Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Mid County Parkway Update Presentation_RCTC
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.


Saving this for later?

Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime - even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Mid County Parkway Update Presentation_RCTC


Published on

Published in: Business, Health & Medicine

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide
  • Welcome and an overview of what we plan to cover. I think we need to emphasize that we have a fast-moving presentation that covers a lot of ground that also has planned breaks that will allow them to ask questions.
  • Before charging into the next section, we can ask for questions and comments on what we just covered at this point.
  • RCTC took action to start a project level document in the Cajalco Ramona Corridor area based on the greatest transportation benefit as identified in HCLE studies.
  • What is the Mid County Parkway ?A 16 mile transportation corridor designed to relieve local and regional traffic congestion in the San Jacinto and Perris and surrounding Riverside County communities. This slide shows the study area considered for the new facility.
  • Let me provide a bit of history on how we got here tonight. In 1999, to address the challenges facing Riverside County, the Board of Supervisors initiated the Riverside County Integrated Project, known as RCIP, to try and address expected growth in the County. It was recognized that land use and infrastructure decisions are often driven by environmental issues, so an integrated program was formed to coordinate development of a new countywide general plan, a multispecies habitat conservation plan, and a major transportation corridor plan, which was called the Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process, or CETAP.
  • In keeping with the goals of this Executive Order to:“Improve project delivery without compromising environmental protection”And“Demonstrating that we are mindful of the natural and human environment while addressing mobility and safety needs of the public”Participating agencies signed a Partnership Agreement to expedite the Review process for Mid County Parkway in October 2003. While we had to continue to meet all the requirements under the Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, the California Environmental Quality Act, the Clean Water Act and Section 4(f) of the US Department of Transportation Act, having the Executive Order has helped keep this project moving through a rapidly developing County. Through the agency partnership agreement, Federal and State resource agencies have been involved in the development of the alternatives and review of the environmental studies. This cooperative effort meets the spirit of the Environmental Streamlining Executive Order.
  • RCTC took action to start a project level document in the Cajalco Ramona Corridor area based on the greatest transportation benefit as identified in HCLE studies.
  • The public has had a significant role in shaping the development of the Mid County Parkway. There has been over 9 years of public input beginning with developing a vision for the County through RCIP, a transportation plan through CETAP, and now a project level corridor known as Mid County Parkway.Prior to the initiation of the project level work on the Mid County Parkway, 21 transportation specific meetings were held.Specifically for the Mid County Parkway, in September 2004 we held three meetings to obtain input to develop preliminary alternative alignments. In December 2004 we held three public scoping meetings to gather input on the preliminary alternatives and environmental issues to be addressed in the draft EIR/EIS. In August 2005 we held a meeting to seek input on refinements to the project alternatives that came from the value analysis study. And in October 2008, we held three open house style public information meetings.
  • Transcript

    • 1. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONAmerican Public Works Association February 6, 2012
    • 3. Background & Assumptions• Riverside County Will Grow• Transportation Needs Will Remain• Transportation Investments Help the Economy• Transportation Funding Will be Challenging
    • 4. Transportation Projects Create Jobs$2.5 Billion Investment in Transportation Creates Over 30,000 Jobs* Project Project Costs/ Jobs Western Riverside $145.6 million County Interchanges 1,800 jobs Coachella Valley $55.4 million Interchanges on the 700 jobs I-10 SR-91 Projects $1.64 billion 20,100 jobs Scott Road to $68.5 millionI-10/Palm Drive 15/215 800 jobs Grade Separations $600 million 7,300 jobs *Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
    • 5. What’s Happening Now?
    • 6. ACCOMPLISHMENTS Eastern County Western County• 10/Bob Hope • Green River (local widening Drive/Ramon Road project)• 10/Indian Canyon Drive* • 91/La Sierra Avenue• 10/Palm Drive/Gene Autry Interchange Project Trail* • 91/Van Buren Blvd. Bridge and Interchange *March 9: Joint • I-215/4th Street Ribbon Cutting Interchange** Ceremony **February 15: Ribbon Cutting Ceremony
    • 7. ACCOMPLISHMENTS• SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project – $20 million TIGER grant – Highly competitive - $527 million available nationally • 828 applications received totaling $14.1 billion in requests • Grants capped at $20 million – Grant will leverage part of a $445 million TIFIA loan (Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act) • One-third of project cost
    • 8. Current Projects 91 CorridorI-215 South ImprovementProject Project(s)I-215 CentralProject Extension of60/215 East CommuterJunction Rail Service
    • 9. Current Projects• Under Construction – 60/215 East Junction – (Moreno Valley/Riverside) – I-215 (Murrieta)• Imminent Construction: – SR-91 (Riverside)• Pursue Environmental Clearance: – Bi-county I-215 project – SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project – Perris Valley Line Metrolink Extension – I-15 Corridor Improvement Project – Mid County Parkway
    • 10. Mid County Parkway
    • 11. RCTC Measure A Projects
    • 12. What is the Mid County Parkway ?A 16 mile transportation corridor designed to relieve local andregional traffic congestion in the San Jacinto and Perris areas,and surrounding Riverside County communities.
    • 13. Planning for Future Growth:• Riverside County grew by 42% between 2000 and 2010. Riverside and San Bernardino County combined are more populous then 25 of the nations 50 states. (Census 2010)• The City of Perris and San Jacinto are among the five fastest growing cities in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. City of Perris with 89% growth and City of San Jacinto with 86% between 2000 and 2010.
    • 14. Relieve Traffic Congestion and Reduce Travel Times 2010 27,500 2040 79,000 2010 11,800 2040 50,900187% increase 331% increase
    • 15. Riverside County Integrated Project – “RCIP”Three-part Program(First of a kind effort to integrate these critical elements): • General Plan – Blueprint for future • MSHCP - Habitat conservation – - Protect 146 species - Acquire 153,000 acres • CETAP – New transportation corridors
    • 16. CETAP receives national recognition under White House Executive Order 13274 for Environmental Streamlining: Environmental Streamlining ”Improve project delivery without compromising environmental protection” Environmental Stewardship “Demonstrating that we are mindful of the natural andhuman environment while addressing mobility and safety needs of the public” Source: FHWA Website
    • 17. CETAP- East West Corridor•Study area encompassed 1000 sq. miles•14 alternatives evaluated, 120+ miles•Modeling showed alternatives in thenorthern part of the study area provided thegreatest transportation benefit
    • 18. Public Input:RCIP, CETAP, and Mid County Parkway -  From1999 to 2008, over 9 years of public and agency participation  Over 21 public meetings focusing specifically on transportation which helped guide us to MCP  10 public meetings on MCP
    • 19. Recap of MCP DEIR/DEIS Public Review Period and Comments Received (Oct 2008 – Jan 2009)• Three public information meetings, two public hearings, 1st District public meeting• Over 4,500 newsletters with comment cards were sent out in October 2008.• Over 3,100 comments received.
    • 20. Key Themes in Public Comments1. Concern about the cost and timing of available funds for the project.2. Comments suggested making improvements to existing facilities and raised concerns regarding issues in the western portion of the project area between I-15 and I-215, including impacts to the communities and to existing habitat reserves.3. The public would like to understand when and how the project would be constructed; a project construction phasing plan should be developed and disclosed to the public.
    • 21. RCTC Action 2009:1) Focus MCP limits to I-215 and SR79 in response to comments received on the Draft EIR/EIS;2) Maintain a long term plan for a future E-W CETAP Corridor between I-215 and I-15;3) Prioritize up to $7M in Regional Arterial, TUMF, or federal funds to the County of Riverside for the preparation of the environmental document for their Cajalco Road widening project;4) Consider re-initiation of the CETAP corridor analysis between the I-215 and I-15 if the County’s Cajalco Rd project is not environmentally cleared by 2013;5) Prepare a phasing plan for the MCP (east of I-215) and support the County’s efforts to prepare a phasing plan for Cajalco Road (between I-15 and I-215) that ensures equity in the funding and capacity improvements on each project; and6) Reconsider funding priorities for east-west regional arterials as part of the Commission’s Measure A Regional Arterial Program, once the economy improves.
    • 22. Alternatives No Longer Considered Mid County Parkway Modified Alternatives
    • 23. CETAP Mid County Parkway I-15 to I-215 Corridor Riverside 60 Moreno 91 Valley 79Corona CAJALCO RD RAMONA EXPWY Perris San Jacinto 15 74 74 Hemet Menifee
    • 24. Mid County Parkway Van Buren Blvd Perris Blvd Alt 4 Modified SJ River Bridge Design Variation Ramona San Jacinto North Cajalco Rd Design VariationAlt 5 Modified Nuevo Rd Alt 9 Modified Warren Rd
    • 25. Project Re-evaluation:• Modification of Alternatives • Reduction in impact to homes, businesses, school, fire station and park • I-215 • Cajalco Road • Placentia Interchange • Evaluate opportunity to shorten bridge over SJ River
    • 26. Project Re-evaluation:• Preparation of supplemental and revised technical studies • Traffic, Air, Noise, Right of Way Data, Engineering • NES, Cultural, Paleo, Community, Floodplain, Visual, Water Quality, 4f, USACE Conditional Assessment• Recirculated Draft EIR / Supplemental Draft EIS• Public Hearing on Draft REIR/SEIS
    • 27. Traffic Summary• Peak Hour Travel Time along the corridor improves from 44 minutes to 15 minutes• Level of Service at intersections along Ramona Expressway improve to Level of Service (LOS) D or better.• LOS on I-215 between Van Buren and Nuevo Road improves.• Benefits – Reduction in expected traffic congestion along the Ramona Expressway from I-215 to SR-79 – Freeway facility that would improve travel times for travelers in the corridor. – Lessens the travel burden on existing routes and increases longevity of proposed improvements on existing facilities.
    • 28. Ramona Expressway and MCP Alt 9 Modified Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Forecasts 2040 No Build and Build 79,000 52,700 60,500 27,700 63,500 93,800 N/A N/A 81,800 76,200Legend: Mid County Parkway2040 ADT XX,XXX No Build XX,XXX Build
    • 29. South North I-215 Bound Bound Level of Service (LOS) 2040 No Build and Build F- F F+ E F- F F+ E E D F D Mid County ParkwayLegend: F E Mid County Parkway E C2040 LOS X No Build X Build
    • 30. New Connection Reports• Two NCR Conceptual Acceptability received in 2008 – I-15 / MCP IC – includes modifications to exist interchanges – I-215 / MCP IC – includes new Placentia IC and modifications to existing interchanges• Supplemental NCR at I-215/MCP IC – includes new Placentia IC and modifications to existing interchanges – submitted to FHWA Fall 2011
    • 31. I-215 ImprovementsModified Ramona Expressway Rider Street Placentia Ave Perris Blvd Redlands Ave Evans Rd Nuevo Rd
    • 32. I-215 ImprovementsMixed Flow Lanein each Direction– 6.5 Miles Auxiliary lanes Improvements to between I-215/ Existing I-215/ MCP Interchange Cajalco Ramona and Service Interchange Interchange to the North and South –1.5 Miles New I-215/ Placentia Avenue Interchange Alt 9
    • 33. Existing I-215 3 MF 3 MFThree (3) Mixed Flow lanes in each direction from Nuevo Road to Van Buren Blvd
    • 34. Proposed Median Widening I-215 3 MF 1 MF 1 MF 3 MFAdd One (1) Mixed Flow Lane in each direction in existing median from Nuevo Road to Van Buren Blvd – 6.5 Miles
    • 35. Proposed Outside Widening I-215 1 or 2 1 or 2 Auxiliary Auxiliary Lane 4 MF 4 MF LaneAdd One (1) or Two (2) Auxiliary Lanes in each direction from MCP/I- 215 Interchange North and South to adjacent service interchange – 1.5 Miles
    • 36. PA/ED Assumptions• The Environmental Document will clear the entire 16 mile facility for construction.• It is RCTC’s intent to proceed to construction of the entire MCP facility so that it would be opened to the public at the same time.• If after the ROD, RCTC does not have full funding for construction, the MCP may be constructed in phases, per FHWA major project guidelines. At that time, RCTC would request FHWA concurrence on issuing a determination of an Operationally Independent and Non-Concurrent Construction (OINCC) for the 1st phase.
    • 37. Phase 1 - Year 2020 Proposed ImprovementsProvide anInterchange Provide a Four-Lane facility on the Ramonaat I-215/Placentia Ave Expwy Alignment from one half mile West of Bernasconi Rd to one half mile West of Warren Road with Interchanges at Reservoir, Town Center and Park Center Add a Mixed Flow Lane and a signalized intersection at Bernasconi In each direction of Rd. traffic along I-215 between Nuevo Road Likely built in conjunction with the County and Van Buren Avenue and local land development projects with County conditions.
    • 38. Phase 2 - 2030 Proposed Improvements Provide a Four-Lane Freeway Alternative 9 Modified from one half mile West of Warren Road to one half mile Provide improvements to East of Warren Road with an the existing I-215/Cajalco Interchange at Warren Road /Ramona Interchange Provide anProvide a Four-Lane Freeway Interchangefrom one half mile West of Extend MCP as an at MCP/Bernasconi Rd to I-215 with Arterial Roadway from Bernasconi RdInterchanges at Redlands one half mile East ofAvenue, Evans Road and Warren Road toRamona Expwy/ Antelope Road Ramona Expwy with anand ramps to the North only at Interchange at SR-79I-215/MCP- WB/NB and SB/EBConnectors.
    • 39. Phase 3 – 2040 Proposed Improvements Alternative 9 Modified Widen Mid County Parkway to six lanes from I-215 to SR-79 Provide Full Interchange at I-215/ MCP– WB/SB Provide Freeway toand NB/EB Connectors Freeway Interchange at MCP/ SR-79
    • 40. MCP Milestones: 2009 - 2010 2011 2012 2013 and beyond•Project Focused to I-215 • Prepare / Update / Revise • Admin RDEIR/SDEIS •RCTC Action - Certifyto SR-79 Technical Studies: Jan - May review - January EIR / Approve Project•Modified Project Scope •ROD Approval •Technical Study Reviews: May •RDEIR / SDEIS Circulation• Updated Traffic Model – Sept and Public Hearing - June •Corp ROD and PermitPreliminary Traffic andEngineering Decision •Approve Tech Studies: Sept - •Response to Comments•Agreement on Refined November •Final DesignPurpose and Need •Preliminary LEDPA • Right of way•Discussion on Modified •Prepare RDEIR/SDEIS: Oct– acquisitionRange of Alternatives DecPackage: Nov - Dec •Final EIR/EIS • Construction
    • 41. Thank You/Questions