Loading...
10 October 28, 2005 Riverside County - Orange County Major Investment Study PolicyTN—Kopenhaver] 74544 NK/JS/HS/EH/CB i'R�ners:.�ce..,,ry OCTA T•*,,,s o„ Commission AGENDA Riverside County — Orange County Major Investment Study Policy Committee Meeting Committee Members Bill Campbell, Chair Jeff Miller, Vice Chair Art Brown Bob Buster Carolyn Cavecche Michael Duvall Frank Hall Bob Magee Ameal Moore Michael Perovich Curt Pringle Cindy Quon Susan Ritschel Ken Ryan John Tavaglione Alan Wapner Roy Wolfe E EME OCT :4 NO Riverside County Transportation Commission Board Room County Regional Complex 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor (� Riverside, California 92502-2208 Friday, October 28, 2005, at 9:00 a.m. Rini Lip IDE COUNT I TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in this meeting should contact the OCTA Clerk of the Board, telephone (714) 560-5676, no less than two (2) business days prior to this meeting to enable OCTA to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to this meeting. Call to Order Chairman Campbell Pledge of Allegiance Committee Member Moore Agenda Descriptions The agenda descriptions are intended to give notice to members of the public of a general summary of items of business to be transacted or discussed. The posting of the recommended actions does not indicate what action will be taken. The Committee may take any action which it deems to be appropriate on the agenda item and is not limited in any way by the notice of the recommended action. Public Comments on Agenda Items Members of the public wishing to address the Committee regarding any item appearing on the agenda may do so by completing a Speaker's Card and submitting it to the Clerk of the Board. Speakers will be recognized by the Chairman at the time the agenda item is to be considered. A speaker's comments shall be limited to three (3) minutes. HH.35.02 Page 1 of 3 ^'"jt(verstdeCouxry OcTA �('ransportaffott Co»rmtsstow AGENDA Riverside County - Orange County Major investment Study Policy Committee Meeting Special Matters There are no Special Calendar Matters. Consent Calendar 1. Approval of Minutes Of the July 15, 2005, Riverside County - Orange County Major Investment Study Policy Committee meeting. Regular Calendar 2. Strategic Alternatives. Technical Evaluation Paul Taylor, OCTA, Executive Director of Planning, Development and Commuter Services Overview Technical evaluation is under way for the three alternatives recommended by the Riverside County - Orange County Major Investment Study Policy Committee in July 2005. An overview of the altematives, cost estimates, impacts and benefits, and preliminary technical findings is attached for review and comment. Recommendations A. Receive and file as an information item. B. Provide direction to staff on issues for further technical evaluation in developing the Locally Preferred Strategy. C. Direct staff to return on November 18, 2005, with recommendations for a Locally Preferred Strategy. • • Page 2 of 3 • _ " 'Ri a si4eCounty ocia Transportation Commission AGENDA Riverside County — Orange County Major Investment Study Policy Committee Meeting Other Matters 3. Public Involvement Program Update Tamara S. Warren, OCTA, Community Relations Officer 4. Chairman and Vice Chairman Reports 5. Committee Members' Reports 6. Public Comments 7. Adjournment The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Riverside County - Orange County Major Investment Study Policy Committee will be held at 9:00 a.m. on November 18, 2005, at the Orange County Transportation Authority Headquarters at 600 South Main Street, First Floor - Room 154, Orange, California 92863-1584. Page 3 of 3 • MINUTES Riverside County to Orange County Major Investment Study Policy Committee July 15, 2005 nerstae Co=arty Transportation Commission Committee Members Present: Brown, Art Buster, Bob Campbell, Bill, Chairman Duvall, Michael Hall, Frank Magee, Bob Miller, Jeff, Vice Chairman Moore, Ameal Pringle, Curt Ritschel, Susan Ryan, Ken Others Present: Bechtel, Cathy for Eric Haley Debaun, Steve Leahy, Arthur Quon, Cindy Taylor, Paul Weinert, Laurena 1. Welcome and Self -introductions The pledge of allegiance was conducted. The roll was called. 2. Approval of Minutes from April 29, 2005 Meeting The minutes of April 29, 2005 were approved. 3. Items A. Study Progress and Schedule (Presentation — Tony Rahimian, MIS Project Manager) Mr. Rahimian reported that the Project Team met with MWD, RCTC, OCTA, City of Corona, and County of Riverside staff on June 8th to coordinate activities for the alignments of Corridor B and MWD's proposed water pipeline through the Santa Ana Mountains and the release of the moratorium imposed by the City of Corona to protect right-of-way for the possible alignments of Corridor B. MWD has selected two consultants for geotechnical investigations along their corridor, but will not execute contracts prior to the formation of a JPA. The Project Development Team continues to meet on a monthly basis to provide input and comments on the 12 "Build" Alternatives. As a result, the 12 "Build" Alternatives have now been reduced to a set of 3 Strategic Alternatives, which will be presented to the Policy Committee today for their approval. Upon approval, the Project Team will begin detailed environmental and engineering evaluation of these Strategic Altematives, developing conceptual plans with schematics of key features. These will be supported with traffic data, a toll revenue analysis, and preliminary cost estimates of each Strategic Alternative. A Draft Screening Report was distributed to the Project Development Team in late June and comments have been received from a number of cities and agencies. We expect that other agencies will respond shortly. Item 1. July 15, 2005 1 of 11 RC - OC MIS Policy Committee OCTA 111 MINUTES Riverside County to Orange County Major Investment Study Policy Committee July 15, 2005 RiversideCounty Transportation Commission The Project Team has been in contact with the local representative of the BNSF Railroad, however we have not received an official letter from BNSF stating their position on the joint use of their right-of-way to add capacity in the Santa Ana Canyon. The Project Team has begun to develop alternatives for Corridor A in lieu of the BNSF RR right-of-way, such as an elevated structure within the existing SR-91 right-of-way and the flood control channel through the City of Corona. Finally, the project is on schedule for completion by December of this year. The Locally Preferred Strategy will be presented to this Committee for consideration and approval in November. There is a one -page project summary schedule, which was included in the packet and distributed earlier to the Committee. Committee Member Pringle asked what had been done in trying to get a response from the BNSF railroad. Mr. Rahimian stated that e-mails and phone calls have been made to the local BNSF staff in San Bernardino and they are responding at the local level. However, the local office of BNSF has not had a response from their corporate office or headquarters in Texas. Mr. Pringle then asked if the Project Team had attempted to contact the BNSF Headquarters? Mr. Rahimian stated that OCTA is in the process of drafting a letter to BNSF's Headquarters. Mr. Leahy stated that there is a meeting scheduled in August involving Los Angeles, Riverside, and Orange Counties with BNSF and Mr. Leahy will ensure that this issue gets onto the agenda. B. Public Involvement Program Update (Presentation - John Standiford, RCTC Outreach Project Manager) Mr. Standiford provided to the Committee a condensed version of the Public Outreach Report that contains all the information displayed and gathered in the Public meetings held for the Project to date. Mr. Standiford also stated that he had the complete report available. There will be continued documentation of the public outreach meetings and the Report will likely grow to two or three volumes by the time it is completed. The actions taken by the Committee today on the Strategic Alternatives will be shared with the public in meetings to be held in the Fall. Mr. Standiford stated that he would appreciate any input from the committee, as this report is a work in progress. Chairman Campbell inquired if there was any theme or tone from the public, different or similar between the two counties. Mr. Standiford said that it is hard to generalize. People understand that there is a mobility problem on the SR 91 and there is a growing awareness of the amount of information available. At the last series of public meetings, the public was overwhelmed by the amount of information and the number of alternatives. However,they gained an understanding of the amount of information that the technical team has accumulated and is using in the process. The public is seeing direction and progress and at the next round of meetings, with a more focused group of alternatives, we expect good input and comments from the public. Committee Member Ryan stated that if the Committee could get a general sense of shared goals from the public it would be very helpful in evaluating the altematives. Chairman Campbell noted that this is a public meeting and welcomed participation and comments by the public. However, he would like the staff to present first and then hear from the public. July 15, 2005 2 of 11 RC - OC MIS Policy Committee MINUTES Riverside County to Orange County witori Major Investment Study T�p�,�cis i� Policy Committee July 15, 2005 C. SR-91 Maximum Feasible Widening and Strategic Alternatives/Screening Recommendations (Presentation — Tony Rahimian, MIS Project Manager) One of the key objectives of the MIS was to maximize, as a first priority, the improvements to SR 91. To maximize improvements, a reasonable maximum widening must be established for the number of lanes that can be built fully utilizing the existing right of way and without significant impacts to adjacent properties. Using that definition, the maximum reasonable number of lanes that can be added to the existing is the following for each of the 3 segments of SR 91 in the Study Area. o Segment 1, SR-55 to SR-241: add two to five lanes o Segment 2, SR-241 to SR-71: add two to three lanes o Segment 3, SR-71 to 1-15: add two to four lanes Existing SR-91 Lanes Mr. Rahimian stated it is very evident that bottlenecks occur throughout the corridor where there are lane drops. Constraints for Maximum Reasonable Improvements There are a variety of types of constraints to constructing lanes beyond the maximum described. Major constraints are listed below and identified on an aerial photograph of the SR-91 alignment in the Study Area: • Existing and planned residential development; • Santa Ana River (flood control right-of-way); • Chino Hills State Park and Coal Canyon wildlife crossing; • Mindermann Landslide; • Caltrans right-of-way, and • Frontage roads accessing residential and commercial centers. Mr. Rahimian discussed the aerial photo of SR-91 illustrating the constraints. Vice Chairman Miller said the City of Corona has concerns about the right-of-way impacts through Corona and he would like more information about the right-of-way requirements. Committee Member Curt Pringle wanted to know if some shading could be provided that shows where there would be any expansion beyond the existing Caltrans right-of-way. Mr. Rahimian said this is a work in progress and when it is complete the members of the committee will receive a briefing. Chairman Campbell observed that buildings for a car dealership are being constructed at the entry of Imperial Highway and the SR-91 on some right-of-way that had been previously sold by Caltrans. He wanted to know if it would it be wise to buy back that piece of land because it might be needed for the improvements. Mr. Rahimian responded that, based upon the MIS study, that particular parcel will not be needed. Background for Screening Evaluation Mr. Rahimian reviewed the actions previously taken by the Policy Committee in approving the broad corridor "bands" and the 12 build alternatives that were presented to the public in March of 2005. Today, the formal "screening" recommendations are being presented for approval. Alternatives that are technically flawed, comparatively less cost effective, or environmentally inferior have been eliminated. July 15, 2005 3 of 11 RC - OC MIS Policy Committee MINUTES Riverside County to Orange County Major investment Study Policy Committee July 15, 2005 versideCounty ransportation Commission A detailed traffic study was conducted using 2030 growth projections to determine the future volumes for each of the new corridors B and C as well as Ortega Highway (SR- 74). Corridor B was the best performing corridor, attracting an average of 105,000 daily trips (ADT). If tolls are applied to that corridor the volumes drop to 65,000 ADT. In contrast, Corridor C with no tolls attracts 60,000 ADT. When tolls are applied, the volume drops to 35,000 ADT. Corridor D (Ortega Highway), also with a no toll scenario, attracts 35,000 ADT. Committee Member Buster inquired how many lanes were in each corridor. Mr. Rahimian stated that for Corridor B, the no toll scenario requires 6 lanes where 2 of the lanes could be used as reversible lanes. The toll option reduces the requirement to 4 lanes.. Corridor C, even without toll, requires only 4 lanes because of the low volume of trips it attracts. Corridor D requires improvements to a 4 lane arterial highway. Vice Chairman Miller wanted to know the basis for the toll. Mr. Rahimian said a detailed toll analysis has not yet been undertaken, but will be accomplished once the Strategic Alternatives have been approved. The analysis of the impacts of tolls on the volumes of each of the corridors was based on the experience of TCA. Analysis of Corridors B and C Each of the Corridors originally had 3 facility -type options, Surface, Tunnel, and SurfacefTunnel combination. The surface option in each corridor was previously eliminated because it was costly and environmentally inferior. The relative costs and acreage of environmental impacts were calculated for each remaining option in each Corridor and then the results were compared. The results showed Corridor B to be the better performing corridor and, coupled with its superior transportation utility, it is the better choice. Screening Results On the basis of the screening evaluation, the Project Teamhas reached the following recommendations: • Recommended o Maximum reasonable widening of SR-91. o Maximize transit in all Corridors. o Continue looking at Corridor A, despite the fact that there is no official statement from BNSF. Also, other alternatives are being considered if BNSF right-of-way is not available. o Corridor B. o Corridor D (Ortega Highway). • Not Recommended o Surface alignments in Corridor B. o Corridor C (due to it's lack of performance in terms of traffic, costs, and environmental impact). o Dedicated truck lane (because it is not cost effective). July 15, 2005 4 of 11 RC - OC MIS Policy Committee MINUTES Riverside County to Orange County Major Investment Study Policy Committee July 15, 2005 'fliversideCounty ransportation Commission Vice Chairman Miller asked if the Project Team would eventually separate the tunnel only from the tunnel/surface option and give one as a preferred alignment. Mr. Rahimian responded that, after the Committee approves the Strategic Alternatives, a detailed engineering and environmental analysis would be undertaken on all the Strategic Alternatives, including any tunnel option they contain. This information will be available in October. Mr. Rahimian then outlined each of the Strategic Alternatives: No Build Strategic Alternative • Mag-Lev (Cal-Nev High Speed Rail) from Ontario to Anaheim; • Add one lane in each direction on SR-91 from SR 241 to 1-15; • Add an eastbound auxiliary lane on SR-91 from SR-241 to SR-71; and • The extension of SR-241 (Foothill South) to 1-5. Strategic Alternative I • Maximize transit system; • Maximum widening to SR-91; • Possible managed lane changes for SR-91; • Six lanes elevated structure in Corridor A; • Widening of SR-74 to four lanes; • Goods movement (BNSF track additions); and • Reimburse TCA for loss of toll revenues on SR-241 (option). Committee Member Pringle wanted to know if it was correct that there would be no westbound connection to SR-91 in Corridor A. This is a big concern for his city. Mr. Rahimian said this connection was still being studied and will be analyzed in more detail. Committee Member Ryan expressed concerns about the elevated structure over the BNSF railroad because of impacts to residences. The potential impacts are serious and must be examined in greater detail. Chairman Campbell asked Mr. Rahimian to talk about the no toll option. Mr. Rahimian said that one of the problems of this Strategic Alternative is the traffic volume in Santa Ana Canyon as a result of the added capacity of Corridor A and the widening of the SR- 91. The segment of SR 91 between SR-241 and SR-55 may not be sufficient to carry that traffic based on the reasonable widening of SR-91. Additional widening will be required on SR-55. The Project Team has identified an option to widening the SR-91 and SR-55 and thereby avoiding significant impacts to homes along the existing right-of- way. This option is eliminating tolls on the SR-241 to SR-133, attracting the traffic that would otherwise continue on SR 91, and then turn south on SR 55. Committee Member Pringle asked why eastbound access to Corridor A is not considered? Mr. Rahimian said both westbound and eastbound access will be considered. July 15, 2005 5 of 11 RC - OC MIS Policy Committee OCTA MINUTES Riverside County to Orange Coun Major Investment Study Policy Committee July 15, 2005 iverside County 'transportation Commission Strategic Alternative II • Maximize transit system; • Maximum widening to SR-91; • Possible managed lane changes for SR-91; • Six lane freeway in Corridor B (toll free with two reversible lanes); and • Goods movement (BNSF track additions). . Committee Member Pringle expressed his concerns about the inclusion of Goods Movement with the description of BNSF track additions. Would the additional tracks take any trucks off the road and how would it benefit the public? It appears BNSF receives the benefit of the additional capacity if it is for goods, movement. He could understand the desire to expand Metrolink capacity, and obviously we were using the BNSF tracks so this would be a good cooperative measure and it ought to be discussed further, but should the agencies be the ones advocating this? Mr. Rahimian said this was an excellent comment and he believes they' do need to reconsider this proposal given the fact that we have not heard from BNSF, or if indeed they refuse to allow us the extra right-of-way. Mr. Rahimian pointed out that one of the earlier directions from this Committee in approving the Purpose and Need Statement was to evaluate goods movement and include it in the evaluation of alternatives. Strategic Alternative III -A • Maximize transit system; • Maximum widening to SR-91; . • Possible managed lane changes for SR-91; • Four lanes in Corridor A (without connections to SR-91); • Four lanes in Corridor B (toll); • Widening of SR-74 to four lanes; and • Goods movement (BNSF track additions). Committee Member Buster asked if the Project Team was developing comparisons of the cost index with the traffic throughput for the individual alternatives? Mr. Rahimian said they were developing comparisons. Committee Member Duvall was concerned that some of the alignments are based upon the BNSF railroad and approval has not been received from BNSF that their right-of-way can be used. Mr. Rahimian said the Project Team is examining different alternatives to accomplish the same goal without the use of BNSF's right-of-way. Vice Chairman Miller was very concerned about the impacts of an elevated structure on BNSF right-of-way through Corona.. He said this structure was not part of the original intent of the study. Vice Chairman Miller wanted to know if there was still motivation to continue studying this specific alignment or maybe the study effort should be focused on an elevated structure over the existing SR-91. He was concerned that, from past experience, BNSF might also be hard to work with. He asked the Committee if there is any motivation to give some different direction. Chairman Campbell said this was a screening alternative and there is budget to study this so the study should continue. July 15, 2005 6 of 11 RC - OC MIS Policy Committee MINUTES Riverside County to Orange County Major Investment Study Policy Committee July 15, 2005 werside County ransportation Commission Committee Member Magee said that if we are going to retain the BNSF alternative, even though we do not have a response, he thinks it is premature to abandon the Corridor C alternative. The Outreach Report contains several statements of support for the Corridor C alternative. In Corridor C, there is a developer that wants to work with the City in preserving right-of-way and avoiding homes in that area. Corridor B may be less expensive and less environmentally intrusive, but we have not talked about the taking of homes and moratoriums and the cost that would entail. If we are going to keep the BNSF alternative, we should also keep Corridor C. Committee Member Buster asked what would be the impacts of continuing to study Corridor C. Mr. Rahimian said that, because the detailed engineering and environmental work needs to start after this meeting, the Project Team would like to concentrate their efforts on the recommended Strategic Alternatives. Opening another corridor would add time pressure on the team. Committee Member Hall said the figures have indicated that the Cajalco route would handle more traffic and the intent of this effort is to relieve pressure on the SR-91. As you get farther south from the SR-91, you lose the benefit of the alternative corridor and you have to further expand the SR-91 to accommodate the additional traffic. A great effort has been made to identify corridors in western Riverside County that would open up the valley area. We have identified the best route as being Cajalco/Ramona Parkway to run east and west. The problem is that when you move south from Cajalco to continue this route west, you are double loading the 1-15 freeway. Now you are looking at improvements on the 1-15 in addition to the route through the mountains. It seems this study is pointing out that the Cajalco route is the most effective route. Committee Member Moore agreed with Committee Member Hall that Corridor B is the best corridor because of the number of trips it takes off of SR-91. He is also in favor of Corridor A because it ties directly into 1-15 from SR-241, which would also relieve traffic on SR-91. One of the reasons that Corridor C was eliminated was because it is further away from the SR-91, so to add Corridor C back in does not make sense to him. Committee Member Ryan suggested looking at the big picture and seeing what works. At this point, he doesn't feel like he has enough information to make a really informed decision. He also has serious reservations regarding the elevated structure over the railroad or even near the railroad. However, we aren't going to solve all the transportation issues between the two counties simply with the SR-91 corridor; there need to be other altematives. He would like to continue to study Corridor C. Committee Member Pringle observed that a lot of the alternatives are mix and match components. It is feasible to widen the SR-91 and to build Corridor A as well as Corridor B and D. It is not conceivable to build both Corridor B and C. There has been a lot of exploration of these two corridors. There is a dramatic drop-off of Riverside and San Bernardino County commuters if you get too far south of the access point from Riverside County He asked that the Project Team share some of their other presentations so that everyone is aware of the work that has been done in terms of making the recommendations. July 15, 2005 7 of 11 RC - OC MIS Policy Committee MINUTES Riverside County to Orange Coun Major Investment Study Policy Committee July 15, 2005 iversideCounty Transportation Commission Mr. Rahimian said as you move further south along the County Line, the travel demand to Orange County from western Riverside County and San Bernardino County diminishes significantly. It is not really feasible to construct Corridor B and Corridor C. In addition, as you move further south, because your demand decreases, you attract less traffic, which means that you have to put more traffic in the SR-91 corridor and this creates other issues and problems. There would not be any gain or change in results from studying Corridor C further. If Corridor C is decided over Corridor B there will be more traffic placed either on the Ortega Highway, or on the SR-91. Strategic Alternative III-B This alternative is very similar to III -A except this alternative has possible managed lanes for Corridor A instead of the possible managed lane changes for SR-91 in III -A. Recommendations/Next Steps • Approve the Strategic Alternatives; • Direct staff to return in October 2005 with the detailed Evaluation of Strategic Alternatives and recommendation for the Locally Preferred Strategy; • Public Outreach efforts planned for Fall of 2005; and • OCTA/RCTC consideration of Locally Preferred Strategy in December 2005. Chairman Campbell wanted clarification that this Committee's approval will be narrowing the altematives. Ms. Bechtel said this was correct. . 4. Public Comments Anthony Mack Mr. Mack is a resident in Silverado Canyon and owns property in Riverside. and Orange . counties. He observed that, while Riverside residents might like the concept of a new corridor, Orange County residents don't and the idea of a surface road through the Cleveland National Forest is particularly offensive. He suggested that any route for Corridor B or Corridor C be mostly tunnel to avoid dividing the forest habitat and felt that the reasons for eliminating Corridor C were not well founded. Finally, he did not believe toll roads were a solution to congestion on SR 91 because commuters are not willing to pay the toll. Scott Breeden Mr. Breeden said the real problem is that there are not enough jobs in Riverside County close to the residents. The emphasis should be on creating jobs in Riverside County, not transportation corridors to Orange County. Clair Schlotterbeck Ms. Schlotterbeck works with the Wildlife Conservation Authority and is on the Stakeholders Committee. She would like to obtain the origin and destination figures used for the analysis so that others could evaluate them. She feels that, if the destination numbers are not right, the solutions being proposed will not relieve congestion. An alternative she supports is developing a job base in Riverside County. As an advocate for Chino Hills State Park and the Chino Hills Wildlife Corridor, she urged that Corridor A be dropped, this route would impact the only national area of the Santa Ana River in Orange County. July 15, 2005 8 of 11 RC - OC MIS Policy Committee • • OCTA MINUTES Riverside County to Orange County Major Investment Study Policy Committee July 15, 2005 -Riverside County Transportation Commission Connie Nelson Ms. Nelson is a resident of Silverado Canyon. She is concemed about the impacts on the residents if tunneling is done in Silverado Canyon. She feels the toll roads are underutilized and thinks reversible lanes on SR 91 are a more effective solution. For travel between southern Riverside County and southern Orange County, widening Ortega Highway is the best choice. Ms. Nelson observed that, on the south side of the SR-91, there are 850 acres that are possibly for sale and she knows whom to contact. Chairman Campbell asked Ms. Nelson to provide Mr. Rahimian with that information. Vice Chairman Miller said Corona was working very closely with that developer and they would be able to assist. Cathy DeYounq Ms. DeYoung is a former board member of OCTA and is the Mayor Pro-Tem for the City of Laguna Niguel. She is commenting on Corridor D as an individual and not representing the City, which has not taken a position. Ms. DeYoung is concerned about the increase in traffic on Corridor D if it is developed and the resultant impact on 1-5. The connection of SR 241 with Ortega Highway will not help the situation, as travelers will opt for the free route instead of the tolled route and will continue down Ortega Highway to 1-5. The 1-5 south has been critically impacted in the last few years. The OCTA Board was kind enough to support a Major Investment Study for 1-5 south that Ms. DeYoung proposed when she was on the Board. Similarly, for this project, the impact on the whole transportation system throughout Orange County should be considered. Specifically, if Corridor D is going to be constructed, what improvements will be made on 1-5? Ms DeYoung also noted that she had seen a letter from the City of San Juan Capistrano indicating that they are supportive of the improvement to 4 lanes, but they want it built last and they wanted safeguards that will minimize the impact to their city. She asked that the letter be distributed to this Board so the City's viewpoint is made very clear on this issue. Ms. DeYoung does not think Corridor D is the ideal option. She believes everyone heads to northern Orange County from this Major Investment Study so why increase the traffic to south Orange County only to have it then move up to north Orange County. Enrique Arroyo Enrique Arroyo is representing California State Parks and in particular, Chino Hills State Park. Mr. Arroyo appreciates the efforts of the Project Team to take steps to create objective materials, such as maps and information. Mr. Arroyo also wanted to point out that in the Draft Screening Report Exhibits 3.14 and 3.15 do not show the boundaries of the Chino Hills State Park. If the boundaries of the State Park are not shown relative to the proposed alignment options for Corridor A this might mislead the public about the environmental impacts to the State Park and may effect the ultimate decision. 5. Additional Comments from the Committee Committee Member Ritschel wanted to correct, in her opinion, a comment made by one of the speakers with regard to growth in the county. Although there has been tremendous residential growth in south Orange County, that is not where the jobs are. The jobs are primarily in central and north Orange County and that is where people are commuting to from Riverside County. If people drive from Riverside on the improved Ortega Highway, they will take 1-5 as a no toll choice, or the SR-241, if they are willing to pay a toll, and head north. If the Ortega Highway is included in these alternatives, she would like to see, as Cathy DeYoung has recommended, an assessment of the impact of this traffic throughout Orange County. Secondly, she would like to see the improvements to the SR-74 contingent upon the SR-241 being completed. If SR-241 is not extended, all the traffic coming over from Riverside County will end up on surface streets July 15, 2005 9 of 11 RC - OC MIS Policy Committee MINUTES Riverside County to Orange County Major Investment Study Policy Committee July 15, 2005 iversideCounty ransportation Connnission and substantially impact the communities, including San Juan Capistrano. San Juan Capistrano did provide their detailed comments on improvements to the Ortega, and one of their primary concerns was the timing of the improvements, the improvements to the Ortega should be the last to be completed. Committee Member Buster said the Ortega Highway is a two-lane road with head-on collisions. He appreciates Committee Member Ritschel's concerns, but there has to be four lanes on the Ortega Highway to cure the head on collisions. He believes she understands and supports the Caltrans improvement project, but if the Ortega is expanded to four lanes it takes care of the improvement project at the same time. He also observed that Riverside County needs to work on the current imbalance of housing and jobs. Committee Member Moore said what is feeding the growth in Riverside County right now is the cost of homes in Orange County. He said we are in this together and we have to solve this together. . Committee Member Magee asked that the impacts of increasing capacity on SR 74 be addressedon the Lake Elsinore side as well as the Orange County side. From the 1-15 until you reach the mountains, Highway 74 is going through a developed, populated area of Lake Elsinore. Committee Member Pringle said he will vote no on Strategic Alternative I because it does not include a significant option outside of the Santa Ana Canyon. Any viable alternative has to include some mid -county connection, and Corridors B and C provide that. He recommends eliminating C and including B. He has a concern about Corridor A and the future study of Corridor A because it contributes to the burden in the Santa Ana Canyon. Committee Member Ryan provided some information from the TCA Boards' points of view. Yesterday both Boards directed their legal staff to draft an agreement between the two Boards, so they can move forward quickly with Foothill South. From the TCA's perspective the toll systems impacts need to be examined carefully. Vice Chairman Miller had concerns on Altemative I; he said concentrating all that traffic in that Corridor is problematic from a safety standpoint. When Prado Dam had a leak, there were serious immobility issues. SR-71 was closed by the leak, and if the Ortega Highway had been closed, the only connection between the two counties would have been SR-91. Concentrating so much traffic in one corridor was not reasonable. 6. Voting on the Strategic Alternatives Chairman Campbell proposed that the Board vote on each of the Strategic Alternatives, then when they complete voting on 1 through III, come back and revisit whether or not to give staff direction to add Corridor C back in. Chairman Campbell wanted to know how many votes were needed? Steve Debaun, Legal Counsel, said a majoritywas necessary and that would be 6 of the 11 members present . Chairman Campbell than conducted the vote: Allin favor of Strategic Alternative I — By a show of hands it was opposed. All in favor of Strategic Alternative II — By a show of hands it was passed. All in favor of Strategic Alternative IIIA & IIIB — By a show of hands it was passed. All in favor of reconsidering Corridor C — By a show of hands it was opposed. July 15, 2005 10 of 11 RC - OC MIS Policy Committee • MINUTES Riverside County to Orange County Major Investment Study Policy Committee July 15, 2005 side County ransportaton Commission: Chairman Campbell asked if Mr. Rahimian had any observations that might influence the Committee to re- consider Alternative I. Mr. Rahimian observed that the Committee will be considering the Strategic Alternatives approved today in October when the team will be bringing forward the results of a detailed analysis. If the Board will allow the technical team to study in further detail Alternative I, it will provide a better perspective of the environmental impacts and the costs of each Strategic Alternative. Chairman Campbell wanted to know if Mr. Rahimian was suggesting that, in eliminating the one Alternative that did not include a route with a new alignment they might not be living up to all of the parameters of a Federal requirement? Mr. Rahimian responded that he believed eliminating that Strategic Alternative at this time was premature. Mr. Leahy, said that Altemative I should be reconsidered because of the issue with BNSF. Ms. Bechtel said that further study of Altemative I would help the staff. The Major Investment Study is a first step when moving into the environmental process and completing it with a full range of alternatives is important to demonstrating a thorough review to the resource agencies when we move to the next step in the process. When the staff brings forward the detailed report and recommendation in October, the Committee will have the opportunity to eliminate this Strategic Alternative. Chairman Campbell called for a vote to reconsider Strategic Alternative I. Committee Member Ritschel said she wanted to make one final comment. She said she did oppose Alternative I initially along with the majority of the Committee Members. Her only concem as we move forward is that the only alternatives that we will be considering include a tunnel. Of course she is in favor of continuing to pursue the tunnel, but in the end what if the tunnel does not work? There are a lot of risks to a tunnel option and if a tunnel doesn't end up being feasible, are we going to be able to achieve our additional capacity that is one of our objectives? She stated she was willing to reconsider and include Strategic Alternative I as we go forward. Committee Member Brown observed that nothing would be lost by continuing to study Strategic Alternative I. In three months, if the Committee still wanted to eliminate it, at least the decision would be based on more detailed study. Chairman Campbell then asked for a vote on retaining Strategic Alternative I — By a show of hands it was included. Committee Member Ritschel said it would be very helpful if the Committee could receive the materials for the meeting a couple of days in advance and asked that, prior to the next meeting, that this would be done. Chairman Campbell adjourned the meeting and thanked the staff for their presentation and the Committee for their participation. 7. Next Meeting — October 21, 2005 at 9:00 A.M. at RCTC 8. Adjournment Meeting adjourned at 12:10 p.m. July 15, 2005 11 of 11 RC - OC MIS Policy Committee • 2. • Item 2. OCTA October 28, 2005 To: From: Subject: Overview Riverside County — Orange County Major Policy Committee Paul C. Taylor, P.E. Exec and Commuter Services Strategic Alternatives Technical Evaluation Investment Study ng, Development Technical evaluation is under way for the three alternatives recommended by the Riverside County — Orange County Major Investment Study Policy Committee in July 2005. An overview of the alternatives, cost estimates, impacts and benefits, and preliminary technical findings is attached for review and comment. Recommendations A. Receive and file as an information item. B. Provide direction to staff on issues for further technical evaluation in developing the Locally Preferred Strategy. C. Direct staff to return on November 18, 2005, with recommendations for a Locally Preferred Strategy. Attachment A. Briefing Packet Orange County Transportation Authority 550 South Main Street / P.O. Box 14184 / Orange / California 92863-1584 / (714) 560-OCTA (6282) ATTACHMENT A 00z le aa90100 uorssrlaluoD nor. vmodsun r ,t urro uorssrdr st uno aapiuzuzoj kloglApv .zapiogaxeis - Ieotupal,) uzea,r, wowdopAga loo[aid - aa11imwoD Xoijod - saautuzuzoj looraid OZ nqui°3°CI uT popidwoj oq o,I, -frOOZ aunt ui urfog loorom punclAmautt jaa Rad Aiunoio efiu noo ngi 0 noIs ,Out IMsixa .nano XITOUdE0 o�OS ql.m0-12 OgiZ JoJ son.gmuow Tupow-pinui opnpu 4rus pow sJopwoo mou iSpluap 6-2IS auk slumuomuditij ozpupce samparcto Spnis Sfax Jo unoo emb • :.“!/ 1 .iCISi �.iSI . OEOZ AVC101. 011 000`000` I 000`000` k9 Y - i 000`000`Z 000`000`Z a, 000`000` E 000`000` € 000`000`17 000`000`17 NOIJ_VindOd • 000'0 3 000'00Z 000' 00 £ 000' 0017 000'00 000 00Z 000000E 000'0017 .AMd I 6 AWa/S31DIH3A • virn3W31 13143N OlNio'P NVS A1Nr103 ONKNIINS3B NIPS 1513 31f1 NOANY3 .' $upspx3 quaol J oue m Gooz 31 N3Nm0 NYS '• ,�� NOISSIN CHOWN 13<1DIN *marl s„., iNlAsi A311VA ON3NOW ;'HNC J5 . 11, 03110N S111H ONIN3 V'32ib8[1S BLS &MIL' Y,14.1. t10.I.i�i'd�?I3d SONIWOW.° atirl Aitgnco unoems." 113Y38 INOcUA3N 8p� WNW Viten �i- vaNn VBRIOA tl3116 -b 7� f Nausmr» S3139NV SO1 • • � p000xo poloodxo P KOZ ICIV 000`OZZ uo Pou2IsoP IUV 000'89Z 'uTCuro Xlluonnj spualaarn &unTou-I kep auk Jo Isom suompuoo pug doffs sapunoa apisnnTN pug a2urip uaarnpq Jopi.uoo .10fEW 'quo auk �ennaa.g j 6 a&reJp ut skumaa.g palso2uoo luom auk Jo auo ponmsuoD spueutap amnj pug luauno atpueu alunbapuut �unnaa.0 16 sanssi uogepodsuekt unoo a CINVIA3C1 318n n 33W Ol CI C133N I LAIS 01 El VI SI 16-1IS S3NIV1 DNIISIX3 • } t snivao Fpnwwoo pug Fpuomsoi 2uIss000r spew aReluo.zd kem-jo-N2p suawej apiispuri uumu.zapum .5atsso.zo a;rjplim aoAtej Fop — �[-��d MelS SifiH oulu3 um-;o-N2iz pooh}) Janig eud muus wowdopAop tepuopIsai pouumd pur 2upsyca sluatuammdmi T6-2IS .10j SlUMIJS1103 efiuwo unoo • uuouoj pug `wouTso `ouansidup uunr ups `autnij qupticuv - SOOZ tl�� aiouism pug quIoquuv `oumisidup uunr ups tuatop `autuI twanIAT muus ouourN - SOOZ auPdS muouo3 pug a.iouisig avri `ofatn uoTssm `autnJI tuptiruv - t7OOZ ITEd spojja timaIlno alpind Alpunoo uato n}u� • �A!d • noigSfltllil0'p ilDni9J iodsumil , rinorjamsdi llll gooz iqnr povms env tioariaQo ianid3oNoo SNYY Al Ines 3 +1 0JuNnoo 30.ISa3AIN �4/1,02 (traits oi sa ,# �t,s omPsAGO imp t$11:1S 04 alowsi3 - a loPmxk3 rr �S 9i St iruotoa wwe+i a ud+taeo euq et+w06 - y00 PUN Z [ aamunuoD ioTiod �q paAaiddu «spurq„ Joptlloo pealg uaINT sPms p -Munoz anit/ 0 • • • • Riverside County -Orange Coun. Policy Committee Direction July 15, 2005 • Perform Detailed Evaluation — Maximum reasonable widening of SR-91 — Maximize transit in all Corridors — Corridor A — Corridor B — Corridor D • Eliminated from Further Consi — Surface alignments in Corridor — Corridor C • *Maglev *One lane each direction of SR-91 from County Line to 1-15 *One eastbound auxiliary lane on SR-91 from SR-241 to SR-71 *Extension of SR-241 (Foothill South) to 1-5 lor IrtY lo Saga PoR ILLUStRADVk PuRPOSES ONLY A r.,A; Itn • Orange Cot,: A -A B-B LEGEND Fxisting Sigtevay C-C Proposed SR-91 Inwrowirents Proposed MVEV AtVfne't Existing SR-91 Lanes NM Proposed Addsdonai SR-91 9aseiris Lwes: .roposed Viapiev Transit borne nts • Proposed Extension d SR-241 0 Ptdocsed ElVieV6131 litercharips PROPOSED CORRIDOR 'A' ELEVATED STRUCTURE WITH MAGLEV Note. 11401ene dt AA WB EB ptent6iily En: iacated tis tf,e, a,epost:0 Coffidof 2/1' 6-** eitavatod struclure PROPOSED SR-91 CORRIDOR • NO ADDITIONAL LANES FROM SR-55 TO SR-241 YVB EB PROPOSED SR-91 CORRIDOR - ADDITIONAL 3 LANES FROM A,,, Sh4 tare ik gr. ,C/IN ano, oi EfrAto Tot T Softs WR R•71 5 Wed Flow aloes EB PROPOSED SR-9I CORRIDOR ADDITIONAL 2 LANES FROM SR-T1 T01-15 5 !Axed rtnt Ltryt. -i0V Bare, HOV Buff* aft 5 ktiNd FlAt Larvae ES Airr Lane HIVERSIDE COUNTY - ORANGE COUNT Y MIS 2030 NO BUILD STRATEGIC ALTERNATIVE I0OCITE0 Jo Hol 'smog Arad &limp rno jo uopoa.rtp auk auT2ump) lcloouoo aum pogrucw wals�s lIsuaij aziLutx-elAT . uopoafrmp up" ui T6-11S auk salmi orni. auo ppv • samjetuallv uT jualsIsuo3 quatuaAomitui ustp unoo apisJei.la • uTuJi 'nods a� , S °Tau sauel aigtszanag/,I,OH/AOH 2cloouo3 souuri pogeurw �C�IIi��d auPtIed EPS 000` sduzeN doJa Aoll - uuo.zop ui Joluoj lIsuau popurdxg oopuas luijailaw posuanui ooImos sng ssaldxg samijuag �isueaZ &two unoo apisie • • Riverside Cou 'Maximize transit system 'Maximum widening to SR-91 'Possible managed lane changes for SR-91 •Six lanes elevated structure in Corridor A 'Widening of SR-74 to four lanes 'Reimburse TCA for loss of toll revenues on SR-241 (option) B-B Possible Fourth Track' BNSF Rail Lines Structure could be locale:1 either KM, south, a gel win and miuti d the EttiSF nint-of-tropt IdOt ItrirfOr'errien% AOUI a be COnsiniCted outside or Bmsr right-of,ww nes kr co-strum:is of fourth Val br height expansion PROPOSED SR-91 CORRIDOR - ADDITIONAL 3 LANES FROM SR-55 TO SR-241 PROPOSED CORRIDOR 'A 6-LANE ELEVATED STRUCTURE FeN Yeas y 1E, 3 ,3F.1,11 UV! OS EB 3 GRTol Law ShN A -A fix Nat in Scale FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY LEGEND Existing 144-may Proposed SR-91 Improvements Proposed Additional SR-91 Lanes Existi rvg SR-91 Lanes - Propxed Corridor A Alignment - Proposed Corridor A Improvements Proposed Extension of SR-241 Proposed Conidct D Improvements Proposed Caridor D Route Propoer,:d Corridor D Lanes Prorceed Maglev Alignment By Others' +2 Proposed Number of Avdditional Lanes B-B C-C Buffer \ WB ManagW Lanes Mfg 2 Managed Lanes EB EB conallu °there 6 Mixed FIVA Lanes Aux ShICI PROPOSED SR-91 CORRIDOR - ADDITIONAL 2 LANES BETWEEN SR.71 AND 1.15 9116'4 - Managed 2 Managed 5 MOM Row UM Lanes 6 hiked Raw Una WB ES PROPOSED CORRIDOR 'D' CONVENTIONAL 4-LANE ARTERIAL- TU NNE USURFACE -,— -- - -, — ....._ ...--- . ____ Mall Ian e.' 24° 5' varxrs 5' 24' 0, e :_, , 4 _at WB EB RIVERSIDE COUNTY - ORANGE COUNTY MIS STRATEGIC ALTERNATIVE I • Riverside County -Orange Coun LEGEND Existing Lanes Proposed Lanes Six -Lane Corridor A —Within SR-91 WITH ELEVATED STRUCTURE HQV/HQT u we 3 GPribli Lanes HOWNOT EB Sr lc 3 GRBToP Lanes JPiIII , Ivi 1.a Gli 3 NW.' LQt IV O, _____ ,1Mg ,i Mg -_.�_ , ITf1AGiJ i IVtn 13113C.7 Of fftf fiti la ea afill Note, Structure could be located either over the westbound lanes, earth south of the BNSF right-of-way on two uni-directional structures. d lanes, or split north and EB V1iITHOUT ELEVATED STRUCTURE 2 Ht)VfHOT 2 HO'v/H©T Shfd 5 Mixed Flow Lanes Lanes Lanes :;Ti rIfi" 5 Mixed Flo ix -lane structure resu is in ®® 1. = 181anes = 141anes s Riverside County -Orange Coun Differences Between Strategic Alternative IA and IB • Strategic Alternative IA — Reduces/eliminates tolls on SR-241 to relieve SR-55 • Strategic Alternative IB — Retains tolls on SR-241 and widens SR-55 by one lane in each direction from SR-91 to • • • Orange Coun Strategic Alt. IB Right -of -Way Impacts ide LAND US E Agricultural Indus trial Re s ide ntial Single -Family Multi -Family Office & Commerical Church Ope n Space / Cons e rvation Proposed Development Public Facilitie s / Utilitie s Totals rctc j'irrn,idr r,:orIrty rarq.;,,i;Ictin!7 rfi 71717 f rri ACRES 0 0 0 43 1 2 1 0 0 0 47 RANGE OF PROPERTIES IMPACTED 0 0 0 200 to 250 25 to 50 2 to 5 0 0 0 N/A spS_ocninei d1S,1111 _;'J :tr-4,12.1N`f-t;�:`I� 1f•� '���=� N 'ah i �S3g3i 7 4++C+idts3 .Fl fs�pf i.. ,14,1111.1- +.LM 1Frar -* aPteri • nrrVa aanaad H01,01 .4 .=_: , 1+a r _ 3.1774111i0 141141i i NAMIL-I R4 iM,7P•°L%�"iF rt tiOnflats,, 3 11...i363.13t! "w 1°PlIal°3 w Ajui daueap unoo apt Ani • • • • • • Riverside Cou Orange *Maximize transit system *Maximum widening to SR-91 *Possible managed lane changes for SR-91 *Six lane freeway in Corridor B (toll free with two reversible lanes) E ANAGLII LAiiE Hai fa Scale FOR ILLUSTRATNE PURPOSES ONLY LEGEND Existing High.vay Proposed SR-91 Improvements i.erx Proposed Mdilional SR-91 Lanes Using SR 91 Lanes - Proposed Utensi,:n of SR-241 Proposed Corridor B Route Proposed Curidor B Lanes Proposed Majev Nigrrnent (By Oihsfs) +2 Proposed Number of klditional Lame RD _LAKE ST -41CfrIS RD Shhi A -A WB EIS Note hiegiev to be construtIad bv others. C-C PROPOSED SR-,91 CORRIDOR - ADDITIONAL 3 LANES FROM SR-55TO SR-241 BUR( 6 Wed Flo. L.4E4.6. I 2 Mailagai I Lame. BUIT.F.4 1,4anajEd Lams 133 0 Med Flaw 1.61106 PROPOSED SR-91 CORRIDOR - ADDITIONAL 2 LANES FROM SR-71 TO 1-15 Bumf Buff 2 Managad 2 kian4jL41 LENS J 5 Wad Fla. LArr,o5 5 Mad Flm Lanes WB El3 PROPOSED CORRIDOR "B' CONVENTI(}NAL Fs LANE FREEWAY - TUNNEL/SURFACE Sh4d 5%. 2 44ice, Flck Reversbt4 L./v.44 24' EB/WB shb. 5,1C, '-i 2 Rh-.,d Flaw 1.111,1-1 24' EB Aux. Skid 10' Shld RIVERSIDE COUNTY - ORANGE COUNTY MIS STRATEGIC ALTERNATIVE II • • REPRESENTATIVE AAGNNIENT;S • • Riverside County -Orange Cou Corridor B CORRIDOR 11111111112 11111111111111111111 .- LAM 1111.011VItE TUNME_!e#f1•RA7lVEJ1LJ R .- LJ4E/411D4 - I.100. MANLY FU LiMIOD!'M 7LAfli 1.11MI IMPONi1V E AL CWIMENT 4- LIME E 01/11IILE / 7LIIMIL 1 7LVLt/1LI fF . -LEE StairUCIS/ 11UNNIlL PLiN0040I1--7L/11A. 001011104 .-LEA1p4- LANK 101A,iYiaiL-11.10L110N71IINNOLI 001- siaCTIOM 4 - LANK MIILrma plumes. AI AINSIE i1T-1tI IMEL 012 1100 REPRESENTATIVE ALIGNMENTS FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY • • ide County -Oran •Maximize transit system •Maximum widening to SR-91 •Possible managed lane changes for SR-91 or Corridor A •Four lanes in Corridor A •Four lanes in Corridor B (toll) •Widening of SR-74 to four lanes A -A Mar to Scale FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY LEGEND Exhaling Highway Proposed SR-9r1 Improvements PrOrx0eA Additional SR -fit Lanes Existirg SR-91 Lanes Proposed Extension of SR24 - Proposed Corridor A Alignment Ell Proposed Corridor A knprovernents :11= Proposed Corridor B Route Proposed Corridor B La res - Proposed Corridor D Improvements Proposed Corridor D Route Proposed Corridor D Lanes Proposed Maglev Nignrnent (By 01Nre +2 Proposed Number of Additional La nas B-B EB WB ELEVATED STRUCTURE !NB 21fted Flew Lim, M in 21415th Fith Lima Mth Possible Fourth ,s Track -B' I S 1 Aria! I ...46......,16_,a16._ .......LL,_ / ISNSF Rail Lines \ Note: Structue could be located Otter nab , south. a sLiii north and south of the @NSF fispi-o/-wes oi.,ritsor imprmements amid onsIructso outside of @NSF rtght-clea' `Ikea fa cxxisituctin of fourth bed( lOr freight expansion. PROPOSED SR-9I CORRIDOR - ADDITIONAL 3 LANES FROM SR-55 TO SR-241 Puffer Buffer 2 Managel I Man LSD% 2 aged I Lanes Mixed Fiefe Lanes Fit I 1 - Mixed Flye Lanes , ES PROPOSED SR-91 CORRIDOR = ADDITIONAL 2 LANES FROM SR-71 TO 1-15 euniK Larreserriies4 anal Ta11/2169r PROPOSED CORRIDOR V CONVENTIONAL 4 LANE FREEWAY - TUNNEUSURE'ACE C-C D-D Shid 2 Tel Lanes 10' Shid PROPOSED CORRIDOR 'D' CONVENTIONAL 4- i EB E ARTERIAL - TUNNEUSURFACE kth,-ithn .... ._ _ Varies CHI . tr : WB Aux Stiii RIVERSIDE COUNTY - ORANGE COUNTY MIS STRATEGIC ALTERNATIVE III • Riverside County -Orange Coun Four -Lane Corridor A —Within SR-9 WITH ELEVATED STRUCTURE LEGEND Existing Lanes Proposed Lanes 5 Mixed Flow Lanes WB EB Shid 2 1 IOT Lanes SI11( hle 2 I OT Lanes la1d WITHOUT ELEVATED STRUCTURE 5 Mixed Flow Lanes .2 HOWHOT 2 HON/MOT Shld 5 Mixed Flaw Lanes La,es Lanes 5 Mixed Flow Lanes Enid our ane structure resu is in ly two additional lanes. j' err •-fr'rr]wiF`f➢" I rr;rfatitH.7 = 161anes = 14 lanes • ()rang Cot Environmental Mitigation Costs • Summary of Potential Mitigation Costs by Corridor (Millions) Discipline SR-91 Corridor A Corridor B Corridor D Six -Lane Combo Six -Lane Tunnel Four -Lane Combo Four -Lane Tunnel Four -Lane Combo_ Four -Lane Surface Biological Resources $50 $30 $225 $75 $150 $75 $130 r $265 NPDES Peru $10 $10 $30 $15 $30 $15 $15 $30 Cultural Resources $5 $10 $50 $25 $50 $25 $25 $50 Noise Attenuation $20 $20 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 Sect. 4(f) Resources $40 $50 $150 $50 $150 $50 $75 $150 Visual Resources $10 $10 $50 $50 $50 $50 $25 $50 Contingency (25 %) $30 $35 $130 $60 $110 $60 $70 $140 a Total $165 $165 $645 $285 $550 $285 $350 $695 t3ioiogical Kesource Mitigation includes permits, construction monitoring, and long-term monitoring Cultural Resources includes construction monitoring Noise Attenuation or Sound Walls Section 4(f) includes relocation/replacement r Visual Resources includes special landscaping Costs refinements under wa and may change • • • CorridorFeatures *Total Cost ($Billions) Approximate R/W (Acres) SR-91 $1.1 10 Max. Feasible Lanes. Includes buyout of 91 Express Lanes Comparatively low environmental impact Corridor 4-Lane $3.5 310 R/W impacts in Corona (built environment) Comparatively low environmental impact 6-Lane $3.8 320 R/W impacts in Corona (built environment) Mitigation downstream (SR 241/SR 55) Comparatively low environmental impact Corridor B 6-Lane, Surface/Tunnel $6.5 960 SR-133 widening required (impacts in unbuilt area) Comparatively high environmental impact 6-Lane ,Tunnel $8.3 240 SR-133 widening required (impacts in unbuilt area) Comparatively low environmental impact 4-Lane,Surface /Tunnel $5.0 610 SR-133 widening required (impacts in unbuilt area) Comparatively high environmental impact 4-Lane, Tunnel $5.5 230 SR-133 widening required (impacts in unbuilt area) Comparatively low environmental impact Corridor D Surface /Tunne 1 $3.2 670 Costly with comparatively high environmental impact for little capacity improvement Surface , $4.5 1,500 Highest environmental impact Costly for little capacity * Includes 25% contingency, 25% project development, right of way, and environmental mitigation cost refinemeA nder way and may change. OLO`£T$ 8SS`ZT$ S9T`TT$ S8£`6$ 8Z8`6$ 6£6`0T$ (su oiiii IN) Ie�oZ • (L99$) (L99$) Y0CI$ tOCT$ 9011 LOZ`Z$ (anuanaH iios)/Iioi * * *AtopetlS trtrttcY3 rtomg.todsttt, ams.tAtill u� keno apun sivaulomjal slsoa S j 0 Z III s auel s s a i xa 16 a seta an a oiititu S S I $ apnpui ogle s am uu alit/ ai 2 a1P-11S II V * * * 000`000110£`I$=slaedmI SS HS 000`000`0911=sPedtuI ££I ?IS 000`000`0SI$= sivatuanotdug Sipudea IrZ IIS sPedulI SS HS `slaedtuI ££i ?IS `sluatuanotdug Sipedea Ii'Z ?IS3o isoa :sapnpul** sisoa Iuatudoianaci pafotd oksz pug Sauaupuoa oksz sapnpul* 09b$ 0 0 0 00£`T$ OT9$ **•situball Jain() £6T`£$ £6T`£$ £6T`£$ £6T`£$ Q .toppaoa 6T £`8$ 6£S`9$ aueq-9 £T S`S$ T00`S$ aueri-f Lt78`£$ Lt78`£$ aueZ-9 68-`£$ 68-`£$ aueq-17 g .iopp.11[oa V .iopriioa (suoilt11 $) * sI soa iopp io3 Z80` T $ Z80` T $ Z80` T $ Z80` T $ Z80` T $ Z80` T $ I6-2IS I auuni III -vs IauunZ/aaelinS III -VS i auunZ Iauunl/aaWnS II -VS QI-vs eI -VS a niieut ally ail alenS krumtuns lsoj 'ijiv' ol2olugs u unoo •ofuurio pug kum npun sluauzaugai slsop sisoo [ion mopeds pur `uogegp. 6'I. ['El$ 0 aoppioa auunl 9 aop000 emit `y aoppio0 emit ` [6-EIS iauuns III -VS 6' l [` [ [$ lauunl ausl-g 8 aopiaao<J 1.6-EIS iauuns II -VS 8'Z 8'6$ 0 a0141100 `y mpg° aue1-9 `59-EIS `[6-EIS (II -VS 0'Z 6'0[$ 0 aoPP.100 `d aop000 auE1-9 `11,Z-EIS` [6-HS gI -ITS pooneuas (suo!iple) isoof wpm aitmulaipi NJNulls aAgetually Vaimoslsoa SIgurtuns utto unoo eAsJa..,„, • • IttlISSllttllt dire 10DajAT Noz ui i(ep .gad salnupu zaanuzuzoo aRMnE NT anus I 6-2IS o spaads popod luad moll-aa.z3 .eau ui ajnsag Iu02 acw) ou3e.z,L xnua agennd loow - :sanPUuzaTjd 3-1MU-T1S ITV (Ids ittxtj, uom.uoo Mai sluouo olncu kmpuooas soplAaTd pug sloudulT soincwism go -mid& Jomnoo-pInw (gI-dS) opmuoiciald spud-111T iliunuzucoo 2-1,ijuomm gg-Ns speckuT muoumaTTAuo imm Xpsoo 21.ijuomm pug luatuu2Iteai t7L-Ns aApoorqo uodn -paa.de aAomou sonpuunijv 01201EJIS 11V suIpula tealutpai unoo a uwo unoo op! .1 • •