Riverside County Orange County

1
Click to edit Master title style
Riverside County - Orange County Major
Investment Study Stakeholders Advisory
Meeting November 1, 2005
Click to edit Master text styles Second
level Third level Fourth level Fifth level
Riverside County - Orange County
1
2
County Line Crossings of Total Trips by Subarea
3
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 Consideration
• Surface alignments in Corridor B
• Corridor C

4

• Maglev
• One lane each direction of SR-91 from County Line
  to I-15
• One eastbound auxiliary lane on SR-91 from SR-241
  to SR-71
• Extension of SR-241 (Foothill South) to I-5

5
Improvements Consistent in Strategic Alternatives

• Add one to two lanes to the SR-91 in each
  direction
• Managed lane concept (changing the direction of
  flow during peak hours, toll, and/or carpool)
• Maximize transit system

6
Transit Features

• Express Bus Service
• Increased Metrolink Service
• Expanded Transit Center in Corona
• HOV Drop Ramps
• 3,000 Stall Parking Facility
• Managed Lanes Concept
• HOV/HOT/Reversible Lanes
• Maglev Super Speed Train

7

• 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)

8
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 I-5

9
Strategic Alternative IB Right-of-Way Impacts
10
Six-Lane Corridor A Within SR-91
18 lanes
14 lanes
Six-lane structure results in only four
additional lanes.
11

• 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)

12

• 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

13
Four-Lane Corridor A Within SR-91
16 lanes
14 lanes
Four-lane structure results in only two
additional lanes.
14
Corridor Cost Comparison
15
Strategic Alternatives Cost Comparison With
Corridor D
16
Benefit Cost SummaryWith Corridor D
17
Strategic Alternatives Cost Comparison Without
Corridor D
18
Benefit Cost SummaryWithout Corridor D
19
Strategic Alternatives - Summary Comparisons
Without Corridor D
20
Corridor ABenefits/Risks

• Benefits
• Cost effective improvement
• Minimal natural environmental impacts
• Goods movement enhanced
• Multimodal options
• Risks
• Limits route to within Santa Ana Canyon
• Air quality, noise, no secondary route
• Limits future capacity improvements beyond 2030
• Potential downstream human environment
  (community) impacts
• Potential dislocation of residential (IB) and
  businesses

21
Corridor BBenefits/Risks

• Benefits
• Additional route linking Counties
• Improved regional mobility
• Links to planned Mid-County Parkway
• Minimal human environment (community) impacts in
  developed areas
• Risks
• Greater cost and unknowns
• Natural environmental impacts
• Longer permitting and construction time

22
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

23
Next Steps

• Develop Recommendation for Locally Preferred
  Strategy
• Return to Policy Committee on November 18, 2005
  with final recommendations
• OCTA/RCTC consideration of final recommendations
  in December 2005