Loading...
11 November 18, 2005 Riverside County-Orange County Major Investment Study Policy74761 Cathy Bechtel rersx,, OCTA Transportation ontissitni .mi AGENDA Riverside County — Orange County Major Investment Study Policy Committee Meeting Committee Members Bill Campbell, Chair Jeff Miller, Vice Chair Bob Buster Carolyn Cavecche Michael Duvall Frank Hall Bob Magee Ameal Moore Chris Norby Michael Perovich Curt Pringle Cindy Quon Susan Ritschel Ken Ryan John Tavaglione Alan Wapner Tom Wilson Roy Wolfe Orange County Transportation Authority- Headquarters 600 South Main Street, First Floor - Room 154 Orange, California 92863 Friday, November 18, 2005 9:00 a.m. RIVERSIDE COUNTY 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 Magee 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. Pane 1 of 3 HH.35.01 spur tii,, Co, MISSiOn AGENDA ranspou-trstion Cnunrsissiorr Riverside County - Orange County Major Investment Study Policy Committee Meeting Special Matters There are no Special Calendar Matters. Consent Calendar (Item 1) 1. Approval of Minutes Of the October 28, 2005, Riverside County — Orange County Major Investment Study Policy Committee meeting. Regular Calendar 2. Selection of Locally Preferred Strategy Kurt Brotcke, OCTA, Department Manager Cathy Bechtel, RCTC, Division Head, Planning Overview After nearly 18 months of study, recommendations for the locally preferred strategy for the Riverside County - Orange County Major Investment Study are presented for Committee review and approval. Recommendations A. Establish the Riverside Freeway (State Route 91) from the Costa Mesa Freeway (State Route 55) to the Corona Freeway (Interstate 15) as a priority for improving transportation between Riverside and Orange counties. Emphasize State Route 91 (SR-91) improvements between Eastern Toll Road (State Route 241) and Interstate 15 (1-15) first followed by improvements between State Route 55 (SR-55) and State Route 241 (SR 241). B. Continue to work with the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency to develop a mutually acceptable plan to improve the connection between the SR-241 and SR-91 corridors and accelerate capacity improvements on Laguna Canyon Road (State Route 133), SR-241, and Eastern Toll Road (State Route 261) to optimize utilization of the toll roads to improve transportation between Riverside and Orange counties. • Page 2 of 3 • ,•ersi4<eco,.,,t,. O TA Transportation Conmtission AGENDA Riverside County - Orange County Major Investment Study Policy Committee Meeting 2. (Continued) Recommendations C. Continue to evaluate costs and impacts of a CorridorA roadway through a future preliminary engineering process in cooperation with other agencies. D. Continue to study the technical feasibility of the Corridor B concept including costs, risks, joint use opportunities, benefits, and potential funding options in cooperation with the transportation agencies, Metropolitan Water District, and other interested agencies. E. Continue work with the Cal -Nevada Super Speed Train Commission on Anaheim to Ontario Maglev alignments in the Santa Ana Canyon or alternate corridors as appropriate. F. Eliminate Strategic Alternative 1B (Corridor A with SR-55 widening) from further analysis due to high residential right-of-way impacts adjacent to SR 55. G. Eliminate from further analysis the Ortega Highway (State Route 74) widening and realignment concept due to high cost and environmental impacts, and direct staff to focus on State Route 74 (SR-74) operational improvements. Other Matters 3. Chairman and Vice Chairman Reports 4. Committee Members' Reports 5. Public Comments 6. Adjournment This is the last scheduled meeting of the Riverside County - Orange County Major Investment Study Policy Committee. Page 3 of 3 1. OCTA MINUTES Riverside County to Orange County Major Investment Study Policy Committee October 28, 2005 irerside County iansportaiion Commission Item 1. Committee Members Present: Others Present: Buster, Bob Perovich, Michael Campbell, Bill, Chairman Quon, Cindy Cavecche, Carolyn Wolfe, Roy Duvall, Michael Haley, Eric Hall, Frank Leahy, Art Magee, Bob Miller, Jeff, Vice Chairman Moore, Ameal Pringle, Curt Ritschel, Susan Ryan. Ken Tavaglione, John Wapner, Alan Approval of Minutes from July 15, 2005, Meeting Chairman Campbell called the meeting to order. Committee Member Tavaglione led the pledge of allegiance. Chairman Campbell introduced a new member to the panel, Roy Wolfe from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD). There are discussions going on with OCTA, RCTC and MWD regarding forming a joint powers agreement or forming a working agreement for work that may be a follow on to the MIS effort, so it was agreed to invite MWD to participate in the Committee on an ex officio basis. The minutes of July 15, 2005 were approved. 2. Strategic Alternatives Technical Evaluation (Tony Rahimian, MIS Project Manager) A briefing package was submitted to the Committee recently; There have been revisions to the cost estimates and these changes are included in today's presentation. Distribution of Trips Crossing the County Line and % of Total Trips by Subarea This exhibit has been revised to incorporate changes arising from re -running the traffic model to incorporate land use changes in Orange County. The changes are not significant and do not affect any of the Strategic Alternatives. There also seems to be some misunderstanding about the project diverting traffic in more circuitous routes and through communities. The trip distribution chart shows that 40% of the traffic from the east is destined to the City of Irvine or points south, about 35% of the traffic will end up somewhere in northern Orange County, and 25% will eventually go to Los Angeles and Long Beach. The Strategic Alternatives address that distribution by providing 60% of additional capacity for the more northerly trips and 40% for the trips heading to Irvine and points south. Also handed out to the committee was a single page MIS Corridor Volume Summary that supports the Strategic Alternatives. October 28, 2005 1 of 14 RC - OC MIS Policy Committee OCTA MINUTES Riverside County to Orange County Major Investment Study Policy Committee October 28, 2005 Rivers ide County ransportation Commission Overview An overview of the study process was provided to the Committee. On the basis of an approved Purpose and Need Statement, 5 Corridors, including existing State Routes 91 and 74 were identified for improvements. Twelve build alternatives within those corridors were developed along with a no build alternative. These were presented to the public in March of this year. The twelve alternatives were evaluated and three Strategic Alternatives emerged, using a combination of existing facilities (SR-91 and SR-74) and two new corridors, A, and B. These were presented to the Policy Committee on July 15, 2005. The direction from the Policy Committee on July 15th was to perform detailed evaluation of the possibility of improving SR-91 to the maximum reasonable number of lanes, to maximize transit in all corridors, and to study Corridors A, B, and D (SR-74) in more detail. The Policy Committee directed staff to drop further consideration of a surface alignment along Corridor B, due to its significant environmental impact, and to eliminate further consideration of Corridor C because it was more costly than Corridor B, had greater environmental impacts and did not as effectively meet the transportation demand. In reviewing the no build alternative, the Committee was reminded it was not truly "no -build" as it included major projects already programmed and assumed as part of the baseline. The projects included adding an additional lane in each direction of SR-91 between 1-15 and the County Line, the construction of an auxiliary lane between SR-241 and the SR-71 in the eastbound direction and the extension of SR-241 (or Foothill south) to the 1-5. The Maglev project, a stand-alone project being studied by a different group, is also included in the baseline. Staff will coordinate with the Maglev group to ensure that we do not preclude possible implementation of the Maglev through the Santa Ana Canyon, which is one of their alternatives. A. Strategic Alternatives Transit features are included to address the multi -modal nature of each of the Strategic Alternatives. Specific features, in addition to the Maglev train mentioned above, are express bus service, expanded Metrolink service, a transit center in Corona with HOV drop ramps and a parking facility, and the utilization of a managed lanes concept to incorporate HOV, HOT, and reversible lanes in the Strategic Alternatives where operational analysis shows they are effective. Each of the Strategic Alternatives adds one to two lanes in each direction of SR-91, utilizes the managed lanes concept described previously and maximizes the use of the transit features. • Strategic Alternative 1 proposes a 6-lane elevated structure in Corridor A and the widening of SR-74 to 4 lanes by adding one additional lane in each direction. There are two options for this particular alternative. Option 1 a eliminates the tolls on the SR-241, reimbursing TCA for the lost revenue and Option 1 b does not eliminate the tolls on SR-241, thereby directing traffic west on SR-91 past SR- 241 and then south on SR-55. Strategic Alternative 1 a will require widening of SR-241 by one lane in each direction north of SR-133. Strategic Alternative 1 b requires widening of SR-55 by one lane in each direction between SR-91 and 1-5. A preliminary assessment indicates additional right of way required along SR-55 will impact between 200 and 250 single-family residences, 25-50 multi -family units and several commercial properties. October 28, 2005 2 of 14 RC - OC MIS Policy Committee • MINUTES Riverside County to Orange County Major Investment Study Policy Committee October 28, 2005 irersideCounty rausportarion Commission Committee Member Cavecche wanted to know if there was a tentative right of way cost associated with Alternative 1 b. A preliminary estimate of $1.4 billion includes right-of-way costs. Corridor A was described to the Committee as connecting to SR-241 at the west end and paralleling SR-91 through the City of Yorba Linda. The alignment crosses to the south side of the freeway as it approaches Green River Road to stay away from the residential communities that exist on the north side of the freeway. It crosses back to the north again east of SR-71 to avoid commercial and residential development in Corona and parallels the BNSF Railroad through an industrial area of Corona to the point where it reaches 1-15. The only mid- point connection for Corridor A is at SR-71. Chairman Campbell wanted to know if the alignment was going to be elevated or at grade. Much of the alignment is expected to be elevated; however, it would be a combination that would be studied in more detail if Corridor A were selected to proceed to the next step. Chairman Campbell observed that, at the narrowest point of the SR-91, there appeared to be only sufficient space to add one lane in each direction. Was Corridor A being added above the lanes? In one of the narrowest points of the SR-91 right of way, Corridor A is on the other side of the Santa Ana River. Committee Member Duvall noted that the BNSF Railroad right of way was not available and questioned why the proposed 6-lane elevated structure in Corridor A was still next to the railroad. This illustration is a typical cross-section of a representative alignment that was evaluated and is only next to the track in an industrial area of Corona. The alignment avoids residential communities and environmental resources to the greatest degree possible. In the industrial area of Corona, three additional alignment alternatives have been proposed. Two would go north of the City parallel to the Santa Ana River and would impact some open space. One of those would also traverse a portion of the holding area behind Prado Dam and would require coordination with the US Army Corps of Engineers. However, it would have the least impact in the City of Corona. The third alternative would utilize the existing right of way of SR-91 through Corona and would place an elevated structure over a portion of the existing roadway. The columns to support the elevated structure are quite large and would eliminate two lanes from the existing roadway. Therefore, the net gain for a 6- lane elevated facility is only 4 lanes. There would also be significant disruption to traffic during construction due to placement of the columns and reconstruction of a number of bridges. While this might not seem a viable alternative, it should be studied further, particularly if it is decided that a four -lane facility is needed. The smaller column size for that facility might be more manageable. Corridor D is part of Strategic Alternative 1 and proposes to widen existing SR-74 by one lane in each direction. Beginning at the junction of the future Cow Camp Road, the highway would be widened along its existing alignment to the point where the terrain becomes mountainous. From that point on, there are two different options; one is a completely surface alternative; the other one a combination of surface and tunnel, which is intended to minimize the environmental impacts to the significant natural resources along Ortega Highway. October 28, 2005 3 of 14 RC - OC MIS Policy Committee OCTA MINUTES Riverside County to Orange County Major Investment Study Policy Committee October 28, 2005 wersideCountp 'ansportation Commission These alignments are both following new alignments in the City of Lake Elsinore to avoid impacting existing residences and view shed in the City. Both end at the junction of Lake Street and Nichols Road and combine with future improvements planned in the city. The tunnel portion would be two separate tunnels, with one lane in each direction. The existing Ortega Highway will stay open to the residents and local businesses. Length of the tunnel portions is approximately 8 miles and the widened portion of the SR-74 at the west end is 4.5 miles. The surface alternative, while it generally parallels the existing road, is on a new alignment. The steep terrain and environmental resources make it infeasible to simply widen the existing road. The terrain and environmental resources that would be impacted also make the surface alignment more costly than the surface/tunnel combination alignment. The Committee also received a Volume Summary for each of the Strategic Alternatives. In response to questions about Corridor D, it was noted that the summary illustrates the interaction between the corridors in each of the alternatives. Volumes on Corridor D are decreased by the attractiveness of the paid down tolls in Strategic Alternative la, when compared to 1 b, and even further decreased by the attractiveness of a toll free 6-lane Corridor B in Strategic Alternative II. The actual capacity of Corridor D is 40,000 ADT, or about 10,000 per lane. This is less than the 15,000 ADT per lane sometimes used to evaluate arterial highways because, while capacity would be higher in some sections, an average was used to reflect the particular characteristics of this road and the connections. Modeling studies indicate traffic using Ortega Highway will primarily use Cow Camp Road or SR-241 and not. impact the City of San Juan Capistrano or 1-5. • Strategic Alternative 11 has the identical improvements of Strategic Alternative! along SR-91 and proposes a 3 bore, 6-lane freeway between 1-15 and SR-241, along Corridor B, with a nearly full tunnel or a combination surface/tunnel, the center bore of which is a reversible facility. Modeling indicates that additional improvements are needed on SR-133 between SR-241 and 1-5 for this alternative. The costs of these improvements and the additional right of way required have been included in the costs of this alternative. • Strategic Alternative III is a combination of Strategic Alternatives I and II.. In addition to the SR-91 Improvements, it includes a 4-lane elevated structure along Corridor A; a 4-lane tunnel or surface/tunnel combination along Corridor B (in this facility the tunnels are assumed to be tolled); as well as widening of the Ortega Highway by adding one lane in each direction. As noted previously, if the 4-lane elevated structure is within SR-91, less right of way is required. However, because of the columns, the net gain in lanes is only 2. Reversible lanes are possible for this facility in either the 4 or 6 lane configuration, which could reduce the overall lane requirement. October 28, 2005 4 of 14 RC - OC MIS Policy Committee MINUTES Riverside County to Orange County Major Investment Study Policy Committee October 28, 2005 i, erside Conntp Transportation Commission B. Corridor Cost Comparison Some of the numbers in the charts presented have changed, from those in the previous material. In particular, the total cost for SR-91 has been reduced to 680 million dollars. This is due to some refinements in right of way and construction cost assumptions and as a result of information received from the Technical Committee. Right of way costs for both Corridors A and B have been closely coordinated with staff of the agencies in those areas. C. Strategic Alternative Costs Strategic Alternative costs include shadow tolls as well as the other mitigation costs already discussed. Shadow tolls are tolls paid by someone other than the patron for the use of the tolled facility. For example, in Strategic Alternative la, if in lieu of widening the SR-55, we reduce or eliminate the tolls on SR-241, SR-261 and SR- 133, thereby encouraging the patrons to use SR-241 instead of the SR-91 west to SR-55, then TCA does not receive its toll revenue. In this exercise we have attempted to cover that cost as part of the cost of the project, in addition to the cost of widening SR-241 to accommodate the additional traffic. The figure is the total cost, based on a 25-year life of the project. What has not been included in this analysis, and could be the subject of a later study, is the effect of reducing the tolls rather than eliminating them. The buy-out of the SR-91 Express Lanes is handled differently because the tolls are based on congestion pricing and the most consistent way of measuring the cost is the value of • the debt at the time of buy-out (assumed to be 2015). The Benefit to Cost ratios of the Strategic Alternatives were determined by dividing the total cost of each alternative by the savings in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT) over the 25 year life of the project. All alternatives had a benefit ratio that showed they were viable projects. There was a desire to look at mixing and matching the various alternatives. With the elimination of Corridor D, Strategic Alternatives I and III have significantly greater benefit ratios. Strategic Alternative II is not affected, as it does not contain Corridor D. If Corridor D is eliminated, the Technical Team recommends operational improvements to Ortega Highway. These improvements, primarily in Riverside County, would be coordinated with Caltrans and would support the work currently being undertaken on Ortega Highway in Orange County. Committee Member Magee observed that the presentation stated that the SR-74 realignment and widening is costly with high environmental impacts. Looking at the chart of Corridor D cost comparisons for the surface alternative, $490 million is shown as right of way cost. A vast majority of that is National Forest land; the part that is going through the City of Lake Elsinore is owned by one developer who is willing to accommodate the project. The City will be looking for a dedication of that property, so it is not clear what the $490 million is paying for. There is also a concern about the environmental mitigation costs of $700 million. There is a pumped storage project in the National Forest above Lake Elsinore with a total cost of $750 million, including planning, design, environmental mitigation, and construction. It is hard to understand how the Technical Staff got $700 million for environmental mitigation alone on this road. There needs to be an explanation of those numbers, October 28, 2005 5 of 14 RC - OC MIS Policy Committee OCTA MINUTES Riverside County to Orange County Major Investment Study Policy Committee October 28, 2005 tiierside Connlir ransporia:ion Commission especially since we have now gone to the recommendation of eliminating Corridor D, based on its costs and environmental impacts. The Technical Team responded that the right of way costs are preliminary cost and subject to change as additional information is received. While a major portion of the alignment is in the National Forest or other conserved lands, where the alignment leaves the mountains and traverses behind Lake Elsinore, much of the land is prime real estate for development and would be expensive. If the City is able to achieve dedication of right of way in that area, it will have an impact on cost. The $700 million for environmental mitigation costs is an estimate that includes a 25% contingency. The basis of the cost is a calculation of the impacts to acres of land within the alignments. The surface only alignment has the largest acreage of impact, including approximately 1,100 acres of vegetation, about 1,400 acres of conservation lands, about 17,000 linear feet of blue line stream, 39 acres of flood plains, and 450 acres of critical habitat areas. These are very high value environmental areas and potential mitigation ratios are as high as 5 to 1. Committee Member Magee felt the costs could be radically reduced in two ways. First a developer is going to be proposing an annexation that includes about 10% of the alignment within its boundaries. Second, the City of Lake Elsinore is currently undergoing a complete general plan update process and is going to be tackling some of the environmental issues. Committee Member Buster asked for clarification of whether the Corridor B alignments in Strategic Alternatives II and III were assumed to be tolled. Strategic Alternative II is not tolled and draws 130,000 plus ADT. Corridor B in Strategic Alternative III is tolled and the demand drops by about 40% to about 73,000 ADT. Chairman Campbell wanted to understand the costs for the SR-91 Improvements. It is going to cost about $500 million to widen the SR-22 one lane in each direction for 12 miles. The cost of SR-91 Improvements seem to be significantly less for a larger project. The Technical Team responded that, while the project is longer, there are minimal right-of-way costs and few retaining walls. Walls are a significant cost on the SR-22 project. Further, the description of two additional lanes on many sections of the SR-91, includes one lane and other improvements already in Measure A and therefore not included in the cost estimate.. Committee Member Pringle asked for clarification of the differences between Strategic Alternatives la and lb. It appears that Strategic Alternative lb puts a high percentage of additional traffic on SR-91 west of SR-241, while Strategic Alternative la directs that traffic south on SR 241. The impacts on SR-55 of this traffic have been identified; however, it does not appear that improvements are identified to accommodate it on SR-91, or at the SR-91/SR-55 interchange. The Technical Team responded that the maximum reasonable widening on SR-91 in all three Strategic Alternatives is sufficient to accommodate the additional traffic on SR-91 from Strategic Alternative lb. However, The SR-91/SR-55 interchange would have to be reconstructed. In Strategic Alternative la, Corridor A connects only to SR-241. In Strategic Alternative lb, Corridor A connects to both SR-241 and SR-91. That is a major difference between the Alternatives. Strategic Alternative la might not require the full footprint of maximum reasonable widening, Strategic Alternative lb probably would. Potentially, there is an increment of cost savings in Strategic Alternative la, October 28, 2005 6 of 14 RC - OC MIS Policy Committee • MINUTES Riverside County to Orange County Major Investment Study Policy Committee October 28, 2005 i ersideConntp ransporfa:io,7 COtil1il/ssion however it has not been quantified. Committee Member Pringle summarized by saying that dumping 50% additional traffic onto westbound SR-91 versus moving it onto SR-241 still creates a bottleneck on SR-91 and therefore does not solve the problem. Committee Member Cavecche expressed concern that there were physical limitations to widening the SR-91/SR-55 interchange and wanted confirmation that the complications of improving both the SR-91/SR-55 and SR-55/I-5 interchanges had been included in the cost estimate. The team confirmed they had. Committee Member Ritschel had a question with regards to the buying down of the tolls on the SR-241. What is the projected capacity that would be added by doing this and how does this compare to Corridor B, the tunnel? Adding two lanes in each direction on the SR-241 as well as adding two lanes in each direction on SR-133, would provide capacity for 80,000 ADT. This compares to Corridor B, which, under the 4-lane toll alternative provides capacity for about 73,000 ADT. Committee Member Ritschel also had a comment with regards to the trips to and from Orange County. It appears that between 20 and 25 % of the trips traveling from Riverside to Orange County are actually traveling from Riverside through Orange County to get to Los Angeles or Long Beach. It seems Los Angeles County should be at the table and talking about solutions. What impacts would there be if Los Angeles County were to discuss with us improvements to the SR-60. Could that eliminate some of the demand that Orange County is trying to satisfy? There are factors other than benefit/cost that are highlighted for the Policy Committee to consider. They are features of the Strategic Alternatives that are not reflected in the costs of the different alternatives, but which can help in differentiating between alternatives that all meet the transportation objectives. They are: availability of alternative routes and ability to match the distribution of traffic in the study area, impacts to the communities contiguous to the routes of the alternatives, impacts to the natural environment through which the routes pass, the ability of the alternative to support the movement of goods, the opportunities for multi -modal travel and how each of the alternatives contributes to regional mobility. Each of the alternatives meets these objectives differently. In response to a question from Vice Chairman Miller, national security issues, acts of terrorism, natural disasters, and public safety issues where there is a need to evacuate people are addressed under regional mobility as well as system balance. Strategic Alternative III, which includes Corridor A, and Corridor B, as well as SR-91, scores well in this area. In the context of evaluating the characteristics of each of the Alternatives, there are benefits and risks associated with each of the Corridors. Corridor A is cost effective, could minimize natural environmental impacts, and provides flexibility for multi -modal travel. At the same time, it lies within Santa Ana Canyon and does not provide a secondary route, potentially displaces business and residences, has potential for downstream community impacts and has the attendant air quality and noise issues of adding capacity in this built environment. Corridor B provides an additional route linking the two counties, improves regional mobility (links to Mid -County Parkway) and minimizes impacts to communities in developed areas. However, it has greater October 28, 2005 7 of 14 RC - OC MIS Policy Committee OCTA MINUTES Riverside County to Orange County Major Investment Study Policy Committee October 28, 2005 iversidcConntp ransportai0n Commission cost and environmental impacts, longer permitting and construction time and a greater exposure to yet unidentified risks Committee Member Duvall asked why benefits in Corridor B did not include air quality and noise, since the tunnel clearly would attenuate noise and is proposed to have a filtration system that would remove pollutants. The team concurred. Committee Member Pringle observed the Strategic Alternatives are crafted as a plan to get to a goal of serving 450,000 vehicle trips. He would like to see the plan presented in such a way that he could see that the improvements on the SR-91 would provide an amount of base service and then have each of the elements articulated so that the Committee could pick and choose what elements to use to make up the 450,000 vehicle trips; as opposed to forcing the Committee to live within the Strategic Alternatives that are presented. Committee Member Ryan agreed with Committee Member Pringle on this point. Chairman Campbell commented that under Corridor B there is a potential benefit of also carrying other things besides transportation through the tunnel, such as water lines or utilities. Perhaps in the next version of this presentation those benefits could be added in. Following are the findings of the Technical Team and recommendations: D. Technical Findings • All Strategic Alternatives achieve agreed upon mobility objective. • SR-74 realignment and widening costly with high environmental impacts. • SR-55 widening community impacts problematic (SA-IB) • Multi -corridor approach distributes impacts and provides secondary route. • Benefits/risks with new corridors. E. Recommendations/Next Steps • Seek input from the Policy Committee today. • Direct staff to return to Policy Committee on November 18, 2005 with final recommendations. • OCTA/RCTC consideration of final recommendations in December 2005. F. Public Comments Mayor Pro Tem DeYoung from the City of Laguna Niguel, stated she also serves on SCAG Regional Transportation Committee and is a former OCTA director. She wanted to express her opposition to the proposals for Corridors B and D, B being the tunnel and D being Ortega Highway. These two corridors, Corridor B at $6 to $8 billion and Ortega Highway at $3 to $4 billion with an added capacity of an estimated 23,000 ADTs, do not make economic sense and would have a dramatic and negative impact on Orange County. From Ortega Highway, only 2% of the travel from Riverside County actually goes to south Orange County. In this Major Investment Study we are looking at point A to point B and in Orange County we need to look at point B and beyond. If you take the projections of traffic as they flow into south Orange County and if you decide to go with Corridor D or Ortega Highway you will have 2% of the people who will go to San Clemente. Where are the other people going to go? They are going to travel on the 1-5, which can be a parking lot. October 28, 2005 8 of 14 RC - OC MIS Policy Committee OCTA MINUTES Riverside County to Orange County Major Investment Study Policy Committee October 28, 2005 ,versideCoantp innsportafion Commission Capacity needs to be added on the 1-5. At present there is no connection from the SR-241 to the Ortega Highway and if SR-241 is a tolled facility, by a ratio of 2 to 1 travelers won't take a tolled facility. And then question becomes, will the SR-241 really take the commuters from Riverside to where they really want to go? Mayor Pro Tem DeYoung challenges the assumption that by giving free passage on SR- 241 you are going to mitigate that problem. She submits that the commuters are still going to be taking the 1-5 and there are no improvements slated for the 1-5. Mayor Pro Tem DeYoung brought with her over 3,000 petitions from residents in south Orange County. She also asked where the funding is going to come from? It is not going to come from Orange County if Orange County residents object to this plan. She said we need a more strategic approach that looks at all of Orange County and all of the traffic impacts. This strategic approach tells us where the impacts are going to be on the 1-5, 1-405, and SR-133, not just dumping traffic in one particular area and that is the end of the story. She thinks bringing Los Angeles into the discussion is an excellent idea and she wants a comprehensive strategic plan that addresses the jobs/housing imbalance, future housing, future planning, and also includes transportation. David Lund, Director of Public Works with the City of San Clemente, was asked by the mayor to read into the record a letter the mayor had written (each Committee Member has a copy of this letter). The mayor respectfully requests that the Committee remove Corridor D, Ortega Highway, from further consideration. Dave Adams, City Manager of the City of San Juan Capistrano, asked the Committee to drop Ortega Highway from further consideration. The costs will be 3 to 4 billion dollars and will result in a net impact of only about 23,000 trips per day. He strongly argues from a cost benefit standpoint that it makes no sense to spend so much of our taxpayer's money for such a small traffic benefit. It makes more sense to concentrate resources on improving the SR-91 corridor and exploring Corridor B options. Committee Member Buster asked Mr. Adams if the City objected to the maximum amount of safety improvements to Ortega Highway? Mr. Adams said they did not object to safety improvements. Michael Fitts, Staff Attorney with the Endangered Habitats League, said a couple of weeks ago he sent the Committee a letter containing a very detailed legal and policy analyses of the MIS Strategic Alternatives on behalf of 20 environmental organizations. Mr. Fitts requested that the Committee engage in a collaborative dialogue with regional planners, local jurisdictions and the environmental community to look at the potential for land use changes and other planned facilities to reduce the anticipated travel demand in the SR-91 Corridor and make less expensive and environmentally feasible alternatives a reality. Committee Member Tavaglione observed that the Endangered Habitats League supported Riverside County's Integrated Plan and Multi -Species Plan for over 4 years as it dealt with issues of land planning, corridor planning, habitat planning, smart growth, and density transfers. Throughout this process, it was anticipated and planned that there would be transportation corridors, including ones into our neighboring counties; San Bernardino, Orange, and Los Angeles. The Endangered Habitats League is being hypocritical if they sit at the table with us for 4 years and October 28, 2005 9 of 14 RC - OC MIS Policy Committee OCTA MINUTES Riverside County to Orange County Major Investment Study Policy Committee October 28, 2005 oersideCounty ransporlalion Commission say we need to do this so we have the ability to increase transportation capacity through proper land planning and now say it is not feasible. Committee Member Magee said his city is going to give up more than 6,000 acres to habitat area, and they are revising their General Plan to accommodate those 6,000 acres. They have done exactly what the Endangered Habitats League wanted them to do. Committee Member Buster wanted Mr. Fitts to be more specific about the kinds of things he thought, beyond Riverside County's new General Plan, would help alleviate some of the imbalance. There is no good breakout of what portion of this added traffic is due to just birth rate and added growth and what proportion is due to actual commuters. Committee Member Pringle said his city has modified their General Plan within the last year and a half to add over 30,000 additional housing units. Eric Haley reported that 70 million dollars has been included in the Measure A plan under the CETAP corridors explicitly for environmental mitigation and multi -species habitat conservation as a result of negotiation with the Endangered Habitat League. RCTC included, in consultation and with the support of the Endangered Habitat League, a requirement for the MSHCP to be included within the ordinance for Measure A the voters approved. Glen Fletcher represents a company called Pete's Road Service, a commercial retail tire dealer, which has 9 locations in 5 counties, with over 100 vehicles that travel the roads. Mr. Fletcher has an Alternative 4, which is Alternative 11 and Corridor D. Mr. Fletcher suggested expanding Corridor D at least to 4 to 6 lanes. Mr. Fletcher would also like to see some improvements to 1-15 north and south of the interchange with SR-91. Mr. Fletcher thought picking and choosing from alternatives was better than just selecting an alternative. Mr. Fletcher would also like improvements to the SR- 91. Committee Member Tavaglione said the SR-91/I-15 improvements are already planned and funded through Measure A. It will take awhile before you see them under construction. G. Committee Members Discussion Chairman Campbell said he would like each Committee Member to comment on what they think should be done. Committee Member Pringle said he would like to see a chart of capacities of each element and how it changes with different alternatives. He feels the Committee needs to know if it is building for the future or just maintaining the status quo. If we make these improvements is there capacity in them beyond today. Additionally, he would like a list of the elements in Corridors A, B, D, and SR 91 so that the Committee can provide direction of which should be studied further. For instance, in Corridor B, do we want 4 lanes or 6 lanes and should they be tolled based or eliminated altogether. Anaheim, Yorba Linda, Corona have all the capacity going through their communities right now and other communities can and will be affected with these other options. Understanding that we want to build the greatest possible capacity along the SR-91 October 28, 2005 10 of 14 RC - OC MIS Policy Committee OCTA MINUTES Riverside County to Orange County Major Investment Study Policy Committee October 28, 2005 iversideCoantp iansportation Con mission Corridor with relief valves at other places between the two counties, he would like to analyze each of these options, as opposed to tossing them overboard before we really see what that full picture looks like. He would like to have this information well before November 18th as well as the actions to be taken Committee Member Ryan said he was not ready to pick a Strategic Alternative yet, he concurs with Committee Member Pringle's comments. It is premature to try and narrow things down at this time It appears the traffic is moving largely from the northeast, Riverside County, to Orange County into Los Angeles. From the traffic numbers, he would be leaning towards safety improvements only in Corridor D: He thinks the strategic evaluation criteria, as they relate to the other alternatives in front of us today, do not provide enough information to make a choice. All of these alternatives work in terms of the goals; we have to look at impacts to the environment and to the community. At this level, it is about the details. We should be, maximizing the improvements on SR- 91, and someday in the future, as a long-term possibility, the tunnel still needs to be explored. Committee Member Buster asked, of the added traffic by 2030, what part is due to population increase and commerce and what part is increased commuters because of the perpetuating housing and jobs imbalance between the counties? What would be the proposed phasing of actual construction of the different alternatives and are any difficulties envisioned? What are the potential risks? Is a better outline available of what full safety improvements on the Ortega Highway really means? He suggested Ortega Highway be designed with two lanes in the morning going to Orange County and two lanes in the evening going to Riverside County. Committee Member Ritschel said she believes there is enough information at this point to exclude Corridor D with the exception of safety improvements. The bulk of the traffic and the demand in the future is not going to be in the southern portion of Orange County and the capacity improvement that would be provided by two tunnels, one lane in each direction, is not worth the cost. She would like some additional information on the traffic impacts of Corridor B on Irvine and Lake Forest and agreed that looking at each of the components of the strategic alternatives individually would be very helpful. Committee Member Ritschel would like to bring Los Angeles County into this discussion. Committee Member Hall liked the idea of mixing and matchingthe alternatives and would like some charts that would allow this. Committee Member Duvall is concerned that we are looking at the tunnels in Corridor B only in terms of transportation. He would like to see what the investment from the other parties might be because he does not want transportation to be the sole financial support for this. He is under the impression that there are other willing participants. Secondly, he wanted to make sure that Maglev is included in the analysis of expanding SR-91 freeway to its maximum capacity. He is also concerned about who is going to pay for this. Committee Member Duvall disagrees with the figure of $155 million as the value of the 91 Express Lanes in 2015. He believes it is worth $400 million and does not know how it got devalued. Vice Chairman Miller said Strategic Alternative) is a concern to him and the City of Corona. The estimate is close to $1 billion in the taking of the businesses and October 28, 2005 11 of 14 RC - OC MIS Policy Committee OCTA MINUTES Riverside County to Orange County Major Investment Study Policy Committee October 28, 2005 icersideCountp nsportatiou Commission homes in that Corridor, and he would not support it. He believes in an alternative corridor, outside the SR-91 area, which he has been advocating for many years and which is crucial to his city and the region. Mid County Parkway connecting with 1-15 from the east in the vicinity of Cajalco Road will generate several hundred thousand cars a day to 1-15 in Corona, and create a tremendous gridlock if there is no other corridor. This is why an additional corridor between the two counties is needed. Each committee member should study and consider all of the alternatives and make their comments formally or informally. There is an Elected Official Public Meeting on November 3rd where all of the electeds are invited to review this information and then the committee will meet again on November 18th and pick a locally preferred strategy. Committee Member Tavaglione recalled the challenges he has had with a new interchange on 1-15 that has taken him 12 years to finally get to the point where they will be able to acquire the property and build. With this project we are looking at billions of dollars of improvements and about 30 years — we need to simplify this. We need to do what we can to expand SR-91 to its full capacity, as we have the right-of-way today and can do it without elevated structures and without having to take as many properties as has been projected. Secondly, we need to have another corridor and to mix and match amongst the alternatives. Committee Member Cavecche said there has been a lot of talk about land use issues and housing balance. The City of Orange has been approving thousands and thousands of houses, but they have been "butchered" by the environmental groups for trying to increase the housing balance in Orange County. Over 40% of the traffic that funnels through that very narrow little canyon where Anaheim and Orange meet goes to Irvine and below, and to try and run all those people through north central Orange County when we have SR-241 that connects above the Anaheim/Yorba Linda area is ludicrous. She also agrees that Corridor D should be removed, but she thinks it should stay in until the next meeting. There needs to be another way into Orange County and she will be supporting any improvements to the SR-91 that can be made. She will not be supporting Alternative 1 b. There is a need to continue to explore Corridor B and that effort needs to include people from the water districts to see if there is a mutual benefit and possible funding sources.. Committee Member Magee also agrees that we need relief on the 91 and he agrees with Committee Member Tavaglione that we need a new corridor and it is probably at Cajalco Road. However, he also believes that we need to increase the capacity of Highway 74 and need to retain Corridor D. The costs and environmental impacts that were presented were not based on all of the information that is available. Staff did concede today that those costs would go down based on what they heard. He supports what Committee Member Pringle said about keeping everything on the table at this time. Committee Member Moore said there is a need for expansion of SR-91 and there is also a need for another freeway that parallels SR-91 to take some of the traffic off of it. He thinks Corridor D, the Ortega Highway, should only be considered for safety improvements. October 28, 2005 12 of 14 RC - OC MIS Policy Committee MINUTES Riverside County to Orange County Major Investment Study Policy Committee October 28, 2005 RuersideCountp rai sportation Commission Roy Wolfe, MWD, said that similar to the planning efforts to respond to a forecast increase in traffic, MWD has been actively planning to meet the increase in water demands in their service area. MWD has been coordinating with the various transportation staff on technical issues related to a potential multi -use tunnel facility along Corridor B and will continue their support and coordination on technical issues. Cindy Quon said the Department is seeking to partner in implementing any mobility improvements and solutions. Clearly this extensive effort that everyone has invested in shows the importance of achieving an inter -regional consensus so we can work together to improve mobility. Michael Perovich said this is an issue that will not go away and is one that needs to be dealt with. He said the alternatives may change over time and the advantages and disadvantages may change as you gather more information. However it might be best to keep more in the mix at this time. Eric Haley said this particular corridor has been the most intense focus of his Commission for the last 5 years. He was encouraged by the discussions today and the detailed presentations that have been made as well as the thoughtful comments of the Commissioners and Directors. He feels we are going to do this, it is going to be difficult and there will be refinement necessary beyond what is adopted in December. Art Leahy said OCTA staff would continue to support this effort. Also, Mr. Leahy and Mr. Haley meet with their counterparts from San Bernardino and Los Angeles and Mr. Leahy thinks the comments from the Committee members about 1-10 and SR-60 are right on point. Chairman Campbell said it would have been very nice if one set of alternatives that were presented today performed better than everything else. We could jump on board and go forward, but it is predictable that there was no clear choice. He said Irvine is opposing the tunnel and Alternative 1a, Tustin and Orange are opposing Alternative 1 b, so it looks like we can't do anything, but he is not going to stop here. Chairman Campbell said he was prepared to eliminate Corridor D from any further study, but having heard the comments from Councilman Magee he thinks they should direct staff to work with his city to double check the numbers, because the reason for eliminating Corridor D is that the cost benefit is not there. Therefore, Chairman Campbell recommends that Corridor D be left on the table at least until November 18'h for staff to work with the City and see if the numbers will change. With regards to the issue of time phasing, Chairman Campbell suggested picking the low hanging fruit first, let's get to the easiest lowest costs solutions first and then go to the others. The first solution seems to be widening on SR-91 and then to look at elevated structures and how they would work. In the time before the next meeting could the cross sections be adapted to show what is being considered now for Corridor A as opposed to what was envisioned in the railroad right-of-way. The last option is the tunnel. The City of Lake Forest also said let's do the other things first, they also said to stop studying the tunnel, however, it would be a mistake to stop studying the tunnel. It would also be a mistake not to work with MWD to see if there is a joint use feature with the tunnel. October 28, 2005 13 of 14 RC - OC MIS Policy Committee OCTA MINUTES Riverside County to Orange County Major Investment Study Policy Committee October 28, 2005 iversitle County iwnsportation Commission Committee Member Buster observed that Riverside County commuters always like it when tolls can be lowered or removed entirely. If this is a possibility on SR-241 and it seems to be congruent with the concerns of the cities and the counties, then this would be a win -win for both sides. Committee Member Pringle was interested in the opportunities for Corridor A to be within the right -of way of SR-91 in Riverside County as well as Orange County. He wanted staff to explore this as well, to look at options of the placement of Corridor A not within the BNSF right-of-way as it enters into Riverside County. For example, would the elevated 4 lanes with the single column down the middle of SR-91 require the number of takes referenced by Vice Chairman Miller? Could it be done within the SR-91 right of way? He would like that option for Corridor A to be discussed at the next meeting Chairman Campbell thought this was a good point. It would be helpful next time to see what some of the impacts of some of those alternatives for Corridor A would be in Corona. 3. Public Involvement Program Update (John Standiford) A series of five public meetings ended on Wednesday night in San Juan Capistrano. The committee will be provided with an update of these meetings as well as the City Council briefings and other input received, including letters from organizations and individuals. The Elected Officials Briefing on November 3`d; was also mentioned. The last one held in Yorba Linda was very helpful with getting the ideas and as an information exchange. The Committee is encouraged to attend, as are their colleagues. 4. Chairman and Vice Chairman Reports Chairman Campbell said he did go to Washington, D.C. last week and talked to the Congressional Delegation and specifically Gary Miller about the tunnel. Mr. Miller is extremely supportive of it and supportive of doing something in conjunction with water and other utilities if appropriate. 5. Committee Members' Reports There were no other comments from the Committee. 6. Public Comments There were no further public comments. 7. Adjournment Meeting adjourned at 12:10 p.m. Next Meeting — November 18, 2005 at 9:00 A.M. at OCTA October 28, 2005 14 of 14 RC - OC MIS Policy Committee Item 2. Committee Memorandum November 18, 2005 To: Riverside County - Orange County Major Investment Study Policy Committee From: Eric Haley, Executive Director Arthur T. Leahy, Chief Executive Officer, OCTA Subject: Selection of Locally Preferred Strategy Overview After nearly 18 months of study, recommendations for the locally preferred strategy for the Riverside County - Orange County Major Investment Study are presented for Committee review and approval. Recommendations A. Establish the Riverside Freeway (State Route 91) from the Costa Mesa Freeway (State Route 55) to the Corona Freeway (Interstate 15) as a priority for improving transportation between Riverside and Orange counties. Emphasize State Route 91 (SR-91) improvements between Eastern Toll Road (State Route 241) and Interstate 15 (1-15) first followed by improvements between State Route 55 (SR-55) and State Route 241 (SR-241). B. Continue to work with the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency to develop a mutually acceptable plan to improve the connection between the SR-241 and SR-91 corridors and accelerate capacity improvements on Laguna Canyon Road (State Route 133), SR-241, and Eastern Toll Road (State Route 261) to optimize utilization of the toll roads to improve transportation between Riverside and Orange counties. C. Continue to evaluate costs and impacts of a Corridor A roadway through a future preliminary engineering process in cooperation with other agencies. D. Continue to study the technical feasibility of the Corridor B concept including costs, risks, joint use opportunities, benefits, and potential funding options in cooperation with the transportation agencies, Metropolitan Water District, and other interested agencies. Selection of Locally -Preferred Strategy Page 2 E. Continue work with the Cal -Nevada Super Speed Train Commission on Anaheim to Ontario Maglev alignments in the Santa Ana Canyon or alternate corridors as appropriate. F. Eliminate Strategic Alternative 1 B (Corridor A with SR-55 widening) from further analysis due to high residential right-of-way impacts adjacent to SR-55. G. Eliminate from further analysis the Ortega Highway (State Route 74) widening and realignment concept due to high cost and environmental impacts, and direct staff to focus on State Route 74 (SR-74) operational improvements. Background The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) have embarked on a study in partnership with the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency (F/E TCA) to evaluate proposed long-term projects for improving traffic congestion along the SR-91 corridor. The Riverside County -Orange County Major Investment Study (MIS) is an 18-month study looking at various types of multimodal alternatives between the two counties. In July 2005, the Riverside County — Orange County Major Investment Study Committee (Committee) directed the technical team to evaluate three strategic, build altematives further described in Attachment A. Projects included in one or more of these three alternatives are: 1. Widening SR-91 to add one or two lanes in each direction (primarily within existing right-of-way) between the SR-55 and 1-15. 2. Building a new four to six -lane facility parallel to SR-91 from the SR-241 to the 1-15. Lowering tolls on SR-241 to help move traffic or widening SR-55 and not lowering SR-241 tolls are two options included in this proposal. 3. Building a new four- to six -lane facility, major portions in tunnels, from the intersection of the SR-241 toll road with the State Route 133 (SR-133) toll road to 1-15 in the vicinity of Cajalco Road in Corona. 4. Upgrading SR-74 to a four -lane road by widening and realignment. Technical results describing cost and performance for the projects above and the strategic alternatives were presented to the Committee on October 28, 2005. General recommendations and potential actions are discussed below. 2 • • • Selection of Locally -Preferred Strategy Page 3 Discussion In working with the Committee, cities, stakeholders, and elected officials through the MIS process, it is clear the highest priority should be given to SR-91 improvement projects. The freeway segment from SR-241 to 1-15 is the major SR-91 bottleneck, and this segment should have the highest priority for improvements in the near temi. Improvements between SR-55 and SR-241 are important as well, but the need for widening in this segment could be deferred if SR-241 can accommodate increased north/south traffic. The SR-241 is a toll facility operated by the F/E TCA. Tolls are set to offer a congestion -free commute and provide revenue to F/E TCA to pay operating costs and retire construction bonds. One potential solution to move traffic off SR- 91 (especially between SR-55 and SR-241) is to lower tolls and to add more lanes to SR-241 and related facilities. Traffic projections prepared by the technical team indicate SR-241 would carry substantially more traffic than is does today if tolls were lowered. Carrying more traffic on SR-241 is a key strategy if a new four to six lane facility is constructed parallel to SR-91 between SR-241 and 1-15. This has been called Corridor A. This parallel facility could move a significant amount of traffic off SR-91 and south to SR-241. Widening the toll portions of SR-241, SR-261, and SR-133 would need to done in conjunction with the new parallel facility. Not lowering SR-241 tolls in concert with this project concept is problematic given the traffic impacts to SR-55. For this reason, lowering SR-241 tolls and adding more capacity is preferred and recommended if this project moves forward in the project development process. While a parallel facility to SR-91 offers many traffic benefits, this Corridor A roadway also has risks and issues that need to be further evaluated through future preliminary engineering efforts. Especially important is developing a future alignment that minimizes impacts to the City of Corona's business district. Benefits and risks also exist with a new corridor between Riverside and Orange counties. This link has been called Corridor B. Benefits include new capacity, SR-91 congestion relief, and a secondary route offered by a new facility. However, tunnels present a series of construction opportunities and uncertainties that should be further evaluated by continued technical studies focused on environmental impacts, geologic evaluation, seismic design, and discussion of co -location opportunities with water and other agencies. For these reasons, continued study of the technical feasibility of the new corridor concept should be pursued in cooperation with the transportation agencies, Metropolitan Water District, and other interested agencies and parties. Selection of Locally -Preferred Strategy Page 4 Moving vehicles through a new corridor and/or parallel SR-91 facility will greatly improve mobility between the two counties, but moving people with new transportation systems is important as well. A separate but related project proposed by the Cal -Nevada Super Speed Train Commission (Commission) would construct a new high-speed rail line between Anaheim and Ontario Airport and offers the ability to extend the reach of Ontario's air market and lower vehicular demand on SR-91. Continuing to work with the Commission on alignments within the Santa Ana Canyon or other corridors should be considered in future plans. Congestion relief and moving people and vehicles have been important goals throughout the MIS. Unfortunately, not all the project concepts have met the overall goal to improve mobility between the counties. The proposal to widen and realign SR-74 between the future SR-241 extension and Lake Elsinore proved costly for each dollar invested. As a result, the technical work suggests a focus on operational improvements to SR-74 to continue to move traffic as effectively as possible but not wholesale widening and realignment as originally considered. The discussion above suggests the following general roadmap for the future: • Make the SR-91 the immediate priority. Focus improvements between SR-241 and 1-15 as a starting point followed by improvements between SR-55 and SR-241. • Evaluate Corridor A concepts through a future preliminary engineering process. ■ Continue to study the technical feasibility of Corridor B in cooperation with other interested agencies. • Work with the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency to develop a plan to improve the connection between the SR-241 and SR-91 corridors and add new toll lanes. ■ Continue to work with the Cal -Nevada Super Speed Train Commission on potential high-speed rail alignments in the Santa Ana Canyon or other corridors as appropriate. ■ Drop Strategic 1 B (Corridor A with SR-55 widening) from further analysis. ■ Drop the SR-74 widening and realignment concept and focus on operational improvements. Funding these efforts will be the subject of future discussion among the transportation agencies as well as Metropolitan Water District and others. 4 • Selection of Locally -Preferred Strategy Page 5 Summary General recommendations for the MIS are suggested for Committee review and potential action. Next steps would focus on continuing the project development and evaluation process on multiple corridors and projects. Attachment A. Strategic Alternatives Overview ATL: kb EH: cb 5 ATTACHMENT A • • OCTA NO BUILD STRATEGIC ALTERNATIVE The improvements listed as part of the No Build Alternative are anticipated to take place regardless of the results of the MIS study. The No Build Alternative provides additional capacity between Riverside and Orange Counties by including improvement projects that are currently planned and expected to be constructed in the near -term. The No Build Alternative includes the following improvements: Transit Improvements • Improvements to the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) and associated transit improvement projects • MAGLEV (Cal-Nev) Highway Improvements • Addition of an eastbound SR-91 auxiliary lane from SR-241 to SR-71 • One additional lane in each direction from SR-241 to I-15 • The extension of SR-241 from Oso Parkway to I-5 Arterial Improvements to Increase Accessibility • A new interchange at Fairmont Boulevard and SR-91 • The extension of Jeffrey Road to SR-241 FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY LEGEND — Existing Hiptmay Plnileeed SR•91 Improvements Ptopesed hkup pet Alignment , vaav Existing SR-91 Lanes MN Proposed Additional SR.91 Baseline Lanes de, Proposed thaglev Transit Improvements -!— Proposed Extension et SR•241 • • OCTA STRATEGIC ALTERNATIVE I Strategic Alternatives I -A and I-B increases capacity between Riverside and Orange Counties by incorporating a suite of transit, highway, and TDM/TSM improvements to SR-91, Corridor A (Santa Ana Canyon), and Corridor D (Lake Elsinore/I-15 to SR-74). Corridor D construction could include a partially new alignment — either with or without tunnels — that would deviate from existing SR-74 to connect with I-15 at Lake Street or Nichols Road. Transit Improvements • HOV/HOT lane(s) commuter bus service on SR-91 • Expanded Metrolink commuter rail service, which would double operations to 30- minute service with an additional third track (Corridor A) • Mixed -traffic commuter bus service (Corridor D) Highway Improvements • One additional general purpose lane on SR-91 westbound from SR-55 to SR-241, and one additional general purpose lane eastbound on SR-91 from SR-55 to Lakeview Avenue • One additional general purpose lane in each direction of SR-91 from SR-71 to I-15 • Two additional general purpose lanes on eastbound SR-91 from Lakeview Avenue to SR-241 • An elevated reversible six -lane grade -separated facility which directly links SR-241 to I-15 and SR-91, with the only interchange being located at SR-71 (Corridor A) • A four -lane arterial with or without tunnel sections (Corridor D) Further Options to be Studied A. Convert SR-241 into a toll -free highway from SR-91 to SR-133. This would require additional capacity on SR-241. B. If Option A is not feasible, SR-55 would need to be expanded. CORRIDOR A h*a ♦8 - 6 IS/ FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY LEGENO +�+ Existing Highway Proposed SR-9t Improvements inn Proposed Additional SR-91 Lanes Existing SR-91 Lanes .� Proposed Corridor A Alignment Proposed Corridor A improvements Proposed Extension of SR•24 t — Proposed Corridor O Improvements — Proposed Corridor 0 Route '• Proposed Corridor D Lanes +2 Proposed Number of Additional Lanes CAJALCO RD CO 41111) Not to Scale LAKE ST • OCTA STRATEGIC ALTERNATIVE II Strategic Alternative II increases capacity between Riverside and Orange Counties by incorporating a suite of transit, highway, and TDM/TSM improvements to SR-91 and Corridor B (Cajalco Road/I-15 to SR-241/SR-133 vicinity). Corridor B construction could include a new alignment with or without near full-length tunnels and would be reversible. Transit Improvements • HOV/HOT lane(s) commuter bus service on SR-91 • Expanded Metrolink commuter rail service, which would double operations to 30- minute service with an additional third track (Corridor A) • Mixed -traffic commuter bus service (Corridor B) Highway Improvements • One additional general purpose lane on SR-91 westbound from SR-55 to SR-241, and one additional general purpose lane on SR-91 eastbound from SR-55 to Lakeview Avenue • One additional general purpose lane on SR-91 in each direction from SR-71 to I-15 • Two additional general purpose lanes on SR-91 eastbound from Lakeview Avenue to SR-241 • A reversible six -lane toll -free freeway with or without a full-length tunnel (Corridor B) Further Options to be Studied • Improvements to SR-91 for two HOV lanes and five mixed flow lanes in each direction from SR-71 to I-15 • Possible reconstruction of SR-91 express and HOV lanes to incorporate a reversible lane(s) • Proposed Corridor B tunnel (center) to include reversible lanes FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY LEGEND Existing Highway Proposed SR-91 Improvements ME Proposed Additional SR-91 Lanes • Existing SR-91 Lanes • Proposed Extension of SR-241 Proposed Corridor B Route Proposed Corridor B Lanes +2 Proposed Number of Additional Lanes 14) Not to Scale LAKE ST ICHOLS RD • • OCTA STRATEGIC ALTERNATIVE III Strategic Alternatives III -A and III-B increase capacity between Riverside and Orange Counties by incorporating a suite of transit, highway, and TDM/TSM improvements to SR-91, Corridor A (Santa Ana Canyon), Corridor B (Cajalco Road/I-15 to SR-241/SR-133 vicinity), and Corridor D (Lake Elsinore/I-15 to SR-74). Transit Improvements • HOV/HOT lane(s) commuter bus service on SR-91 • Expanded Metrolink commuter rail service, which would double operations to 30-minute service with an additional third track (Corridor A) • Mixed -traffic commuter bus service within Corridor B and Corridor D Highway Improvements • One additional general purpose lane on SR-91 westbound from SR-55 to SR-241, and one additional general purpose lane on SR-91 eastbound from SR-55 to Lakeview Avenue • One additional general purpose lane on SR-91 in each direction from SR-71 to I-15 • Two additional general purpose lanes on SR-91 eastbound from Lakeview Avenue to SR-241 • An elevated four -lane grade -separated (managed lanes for Strategic Alternative III-B) facility directly linking SR-241 to I-15 (with lessened access to SR-91) with the only interchange being located at SR-71 (an additional interchange will be located in Corona for Strategic Alternative III-B) (Corridor A) • A four -lane toll freeway with or without full-length tunnels (Corridor B) • A four -lane arterial with or without tunnel sections (Corridor D) Further Options to be Studied • The elevated four -lane grade separated facility will be considered for construction within SR- 91 right-of-way • Proposed elevated structures and SR-91 could include reversible lane(s) between SR-241 and I-15 FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY LEGEND • Existing Highway Proposed SR-91 Improvements mem Proposed Additional SR-91 Lanes Existing SR•91 Lanes �+ Proposed Extension of SR•241 • Proposed Corridor A Alignment Proposed Corridor A Improvements Proposed Corridor t3 Route Proposed Corridor B Lanes • Proposed Corridor D Improvements Proposed Corridor D Route Mlle Proposed Corridor D Lanes +2 Proposed Number of Additional Lanes CORRIDOR A Not to Scale D AKE ST CORRIDOR D OLS RD • • 1rlecorrdry GLOSSARY OCTA ADT - Average Daily Traffic (number of cars that travel daily through an area, typically representing the average over a year) Alignment - Route Arterial - Is differentiated from a freeway by lower speeds, lower carrying capacity, intersections at -grade signalized or not, driveways, etc. Auxiliary Lane - Lane of typically short length added to help traffic merging onto the mainline highway or exiting from the mainline highway Bore - tunnel Direct Connector Lane — A facility that directly connects two different highways, commonly found linking two freeways Grade Separated Facility - Highways in which different movements or directions of travel take place on different levels, above or below HOV/HOT - High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) and High Occupancy Toll (HOT) — With HOT lanes, single -occupant vehicles are allowed to pay to use the lane Lane Balancing — New lanes added to balance the number of lanes in opposing directions of travel Mixed Flow Lane — General purpose highway lane available to all users 3-Lane Connector Distributor Road - Connector Distributor Roads provide a separate roadway for traffic to merge and diverge off of the mainline highway Toll Congestion Pricing Options - Different options for how a toll is set for a highway depending on time of day, with tolls usually higher at peak periods Transit - May include urban light or heavy rail, commuter rail, bus, express bus, bus rapid transit, "paratransit" like small buses available on advance call -in basis for mobility -challenged individuals, etc. Transit Transfer Center - Transit Center where different modes of transit meet at the same location providing easy transfers between modes TSM/TDM - Transportation Systems Management (TSM) and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) — Example TSM treatment might be providing special lanes for buses and carpooling vehicles; example TDM measure might be charging higher tolls during peak travel periods Variable Message Signing - Electronic Message Boards that are changeable and provide information to the motorist on the spot ITEM 2 PLEASE KEEP THE ATTACHED POWERPOINT PRESENTATION FOR ITEM 2 SELECTION OF LOCALLY PREFERRED STRAGEY ALSO, PLEASE BRING TO THE MEETING ALONG WITH YOUR AGENDA PACKET THANK YOU _ Item 2 „ Policy Committee Meeting November 18, 2005 Follow -Up From 10/28 Capacity and demand by corridor Corridor A in SR-91 Ortega Highway environmental and right- of-way costs South OC traffic distribution 500 0 a 400 C a 0 200 ale County - e C MIS Corridor Demand FACTORS INFLUENCING FUTURE PROJECTIONS HIGH RIVERSIQE CQEJNTY G' . CONTINUED JOBS/HOUSING IMBALANCE ., .,.. V . M 0in, 001 , d +f ''' . DIVERSION TD OTHER CO RRIGORS . I�ICREA EGA JOBS/HOUSING BALANCE 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025. 2030 de C. Future Corridor Deena: lb LakeviewAv SR-91 151an zi i 5R-55 s -71 Existing lanes 141anes yes 181anes SR 91 Segment Number 241 131anes 221anes 14 lanes 22 lanes Equivalent Lanes Needed- 2 I- 5 Riverside Court MIS CORRIDOR ADT CAPACITY (With Corridor A Only) ADT in 0Mis 385 — 410 SR-241 360 SR-91 WIDENINCi 310 Fa lilt c. Demand EX ING ADT in 000's 450 CORRIDOR A f6-1,anes) ADT in 000's 310 S1't-9I WIDENING 2S0 Future Demand EXISTING SEGMENT 2 SEOMFNT 3 -1110P19116P,tr-AIrtrintnueurpriar _ • • , • SR-241 = Reduced tolls and added capaci j z;:rrt%,z,-;e7f1,7--r• r jet7r-"',',;""-" _ aiRRIDOR A 0-Lanes) 310 SR-91 WIDENN (Itter. Roetsibi EXISTING Riverside Coun Oran e Cou MIS CORRIDOR ADT CAPACITY With Corridor B Only) ADT in 000's SEGMENT 1 410 SR-,241 360 SR-91 :X NG 310 Future Dcmand EXISTING ADT in 000's 455 CORRIDOR B (6.Lancs Tull -free) , t , NC; Future Dona r.X.1 EXIS: ADT in 000's SHIAI ENT 2 SEGMENT 3 Actrww"mogo, SR-241= Reduced tolls.stind CORRIDOR B (6-1..artes Toll -free 310 SR-91 WIDENING rw.. Revelsibie Lanes) 220 EX'STE1G Riverside County Orange County ADT in 0 Future Demand SEGMENT 1 rersideCounCr MIS CORRIDOR ADT CAPACITY (With Corridors A and B) 410 CORR 44.anes roR u) OR SR.241 5R-9i WIDENING 310 TING 435 Future Demand ADT in 000's SEGMENT 2 go CORRIDOR B 452 (4-Lanes Toll) 410 CORRIDOR A (4-Lano) SR-01 WIDELACY 260 Future Demand SR-241= Reduced tolls and added capacity ADT in 000's SEG 490 CORRIDOR B (4-Lanes Toll) 410 CORRIDOR A (:4-Lancs) 310 SR-91 WIDEN1!,,, , RevvoiNe- S I1NG Riverside County - Orange Coin CORRIDOR A 4-LANE ELEVATED STRUCTURE WITH REVERSIBLE SR-91 LANES e *de Cou Corridor Across -Section within SR-91 R/W t t t MAXIMUM REASONABLE LANES - CORRIDOR A IS OFF SR-91 CORRIDOR CORRIDOR A 4-LANE ELEVATED STRUCTURE 232' AND VAR. 1 ; ; tApAN0 1 t I TZAL 4,1 MM. 444 91.0. 4:111100 A IMF • • a .•11.6.pa, 'Marl pr,e1 'etaa•a. , CORRIDOR A WITHIN SR-91 CORRIDOR oar MKT ';: Corridor A Cross -Section within SR-9 2le' 0V V MAXIMUM REASONABLE LANES - CORRIDOR A IS OFF SR-91 CORRIDOR 263' AND VAR. }V i s a CORRIDOR A 4-LANE OFFSET ELEVATED STRUCTURE WITH REVERSIBLE SR-91 LANES 242' AND VAR. —vs'vrv_tE JANt,EF CORRIDOR A 6 LANE ELEVATED STRUCTURE WITH REVERSIBLE SR 91 LANES 1 11 I rt.r ali P 1' i I I I I I I I I I fl I 45' AND VAR. 24' AND VAR. CORRIDOR A WITHIN SR-91 CORRIDOR Riverside CaunOrange Cot :c% Eoun Corridor D Costs equest to evaluate reduced environmental and right-of-way costs in Lake Elsinore Potential right-of-way cost reduction of up to $150 million Ortega Highway costs remain over illion ,11s1,111!'' afe Counter - Orange County MIS Distribution of Traffic to South Orange County- 2030 SR-91 Corridor 2030 Forecast Demand (AD1) 430,000 72,000 Corridor B Demand Origin and Destination Split to Orange Conn i Forecast Demand th Orange County R v ide County - Oran raft Recommendations Discussion cAJALCO RD a FOR ILLUSTRATNE PURPOSES ONLY CORRIDOR OCTA •Maximize transit system •Ultimate widening to SR-91 •Possible managed lane changes for SR-91 or Corridor A (including reversible lanes) •Continued study of Corridor A •Continued study of Corridor B •SR-74 operational improvements SR-91 Improvements Corridor A Corridor B SR-74 Improvements Other Mitigation Requirements Shadow Toll (Revenue) Total $ 670 Million $2,720 Million $5,960 Million $ 180 Million $ 470 Million $ (670) Million $9,330 Million LEGEND ----- Existing Highway Proposed SR-91 Improvements ---- Proposed Extension of SR-241 — Proposed Corridor A Alignment Proposed Corridor B Route Proposed SR-74 Improvements Proposed Maglev Alignment (By Others) Riverside County - Orange Cvu� 2030 ADT Volumes- Corridors A & B LEC LND .A.L" T (1)01h,1 Study Awe 1ttuertlerF . . Future Regodutiv IVEREIQE COU 1"Y — OE CO PITY IS 71030 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC. 06„ 'Ft VOLUMES - STRATEGIC; ALTERNATIVE MAR MUD OSTOEI snsiaA g 78 SION.LIOD -saulnIoA ,LaV OCOZ 0 3 ueic Juno 9PISJOAI Rive id Coun ran Draft Recommendations • Prioritize SR-91 improvements particularly east of SR-241 • Work with F/E TCA to develop plan for coordination of capacity improvements on toll .roads • Continue to evaluate costs/impacts of Corridor A • Continue to study technical feasibility of Corridor B • Eliminate Strategic Alternative lb from furthe consideration • Eliminate widening of Corridor D from further consi r r Evaluate operational improvements on Ortega Highw Continue to coordinate with Cal -Nevada Super Spee Train. Commission on alignments in Santa Ana Canyon o er corridors versiate County - Orange COuray MIS Strategy Decision Points IMPLEMENTATION OF IMPROVEMENTS (PS&E) . ., .",... .; ... .. .:, .� ... �...:. ....,.W,",.t. a ..., s..: CORRIDOR ..- ..... CORRIDOR ,..... B 2M 2015 2020 Riverside County - f)range you Project Phasing and Durations P ro ject Initiation ` PA/ED Construct. P.E.," PA/ED MAE Studies and P.E. 3 PA/ED PS&E PA/ED Construction Construct. Corridor A Construction Ortega Highway Corridor 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 .23 _24 25 28. = r , . . $ 6 27 28 2 Horizon Year Note: PA/ED= Project Approval/Environmental Doc PS&E= Plans, Specifications 8: Estimate reiiminary Engineering; ... ._: SR-91 Implementation Plan PANED 1.5 Construction 2 I 2006 07 08 09 10 2011 • Coordinate SR-91 ultimate widening with existing Caltrans, OCTA, and ROTC studies • Revise SR-91 Implementation Plan to be consistent with the MIS recommendations • Prioritize improvements to maximize throughput efficiency t` Funding from Measure A and OCTA resourc- `F _mod future state and federal funds 'i Priority 1 2 3 4 Riveide Court SR-91 Implementation Plan Projects Project 2 Additional Lanes County Line to 1.15 1 Auxiliary Lane SR-241 to SR-71 Reversible Lane SR-71 to 1.15 2 Additonal Lanes SR-55 to SR-241 Implementation 2011 2011 2011 2011 Funding Source Measure A OCTAIMeasure A RCTC OCTA Funding Statusl Funded Partially Funded Not Programmed Not Programme Rivetie County - Orange Gout. Corridor A Imp>lementation Plan Decision Point PA/E D 3 Construction 1 A I 2006 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 Horizon Year Preliminary engineering of alternative alignments Consideration of staged approach (east and west of SR-71) Develop multi -county funding plan t Decisions at completion of PE and prior to environmental clearance �"`°` Riverside County Orange Coup Corridor B Implementation Plan Decision Point Studies and P.E. 3 PA/ED 5 PS&E 3 Construction 6 2006 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2023 • Initiate geotechnical investigations • Initiate technical studies on basis of geotechnical information Alignments refinement, cost, and technical analysis Investigate partnerships for shared benefits and funding MWD Other Agencies lDecisions at completion of Feasibility Studies to environmental clearance iiverside Orange Coun Ortega Highway Operational Improvements Decision Point P.E. 1.5 PA/E D 2 PS&E 1.5 Construction 2 2006 07 08 09 70 71 12 • Estimated cost $180 million Develop funding plan in partnership with Caltrans Coordinate with Caltrans for project initiation Coordinate with Orange County project Decision prior to environmental clearance 2013 Riverside Count Orange CUr Newt Steps. Update SR-91 Implementation Plan — Identify funding sources — Prioritize projects — Begin environmental process Corridor A preliminary engineering Corridor B technical feasibility studies Ortega Highway Scoping Study wrth�'R