIA OF PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTVM SCIENTIA EST · • • HIGHWAYS •VIA FORTUNAE 5 JO NOUSIAIO J 1 Transportation Library TG 24 .CR A4 1929 ¿ #f ; : 09-24-519W Transport. TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I-Purpose of Report and Introduction. 1. Purpose of report. 2. Introduction a. Toll bridges in operation or under construction. b. Franchises granted or applied for---. c. List of bridges and applications for franchises. d. General survey of toll bridge situation__ SECTION II-Summary and Conclusions_-- 1. Pertaining to promotion and organization. 2. Pertaining to financing 3. Pertaining to income to investors, etc.-. 4. Pertaining to the traveling public__- 5. Pertaining to existing and necessary laws, etc. 6. Pertaining to purchase by the state. SECTION III-Laws Relating to Toll Bridges…. 1. Granting of franchises___ 2. Exclusiveness of franchise_ 3. Effect of termination of franchise. 4. Tolls 5. Purchase of toll bridges. SECTION IV-General Study of Highway and Traffic Conditions __ 1. Introduction 2. General grouping of toll bridges, etc.. 3. Carquinez Straits bridges and parallel routes__ 4. Upper San Francisco and San Pablo Bay bridges. 5. Lower San Francisco Bay bridges--- 6. Colorado River Bridge at Ehrenburg. All Medi SECTION V-Report on Each Existing Toll Bridge Project…. 1. Toll bridge projects to be described__. Carquinez and Antioch bridges--American Toll Bridge Company 2. General data and information__ 3. History and organization___ 4. Financing of the projects- 5. Preliminary investigation and design__ 6. Construction data 7. Traffic and income__ 8. Operation and maintenance_ 9. Interest and amortization 10. Present value of investment_. 2. General data and information. 3. History and organization_ 4. Financing of the projects--- 1│ Original cost, probable income and cost of reproduction and operation by state. 11. Summary, acquisition and operation by state_ Sears Point Toll Road__. 5. Preliminary investigation and design.. 6. Construction data 7. Traffic and income 8. Operation and maintenance_ 9. Interest and amortization_ 10. Present value of investment_ 1 Original cost, probable income and cost of reproduction and operation by state. • 1 11. Summary, acquisition and operation by state---- San Mateo-Hayward Bridge, San Francisco Bay Toll Bridge Company. 2. General data and information. 3. History and organization……- 9 10 10 11 13 14 14 14 16 16 19 2 ****** **** 20 25 25 26 26 26 28 28 29 34 36 41 44 .44 44 4 46 48 51 54 57 61 62 66 2 CCEEC82/7N 73 76 76 77 77 69 79 80 81 82 83 84 * San Mateo-Hayward Bridge-Continued 4. Financing of the projects--- 5. Preliminary investigation and design 6. Construction data 7. Traffic and income_. 8. Operation and maintenance--- 9. Probable dividends, common stock. 10. Present value of investment_ 11. Summary, acquisition and operation by state. Dumbarton Bridge, Dumbarton Bridge Company. 2. General data and information__. 3. History and organization. 4. Financing of the projects__ Original cost, probable income and cost of reproduction and operation by state. 5. Preliminary investigation and design_ 6. Construction data 7. Traffic and income. 8. Operation and maintenance__ 9. Interest and amortization_ 10. Present value of investment_. Ehrenburg Bridge, California-Arizona Bridge Company. 2. General data and information. 3. History and organization____ 4. Financing of the projects- 5. Preliminary investigation and design. 6. Construction data 7. Traffic and income. Original cost, probable income and cost of reproduction and operation by state. 8. Operation and maintenance. 9. Interest and amortization 10. Present value of investment. 11. Summary, acquisition and operation by state- ι 11 Original cost, probable income and cost of reproduction and operation by state. SECTION VI-Contemplated Toll Bridges_ Tomasini Bridge Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Golden Gate Bridge-. San Francisco-Alameda Bridge APPENDIX-Franchises, etc. 1 Page. *585888 84 86 87 89 92 93 94 91 95 95 96 97 97 99 100 100 102 102 104 105 105 106 106 107 109 109 110 111 111 113 To the Honorable Members of the State Legislature of California, Session of 1929. # Pursuant to the provisions of an act of the legislature approved May 19, 1927 (chapter 636, Statutes 1927), which provides for an investigation by the California Highway Commission of the operation of toll bridges in California, and authorizes and empowers this com- mission to make a report thereon with recommendations, we have the honor to transmit to you the results of such study in the accompany- ing report. . ་ Respectfully submitted, Sacramento, January 23, 1929. { CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY COMMISSION, RALPH W. BULL, Chairman, J. P. BAUMGARTNER, M. B. HARRIS, F. S. MOODY, JOSEPH M. SCHENCK, Members. • : : • } • 1 ל. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SACRAMENTO To the Members of the California Highway Commission, Sacramento, California. January 18, 1929. GENTLEMEN : I am herewith transmitting the report of the Division of Highways, upon its investigation of the construction and operation of toll bridges in California. This investigation was authorized and directed by the legislature of 1927. The facts and findings in this report indicate the need for legislation. to remedy the situation. Sincerely yours, MR. B. B. MEEK, Director, Department of Public Works, Sacramento, California. (Signed) B. B. MEEK. DEAR SIR: We herewith submit a report on toll bridges in the State of California. The subject matter of this report has been compiled by the Bridge Department of the Division of Highways under the direction of C. E. Andrew, bridge engineer. This report is in compliance with a law passed by the state legislature of 1927. Very truly yours, C. H. PURCELL, State Highway Engineer. 處 ​1 | : INVESTIGATION AND REPORT ON TOLL BRIDGES IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECTION I. PURPOSE OF THE REPORT AND INTRODUCTION 1. PURPOSE OF THE REPORT. The following report to the forty-eighth session of the Legislature is made in compliance with chapter 636 of the Statutes of 1927. The title of the act is "Investigation of Toll Bridges" and reads as follows: INVESTIGATION OF TOLL BRIDGES. Act providing for an investigation by the California Highway Commission of the operation of toll bridges in California and for the submission of a report thereon with recommendations to the forty-eighth session of the Legislature. (New legislation, Statutes 1927, chapter 636.) Section 1. Investigation of toll bridges by Highway Commission. Report to Legislature with recommendations. The California Highway Commission shall investigate any existing or contemplated toll bridges operated as connect- ing links of the state highway system and shall make a report to the Legis- lature at the forty-eighth session embodying recommendations with reference to taking over any or all existing privately owned or operated toll bridges by the State of California, with a plan for financing the acquisition of same and amortization of the cost of such acquisition by tolls; such bridge or bridges then to be free of tolls and be made a part of the state highway system; or make recommendations as to the construction of bridges, and any pertinent matter relating to the problem. Sec. 2. Authority to employ assistance. May summon witnesses, etc. The said commision is hereby authorized and empowered to do any and all things necessary to make a full and complete investigation of the matters and subject hereinbefore enumerated or recited, and to that end may employ all necessary clerical and legal assistance, and the said commission is hereby authorized and empowered to summon witnesses, require the production of persons, books, accounts, agreements, documents, records and papers of every kind, to issue subpoenas, and to take all necessary means to compel the attendance of wit- nesses and procure testimony; and the members of said commission are, and each of them is hereby empowered to administer oaths. Subpoenas and all orders or other processes which may be issued by the commission may be served by any peace officer of the state. Sec. 3. Expenditures to be made from current appropriations. All expendi- tures by the commission in carrying out the purposes of this act shall be paid out of the appropriations or funds available for the support of the California Highway Commission upon claims presented and signed by the chairman of the commission in accordance with law, but all such expenditures of the commis- sion shall not exceed the sum of five thousand dollars. An investigation of all the existing toll bridges in the State of Cali- fornia, which are now in operation or will soon be put in operation, as well as contemplated toll bridges, has been made and the following report is the result of these investigations. The purposes of the report are those outlined and defined in the act, which are, to present to your honorable body in a concise manner all the facts pertaining to the inaugurating, organizing, financing, designing, constructing and oper- ating of each toll bridge, and further, to ascertain the value of each toll bridge to the traveling public with respect to its location, necessity and monetary value; to recommend as to the advisability of acquiring any or all of these toll bridges by the State of California; to determine the amounts of funds required for such acquisition and to recommend ways and means of raising the said funds. 10 - D 2. INTRODUCTION. a. Foll bridges in operation or under construction.-There are now in operation within or on the boundaries of the state, seven privately owned toll bridges, which are: Three bridges owned and operated by the Sears Point Toll Road Company, as a part of their toll road between Vallejo and Sears Point. One bridge is over the Napa River in Solano County, one over Sonoma Creek on the boundary between Solano and Sonoma counties and one over Tolay Creek in Sonoma County. They may be referred to as Sears Point cut-off bridges.' (( "" Two bridges owned and operated by the American Toll Bridge Com- pany. One bridge is over Carquinez Strait near Crockett between Contra Costa and Solano counties, generally referred to as the "Car- quinez Bridge" and another bridge over the San Joaquin River near Antioch between Contra Costa and Sacramento counties, generally known as the "Antioch Bridge." A bridge owned and operated by the Dumbarton Bridge Company, crossing the southerly arm of San Francisco Bay between the vicinity of Redwood City, in San Mateo County on the westerly side and Niles on the easterly, or Alameda County, side. It is known as the "Dum- barton Bridge." ܕ A bridge owned and operated by the California-Arizona Bridge Com- pany, crossing the Colorado River at Ehrenburg, Arizona, about 31 miles east of Blythe in Riverside County. It is herein referred to as the Ehrenburg Bridge." (C There is also one privately owned toll bridge in the state under con- struction at the time of writing this report, it is: A bridge owned and to be operated by the San Francisco Bay Toll Bridge Company, crossing the bay between San Mateo in San Mateo County and the vicinity of Hayward in Alameda County. It is to be known as the "San Mateo-Hayward Bridge." It is expected that this bridge will be opened to traffic early in the spring of 1929. b. Franchises granted or applied for.-There are now two franchises for proposed toll bridges held by private interests, they are: A franchise granted by Contra Costa County and now assigned to 9. H. Klatt, for a bridge across San Pablo Bay from a point near Richmond in Contra Costa County to a point near San Rafael in Marin County. A franchise granted by Alameda County to T. A. Tomasini for a bridge crossing upper San Francisco Bay from a point opposite Albany in Alameda County to a point near Tiburon in Marin County. There have been a large number of franchises sought by different parties to bridge the waters of the San Francisco Bay district, all of which have been denied by the supervisors of the county having juris- diction, they are: Applications for franchises to construct bridges across San Francisco Bay from the municipal district of San Francisco to that of the east bay cities. Some 33 applications have been made to San Francisco County, two to Alameda County and four to San Mateo County for such franchise. The city of San Francisco has applied to congress for a permit to build a bridge across the bay at the location proposed by its board of engineers in their report dated May, 1927. Applications for franchises to construct bridges across the Golden Gate. One application for a tunnel was made to San Francisco County لني K 11 and a road district including all or portions of the north coast counties is being formed for the purpose of constructing a bridge. Applications for other bridges to cross Carquinez Strait. Three such applications have been made to the supervisors of Contra Costa County. There has been an effort made for some time to build a toll bridge crossing San Diego Bay between San Diego and Coronado but up to date the proposed plans have not met with the approval of the War and Navy Departments. At the present time this bridge is in no way to be con- sidered a connecting link of the state highway system. c. There follows a list of all the various bridges and applications for toll bridges enumerated above with the name of the owning company, or applicant in the case of a franchise only, the status of the project and a reference number calling attention to the location on Plates 1, la and lb which follow it. Plates 1, la, 1b, - COLO CO 1 Napa River. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Bridge crossing INVESTIGATION OF TOLL BRIDGES List of Toll Bridges, Constructed or Proposed, in the State of California Sonoma Creek. Tolay Creek. San Joaquin River near Antioch. Carquinez Strait near Vallejo……. Other applications Carquinez Strait- (a) Dillon Point to Eckley. (b) Dillon Point to Eckley. (c) Crockett to Dos Reis Ranch.. Richmond-San Rafael Route. San Francisco Bay-Point San Pablo to McNears Point.. Golden Gate… San Francisco Bay-San Francisco County to Alameda County.... San Francisco Bay-San Mateo County to Alameda: Little Candle Stick Point to Bay Farm Island. Little Candle Stick Point to Foot of Webster Street, Alameda. San Francisco Bay-San Mateo to Hayward. Albany-Tiburon Route. San Fran- cisco Bay-Point Felming to Bluff Point and across Richardson Bay.. T. A. Tomasini. San Francisco Bay-Dumbarton Crossing... Colorado River near Blythe, Cali- fornia-Arizona Line- Owning company or applicant Sears Point Toll Road Company. Sears Point Toll Road Company. Sears Point Toll Road Company American Toll Bridge Company. American Toll Bridge Company.. Northern California Dev. Company. San Francisco Transit Co. (2 applic.) Crockett Land and Cattle Company... O. H. Klatt.. -- One application for a tunnel. Appli- cation denied. Road district being formed for purpose of constructing bridge 23 different parties made a total of 33 applications for bridges and tunnels crossing between Hunters Point and Telegraph Hill in San Francisco. 2 applications made to Alameda Coun- ty as having jurisdiction.. Bill presented to Congress by City of San Francisco for permission to con- struct bridge on location proposed by Board of Engineers... Frank E. Webb, C. J. Carey.. Robert W. Thompson, Albert Mans- field. San Francisco Bay Toll Bridge Company Dumbarton Bridge Company.. California-Arizona Bridge Company. San Diego Bay-San Diego-Coronado John L. Harrington, California Bridge and Tunnel Company.. Status Road in operation Road in operation Road in operation Bridge in operation Bridge in operation Application denied Application denied Application denied Franchise granted. War De- partment hearing, Janu- ary 3, 1929 Franchise granted. Not yet approved by War Depart- ment All applications denied Hearings held before com- mittee. No action taken All applications denied Bridge nearing completion Bridge in operation Bridge completed. Pier washed out, repairs under way Application to War Depart- ment not yet approved Mag 12 S.H. Rte: #10 S.H.Rte. S.H. Rte.*2 S.H.Rte. 30 LOS ANGELES S.H.Rte. * 59 #23. S.H. Rte. S.H. S.H. GO MOJAVE Rte.#9 S.H.Rte. SAN DIEGO S.M.Rte. #$*$31 S.H.#2 PACIFIC OCEAN CELIFORNIA NEVADA BARSTOW S.H.Rie. 58 SAN BERNARDINO S.H.Rte. 26. SHRte. #31 3.4.12 MECCA S.H.Rte EL CENTRO Plate l.b. INVESTIGATION OF TOLL BRIDGES MAP SHOWING EXISTING COLORADO RIVER BRIDGES ON STATE HIGHWAYS OF CALIFORNIA AND CONNECTIONS WITH U.S. ROUTES IN ARIZONA. * U.S. Rte. 91 NEEDLES 14. BLYTHE River Free Bridge Toll Bridge TOPOCK YUMA Color EHRENBURG Free Bridge To Salt Lake - ८ FORK ASH ARIZONA MEXICO MAINE WICKENBURG HASSAYAMPA GRAND CANYON PHOENIX TUCSON FLAGSTAFF U.S. Rh LEGEND CALIFORNIA Highway ROUTES= ALL OTHER Roads. UTAH U.S. Rte. Rte S. $10 NEVY MEXICO To Santa Fe N.M. and Chicago III. To Wichita Falls The and Beaufort N.C. To El Paso Tex. and Atlanta 6a To Healdsburg Eureka via Redwood Highway/ F.M. & Russian River astapol & MARIN SANTA ROSA Route # COTATI SONOMA PACIF IFIC PETALUMA ALUA IGNACIO CO. Proposed revision Rt. 1 Route 51 OCEAN CO. - To Calistofa & Eureka via Alexander Valley, SAUSALITO قریر SAN RAFAEL. SONOMA PY ANO Route 55 Routa #8 SAN FRANCISCO 2 Toll Road? SEARS PT. TOLL ROAD-BRIDGES San-Pabt Bay BURLING AME Plate la-between 12 and 13. RICHMOND SAN MATED Napa NAPA Route NAPA Route #2 SAN Route NAPA JCT. RODEO Route #14 Proposed mer. Cozyan PINOLE MAT COUNTY Franciscp ALAMED 2 2 VALLEJO OAKL BERKELEY Frank ECONTRA SOLAN 2 5 CARQUINEZ BRIDGE COUNTY Tunnel Route Pute REDWOOD orry. VACAVILLE CORDELIA SAN LEANDRO YOLO BENICIA Route ty Suisun SUISUN MARTINEZ PALO ALTO FAIRFIELD SAN MATEO-HAYWARD BRIDGE ALAMEDA CONCORD WALNUT CREEK: MT. EDEN C HAYWARD Route #5 Dublin. To San Jose DUMBARTON BRIDGE 13 DIXON To Woodland -- West Side Pacific Highway. REJ MOUNT COUNT Route $53 NILES TA DIABLO DAVIS ANTIOCH ANTIOCH BRIDGE 4 RAME RIO VISTA Route #5 Co. Route #6 PLEASANTON MISSION SAN JOSE о о Garden Highway Side Highway via COUNTY Si Marysville & East ❤ co, LIVERMORE BYRON COURTLAND O B SACRAMENTO C لار امر To Roseville Route 3 East side & Victory Highway ??? WALNUT GROVE Route #4 لار لا لج Route 53 O/AQUS. American Proposed Cutoff. GALT ソ ​WOODBRIDGE TERMINOUS Existing Rd to Terminous 11 Route To Placerville To Jackson TRACY STOCKTON Rev. R34 To Mother Lode & Alpine Highway. Route Route Rt. 24 To Calaveras Big Trees LODI LATHROP Route 66 MANTECA Map showiNG EXISTING AND PROPOSED TOLL BRIDGES IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION WITH State HighwAY AND IMPORTANT COUNTY ROAD CONNECTIONS. LEGEND Route *4 PLATE No.la. INVESTIGATION OF TOLL BRIDGES & Yosemite To San Joaquin Valley See Explanation Sheets Ferry State Highways = Important County Roads = -Through Routes. Toll Bridges, Constructed or under construction. = E Proposed Toll Bridges.= =={ MAY 1928 PLATE No. 1a-Existing and Proposed Toll Bridges in San Francisco Bay Region. Opp. p. 12. بیا :: *ggro « je • : | 13 d. General survey of toll bridge situation.—-A general survey of the situation shows that with the exception of the existing toll bridge over the Colorado River, all existing toll bridges, or locations where toll bridges have or are being considered, occur in the vicinity of San Fran- cisco Bay. It also shows that existing or proposed toll bridges are at the present time connecting links of the state highway system, although in some instances several miles of county road or city streets must be traveled in order to reach one or both ends of each bridge. It is advis- able to make a study of the relation of each existing and proposed toll bridge project to the highway system as it exists, together with such economically reasonable improvements or reroutings as may apply to the situation. Section IV of the report is devoted to this phase of the situation and covers the routing, mileage, condition and traffic on state and county highways which connect centers of population, or are through traffic routes, and which, in any way, relate to existing or pro- posed toll bridge projects. It is found that the laws relating to the right to operate toll bridges and the granting of franchises therefor, date back to the Political Code (1872) and Statutes of 1881 relating to bridges over navigable streams. No amendments have since been made which change the principle of application of these laws which are based upon the idea of delegating these rights to the counties, and therefore are found to be more or less incompatible with the existing idea of a state highway system. Sec- tion III of the report is devoted to a statement of the existing laws on the subject and shows their relation to the construction and operation of a toll bridge as part of a state highway route. Since the law states that recommendations shall be made with refer- ence to taking over any or all existing toll bridges by the state, it becomes necessary to gather all possible data relative to their organiza- tion, construction and operation. Therefore, under Section V of the report there is included for each individual project, the following infor- mation : General description of the project Organization Financing Preliminary investigation and design Construction data Traffic and income W Operation and maintenance Interest and amortization Present value of the project. Under section V there is discussed the possible methods by which the state may acquire a toll bridge project and operate it as such or by which it may construct a bridge and pay for its construction. It involves the raising of funds to pay the cost of construction by state or district bonds, or financing through revenue bonds and amortizing the first cost through the collection of tolls or other means. -- 14 SECTION II. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Summary and conclusions as follows are drawn from an investigation and study of the toll bridges covered in this report. 1. Pertaining to matters of promotion and organization of both privately and publicly owned toll bridges. a. It is shown that the cost of promotion and organization of pri- vately owned toll bridges is in many cases a major item in the cost. Such an expense does not amount to any considerable sum in the cost of a publicly owned and constructed bridge. For this purpose $1,166,- 776 was spent on the Carquinez and Antioch bridges. The estimated organization cost connected with building these bridges under state supervision, publicly financed, is $153,500. The cost of promotion and organization for the San Mateo-Hayward Bridge is difficult to segregate. An item of $154,060 is given in their original cost estimate for organization, legal and corporation expenses. It is noted under construction data that 5567 shares of preferred stock and 22,268 shares of common stock were given the Raymond Concrete Pile Company for promotion and organization. The preferred stock is valued at $55,670, and the common stock has been shown to have an estimated value of from $33 to $79.50 per share depending on the inter- est rate and future traffic. These figures indicate at least $55,670 plus $730,000, or $785,670, may be charged to promotion and organization. It is estimated that a simi- lar charge under state construction would not exceed $160,000. b. The conclusion is drawn that private interests are inclined to recognize the necessity of bridges at strategic points more readily than are public officials. Likewise, private interests and promoters often build or attempt to build toll bridges at locations where the traffic does not justify them. Anticipated profits from one or more of the follow- ing sources are the inspiration for toll bridge promotion, namely: pro- motion fees, bridge contracts and profits from tolls based on expected future traffic. c. The conclusion is drawn that in the case of the Carquinez Bridge, public officials failed to recognize the necessity of building a publicly owned structure. d. It is also evident from the estimated tolls which could have been charged, had the state financed the San Mateo-Hayward Bridge, that the cost of service over the remaining 47-year life period of the fran- chise would, on a publicly owned bridge at this location, be only about 35 per cent of that which will be charged by the privately owned toll bridge, provided the now authorized rates of tolls are maintained until such time as the 15 per cent earning as limited by law compels their reduction. 2. Pertaining to matters of financing. a. The cost of financing privately owned toll bridges is higher than the cost of financing publicly owned toll bridges. It is shown that the cost of financing the Carquinez and Antioch bridges includes an item 15 Į } + of 500,000 shares stock bonus and an item of $673,853 for bond discount. Computing the stock at par value $1 per share, gives a sum of $1,173,- 853 discount on a $6,500,000 bond issue. $4,500,000 of these bonds bear 7 per cent interest and $2,000,000 bear 8 per cent interest. Bonds issued by the State of California guaranteed by the credit of the state and bearing 44 per cent, can be sold by the state at par. Income bonds bearing 6 per cent interest issued by the state but hav- ing only the income from tolls as the sole security, can be sold at par. b. Financing a privately owned toll bridge by sale of stock is usually difficult and is extended over a comparatively long period of time. As a result a considerable part of the franchise life is consumed before construction can be financed. The result is that income bearing time is lost and the cost of service to the public raised. The cost of selling stock is high. The usual commission for selling this class of stock is 20 per cent. c. The conclusion is drawn that no corporation is more able to finance necessary bridges connecting with the state highway system than the State of California. Nor can any private corporation finance bridges as cheaply as can the state. d. The state can most economically finance toll bridges by issuing bonds which are recognized as a direct obligation on the state, but which are to be retired by income from tolls. Such bonds would require a vote of the people for each bridge project. Since such a method of financing is not generally practicable, the best alternate method of financing is to issue income bonds which have as their sole security the income from tolls. The state can sell such bonds at a much lower rate of interest than can a private company, primarily because they are a safer investment. A private corporation has a certain time, limited by the franchise, in which to retire their bonds and amortize the cost of the bridge. The investor is required to gamble that sufficient income will be obtained in that limited period of time to pay interest and retire the bonds. As a result he demands a high rate of interest and a substantial bond discount. The state in selling income bonds will fix a date at which the bonds are due, but if the income is not sufficient during that time to pay bond amortization and interest they can refinance the unpaid bonds and con- tinue to collect tolls until the bonds are paid because they still own the bridge. This the private company cannot do because they must sur- render the right to collect tolls at the expiration of the franchise. This is the major reason why investors demand a higher return on the bonds of privately owned bridges than they do on the bonds of ones publicly owned. Referring to Section V, paragraph 4b, p. 50, of this report, it is shown that the annual cost of bond financing, including bond discount, stock bonus and interest is 8.7 per cent plus for the Carquinez and Antioch bridges.. The state can sell income bonds at an interest rate of 6 per cent or less. Referring to Section V, paragraph 4b, p. 85, San Mateo-Hayward Bridge, it is shown that the interest rate on bond financing including all charges is 7.7 per cent and to the same section, p. 95, for the Dum- barton Bridge, that the interest rate on bonds including all charges is 7.3 per cent. 16 * 3. Matters pertaining to income to investors in privately owned toll bridges. a. It is shown that investors in the stocks of privately owned toli bridges in the State of California, in some cases may expect a fair return on their investment, in others a large return, and in others a low return. The stock return depends entirely upon the traffic realized. The predicted traffic charts and figures shown in this report are con- sidered to be conservative and an increase or decrease is entirely possible. No attempt has been made to estimate the effect of future competitive routes in estimating the traffic. An average return on the par value of the stock based on the predicted traffic for the Carquinez and Antioch bridges is indicated at an approx- imate average of 6 per cent. An increase or decrease in the rate of growth of traffic will increase or decrease the rate of return to the stockholder. It has been shown that the actual rate paid on money obtained through the issue of bonds is 8.7 per cent on the American Toll Bridge Company projects. An increase in traffic will slightly increase this return because of the stock bonus given the bonding company. This rate of return on bonds is considered to be excessive. The report shows that, except for the possibility that a free bridge might have been constructed near Antioch, which would have detracted from the business of the Carquinez, the American Toll Bridge Company would have been better off as far as stock dividends are concerned if they had not built the Antioch Bridge. b. In the case of the San Mateo-Hayward Bridge, it has been shown that the first mortgage bonds will return 62 per cent, and that the second mortgage bonds will return 10 per cent on the lowest predicted traffic estimate. It has been shown that as far as we are able to ascertain, no actual money has been paid for any of the common stock. 120,000 shares have been issued and are held entirely by those directly interested in the bridge. It has been shown that on the lowest traffic estimate this stock will have a present worth of $33 per share with a reasonable possibility that it will be worth as much as $79.50 per share. This worth will be acquired by the common stock holders without capital invest- ment (other than services prior to the opening of the bridge). 4. Matters pertaining to the traveling public. a. The traveling public has received the added facilities of the Antioch and Carquinez bridges over those of a ferry at least five years in advance of the time when the state would have given them, due to the fact that public officials did not recognize the necessity of a publicly owned bridge at Carquinez. b. It has been shown that the capital investment in the Carquinez and Antioch bridges is excessive when compared with the estimated cost of reproduction of these bridges by the state. The costs are as follows: Cost of construction of Antioch and Carquinez bridges to American Toll Bridge Company Estimated cost of construction to the state to reproduce these bridges at the same location financed by income bonds at 6 per cent__. $9,520,789 7,675,900 17 - S c. It has been shown that the cost of operation of the Carquinez and Antioch bridges is excessive when compared with the estimated cost of operation of similar bridges, had they been financed at a lower interest rate and constructed by the state. The comparative costs of operation are as follows: Combined annual cost of operation of Antioch and Carquinez bridges by the American Toll Bridge Company Combined annual estimated cost of operation by the state, of bridges constructed and operated by the state (6 per cent basis of financing) 1930 to 1950: Pleasure cars Commercial cars 1950 to 1957: Pleasure cars Commercial cars 1957 to 1977: Pleasure cars Commercial cars $1,176,000 918,600 Annual saving in cost of operation--. $257,400 d. It has been shown that the average toll per vehicle, until 1948 when the bridges will become free, will be $0.82 for the Carquinez Bridge and $0.84 for the Antioch Bridge as operated by the American Toll Bridge Company. While the average toll necessary to operate and pay for a bridge similar to the Carquinez Bridge if financed and built by the state on a 6 per cent income bond basis would be $0.44 per vehicle, and if financed and built by the state on a 4 per cent bond basis, the required toll would be $0.38 per vehicle. It should be noted that an increase or decrease in traffic will not materially change the relative amount of tolls, as the toll rates under private or public ownership are in both cases a function of the traffic. An increase in traffic will justify the lowering of tolls in either case while a decrease in traffic will justify the raising of tolls. For economic studies the above ratio between tolls on the privately owned bridges and the tolls on publicly owned bridges at Carquinez and Antioch, may be taken at the ratio of 83 to 44 or 38, depending on the method of financing the publicly owned bridges. It would be difficult to lower the tolls on a privately owned bridge, even though the increase in traffic might justify such action, while on the publicly owned bridge no profits are expected and there would be no object in not lowering tolls if increased income justified such action. The above ratio of tolls for the Carquinez and Antioch bridges indi- cates that for these bridges the cost of public service on the present bridges is at least 88 per cent higher than it would have been on similar bridges constructed and operated by the state. It has been shown that the tolls permitted by law on the San Mateo-Hayward Bridge over the life of the franchise, viz, to 1977, will be as follows: $0.60 per vehicle 1.75 per vehicle 0.56 per vehicle 1.66 per vehicle 0.56 per vehicle 1.13 per vehicle If the state had financed and constructed the bridge an average toll of 15 cents for pleasure cars and 58 cents for commercial vehicles would be all that is necessary to operate and amortize the cost of the structure over the active life of the franchise. 2-64951 P 18 e. The conclusion is made that any bridge, be it a privately or pub- licly owned toll bridge or a publicly owned bridge on which no tolls have ever been paid, is a toll bridge. The traveling public eventually pays for all of them, either by tolls or taxes. A tax may be called a toll or a toll a tax, and the taxes or tolls paid constitute the cost of public service received in crossing the bridge. The method of building and financing any bridge which results in the least possible cost of public service is the best way. A great many miles of highway and many bridges in the state would show an apparently high cost of public service on the capital invested if reduced to a toll basis, while the reverse would be true in many other cases. Likewise some of the privately owned roads and bridges show a relatively low cost of public service, and others show a high cost. In the case of privately owned bridges and roads, a relatively low cost of service will ordinarily represent a loss to the investors, while a rela- tively high cost of service will represent a profit to the investor. - The public should be supplied with necessary roads and bridges, but they should not be burdened with unnecessary ones. All necessary roads and bridges should be either built and operated by the public or all built and operated by private capital. In either case, the cost of public service on all roads and bridges which show a high cost of operation should be offset by the low cost of service of roads and bridges which show a low cost of operation, if the public is to receive the minimum net cost of service over the entire system. In the State of California either the state or counties and cities own and operate more than 95 per cent of the roads and bridges. It should, therefore, not be necessary nor should private capital be allowed to pick out advantageous points on the highway systems and build toll roads or bridges which will take profits that would otherwise tend to lower the average cost of highway service on the entire public highway system. Nor should private capital be required or allowed to select other points on the highway systems and build and operate roads and bridges, which will represent a loss to private investors even though such roads or bridges so operated may lower, or not increase the net cost of service over the entire highway system. The economic construction and operation of the public highway system should be from a standpoint of the entire state, or even nation, rather than from a local point of view as a city or county. Many public officials are inclined to favor the building of toll roads and bridges by private capital, giving as reasons for so doing that they can not finance such roads and bridges, or that they expect to make money out of gross income tax or from tolls taken after the franchise expires and the bridge becomes local public property, or that no taxes or local bond issues will be necessary if financed by private capital. Analyzing the problem of service cost the final conclusion is reached that the state can finance necessary roads and bridges at less cost than private corporations, that the paying of tolls is just as much a tax as is gas tax, or taxes levied to retire necessary bond issues; that the public will in most cases pay more in tolls to the private corporation than they would in tolls on a publicly owned toll road or bridge, or in taxes to retire necessary public bond issues, or in gas tax. 19 → The argument that a county or city can make money from a toll bridge is fundamentally wrong. The citizens of any county or city eventually travel to a greater or lesser degree the roads of every other county or city. It is not economically sound that the citizens of one county or city should travel free the roads of any other county or city, or the state highway system, and in turn exact a profit from travelers outside of their boundaries using their roads and bridges. The city and county of San Francisco has recognized these prin- ciples in rejecting all franchises applied for by private interests, to build a privately owned toll bridge across San Francisco Bay from San Francisco to Oakland or Alameda. f. Pertaining to present and added investments by the public in highway systems.--A conclusion is drawn that the present enormous investment by the public in the state and county highways is being capitalized by private toll bridge companies. Added investments by the public as in the American Canyon, and roads south and north of San Francisco, tend to greatly increase the income of toll bridges. 5. Matters pertaining to existing and necessary laws governing the granting of franchises, construction and operation of privately owned toll bridges, the financing, purchase and operation of privately owned toll bridges by the state, and the financing, construction and operation of state owned toll bridges by the state. a. A conclusion is drawn that existing laws governing the issuing of franchises for toll bridges, as well as their construction and opera- tion, are obsolete and should be revised or amended in the following respects: (1) The power of granting franchises to private corporations to build toll bridges on the state highway system, or on any county road that is, or may be, a connecting link of the highway system, should be vested in the Highway Commission or subject to their approval, and the rates of tolls fixed by the Railroad Commission. (2) The law which is now in effect, giving the jurisdiction of grant- ing franchises to the county situated on the left bank descending, is difficult of interpretation in the case of San Francisco Bay, and should be amended and clarified if the power of granting any franchises is to remain with the counties. (3) Power should be given by law to the Highway Commission or Director of Public Works to locate, design, construct and operate toll bridges and to finance the location, design and construction of such bridges by issuing income bonds having as their sole security the income from tolls. The entire income from tolls, after deducting necessary operating costs, interest, current maintenance, and a reasonable sinking fund for maintenance after the tolls are removed, to be applied to the amortization of bonds. The bridge to be made a free bridge as soon as the bonds are paid. (4) If the legislature has the power to do so, laws should be passed giving the Highway Commission or Director of Public Works authority to acquire existing privately owned toll bridges by purchase or by condemnation. Study of the subject brings out the fact that all existing toll bridges have been financed and constructed under franchises granted by counties under the stipulation that the power 20 to fix tolls and the right to purchase is vested in the counties. Whether or not this fixing of jurisdiction can be changed in the case. of existing toll bridges is questionable because of the effect it might have on the property rights of the bridge companies. 6. Matters pertaining to the purchase by the state of existing toll bridges. a. Carquinez and Antioch bridges.—If the state desires to purchase both or either of these bridges there are three methods of computing their value. These methods are developed in Section V of this report, and are arrived at from two points of view. First-That of the stockholder of the American Toll Bridge Com- pany. There are two values from the first viewpoint, viz, the cost of the bridges to the American Toll Bridge Company, and the estimated value of the stock from an investment point of view. Second-Value of the bridges from the viewpoint of the traveling public. The public has received an intangible value due to the added conven- ience of bridges over ferries. It is impossible to reduce this conven- ience to dollars and cents because it is not known how long it would have been after the present bridges were built until the public would have recognized the necessity and constructed similar bridges. This intangible value added to the sum it would have cost the state to build these bridges represents the true value to the traveling public. Referring to Section V, it will be seen that the estimated values computed under these three headings are as follows: (1) Cost of bridge as shown on the books of the American Toll Bridge Company (2) Value of the Carquinez Bridge as an investment. (3) Combined value of the Carquinez and Antioch bridges as an investment (4) Value of the Carquinez Bridge to the public. Cost of reproduction by state. Not including intangible value-- (5) Combined value of the Carquinez and Antioch bridges to the public, cost of reproduction by the state, not including intan- gible value $9,520,789 11,214,900 11,846,400 6,553,000 7,675,900 Either of values (4) or (5) can not now be realized by the public because privately owned bridges were allowed to be constructed rather than publicly owned ones. Value (1) presumably represents the cost of the bridges to the bridge company. The problem of deciding between this value and value (3), or a compromise between the two, is either a matter of negotiation with the bridge company or a matter for the courts to decide. Values (2) and (3) are based on, a predicted future traffic and, a 6 per cent rein- vestment basis for money received by the stockholders for the bridge. It is no doubt presumptious to predict traffic as far into the future as it is necessary to do in the case of any franchise and the reinvestment rate of interest is also a matter of judgment. Whether an investment in the Carquinez Bridge involves sufficient risk to demand a 6, 7, 8 or 10 per cent interest, is purely a matter of opinion. If the stockholders' present investment in the bridge is safe enough to warrant only a 6 per cent return then he is entitled to a reinvestment rate of 6 per cent. On the other hand, if he has an 8 per ! 21 cent risk in the bridge, he is entitled to only a present worth based on an 8 per cent reinvestment which is much less than values (2) and (3). Courts have, in determining similar values, taken into account all these factors but as far as it is possible to determine, no rule has been laid down and each case has been determined individually. A study of these estimated values leads to the conclusion that it is almost impossible to fix an equitable purchase price for a privately owned toll bridge. If the lower value is fixed, the public obtains "value received" and the bridge company realizes a heavy loss, while on the other hand, if the higher value is fixed the bridge company obtains "value received" based on the original conception of its investment and the public pays $4,190,000, or approximately 60 per cent more for the bridges than if they had constructed and financed them themselves. Referring to Section V, 11-c, it is seen that the state, if given the right by law, may purchase either or both the Carquinez and Antioch bridges, even at the cost of $11,214,900 for the Carquinez alone or $11,- 846,400 for both the Carquinez and Antioch bridges, and by refinanc- ing them as outlined in Section V, 11-c, p. 74, greatly reduce the tolls now being charged by the American Toll Bridge Company. (Refer to tables in Section V 11-c.) b. There are many difficulties to be surmounted and many steps to be taken before either the Carquinez or Antioch bridges, or for that matter any privately owned toll bridge, can be purchased by the state. First-Laws must be amended or passed which will enable the state to do so. Second-The state must decide which of the bridges or properties are to be purchased. As has been explained, the American Toll Bridge Company has sev- eral properties among its assets, the principal ones being the Carquinez and Antioch bridges, the Martinez-Benicia ferry, the properties of the Rodeo-Vallejo ferry, and several parcels of land. All of the values and estimates in this report pertaining to the Amer- ican Toll Bridge Company are based on the assumption that only the bridge properties would be purchased, and that all other assets as ferries and real estate, except that occupied by bridges would remain as the property of the American Toll Bridge Company. Third-If the Antioch bridge is to be acquired, it must be remem- bered that it is not now located on or within many miles of a state highway. Fourth-The values given in this report are direct functions of what is a fair interest return, and of the correct prediction of future traffic. Fifth-The present laws governing the acquisition of toll bridges gives the county granting the franchise the right to buy the bridge within five years from the filing of the certificate of completion of the bridge. If not purchased within this period, the right is then deferred until the bridge has been in existence for ten years or more. Sixth-It will be necessary to change the law and, if possible, give the state the authority to purchase. This will probably require that the state make the present roads leading to the bridge or bridges state highways. Seventh The present law provides that the purchase price shall be determined by a board of arbitration, consisting of seven members, 22 three members to be appointed by the bridge company, three by the purchaser, and one by the judge of the superior court of the county. San Mateo-Hayward Bridge.--If the state desires to acquire the San Mateo-Hayward Bridge, it will be required to recognize the clause in the franchise for the Dumbarton Bridge requiring that the county can not own or acquire any other bridge across the San Francisco Bay from San Mateo County without first buying the Dumbarton Bridge. The estimated values for the San Mateo Bridge are as follows: First. On a basis of cost to the bridge company. Second. On a basis of reproduction cost by the state--- Third. On an income value basis to the common stock- holders (bridge company's traffic prediction) 6% basis of reinvestment-- 8% basis of reinvestment. 6% basis of reinvestment.. 8% basis of reinvestment-- —— $7,500,000 5,946,000 17,677,270 14,690,362 b. On an income value basis to the common stockholders (state traffic prediction) -$14,457,490 12,083,311 The great variation in these values indicates the extreme difficulty of determining what is a fair value for this or for that matter any of the other privately owned toll bridges. (Reader is referred to corre- sponding figures for other toll bridges given in this report.) Summary of conclusions. 1. None of the existing toll bridges in the State of California are entirely on the state highway system. The Carquinez Bridge, the San Mateo-Hayward Bridge and the Ehrenburg Bridge are important connections of the highway system. 2. Certain toll bridges have an intangible value in addition to their physical value, due to the fact that they have given the public the added advantage of a bridge over a ferry several years prior to the time the public officials realized their necessity as publicly owned bridges. 3. Privately owned toll bridges cost more than publicly owned bridges for the following principal reasons: a. The cost of organization and promotion is more for the privately owned bridge than for the publicly owned one. b. The cost of financing a privately owned toll bridge is higher than the financing of a publicly owned bridge. c. The cost of construction of a privately owned toll bridge is some- what higher (from 10 per cent to 25 per cent) than a publicly owned bridge, due in most cases to lack of competition in bidding on the contract. d. The cost of operation is higher on a privately owned bridge than on a publicly owned bridge, primarily because amortization and interest charges are more. 4. The cost of public service over a privately owned toll bridge is higher than over a publicly owned one, because the capital investment is more and the interest rate higher. A profit is expected on a privately owned bridge and not on a publicly owned one. 5. The fixing of equitable values of privately owned bridges is so intricate and involved that it would seem almost impossible for the public to acquire them without either paying from 20 to as much as Sp 23- 250 per cent more than it would have cost the public to build them, or, on the other hand, causing a heavy loss to the investors in toll bridge stock. 6. The state or counties or cities own and operate more than 95 per cent of the highway and bridges in the state. If public ownership is proper for 95 per cent, it would seem proper on 100 per cent of the state system. 7. Added investment by the public in improving roads enhances the value of privately owned toll bridges located on or contiguous to these roads. 8. With possibly two exceptions, investors in the privately owned toll bridges in California will probably realize either fair or large returns on their investment. 9. If the state desires to acquire all of the privately owned toll bridges in California which are now or will be in operation during the year of 1929, there will be required the following approximate capital investments: Based on the cost of the bridges to the toll bridge companies: Carquinez and Antioch bridges-- San Mateo-Hayward Bridge- Dumbarton Bridge---. basis: Sears Point toll road and bridges. Ehrenburg Bridge-- Dumbarton Bridge-- Ehrenburg Bridge--- C 746,000 268,500 $20,156,300 Based on the estimated present worth to stockholders. Computed on state traffic prediction and 6 per cent reinvestment Carquinez and Antioch bridges-- San Mateo-Hayward Bridge. Sears Point toll road_._ Year 1930 1940 S 1950 1960 1970 Examination of the report shows that the total estimated cost of reproduction of all of the above bridges by the state is about $16,225,000. $9,520,800 7,500,000 2,121,000 10. If the state can acquire the Carquinez and Antioch bridges even at the price of $11,846,400 and refinance them at 6 per cent, the tolls can be reduced from the present average toll of 82 cents per vehicle on the Carquinez and 84.2 cents per vehicle on the Antioch, to 52 cents and 61 cents respectively. 11. If the state can acquire the San Mateo-Hayward Bridge even at the figure of $14,457,490 and refinance it at 6 per cent, the average tolls can be very materially reduced below those which the bridge company have stipulated in the franchise. Tolls are as follows: State Operated Auto Truck $0.63 .46 .35 .29 .24 $11,846,400 14,457,490 $1.90 1.40 1.05 .85 .60 1,250,000 3,218,000 (none) Privately Owned Truck $1.75 1.75 Auto $0.60 .60 .60 .38 .38 1.75 1.13 1.13 24 12. All traffic predictions in this report which are a basis of com- puting present worth are of necessity based upon estimates. The gen- eral basis has been the natural increase in population expected without considering the effect of future competitive routes, etc. It is recognized that to predict traffic 50 years ahead is at best hazardous. In com- puting present worth, however, a considerable error in the more distant years has comparatively little effect on the present worth. 13. A study of the existing toll bridges, their cost of promoting, financing, construction and operation, should cause public officials hav- ing power to grant franchises to carefully analyze and study the eco- nomic questions involved before granting further franchises. 14. A general conclusion is drawn that, due to the exceeding diffi- culty in fixing a just value to both the public and private interests con- cerned, and due to the intricate legal phases involved, the only way for the state to acquire the ownership of existing toll bridges, if same is desired, is by condemnation. 15. A general conclusion is drawn that, due to the generally high cost of public service of privately owned toll bridges, and the extreme difficulty of acquiring them after they are constructed, at a value con- sistent with that for which the state or county could build and operate them, necessary steps should be taken to permit the state or counties to finance and build toll bridges on an income bond basis; that the further construction of privately owned toll bridges should be prohibited. G 25 SECTION III LAWS RELATING TO CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF TOLL BRIDGES (Note No attempt will be made to set forth herein any exhaustive study of the legal status of toll bridges in California, but merely to indicate a few of the legal highlights and principles applicable to this subject.) 1. GRANTING OF FRANCHISES. The granting of franchises is a sovereign prerogative and as such belongs to the Legislature. The Legislature in California has dele- gated this authority to the various boards of supervisors, by specific statutes. While it has been held that these boards are only agents of the Legislature, the grants so made are equally valid as if made by the Legislature. Fall vs. County of Sutter, 21 Cal. 237 (1862). a. Statutory powers of board of supervisors. The boards of supervisors derive their power to grant franchises for toll bridge. A. Entirely within boundaries of particular county from paragraphs 35 and 36 of section 4041 of the Political Code. Paragraph 35 authorized toll franchises on roads, bridges, ferries, etc. (which are not already dedicated to the public). Paragraph 36 provides for the granting of franchises on public roads and highways only whenever in their judgment the expense necessary to operate or maintain such roads or highways as free public high- ways is too great to justify the county in operating or maintaining them. Even though bridges are not specifically mentioned in this para- graph, it has been held that bridges are highways and are therefore governed by this provision. Sears vs. Tuolumne County, 132 Cal. 167 (1901). B. Between two counties. Section 2843 of the Political Code provides that in cases where bridge is across stream, etc., dividing two counties, the board of supervisors of the county on the left bank thereof shall have jurisdiction. See Statutes 1881, page 76 (where bridge is across navigable stream), also section 2872 of the Political Code. The granting of franchises in this case is predicated on compliance with the procedure and subject to conditions of other statutory pro- visions—especially the following sections of the Political Code: 2870, 2871, 2872, 2873, 2874, 2875, 2876, 2877, 2878, 2879, 2880, 2881. C. Over navigable streams. Statutes 1881, page 76, gives supervisors right to grant franchises for toll bridge across navigable streams, bays, etc. This act is still in force. Calvin vs. Contra Costa, 195 Cal. 686. Chico Bridge Company vs. Sacramento, etc., 123 Cal. 178 (1899). See also section 2872 of Political Code validating franchises granted prior to 1881 act. 26 2. EXCLUSIVENESS OF FRANCHISE. The common law rule that no rival toll bridge could be allowed so near to the ancient one to affect or take away its business (Norris vs. Farmers, etc., Co., 6 Cal. 590) has been modified by section 2853 of the Political Code, providing that no toll bridge must be established within one mile above or below a regularly established toll bridge, unless the situation of some creek, the crossing of a public highway or the intersec- tion of some creek or ravine renders it necessary for public convenience. In determining public convenience the judgment of the board of supervisors is conclusive. Waugh vs. Chauncey, 13 Cal. 11. Poll vs. Summons, 134 Cal. 621, 625. This section also applies to free bridges built by private individuals and corporations as well as to toll bridges. Norris vs. Farmers, etc., Co., 6 Cal. 590. Unless the grant of franchise by its terms is exclusive, the legisla- ture is not precluded from making other grants even though the second grant would tend to destroy the first grant. Barham vs. Turnpike Company, 25 Cal. 283. Fall vs. County of Sutter, 21 Cal. 237. Charles River vs. Warren Bridge Company (U. S.) 11 Pet. U. S. 548; 9 L. Ed. 824. 3. EFFECT OF TERMINATION OF FRANCHISE. It has been held that the construction of a toll bridge is a dedication of the bridge to public use, subject only to right to collect tolls. The bridge belongs to the public and the only interest of the holder of fran- chise is right to collect tolls as compensation for the building of the bridge. Gardella vs. Amador County, 164 Cal. 555. Section 2619 of the Political Code, provides that upon expiration of franchise by limitation or nonuser toll bridges shall become free public highways and no claim shall be valid against public for right of way, or for land or material comprising such bridge. People vs. Davidson, 79 Cal. 166. Sears vs. Tuolumne County, 132 Cal. 167, 172. This section applies to inter- as well as intra-county bridges. Gardella vs. County of Amador (supra). 4. TOLLS. The collection of tolls under franchise is provided by section 2878 of the Political Code, specifying that boards of supervisors may fix tolls as they may from time to time prescribe, and paragraph 3 of section 2845 of the Political Code says-the tolls may raise annually an income not exceeding 15 per cent of the actual cost of the construction or erection of the bridge or ferry, and such additional income as will provide for the annual cost of operation, maintenance, amortization and taxes. See also section 514 of Civil Code. Section 528 of Civil Code. Act March 14, 1881, Statutes 1881, page 76 (tolls for bridges over navigable streams). Sections 2846, 2848 of Political Code. 27 5. PURCHASE OF TOLL BRIDGES. Section 2881 of the Political Code provides that county or counties jointly acting in which same is situated may purchase a toll bridge, as provided for in sections 2801, and 2802 of the Political Code, regu- lating the purchase of toll roads. 13 K 28. Mant SECTION IV GENERAL STUDY OF HIGHWAY AND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITH RELATION TO TOLL BRIDGES 1. Introduction. The state highway system is, presumably, a network of traffic arteries which best serves the county seats and important centers of population in the state and, at the same time, affords more or less direct routes connecting with all interstate highways. The existing highway system fulfills these requirements in a general way only and does not, for economic and political reasons, include all the heavy traffic roads nor all the most direct and suitable routes between important centers. The kind or amount of traffic using a highway, whether "through" or "local," business or pleasure, passenger or freight, is not alone a criterion by which to judge its right to be included in the highway system. State highways are now being built or rebuilt to take care of local as well as long distance or interstate travel and for recreational purposes as well as for suburban conditions of heavy business and freight traffic. None of the existing or projected toll bridges are actually on the state highway system but since some of these bridges carry a large highway traffic, it becomes necessary to consider the advisability of connecting them up with the state road system either by taking over existing county roads or by constructing new highway links. This involves a study of the various factors which affect the choice of a highway routing. It is necessary that the proposed connection be one that does, or can be made to, provide proper standards of align- ment. grade and width of road bed for present traffic which will permit of future improvement. The general route, of which the bridge and its connections are a part, must show advantages over alternate routes either on or off the state highway system. Factors to be considered are, its present condition, traffic carried and territory served as well as the possibilities for straightening, widening and general improve- ment of its service for traffic for present or possible future needs. Laws which definitely establish points on a state highway route must be considered and local conditions such as those which resist the removal of traffic from an established route cannot be overlooked. 2. General grouping of toll bridges and connecting highways. As has been stated before, all existing and projected toll bridges, with the exception of the Ehrenburg Bridge, are located in the vicinity of San Francisco Bay. (The Ehrenburg Bridge over the Colorado River near Blythe, California, is a comparatively small structure, no larger than many already built from gas tax funds.) For convenience of comparison and study of the factors mentioned above, all toll bridges in this vicinity may be grouped as follows: a. Bridges across Carquinez Straits and the lower San Joaquin or Sacramento rivers, which bridges are on routes leading from the Bay district to the northern part of the state, and to the east via Sacra- A. 29 入 ​mento. In this connection it is necessary also to consider the alternate route through Marin County crossing the Golden Gate into San Fran- cisco. b. Bridges across upper San Francisco and San Pablo bays with the Napa River and Sonoma Creek sloughs to the north, connecting the territory east of the bay with Marin and lower Sonoma counties. These include the Sears Point toll road with its bridges over Napa River and Sonoma and Tolay creeks, together with the proposed bridges from Richmond to San Rafael and from Albany to lower Marin County. c. Bridges crossing San Francisco Bay from the city and the Penin- sula to various points on the east shore. These include the Dumbarton and San Mateo bridges, constructed and under construction, and require a consideration of the proposed location of a bridge between San Francisco and Oakland or Alameda. In order to give a general idea of the present traffic situation in the vicinity of San Francisco Bay and for reference in the following discussions, a traffic chart has been prepared and is marked Plate No. II. 3. Carquinez Straits bridges and parallel crossings or routes. a. Two separate main highways lead from Sacramento to the bay district connecting at Sacramento with the east and west side Pacific highways going north, and with the Victory and Lincoln highways going east. They are: The Victory Highway route which follows the Sacramento River, crosses the Antioch bridge over the San Joaquin River and reaches Oak- land via Concord, Walnut Creek and the tunnel road. Of the total length of 99.4 miles from Sacramento to Fourteenth and Broadway, Oakland, only 5.9 miles of road (just north of Rio Vista), is included in the present state highway system. The present state highway via Davis, Dixon, Vacaville and Fairfield to Cordelia with a choice of two routes from Cordelia to the bay district. The first and heaviest traveled route from Cordelia is via Napa Junction and the Carquinez Bridge. The distance from Sacramento to Four- teenth and Broadway, Oakland, via this route is 96.0 miles, of which a distance of 11.2 miles (north of the Carquinez Bridge), is over county road. The second route is via the Benicia-Martinez ferry and the Franklin Canyon county road, the latter being a shorter and quicker route than via the state highway. The distance via this route is 97.3 miles, of which distance 10.9 miles through the Franklin Canyon is a county road. It is also possible to reach San Francisco through Marin County, either by branching off at Napa Junction and going via Napa and the Black Point cut-off or by branching off 5.8 miles south of Napa Junction and using the Sears Point toll road. The distance from Sacramento to the Sausalito ferry is 115.4 miles via Napa and the state highway, and 107.8 miles via the Sears Point road. Of the 107.8 miles, 5.8 miles is county and 12.2 miles is toll road and 89.8 miles is state highway. 30 ri Comparative mileages and estimated running time from Sacramento to terminals of ferries crossing the bay to San Francisco via most direct existing routes are: Via Antioch toll bridge to Oakland ferry_. Via Carquinez toll bridge to Berkeley ferry. Via Benicia ferry to Berkeley ferry Via Sears Point toll road to Sausalito ferry. Distance in miles 103.0 95.5 96.8* 107.8 Running time 3 hr. 25 min. 2 hr. 50 min. 3 hr. 20 min. 3 hr. 15 min. These various routes and the mileages via each one are shown on Plate No. III. b. Highway connections and territory served.-The Victory Highway route via the Antioch Bridge passes through the intensively developed farming districts along the Sacramento River and the delta country, is directly connected to roads which tap the industrial centers along the south side of Suisun Bay and which join the other two main highway routes, passes through the agricultural districts of Contra Costa and Alameda counties to the tunnel road into Oakland, and connects at Walnut Creek with a county highway leading directly to San Jose and the southerly coast points. The route via the Benicia ferry connects the important centers of Davis, Dixon, Vacaville and Fairfield, and although leading directly to the east bay cities, serves, through alternate routes and direct connec- tions, the same territory south of Suisun Bay as the Victory Highway. The route via the Carquinez Bridge also connects directly with roads. leading to the Napa and Sonoma valleys, Russian River points, Lake County and the Redwood Empire. It is, therefore, a central artery of traffic which is so situated that it connects with all important sectors in the most direct and practical manner, and still affords the fastest route for trunk highway traffic. The routing through Marin County to Sausalito is an alternate or branch highway for those whose destination is Marin County points, or who prefer to go directly into San Francisco, avoiding east bay suburban and urban traffic. c. Physical conditions and possible highway improvements.-The Victory Highway route follows along the Sacramento River levee for a long distance, has considerable curvature in its alignment and requires careful driving in many places. It is paved throughout, the pave- ment being in generally fair condition. It could only be straightened and widened with difficulty and at great expense, owing to the cost of right of way, widening the levees and the numerous sloughs and river crossings. It can not be made to serve the northerly coast points as well as the highway via Fairfield does. The state highway from Sacramento to Cordelia passes through a level country that, with the possible exception of crossing the Yolo basin, offers no obstacle to highway construction. The governing factors in relocating this highway would be the cost of right of way and local objection of property owners and small towns. The present road is well paved, has practically level grades and no dangerously sharp curves, but is indirect in routing even between adjacent towns. It is possible to save around 8 miles by building a direct highway from Sacramento to Cordelia, but less extensive realignments can be made along the present route at practically any point where justified from *Does not include distance by ferry. $ ! To Sacramento 132,000 FAIRFIELD NAPA 40,000 PETALUMA 13000 S.H. Rte. 53 100,000 103,000 S H. Rte. 8 35,000 SUISUN 151,000 161,000 NAPA JCT. 131,004 Plate II-between 30 and 31. S.H. Rte. 7 120,000 115,000 Z 20,000+ S.H. Route ! Sears 57,000 Suisun 18,000 PDOI BENICIA VALLEJO Bay 136,000 Pablo San 136,000+ Bay 1 1 1 I 000.91 48,000 175,000 MARTINEZ 49,000 Franklin Canyon Rd. 213,000 RICHMOND 215,000 SAN RAFAEL SAN ANSELMO NO TRAFFIC COUNT 506,000 329,000 529,000 43000 195,000 —— ALBANY 192000 226,000- BERKELEY 10,000 D SAUSALITO 21,000 + 133,000 133,000 OAKLAND PACIFIC San SAN LEANDRO ALAMEDA Dublin Canyon Rd 123,000 SAN FRANCISCO S.H. Rte 5 132,000- *** HAYWARD 76,000 00*51 AURA S. SAN FRANCISCO 230,000 187,000 NO TRAFFIC COUNT Francisco 482,000- UNDER CONSTRUCTION £========= 96,000 Niles Canyon Rd. TOLL BRIDGE A…………… ==1381 61,000 ramm 138,000 WS.H.Rte.68 S.H.Rte. 2 194,000 ••IZLEAN NILES 105,000 Bay MATEO 548,000 کے S.H Rte. 55 ಬಿ OCEAN 42,000- 89,000 106,000 41.000 |45,000 REDWOOD CITY To San Jose 496,000 369,000 PLATE NO. I INVESTIGATION OF TOLL BRIDGES TRAFFIC CHART S.F. BAY REGION TOTAL VEHICLE TRAFFIC - JULY 1928 = Width proportional to Number Vehicles. = Urban traffic districts. Actual counts taken by Ferry and Bridge Company's, and estimated traffic for month from State Highway counts on July 15 and 16. F.M. i į PLATE II Traffic Chart San Francisco Bay Region. Opp. p. 30. ** L ***. - 1 1 F.M. MARIN COUNTY Proposed Golden Gate Bridge SAN MATEO COUNTY lord SAN FRANCISCO M Rte.l San Francisco Bay Rte.l sed State Highway Revision San Pablo Plate III-between 30 and 31. βαν RICHMOND Rte.14 BERKELEY SEARS PT. TOLL ROAD OAKLAND www Franklin Canyon Rd RODEO ALAMEDA COUNTY NAPA Rte. 8 NAPA JCT. Rte. 8 COUNTY NAPA • VIA CARQUINEZ BRIDGE=95.5 MILES_ CORDELIA IH Proposed American Canyon Road VALLEJO CARQUINEZ BRIDGE Rte.7 VIA NAPA =115.4 MILES SEARS POINT TOLL ROAD-107,8 MILES WALNUT CREEK Suisun Bay MARTINEZ FERRY MARTINEZ FAIRFIELD CONTRA ANTIOCH.. VIA ANTIOCH BRIDGE = 103.0 MILES COSTA COUNTY · Rte. 7 VACAVILLE SOLANO VIA BENICIA-MARTINEZ FERRY-96.8 MI. •Not including Ferry travel COUNTY RIO VISTA DIXON ANTIOCH BRIDGE Rte.53 Rte. 7 Pacific Highway West DAVIS Rte. 6 YOLO COUNTY LEGEND Sacramen River Rte. 3. East Side and. Victory Highway SACRAMENTO SACRAMENTO COUNTY W State Highways. County Roads. x PLATE NO. III INVESTIGATION OF TOLL BRIDGES MAP SHOWING THROUGH HIGHWAY ROUTES AFFECTING TOLL BRIDGES AND FERRIES BETWEEN E SACRAMENTO AND BAY DISTRICT { Ferries. Toll Bridges. # PLATE III-Through Highway Routes Affecting Toll Bridges and Ferries Between Sacra- mento and Bay District. Opp. p. 30. î 31 an economic standpoint. From Cordelia to the Carquinez Bridge a more direct route via what is known as American Canyon has been under consideration for some time. This connection would reduce the distance from Cordelia to the bridge by 5.6 miles, and the distance to Marin County via the Sears Point road by a slightly smaller amount. It is also possible to shorten the distance between Rodeo and Wildcat Creek near Richmond by 23 miles by a major line change. The routing via the Benicia-Martinez ferry is also capable of improvement. The present state highway from Martinez to Crockett is very crooked and it could be straightened materially and widened, but it is probable that the distance can not be shortened materially over the present Franklin Canyon road. However, there will still be the disadvantage of using a ferry for crossing the bay against the bridge on the other route, and it will be shown that there was considerable heavier traffic via the Carquinez route before the bridge was built. d. Comparative traffic studies. The most general indication of the relative importance of each of the above routes from a traffic standpoint is a comparison of the number of vehicles using the Carquinez and Antioch bridges and the Benicia ferry. The total for July, 1928, was as follows: Carquinez Bridge Antioch Bridge Benicia-Martinez ferry Rodo-Vallejo ferry Martinez-Benicia ferry Since figures prepared by the American Toll Bridge Company, who operate the Carquinez Bridge, show that the building of the bridge has apparently increased the total traffic via these routes some 33 per cent over what might be expected were the Rodeo-Vallejo ferry still in operation, it would be a fairer comparison of the relative importance of the different routes to show ferry traffic figures instead of the traffic over the Carquinez Bridge, which replaced it. The total vehicles in 1926 (which was before the opening of the bridge to traffic) were as follows: 136,248 19,189 15,715 599,155 171,422 In addition to the Rodeo ferry traffic there were 113,200 vehicles which used the Monticello Steamship Company steamers direct into San Francisco, which traffic has fallen off over half since the bridge was built. As shown by these figures, the importance of the Carquinez Bridge as a traffic artery is outstanding. An indication of where this traffic originates and is destined on the north side of the bridge is given by the state highway traffic counts at Napa Junction. The counts for July 15 and 16, 1928 (Sunday and Monday), are as follows: S 7/15/28 6961 5620 9282 7/16/28 2719 2885 4016 North of junction on Napa road--. East of junction on Sacramento road___. South of junction on road to Vallejo and the bridge. Counts show total traffic in both directions for 16 hours each day. Sixteen hour traffic counts taken at Carquinez Bridge for same two days were 7084 and 3239 for Sunday and Monday, respectively. * 32 Without an origin destination check it is not possible to say how many vehicles crossing the Carquinez Bridge are traveling to and from the direction of Napa and how many to and from the direction of Sacramento. It appears from the above counts, however, that the north and south traffic via Napa is somewhat larger at least on Sundays and holidays and about equal on other days. As an indication of the present importance of a route from Napa Junction via the Black Point cut-off to Marin County and the Sausa- lito ferries the only recent available figures are the state highway traffic counts for January 15 and 16, 1928, at the Petaluma Creek Bridge east of the junction of the Black Point cut-off with the Redwood Highway south of Petaluma, and the count for the same days taken south of Napa Junction. South of Napa Junction Petaluma Creek Bridge Crossing the Bay via Oakland Ferries.. Alameda Ferry Berkeley Ferry Richmond Ferry. Dumbarton Bridge. From an origin destination check of the transbay traffic between San Francisco and east bay points, made by the California Railroad Com- mission in August, 1928, the following table has been prepared. It will be noted that about 80 per cent of the total is inter-city traffic and that out of 136,000 vehicles crossing the Carquinez Bridge during the same month only about 32,000 came from San Francisco and the penin- sula. Increased facilities for transbay travel, particularly to east bay points north of Oakland mole, will increase traffic over the Car- quinez Bridge to a considerable extent. TRANSBAY VEHICLE TRAFFIC Transbay total.. Total per cent. Total vehicle traffic in July, 1928 246,000 19,000 91,000 10,000 41,000 407.000 100 Sacramento and Napa Valley Between San Francisco and the Peninsula and 10,180 230 16,620 3,700 2,620 *33,350 8.2 Crockett and Antioch 4,080 90 5,530 660 0 10,360 2.5 Oakland and East Bay 1/15/28 5553 1113 207,010 17,510 65,180 5,240 27,210 322,150 79.1 San Leandro to Niles 3,860 270 260 90 5,590 1/16/28 2328 290 10,070 2.6 Livermore and San Joaquin Valley 19,070 770 2,960 310 5,230 28,340 6.9 Miscella- neous indirect traffic 1,800 130 450 0 350 2,730 0.7 Total traffic to even thousand vehicles for July, 1928, taken from records of California Railroad Commission for Southern Pacific ferries, records of Golden Gate Ferry Company and Dumbarton Bridge Company. Distribution of traffic from California Railroad Commission's origin-destination traffic check dated August 29, 1928. Indirect traffic includes all vehicles going to their destination by a roundabout way, apparently having business at more than one point enroute or on a sightseeing trip. *Comparison with check of route traffic via San Pablo Avenue indicates that between 1,000 and 2,000 vehicles whos destination is Sacramento do not go via Carquinez Bridge route. e. Legal and political data. The state highways which have been considered in the above discussion were included therein under the first highway bond act of 1909, they are: Route No. 6-Sacramento to Woodland Junction. 7-Woodland Junction to Benicia. Route No. Route No. 14-Martinez to Oakland. Route No. 8-Cordelia Junction to Ignacio, via Napa. Route No. 1-(portion) Ignacio to Sausalito. همگن ** 33 The law stated that "the route or routes of said state highways shall be selected by the Department of Engineering and said route shall be so selected and said highways so laid out and constructed or acquired as to constitute a continuous and connected state highway system running north and south through the state traversing the Sacra- mento and San Joaquin valleys and along the Pacific coast by the most direct and practicable routes, connecting the county seats of the several counties through which it passes and joining the centers of population, together with such branch roads as may be necessary to connect there- with the several county seats lying east and west of such state highway." In accordance with this act, the highway commission chose a route from the Sacramento Valley to the bay district through Fairfield to the Benicia-Martinez ferry, then passing through Martinez the county seat of Contra Costa County running by way of Crockett and Rodeo, instead of though the Franklin Canyon. Only persons having busi- ness at places along the way now travel via Martinez and the state highway to reach Vallejo or points south of it and coming from Oak- land direct to Martinez the Franklin Canyon road is the preferable way. However, the present state highway having thus been established, it would be necessary in order to abandon any portion of it to get the county through which it passes to agree to take it over. In order to connect up the state highway system to the Carquinez Bridge, it would be necessary to add to it either 12.8 miles of county road from Napa Junction or about 14.2 miles of new road for a more direct route from Cordelia going via the American Canyon. f. Summary and conclusions relative to Carquinez Straits and parallel bridges.-The route from Sacramento to Oakland and San Francisco via state highway to Napa Junction, county road to the Carquinez Bridge and state highway again from the bridge to Oakland is a few miles shorter in distance than either the complete state highway route through Martinez or the Victory Highway via Antioch. The running time going via the Carquinez Bridge route is considerably less than via the Victory Highway and Antioch Bridge or via the state highway through Martinez although in the latter case the difference in time is practically all due to the difference in time of crossing a bridge instead of a ferry. The state highway either via the Carquinez Bridge or via Martinez is more adaptable to being shortened and to improvement in traffic conditions than the Victory Highway. The proposed American Can- yon cut-off would give the Carquinez Bridge route a still greater advantage over the state highway through Martinez. The Carquinez Bridge also serves traffic from the east bay cities to the north coast county points better than the other two crossings can do it. Its importance as a traffic artery is proved by the record of traffic passing over it as compared to the Antioch Bridge and the Martinez ferry. Traffic studies indicate that the building of a bridge has increased the traffic about 33 per cent over what would be expected if the Rodeo ferry had been continued in service. Traffic over the Martinez ferry and via the Monticello Steamship Company has fallen off since the bridge was first opened to traffic. 3-64951 זי 34 At the present time the amount of traffic using the Carquinez Bridge and parallel routes, including the Monticello Steamship Com- pany traffic direct to San Francisco, does not warrant the construction of another bridge either near Martinez or between there and the Carquinez Bridge where efforts to secure a franchise have been made. Considering physical advantages and traffic conditions it appears that the logical route for a trunk line highway is via the Carquinez Bridge, with branch roads serving Martinez and Napa which are county seats and also serving as a part of alternate through highways. The Victory Highway route must be considered of secondary import- ance and its development as a trunk highway to the bay district wait until conditions require a second such route. It must be remembered that in improving the present state road and connecting it with the Carquinez Bridge that traffic and consequent revenue is being brought to a privately owned bridge at the expense of the people of the state, and although the Antioch Bridge is not of primary importance in state highway traffic at the present time, it is impossible to ignore it from further consideration. As is shown later in the report, the common ownership of all these bridge and ferry crossings requires their consideration where the question of the state acquiring any one of them is concerned. 4. Upper San Francisco and San Pablo Bay bridges. a. For transbay traffic north of the Golden Gate there are two existing routes: 1-The Sears Point toll road, 12.2 miles in length, which follows along the north shore of the bay from Vallejo and crosses the Napa River, Sonoma and Tolay creeks to a junction with the Black Point cut-off (Route 8 of the state highway system). 2-The Rich- mond-San Rafael ferry from Point Richmond to Point San Quentin. Two toll bridges are proposed, one from Point San Pablo to McNears Point which route is just to the north of the Richmond-San Rafael ferry and will replace it, the other from Albany to the vicinity of Tiburon in Marin County (See Plate IV. p. 38). To compare distances via these crossings the mileage from University and San Pablo avenues, Berkeley, to both San Rafael and Petaluma will be given, thus indicating their relative proximity to central Marin County and to the Russian River and north coast districts. Berkeley to San Rafael: Via Sears Point toll road- Via proposed Richmond-San Rafael Bridge. Via proposed Albany-Tiburon Bridge_. Berkeley to Petaluma : Via Sears Point toll road__. Via proposed Richmond-San Rafael Bridge_ Via proposed Albany-Tiburon Bridge___ 50 miles. 18 miles. 25 miles. 51 miles. 40 miles. 46 miles. In both cases the shortest route is via the Richmond-San Rafael ferry or the proposed bridge that will replace it and the longest route is via the Sears Point toll road. It will be remembered that: the latter also serves traffic from Napa and Sacramento valleys destined to Marin County and affords a quicker route for this traffic than the other routes do. • 1 35 For comparative distances to northern Redwood Highway points the mileage from Berkeley to Cloverdale is given. Via Richmond-San Rafael ferry and Redwood Highway-- Via Carquinez Bridge, Napa, Calistoga and Alexander Valley road 84 miles. 97 miles. Via Carquinez Bridge, Napa, Sonoma and Santa Rosa___ 105 miles. Via Sears Point toll road and county road cut-off to Petaluma 97 miles. b. Highway connections and territory served. It is therefor seen that the Sears Point toll road is a direct conection serving traffic coming from Napa and Vallejo or points between, which is destined for Marin County or other points as far north as the Russian River resorts. From there on up the coast the traffic is served equally well or perhaps better by the routes through Napa and either Calistoga or Santa Rosa. Both these routes are paved or well surfaced, the former being a county road from Napa to the junction with state highway route No. 1 north of Healdsburg and the latter over state highway throughout except a short cut-off into Sonoma instead of following the state highway through Shellville. The Richmond-San Rafael ferry or the proposed bridge affords the most direct connection from districts and connecting routes south of the Carquinez Bridge for traffic that has its destination in Marin County or the Russian River resorts. For traffic going up the Redwood Highway north of Santa Rosa it competes with the routes via Napa mentioned above. The proposed bridge from Albany across the bay does not seem to have any advantages over the Richmond-San Rafael route except for traffic from Alameda County desiring to reach lower Marin County points including Mill Valley. c. Physical conditions and possible highway improvements. The Sears Point road is built on good alignment and level grade over tidal lands. It is surfaced with oiled gravel and will require considerable maintenance until the roadbed becomes compact and settled. A direct connection, 2 miles in length, is now under construction, leading to the county road between Vallejo and Napa Junction and it will ulti- mately join with the proposed relocation through American Canyon. However, for the traffic being considered here, the connection is through Vallejo to the Carquinez Bridge. The present Richmond-San Rafael ferry connects with state highway route 69 at San Quentin and, at the other end with streets in the city of Richmond leading to several points along San Pablo avenue (route 4). It is proposed to construct a toll bridge about 2 miles to the north of the ferry which will also require the improvement of about 2 miles of road from Richmond to the bridgehead and of 2.5 miles of road from San Rafael to McNears Point in Marin County. The length of the proposed bridge structure will be 3.4 miles. The proposed bridge from Point Fleming, opposite Albany, to Bluff Point about 2 miles from Tiburon and the terminus of state highway route 52, will be 6.5 miles long. It will require a connection from the bridgehead to San Pablo avenue, Albany (route 14) about one-half mile long, and the improvement of the 6 miles of state highway and 2 miles of county road in Marin County to bring them up to state highway standards. 36 d. Comparative traffic studies.-The existing transbay traffic north of the Golden Gate consists of that using the Richmond-San Rafael ferry averaging about 28,000 vehicles per month and the Sears Point road averaging about 20,000 vehicles per month. It is, therefore, impossible to compare the relative importance of the routes mentioned by the use of existing traffic figures. Since each of the proposed bridges is estimated to cost between fifteen and twenty million dollars it is evident that they must develop traffic far in excess of the present amount in order to pay any return to the owners. e. Legal and political considerations.-The only consideration in con- nection with the acquisition by the state of any one of the above crossings is the necessity or advisability of adding another route to the highway system to serve one or both of the following purposes: 1. To provide a direct connection between the east bay districts and Marin County, there being no such existing state highway route, or, 2. To provide an additional route from the east bay to the north coast counties and the Redwood Highway. This is now served by the state highway and Carquinez Bridge route through Napa. f. Summary and conclusions relative to north bay crossings.-There are at the present time two routes crossing the bay north of the Golden Gate, the Richmond-San Rafael ferry and the Sears Point toll road which follows along the north shore. Franchises have been granted for two proposed toll bridges with general routes from Richmond to San Rafael and from Albany to Tiburon. The former bridge will afford the shorter route for places in the vicinity of San Rafael and to the north of there, and the latter will probably serve lower Marin County to better advantage. Both bridges are estimated by their proponents to cost between fifteen and twenty million dollars although the length of the former is 3.4 miles against 6.5 miles for the latter and it is thought that its cost will be higher than this estimate. In order to support one of the bridges alone there will have to be traffic developed several times that now using the existing crossings. 5. Lower San Francisco Bay crossings. a. Traffic crossing the bay to San Francisco and the peninsula may be divided into that traffic which originates along the east shore of the bay and that which originates along routes leading to Stockton and the San Joaquin Valley. The bulk of the traffic from the east bay district naturally originates in the urban centers of Oakland and Alameda and to a less degree in the smaller centers of San Leandro, Hayward, Niles and other small towns along the highways leading south toward San Jose. The east bay district is separated from the interior valleys by a range of hills or mountains with passes through which highways have been constructed. These are as follows: The tunnel road east of Oakland which has been referred to before. This not only connects with the Martinez ferry and Antioch Bridge routes but also with the most direct route to Stockton via the Marsh Creek road and Borden Highway, all of it being county road. The Dublin Canyou road running east from Hayward, which is a part of the state highway route 5 leading to Stockton and the rest of the San Joaquin Valley via Manteca. 37 The Niles Canyon road running east from Niles and joining with the Dublin Canyon road of the state highway system at Livermore. The portion from Niles to Livermore is county road. The Mission Pass road running east from a point just north of Mission San Jose and joining the Niles Canyon road at Sunol. This is also a county road. Of these four roads the Dublin and Niles Canyon roads are of particular interest at the present time. The former has a direct connection with the San Mateo-Hayward Bridge now nearing com- pletion and the latter with the Dumbarton Bridge leading to Redwood City and Palo Alto. The tunnel road is of only minor importance in the consideration of the proposed inter-city bridge, and the Mission Pass road is used as a short cut from San Jose to the interior valley region. Comparative mileages from Stockton and from Manteca on the state. highway leading south through the San Joaquin Valley, to San Fran- cisco over the various routes are shown on plate IV. From Manteca to the Civic Center in San Francisco the distances are as follows: Via the San Mateo-Hayward Bridge and the Dublin Canyon, 88.6 miles of which distance 67.7 miles is state highway. Via the Dumbarton Bridge and Niles Canyon, 100.0 miles of which distance 54.5 miles is over state highway. Via the Oakland ferry and the Dublin Canyon, 73 miles not including about 3.5 miles of ferry travel. Of the total distance 54.6 miles is state highway. Via the Foothill Boulevard from Hayward to Oakland the total distance is 74.1 miles and 58.6 miles of it is state highway. These various routes and mileages are more clearly shown on Plate IV. b. Highway connections and territory served.-The state highway from Stockton and Manteca running through Tracy, Livermore, the Dublin Canyon and Hayward is the most direct and centrally located trunk road. It connects with the west side highway of the San Joaquin Valley at Tracy and with other important county highways leading into Contra Costa County and to the delta region. The Borden High- way, which can be shortened somewhat by economic improvements, is a more direct route from Stockton and points north into the latter dis- tricts but cannot serve the other San Joaquin Valley points as well as the state highway. The route through Dublin Canyon being the near- est to the east bay cities is naturally a more important route than either the Niles Canyon or Mission Pass routes. c. Physical conditions and possible highway improvements.-The state highway route via the Dublin Canyon is being improved as fast as time and a reasonable financial program will permit. The portion of the highway through the canyon has just recently been regraded and widened in accordance with present day highway standards. The county road from Livermore through Niles Canyon is paved and on fair alignment to Sunol Glen at the entrance to the canyon. The route through the canyon is crooked and narrow in many places, has 4 grade crossings, 5 bridges with sharp turns at the ends, 2 poor grade separa- tions and one short tunnel. Owing to the narrowness of the canyon and the fact that there are two railroads that also use it, it is impractical to bring this road to the same standards as the Dublin 38 Canyon road, and particularly so while it remains under the jurisdic- tion of the county. The Mission Pass road is a fair graveled road used by a relatively small amount of traffic. The connection to the San Mateo-Hayward Bridge on the easterly side is over a paved county road on fair standards of width and align- ment from Castro Valley Junction east of Hayward to Mt. Eden. From there to the bridgehead 2.5 miles of narrow county road is being widened by the county and 2 miles of 30 feet concrete pavement is being constructed by the bridge company. On the westerly end the bridge company is also building a 30 foot concrete pavement to the Bay Shore Highway (route 68) opposite Fourth avenue, San Mateo. The connections to the Dumbarton Bridge on the easterly side are over paved county roads with several jogs from the junction south of Niles to Centerville and Newark and just beyond the latter point join- ing with an oiled gravel road on dredger fill constructed by the bridge company. At the westerly end the bridge company's oiled gravel road over the tide flats joins with the county roads to Redwood City and Palo Alto. These county roads are paved although much of it is rather narrow oiled macadam and the general line is indirect, having several right angle turns in it. When the Bay Shore Highway is completed to a connection with the bridge road, probably two or three years hence, a very much better connection will be afforded for traffic going north and, of course, upon the final completion of the Bay Shore road to San Jose a reasonably good connection will be afforded for all travel across the bridge. The present state highway route through Oakland requires traffic to use what are practically city streets from Hayward on to the ferry and into San Francisco. The Bay Shore Highway on the peninsula side, when construction work now under way is completed, will provide the best means of entrance into all sections of San Francisco. There is a movement under way to improve the Borden Highway- Marsh Creek road, tunnel route, from Stockton direct to Oakland. Final improvements in alignment as recommended in the report made by the Division of Highways would shorten the distance to about 64 miles. d. Comparative traffic studies.-As a measure of the relative use of the various routes into the interior described above the state highway traffic counts for July 1928 are given. They are: Route Dublin Canyon, count taken east of Hayward_. Niles Canyon, count taken at Niles__. Mission Pass, count taken at Junction with Rt. 5-- Sun. 7404 2793 1845 Mon. 2672 1149 1056 On the same dates the traffic over the Dumbarton Bridge was 2689 and 852 vehicles respectively. From the California Railroad Commission's origin-destination check, previously referred to and the July 1928 vehicle traffic counts, the following table has been prepared with particular reference to traffic from the peninsula to lower east bay districts and San Joaquin Valley routes. The estimated traffic that will use the San Mateo-Hayward Bridge does not take into account the increase in total traffic due to providing a new or improved traffic route. Traffic over the Carquinez J • → ! # PETALUMA VIA TOMASINI BRIDGE = 46 MILES MARIN Rte l. CO, PACIFIC Rte./ OCEAN Rte. 8 San SEARS PT. TOLL ROAD ** SAN RAFAEL F:M. Plate IV-between 38 and 39. Rte.52 SAN FRANCISCO CI), NAPA Bay VIA RICHMOND- SAN RAFAEL BRIDGE - 40 MILES Pablo CARQUINEZ BRIDGE Proposed Bridge RICHMOND Propos oposed Bridge 3: Bayshore Hwy. Rte. 68 CO, San Rte. 8 2 ھے Franfsco SAN MATEO VALLEJO VIA SEARS POINT ROAD=51 MILES To Sacramento ALBANY/ ALAMEDA Rte. 7 Rte. 2. ete. 55 !BERKELEY OAKLAND Ray Suisun mito duran dan anmum annum down than Chu HD S SOLANO Tunnel Road SAN MATEO Bay CONTRA || CONCORD "/ REDWOOD CITY || WALNUT CREEK Rte. 5 VIA BORDEN HIGHWAY 75.8 MILES ولات ALAMEDA DUMBARTON BRIDGE PALO ALTO COSTA SAN MATEO HAYWARD BRIDGE MT. EDEN HAYWARD Marsh Creek Rood Dublin Canyon VIA STATE HIGHWAY- 70.9 MILES VIA SAN MATEO BRIDGE 88.6 MILES = Rte.5 CENTERVILLE, NILES co, CO, Niles Canyon LIVERMORE To San Jose W Mission Pass ´´VIA DUMBARTON BRIDGE=100.0 Mi W Rte. 5 - رارات Highway Borden JOAQUIN To Sacramento Rte. 4 LEGEND = STATE HIGHWAYS = COUNTY ROADS 12 MILES :)), STOCKTON Rte.5 Rte. 6 5 MILES TRACY West Side Highway (2 1. MANTECA PLATE NO.ZZ INVESTIGATION OF TOLL BRIDGES MAP SHOWING THROUGH HIGHWAY ROUTES AFFECTING TOLL BRIDGES AND FERRIES BETWEEN SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AND BAY DISTRICT To Fresno = FERRIES = TOLL BRIDGES ES 1 # PLATE IV-Through Highway Routes Affecting Toll Bridges and Ferries Between San Joa- quin Valley and Bay Districts. Opp p. 38. 3. 9 2 ·O G32A Mga M 1 39 ANALYSIS OF TRANSBAY VEHICLE HFFIC FOR JULY, 1928, B From San Francisco and Marin County to- (a) East Bay cities and routes north of San Leandro: Per cent. Number Via (b) San Leandro to Niles: Per cent. Number (c) San Joaquin Valley and Livermore: Per cent. Number. (d) Santa Clara Valley and coast: Per cent Number From points Belmont to San Francisco County line to- (a) East Bay Cities and routes north of San Leandro: Per cent.. Number (b) San Leandro to Niles. Per cent Number. (c) San Joaquin Valley and Livermore: Per cent Number From points south of San Carlos to- (a) East Bay cities and routes north of San Leandro: Per cent. Number (b) San Leandro to Niles: Per cent.- Number (c) San Joaquin Valley and Livermore: Per cent. Number Miscellaneous indirect travel- Per cent. Number Total per cent. Total number. Oakland ferries 87.08 214,217 1.48 3,641 7.54 18,548 0.45 1,107 1.62 3,985 0.02 49 0.05 123 1.30 3,198 0.07 172 0.16 394 0.23 566 · 100.00 246,000 Alameda Ferry : 89.52 17,008 1.19 226 3.81 724 0.71 135 2.86 543 0.24 46 00 1.43 272 0 0 0.24 46 00 100.00 19,000 N ORIGIN-DESTINATION CHECK OF CALIFORNIA RAILROAD COMMISSION, AUGUST, 1928 Richmond Ferry 91.63 9,163 0.88 88 3.08 308 0 0.88 88 0 0 0 0 3.53 353 0 0 0.0 0 100.00 10,000 Berkeley Ferry 93.43 85,021 0.29 264 3.25 2,958 0.08 73 1.43 1,301 0 0 0 1.36 1,238 0 0 0.04 36 0.12 109 100.00 91,000 Subtotal all ferries 88.92 ¹325,409 1.13 4,219 6.17 22,538 0.36 1,315 1.62 5,917 0.03 95 0.03 123 1.38 5,061 0.05 172 0.13 476 0.18 675 100.00 366,000 Dumbarton Bridge 5.99 2,456 3.32 1,361 5.10 2,091 0.62 254 10.99 4,506 2.93 1,201 2.68 1,099 54.99 22,546 7.39 3,030 4.98 2,042 1.01 414 100.00 41,000 Total transbay traffic 80.55 327,865 1.37 5,580 6.05 24,629 0.39 1,569 2.56 10,423 0.32 1,296 0.30 1,222 6.78 27,607 0.79 3,202 0.62 2,518 ¹ Divided as follows: North on San Pablo, 39,300; East Bay cities north of the estuary (except tunnel road), 240,000; Tunnel road, 7,200; San Leandro to Estuary, 38,500. 0.27 1,089 100.00 407,000 Estimated portion of existing traffic San Mateo-Hay ward Bridge 20,000 5,000 20,000 1,000 8,000 1,000 1,000 13,000 2,000 2,000 1,000 .74,000 x 12 x 0.90= 799,000 per year ―― 40 P Bridge during its first year of service was practically double that over the ferry the year previous. Traffic over all routes passing through Vallejo and Benicia showed an increase of about 33 per cent over what would be expected by the normal increase in ferry traffic. Part of this increase, however, must be credited to the inauguration of the Berkeley ferry in June, 1927, a month after the bridge was opened to traffic. A graphic record of vehicle traffic between San Francisco and east bay district via all ferry routes, prepared by the California Railroad Commission, is also shown here. The abnormal changes in traffic via a particular route due to providing other facilities and changes in toll rates are clearly shown thereon. The San Francisco Bay Toll Bridge Company, owners of the San Mateo-Hayward Bridge have estimated the traffic which will use their bridge at 1,322,000 autos and 151,000 trucks, which is an 80 per cent increase in traffic over the estimate of present traffic that would be diverted over this bridge. For a discussion of the location and expected traffic over a bridge connecting the municipal districts on each side of the bay, reference is made to the Report of the Board of Engineers, Transbay Bridge, San Francisco, May, 1927, and to the record of hearings before the Com- mittee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, March 21-22, 1928. An additional indication of the primary importance of local intercity travel over the ferries is given by the following figures also derived from the California Railroad Commission's origin-destination count. Route North on San Pablo Avenue_ East Bay Cities, Albany to San Leandro__. From San Francisco per cent 10.70 75.86 Tunnel and Redwood roads_ South on 14th Street and Foothill Boulevard___ 2.00 6.84 South on Peninsula per cent 1.00 3.07 0.10 0.43 4.60 Total per cent 11.70 78.93 2.10 7.27 Total 95.40 100.00 e. Legal and political data.—The state highway route leading from the interior to the lower east bay district through the Dublin Canyon is of greater service than the other roads and questions to be considered relative to desirability of the state acquiring either or both the Dum- barton and Hayward-Niles bridges are the economic advisability of a transbay bridge on a state route instead of the present route via Oak- land and the ferries and which of the existing or proposed crossings would best serve the public demand. In the case of taking over or building a bridge between the San Mateo-Hayward Bridge opposite the Dublin Canyon and the proposed intercity bridges mileage would be added to the state highway system without abandonment of any of the existing state road. f. Summary and conclusions relative to lower San Francisco Bay crossings.-The existing state highway route, viz, Dublin Canyon route, to the lower bay region, seems to be the most logical one for a primary road. It is now constructed to higher standards, and carries more traffic than the other county highway routes via Niles Canyon and the Mission Pass. ! 1 000 000 900 000 700 000 600 000 300 000 400 000 300 000 200 000 100000 10.000 80.000 70 000 60000 50 000 40 000 30 000 20 000 10 000 9000 8000 7.000 6000 5000 4 000 3000 2000 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 NUMBER OF VEHICLES 1914 100 1914 1915 1915 1916 1917 CALIFORNIA RAILROAD COMMISSION AND 1916 1918 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT TRANSPORTATION DIVISION VEHICULAR FERRY TRAFFIC BETWEEN SAN FRANCISCO AND EAST BAY DISTRICT VIA ALL ROUTES CREEK ROUTE 1917 1919 1918 1919 1920 1920 Map "Graph of Traffic"-between 40 and 41. 1921 1921 Whor HOLIDAŤ SERVICE, COMMENCED SATURDAY SUNDAY A 1921 1922 1922 1923 commerce JAPRIL. 15, 1923….. . DAILY SERVICE 1923 1924 TOTAL" OARLAND FLER ROU OAKLAND 1924 1925 , 1825. CREEK ROUTE SERVICE COMMENCED JANUAR 1926 RICHMOND 1925 1024. SERVICE COMMENCÉO SEPT. 1926 1927 SERVICE COMNENGED | JUNE, 16, 1927. COLDEN GATE BERKELEY ALAMEDA P 1928 Wy 1927 1928 1929 1929 1930 19.30 1000 000 900 000 800 000 700 000 VEHI 600 000 OF 500 000 400 000 300 000 |00 000 200 000 NUMBER 100 000 90 000 80 000 70 000 10 40000 50000 30 000 20 000 10000 9000 8000 7.000 ဒွိ 15 000 000 3 000 2.000 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 1 I GRAPH-Vehicular Ferry Traffic Between San Francisco East Bay Bay District via Routes. Opp. p. 40. and via All FCA Ply Moth 22" 11 41 The San Mateo-Hayward Bridge now nearing completion would afford a quick route for traffic from the state highway going direct into San Francisco and not desiring to pass through Oakland traffic. The Dumbarton Bridge opposite the mouth of Niles Canyon will then become of secondary importance so far as San Francisco traffic is con- cerned. The consideration of the proposed intercity bridge somewhere north of Hunters Point and Bay Farm Island is for the most part an intercity traffic problem, as only about 10 per cent of the traffic using the present ferries comes from outside the limits of San Francisco and the east bay cities, and less than 6 per cent goes via Dublin Canyon or other adjacent routes into the interior. For a discussion of the location and traffic studies of the proposed intercity bridges reference is made to the numerous reports and dis- cussions in connection therewith. 6. The Colorado River Bridge at Ehrenburg. a. Connecting highways.-The Colorado River toll bridge at Ehren- burg is an interstate bridge forming the connecting link between the Mecca to Blythe road in California (state highway route 64), and the Ehrenburg to Phoenix road in Arizona. The bridge replaces a ferry which has been in service at this point for a great many years. Sect. I, Plate I-b, p. 13.) (See The Ehrenburg Bridge was completed and opened to traffic in March, 1928. On June 14, 1928, one of the piers washed out and two spans dropped in the river. Repairs are now under way, but to date the bridge has not been reopened. Traffic is taken across the river by ferry as formerly. The bridge is on the shortest and most direct route between Los Angeles and Phoenix. From Los Angeles to Mecca is paved highway (state highway routes 9 and 26). From Mecca to Blythe (91 miles) is an excellent desert highway (route 64) not paved. From Ehrenburg to Wickenberg (121 miles) is a rough desert road which has been used from fifty to seventy years, but has been improved very little. Parts of the road are very rough. From Wickenberg to Phoenix there is 38 miles of graveled road and 16 miles of pavement. There are two other highway bridges over the Colorado River between California and Arizona; the bridge at Topock south of Needles at the eastern terminus of state highway route 58, and the bridge at Yuma on state highway route 27. There is also a ferry at Parker. The road via Topock is a good desert road and connects with a fair graveled highway in Arizona. The road via Yuma is the heaviest traveled connecting road between California and Arizona. It is paved or has first-class surfacing all the way from Los Angeles to Yuma and connects with a good graveled road in Arizona. Hassayampa to Phoenix (44 miles) is paved. Comparative mileages from Los Angeles to Phoenix are as follows: Los Angeles to Phoenix via Ehrenburg- Los Angeles to Phoenix via Yuma___ Los Angeles to Ash Fork via Ehrenburg. Los Angeles to Ash Fork via Topock 418 479 482 502 From Los Angeles to Phoenix it is therefore 61 miles shorter by way of Ehrenburg than by Yuma, and from Los Angeles to Ash Fork and T 42 the Grand Canyon, it is 38 miles shorter by way of Ehrenburg than by way of Topock. b. Territory served.-The Ehrenburg Bridge is about three miles east of Blythe, which has a population of approximately 2000 and is the largest town in the Palo Verde Valley. This valley, about twenty miles long and five to ten miles wide, is situated in the southeast corner of Riverside County along the Colorado River. The lower end of the valley is in Imperial County. The population of the valley is about 7500. The irrigation system is highly developed and is a veritable garden spot in the desert. Cotton is one of the chief crops. Alfalfa, fruits, and garden produce are also grown. The country surrounding the valley on all sides is barren desert, with no industry except mining. Aside from a gas station or two, there is no habitation between Mecca and the valley, a distance of 90 miles. On the Arizona side of the river there is practically no agricultural development. The local traffic crossing the river at present is therefore very small. The towns along the road between Ehrenburg and Phoenix have only a few hundred inhabitants. The construction of the Boulder Dam will undoubtedly increase the area to be put under irrigation, and may change very radically the local conditions in this part of California and Arizona. c. While the road from Mecca to Blythe is now maintained in good condition, the first 45 miles to Desert Center from Mecca has never· been improved to final line and grade. This improvement is on the next biennium program. From Desert Center east to Blythe, the road has been graded and the last 30 miles has an oil-mixed surface. The road in Arizona is practically unimproved for a long distance. The improvement of this road would undoubtedly increase the traffic by this route very materially. The three and one-half miles from Blythe to the bridge are not state highway. The road and timber bridges on it are narrow and are not constructed for two-way traffic. Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, d. Comparative traffic studies. Twenty-four hour traffic counts taken at the Ehrenberg Bridge for four days, May 27 to May 30, 1928, showed the following totals: May 27, 1928, total vehicles.. May 28, 1928, total vehicles. May 29, 1928, total vehicles. Wednesday, May 30, 1928, total vehicles__ The bridge was in operation from March 15, 1928, to June 14, 1928. The company gave as the average traffic for this period 41 cars per day. Sixteen-hour traffic counts on route 58, route 64, and route 27, for July, 1928, were as follows: Route 58, count at Needles west of city limits-. Count near Bannock__ Route 63, count at Blythe quarantine station_ Count at Desert Center__ Route 27, count at Yuma quarantine station-. Count at Sand Hills maintenance station_ # 1 } T 1 48 49 31 39 I Sunday Monday 7-15-28 7-16-28 611 471 194 237 119 157 84 58 1922 492 1666 396 43 e. Legal and political data.-As noted above, state highway route 64 ends at Blythe. The three miles of road from Blythe to the bridge is not state highway and is in need of widening and improvement. The Ehrenburg Bridge was opened to traffic in March, 1928, and at its meet- ing on April 19, 1928, the California Highway Commission voted "that the Director of Public Works cause a preliminary survey to be made on which to base a recommendation as to the inclusion in the state highway system of a highway from Blythe, Riverside County, to the new inter- state bridge over the Colorado River between the states of California and Arizona, known as the Blythe-Ehrenburg Bridge." An engineer- ing work order was issued in June to the District Highway Engineer for making this survey, but, since two spans of the bridge failed in the middle of June and repairs have not yet been completed, the making of the survey has been postponed. .f. Summary and conclusions relative to southern interstate traffic. From the above traffic counts, it appears that the majority of the inter- state traffic between California and Arizona now goes by way of Yuma. If the Arizona road from Ehrenburg east is improved and the district around Blythe develops due to the construction of the Boulder Dam, it is not unlikely that this shorter route via Ehrenburg will attract the greater part of the through traffic in the future. 44 SECTION V REPORT ON EACH EXISTING TOLL BRIDGE PROJECT (Including one bridge under construction) 1. Toll bridge projects to be described. a. The Carquinez and Antioch bridges owned and operated by the American Toll Bridge Company.—The Antioch Bridge is of secondary importance, and the discussion of it is subordinated to the Carquinez Bridge. Such data as history, organization, financing and purchase by the state must be discussed collectively while data on the construction and operation of the bridges, with the cost thereof, can be taken up separately. b. The Sears Point cut-off bridges, owned and operated by the Sears Point Toll Road Company. The toll road with its three bridges must be considered as a whole in discussing its history, organization, financ- ing, operation and cost while the design and construction of each bridge can be taken up separately. c. The San Mateo-Hayward Bridge, owned and operated by the San Francisco Bay Toll Bridge Company.-This bridge is under construc- tion at the present time and only estimated final costs of construction and estimated cost of operation can be discussed. Under present con- ditions this bridge should become an important connection to the state highway system. d. The Dumbarton Bridge, owned and operated by the Dumbarton Bridge Company.-This bridge should become of secondary importance as a highway connection when the San Mateo-Hayward Bridge is built and will be discussed in less detail. e. The Ehrenburg Bridge, owned and operated by the California- Arizona Bridge Company.-This bridge failed after being put in oper- ation and steps are now being taken to place it in operation again, so that final construction costs and operating data can only be estimated. The bridge provides the only means of crossing the Colorado on state highway route 64, but traffic is very light over it. These bridges were previously listed and their location is shown on Plates 1, 1a and 1b of Section I of this report. The American Toll Bridge Company projects will be very thoroughly discussed and computations shown in detail in order to bring out the principles involved. These same principles are applied in the study of the other projects to give the results shown for each one. CARQUINEZ AND ANTIOCH BRIDGES OF THE AMERICAN TOLL BRIDGE COMPANY 2. General data and information. a. General description of the project.-The Carquinez Bridge is a steel and concrete structure 4982 feet in length which spans the Car- quinez Strait at the entrance to San Pablo Bay. The strait is bounded on the north by Solano County and on the south by Contra Costa 45 M County, the latter county being on the left bank of the stream, there- fore, had jurisdiction in granting of franchise in accordance with the present law. The bridge is just south of Vallejo and its southern terminus is just west of Crockett. The two main channel spans are of the cantilever type, each 1100 feet long and the clearance at pier 4, which is the low end, is 135 feet above highwater. The distance between trusses is 42 feet, which pro- vides for a 30 foot roadway and two four foot sidewalks. The six con- crete cylinders of piers 2 and 3 were constructed in water 100 feet deep and rest on bedrock 135 feet below the surface of the water. Plate V, which follows, shows the general plan of the structure. The Antioch Bridge is also a steel and concrete structure, 4639 feet long, which spans the San Joaquin River at a point about four miles. east of Antioch. The main spans consist of one lift span and one fixed span, each of them 320 feet long, and there is 2080 lineal feet of steel and 1921 lineal feet of concrete viaduct. The clearance above high- water is 75 feet with the lift span closed and 135 feet with it open. The roadway width is 21 feet between curbs and there are no sidewalks. The pier foundations are supported on piling. Plate VI, which follows, shows the general plan of the structure. b. Name, address and officials of the corporation.-The owning and operating company is the American Toll Bridge Company with offices at 525 Market Street, San Francisco. The officers of the corporation are: Oscar H. Klatt, president; George J. Calder, vice president; John T. Whitmire, secretary-treasurer; A. P. Hendrickson, comptroller. Board of directors-Oscar H. Klatt, chairman; George J. Calder, Charles G. Clyne, Dudley D. Sales, Roy O. Shurtleff, Nion R. Tucker, Frank D. Madison, E. M. Mills, Thomas B. Eastland. c. Properties owned and operated. In addition to the Carquinez and Antioch bridges described above, the American Toll Bridge Company owns (through purchase of stock) and operates the Martinez-Benicia ferry. This ferry also crosses Carquinez Strait but at the lower end of Suisun Bay between the towns named. The company also owned the Rodeo-Vallejo ferry which was replaced by the Carquinez Bridge and now has no value as a going concern. d. General relation to state and county roads. As has been described under Section IV, the Carquinez Bridge is a portion of county highway through Vallejo which connects with state highway route 8 at Napa Junction and with route 14 at the south end of the bridge near Crockett; the Antioch Bridge is a portion of county highway following the Sacramento River from Sacramento to Contra Costa County and the Martinez-Benicia ferry is a portion of state highway connecting route 7 at Benicia with route 14 at Martinez. The bulk of the travel from the Sacramento Valley to the bay dis- tricts follows the route crossing the Carquinez Bridge instead of the Martinez-Benicia ferry or the Antioch Bridge. The Antioch Bridge is given consideration more on account of common ownership and relation to the Carquinez Bridge than on account of its importance as a state highway connection. L · • ; ... Name of applicant Dillon Point Development Company San Francisco Transit Company. 46 3. History and organization. a. Early history of the project.-According to a history of the Car- quinez Bridge, prepared by the toll bridge company, Aven J. Hanford in 1917 was the owner of a small but growing grocery business in Vallejo with stores in Oakland and Alameda. Hanford trucked his own mechandise and leaving Vallejo he had to travel the only possible route at that time, via Benicia, Martinez and the Tunnel Road, to reach his stores in Oakland and Alameda. Oscar H. Klatt was at that time a traveling salesman for a San Francisco wholesale grocery outfit and had to travel the same route as Hanford. As a result of their discus- sions as to how travel between Vallejo and the East Bay cities could be improved, the Rodeo-Vallejo Ferry Company was organized by them in 1918. On July 4, 1918, the ferry boat Issaquah made the first trip on the Rodeo-Vallejo run as an auto ferry. * "* Business increased steadily over the ferry and within a few years IIanford and Klatt felt that the eventual and proper means of crossing the strait was by means of a bridge. Therefore in February, 1923, the Rodeo Vallejo Ferry Company applied to the board of supervisors of Contra Costa County for a franchise to build and operate a toll bridge across Carquinez Strait. Other applications for franchises to bridge the strait were filed about the same time, all of which were denied by the board of supervisors, namely: Crockett Land and Cattle Company- Date filed 9-14-22 9-14-22 and 3-5-23 3-5-23 Location Dillon Point to Eckley Dillon Point to Eckley Near Crockett to a point near Great Western Power Company's bridge Later on, July 27, 1926, The Northern California Development Com- pany, a corporation, presented an initiative petition to the board which was also denied. The matter was taken up to the Supreme Court and the action of the board was sustained by it. This application also covered a bridge located between Dillon Point and Eckley. A franchise was granted by the board of supervisors on February 5, 1923, to the Rodeo-Vallejo Ferry Company for a toll bridge across Carquinez Strait and the approval of the War Department permitting its construction was secured April 17, 1923. Anticipating the approval of the War Department actual construction was started on April 2, 1923. Plates VII and VIIa show the general location of the American Toll Bridge Company's bridges and the Martinez ferry with the sur- rounding country and approach roads. b. Corporation history. The American Toll Bridge Company of California was incorporated under the laws of Delaware on May 28, 1923, with an authorized capital stock consisting of 750,000 shares of class “A” non-voting stock, par value $1 and 10,000 shares of class "B" voting-stock, no par value. The company was formed primarily for the purpose of constructing, buying or selling and operating toll bridges. Subscriptions were taken for 10 shares class "B" stock at $100 per : F Wat's Eler.=166.95 Drown of Roadin Pier 1. ·500- Anchor Arm Span #13 Vallejo - N 3°55′21″ W Plate V-between 46 and 47. 1 H: Pier 2. 168 1 Cantilever Arm. Span #12 Mud Line 7 --1100- Suspended Span Canhlever Arm. D Spar #11. Shale < 42'citoc 1 froit -150=-- Grade +0.915% Span #10 Sandstone Pier 3A 237-4 Spar 579 Pier 38 Cantilever Arm. Span #8 Eler to K 4482' 1100' Suspended Span Cantilever Arm. Joh D Span #7 M.H.W = 0 Datum. WEST ELEVATION Span #6 ·30'Roadway + 2-4'Sidewalks. PLAN ,891 -135 Pier 4. GENERAL PLAN OF BRIDGE OVER CARQUINEZ STRAIT SCALE @o 1"≈ 200' -500- Grade +1.51% Plate Ne INVESTIGATION OF TOLL BRIDGES Anchor Arm. XNXX span #5 시시​시 ​Crockett Pier 5. Span #4. S.P.RA7 S.P.R.R.CO Pier 6 A. Pier 68. A-62°03′ 17″ R$573.76' Grade + 1.60% -11324 Approach Viaduct. Span 3. Pier 7A. Pier 78. Span #2. - 32′ Roadway + 2-4'Sidewalks. - 丼 ​Co. Pier, 8A. Pier 88. S.P CO ocks W Span⭑1. SARR Pinter Spans Pierg Pier IQA Pier JOB Per 11. PRCIE. Eler.=115.40 Crown of Roadway. NOV. 30, 1928. .: PLATE V-General Plan of Bridge Over Carquinez Strait. Opp. p. 46. ܢܐ ܘܤܚܚܝ हैं, ܚܪ ܓܕ T.2N.R.2E M.DB&M. 22 15 78 16 To Oakland End of Bridge L Cur CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Plate VI-between 46 and 47. 879' Concrete Trestle £5.00% ID öö KK M.W. 6.2 x oo 7 LIET SPAN OPEN 798′ Steel £3.29% → GITH Mud Line .00 00 56 +114+ 16940* DO 00 Oo San Joaquin R: TTTTTTTA Oo DO 1039' Steel -4639- Oo oo < Level Grade to EAST ELEVATION 00 21' Roadway 00 06 PLAN 20 06 OO oo 320′ Lift Span KKKDI MW 6.2 x LW -2.0 270' Clean NEAR ANTIOCH SCALE @ 1"= 200′ GENERAL PLAN OF BRIDGE OVER Plate No III INVESTIGATION OF TOLL BRIDGES. SAN JOAQUIN RIVER + 320 Fixed Span 70 270 Clear 127' -3% པས་ 1 + Section Line sa A~ 85°34 [R=300' PI Į 1042 Concrete Trestle -6.00% TIT SACRAMENTO COUNTY 1-1 SHERMAN ISLAND End of Bridge To Sacramento DEC 11, 1976 1 70 PLATE VI-General Plan Plan of Bridge Over San Joaquin River Near Antioch. Opp. p. 46. ANO MÀ 818 P 1 A Y Pinole Pt TEAN BUNCH イ ​ND B BOUNDARY LINE L N Ninu Plate VII-between 46 and 47. O O Dutchman In *WE HET; CIFIC Slough 0 Wilson Pt Sears Point Tell Ri TENE=ZEros SOLANO CO CONTRA COSTA CO FUNERARIIN ILLÁN - CARQUINEZ STRAIT STRAIT CROSSINGS AND APPROACH ROADS 0000 SCALE IN MILES REFUGIO LDG STO A PA İVER MARE ISLAND NAVY YARD Son Vallejo UTHERN et fércules PACIFIC Vallejo 10 " MARE AFTE DO-SE QUIENSO IN Proposed MARE ISLAND STR J hegy [Y: CARQUINEZ STRAIT -1. Oleum ISLAN *** pic Roded نہیں Refugio Valtay ND Under Construction) OLL F oute MÁŘE I STRAIT DA Tenby #TANZ 18 Vallejo South Vallejo **** ROUINAZ. 114 200 W 8 Glen Love Z STRAIT Carquinez Bridge $819 20 Có. OLO Vi C Bay Southampton Dillon Pt. Roy! SKOW 966 Port Costa ***** Carquin 288. Ferr 982 WATC AN #2: Army Pt. "T Suisun Pt. W 29 NE * * * A 1 1810 to 1 Julls Head Pt. 2171 SOUTHERN SOUTHERN 3.M. 17 ***** PACIFIC ybnors Goodyear Si Goodyear SOLANO CO. CONTRA COSTA CO. U PACIFI É LAS BULANS BLOG I 281 12 S pi Edith Pt. ご ​Pacheco SAN FRANCE Avon M OS! }) (SAN RAMON N Preston Pr Seal Ids. M BRAND BAY Garnet Pt. D I 13 Roe Island BOUNDARY LINE SANTA S EW ORLEANS Swords gone Seal Bluff Landing N T Governme Ranch File IGHT LIGHT K Works SUISUN CUTOFF Ryer Island Simmons Id Gillespie Pt. LINE Point6 AYTOD :: ï : ÷ ܕ܂ € Ju TRANS • 1 PLATE VII-Carquinez Strait Crossings and Approach Roads, Opp. p. 46. 1. VĒL ŕ Pittsburg Landing TOPEKA *** gelson. V TO EASTBAY Vance M MANe VASTAS 50' **•* • • 1 ND d. 1 { # shell ye~ Kimb Plate VIIa-between 46 and 47. An -Sea level -SAN · SACRAMENTO- S Ista Antioc (BM MARKETS & PA (*) Empire JOAQUIN LJNEJ 30 H (Lone Tree Valley) Scale nooo :: 47 S 全 ​Contour interval 5 and 10 feet. Dation is mean sea level 00 +80 Antioch Sta we are 1 Kilometer 19 R 47′30″ 1 Mile Lone Tree Island A O 1331 M West RIVER RIVER- N THUE NORTH MAG H J H J AGNETIC NORTH # Mayberry #1 # APPROXIMATE MEAN DECLINATION 1907. " ==/ " #1 #1 11 31 " $1 #8 11 Island 11 #1 " " 11 #1 11 11 IT it 11 11 it ## #1 #1 ון น #1 #1 11 11 * 11 38 #1 #1 11 it 11 14 #1 11 11 st 18 #! 11 # 18 $1 11 41 11 11 ANTIOCH BRIDGE AND APPROACH ROADS ·000 SCALE IN MILES st #1 # # # #1 #! N *============ Edition of.1918 18 " 11 11 13 10 11 5). $1 31 44 # "} #1 " al ## 11 =========== Slough SACRAMENTO CONTRA COSTA Marsh Landing 12 If ## If It It " SF 11 17 [I #1 }] Wood-Curtis ding CO CO 16 ================================== # it It 58 It 11 11 11 TO SACRAMEN BM 121°45′ " 200 11 W " COLLINSVILLESURVEYED " Slough === PINGPLANT S #1 Mayberry S 11 10 11 +1 مال # #1 11 t 11 11 11 ========= 38 11 # ANTIOCH TOLL BRIDGE I Gutman Landing PUMPING PLANT SACRAMENTO CONTRA COST TO STOCKTON & TRACY # E PUMPING . ======= ENGRAVED MAR.190 P.B.Marshall, Chief Geographer. T.G.Gerdine, Geographer in charge. Topography by C.F.Eberly, R.M.La Follette, W.R.McKea C.L.Nelson, and W.N.Vance.. Control by L.F.Biggs, B.A.Jenkins, and R.A.Farmer. Surveyed in 1906-1908. SURVEYED IN COOPERATION WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, : Plate VIIa-Antioch Bridge and Approach Roads. Opp. p. 46. 1 47 share and the remainder of the capital stock was issued to 0. H. Klatt and associates for the following assets taken into account at the values shown: Ninety per cent of capital stock of the Rodeo-Vallejo Ferry Com- •pany, 1760 shares preferred and 2740 common All of the issued capital stock of the Delta Bridge Corporation, described below; 5 shares at_. Land: 55 acres more or less bordering Carquinez Strait and one acre more or less bordering the San Joaquin River in Solano County; 19 acres more or less in Contra Costa County. Rights to franchises for construction of two toll bridges, over Carquinez Straits and over the San Joaquin River near Antioch__ 1,500,000 00 6,250,000 00 Total $10,250,000 00 Against this the following credits to capital accounts were set up: Class "A" stock-- Class "B" stock. $750,000 00 999,000 00 8,501,000 00 Initial surplus · $2,499,500 00 500 00 Total $10,250,000 00 The American Toll Bridge Company was also incorporated under the laws of Delaware on May 28, 1923, with an authorized capital stock consisting of 5,000,000 shares of common stock, par value $1. The pur- pose of the company was the construction and operation of toll bridges, one across Carquinez Strait between the counties of Solano and Contra Costa and one across the San Joaquin River between the counties of Contra Costa and Sacramento. This company immediately issued to the American Toll Bridge Company of California $4,999,000 par value of its capital stock in exchange for the following assets which were taken into account at the values shown: Land as described above__ Ninety per cent of capital stock, Rodeo-Vallejo Ferry Company-. Contract with Rodeo-Vallejo Ferry Company relative to right to construct Carquinez Bridge and contract with the Golden Gate Ferry Company subsequently canceled___. Franchise for constructing the Antioch Bridge originally given to the Delta Bridge Corporation (see below) Issued capital stock of Delta Bridge Corporation. Add $1,500,000 00 2,499,500 00 5,000,000 00 1,250,000 00 500 00 Total $10,250,000 00 The difference between the above assets and the par value of the capital stock issued was credited to capital surplus. Under date of September 1, 1923, the American Toll Bridge Com- pany of California donated to the American Toll Bridge Company $1,000,000 par value of the capital stock of the latter company which had been acquired as described above. It was further agreed that of the remaining stock of the American Toll Bridge Company held by the other company, a number of shares not to exceed 1,500,000 would be sold outside of the State of California and the proceeds turned over to the American Toll Bridge Company. The Delta Bridge Corporation which has been referred to in the above history was incorporated under the laws of California, December 21, 1922, with an authorized capital of 10,000 shares of $100 par value each. Its purpose was the construction and operation of a toll bridge across the San Joaquin River near Antioch according to the franchise granted it by Contra Costa County, June 4, 1923. This franchise was 48 M. later assigned to the American Toll Bridge Company of California and included in the assets of that company as listed above. The building of a bridge to replace the then existing Lauritzen ferry above Antioch was being promoted as a part of the reconstruction and paving of the final link in the Victory Highway and the officials of the American Toll Bridge Company undoubtedly undertook the construction of a toll bridge here in order to protect their investment in the Carquinez bridge against the possible competition of a free bridge. The approval of the War Department was secured for this bridge December 20, 1923, and construction began April, 1924. As the Rodeo-Vallejo Ferry Company was an important factor in the organization of the American Toll Bridge Company, further data on its organization will be given. It was organized under the laws of California, March 23, 1918, with a capital stock of 2000 shares at $100 par value each for the purpose of operating ferries across San Pablo Bay between Rodeo and Vallejo. The articles of incorporation were subsequently amended to increase the capital stock to 2000 shares of 7 per cent cumulative preferred and 8000 shares of common stock which were shown on the books opened June 22, 1918, as having a total par value of $200,000. Of this stock $55,500 was held in the treasury and 500 shares of the outstanding stock was issued to A. J. Hanford and O. H. Klatt in exchange for the wharf franchise and other rights held by them at Rodeo and an assignment of the lease from the city of Vallejo to Hanford as lessee of the Lemon street wharf. Wharves, landing, etc., were valued at $68,662.82 and steamer Issaquah $67,032.58. On March 21, 1922, it agreed to purchase the competing Six-Minute Ferry Company for a price of $388,000, a value set by the California Railroad Commission, which included steamers, terminals, equipment, rights, etc. c. Franchise obtained.-Franchises for both the Carquinez and Antioch toll bridges were granted before the present statute was passed which allows the granting of a franchise for fifty years instead of twenty-five years, as was the case at that time. Copies of these fran- chises, both of which expire in 1948, are appended to this report. 4. Financing of the projects. a. Sale of stock. As described in subsection 3b above, the American Toll Bridge Company of California acquired 4,999,500 shares of the stock of the American Toll Bridge Company, in return for certain assets. The total authorized stock of the latter company was 5,000,000 shares. The California company then donated back to the American Toll Bridge Company, 1,000,000 shares of the stock acquired and agreed to sell not to exceed 1,500,000 shares more outside of the State of California and turn over the proceeds to the latter company. On September 5, 1923, a permit was given the American Toll Bridge Com- pany, by the corporation commissioner, to sell 1,000,000 shares of its stock at $2 per share, to net the company not less than $1.60 per share. The audit report of the companies' books by Haskins and Sells, San Francisco, June 30, 1928, states that 404,890 shares were sold under permit. It is presumed that the transfer of stock between the owning and holding companies was for convenience in selling it in accordance with present corporation laws of the state. 49 The auditor's report also shows that on June 30, 1928, there was stock of the American Toll Bridge Company, held as follows: By the American Toll Bridge Company of California--- Issued as a bonus to the underwriters__. 2,323,196 shares 500,000 shares 119,609 shares 837,755 shares Since the various amounts of stock shown do not account for the entire stock of the company, the following disposition was furnished by the American Toll Bridge Company, from their records: Issued in payment of services in connection with stock sales___ Held in the treasury, of which stock 828,219 shares are in escrow for the conversion of second mortgage bonds----. Held by American Toll Bridge Company of California. Bonus to underwriters__. Treasury stock---- In the hands of the public_--- 2,323,196 shares 500,000 shares 837,755 shares 1,339,049 shares 5,000,000 shares As the 1,339,049 shares in the hands of the public include stock given for services in connection with organization as well as stock sold for cash, a further division of this item was sought. Additional information furnished by the company approximately accounts for this item as follows: Sold by American Toll Bridge Company at $2 per share. Sold by American Toll Bridge Company of California, outside of state, price unknown Issued for services (stock sales) Issued for services (legal expense) Issued for services (publicity Antioch Bridge) Unaccounted for 404,890 678,818 119,609 125,000 10,000 732 1,339,049 It is also understood that an additional 560,000 shares have been sold by the American Toll Bridge Company of California out of the 2,323,196 shares held by them at the time of the audit, so that there are now approximately 2,399.000 shares of American Toll Bridge Com- pany stock in the hands of approximately 4000 stockholders. The $404,890 worth of stock sold by the American Toll Bridge Company was all in small lots. b. Funded debt.-Beginning in April, 1923, the American Toll Bridge Company, employed the firm of Duncanson and Harrelson on a cost plus basis to make investigations and start the foundation work for the Carquinez Bridge, and also to construct the piers of the Antioch Bridge which work started early in 1924. The work was financed by stock sales, the proceeds of the Rodeo-Vallejo Ferry Company, and the personal fortunes of Hanford and Klatt. As the sale of stock did not proceed fast enough to allow the construction to proceed at a reason- able rate, it became necessary for the company to borrow money to complete the work. Considerable difficulty was encountered in convincing the bonding companies that the Carquinez Bridge was a feasible project, and it was only after Duncanson and Harrelson had carried on the work far enough to prove that there was a suitable and safe method for 4-64951 The S 50 constructing the deep water foundations, that they would undertake the financing. It seems evident that the work of construction was considerably delayed on account of the lack of money at this time. In April, 1925, Blythe, Witter & Company, San Francisco, Peabody, Houghteling & Company, New York, and Bond, Goodwin & Tucker, San Francisco, undertook the financing of the project and underwrote the bonds as follows: First mortgage, 7 per cent bonds, due April 1, 1945, $4,750,000 authorized, $4,500,000 outstanding June 30, 1928. These bonds are a first lien on all the real property of the American Toll Bridge Company. Payments are to be made into a sinking fund to redeem them com- mencing March 1, 1929. Second mortgage, 8 per cent bonds, due April 1, 1945, $2,000,000 authorized and outstanding June 30, 1928. These bonds are a second lien on all real property of the company and stock of the Rodeo-Vallejo Ferry Company. They are convertible into stock of the American Toll Bridge Company, at prices varying from $2 per share at the present time to $3 per share after 1934. During October and November, 1928, the company purchased $38,000 par value of the first mortgage bonds for $37,755. The initial bond discount and expense as set forth in the audit was as follows: First mortgage bonds: Stock bonus to underwriters, 250,000 shares_ Attorneys' fees and revenue stamps- Discount on bonds, 10 per cent.. Second mortgage bonds: Į Stock bonus to underwriters, 250,000 shares. Attorneys' fees, revenue stamps and filing fee. Discount on bonds, 10 per cent- I 1 Interest on $4.500,000 first mortgage bonds at 7 per cent_ Interest on 2,000,000 second mortgage bonds at 8 per cent. Annual sinking fund payment to redeem $673,853 bond discount and expiration at 4 per cent in 22 years. Annual sinking fund payment to redeem $1 par value of 500,000 shares of stock in accordance with permit__. $400,000 9.750 450,000 Total bond discount and expense. $1,473,853 The net cash received for construction, from the sale of the $6,500,000 bonds would therefore be $5,826,147, not deducting any value for the stock. The annual cost to the toll bridge company for the loan of $5,826,147 may be figured as follows: 400,000 14,103 200,000 $315,000 160,000 18,500 13,750 507,250 Total annual cost. This annual cost is about 8.7 per cent on the cash received. c. Other sources of income for construction.—As stated under sub- section 3b above, the American Toll Bridge Company, owned 90 per cent of the capital stock of the Rodeo-Vallejo Ferry Company, and the auditors' report shows that the net advances made from its earnings to the Toll Bridge Company, was $326,390. On the opening of the Carquinez Bridge to traffic in May, 1927, the operation of the ferry was discontinued and its "going concern" value which had been 51 appraised, and was carried on the books at approximately $2,500,000, was at once reduced to its present salvage value appraised at $50,371. The American Toll Bridge Company, has purchased 3918 shares of the Martinez-Benecia Ferry Company, to date and the income from the ferry operation, which is small, is an added source of revenue at the present time. Attention is called to the fact that additional capital expenditures for construction are still being made, principally to complete the fender system for the main pier. The cost of this work is being paid out of current earnings with no increase in capital stock or bonded debt. 5. Preliminary investigation and design-Carquinez Bridge. a. Investigation of site, surveys and borings. It is understood that the first public discussion with regard to a toll bridge replacing the Rodeo-Vallejo ferry took place September 19, 1922. Extensive borings at each pier and other investigations were made by Duncanson and Harrelson, who began the work of constructing the bridge in April, 1923, and the records of the company show that these investigations were completed November 15, 1923. It is certain that other studies and investigations leading to the final location and type of structure were made before April, 1923. It is also understood that a location for the bridge somewhat down- stream from the present site was preferred by the engineers in charge. This would have avoided the curve in the south approach of the struc- ture, but the present location was finally chosen to get away from right of way litigation and consequent delay to construction of the bridge. The curve in the approach has a radius of 574 feet with a central angle of 62 degrees, which is not quite as large a radius as present highway standards would prefer under these conditions, but considering the surface, width and superelevation of the roadway as built, it presents no unwarranted hazard to the traveling public. The general geographical location of the bridge, considering topog- raphy, connections with routes of traffic and general economic factors seems to be as good as could be obtained. The exact location and align- ment could have been improved by moving the south end down stream. b. Appointmnt of engineers and preliminary design studies.-Charles Derleth, Jr., of Berkeley was appointed chief engineer for the American Toll Bridge Company. He employed Wm. H. Burr of New York as consulting engineer and David B. Steinman of New York as designing engineer. Comparative design studies for bridges of different types and spans were made and are described by Mr. Steinman in the Engineering News-Record of March 12, 1927. From this article it seems that a thorough study was made as to the most suitable type of bridge. A suspension bridge with 1600-foot main span and two 800-foot side spans was first proposed, but the navigation interests objected to it on account of the location of the piers. A 1950 suspension span and a cantilever bridge with two 1100-foot main spans were then proposed, with a preference for the latter, which was estimated to cost $700,000 less than the other. The War Department approved the cantilever design and it was consequently adopted. 52 S e. Final design, plans and quantities.-The design adopted for the Carquinez Bridge consists of a steel cantilever type bridge on concrete piers and footings. The two main cantilever spans are each 1100 feet long and the anchor spans 500 feet each. There is one central tower span of 150 feet and 1132 lineal feet of deck steel truss or girder spans. (Section V-2-a, p. 46, plate V, shows the general dimensions.) The bridge piers are of concrete and rest upon the following materials according to the plan sheet giving the results of borings and test pile driving data : Pier 1 (north abutment) on the sandstone of the north hillside. Pier 2 on sandstone and shale about 135 feet below mean highwater. Pier 3a on hard blue clay and 3b on sandstone, both at an elevation about 135 feet below mean highwater. Pier 4 on concrete piles driven into sand and clay, the bottom of the pier being 51 feet below mean highwater. Piers 5, 6, 7 and 8, concrete pedestals on timber piles driven into sand and clay. Piling (untreated) Piling (treated) falsework and docks. Piling (concrete) Piers 9, 10, 11 and 12, on the shale of the south hillside. The approximate quantities of materials used in the structure are (including caissons, falsework and docks): Steel guides for caisons__ Timber in cofferdams and falsework_ Concrete (tremie) Concrete (piers) Concrete (roadway slab) Structural steel, medium. Structural steel, silicon_.. Structural steel, heat treated. Reinforcing steel--- Hardware, etc., caisons, falsework and docks_ Excavation, dry--- Excavation, deep well- Excavation, open cofferdam. Puddle for cofferdam (repairs to pier 4) Riprap, final estimated amount_ 41,400 1. ft. 76,400 1. ft. 14,625 1. ft. 6,028 c. y. 39,460 c. y. 3,550 c. y. 15,857,930 lbs. 10,327,500 lbs. 2,848,000 lbs. 2,032,300 lbs. 482,000 lbs. 588,000 lbs. 8,200 M B.M. 2,160 c. y. 14,300 c. y. 6,900 c. y. 6,500 c. y. 190,000 tons In addition to the above quantities there are the concrete piling and concrete to be placed in the fender for the main pier, also toll house, toll collecting equipment, lights and signals. d. Design loads and unit stresses.-For this data the reader is also referred to the article of D. B. Steinman, designing engineer for the bridge, in the Engineering News-Record, May 12, 1927. Briefly the bridge is designed to carry three lanes of 20-ton trucks, or two lanes of 20-ton trucks with an electric train between them, fol- lowed and preceded by a uniform load of 600 pounds per lineal foot of track. The electric railway loading consists of a train of 96,000 pounds, cars 60 feet long with wheel concentration of 12,000 pounds each Proper allowances were made for wind pressure. Preliminary investigation and design-Antioch Bridge. a. Investigation of the site, surveys and borings.-The bridge is sup- ported on pile foundations and although no details of the work of 53. + investigating the foundations is known, it is apparent from the varying lengths of piles shown on the plans that test piles had been driven previous to the drawing of the plans in July, 1924. It is understood that the first idea for a bridge replacing the ferry, then operating, contemplated a low level structure costing much less than the one finally built. Before the final approval of the plans by the War Department was obtained, consideration of protests from the shipping interests made changes in the design necessary, which included the raising of the grade of the bridge to provide a clearance of 75 feet across the entire channel and a clearance of 135 feet with the span raised. The raising of the grade required the building of trestle approaches on a grade and, on the north side, a curve of 300-foot radius and a central angle of 86 degrees was put into the alignment of the structure in order to join the county road which runs along the levee for a quarter of a mile before turning north across Sherman Island to the Sacramento River. Short vertical curves were placed at the tops of the approaches. The vertical and horizontal curves are too sharp and the grade of the north approach somewhat too steep to conform with state highway standards. The width of roadway, 21 feet, was standard for two-lane state bridges at the time of construction, but has since been changed to 24 feet. The county road along the levee between the bridge and the turn onto the concrete pavement is narrow oiled macadam and the turn is very sharp. It is certain that if the location of the road and bridge had been laid out under state supervision the general layout would have been considerably changed. b. Engineers and preliminary design studies.—Plans for the bridge, with the exception of the lift span, were prepared by Frank H. Rey- nolds of Sacramento, and J. G. Little of San Francisco was consulting engineer. The plans for the lift span were prepared by J. G. Little under the supervision of Harrington, Howard and Ash, Kansas City, as consulting engineers. Several revisions of the plans were made, particularly the main piers and the lift span. These changes seem to have been made for the purpose of providing a safer and more suit- able structure than as first designed. (Section V-2-a, p. 46, plate VI, shows general dimensions.) c. Final design, plans and quantities. The structure as finally built consists of a steel and concrete superstructure including one lift span, all supported by concrete piers or pedestals resting on pile foundations. The south approach consists of 879 lineal feet of concrete trestle on a 5 per cent grade, the north approach of 1042 lineal feet of concrete trestle on a 6 per cent grade. The main spans, one a lift span and one a through steel truss, are each 320 feet long, and the remainder of the bridge across the channel consists of 98-foot deck steel truss spans, except that the length of those adjacent to the main spans is 104 feet. The floor is of concrete throughout. The foundations of the south approach are concrete piles capped with concrete above the mud line. All other piers and pedestals rest upon timber piles, the bottoms of the piers being below the mud and low water lines. (See Plate VI, p. 46.) 54 The approximate quantities of materials in the bridge are: Piling, treated, in fenders and dolphins- Piling untreated_ 40,000 1. ft. 49,000 1. ft. 7,000 1. ft. Piling, concrete_ Timber, treated, in fenders and dolphins_ Concrete in footings, tremie_. Concrete in footings_ Concrete-reinforced___. Concrete railing---- Concrete counterweight. Steel-reinforcing-. Steel-structural, trusses. Steel-structural, towers. Operating machinery, cables, sheaves, etc.__ Operating house, one 16 h.p. and one 60 h.p. gas engine. Excavation-pier cylinders Excavation-dry--- Riprap, estimated final amount. Approach, embankment, $2,500 spent to June 30, 1928, work in progress. Right of way. Lights and signals, toll house equipment. 73 M B.M. 1,300 c. y. 7,100 c. y. 4,900 c. J. 110 c. y. 300 c. y. 910,100 lbs. 3,893,000 lbs. 340,000 lbs. 110,000 lbs. 1,500 c. y. 1,200 c. y. 1.65 acres d. Design loads and unit stresses.-The following design loadings are as given on the plans: Live loads, for the floor system, two 15 ton trucks or 100 pounds per square foot. Live loads, for the trusses, 100 pounds per square foot or 24,000 concentrated load on one truss. 100 Impact allowance, L plus 300 Wind loads shown are satisfactory according to state standards. The concrete is specified as 6 sacks of cement per cubic yard or a nominal mix of 1:2:4. This corresponds to class "A" concrete of the state specifications which is used under similar conditions except where denser concrete is desired to protect the steel from salt air. The design loads specified are suitable for state highway service. The alignment, grades and road connections are not up to present-day standards for a state highway structure. 6. Construction data-Carquinez Bridge. a. Contracts awarded and final payments.-The following payments. to contractors are as shown on the books of the American Toll Bridge Company. Thos. C. McGill, for approaches to and excavation of pier 1, done in the fall of 1923_ $11,296 Duncanson and Harrelson, for investigation work and construction of piers 4 and 5 and a portion of pier 3. Work done between April 2, 1923, and January 1, 1925, on basis of cost plus 6 per cent_-- Raymond Concrete Pile Company, for miscellaneous work of foundations during March and April, 1923, suit brought by contractor for breach of contract settled for $50,000. Figures apparently are total payment---- Missouri Valley Bridge Company, for completion of foundations. Work 110,023 done April, 1925, to August 23, 1926. Lump sum contract and extras- 1,417,660 U. S. Steel Products Company, furnishing and erecting steel superstruc- ture; work started November 19, 1925, completed about June, 1927. Lump sum contract____ 652,529 2,686,854 55 Duncanson and Harrelson, for placing concrete floor on superstructure; work began January 24, 1927, and completed April, 1927; competitive bids Materials furnished by the company- 108,328 81,359 27,317 39,362 The total of these figures is within $2,000 of the total for construc- tion contracts as shown by the auditors, amounting to $5,136,395. The difference may be due to small miscellaneous items omitted above. Concrete, aggregate Reinforcing steel Healy and Tibbetts, for placing riprap around piers 2 and 3, July, 1926, to May, 1927__. b. Construction of substructure.-A description of the methods of constructing the foundations will be found in the following articles written by the engineers in charge of the work: C. Derleth, Jr., Engineering News-Record, September 24, 1925; and G. J. Calder, Engineering News-Record, March 24, 1927. Briefly, all piers with the exception of 2 and 3 rested on pile founda- tions or on the rocky banks of the strait and presented no unusual construction difficulties. Piers 2 and 3 were sunk by the open-caisson method to the exceptional depth of approximately 135 feet below the water line, where they rest upon hard material. They consequently pre- sented real engineering problems in the way of foundation work, but so far as can be learned the work was done in a satisfactory manner. A study of the plans and the available records of the construction indicates that the foundations of this structure are adequate to sup- port it. A possible exception to this statement is the case of pier 3 which, until the completion of the permanent fender system now under construction, might not have sufficient lateral stability to resist the impact of a large vessel striking against it. c. Erection of superstructure.-The erection of the steel work by the United States Steel Products Company has been described in the fol- lowing articles: Engineering News-Record, September 24, 1925, by C. Derleth, Jr.; Engineering News-Record, April 28, 1927, by C. F. Goodrich. In brief, the erection was as follows: The south approach and the south cantilever were erected on timber pile falsework. The north cantilever arm was erected by the use of a temporary steel bent and pier under the center of the span, from which bent the span was erected as a cantilever out to the main pier (pier 2). The shore end of the arm was erected on falsework and the steel bent was taken out after the span was erected and used as a portion of the center tower over pier 3. The center tower was erected by means of large cranes rented from the Navy Department. The other cantilever arms were erected simultaneously by derricks resting on temporary girders supported by the trusses themselves. The two suspended spans were erected on a dock a short distance from the bridge, transferred to barges, floated into position and raised into place by means of counterweights and cables with sheaves temporarily fastened to the steel of the adjacent cantilever arms. The chief advantage in thus erecting the suspended spans was the saving in time of completing the structure. 56 d. Miscellaneous work.-Under this head may be considered the road work necessary to complete the approaches to the bridge. On the north end the existing road was narrow and rough and led to the ferry land- ing at the bottom of the ravine to the west of the bridgehead. A joint road district, No. 7, was formed to build the approach to the bridge and the county undertook the paving and widening of a portion of its road south of Vallejo. The toll bridge company contributed about $42,500 to this work. On the south side the state highway from the ferry landing onto the bridge head was narrow and crooked and not suited to handle the traffic that would go over the bridge. Accordingly a contract was let by the state for the regrading and surfacing of this road on proper standards at a cost of $225,419, of which amount the bridge company contributed $8,500 to pay for work at the bridgehead. Protests from the shipping interests resulted in the War Depart- ment requiring a much more elaborate fender system for pier 3 in the main channel than was contemplated at the beginning of the job. A rock fill is now being placed around the pier, which is in very deep water, and it is proposed to drive concrete piles into this fill and sur- mount it by a concrete mat capable of resisting the impact of a ship striking it. A description of this proposed fender will be found in the following references: C. Derleth, Jr., in Western Construction News, November 25, 1927; staff article in Engineering News-Record, November, 17, 1927. The final cost of completing this fender is estimated to be close to $500,000. Construction data-Antioch Bridge. a. Contracts awarded and final payments.-The following major con- struction contracts were awarded on the Antioch Bridge, the amounts being as shown on the books of the company. April 4, 1924 : Contract on foundations September, 1924: Duncanson and approaches October, 1924: Dyer Brothers-Contract for superstructure…. Approaches Miscellaneous Harrelson-Contract on foundations and Riprapping around the piers is in progress, the amount spent to date being about $36,461.23 852,348.39 326,096.77 10,607.00 15,783.74 10,981.00 b. Construction of substructure.-All foundations are on either con- crete or timber piles. The north approach is founded on ground which is apparently moving toward the river. Noticeable settlement and movement is apparent in this part of the structure. Detailed founda- tion data for the piers of this structure is not known at this time. No particular difficulties should have been encountered in constructing the piers as the type of foundation used is comparatively simple in character. c. Construction of superstructure. The erection of the superstructure for the Antioch Bridge was compartively simple in its nature and no particular problems or difficulty should have been experienced. No details are known at this time. • 57 7. Traffic and income-Carquinez Bridge. a. Present traffic and income.-The American Toll Bridge Company has kept in detail, daily records of all traffic which has crossed the bridge since it was built. Automatic counters are installed which check the detailed records of the cash registers. These traffic records have been furnished by the toll bridge company for use in this report and in addition traffic checks have been made by the division of highways. 200000 100 000 90000 80 000 70000 60000 50 000 40000 30000 20 000 10 000 9 000 8 000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 P.M. Ferry. Bridge opened May 21. PLATE NO. VAIK INVESTIGATION OF TOLL BRIDGES TOTAL MONTHLY AUTOMOBILE TRAFFIC CROSSING BRIDGES AND FERRIES LO- CATED AT POINTS BETWEEN CARQUIN- EZ STRAITS AND LOWER SAN JOAQUIN RIVER. JAN. FEB. MAR. APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG. 1927 Benicia-Martinez Ferryb ·Road under Const 1927 SEPT. OCT. NOV. DEC. JAN. FEB. MAR. APRIL MAY Carquinez Bridge. Antioch Bridge 1928 JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. NOV. DEC. 1928 200 000 100 000 90 000 80000 70000 60000 50000 40 000 30000 20 000 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 it 58- St El * The monthly traffic over this bridge since its completion is shown graphically on Plate VIII. On it there is also shown the monthly traffic since January 1, 1927, over the Antioch Bridge and the Mar- tinez-Benicia ferry, both of which are owned by the American Toll Bridge Company. These graphs are principally of interest as showing the monthly variation in traffic caused by seasonal travel, State Fair travel in September, effect of poor approach roads in the case of the Antioch Bridge, etc. Wi The total number of vehicles crossing the Carquinez Bridge during the year ending June 30, 1928, was approximately 1,116,000. The total revenue obtained as shown by the company's statement of returns from operation for the same year was $916,428. Dividing this amount by the total number of vehicles gives $0.82 as the average toll collected from each vehicle. b. Estimated future traffic and income.-On Plate No. VIII-a are shown graphs of auto registration for the state and for San Francisco Bay district only, total ferry traffic between San Francisco and the east bay and traffic over the Rodeo-Vallejo ferry and the Carquinez Bridge which superseded it. The actual traffic and automobile registrations during past years is plotted and also the predicted future amounts according to the various authorities shown on it. The increase in traffic over any road or bridge is affected by two general causes or factors; The increase in population and the general use of automobiles. This is represented by the yearly figures for automobile registration, for the whole state or any subdivision of it as may be thought to apply.. Changes in local conditions, such as improving the existing approach roads, providing new feeders of traffic, constructing alternate routes to divert traffic, etc. Studies of the Division of Highways in regard to predicted future auto registrations indicate that a steadily decreasing per cent of increase may be expected. Auto registrations in the State of California were 1,350,400 in 1924; 1,700,000 in 1927 and according to the estimates of the Division of Highways, made in their study of probable income for highway purposes, will be 2,130,000 in 1931. The per cent increase for 1928 over 1927 is 73 per cent, for 1929 over 1928 is estimated at 5 per cent, for 1930 over 1929 is estimated at 4.6 per cent, 1931 over 1930 is estimated at 3.4 per cent and thereafter the estimated per cent of increase is approximately 3 per cent. It seems apparent that traffic over the Carquinez Bridge would be as much a function of the auto registration in the bay district as it would of the state in general and for this reason the figures for the bay district are also given according to the authorities cited. Local conditions which may affect the traffic over the Carquinez Bridge are: The development of the approach roads. The proposed American Canyon cut-off, shortening the distance to the Sacramento Valley by five miles, or the possible reconstruction of the highway south of Rodeo which will shorten the distance to Oakland by about two and one-half miles, should stimulate traffic over the bridge. A bridge or other improved facilities for crossing the bay from San Francisco to the east side north 59 THOUSANDS OF VEHICLES 3000 2000 11000 1500 ANNUAL TRANSBAY VEHICLE TRAFFIC. YEAR 1920 Oakland Mole Ferry Started. EERRY Berkeley Farry started 1925 1 ESTIMATED BY S.F. BAY BRIDGE BOARD OF ENGINEERS MAY 1927 S.R FERRIES ONLY AUTO REGISTRATION, STATE OF CALIFORNIA BRIDGE PLATE NO.III-a INVESTIGATION OF TOLL BRIDGES DATA RELATIVE TO PROBABLE TRAFFIC INCREASE CARQUINEZ ESTIMATE ACCORDING TO REPORT OF HIGHWAY BOARD 1925. HAT WE ARE ANNUAL VEHICLE TRAFFIC CARQUINEZ BRIDGE AND RODEO-VALLEJO FERRY. AND OTHER TOLL BRIDGES ACTUAL TRAFFIC DATA = ESTIMATED TRAFFIC - LAUTO REGISTRATION S. FAND TRANSBAY CITIES. REPORT OF BOARD OF ENGINEERS. SF. BAY BR. 1930 -ESTIMATED FUTURE TRAFFIC OVER CARQUIN- EZ BRIDGE BASED ON OTHER CURVES SHOWN ON THIS CHART. 1940 1948 of Oakland or the improvement and widening of the existing highway such as is about to be undertaken in the vicinity of Pinole, will also assist traffic. Bridges across the bay from Marin County, such as the proposed Richmond-San Rafael or Albany-Tiburon bridges should divert consid- erable traffic between the east bay and Marin or Sonoma counties which now uses the Carquinez Bridge. Another bridge over Carquinez Strait would, of course, have a decided effect on traffic over the existing bridge. It is very difficult to predict the future automobile traffic with any degree of certainty. The most careful studies and predictions made in the past have often been found to be considerably in error a year or two after they were made. In most cases the prediction has been below the actual traffic development but whether this condition will continue to apply to present and future predictions or a point of saturation for auto traffic will actually be reached or approached, is still problematical. The curve of estimated future traffic over the Carquinez Bridge plotted on Plate VIII-a is based upon the average of auto registration 60 – predictions as shown thereon. The effect of local conditions has not been taken into account. The very decided increase of traffic crossing the bridge in 1927 over 1926 is an interesting example of the effect of a change in local conditions. The increase is around 100 per cent but, as the computations of the officials of the bridge company indicate, the total increase of traffic across the strait was only about 33 per cent and the remainder of the increase was due to traffic diverted from the exist- ing facilities, the Martinez-Benicia ferry and the Monticello Steamship Company. This increase of 33 per cent has been attributed to the con- struction of the bridge replacing the ferry, but it is very much of a question just how much was due to that factor and how much was due to the starting of the Berkeley ferry immediately afterward. This ferry increased the total transbay traffic over its normal amount by practically the amount carried by it and of this traffic a large per cent was destined to points north of the Carquinez Bridge. (See Section IV) p. 31. The traffic prediction here made is considered conservative, the prob- able error not exceeding 10 or 15 per cent one way or another, assum- ing, of course, that no seriously competitive facilities are built before they become necessary from an economic standpoint. The present average rate of tolls has been assumed to continue for the life of the franchise on which basis the following table of predicted. traffic and income has been made. Year 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 Annual traffic 1,116,000 1,125,000 1,195,000 1,250,000 1,310,000 1,370,000 1,430,000 1,490,000 1,550,000 1,615,000 1,680,000 1,750,000 1,810,000 1,875,000 1,940,000 2,000,000 2,060,000 2,120,000 2,190,000 2,250,000 2,310,000 2,365,000 11 1 1 1 1 | @ .82 @ .82 @ .82 @ .82 @ .82 @ .82 @ .82 @ .82 @ .82 @ .82 @ .82 @ .82 @ .82 @ .82 @ .82 @ .82 @ .82 @ .82 @ .82 @ .82 @ .82 @.82 T 1 Yearly income $916,428 922,500 979,990 1,025,000 1,074.200 1.123.400 1,172,600 1.221,800 1,271,000 1,324,300 1,377,600 1,435,000 1,484,200 1,537,500 1,590,800 1,640,000 1,689,200 1,738,400 1,795,800 1,845,000 1,894,200 1.939.300 Traffic and income-Antioch Bridge. a. Present traffic and income.-As on the Carquinez Bridge, the American Toll Bridge Company has kept daily records of traffic over the Antioch Bridge since its opening. Reference is made to Plate No. VIII for the graph of traffic. The Antioch Bridge was opened to traffic on January 1, 1926. Traffic was comparatively light up to July 11, 1927, due to the fact that the roads leading to the bridge were not completed until that time. As a basis of computing income the period from July 1, 1927, to June 30, 1928, was used. The total number of vehicles crossing the # 61 Antioch Bridge during this period was approximately 148,000. The total gross income over the same period was $124,673.91. These figures show an average toll per vehicle of 84.2c. Plate No. VIII above indicates that the peak month, September, was about 26 per cent higher in 1928 than 1927 but dropped back to approximately equal traffic for the month of October. b. Future traffic and income—Antioch Bridge.--The conditions which may affect future traffic over the Antioch Bridge are similar to those affecting any other bridge. Of primary importance is the general fea- ture of growth of automobile traffic as measured by the increase of auto registration. Future improvement of the roads leading to the bridge is also of primary importance. It will be noted in Section IV of this report, Plate No. III, p. 31, that there are many miles of county road on each side of the Antioch Bridge. It is probable that improvement of these county roads will be must less rapid than will the improvement of state highways. Improvement of the tunnel road out of Oakland, for which purpose a road district is being formed, will no doubt have an increasing effect on the traffic over the bridge. As shown on Plate VIII-a, p. 59, above, the rate of increase in auto registration is likely to decrease for a term of years until it reaches a constant annual increase of approximately 3 per cent after 1932 or 1933. A traffic and income prediction for the Antioch Bridge based on predicted increase in auto registration is as follows: Year 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 TRAFFIC PREDICTION-ANTIOCH BRIDGE. (July 1 to June 30-Each year.) Per cent increase │I ││ I T 6 JO H∞ ∞ð að að að so ao co co 60 30 5 4 31 3 3 3 að að að Traffic vehicles 148,000 157,000 165,000 171,800 177,900 183,100 189,000 195,000 3 3 3 200,800 220,000 226,600 233,400 240,500 248,000 255,000 262,700 270,800 279,000 287,500 296,100 Bridge reverts to county. 207,100 213,400 Income $124,600 132,200 139,000 144,600 149,800 154,200 159,100 164,200 169,100 174,400 179,700 185,200 190,800 196,500 202,500 208,800 214,700 221,200 228,000 234,900 242,100 249,300 8. Operation and maintenance-Carquinez Bridge. From audit report by Haskins & Sells, July 1, 1927, to June 30, 1928. (See con- densed statement of operations following this subsection.) a. Administration and advertising.-The cost of administration which constitutes the head office expense and head office salaries for the period July 1, 1927, to June 30, 1928, was $73,600.97. The cost of advertising over the same period was $49,870.33. $ 62 "," b. The cost of collection of tolls including labor, power, light, tele- phone operating, supplies and expenses for the period was $40,656.79. c. Maintenance and repairs. The items of maintenance and repairs for the above period was very small, the amount expended for this purpose being only $344.97. The management evidently plans to pay these charges only as they occur rather than to set aside a yearly sinking fund for that purpose. The maintenance is naturally low over the first few years of the bridge's life. It is thought proper to set aside a sinking fund for this purpose and it is probable that a yearly sinking fund of $5,000 will take care of necessary painting and floor repair. d. Insurance and taxes.-Taxes for the period from July 1, 1927, to June 30, 1928, were paid in the amount of $96,620.09. Under the franchise the bridge company is required to pay 2 per cent of the gross income to the counties adjacent-1 per cent to each county. The bridge company has not paid this tax and has protested against doing so. It is understood that the counties have agreed to defer the collection of this tax for a period of five years, in accordance with their interpretation of existing laws. This tax, if paid for the period above, would have amounted to $18,328.56. Insurance on the Carquinez Bridge for the above period of 1 year was $25,428.91. Operation and maintenance-Antioch Bridge. a. Administration and advertising.-The cost of administration, con- sisting of head office expense and salaries for the period July 1, 1927, to June 30, 1928, was $10,111.40, and the cost of advertising was $12,634.46. b. The cost of collection of tolls, including labor, light, telephone, operating, supplies and expenses for the period was $11,056.32. c. Maintenance and repairs.—As on the Carquinez Bridge, the items of maintenance and repair were very small, the amount expended for this purpose being only $15.85. As before, a sinking fund should be set up to take care of painting, fenders and floor repairs. It is prob- able that a yearly annuity of $1,400 will take care of these maintenance items. d. Insurance and taxes.-During the year 1927 the bridge company paid $24,063.94 taxes on this structure. A 2 per cent gross income tax required in the franchise has not been paid, as stated above. This item, if it had been paid, would have been approximately $2,500 for the period June 30, 1927, to July 1, 1928. Insurance on the Antioch Bridge for the one year period was $9,492.36. 9. Interest and amortization. a. Interest on funded debt and working capital.-Interest paid on bonds for the period July 1, 1927, to June 30, 1928, was $383,619.50 and interest paid on working capital was $5,616.84. The 2 per cent fed- eral income tax amounted to $4,575.72. Amortization of bond discount was set aside to the amount of $74,824.08 (on both bridges). In 4b above it is shown that a sinking fund of $18,500 deposited yearly and compounded at 4 per cent will amortize the entire bond discount and expense for both bridges in 22 years, at which time the franchise will have expired. It is, therefore, evident that this discount is being more rapidly amortized than the life of the franchise requires. 63 b. Plan of amortization.--The plan of amortization of the cost of the bridge that is being followed by the company is on approximately a straight line basis. The present plan is to pay or set aside for payment a yearly sum of about $350,000. This sum compounded at 41 per cent will pay off the book cost of the bridge ($7,311,712) in 15 years. To amortize this cost by 1948, the date of expiration of the franchise, a sinking fund annuity of $201,300 compounded at 41 per cent and deposited for 22 years is all that is necessary. If the present plan is followed the construction cost will be amortized by 1942 and the sum now set aside for amortization will go to surplus or dividends. c. Dividends to stockholders and operating cost.-No dividends have been issued to stockholders and examination of a condensed statement of the operating revenue and expense indicates a net loss of $173,843 for the period. It is, however, shown above that more funds are being set aside for bond discount amortization than is necessary, by a amount of approximately $56,300 annually and for the amortization of the cost of the bridge by an amount of approximately $148,700 annually. On the other hand, approximately $1,000,000 must be provided at the end of the franchise in order to reimburse the stockholders the amount of $1 per share in 1948 in accordance with the terms of the contract. To create this fund it is necessary to set aside $27,500 annually on a 43 per cent basis. Slightly offsetting these reductions in the amount of their figures is the lack of a sinking fund of approximately $5,000 per year for repairs and maintenance. The changes in operating cost, as described, would reduce it about $175,000 from that shown on the company's statement leaving a small net earning instead of a deficit of $173,843. It is not likely that the operating expense will increase to any great extent over the years to come. An addition must, however, be made to cover the added capital investment of $500,000 for the pier protection around pier No. 3 now under construction. The yearly expense of this feature may be estimated as follows: Amortization $500,000 over 19 years at 4 per cent, $17,250. The condensed operating statements of the American Toll Bridge Company covering both their bridges for the period July 1, 1927, to June 30, 1928, follows: CONDENSED OPERATING STATEMENT JULY 1, 1927, TO JUNE 30, 1928 Bridge Item Operating revenues Operating expenses : Bridge operating Publicity and traffic Taxes Insurance General overhead 1 1 } Carquinez $916,428 Total operating expense exclusive of depreciation and interest $41,002 49,870 96.620 25,429 73,601 $286,522 Profit from operation before depreciation and interest $629,906 Depreciation and amortization of cost of bridge__-- 349,506 Profit from operation $280,400 Antioch $124,674 $11,072 12,635 24,064 9,492 10,111 $67,374 $57,300 78,443 $21,143 64 Interest and amortization of bond discount and expense--- Loss for period Other income $303,187 3,467 Sinking fund for maintenance $454,243 Net loss Deficit at beginning Adjustments of prior year, profit and loss. Deficit at end of period The operating cost based on a 22-year amortization period which is the franchise limit of toll collection, in comparison with the above, which is based on 15-year amortization, is as follows: $299,720 95,711 11,452 $406,883 Total yearly operating expense (taxes and insurance) Amortization sinking fund cost of bridge : $7,311,712 over 22 years at 4 per cent Amortization sinking fund bond discount: 80 per cent of $673,853 over 22 years at 41 per cent_ Amortization sinking fund stock bonus : 80 per cent of $500,000 over 22 years at 4 per cent_ Interest on bonds and income tax and expense_ Amortization fender: Pay back $500,000. Amortization fund to reimburse stockholders at $1.00 per share for 1,113,260 shares of stock in 1948. 22 years at 44 per cent. $108,201