Ex-Caltrans engineer talks about Tahoe roads
Gene Abshier talks transportation. Photo/Kathryn Reed
By Kathryn Reed
If money weren’t an issue, there would likely be a bridge over Emerald Bay today.
Caltrans spent decades studying the idea. It started with the desire by people to have an all-weather route on the West Shore. This is because for about 3½ months a year Highway 89 was closed because of snow.
It was in 1913 that a road was built on that side of the lake. It was 22 miles. At that time it took two days to drive from South Lake Tahoe to Tahoe City, according to Gene Abshier, an engineer in the Marysville Caltrans office for 36 years. Today he is a resident of South Lake Tahoe. Last week he gave a talk about the history of roads in Lake Tahoe.
Improvements to the roads continued until World War II when funding for these types of projects ceased.
It was after the war that California created the freeway and expressway systems. The state was divided in half, with the northern end getting 40 percent of the funding. A caveat was that Caltrans had to spend a minimum of $4 million in each county each year.
This is how in 1965 Highway 50 was widened from 22-foot lanes to 40 foot from Lake Tahoe Airport to 15th Street. It took about seven months to construct.
The 1955 Christmas Eve rockslide closed Highway 89 until the following November. That scar on the mountainside remains today.
In 1956 engineers came up with the idea of a suspension bridge more than 1,800 feet long as well as snow sheds more than 2,000 feet long that would go under the slide.
Each year that passed more alternatives were created until 28 were on the table. Seven included crossing Emerald Bay, snow sheds, viaducts, and three alignments through D.L. Bliss State Park were some of the ideas. Land owners, residents and others were nowhere near agreement on what the best route would be.
Abshier told his boss there was no way they could send Sacramento that many choices. He still has a copy of the report – which was whittled down to eight alternatives – that went to higher ups. It’s more than an inch thick. This was pre-computers. Engineers wrote things and those in the typing pool took over from there.
“It was the thickest and most complex report out of our office,” Abshier said. This was 1969.
With the importance of the document and the level of interest in it, extra copies were ordered – 200 total.
Abshier said 160 ended up in storage. Most of those were sent to a landfill.
There was no money for such an ambitious project. Times were also changing as people started to care more about the environment.
Yes, people started to care more about the environment. Concerned citizens were against a bridge that would spoil the scenic beauty of Emerald Bay and a 4 lane highway around Tahoe which would forever change the quiet charm of the lake. They formed The League To Save Lake Tahoe and fought to block the bridge and the four land freeway which might have circled the lake. I think most readers would agree that we are much better off without an unsightly bridge and huge road circling the lake.
Gene did a great job and your reporting will keep the accurate records for the future. Thanks.
Be interesting maybe to see an analysis on what effect a bridge will have on pollution. If having a bridge over Emerald Bay is critical for non polluting electric buses to operate effectively, ….
Supposedly about half the pollution in Lake Tahoe is from auto emissions, and supposedly half the drinking water at Tahoe comes from the lake.
Perry, almost none of the water we drink comes from the lake (directly). We have wells and aquifers that are recharged by the lake as well as the runoff from the 63 tributary’s and seepage. You would have to contact STPUD in order to find out what the percentage of lake recharging is. The wells located around the city golf course and lake Christopher are getting recharge at a much better rate now that a large tree (lodgepole pine) thinning has occurred. Ray Zachau, former fire chief, did a study a few years ago when the thinning occurred. Lodgepole pine sucks a lot of water and they need to be thinned for the health of the forest and basin fire control. I find it interesting that a new study is being done to determine how much thinning actually helps with our water situation as Ray already did one as did Steve Harcourt as well several years ago. No need to clear cut but a massive thinning would only help our forest’s health not to mention my pocketbook as I am a tree service contractor lol. I will stop and chat with you next time I see ya cruising.
STPUD uses about 2.5 billion gallons of water each year.
I estimate that they have about 170 square miles of area in the south shore to collect water from. If those numbers are correct then they use less than one inch of rain each year. Not much.
I wonder how much the water level in the wells has dropped and how that drop relates to the depth of the wells? I suspect that we are in no danger of running out of water.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t conserve. Conservation will minimize the cost of water to all of us.
The half of Tahoe’s drinking water number coming from the lake is supposedly the whole basin area. Apparently you are very correct about south shore being on well water.
The city of South Lake Tahoe is doing relatively well compared to So. Cal water wise. I’m guessing this is a long term trend. Remember the federal government has legal control over the top 6 feet of Lake Tahoe.