Interstate 11 Corridor Transformative Investments in the United States Request for Projects

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Interstate 11 Corridor Transformative Investments in the United States Request for Projects Agenda Item #8 Interstate 11 Corridor Transformative Investments in the United States Request for Projects A. Project Overview What is the overall vision and goal of the project? Representing the pioneering spirit of the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, Interstate 11 represents a new north-south travel corridor connecting under served communities in the Intermountain West. The overall goal WASHINGTON of the project is to create an Interstate 11 corridor that would con- SEATTLE 90 nect 8 million people; improve national security by linking 25 mili- tary installations; provide vital transportation alternatives during 82 PORTLAND times of national crisis;29 and reinvigorate the economy by creating 94 MAINE 15 90 jobs, assisting in freight movement, and providing major develop- 5 35 89 95 NORTH DAKOTA 93 MONTANA ment opportunities.SOUTH DAKOTA 11 75 81 87 PORTLAND BOISE MINNEAPOLIS ALBANY 91 NH OREGON 39 VT BOSTON 90 CALIFORNIA Following the opening of the interstate-standard Hoover Dam By- 90 88 84 86 25 90 43 BUFFALO MASS RI 495 IDAHO 90 CT MINNESOTA 86 84 NEVADA IOWA MILWAUKEE 96 pass Bridge in 2010, several states, including Arizona and DETROITNevada, NEW YORK WISCONSIN 95 35 94 94 CLEVELAND PENNSYLVANIA 80 began working with the 29United States380 CongressILLINIOS CHICAGO toMICHIGAN initially seek 80 78 NEW YORK CITY 88 PHILADELPHIA 80 RENO WYOMING 90 76 99 505 SALT LAKE CITY 80 DES MOINES 80 NEW designation of an interstateOMAHA route between Phoenix, Arizona71 and PITTSBURGH 83 SACRAMENTO 55 65 75 70 JERSEY OAKLAND 76 80 69 COLUMBUS BALTIMORE SAN FRANCISCO OHIO 68 Las Vegas,DENVER Nevada.NEBRASKA Efforts are also underway 74to expand this des- DEL 580 INDIANAPOLIS 77 WASHINGTON 70 KANSAS 72 MYD CINCINNATI 79 70 WEST ignation north to destinationsTOPEKA inKANSAS the CITY Pacific NorthwestINDIANA and south 95 11 15 70 VIRGINIA 64 RICHMOND 335 70 ST LOUIS LOUISVILLE 35 64 LEXINGTON NORFOLK 5 to the Mexican border.135 85 UTAH 25 57 LAS VEGAS ARIZONA COLORADO 44 55 75 VIRGINIA NEW MEXICO WICHITA KENTUCKY 81 NORTH CAROLINA 24 RALEIGH Early planningOKLAHOMA for the Interstate MISSOURIHighway System identifiedKNOXVILLE nu- 210 TEXAS ARKANSAS NASHVILLE40 40 LOS ANGELES TULSA 69 CHARLOTTE 405 40 merous routes OKLAHOMAin the CITY heavily populated49 areasMEMPHIS east of the Mississippi 73 17 ALBUQUERQUE AMARILLO TENNESSEE 15 10 40 26 77 COLUMBIA SAN DIEGO River. This trend 44has continuedLITTLE since ROCK 40 the system65 was59 established PHOENIX 27 ATLANTA SOUTH 25 35 22 8 in 1956 with more routes added in30 the eastern United States. There20 CAROLINA 69 BIRMINGHAM CHARLESTON TUCSON 55 85 35E LOUISIANA 16 SAVANNAH 19 10 has been little significantFORT WORTH DALLASaddition of interstate MONTGOMERYroutes in the western 20 United States other than35W an extension20 of Interstate 70 west14 of75 Den-95 65 ALABAMA GEORGIA 49 MISSISSIPPI 59 FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE ver to Interstate 15 in Utah,45 and Interstate 82 between Interstates10 10 12 MOBILE AUSTIN 10 HOUSTON 84 and 90 in Oregon35 and Washington State, respecitvely.NEW ORLEANS Despite SAN ANTONIO GALVESTON ORLANDO these additions, population69 and employment growth in the TAMPAWest 4 37 ST PETERSBURG 95 has outpaced eastern states,CORPUS CHRISTI and the demand for travel along the 75 few western interstate corridors has grown to where metropolitan- MIAMI type congestion is common along relatively rural routes. The introduction of Interstate 11 to the western United States high- The proposed Interstate 11 route would provide way network provides considerable benefit to the West’s key over- an alternate north/south corridor in the West. taxed north-south corridors: Interstate 5 and Interstate 15. The burden on these two roadways not only hampers economic growth, but also exposes the West to greater security risks during times of emergency and potential natural disasters. Building Interstate 11 provides an alter- native for intercity travel throughout the West without having to focus travel in a few Page 1 Interstate 11 Corridor Transformative Investments in the United States: Request for Projects WASHINGTON SEATTLE 90 PORTLAND 29 94 MAINE 15 90 5 35 89 95 NORTH DAKOTA 93 MONTANA SOUTH DAKOTA 75 81 87 PORTLAND BOISE MINNEAPOLIS ALBANY 91 NH OREGON VT BOSTON CALIFORNIA 90 90 84 90 BUFFALO MASS RI 495 86 25 90 CT IDAHO MINNESOTA 84 NEVADA IOWA MILWAUKEE 96 DETROIT NEW YORK WISCONSIN 95 35 94 94 CLEVELAND PENNSYLVANIA 80 29 ILLINIOS CHICAGO MICHIGAN 80 78 NEW YORK CITY PHILADELPHIA 80 RENO WYOMING 90 76 505 SALT LAKE CITY 80 DES MOINES 80 NEW OMAHA 71 PITTSBURGH 83 SACRAMENTO 55 65 75 70 JERSEY OAKLAND 76 80 69 COLUMBUS BALTIMORE SAN FRANCISCO OHIO DENVER NEBRASKA 74 DEL 580 INDIANAPOLIS WASHINGTON KANSAS MYD CINCINNATI 70 WEST TOPEKA KANSAS CITY INDIANA 95 15 VIRGINIA 64 RICHMOND 70 ST LOUIS LOUISVILLE 64 NORFOLK 135 LEXINGTON 85 UTAH 25 57 LAS VEGAS ARIZONA COLORADO 55 75 VIRGINIA NEW MEXICO WICHITA KENTUCKY 81 NORTH CAROLINA RALEIGH OKLAHOMA MISSOURI KNOXVILLE 210 TEXAS ARKANSAS NASHVILLE40 LOS ANGELES TULSA CHARLOTTE 405 40 OKLAHOMA CITY MEMPHIS 17 ALBUQUERQUE AMARILLO TENNESSEE 15 10 40 26 COLUMBIA SAN DIEGO LITTLE ROCK 40 65 59 PHOENIX ATLANTA SOUTH 25 35 8 20 CAROLINA 30 BIRMINGHAM CHARLESTON TUCSON 55 85 35E LOUISIANA 16 SAVANNAH 19 10 FORT WORTH DALLAS MONTGOMERY 20 35W 20 75 95 65 ALABAMA GEORGIA MISSISSIPPI 59 FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE 45 10 10 MOBILE AUSTIN 10 HOUSTON 35 NEW ORLEANS SAN ANTONIO GALVESTON ORLANDO TAMPA 4 ST PETERSBURG 95 CORPUS CHRISTI MIAMI Interstate Highway Sytem approved in 1956. WASHINGTON SEATTLE 90 82 PORTLAND 29 94 MAINE 15 90 5 35 89 95 NORTH DAKOTA 93 MONTANA SOUTH DAKOTA 75 81 87 PORTLAND BOISE MINNEAPOLIS ALBANY 91 NH OREGON 39 VT BOSTON 90 CALIFORNIA 90 88 84 86 25 90 43 BUFFALO MASS RI 495 IDAHO 90 CT MINNESOTA 86 84 NEVADA IOWA MILWAUKEE 96 DETROIT NEW YORK WISCONSIN 95 35 94 94 CLEVELAND PENNSYLVANIA 80 29 380 ILLINIOS CHICAGO MICHIGAN 80 78 NEW YORK CITY 88 PHILADELPHIA 80 RENO WYOMING 90 76 99 505 SALT LAKE CITY 80 DES MOINES 80 NEW OMAHA 71 PITTSBURGH 83 SACRAMENTO 55 65 75 70 JERSEY OAKLAND 76 80 69 COLUMBUS BALTIMORE SAN FRANCISCO OHIO 68 DENVER NEBRASKA 74 DEL 580 INDIANAPOLIS 77 WASHINGTON 70 KANSAS 72 MYD CINCINNATI 79 70 WEST TOPEKA KANSAS CITY INDIANA 95 15 70 VIRGINIA 64 RICHMOND 335 70 ST LOUIS LOUISVILLE 35 64 LEXINGTON NORFOLK 135 85 UTAH 25 57 LAS VEGAS ARIZONA COLORADO 44 55 75 VIRGINIA NEW MEXICO WICHITA KENTUCKY 81 NORTH CAROLINA 24 RALEIGH OKLAHOMA MISSOURI KNOXVILLE 210 TEXAS ARKANSAS NASHVILLE40 40 LOS ANGELES TULSA 69 CHARLOTTE 405 40 OKLAHOMA CITY 49 MEMPHIS 73 17 ALBUQUERQUE AMARILLO TENNESSEE 15 10 40 26 77 COLUMBIA SAN DIEGO 44 LITTLE ROCK 40 65 59 PHOENIX 27 ATLANTA SOUTH 25 35 22 8 30 20 CAROLINA 69 BIRMINGHAM CHARLESTON TUCSON 55 85 35E LOUISIANA 16 SAVANNAH 19 10 FORT WORTH DALLAS MONTGOMERY 20 35W 20 14 75 95 65 ALABAMA GEORGIA 49 MISSISSIPPI 59 FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE 45 10 10 12 MOBILE AUSTIN 10 HOUSTON 35 NEW ORLEANS 1956 Original System SAN ANTONIO GALVESTON ORLANDO 69 TAMPA 4 37 ST PETERSBURG 95 1957-1992 Additions CORPUS CHRISTI 75 MIAMI ISTEA/TEA21 Priority Corridors Additions to Interstate Highway System since 1956. Page 2 Interstate 11 Corridor Transformative Investments in the United States: Request for Projects corridors that traverse some of the West’s largest population centers, including Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, and Portland. Interstate 11 not only provides needed connectivity in the West, but enhances the American trans- portation system, provides alternate routes (especially in times of national emergen- cies), and improves its reliability for better trade and commerce opportunities. What is the geographic scale and scope of the project? The Interstate 11 corridor of the Intermountain West is a project for linking the na- tion’s fastest growing metropolitan areas and 25 military installations. The corridor is envisioned to enhance north-south travel, alleviate parallel route congestion, and to improve the overall capability for goods movement and freight reliability. The project is estimated to encompass approximately 1,400 miles of new interstate cor- ridor with the provision for accommodating rail, water, and power transport. The corridor also strengthens international trade between the United States, Canada, and Mexico by linking West Coast ports in all three countries. What is the background/history of the project? A north-south interstate highway corridor in this part of the United States was not included as part of the original 42,843-mile system when President Eisenhower signed the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 authorizing construction of the Inter- state Highway System. The combined population of Phoenix, Tucson, Las Vegas, and Reno was less than 700,000 in 1956, and the focus of interstate planners at that time was to improve connections to California in the western part of the United States. Today, the US Census Bureau estimates these communities to have about 8 million in population. Future projections indicate this corridor will continue to see significant growth, prompting the need for better surface transportation con- nections to accommodate not only the travel demand between these metropolitan areas, but also improved mobility for freight shipments throughout the West. What is the current status of the project? Elements for an Interstate 11 corridor have been emerging over time. In Arizona, the Department of Transportation (ADOT) is implementing a multiyear program for improving US-93 between Phoenix and Las Vegas by widening the roadway to four lanes and acquiring right-of-way that could allow the corridor to be construct- ed to interstate standards in the future. The Arizona State Transportation Board recently accepted the findings of ADOT’s bqAZ: Statewide Transportation Planning Framework Program that includes the conversion of US-93 into an interstate cor- ridor and for that interstate route to continue along the Hassayampa Freeway from Wickenburg to Casa Grande.
Recommended publications
  • Interstate 11 Update
    Management Comm ittee Maricopa Association of Governments June 9, 2010 Interstate 11 Update © 2010, All Rights Reserved. 1 Bordering States COG/MPO DISCUSSIONS TiTourism and RRtiecreation . GEORGE:ST . GEORGE:ST Scottsdale of Utah? California California Las Las Navajjj o Nation relates Population: Population:Vegas Vegas Grand Canyon more to New Mexico TOURISM TOURISM 60 M60 M by 2050!by 2050! 1717 II --1717 2525 High-tech High -tech Bedroom Bedroom Extension? Extension? communitycommunity community community industry along II --2525 People People Businesses Businesses Eager/ Springerville Second homes provide shopping/ services to Western New ECONOMIC DE Tourists Tourists Mexico Mexico Commercial Vehicles agriculture agriculture V Mexico’s fastest ELOPMENT growing states are in the north (Sonora, Chihuahua, and Nuevo Leon) Leon) Keyyy CONNECTIONS to Guaymas, Hermosillo, Punta Colonet maquiladoras Proposed Interstate 11 Corridor © 2010, All Rights Reserved. 2 Arizona Arizona COG/MPO DISCUSSIONS .. Commercial Trucking .. Distribution throughout Southwest USA R e c r e a t i o n .. Elevation in Central Arizona (SR(SR--89/SR89/SR--69)69) Pearce Pearce Growth Growth .. USUS--95/SR95/SR--95 Corridor95 Corridor Ferry Ferry Limitations CANAMEX.. CANAMEX .. Natural Resources .. Copper in Safford Area InIn-- .. Emerging Industries rn rn EX?EX? migggration eeee .. Welton Oil Refinery MMMM Warehousing.. Warehousing WestWest CANACANA .. Sun Corridor Megaregion Population Prescott.. Prescott will double Copppper pp mining mining Phoenix.. Phoenix Tucson.. Tucson Agrarian Agrarian Industrial Industrial .. Recreation and Tourism Incoming Incoming Informal Truck Bypasses Commerce! Warehousing/Distribution Hub Proposed Interstate 11 Corridor © 2010, All Rights Reserved. 3 2006 Tonnage of TrailerTrailer--onon--FlatcarFlatcar and ContainerContainer--onon--FlatcarFlatcar Intermodal Moves Proposed Interstate 11 Corridor © 2010, All Rights Reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • Ultimate RV Dump Station Guide
    Ultimate RV Dump Station Guide A Complete Compendium Of RV Dump Stations Across The USA Publiished By: Covenant Publishing LLC 1201 N Orange St. Suite 7003 Wilmington, DE 19801 Copyrighted Material Copyright 2010 Covenant Publishing. All rights reserved worldwide. Ultimate RV Dump Station Guide Page 2 Contents New Mexico ............................................................... 87 New York .................................................................... 89 Introduction ................................................................. 3 North Carolina ........................................................... 91 Alabama ........................................................................ 5 North Dakota ............................................................. 93 Alaska ............................................................................ 8 Ohio ............................................................................ 95 Arizona ......................................................................... 9 Oklahoma ................................................................... 98 Arkansas ..................................................................... 13 Oregon ...................................................................... 100 California .................................................................... 15 Pennsylvania ............................................................ 104 Colorado ..................................................................... 23 Rhode Island ...........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Highway Boondoggles 6 Big Projects
    HIGHWAY BOONDOGGLES 6 Big Projects. Bigger Price Tags. Limited Benefits. HIGHWAY BOONDOGGLES 6 Big Projects. Bigger Price Tags. Limited Benefits. WRITTEN BY: GIDEON WEISSMAN AND BRYN HUXLEY-REICHER FRONTIER GROUP MATTHEW CASALE AND JOHN STOUT U.S. PIRG EDUCATION FUND DECEMBER 2020 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to thank Kevin Brubaker of Environmental Law & Policy Center, Clint Richmond of Massachusetts Sierra Club, Chris DeScherer and Sarah Stokes of Southern En- vironmental Law Center, Wendy Landman of WalkBoston, Jenna Stevens of Environment Florida, Ben Hellerstein of Environment Massachusetts, Abe Scarr of Illinois PIRG and Bay Scoggin of TexPIRG for their review of drafts of this document, as well as their insights and suggestions. Thanks also to Frontier Group interns Christiane Paulhus and Hannah Scholl, and Susan Rakov, Tony Dutzik, David Lippeatt and Adrian Pforzheimer of Frontier Group for editorial support. The authors bear responsibility for any factual errors. Policy recommendations are those of NCPIRG Education Fund. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of our funders or those who provided review. Project maps included in this report should be considered approximations based on publicly avail- able information and not used for planning purposes. 2020 NCPIRG Education Fund. Some Rights Reserved. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives 3.0 Unported License. To view the terms of this license, visit creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0. With public debate around important issues often dominated by special interests pursu- ing their own narrow agendas, NCPIRG Education Fund offers an independent voice that works on behalf of the public interest.
    [Show full text]
  • FHWA AMRP FY 2020 Enacted.Pdf
    United States Department of Transportation FY 2020 Annual Modal Research Plans Federal Highway Administration May 1, 2019 Nicole Nason Administrator Contents Executive Summary.............................................................................................................................................. 2 Chapter 1: Introduction/Agency‐Wide Research Approach ................................................................ 8 Chapter 2. High Priority Project Descriptions ........................................................................................ 16 Chapter 3 ‐ FY 2020 Program Descriptions ............................................................................................. 34 Chapter 4 – FY 2021 Program Descriptions .......................................................................................... 250 FHWA FY2020‐FY2021 AMRP– March 2019 Page 1 Executive Summary The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) addresses current issues and emerging challenges, creates efficiencies in the highway and transportation sector, and provides information to support policy decisions through its Research and Technology (R&T) programs. FHWA conducts advanced and applied research; coordinates and collaborates with other research organizations, both nationally and internationally, to leverage knowledge; and develops and delivers solutions to address highway transportation needs. FHWA is uniquely positioned to identify and address highway issues of national significance and build effective partnerships that leverage and
    [Show full text]
  • Summary / Overview of Proposed I-11 Corridor
    Alternative Interstate 11 Corridor From Wickenburg to Mexico Border Prepared by: Sanjeev Ramchandra, M.Ed. [email protected] June 2016 Updated: December 2017 Summary / Overview of Proposed I-11 Corridor To Las Vegas • I-11 still replaces the existing US 93 corridor but a new corridor south of Wickenburg is proposed. • I-11 corridor uses existing highway contours with no urban sprawl and no new desert destruction. • I-11 provides quicker and safer travel to Lukeville border crossing and subsequently to Rocky Point. • I-11 between I-10 and I-8 becomes a southern bypass around Phoenix for I-10 through traffic. • I-11 is an alternate to I-19 for some truck traffic and reduces congestion from Nogales to Tucson. • I-11 generates additional sales tax revenues from To Rocky Point vacationers for state and local governments in AZ. Phoenix West Valley I-11 Corridor (see map) 1) I-11 shares US 60 from Wickenburg to L303. 2) I-11 replaces Loop 303 from US 60 to SR 30. 3) I-11 replaces SR 30 from Loop 303 to SR 85. 1 4) I-11 replaces SR 85 from SR 30 to Gila Bend. 5) I-111 replaces SR 30 from Loop 303 to L202. 6) I-311 replaces Loop 303 from US 60 to I-17. 7) SR 85 freeway segment links I-10 and I-11. 6 A) DO NOT put I-11 west of White Tank Mtns. B) DO NOT extend Loop 303 south of SR 30. C) DO NOT convert SR 74 into a freeway.
    [Show full text]
  • Station Casinos Is the Premier Provider of Gaming and Entertainment for Residents of the Las Vegas Valley
    Annual 20 00 Report opportunity...the road to Outlets Acreage Location Main Facility Sq. Footage Casino Sq. Footage Slots Tables Rooms Restaurants Fast-Food Movie Screens Bowling Lanes Child Care Covered Parking Opening/ Acquisition Date PALACE STATION Las Vegas, NV 39 287,000 84,000 2,084 51 1,014 5 5 — — — 1,900 7/76 BOULDER STATION Las Vegas, NV 46 337,000 89,000 2,988 44 300 5 7 11 — Yes 1,900 8/94 TEXAS STATION North Las Vegas, NV 47 568,350 102,300 2,999 40 200 5 8 18 60 Yes 3,500 7/95 SUNSET STATION Henderson, NV 105 428,000 110,000 3,059 55 467 7 8 13 — Yes 2,900 6/97 SANTA FE STATION Las Vegas, NV 38 366,000 85,000 1,840 27 200 3 — — 60 — — 10/00 GREEN VALLEY RANCH Henderson, NV 40 435,000 55,000 2,531 42 200 6 6 10 — — 2,000 12/01 FIESTA CASINO HOTEL North Las Vegas, NV 25 170,000 70,000 1,850 24 100 5 3 — — — 1,000 1/01 THE RESERVE Henderson, NV 46 190,000 42,000 1,450 26 224 6 3 — — — — 1/01 WILD WILD WEST Las Vegas, NV 19 16,000 12,500 248 7 260 1 — — — — — 7/98 BARLEY’S CASINO & Henderson, NV — 26,000 10,000 199 9 — 1 — — — — — 1/96 BREWERY SOUTHWEST GAMING Las Vegas Metro Area — N/A N/A 790 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 12/90 ROUTE TOTALS 405 2,823,350 659,800 20,038 325 2,965 44 40 52 120 — 13,200 familiar ...leads us to territory STATION CASINOS IS THE PREMIER PROVIDER OF GAMING AND ENTERTAINMENT FOR RESIDENTS OF THE LAS VEGAS VALLEY.
    [Show full text]
  • Ab 595 Project Status Report Quarter Ending 3-31-08
    STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION QUARTERLY REPORT FOR MAJOR PROJECTS For Quarter Ending September 30, 2019 Steve Sisolak Governor Kristina Swallow, PE Director Nevada Department of Transportation QUARTERLY REPORT FOR MAJOR PROJECTS SSeptember 30, 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 2 2.0 PROJECT STATUS SHEET EXPLANATION 3 3.0 MAJOR PROJECTS 4 4.0 COMPLETED MAJOR PROJECTS 22 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION The primary purpose of this quarterly report, ending September 30, 2019, is to provide the Nevada Legislature, the Transportation Board of Directors, and the general public with the status of major projects undertaken by the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) as required by Assembly Bill 595 that was passed in 2007. This quarterly report specifically addresses the reporting requirements of Section 55.5. This status report is based on the major assumption that funding will be available for the major projects in a timely fashion. Section 2 of this report provides a detailed description and explanation of the information on each project status sheet. Section 3 of this report includes project status sheets for all major projects as required by AB 595. There are project sheets for highway capital projects indentified in the December 2006 Blue Ribbon Task Force report: "Roads to the Future" and any other proposed super or mega projects. All of these projects are simply characterized as major projects (projects exceeding $100 million). Section 4 of this report identifies any major projects completed during this quarter. 2 2.0 PROJECT STATUS SHEET EXPLANATION The information contained on the project status sheet is centered on the Department’s project development process.
    [Show full text]
  • Northwest Area Fire Weather Annual Operating Plan
    Williams Flats Fire: August 7, 2019 Photo: Inciweb 2021 Northwest Area Fire Weather Annual Operating Plan 1 This page intentionally left blank 2 3 This page intentionally left blank 4 Table of Contents Agency Signatures/Effective Dates of the AOP ......................................................................................3 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................6 NWS Services and Responsibilities.........................................................................................................8 Wildland Fire Agency Services and Responsibilities ........................................................................... 14 Joint Responsibilities ...........................................................................................................................15 NWCC Predictive Services ...................................................................................................................17 Boise .................................................................................................................................................. 25 Medford...............................................................................................................................................30 Pendleton ........................................................................................................................................... 41 Portland...............................................................................................................................................53
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix L: Design Guidelines: I-5 NCC Project
    Appendix L: Design Guidelines: I-5 NCC Project Appendix L: Design Guidelines: I-5 NCC Project I-5 North Coast Corridor Project Final EIR/EIS page L-1 Appendix L: Design Guidelines: I-5 NCC Project I-5 North Coast Corridor Project Final EIR/EIS page L-2 Design Guidelines Interstate 5 North Coast Corridor Project September 2013 Prepared by: Caltrans District 11 | T.Y. Lin International | Safdie Rabines Architects | Estrada Land Planning Interstate 5 North Coast Corridor Project – Design Guidelines Design Guidelines Interstate 5 North Coast Corridor Project Prepared by: Caltrans District 11 4050 Taylor Street San Diego, CA 92110 T.Y. Lin International 404 Camino del Rio South, Suite 700 San Diego, CA 92108 | 619.692.1920 Safdie Rabines Architects 925 Ft. Stockton Drive San Diego, CA 92123 | 619.297.6153 Estrada Land Planning 755 Broadway Circle, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92101 | 619.236.0143 Interstate 5 North Coast Corridor Project – Design Guidelines Interstate 5 North Coast Corridor Project – Design Guidelines Table of Contents Design Guidelines Interstate 5 North Coast Corridor Project Table of Contents I. Project Background D. Design Themes....................17 vi. Typical Freeway Undercrossing. 36 vii. Typical Bridge Details. 37 A. Introduction....................1 i. Corridor Theme Elements. 17 ii. Corridor Theme Priorities. 19 - Southern Bluff Theme....................38 B. Purpose.......................1 - Coastal Mesa Theme.....................39 iii. Corridor Theme Units. 20 C. Components & Products. 1 - Northern Urban Theme. 40 - Southern Bluff Theme....................21 D. The Proposed Project. 2 - Coastal Mesa Theme.....................22 B. Walls.............................41 E. Previous Relevant Documents. 3 - Northern Urban Theme. 23 i. Theme Unit Specific Wall Concepts.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1 North
    Interstate 73 FEIS: I-95 to North Carolina The feasibility study recognized that there had been some improvements to roads in the project study area; however, the improved roads were predicted to have capacity problems along some segments by the year 2025, based on traffic modeling. Future traffic projections indicated that I-73 would divert traffic from existing roadways, which would improve capacity and reduce traffic congestion.10 North Carolina completed a feasibility study in 2005 that evaluated alternatives for the proposed I­ 74 in Columbus and Brunswick Counties, North Carolina, located in the southeastern portion of the state. The study was an initial step in the planning and design and described the project, costs, and identified potential problems that required consideration. The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) was passed by Congress and signed into law on August 10, 2005. SAFETEA-LU acknowledges the prior purpose for, and designation of, I-73 as a High Priority Corridor, along with designating it as a project of “national and regional significance” (23 U.S.C. §101(2005)). In addition, SAFETEA-LU provides earmarks for the I-73 project in South Carolina. At the state level, Concurrent Resolution H 3320 passed by the South Carolina General Assembly in 2003 states “that the members of the General Assembly express their collective belief and desire that the Department of Transportation should consider its next interstate project as one that provides the Pee Dee Region with access to the interstate system.”11 Both Congress and the South Carolina General Assembly have appropriated money to SCDOT to study the potential corridor for the proposed I-73.
    [Show full text]
  • For Sale Offering Memorandum
    CENTENNIAL SQUARE N. DURANGO DR. // 17,488 CPD W. CENTENNIAL PKWY. // 15,288 CPD FOR SALE OFFERING MEMORANDUM presented by: CHRIS RICHARDSON, CCIM JASON OTTER Director Director 702.954.4110 702.954.4109 [email protected] [email protected] CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT This Offering Memorandum contains select information pertaining to the business and By acknowledging your receipt of this Offering Memorandum from LCRE, you agree: affairs of 6408 - 6446 N. DURANGO DR., LAS VEGAS, NV 89149. This Memorandum 1. The Offering Memorandum and its contents are confidential; was prepared based on information supplied by Seller and Broker. It contains selected 2. You will hold it and treat it in the strictest of confidence; and information about the Property and the real estate market, but does not contain all the 3. You will not, directly or indirectly, disclose or permit anyone else to disclose this information necessary to evaluate the acquisition of the Property. The financial projections Offering Memorandum or its contents in any fashion or manner detrimental to the contained herein (or in any other Confidential Information) are for general reference only. interest of the Seller. The projections are based on assumptions relating to the general economy and local competition, among other Seller and LCRE expressly reserve the right, at their sole discretion, factors. Accordingly, actual results may vary materially from to reject any and all expressions of interest or offers to purchase the such projections. Various documents have been summarized Property and to terminate discussions with any person or entity reviewing herein to facilitate your review; these summaries are not this Offering Memorandum or making an offer to purchase the Property intended to be a comprehensive statement of the terms or unless and until a written agreement for the purchase and sale of the legal analysis of such documents.
    [Show full text]
  • Route Map 5 Ä H339 Æ
    ASTORIA Oregon Department of Transportation Warrenton H104 Svensen Approved routes for Mayger 30 Westport ¤£ Clatskanie Æ 101 Olney Ä Rainier ¤£ H105 Triples Combinations. Æ Gearhart C L A T S O PÄ 47 Prescott SEASIDE Goble H332 202 Mist 73300 Movement is authorized 395 Umapine Necanicum Cold ¤£2 Jewell ¤£ Springs Jct. C O L U M B I A Æ Ä MP 9.76 Umatilla Jct. Milton-Freewater Flora Ä Æ Æ Cannon Beach Route Map 5 Ä H339 Æ H103 Pittsburg Irrigon Ä only under authority of an Columbia City Æ Over-Dimension Permit Unit Ä Elsie 47 730 Holdman 53 ST. HELENS ¤£ Helix 11 Vernonia Boardman 0 207 26 7 30 82 Athena Æ ¤£ Ä Over-Dimension Permit. ¤£ Revised March 2020 HERMISTON 3 ¨¦§ H Heppner Jct. Æ Ä H334 Weston Scappoose Stanfield 3 Nehalem 3 Adams 204 Manzanita HOOD Permission not granted to 5 RIVER cross RR crossing at MP 102.40 30 37 Æ 84 30 Echo Ä Wheeler Buxton £ in Hood River 84 ¤£ Arlington H W A L L O W A ¤ 3 Cascade ¨¦§ Biggs § MP 13.22 ¨¦ 26 Locks Jct. Rufus 3 Æ Rockaway Celilo Blalock Ä H320 1 Æ T I L L A M O O K ¤£ Mosier Ä 82 Beach Banks North H281 PENDLETON Plains PORTLAND Æ Ä Minam Imnaha Odell Wallowa Æ Ä 74 Garibaldi Wasco 207 W A S H I N G T O N The Elgin . Bay City Troutdale Multnomah Æ CorneliusÄ Fairview Dalles t Forest HILLSBORO H O O D H282 206 i 6 Grove Falls G I L L I A M Wood 84 Oceanside Beaverton R I V E R U M A T I L L A Summerville m H131 Village Ione r 8 ¨¦§ Lostine Æ Parkdale 197 Ä Gresham Moro 0 e Tillamook M U L T N O M A H MP 83.00 ¤£ 30 Imbler 5 Netarts ENTERPRISE Æ Ä Pilot 3 Æ Ä £ Æ Ä ¤ p Æ Ä Rock H Gaston Tigard
    [Show full text]