DOCSLIB.ORG

Interstate 5 Columbia River Crossing Land Use Technical Report for the Final Environmental Impact Statement

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Interstate 5 Columbia River Crossing Land Use Technical Report for the Final Environmental Impact Statement I N T E R S TAT E 5 C O L U M B I A R I V E R C ROSSING Land Use Technical Report for the Final Environmental Impact Statement May 2011 Title VI The Columbia River Crossing project team ensures full compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by prohibiting discrimination against any person on the basis of race, color, national origin or sex in the provision of benefits and services resulting from its federally assisted programs and activities. For questions regarding WSDOT’s Title VI Program, you may contact the Department’s Title VI Coordinator at (360) 705-7098. For questions regarding ODOT’s Title VI Program, you may contact the Department’s Civil Rights Office at (503) 986-4350. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Information If you would like copies of this document in an alternative format, please call the Columbia River Crossing (CRC) project office at (360) 737-2726 or (503) 256-2726. Persons who are deaf or hard of hearing may contact the CRC project through the Telecommunications Relay Service by dialing 7-1-1. ¿Habla usted español? La informacion en esta publicación se puede traducir para usted. Para solicitar los servicios de traducción favor de llamar al (503) 731-4128. Interstate 5 Columbia River Crossing Land Use Technical Report for the Final Environmental Impact Statement This page intentionally left blank. May 2011 Interstate 5 Columbia River Crossing Land Use Technical Report for the Final Environmental Impact Statement Cover Sheet Interstate 5 Columbia River Crossing Land Use Technical Report for the Final Environmental Impact Statement Submitted By: Derek Chisholm, Lead Seth English-Young Quinn Fahey Michael Harrison Jennifer Hughes Elisabeth Leaf Megan Taylor Parametrix May 2011 Interstate 5 Columbia River Crossing Land Use Technical Report for the Final Environmental Impact Statement This page intentionally left blank. May 2011 Interstate 5 Columbia River Crossing Land Use Technical Report for the Final Environmental Impact Statement TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Description of Alternatives ................................................................................................................. 1 1.2.1 Adoption of a Locally Preferred Alternative .............................................................................. 1 1.2.2 Description of the LPA ............................................................................................................. 2 1.2.3 LPA Construction ..................................................................................................................... 9 1.2.4 The No-Build Alternative ........................................................................................................ 11 1.3 Long-term Effects ............................................................................................................................ 11 1.3.1 No-Build Alternative ............................................................................................................... 11 1.3.2 Locally Preferred Alternative .................................................................................................. 11 1.4 Plan Consistency ............................................................................................................................. 11 1.5 Temporary Effects ........................................................................................................................... 12 1.6 Mitigation ......................................................................................................................................... 12 2. METHODS .................................................................................................................................. 1 2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1 2.2 Study Area ......................................................................................................................................... 1 2.3 Effects Guidelines .............................................................................................................................. 1 2.4 Data Collection .................................................................................................................................. 2 2.5 Analysis Methods .............................................................................................................................. 3 2.5.1 Long-term Operational Impacts ................................................................................................ 3 2.5.2 Direct Land Use Impacts .......................................................................................................... 3 2.5.3 Plan Consistency ..................................................................................................................... 3 2.5.4 Short-term Construction Impacts .............................................................................................. 3 2.5.5 Indirect Impacts ........................................................................................................................ 4 2.5.6 Mitigation .................................................................................................................................. 4 2.6 Coordination ...................................................................................................................................... 4 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................................................... 1 3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1 3.2 Oregon .............................................................................................................................................. 1 3.2.1 Existing Land Uses .................................................................................................................. 1 3.2.2 Recent and Pending Development........................................................................................... 4 3.3 Washington........................................................................................................................................ 6 3.3.1 Recent and Pending Development........................................................................................... 9 3.4 Transportation and Land Use Plans ................................................................................................ 12 3.4.1 Oregon ................................................................................................................................... 12 3.4.2 Washington ............................................................................................................................ 16 3.4.3 Bi-State .................................................................................................................................. 18 3.4.4 Regional ................................................................................................................................. 19 3.4.5 Local ...................................................................................................................................... 23 3.5 Zoning and Overlay Districts............................................................................................................ 40 3.5.1 City of Portland Zoning ........................................................................................................... 40 3.5.2 City of Portland Overlay Zones .............................................................................................. 40 3.5.3 City of Vancouver Zoning Districts ......................................................................................... 46 3.5.4 City of Vancouver Overlay Districts ........................................................................................ 48 3.5.5 Clark County Zoning .............................................................................................................. 53 Table of Contents May 2011 i Interstate 5 Columbia River Crossing Land Use Technical Report for the Final Environmental Impact Statement 4. LONG-TERM EFFECTS ................................................................................................................ 1 4.1 No-Build Alternative ...........................................................................................................................1 4.1.1 Consistency with Plans and Policies ........................................................................................1 4.2 Locally Preferred Alternative ..............................................................................................................2 4.2.1 Direct Impacts ..........................................................................................................................2 4.2.2 Parking and Access ................................................................................................................ 12 4.3 Consistency with Plans and Policies ...............................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Last Link of I-90 Ends 30-Year Saga by Peggy Reynolds, Seattle Times, 9 Sept 1993
    Last Link Of I-90 Ends 30-Year Saga By Peggy Reynolds, Seattle Times, 9 Sept 1993 Erica Clibborn's red convertible will be one of the first cars Sunday across the new Lacey V. Murrow Floating Bridge, last link in a project that started before Erica was born. The University of Washington junior, who will be going home to Mercer Island for Sunday dinner, was born in 1973, the year a federal court sent the Seattle-area stretch of Interstate 90 back to square one. By then, I-90 already reached most of the 3,063 miles from Boston to south Bellevue, and the final major segment had been in the works for 10 years. It would be another 20 years before that last 7 miles would be finished. That completion will be marked this weekend with an array of public events, and Clibborn and other drivers should be able to go across the eastbound span by 5 p.m. Sunday. That opening means that I-90 survived the anti-government sentiment of the late 1960s, the mass-transit worship of the '70s and the budget cutbacks of the '80s - even while other urban interstate projects were biting the dust in New York, Chicago, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Washington, San Francisco and Portland. Nevertheless, whether or not I-90 was really needed was subject to debate at all levels. It attracted a formidable enemies list, and was rescued regularly by a cast of hundreds. Without any one of its friends in local governments, on the state Transportation Commission, in the Legislature and in Congress, I-90 could have ended in south Bellevue instead of making it to its junction with Interstate 5 in Seattle.
    [Show full text]
  • I-90 Tolling Update
    I-90 Tolling Update John White Director of Tolled Corridors Development Paula Hammond Steve Reinmuth Secretary of Transportation Chief of Staff Seattle City Council January 28, 2012 I-90 is part of the Cross-Lake Washington Corridor • Represents two major east-west “Cross- Lake” travel corridors: I-90 and SR 520. • WSDOT is tolling SR 520 as part of a multi- faceted financing strategy to help generate enough revenue to fund replacement of the structurally-vulnerable bridge. • A new 520 bridge will give Cross-Lake WA travelers a safer, more reliable trip. 2 Funding for the SR 520 Program Construction Unfunded Program cost estimate (Oct. 2012): $4.13 billion What’s funded: $2.72 billion (includes sales tax deferral) • Pontoon construction in Grays Harbor. • The floating bridge and landings. • Eastside transit and HOV improvements. • The north half of the west approach bridge. Updated November 2012 Costs and Funding for Replacing SR 520 Bridge SR 520 program cost estimate $4.128 B Funding received to date $2.724 B State and local funding (Nickel and TPA) $0.55 B Federal funding $0.12 B SR 520 Account (tolling and future federal funds) $1.91 B Toll proceeds • TIFIA $300M • Triple pledge bonds $550M • First tier toll $159M • PAYGO $74M Federal proceeds • GARVEE $825M Deferred sales tax $0.14 B Unfunded need $1.404 B Program cost estimate based on 2012 CEVP - updated 10/25/12 4 Early Indicators of 520 Toll Success • Meeting or beating traffic forecasts. • Meeting revenue forecasts. • Most people are paying with Good To Go! accounts. – More than 384,000 active Good To Go! accounts.
    [Show full text]
  • I-15 Corridor System Master Plan Update 2017
    CALIFORNIA NEVADA ARIZONA UTAH I-15 CORRIDOR SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2017 MARCH 2017 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The I-15 Corridor System Master Plan (Master Plan) is a commerce, port authorities, departments of aviation, freight product of the hard work and commitment of each of the and passenger rail authorities, freight transportation services, I-15 Mobility Alliance (Alliance) partner organizations and providers of public transportation services, environmental their dedicated staff. and natural resource agencies, and others. Individuals within the four states and beyond are investing Their efforts are a testament of outstanding partnership and their time and resources to keep this economic artery a true spirit of collaboration, without which this Master Plan of the West flowing. The Alliance partners come from could not have succeeded. state and local transportation agencies, local and interstate I-15 MOBILITY ALLIANCE PARTNERS American Magline Group City of Orem Authority Amtrak City of Provo Millard County Arizona Commerce Authority City of Rancho Cucamonga Mohave County Arizona Department of Transportation City of South Salt Lake Mountainland Association of Arizona Game and Fish Department City of St. George Governments Bear River Association of Governments Clark County Department of Aviation National Park Service - Lake Mead National Recreation Area BNSF Railway Clark County Public Works Nellis Air Force Base Box Elder County Community Planners Advisory Nevada Army National Guard Brookings Mountain West Committee on Transportation County
    [Show full text]
  • Idaho Transpo Rtation De Partm
    IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT TRANSPORTATION IDAHO RP 226 Assessing Feasibility of Mitigating Barn Owl-Vehicle Collisions in Southern RESEARCH REPORT RESEARCH Idaho By Jim Belthoff, Erin Arnold, Tempe Regan Boise State University Tiffany Allen, Angela Kociolek Western Transportation Institute Prepared for Idaho Transportation Department Research Program, Contracting Services Division of Engineering Services http://itd.idaho.gov/highways/research/ November 2015 Standard Disclaimer This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Idaho Transportation Department and the United States Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The State of Idaho and the United States Government assume no liability of its contents or use thereof. The contents of this report reflect the view of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official policies of the Idaho Transportation Department or the United States Department of Transportation. The State of Idaho and the United States Government do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ names appear herein only because they are considered essential to the object of this document. This report does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation. 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FHWA-ID-15-226 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Assessing feasibility of mitigating barn owl-vehicle collisions in southern Idaho December 2015 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Jim Belthoff, Erin Arnold, Tempe Regan, Tiffany Allen, and Angela Kociolek 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No.
    [Show full text]
  • Interstate 5 Corridor Improvements
    Soundwall construction on northbound I-5, Santa Fe Springs, CA. New abutment for the Alondra Blvd. Bridge in Santa Fe Springs. Construction for the new southbound I-5 o-ramp at Imperial Hwy./Pioneer Blvd. in Norwalk. About the Santa Ana Freeway The Interstate 5 Corridor (Interstate 5) South Corridor Interstate 5 Improvement Projects OF TRAN T SP Improvement Projects EN O Interstate 5 in California is a vital north/south artery R M T T A R T A I O P for the travelling public and it is one of the state’s most E N D Six I-5 South Corridor Improvement Projects, extending U A heavily-used corridors to move goods and services N I C T I Corridor E R 6.7 miles between the Los Angeles County/Orange D E M ST A between the borders of Mexico and Canada. County line to the San Gabriel River Freeway (Interstate ATES OF 605), are identied by their location at Valley View Avenue, Improvements The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Alondra Boulevard, Carmenita Road, Rosecrans Avenue, District 7, serving Los Angeles and Ventura counties, Imperial Highway and Florence Avenue in the cities of I-5 Corridor Improvement Partners and its regional partners, the Los Angeles County La Mirada, Santa Fe Springs, Norwalk and Downey. South Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), are A $1.6 billion investment on the Santa Ana Freeway investing approximately $3 billion in several Interstate includes widening the roadway to add one High I-5 HOV/Florence Avenue Interchange 5 Corridor Improvement Projects, funded through a Occupancy Vehicle (HOV), or carpool lane, and one combination of federal, state and local resources.
    [Show full text]
  • North on Interstate 5 Over the Grapevine Past Lebec. Take Hwy
    P. O. BOX 36, CALIENTE, CALIFORNIA 93518 (661) 867-2511 WWW.RANKINRANCH.COM TO SACRAMENTO 99 McFarland Paso Robles Wasco Lake Isabella 46 178 GREENHORN MTS. 99 TO SAN FRANCISCO SEQUOIA 65 NATIONAL 5 FOREST PIUTE MTS. 178 BAKERSFIELD 5 58 CALIENTE 99 BEAR MTN. BLVD. Keene 223 Arvin 58 5 LAKE ISABELLA TEHACHAPI Taft LAMONT ARVIN Mojave 99 Maricopa Kern Los Angeles 14 ANGELES Rankin Ranch is approximately: NATL. 5 2½ hours from Los Angeles FOREST 3½ hours from Santa Barbara N 4½ hours from San Diego Lebec Lancaster 5½ hours from San Francisco Frazier Park TO LOS ANGELES FROM SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: North on Interstate 5 over the Grapevine past Lebec. Take Hwy. 99 to 223 (Bear Mountain Blvd.). Turn RIGHT. Go through the small town of Arvin (last chance for gasoline!) Proceed 11 miles to Highway 58. Turn right towards Mojave 1½ miles to the Caliente turnoff. Turn left off the freeway. Follow directions below FROM CALIENTE below. FROM NORTHERN CALIFORNIA: South on Interstate 5 of Highway 99 to Bakerseld. Turn east on Highway 58 towards Tehachapi and Mojave. It is approximately 23 miles from Bakerseld to the Caliente turnoff. Turn left off the freeway. Follow directions FROM CALIENTE below. FROM CALIENTE: Proceed through the small town of Caliente, past the U.S. Post Ofce on the right. Approximately 2½ miles past the post ofce you will come to a “Y” in the road. Go LEFT up the hill. Rankin Ranch is 9 miles from the “Y”. A beautiful scenic winding mountain road (no houses). It will take approximately 30 minutes from the “Y” to reach the Rankin Ranch entrance on the right as you drop down into the valley..
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia River Crossing Investment Grade Traffic and Revenue Study Columbia River Crossing First Phase Project
    Columbia River Crossing Investment Grade Traffic and Revenue Study Columbia River Crossing First Phase Project %FDFNCFS, 201 Image courtesy of CRC Project Office (PageIntentionallyLeftBlank) TableofContents Chapter1Introduction................................................................................................................................................1Ǧ1 ͳǤͳ ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤͳǦͳ ͳǤʹ ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤͳǦͳ ͳǤʹǤͳ ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤͳǦͳ ͳǤʹǤʹ ͷ ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤͳǦ͵ ͳǤ͵ ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤͳǦͶ ͳǤ͵ǤͳǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤͳǦͶ ͳǤ͵ǤʹǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤͳǦͷ ͳǤ͵Ǥ͵ ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤͳǦͷ ͳǤ͵ǤͶǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤͳǦͷ
    [Show full text]
  • The Interstate Highway System Turns 60
    The Interstate Highway System turns 60: Challenges to Its Ability to Continue to Save Lives, Time and Money JUNE 27, 2016 202-466-6706 tripnet.org Founded in 1971, TRIP ® of Washington, DC, is a nonprofit organization that researches, evaluates and distributes economic and technical data on surface transportation issues. TRIP is sponsored by insurance companies, equipment manufacturers, distributors and suppliers; businesses involved in highway and transit engineering and construction; labor unions; and organizations concerned with efficient and safe surface transportation. Executive Summary Sixty years ago the nation embarked on its greatest public works project, the construction of the Interstate Highway System. President Dwight D. Eisenhower provided strong support for the building of an Interstate Highway System that would improve traffic safety, reduce travel times and improve the nation’s economic productivity. Serving as the most critical transportation link in the nation’s economy, the Interstate Highway System has significantly improved the lives of U.S. residents and visitors. Throughout the nation, the Interstate system allows for high levels of mobility by greatly reducing travel times and providing a significantly higher level of traffic safety than other routes. But 60 years after President Eisenhower articulated a vision for the nation’s transportation system, the U. S. again faces a challenge in modernizing its aging and increasingly congested Interstate highway system. If Americans are to continue to enjoy their current level of personal and commercial mobility on Interstate highways and bridges, the nation will need to make a commitment to identifying a long-term funding source to support a well-maintained Interstate Highway System able to meet the nation’s need for additional mobility.
    [Show full text]
  • 55-Hour Weekend Closure Scheduled for I-210 in San Fernando Valley
    District 7: Los Angeles & Ventura Counties Contact: Eric Menjivar, [email protected] (213) 317-0339 Online: dot.ca.gov/d7 twitter.com/CaltransDist7 55-Hour Weekend Closure Scheduled for I-210 in San Fernando Valley LOS ANGELES - The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) announces the remaining 55-hour weekend full closure schedule of westbound Interstate 210 (I-210) at Roxford St in Sylmar for paving work. The closure is part of a series of 55-hour closures that will be conducted on I-210 in the San Fernando Valley. Residents and local businesses located near the freeway may experience noise, vibrations and dust associated with construction activities. Full closures of westbound I-210 at Roxford St will take place on the following weekends: Friday, Jul. 23 at 10 p.m. through 5 a.m. Monday, Jul. 26 Friday, Aug. 6 at 10 p.m. through 5 a.m. Monday, Aug. 9 Friday, Aug. 20 at 10 p.m. through 5 a.m. Monday, Aug. 23 Full closure of westbound I-210 between Interstate 5 (I-5) and Roxford St. Westbound Polk St. on-ramp Westbound Roxford St. on-ramp Westbound Yarnell St. on and off-ramp Westbound I-210 to I-5 Interchange Eastbound Paxton St. off-ramp Motorists are strongly advised to use State Route 118 (SR-118) as an alternate route to reach their destination and to avoid the area of the full closure. Some closures may start and end later. All closures are weather permitting and subject to change. Motorists should expect delays and are encouraged to check traffic conditions before leaving to their destination by visiting the Caltrans Quickmap.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to I-5 Campgrounds North Redding to Sacramento Shasta-Trinity National Forest Whiskeytown - Shasta-Trinity National Recreation Area - Shasta Unit C3p*Ñsr
    Guide to I-5 Campgrounds North Redding to Sacramento Shasta-Trinity National Forest Whiskeytown - Shasta-Trinity National Recreation Area - Shasta Unit c3P*ÑsR Following is a list of private campground facilities located within easy reach of Interstate 5 between Redding and Sacramento. We do not endorse or recommend any of these facilities but provide this list as a courtesy to the traveling public looking for camping opportunities out- side of the National Forest boundaries. Enjoy your trip as you leave the Shasta-Trinity National Forest and head south. RV Length Tent Camping Hook-ups Campsites/Cabins Dump Station Swimming Pool or River Rest Stop Redding Any • • • SP • • Wonderland R.V. Park (530-275-1281): Exit #689 on Fawndale/Wonderland Blvd. go 1 block south on Wonderland Blvd. Mt. Gate RV Park (530-275-4600): Exit # 687 on Mt. Gate/ Any • Cabins • SP Wonderland Blvd (exit 687). Turn right onto Old Oregon Trail only then right on Holiday Road. go approx. 1 mile on Holiday Rd. Premier RV Park (530-246-0101): Exit # 680 on 299E. Go Any • • • SP • 0.3 miles west. Marina R.V. Park (530-241-4396): Exit # 680 on 299W. Any • • SP/R • Turn left on Park Marina Dr. 8/10 mile to the park. JGW R.V. Park (530-365-7965): Exit # 673 onto Riverland Any • • • SP/R • Drive on the west side of I-5—located at end of road. Sacramento River Park & RV (530-365-6402): Exit #673 Any • • • SP/R • • onto Riverland Drive on the west side of I-5—located at end of road.
    [Show full text]