DOCSLIB.ORG

I-15 Comprehensive Corridor Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
I-15 Comprehensive Corridor Study I-15 Comprehensive Corridor Study Final Report Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 8 Prepared by: In Association with: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. December 20, 2005 The Tioga Group Associated Engineers, Inc. Arellano Associates Kimley-Horn and Associates Economics & Politics, Inc. Counts Unlimited I-15 Comprehensive Corridor Study Final Report Prepared for: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (SCAG) SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS (SANBAG) CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS), DISTRICT 8 Prepared by: PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF QUADE & DOUGLAS, INC. In Association with: Cambridge Systematics Tioga Group Associated Engineers Arellano Associates Kimley-Horn and Associates Economics & Politics, Inc. Counts Unlimited December 20, 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1 Executive Summary ............................................................................................ 1 1.1 I-15 Corridor Study Area..................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Purpose and Need Statement.......................................................................................... 4 1.2.1 Improvement Purpose............................................................................................ 4 1.2.2 Improvement Need................................................................................................ 4 1.2.3 Improvement Objectives....................................................................................... 4 1.3 Identification of Initial Alternatives................................................................................... 5 1.4 Screening of Initial Alternatives......................................................................................... 6 1.5 Alternatives Selected for Detailed Evaluation ............................................................... 8 1.6 Detailed Evaluation ............................................................................................................ 8 1.7 Public Outreach Program................................................................................................ 12 1.8 Locally Preferred Strategy ............................................................................................... 13 1.8.1 Recommendation Part 1: Implementation of Strategy B TDM/TSM Elements ................................................................................................................. 14 1.8.2 Recommendation Part 2: Reconfiguration of I-15/I-215 Interchange......... 14 1.8.3 Recommendation Part 3: Advance Two Future Build Strategies ................. 15 1.9 Financial Plan for the LPS ................................................................................................. 16 1.10 Implementation Plan for the LPS .................................................................................... 18 1.10.1 Near-Term Improvements Action Plan: I-15/I-215 Interchange .................... 18 1.10.2 Long-Term Improvements Action Plan: I-15 Corridor Projects....................... 19 Section 2 Introduction........................................................................................................ 20 2.1 I-15 Corridor Study Area................................................................................................... 20 2.2 Background........................................................................................................................ 21 2.3 Purpose and Need Statement........................................................................................ 26 2.3.1 Improvement Purpose.......................................................................................... 26 2.3.2 Improvement Need.............................................................................................. 26 2.4 Study Objectives ...............................................................................................................26 2.4.1 Traffic Congestion................................................................................................. 27 2.4.2 Goods Movement ................................................................................................ 27 2.4.3 Transit....................................................................................................................... 27 2.4.4 Safety ...................................................................................................................... 28 2.4.5 Design Improvements .......................................................................................... 28 2.4.6 Cost-Effectiveness................................................................................................. 28 2.5 Existing Transportation Conditions.................................................................................. 29 2.6 Economic Background Analysis ..................................................................................... 31 2.7 Outline of Report ...............................................................................................................34 I-15 Comprehensive Corridor Study i Final Report Section 3 Alternatives Development ............................................................................... 35 3.1 I-15 Freeway Characteristics ........................................................................................... 36 3.1.1 Existing Characteristics......................................................................................... 36 3.1.2 Planned Improvements ....................................................................................... 38 3.2 Identification of Initial Alternatives................................................................................. 40 3.2.1 Alternative 1 – No-Build Alternative ................................................................... 41 3.2.2 Alternative 2 – TDM/TSM Alternative.................................................................. 44 3.2.3 Alternative 3 – HOV Lane (SR-60 to D Street) with Express Bus...................... 44 3.2.4 Alternative 4 – Cajon Pass Dedicated Truck Lanes (Glen Helen to US-395) .................................................................................................................... 46 3.2.5 Alternative 5 – Full Corridor Dedicated Truck Lanes (SR-60 to D Street)...................................................................................................................... 48 3.2.6 Alternative 6 – Single General-Purpose Lane (SR-60 to D Street) ................. 48 3.2.7 Alternative 7 – Multiple General-Purpose/Express Lanes (SR-60 to D Street)...................................................................................................................... 51 3.2.8 Alternative 8 – Reversible Managed Lanes (SR-210 to US-395)..................... 53 3.2.9 Alternative 9 – Commuter Rail Service (San Bernardino to Victorville) ....... 55 3.2.10 I-15/I-215 Interchange Improvement Alternatives .......................................... 55 3.3 Screening Methodology .................................................................................................. 56 3.3.1 Identification of Screening Evaluation Criteria................................................ 57 3.3.2 Screening Evaluation Matrix ............................................................................... 58 3.3.3 Description of Screening Evaluation Criteria ................................................... 59 3.4 Screening Evaluation........................................................................................................ 62 3.4.1 Criterion Category A: Future General-Purpose Capacity ............................. 62 3.4.2 Criterion Category B: Future HOV Capacity................................................... 65 3.4.3 Criterion Category C: Future Truck Capacity................................................. 65 3.4.4 Criterion Category D: Safety.............................................................................. 65 3.4.5 Criterion Category E: Environmental................................................................ 66 3.4.6 Criterion Category F: Cost.................................................................................. 66 3.5 Summary of Screening Evaluation Results .................................................................... 73 3.6 Alternatives Selected for Detailed Evaluation ............................................................. 73 Section 4 Detailed Evaluation of Selected Alternatives................................................. 76 4.1 Detailed Evaluation Methodology................................................................................. 77 4.1.1 Definition of the Seven Study Segments ........................................................... 78 4.1.2 Detailed Evaluation Measures of Effectiveness............................................... 80 4.1.3 Detailed Evaluation Tables and Charts ............................................................ 88 4.1.4 Detailed Evaluation Grading Matrix.................................................................. 94 4.2 Detailed Evaluation Travel Demand Forecasts............................................................ 97 4.2.1 SCAG Travel Analysis Model ............................................................................... 97 4.2.2 Modeling Specifics of the Five Strategies ........................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • (ROPE) Table Top Exercise Mark A. Hartwig
    CONTACT: Cheryl Nagy, Emergency Services Officer/PIO (909) 356-3910, (909) 725-6627, pager #1516 September 24, 2013 Michael Antonucci, Emergency Services Manager San Bernardino County Fire Department Office of Emergency Services FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Responders Organized for Pass Emergencies (ROPE) Table Top Exercise After months of planning, First Responders and Private Sector partners from San Bernardino County came together on September 24, 2013, at the Goldy S. Lewis Community Center in Rancho Cucamonga to participate in the San Bernardino County Responders Organized for Pass Emergencies (ROPE) Table Top Exercise created by San Bernardino County Fire Department Office of Emergency Services and the ROPE Committee. The exercise scenario addressed the challenges of accessing the Cajon Pass after a 7.8 earthquake. With the San Andreas Fault cutting through southwestern San Bernardino County, which houses some of the most densely populated areas in the region, the likelihood of post-earthquake challenges in the Cajon Pass are evident. Due to the fact that the Cajon Pass incorporates a major transportation corridor (Interstate 15), rail, and utility resources; infrastructure coordinated operations are essential to the response and recovery of San Bernardino County and the Southern California region. The exercise focused on Incident Command objectives and priorities, Operational Communications and Operational Coordination, including strategic areas north and south of the Cajon Pass to facilitate emergency responses, along with analyzing any gaps within the ROPE planning process. At the conclusion of the exercise more than 100 participants now feel prepared to respond to an incident within the Cajon Pass using the newly established draft ROPE Standard Operating Guidelines (SOG) and the draft ROPE Field Operations Guide (FOG) for all-hazards.
    [Show full text]
  • Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA)
    Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) 07/01/2019 to 09/30/2019 San Bernardino National Forest This report contains the best available information at the time of publication. Questions may be directed to the Project Contact. Expected Project Name Project Purpose Planning Status Decision Implementation Project Contact San Bernardino National Forest, Forestwide (excluding Projects occurring in more than one Forest) R5 - Pacific Southwest Region Carbonate Habitat Mineral - Wildlife, Fish, Rare plants In Progress: Expected:08/2019 08/2019 Scott Eliason Withdrawal - Minerals and Geology Comment Period Public Notice 909-382-2830 EA 08/10/2018 [email protected] Description: Requested Mineral Withdrawal to implement portions of the Carbonate Habitat Management Strategy, and also to enable mitigation elements of two separate proposed mining projects on the San Bernardino National Forest. Decision authority is with DOI. Web Link: http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=54410 Location: UNIT - San Bernardino National Forest All Units. STATE - California. COUNTY - San Bernardino. LEGAL - Not Applicable. Approximately 25 miles northeast of San Bernardino, California and 8.5 miles south of the unincorporated community of Lucerne Valley, California. Mountain Yellow-legged Frog - Wildlife, Fish, Rare plants In Progress: Expected:06/2019 06/2019 David Austin Reestablishment Scoping Start 04/25/2019 909-382-2733 CE [email protected] *NEW LISTING* Description: The USFWS proposes to approve the reestablishment of federally endangered mountain yellow-legged frog. The attached figures display the potential reestablishment locations. Please send comments to Jesse Bennett at [email protected] Web Link: http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=55938 Location: UNIT - San Bernardino National Forest All Units.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 13: Glossary
    Draper Transit Corridor Project Chapter 13: Glossary % percent D °F degrees Fahrenheit μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter dB decibel μips micro-inch per second dBA A-weighted decibel § section DERR Utah Division of Environmental Response and Remediation 4(f) Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 DOE Determination of Eligibility Dr. drive A E AA Alternatives Analysis AADT average annual daily traffic E. east ADA Americans with Disabilities Act EB eastbound Alt. alternative EDR Environmental Data Resources AM morning EIS Environmental Impact Statement ANSI American National Standards Institute EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency APE area of potential effects ERNS Emergency Response Notification System AST aboveground storage tank et seq. and subsequent sections ATMS Advanced Traffic Management Systems AWDT average weekday daily traffic F B FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FHWA Federal Highway Administration BART Bay Area Rapid Transit FINDS Facility Index System Blvd. boulevard FOE Finding of Effect BMP best management practice FRA Federal Railroad Administration BRT bus rapid transit FrontRunner UTA’s commuter-rail transit system BTU British thermal units FTA Federal Transit Administration C G ca. circa (approximately) GIS geographic information system CBD Salt Lake City central business district GOPB Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget CEI cost-effectiveness index GPS global positioning system CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
    [Show full text]
  • Functional Classification Update Report for the Pocatello/Chubbuck Urbanized Area
    Functional Classification Update Report For the Pocatello/Chubbuck Urbanized Area Functional Classification Update Report Introduction The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 required the use of functional highway classification to update and modify the Federal-aid highway systems by July 1, 1976. This legislative requirement is still effective today. Functional classification is the process by which streets and highways are grouped into classes, or systems, according to the character of service they are intended to provide. The functional classification system recognizes that streets cannot be treated as independent, but rather they are intertwined and should be considered as a whole. Each street has a specific purpose or function. This function can be characterized by the level of access to surrounding properties and the length of the trip on that specific roadway. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) functional classification system for urban areas is divided into urban principal arterials, minor arterial streets, collector streets, and local streets. Principal arterials include interstates, expressways, and principal arterials. Eligibility for Federal Highway Administration funding and to provide design standards and access criteria are two important reasons to classify roadway. The region is served by Interstate 15 (north/South) and Interstate 86 (east/west). While classified within the arterial class, they are designated federally and do not change locally. Interstates will be shown in the functional classification map, but they will not be specifically addressed in this report. Functional Classification Update The Idaho Transportation Department has the primary responsibility for developing and updating a statewide highway functional classification in rural and urban areas to determine the functional usage of the existing roads and streets.
    [Show full text]
  • FOR LEASE OR SALE Sale Price: $3,970,835 Multi - Unit Office Warehouse Lease Rate: $.65/SF NNN 5241 South Commerce Drive, Murray UT 84107
    FOR LEASE OR SALE Sale Price: $3,970,835 Multi - Unit Office Warehouse Lease Rate: $.65/SF NNN 5241 South Commerce Drive, Murray UT 84107 Seller will consider selling 5241- 5245 and 5247-5251 as separate properties 34,529 SF Total 8,719 SF Office 25,810 SF Warehouse Stew Knight 801.913.4990 KREA [email protected] Knight Real Estate Advisors knirea.com This statement, with the information it contains, is given with the understanding that all negotiations relating to the sale, purchase, or lease of the property described above shall be conducted through this office. The above information, while not guaranteed, has been secured from sources we believe to be reliable. Buyer or tenant to verify the square footage. 5251 5241 5247 5245 5241 (Unit A): 5245 (Unit B): 5247 (Unit C): 5251 (Unit D): • 10,175 sq. ft. total • 8,790 sq. ft. warehouse • 7,406 sq. ft. total • 8,158 sq. ft. total − 880 sq. ft. 2nd level office − 5,921 sq. ft. main warehouse − 560 sq. ft. 2nd level office − 4,079 sq. ft. 2nd level office − 880 sq. ft. main level office − 1,355 sq. ft. rear warehouse − 560 sq. ft. main level office − 350 sq. ft. office main level − 6,720 sq. ft. warehouse − 104 sq. ft. storage − 6,286 sq. ft. warehouse − 3,729 sq. ft. warehouse − 250 sq. ft. laundry − 1,410 sq. ft. office/bathrooms • (1) 12’ x 14’ GL door • (1) 12’ x 14’ GL door − 645 sq. ft. wash/groom area • (1) 10’ x 12’ GL door • Clear Height 12’– 14’ − 800 sq.
    [Show full text]
  • Acre Gas, Food & Lodging Development Opportunity Interstate
    New 9+/-Acre Gas, Food & Lodging Development Opportunity Interstate 15 & Dale Evans Parkway Apple Valley, CA Freeway Location Traffic Counts in Excess of 66,000VPD 1 Acre Pads Available, For Sale, Ground Lease or Build-to-Suit Highlights Gateway to Apple Valley Freeway Exposure / Frontage to I-15 in excess of 66,000 VPD Off/On Ramp Location. Located in highly sought after freeway ramp location on I-15 in high desert corridor Interstate I-15 heavily Traveled with Over 2 Million Vehicles Per Month Located 20 Miles South of Barstow/Lenwood, 10 Miles North of Victorville Located in Area with High Demand for Gas, Food and Lodging Conveniently Located Midway Between Southern California and Las Vegas, Nevada Adam Farmer P. (951) 696-2727 Xpresswest Bullet Train from Victorville to Las Vegas plans to Cell. (951) 764-3744 build station across freeway. www.xpresswest.com [email protected] 26856 Adams Ave Suite 200 Murrieta, CA 92562 This information is compiled from data that we believe to be correct but, no liability is assumed by this company as to accuracy of such data Area / I-15 Gateway To Apple Valley Site consists of a 9 acre development at the North East Corner of Dale Evans Parkway and Interstate 15 located in Apple Valley. Site offers freeway frontage, on/off ramp position strategically to capture all traffic traveling on the I-15. Development will offer 9 pad sites available for gas, food, multi tenant and lodging. Interstate 15 runs North and South with traffic counts in excess of 66,000 ADT. Pads will be available for sale, ground lease or build-to-suit.
    [Show full text]
  • The Desert Serrano of the Mojave River
    The Desert Serrano of the Mojave River Mark Q. Sutton and David D. Earle Abstract century, although he noted the possible survival of The Desert Serrano of the Mojave River, little documented by “perhaps a few individuals merged among other twentieth century ethnographers, are investigated here to help un- groups” (Kroeber 1925:614). In fact, while occupation derstand their relationship with the larger and better known Moun- tain Serrano sociopolitical entity and to illuminate their unique of the Mojave River region by territorially based clan adaptation to the Mojave River and surrounding areas. In this effort communities of the Desert Serrano had ceased before new interpretations of recent and older data sets are employed. 1850, there were survivors of this group who had Kroeber proposed linguistic and cultural relationships between the been born in the desert still living at the close of the inhabitants of the Mojave River, whom he called the Vanyumé, and the Mountain Serrano living along the southern edge of the Mojave nineteenth century, as was later reported by Kroeber Desert, but the nature of those relationships was unclear. New (1959:299; also see Earle 2005:24–26). evidence on the political geography and social organization of this riverine group clarifies that they and the Mountain Serrano belonged to the same ethnic group, although the adaptation of the Desert For these reasons we attempt an “ethnography” of the Serrano was focused on riverine and desert resources. Unlike the Desert Serrano living along the Mojave River so that Mountain Serrano, the Desert Serrano participated in the exchange their place in the cultural milieu of southern Califor- system between California and the Southwest that passed through the territory of the Mojave on the Colorado River and cooperated nia can be better understood and appreciated.
    [Show full text]
  • FINAL DRAFT REPORT APPENDIX B Strategic Implementation Plan Final
    PHASE III – FINAL DRAFT REPORT APPENDIX B Strategic Implementation Plan Final Report Appendix B – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................................................4 Purpose...............................................................................................................................................................4 TASK 1: SUMMARY OF PROJECT STUDY REPORTS IN THE I-15 CORRIDOR................................................7 Project Study Reports .........................................................................................................................................7 Other Project Related Analysis .........................................................................................................................10 TASK 2: GOODS MOVEMENT DATA SUMMARY .............................................................................................12 Riverside County...............................................................................................................................................12 San Diego County .............................................................................................................................................14 Conclusions and Recommendations for Implementation ..................................................................................15 TASK 3: TRANSIT PRIORITY TREATMENTS AND TRANSIT LANE INFRASTRUCTURE
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 8: Transportation - 1 Unincorporated Horry County
    INTRODUCTION Transportation plays a critical role in people’s daily routine and representation from each of the three counties, municipalities, addresses a minimum of a 20-year planning horizon and includes quality of life. It also plays a significant role in economic COAST RTA, SCDOT, and WRCOG. GSATS agencies analyze the both long- and short-range strategies and actions that lead to the development and public safety. Because transportation projects short- and long-range transportation needs of the region and offer development of an integrated, intermodal transportation system often involve local, state, and often federal coordination for a public forum for transportation decision making. that facilitates the efficient movement of people and goods. The funding, construction standards, and to meet regulatory Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) is a 5 year capital projects guidelines, projects are identified many years and sometimes plan adopted by the GSATS and by SCDOT. The local TIP also decades prior to the actual construction of a new facility or includes a 3 year estimate of transit capital and maintenance improvement. Coordinating transportation projects with future requirements. The projects within the TIP are derived from the MTP. growth is a necessity. The Waccamaw Regional Council of Governments (WRCOG) not The Transportation Element provides an analysis of transportation only assists in managing GSATS, but it also helps SCDOT with systems serving Horry County including existing roads, planned or transportation planning outside of the boundaries of the MPO for proposed major road improvements and new road construction, Horry, Georgetown, and Williamsburg counties. SCDOT partnered existing transit projects, existing and proposed bicycle and with WRCOG to develop the Rural Long-Range Transportation Plan pedestrian facilities.
    [Show full text]
  • San Bernardino & Inyo Counties, California
    BLM-California Old Spanish National Historic Trail Recreation & Development Strategy San Bernardino & Inyo Counties, California—September, 2015 14 Old Spanish National Historic Trail Recreation & Development Strategy Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Utah State Office Prepared For: The Bureau of Land Management, Barstow Field Office The Old Spanish Trail Association Prepared By: Michael Knight, BLM, ACE Landscape Architect Intern Graydon Bascom, BLM, ACE Historic Trails Intern September, 2015 Contents Note to the Reader 1 Participants 2 Explanation of Document Sections 3 Project Overview Old Spanish Trail Map 7 Recreation Route Map 9 Typical Trail Elements 11 Trail Zone Details Cajon Junction to Barstow (Zone 1) 15 Barstow to Harvard Rd (Zone 2) 19 Harvard Rd to Salt Creek (Zone 3) 27 Zzyzx to Piute Gorge (Zone 4) 31 Salt Creek to California State Line (Zone 5) 37 Summary 41 Above: Old Spanish Trail Marker at Emigrant Pass Cover Page: Top photo: Salt Creek ACEC, Bottom Photo: Mouth of Spanish Canyon looking southwest Note To The Reader National Historic Trails are trails that have a historical significance to the nation, and can only be designated by an act of Congress. There are currently 19 National Historic Trails in the United States. In 1968, the National Trails System Act, which is intended to provide for the outdoor recreation needs of the public, opened the door to federal involvement in all types of trails. Today, the Bureau of Land Management, along with the National Park Service and National Forest Service, are responsible for the administration and management of National Historic Trails.
    [Show full text]
  • Final I-15 IRP Phase III Report
    Transportation Housing Economy I-15 Interregional Partnership I-15 Phase III Final Report Interregional Partnership February 2010 I-15 IRP JOINT POLICY COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP The primary goal of the I-15 Interregional Partnership (IRP) Joint Policy Committee is to review and provide policy input on Phase III of the I-15 IRP Project. The two regions seek to collaborate on mutually beneficial housing, transportation, and economic planning to improve the quality of life for the region’s residents through the identification and implementation of short-, medium-, and long-range policy strategies. The committee will meet three times during the duration of Phase III at dates and times to be mutually determined. Staff contacts: Jane Clough-Riquelme, SANDAG (619) 699-1909; [email protected] Kevin Viera, WRCOG (951) 955-8305; [email protected] MEMBERS Scott Mann (alt.) Councilmember, City of Menifee San Diego Association of Governments WRCOG Executive Committee (SANDAG) Sam Abed Riverside County Transportation Commission Councilmember, City of Escondido (RCTC) SANDAG Borders Committee Rick Gibbs Councilmember, City of Murrieta Dave Allan RCTC Commissioner Councilmember, City of La Mesa SANDAG Borders Committee Ron Roberts Mayor Pro Tem, City of Temecula Crystal Crawford RCTC Commissioner Mayor, City of Del Mar Jeff Stone (alt.) Patricia McCoy (alt.) Supervisor, Riverside County Councilmember, City of Imperial Beach RCTC Commissioner Chair, SANDAG Borders Committee Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) Western Riverside Council of Government (WRCOG) Jeff Comerchero Councilmember, City of Temecula Thomas Buckley Chair, RTA Board of Directors Councilmember, City of Lake Elsinore WRCOG Executive Committee Bob Buster Supervisor, Riverside County Chuck Washington First Vice Chair, RTA Board of Directors Councilmember, City of Temecula WRCOG Executive Committee AGENCY EXECUTIVES Scott Farman (alt.) Mayor, City of Wildomar SANDAG Gary L.
    [Show full text]
  • Cajon Pass As You've Never Seen It
    MAP OF THE MONTH Cajon Pass as you’ve never seen it Your all-time guide to the busiest railroad mountain crossing in the United States. We map 126 years of railroad history “HILL 582” CP SP462 Popular railfan CP SP465 HILAND Alray INTERSTATE hangout SILVERWOOD Former passing 15 66 siding removed 1972, Original 1885 line through To Palmdale named for track Main 1 Setout siding Summit relocated 1972; the Setout siding supervisor Al Ray new line reduced the summit Main 3 3N45 elevation by 50 feet. “STEIN’S HILL” Tunnel No. 1 SILVERWOOD Named for noted Eliminated 2008 Main 2 MP 56.6 ific CP SP464 Pac rail photographer Tunnel No. 2 3N48 Union Richard Steinheimer. Eliminated 2008 Parker Dell Ranch To Barstow Rd. 138 BNSF WALKER Summit Road MP 59.4 Named for longtime 138 Summit operator and Gish author Chard Walker Original 1885 line; Summit SUMMIT Warning: became passing Site of depot and MP 55.9 The tracks east of the Summit siding 1920s; helper turning wye Road crossing are in the BNSF 1913 line removed 1956 security area, established 1996. relocated 1977 It is lit, fenced, and guarded. Do not trespass in this area. OLD TRAILS HIGHWAY First paved road over Cajon Exit 131 Pass 1916, first route for Route PACIFIC CRESTFUN HIKING FACT TRAIL Route 138 66; originally a 12-mile toll road The Pacific Crest Hiking Trail runs opened in 1861, now a trail. 2,638 miles from Canada to Mexico. 138 Rim of the World Scenic Byway Lone Pine Canyon Rd. DESCANSO MORMON ROCKS CP SP464 is the approximate SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL FOREST Named for a party location of the Los Angeles Rwy.
    [Show full text]