DOCSLIB.ORG

San Diego – Imperial County Interstate 8 Corridor Strategic Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
San Diego – Imperial County Interstate 8 Corridor Strategic Plan Technical Appendix 19 San Diego – Imperial County Interstate 8 Corridor Strategic Plan Appendix Contents San Diego – Imperial County Interstate 8 Corridor Strategic Plan ............................ TA 19-2 2050 Regional Transportation Plan San Diego – Imperial County Interstate 8 Corridor Strategic Plan The Imperial Valley Association of Governments (IVAG), in collaboration with the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 11, developed the San Diego-Imperial County Interstate 8 (I-8) Corridor Strategic Plan as the first phase of a planning effort to improve mobility for people and goods along the I-8 freeway corridor between San Diego and Imperial counties. The Strategic Plan recognizes that traffic is the result of a complex interaction of economic, growth, environmental, and other dynamics. As a result, it looked holistically at these traffic-related issues and provided direction for future phases of this planning effort that will lead to detailed implementation plans. By working with a consortium of public and private sector interests, the Strategic Plan also set the stage for the interregional partnerships that will be critical to implementing short- and long-term solutions. The Strategic Plan is included as Technical Appendix 19. TA 19-2 Technical Appendix 19: San Diego – Imperial County Interstate 8 Corridor Strategic Plan IMPERIAL VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS S AN D IEGO-IMPERIAL C OUNTY I-8 C ORRIDOR STRATEGIC PLAN Prepared for: IMPERIAL VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS 940 MAIN STREET, SUITE 208 EL CENTRO, CA, 92243 Prepared by: 21171 S. WESTERN AVENUE, SUITE 200 TORRANCE, CA 90501 FEBRUARY 2009 I MPERIAL V ALLEY A SSOCIATION OF G OVERNMENTS S AN D IEGO-IMPERIAL C OUNTY I-8 C ORRIDOR STRATEGIC PLAN Prepared for: IMPERIAL VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS 940 MAIN STREET, SUITE 208 EL CENTRO, CA, 92243 Prepared by: PMC 21171 S. WESTERN AVENUE, SUITE 200 TORRANCE, CA 90501 FEBRUARY 2009 San Diego-Imperial County I-8 Corridor Strategic Plan Joint Policy Advisory Group Dave Allen, SANDAG Borders Committee Member / City of La Mesa Councilmember Victor Carrillo, IVAG Regional Councilmember / Imperial County Supervisor James Hill, La Posta Band of Mission Indians Councilman Colleen Ludwig, IVAG Regional Councilmember / Councilmember City of Holtville Patricia McCoy, SANDAG Borders Committee Chair / City of Imperial Beach Councilmember John W. Minto, SANDAG Borders Committee Member/City of Santee Councilmember Sedalia Sanders, IVAG Regional Councilmember / City of El Centro Councilmember San Diego-Imperial County I-8 Corridor Strategic Plan Joint Technical Advisory Group Eusebio Arballo, Imperial Valley Economic Development Corporation Tuari Bigknife, Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians Abraham Campos, El Centro, Leonard Fabian, Imperial County Everett Hauser, County of San Diego Lisa C. Haws, Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians Tribal Government Jim Minnick, Imperial County Don Parent, Sempra Energy Allen Tyler, Imperial Valley Joint Chambers of Commerce San Diego-Imperial County I-8 Corridor Strategic Plan Agency Staff Project Managers Maurice Eaton, California Department of Transportation District 11 Beth Landrum, California Department of Transportation District 11 Rosa C. López-Solís, Imperial Valley Association of Governments Ron Sáenz, San Diego Association of Governments Dennis Thompson, California Department of Transportation District 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary......................................................................................................................................vii I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 II. Goals and Objectives............................................................................................................... 5 III. Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................................... 7 A. Interregional Transportation................................................................................................... 7 1. Transportation System ............................................................................................... 7 2. Current Conditions................................................................................................... 13 3. Profile of I-8 Corridor Travelers................................................................................ 22 B. Population, Housing, and Employment ............................................................................. 31 1. Population................................................................................................................. 35 2. Housing ...................................................................................................................... 40 3. Employment.............................................................................................................. 44 C. Land Use and Environmental Resources ........................................................................... 47 1. Land Uses Adjacent to the I-8 Corridor ................................................................ 47 2. Noteworthy Land Uses............................................................................................. 53 3. Environmental Resources Adjacent to the I-8 Corridor ..................................... 57 D. Looking Ahead ...................................................................................................................... 58 1. Projected Growth .................................................................................................... 58 2. Planned Improvements........................................................................................... 60 3. Projected Levels of Service .................................................................................... 61 4. Other Considerations .............................................................................................. 61 IV. Interregional Public Survey.....................................................................................................69 A. Overview................................................................................................................................. 69 B. Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 69 C. Findings: Residential Survey ................................................................................................. 70 1. Profile of Residents Surveyed.................................................................................. 71 Imperial Valley Association of Governments San Diego-Imperial County I-8 Corridor February 2009 Strategic Plan i TABLE OF CONTENTS 2. Quality of Life in Imperial County .......................................................................... 73 3. Current Commute Patterns .................................................................................... 81 4. Future Commute Patterns ...................................................................................... 83 5. Super Commuters .................................................................................................... 84 6. Non-Work Travel ....................................................................................................... 84 D. Findings: I-8 Traveler Survey.................................................................................................. 86 1. Overview of I-8 Travel .............................................................................................. 86 2. Profile of the I-8 Traveler.......................................................................................... 90 3. Current Commute Patterns .................................................................................... 91 4. Future Commute Patterns ...................................................................................... 93 5. Super Commuters .................................................................................................... 93 E. Interregional Public Survey Conclusions ............................................................................ 95 V. Key Findings and Recommendations .................................................................................. 97 A. Key Findings............................................................................................................................ 97 B. Early Actions and Interregional Strategies ........................................................................ 97 C. Future Study Needs ............................................................................................................. 101 VI. References.............................................................................................................................. 103 VII. Appendices............................................................................................................................ 105 A. APPENDIX A: Residential Survey Instrument with Frequencies ..................................... 105 B. APPENDIX B: I-8 Traveler Survey Instrument with Frequencies ...................................... 121 C. APPENDIX C: Joint Technical Advisory Group Agenda Packet Recipients ............... 145 D. APPENDIX D: Comments Received and Responses on Draft
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Socioeconomic Assessment for the Tonto National Forest
    4. Access and Travel Patterns This section examines historic and current factors affecting access patterns and transportation infrastructure within the four counties surrounding Tonto National Forest (TNF). The information gathered is intended to outline current and future trends in forest access as well as potential barriers to access encountered by various user groups. Primary sources of data on access and travel patterns for the state’s national forests include the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), the Arizona Department of Commerce (ADOC), and the circulation elements of individual county comprehensive plans. Indicators used to assess access and travel patterns include existing road networks and planned improvements, trends in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on major roadways, seasonal traffic flows, and county transportation planning priorities. Additional input on internal access issues has been sought directly from forest planning staff. Various sources of information for the area surrounding TNF cite the difficulty of transportation planning in the region given its vast geographic scale, population growth, pace of development, and constrained transportation funding. In an effort to respond effectively to such challenges, local and regional planning authorities stress the importance of linking transportation planning with preferred land uses. Data show that the area surrounding Tonto National Forest saw relatively large increases in VMT between 1990 and 2000, mirroring the region’s relatively strong population growth over the same period. Information gathered from the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and county comprehensive plans suggest that considerable improvements are currently scheduled for the region’s transportation network, particularly when compared to areas surrounding Arizona’s other national forests.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 233/Monday, December 4, 2000
    Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 233 / Monday, December 4, 2000 / Notices 75771 2 departures. No more than one slot DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION In notice document 00±29918 exemption time may be selected in any appearing in the issue of Wednesday, hour. In this round each carrier may Federal Aviation Administration November 22, 2000, under select one slot exemption time in each SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, in the first RTCA Future Flight Data Collection hour without regard to whether a slot is column, in the fifteenth line, the date Committee available in that hour. the FAA will approve or disapprove the application, in whole or part, no later d. In the second and third rounds, Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the than should read ``March 15, 2001''. only carriers providing service to small Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. hub and nonhub airports may L. 92±463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: participate. Each carrier may select up is hereby given for the Future Flight Patrick Vaught, Program Manager, FAA/ to 2 slot exemption times, one arrival Data Collection Committee meeting to Airports District Office, 100 West Cross and one departure in each round. No be held January 11, 2000, starting at 9 Street, Suite B, Jackson, MS 39208± carrier may select more than 4 a.m. This meeting will be held at RTCA, 2307, 601±664±9885. exemption slot times in rounds 2 and 3. 1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Suite Issued in Jackson, Mississippi on 1020, Washington, DC, 20036. November 24, 2000. e. Beginning with the fourth round, The agenda will include: (1) Welcome all eligible carriers may participate.
    [Show full text]
  • Route Restriction Information: Table 4
    R17-6-412, Table 4 – Updated April 06, 2021 Table 4. Permanent Highway Restrictions, Requirements, Conditions, and Allowances For “Transport Subject To” requirements see end of document. Route Restriction Location Transport Subject to: Height Length Width Weight (in lbs) (MP = Milepost) Escort requirements: F = front escort, R = rear escort, F/R = front and rear escort, and LE = law enforcement escort Interstate 8 MP 0.00 (California State R17-6-405; R17-6-406; Over 14’ - 16’ = R Line) to MP 21.06 (Dome R17-6-408; R17-6-409 Valley Road TI) Interstate 8 MP 21.06 Westbound (Dome R17-6-405; R17-6-406; 15’ 11” Over 14’ - 16’ = R Valley Road TI Underpass - R17-6-408; R17-6-409 Structure 1325) Interstate 8 MP 21.06 (Dome Valley R17-6-405; R17-6-406; Over 14’ - 16’ = R Road TI) to MP 30.80 R17-6-408; R17-6-409 (Avenue 29E - Wellton TI) Interstate 8 MP 30.80 Westbound R17-6-405; R17-6-406; 15’ 11” Over 14’ - 16’ = R (Avenue 29E - Wellton R17-6-408; R17-6-409 Underpass - Structure 1332) Interstate 8 MP 30.80 (Avenue 29E - R17-6-405; R17-6-406; Over 14’ - 16’ = R Wellton TI) to MP 144.55 R17-6-408; R17-6-409 (Vekol Valley Road TI) Interstate 8 MP 144.55 (Vekol Valley R17-6-405; R17-6-406; 15’ 11” Over 14’ - 16’ = R Road Underpass - Structure R17-6-408; R17-6-409 550) Interstate 8 MP 144.55 (Vekol Valley R17-6-405; R17-6-406; Over 14’ - 16’ = R Road TI) to MP 151.70 R17-6-408; R17-6-409 (Junction SR 84) Interstate 8 MP 151.70 Eastbound R17-6-405; R17-6-406; 15’ 10” Over 14’ - 16’ = R (Junction SR 84 Underpass - R17-6-408; R17-6-409 Structure 1063)
    [Show full text]
  • National Hazardous Materials Route Registry (March 31, 2021)
    32306 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 115 / Thursday, June 17, 2021 / Notices under which such actions were taken Resource Conservation and Recovery Office hours are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., are described in the Environmental Act (RCRA) [42 U.S.C. 6901–6992(k)]. ET., Monday through Friday, except for Assessment (EA) approved on December 10. Executive Orders: E.O. 11990 Federal holidays. 17, 2020, in FHWA’s FONSI issued on Protection of Wetlands; E.O. 11988 Legal Basis and Background May 26, 2021, and other documents in Floodplain Management; E.O. 12898, the project file. The EA, FONSI and Federal Actions to Address Paragraphs (a)(2) and (b) of section other project records are available by Environmental Justice in Minority 5112 of title 49 United States Code contacting FHWA or the Georgia Populations and Low Income (U.S.C.) permit States and Tribal Department of Transportation at the Populations; E.O. 11593 Protection and governments to designate and limit addresses listed above. The EA and Enhancement of Cultural Resources; highway routes over which hazardous FONSI can also be reviewed and E.O. 13007 Indian Sacred Sites; E.O. materials (HM) may be transported, downloaded from the project website at 13287 Preserve America; E.O. 13175 provided the State or Tribal government https://majormobilityga.com/projects/ Consultation and Coordination with complies with standards prescribed by eastsideic/. Indian Tribal Governments; E.O. 11514 the Secretary of Transportation (the This notice applies to all Federal Protection and Enhancement of Secretary) and meets publication agency decisions as of the issuance date Environmental Quality; E.O.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Transportation History
    Arizona Transportation History Final Report 660 December 2011 Arizona Department of Transportation Research Center DISCLAIMER The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Arizona Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Trade or manufacturers' names which may appear herein are cited only because they are considered essential to the objectives of the report. The U.S. Government and the State of Arizona do not endorse products or manufacturers. Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FHWA-AZ-11-660 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date December 2011 ARIZONA TRANSPORTATION HISTORY 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author 8. Performing Organization Report No. Mark E. Pry, Ph.D. and Fred Andersen 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. History Plus 315 E. Balboa Dr. 11. Contract or Grant No. Tempe, AZ 85282 SPR-PL-1(173)-655 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13.Type of Report & Period Covered ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 206 S. 17TH AVENUE PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85007 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Project Manager: Steven Rost, Ph.D. 15. Supplementary Notes Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration 16. Abstract The Arizona transportation history project was conceived in anticipation of Arizona’s centennial, which will be celebrated in 2012. Following approval of the Arizona Centennial Plan in 2007, the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) recognized that the centennial celebration would present an opportunity to inform Arizonans of the crucial role that transportation has played in the growth and development of the state.
    [Show full text]
  • Infrastructure Costs
    Infrastructure Costs Leah Brooks and Zachary Liscow* July 2019 DRAFT. COMMENTS WELCOME. There is widespread consensus that US infrastructure investment—and infrastructure quality—has been on the decline. In response, politicians across the ideological spectrum have called for increased infrastructure spending. How much infrastructure we would get depends on how much output is produced per dollar of spending. Yet we know surprisingly little about infrastructure costs across time and place. We help to fill this gap by using data we digitized on the Interstate highway system—one of the nation’s most valuable infrastructure assets—to document spending per mile over the history of its construction. We make two main contributions. First, we find that spending per mile on Interstate construction increased more than three-fold (in real terms) from the 1960s to the 1980s. We date the inflection point of increase to the early 1970s. We further show that changes in observed geography over time do not explain these changes. Second, we provide suggestive evidence of the determinants of the increase in spending per mile. In particular, the increased spending per mile coincides with the rise of “citizen voice” in government decision-making in the early 1970s. And rising incomes and housing prices nearly completely statistically explain the increase in costs. We also largely rule out several common explanations for rising costs, such as increases in per-unit labor or materials prices. JEL codes: H4, H5, H7, K0, N4, N7, N9, R4 Keywords: infrastructure; highways; public participation; environmental review 1. Introduction Although the United States spends over $400 billion per year on infrastructure, there is a consensus that infrastructure investment has been on the decline and with it the quality of US * Associate Professor, George Washington University ([email protected]) and Associate Professor, Yale University ([email protected]).
    [Show full text]
  • Major Roadways Plan
    Major Roadways Plan 2005 City of Yuma April 20, 2005 R2005-41 As amended by R2007 -008, adopted February 7, 2007 and R2007-71, adopted November 20, 2007 2005 Major Roadways Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Table of Contents................................................................................................................. i List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... iii List of Figures.................................................................................................................... iii 1 Guiding Policy.....................................................................................................................1 2 Roadway Functional Classification Plan.............................................................................3 Roadway Characteristics and Features to be Provided..................................................4 Interstates and Freeways..........................................................................................4 Expressways.............................................................................................................4 Principal Arterials ....................................................................................................6 Minor Arterials.........................................................................................................7 Collectors .................................................................................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • Draft NHMRR Federal Register Notice
    State: California State Agency: CA Highway Patrol FMCSA: CA FMCSA Field Office POC: Tian-Ting Shih FMCSA POC: CA Motor Carrier Division Administrator Address: Commercial Vehicle Section Address: 1325 J Street, Suite 1540 P.O. Box 942898 Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 94298-0001 Phone: (916) 843-3400 Phone: (916) 930-2760 Fax: (916) 322-3154 Fax: (916) 930-2778 Web Address: www.chp.ca.gov California – Restricted HM routes Desig- Route Restriction(s) nation Route Description City County Order (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,i) Date 10/28/92 A No person shall drive or permit the driving of 1 any vehicle transporting commodities listed in Section 13 CCR 1150 upon any highway not designated by this article. For pickup and delivery not over designated routes, the route selected must be the shortest-distance route from the pickup location to the nearest designated route entry location, and the shortest-distance route to the delivery location from the nearest designated route exit location. 01/01/95 B State 75 [Coronado Toll Bridge] from Mile Post San Diego San Diego 1,2,3,4 20.28 to Mile Post R22.26 Junction 5 [San Diego County] No flammables/corrosives or explosives on Coronado Bay Bridge (otherwise route is terminal access) 06/29/00 C Sepulveda Blvd. [tunnel] from Interstate Los Angeles Los Angeles 1,2,3,4,5,6,8 105/Imperial Highway to W. Century Blvd. [Restriction for Tank Vehicles] 10/28/92 D State 118 from State 232 [Oxnard] to Los 1 Angeles [western county line] 01/01/95 E State 154 from State 246 [MP 8.11- Santa Ynez] Santa Barbara 0 to US 101 [near Los Olivos] No hazardous materials or waste except pickup and delivery (otherwise, from R8.11 to R9.97 is Terminal Access and from R9.97 to 32.29 is California Legal) 1968 F Monterey Traffic Underpass from Washington Monterey Monterey 0 St.
    [Show full text]
  • San Diego History Center Is One of the Largest and Oldest Historical Organizations on the West Coast
    The Journal of San Diego Volume 62 Winter 2016 Number 1 • The Journal of San Diego History Diego San of Journal 1 • The Number 2016 62 Winter Volume History ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF CIVIL ENGINEERING EXCELLENCE IN SAN DIEGO The Journal of San Diego History Founded in 1928 as the San Diego Historical Society, today’s San Diego History Center is one of the largest and oldest historical organizations on the West Coast. It houses vast regionally significant collections of objects, photographs, documents, films, oral histories, historic clothing, paintings, and other works of art. The San Diego History Center operates two major facilities in national historic landmark districts: The Research Library and History Museum in Balboa Park and the Serra Museum in Presidio Park. The San Diego History Center presents dynamic changing exhibitions that tell the diverse stories of San Diego’s past, present, and future, and it provides educational programs for K-12 schoolchildren as well as adults and families. Website: www.sandiegohistory.org Front Cover: The Coronado Bridge designed by Robert Mosher. Photograph by Abe Ordover. Back Cover: Grantville Trolley Station. Photograph by Vince Streano. Design and Layout: Allen Wynar Printing: Crest Offset Printing Editorial Assistants: Cynthia van Stralen Travis Degheri Joey Seymour Articles appearing in The Journal of San Diego History are abstracted and indexed in Historical Abstracts and America: History and Life. The paper in the publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Science-Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. The Journal of San Diego History IRIS H.
    [Show full text]
  • Combined Gas Tax Rates
    Transportation Needs & Funding: Where do we go from here? Surface Transportation Funding Task Force September 28, 2016 © 2016, All Rights Reserved. Best Driving Experience in the World – Phoenix Waze is the world's largest community- based traffic and navigation app. ©2016, All Rights Reserved. 2 Major Sources of Transportation Uses of Local & Regional Funds Revenue in Maricopa County (estimated for FY 2017) Other, (estimated for FY 2017) 0.4% $2,914,340 Regional Highways, HURF, $246,000,000 $368,954,384 Dedicated 32.8% 23.5% Local & Regional Funds, $749,658,000 47.8% ADOT Funds, $282,200,000 Streets, 18.0% $48,781,870 Transit, 6.5% $451,961,790 Federal Funds, 60.3% $167,800,000 10.7% Total Major Sources: $1.568 billion Local & Regional Funds: $749.6 million ©2016, All Rights Reserved. 3 $1.25 billion Rebalancing $1.77 billion Under Construction 1 $2.30 billion Programmed $3.90 billion Deferred 13 14 12 11 8 3 5 2 10 6 7 4 9 0 New Construction 0 Traffic Interchange 0 ROW Protection 0 Technology REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS FOR Illustrative Projects = $8.7 bil. PRESENTATION PURPOSES ONLY. Interstate 17 Loop 303 Add Lanes, Anthem Way to Yavapai County Final determination will be Add Lanes, SR-30 to Interstate 17 completed with the fiscally- constrained NexGen Regional Transportation Plan. US-60/Grand Ave Interstate 10/Interstate 17 Spine COMPASS Improvements Add Lanes, Loop 202 to Loop 101 I-11/Hassayampa New Freeway, Interstate 10 to US-93 Interstate 10/Papago Add Lanes, 459th Ave to Verrado Way SR-24/Gateway Meridian Rd to US-60/SR-79 Arizona SR-30 Freeway Conversion, SR-85 to Loop 303 Add Lanes, Loop 303 to Loop 202 New Freeway, Loop 202 to I-17 Pinal North-South New Freeway, SR-287 to US-60 Loop 303 New Freeway, SR-238 to SR-30 Arizona SR-85 Freeway Conversion, I-8 Interchange Interstate 8 to Interstate 10 SR-238 SR-347 Interstate 10 SR-79 Add Lanes, Riggs Rd to SR- Add Lanes, SR-79B (South) to Add Lanes, Loop 303 to SR-347 Add Lanes, Maricopa to I-10 387 Hunt Hwy © 2013, All Rights Reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • Interstate 8 Update Imperial County FACT SHEET
    February 2019 Interstate 8 Update Imperial County FACT SHEET BETTER PAVEMENT, SMOOTH RIDE CRCP Caltrans broke ground in early 2016 on a project along Interstate 8 in Imperial County that will extend the life expectancy of the pave- Continuously Reinforced ment and provide motorists with a smoother ride from State Route Concrete Pavement (CRCP) 111 to the border with Arizona. This project will replace pavement is constructed with steel on the lanes and the asphalt shoulders for increased durability. reinforcing bars placed within the concrete along the entire length of the The project will construct Continuously Reinforce Concrete Pave- pavement. CRCP naturally ment (CRCP), providing a superior roadway while at the same time forms tight transverse improving safety for highway workers by reducing their exposure to cracks to evenly transfer traffic. loads. The result is a continuous, The five-segment project (see map on back) covers 48 miles and smooth-riding surface has a projected cost of $339.5 million. Three of the five segments capable of withstanding the have been completed. The remaining two segments began con- heaviest traffic loads and struction in mid-2017 and are expected to be completed in late the most adverse environ- 2019 and early 2020. There will be some impacts to motorists mental conditions. The life during construction. span for CRCP pavement may be up to 70 years, far Funding for this project is provided by the State Highway Operation exceeding current road surfaces. and Protection Program. A portion of the highway in the eastern county is not part of this CONTACT project because it will not require improvement for several years.
    [Show full text]
  • Interstate 15
    INTERSTATE 15 CORRIDOR SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 30, on July archived 10-50249 No. v. Valdes-Vega, U.S. FINAL - January 2009 This page is intentionally blank. 30, 2012 on July archived 10-50249 No. v. Valdes-Vega, U.S. Acknowledgements Many individuals aided in the preparation of material contained in the I-15 Corridor System Management Plan: Caltrans District 11 Pedro Orso-Delgado, District Director Bill Figge, Deputy District Director – Planning William Valle, Chief Deputy – Maintanence and Operations Joe Hull, Deputy District Director – Traffic Operations Mike McManus, Deputy District Director – Maintanence Christine Antoine, Associate Transportation Planner Sandro Bermudez, Transportation Engineer Connery Cepeda, Transportation Planner Gerard Chadergian, Senior Transportation Engineer Stacy Cottrell, Assistant Information Officer Seth Cutter, Transportation Planner Kimberly Dodson, Transportation Planner Lawrence Emerson, Senior Transportation Engineer Kelly Finn, Senior Environmental Planner 2012 Brian Hadley, Senior Transportation Engineer 30, on July Shirley Hautanen, Associate Transportation Planner archived John Hood, Graphic Designer II 10-50249 Douglas Hooper, Transportation EngineerNo. Bob James, Associate Transportation Planner v. Valdes-Vega, Barbara Kent, ResearchU.S. Program Specialist II (GIS) Jose Marquez, Transportation Planner Victor Mercado, Transportation Engineer Bruce Pastor, Associate Transportation Planner Brian Pecus, Senior Transportation Electrical Engineer Andrew Rice, Senior Transportation Surveyor Michael Roy, Transportation Planner Teresa Salazar, Graphic Designer II Chris Schmidt, Senior Transportation Planner David Stebbins, Senior Transportation Engineer Debra Stout, Senior Transportation Planner Kim Sturmer, Associate Transportation Planner Dennis Thompson, Associate Transportation Planner Aly Wayne, Transportation Planner San Diego Association of Governments Alex Estrella, Senior Transportation Planner Craig Scott, TransNet Project Manager Stephan Vance, Senior Transportation Planner 30, 2012 on July archived 10-50249 No.
    [Show full text]