Portion of CALTRANS Document Working Papers.
12. RIGHT OF WAY
This project will require additional right of way. The potential R/W need for all build- alternatives would range from 10 to 16 acres. Twenty-five Parcels would be affected in Alternative 2 and the RJW acquisition cost is approximately $25,700,000. Twenty-four Parcels would be affected in Alternative 3 and the RJW acquisition cost is approximately $24, 800,000. Twenty-three Parcels would be affected in Alternative 4 and the RJW acquisition cost is approximately $20, 800,000. Twenty-two Parcels would be affected in Alternative 5 and the R/W acquisition cost is approximately $18, 900,000. Union Pacific (Formerly Southern Pacific) Rail Road would be affected by all proposed build-alternatives. All build-alternatives have the same impact on utility relocation with Southern California Edison, Southern California Gas Company, Adelphia, Riverside Highland Water Company, Pacific Bell Telephone Company, AT&T California and City of Grand Terrace. No easement will be needed for this project (see Exhibit D)
Analysis of Proposal
As outlined above, this report addresses four build alternatives. Alternative 2 and 3 cost approximately $51 million, Alternative 4 costs approximately $47 million and Alternative 5 costs approximately $44 million.
There are currently several development plans in the vicinity. The existing interchange configuration will not accommodate this growth. The increased traffic volumes, in conjunction with the limited capacity of the interchange, are expected to result in severe congestion. Operating conditions at all ramp intersections are expected to deteriorate to LOS F by the year 2035. As previously indicated, the interchange does not currently have a high accident rate, however, congestion related accidents might increase as congestion worsens.
Alternative 2, which consists of the reconstruction to a spread diamond interchange will improve access and traffic circulation by increasing interchange capacity and eliminating existing undesirable spacing between the ramp intersections and local street intersections. This configuration would accommodate the loop on-ramps in the future and will be identical to Alternative 3 configuration. Operating conditions at ramp intersections would be LOS B by the year 2035.
Alternative 3, which consists of the reconstruction to a partial cloverleaf interchange will improve capacity and also eliminate the need for left turn storage lanes between the ramp intersections by the proposed loop on-ramps. Ramp intersections are expected to operate between LOS A and B by the year 2035.
Alternative 4 consists of a combination of a spread diamond interchange for northbound and a cloverleaf interchanges for southbound. Tying the southbound ramp termini into Grand Terrace Road will create enough separation so that there will be no need for realignment of Grand Terrace Road and also minimize impact to the northwest quadrant of the Barton Road interchange. Operating conditions at ramp intersections would vary between LOS B and C by the year 2035.
Alternative 5 consists of a combination of a partial cloverleaf interchange for northbound and a cloverleaf interchanges for southbound. By tying the southbound ramp termini into La Crosse the southeast quadrant of the Barton Road interchange will have a minimal impact The disadvantage of this alternative is that the future widening of freeway mainline or southbound on-ramp would be limited by the abutment location. Operating conditions at ramp intersections would vary between LOS B and C by the year 2035. Although the proposed interchange improvements in Alternative 2 and 3 would be more costly than the improvements in
Alternative 4 and 5, the operational benefits of these alternatives are in general very similar as indicated by the operational characteristics discussed above. The most significant difference among the alternatives is right of way impact and its cost. It is discussed in section “12 Right of Way” in detail. Ramp intersections in Alternative 2 and 3 are expected to operate more efficiently than of
Alternative 3 and 4. Also, from a constructability standpoint all alternatives should be able to be staged in a manner that would facilitate traffic handling and minimize adverse impacts to the traveling public during construction.
The City of Grand Terrace is very supportive and desirous of this interchange improvement project. The City has indicated that preserving Commerce way is very important to the City’s land use plans for this area.
7. SYSTEM AND REGIONAL PLANNING
This project is included in the 2006 Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP/FTIP). This project is also consistent with the City of Grand Terrace General Plan/Circulation Element. According to the Barton Road Specific Plan, the Barton Road east of the 1-21 5/Barton Road interchange is identified as a six-lane facility. As discussed in Section 2, the Bi-County project (EA 459900) will address mainline improvements.
This project is consistent with the District Route Concept Fact Sheet for 1-215 dated August 1999. However, an updated Comprehensive Corridor Plan is presently being developed by the District’s Planning Division.
Dear Gramps:
Did you listen to that last night?
Did anyone get that right of way means the use of ED? Of course this is a PUBLIC USE and Perhaps the ONLY time ED should be used.
That is one reason why it will take so long is the negotiating of the taking of the property needed.
If it is a business, the lease has to be negotiated and bought out. The school will be a Section 4f. That is another process.
Darren Kettle didn't mention that Caltrans had already got their study done so the consultant Grand Terrace and SANBAG hired keep it moving. Then when he implied that Caltrans might move faster under the new NEPA Delegation and will be in fear of being sued,
Caltrans wil be more careful (or should be) in the Federal NEPA and State CEQA. Caltrans didn't make the laws, the feds and state did and it is our job to following the law. It is a long process just getting on the list to get funded. Let alone, get the the environmentalstudies done correctly. Then the engineering plans. I would think after having him talk, might be good timing for the blog to post available public documents attached.
Why is this information not posted on the City's Web Site, what information is being provided by the City Staff in regards to planning and use and so forth. Long ago the Grand Terrace Elementary School was Marked as "Commercial Zone" not School or Public Zone by the City Staff. Has it been their plan or understanding all along that the school would be removed. Well someone had better inform CJUSD as they say something different. The Above designs remove some of the Play Field, perhaps the sollution is to Take some of the houses to the North and East of the current school and expand the lost land to the North and East and keep the school in its current location, just change its Playground location. Houses would be lost, not an entire school. This no doubt will be a harsh situation for those in the homes affected. The City Staff however seems to have their mind set to have the school property be Commercial Property.
The freeway design has to be done first any change of use, or develepment along the 215 should be limited to current use, and temporary uses so the cost of the freeway and investments are not lost by bad planning and development. RDA land purchases even are cause for concern in relationship to the issue. Again the holding back of information is causing a problem for the City and City Council and Business Investment.
