HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-02-03 - AGENDA REPORTS - NORTHERLY BYPASS (2)CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Heidt and Councilmembers
FROM: George A. Caravalho, City Manager
DATE: February 3, 1998
SUBJECT: FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE NORTHERLY BYPASS
City Council receive the presentation by the County of Los Angeles for informational purposes.
:• _St 1►1
On June 20,1996, City staff requested that the County of Los Angeles prepare a planning study
of an east/west route in the northern Santa Clarita Valley, between Interstate 5 and State
Route 14, to meet future traffic demand. The request resulted from community concerns and
Council's objection to the northerly/southerly alternative for State Route 126. The Feasibility
Study for the Northerly Bypass Route (July 1997) was received by City staff and was
distributed to the City Council, Planning Commission, and several active members of the
community. At a recent City Council meeting, Council received additional public comments
about this proposal and requested that a representative from the County of Los Angeles make
a presentation to Council and the community on the results of this study.
The objective of the study was to identify the most feasible route in the unincorporated County
area of the north valley. The criteria for this determination included benefit to the valley's
overall circulation system based on traffic modeling projections, impact to existing and proposed
development, environmental concerns, and overall cost-effectiveness.
Attached is a copy of the "Feasibility Study for the Northerly Bypass Route Between
Interstate 5 and State Route 14;' which was finalized and submitted by the County in July
1997. The following are some highlights of the subject study:
1. The cost to construct any type of highway facility (from a two-lane rural highway to a
high-speed expressway) will be of the same order of magnitude, since the same number
of bridges and similar length of tunneling will be required.
2. The new roadway would divert about 30,000 ADT (average daily trips) from other existing
and planned roadways in the valley.
FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE NORTHERLY BYPASS
February 3, 1998
Page 2
3. There would still be a need to provide substantial east/west capacity to accommodate
motorists traveling only a part of the valley.
4. The proposed facility, an expressway, is a high-speed (70 mph design speed) divided
highway that could ultimately accommodate six to eight traffic lanes.
5. The estimated cost is $850 million, which is based on constructing 16.5 miles of two lanes
in each direction, including seven fully -lined highway tunnels.
6. The impact to the area's environment will likely be significant.
7. The Northerly Bypass Route would cost between 20 percent and 250 percent more per
lane -mile to construct than the other projects. The cost of the facility per ADT would
range from 230 percent to 800 percent higher than the other projects.
8. It would be unlikely to compete favorably for State or Federal funding.
9. The project is not feasible.
10. The physical aspects of building the Northerly Bypass provide a compelling argument
against any further substantial expenditure of public funds to perform more detailed
studies.
Los Angeles County staff will attend this meeting to present the findings of this report to the
City Council and answer any questions.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
None.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
ATTACHMENT
Feasibility Study (also available for review in the City Clerk's reading file)
GAC:RJR:IkI
councillssbyp a .rjr
FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE
,RTHERLY BYPASS ROUTE BETWEEN
INTERSTATE 5 (I-5)
AND STATE ROUTE 14 (SR -14)
NORTH OF THE CITY OF
SANTA CLARITA
Harry W. Stone
Director of Public Works
Department of Public Works
900 South Fremont Avenue
Alhambra, CA 91803-1331
July 1997
FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE NC
INTERSTATE 5 (I-5) FREEWAY AND
NORTH OF THE CITY
INTRODUCTION
THERLY BYPASS ROUTE BETWEEN
STATE ROUTE 14 (SR -14) FREEWAY
OF SANTA CLARITA
At the request of the City of Santa Clarita, the Los Angeles County
Department of Public Works prepared this study to determine the
feasibility of constructing an east/west highway between the Golden
State Freeway (I-5) and Antelope Valley Freeway (SR -14) north of
the City of Santa Clarita and south of the Angeles National Forest
boundary. The study area for this potential highway is shown on
Exhibit A.
In 1963, the California Transportation Committee adopted State
Route 126 (SR -126) between.the I-5 and the SR -14 into the State
Highway System. Due to low priority and shortage of funds, this
route was later rescinded. In 1967, the Los Angeles County Board
of Supervisors adopted the Santa Clara River Freeway (SR -126)
between I-5 and SR -14 as part of a Plan Amendment to the County's
Master Plan of Highways. The 1990 revision of the Santa Clarita
Valley Area -Wide Circulation Plan, adopted by the Board of
Supervisors, redesignated SR -126 as an expressway.
During the 1980s and the early 1990s, the County studied an
alignment through the Santa Clarita Valley. In the early 1990s,
the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) conducted a
Tier 1 environmental study with the intention of readopting
SR -126; Caltrans proposed two. alignments (North or "County -
preferred" and South, as shown on Exhibit B) for a limited access
facility between I-5 at Castaic Junction and SR -14 near Via
Princessa. The North alignment followed closely the County's
preferred alignment for SR -126. In October 1992, the Santa Clarita
City Council voted unanimously to oppose both of Caltrans' SR -126
alternatives. As a result, both Caltrans and the County
discontinued further route studies for SR -126.
As part of the Tier 1 study, Caltrans also evaluated an alignment
traversing the northern part of Santa Clarita Valley below the
Angeles National Forest. As an alternative to Caltrans North and
South alternatives, such an alignment would reduce impacts to
existing and proposed developments, and minimize encroachments on
wetlands near the tributaries of the Santa Clara River. In the
study period between 1990 and 1992, Caltrans and the SR -126
Technical Advisory Committee concluded that a northerly route would
not be a viable alternative for a regional connection between I-5
and SR -14. Also, it was expected that the project cost, would be
II
1 substantially higher than the two proposed Caltrans alternatives
due to its greater length and the mountainous -terrain.
' SELECTION OF STUDY ROUTE
' In the City of Santa Clarita's General Plan update process, several
citizens and interested parties have advocated the placement of a
similar cross -valley route located in the County area below the
National Forest boundary and away from the City's developed areas.
' This has been referred to as the Northerly Bypass Route since it
was believed that there is substantial demand to travel between
Ventura County via SR -126 and the Antelope Valley via SR -14, and
that a highway connecting the I-5 and the SR -14 freeways is needed
to accommodate the cross -valley traffic.
STUDY OBJECTIVE AND EVALUATION CRITERIA
The objective of this study was to identify the most feasible route
in the unincorporated County area of the north valley. The
criteria for this determination included benefit to the Valley's
overall circulation system based on traffic modeling projections,
impacts to existing and proposed development, environmental
concerns,. and overall cost effectiveness. Also, in order to
qualify .for State and Federal funding, it is necessary to design
the facility with standards acceptable to those agencies.
In order to evaluate the feasibility of establishing such a route,
it is not necessary to investigate in detail all the potential
routes in the corridor. Because of limited resources, the study
sought to. eliminate other substantially different alternatives
based on fatal flaws and to narrow the focus to the best available
highway alignment based on cost and its attractiveness to
motorists.
The most obvious route to consider from a traffic circulation
standpoint would be one .that directly connects SR -126 to SR -14.
This route has the "fatal flaws" of bisecting numerous existing and
proposed developments and traversing a substantial area within the
City of Santa Clarita. Since a direct connection to SR -126 is most
desirable, the next best solution was to locate the westerly
terminus of the route as close as possible to the north of the SR -
126/I -5 Interchange along the I-5. The first opportunity to
connect to the I-5 Freeway is in the vicinity of Tapia Canyon. A
connection between Tapia Canyon and. SR -126 is precluded by the
Peter J..Pitches Honor Rancho detention facility.
On the east end of the route, Caltrans' standards. dictate that a
connection to SR -14 should be located about one mile from the
nearest existing interchange. This criteria along with other
constraints dictated the location of the easterly terminus.
2
' Between the I-5 and SR -14 -connections, the study route was dictated
mainly by terrain, the avoidance of development, the standards for
the type of route being studied, and minimization of costs.
+ Tunneling would be used when it would be a less expensive option
than constructing open cut slopes.
TRAFFIC MODELING
' The City of Santa Clarita and Los Angeles County have cooperatively
developed and currently operate a traffic demand forecasting model
' for the entire Santa Clarita Valley area. Information about the
model is available upon request. The model was used to forecast
travel demand for the Northerly Bypass Route.
' Highway types to be considered ranged from a two-lane rural highway
to a high speed expressway. Motorists will select a route in
greater numbers if it is a high speed facility. A lower speed
' highway can be designed to follow contours of the land more
closely, thus lowering the cost of the route but increasing the
length. Such a route will be less attractive to motorists, since
' their decisions to travel by a given route are generally based on
minimizing travel time. The following chart shows the modeled
travel demand for different facility types considered for the study
routes. Forecasts are based on buildout of the valley in
' accordance with the City of Santa Clarita's and County's General
Plan land use. If the addition of the Northerly Bypass Route were
to lead to upzoning property, projections for use would be higher,
but the route would not provide any additional benefit to traffic
emanating from currently planned land use.
TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTED FOR DIFFERENT FACILITY TYPES
Demand forecasted
By Average Daily
Type
Design Speed
Traffic
(ADT)
2 -lane rural highway
55
1,100 -
11,300
4 -lane secondary highway
60
9,900 -
23,500
' 4- to 6 -lane major highway
65
21,500 -
31,300
4 -lane expressway
70
26,500 -
41,600
The cost to construct any of these facility types will be of same
order of magnitude since the same number of bridges and similar
length of tunneling will be required. The least expensive facility
' type, a rural highway will cost in the range of 35 to 50 percent of
the expressway cost. Based on the modeling.volumes, only a high
speed facility would carry enough traffic to even justify further
' study. These projected trips would be diverted from other existing
or planned highways in the Santa Clarita Valley. Only an
insignificant percentage of new trips will be created by the
addition of this route. The vast majority of the trips would have
to access other highway facilities in the valley if the Northerly
Bypass Route were not constructed.
I
I
Construction of a highway to divert about 30,000 ADT from other
existing and planned roadways in the valley would benefit the
circulation system in. the valley to some extent. However, in
comparison to other highways, existing or planned, as well as the
previously proposed SR -126 alignment, 30,000 Average Daily Traffic
(ADT) is not a large number. The previously planned SR -126
expressway studied by Caltrans would handle over 100,000 ;ADT.
' Major highways such as McBean Parkway and Soledad Canyon Road carry
in excess of 50,000 ADT.
Since the Northerly Bypass Route is deliberately intended to avoid
development, it is located too far north to attract a significant
number of travellers only. partially traversing the valley. In
other words, as expected, most of the trips on the facility will be
using it to bypass destinations in the valley. There would still
be a need to provide substantial east -west capacity in the valley
that could accommodate motorists traversing only a part of the
valley. The demand to bypass the valley, reflected in the
projected ADT, is based on data supplied by the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG) and incorporated into the traffic
model.
Only if costs for a Northerly Bypass Route are reasonable in
comparison to other. circulation options, and funding could be made
available, should the route be considered feasible to construct.
Therefore, the best available route was studied for general impacts
and a cost estimate prepared. It should be noted -that the segment
between Bouquet Canyon Road and Sierra Highway would replace
Vasquez Canyon Road (see the "Proposed Project" section below).
Approximately 10,000 ADT generated along Vasquez Canyon Road would
be added to the through trips projected for this segment, resulting
in the high range projections.
PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed facility, an expressway, is a high speed (70 mph
design speed) divided highway with partial access control. The
right -of way width will be 180 feet to meet Caltrans standards and
could ultimately accommodate 6-8 traffic lanes. The cost estimate
is based on constructing two lanes in each direction. Based on the
low traffic projections, the full expressway would not have to be
constructed.
The proposed highway is about 16.5 miles long and. the.average
distance between interchanges/access points is approximately
four miles. Exhibit C delineates the proposed highway. The
estimated project cost is $850 million (see Exhibit D), including
the cost for constructing seven fully -lined highway tunnels. Each
segment of the route is discussed below:
I-5 to San Francisquito Canyon Road
This segment of the proposed highway generally follows the
alignment of a formerly planned County highway, Camino de Las
Lomas. That highway was added to the County Highway Plan by the
Board of Supervisors in 1970 and deleted ten years later.
0
The highway would connect to I-5 via a freeway interchange about
2.5 miles north of the existing I-5/SR-126 interchange at Castaic
Junction. The alignment proceeds easterly from I-5 into the lower
Tapia Canyon and then up the gently sloping canyon for
approximately two miles. In this area of Tapia Canyon, the route
must bridge over the Metropolitan Water District's Castaic
Tunnel No. 2 to eliminate any impact to the aquaduct. The
alignment then proceeds across the ridge into San Francisquito
Canyon through a 500 -foot -long tunnel. In this area, the highway
would pass through the proposed Tesoro del Valle development
(Tentative Tract 51644) and may affect 36 proposed residential
lots. A 11000 -foot -long bridge would be required to cross over
San Francisquito Canyon Creek along with a grade separated
interchange.at San Francisquito Canyon Road.
San Francisquito Canyon Road to Bouquet Canyon Road
From San Francisquito Canyon Road, the proposed alignment climbs
upslope and through a 11000 -foot -long tunnel into Dry Canyon. This
portion of the alignment may be prone to landslides due to unstable
soil. This condition may be correctable by using less steep
sideslopes and/or buttressing. The alignment crosses over the
Los Angeles City Department of Water and Power (DWP) facility
access road- and the Los Angeles Aqueduct in Dry Canyon. There
would be no direct access from the highway to the DWP facilities.
The proposed route' climbs out of the Dry Canyon area via Shell
Canyon and through a 11000-foot-long.tunnel into Haskell Canyon.
It crosses over Haskell Canyon Road as a flyover (with no access)
and continues over the ridge through a 120 -foot -deep cutslope. The
highway would then follow the route of Blue Cloud Road to Bouquet
Canyon Road. The alignment crosses an Edison easement and may
require the relocation of their towers. At Bouquet .Canyon Road,
the route would pass through a mobile home park and may require
relocating some mobile homes. Realignment and reconstruction of a
portion of Bouquet Canyon Road may be necessary to provide a -grade
separated interchange.
Bouquet Canyon Road to Sierra Highway
After crossing Bouquet Canyon Road and Bouquet Creek, the proposed
alignment would follow the existing Vasquez Canyon Road alignment
and climb uphill. The existing Vasquez Canyon Road would be
eliminated and replaced with the Northerly Bypass route. The route
would cross under the summit pass via a 1000 -foot -long tunnel, then
through the community of Forrest Park to Mint Canyon and Sierra
Highway. Some existing residential development within this stretch
of the highway would need to be relocated.
Sierra Highway to SR -14
The proposed alignment would climb out of Mint Canyon through two
1,600 -foot -long tunnels and enter the Tick Canyon area. A bridge
would be constructed over Tick Canyon. Right of Way would need to
be reserved for a future interchange with Shadow Pines Boulevard.
' Several residential properties would be impacted. Following the
overpass at Tick Canyon, the highway would pass through the last
tunnel (5,000 feet long) and connect to SR -14 via a freeway -to-
' 5
�I
freeway interchange midway between the existing Soledad Canyon Road
and Agua Dulce Canyon Road interchanges.
ALTERNATIVES
No Build
' As previously discussed, the need for more east/west traffic
capacity in the valley would not be substantially reduced with the
construction of the Northerly Bypass Route. Currently, the only
major east/west route through Santa Clarita Valley is Soledad
Canyon Road. If another east/west highway is not constructed,
cross -valley traffic will continue to use Soledad Canyon Road and
other existing roadways and freeways which provide access by means
' of very circuitous routes. Roadway system improvements in Santa
Clarita Valley have only been marginally keeping pace with
development. Traffic congestion in the .Valley will continue to
increase as.the Valley builds out in accordance with the City and
County General Plans.
Alternate Alignments
As previously mentioned, one alternate alignment is extending the
existing SR -126 at I-5 easterly from Castaic Junction. However,
this alternative would place the highway alignment within the City
of Santa Clarita. The City, in its June 20, 1996 letter to.the
County, requested that the County evaluate alternatives in the
' areas north of the City. The proximity of the County Sheriff's
detention facility (Peter J. Pitches Honor Rancho) and the proposed
Rye Canyon Business Park, and other existing and proposed
developments in San Francisquito Canyon are factors which removed
' this alternative from consideration.
Other alternative alignments that would allow the direct easterly
' extension of SR -126 are the Caltrans North and South alternatives
from their 1992 Tier 1 study. Since the Santa Clarita City Council
opposed these alternatives, they are not the focus of this study.
' ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
An Environmental review would need to be conducted if the proposed
' project advances to more in-depth study or a design stage.
Following is a preliminary discussion on potential impacts:
Earthwork
Extensive grading would be required throughout the length of the
highway. More than 20 million cubic yards of earth would need to
i be moved. The grading and construction of the highway would modify
the existing topography. The project area is characterized by
mountainous terrain bisected by long narrow canyons and natural
' water. courses. The proposed project would impact these features.
Graded slopes would need to be landscaped to minimize erosion.
II
1 6
' The project area is subject to ground motion from earthquake. The
potentially active San Gabriel Fault traverses the Santa Clarita
Valley. Approximately 18 miles northeast of the Valley lies the
potentially active San Andreas Fault. The proposed tunnels,
bridges, and related structures would need to be designed to resist
earthquake damages.
Water
The project area contains tributaries of the Santa Clara River.
These tributaries include San Francisquito Canyon Creek, Bouquet
Canyon Wash, Mint Canyon Wash and Tick Canyon Wash. These
watercourses are largely unimproved. Bridges over the watercourses
would be designed to avoid encroachment into the floodplain.
During construction, water in the stream would be properly diverted
from the construction area to avoid contamination of water quality.
Coordination with the Army Corps of Engineers, State Department of
Fish and Game, and the Water Quality Control Board for permit
requirements, construction methods, and mitigation measures would
be required to reduce impacts to the tributaries.
Plant and Animal Life
The project area contains a large variety of plant life. Some of
the vegetation would have to be removed during construction.
Mitigation measures such as revegetation, landscaping, and
transplanting would need to be incorporated as part of the project
to reduce the lost of plant life.
Noise and vibration. associated with construction could cause some
animals in the area to move to surrounding areas. After
construction, the highway could also block animal migration
corridors and the noise may discourage animals in the area.
Migration corridors would need to be identified and openings along
the route could be provided to allow animal migration.
Land Use and Development
Although the proposed route was selected to be located away from
major developments, some impacts to developed areas would be
difficult to avoid. A number of residences will need to be
relocated. After construction is completed, new development may
increase along the highway. Therefore, the proposed project may
impact land use and development.
Utilities
Some utilities, such as Edison towers, may need to be relocated
during construction. Coordination with affected utility companies
would be made to -avoid or reduce lost of utilities services. After
construction, some utilities may need to be relocated along the
highway.
7
Cultural, Archaeological, Historical and Paleontological resources
' During environmental reviews, record searches and field surveys
would be conducted to determine if there are significant cultural
and/or historical sites along the proposed route. If cultural
' resources were to. be discovered during construction, work would
need to be halted and a qualified archaeologist would investigate
the site and recommend mitigation measures.
' FUNDING
Funding could be made available through a variety of. sources. If
this project is adopted into the State Highway System, it could be
funded by the State Highway Construction Program. However, as
previously discussed, the State has already dismissed a Northerly
Bypass Route as a viable. alternative for cross -valley traffic.
Federal highway funds could be pursued, but obtaining these funds
would be difficult without State support. Further study would be
necessary to determine the sources and availability of funding.
EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION
Normally, good engineering practice calls for placing road
alignments along natural ground contours wherever feasible. In an
effort to separate the highway from major existing and proposed
developments, the proposed alignment traverses rugged terrain and
crosses rigelines and canyons. In addition to the high project
cost because of the large amount of grading and the number of
tunnels and bridges, the impacts to the area's environment will
likely be significant.
Due to the projected low traffic volumes (see Page 3), the highway
will be much less cost-effective than the alignment previously
studied by this Department and other State highway projects. The
recently completed Interstate 105 and San Joaquin Hills
Transportation Corridor (toll -road) projects were used for
comparative purposes (see Exhibit E). The Northerly Bypass Route
would cost between 20 percent and 250 percent more per lane -mile to
construct than the other projects. The cost of the facility per
ADT would range from 230 percent to 800 percent higher than the
other projects. Based on this study, construction of a route
connecting I-5 and SR -14 on the northern part of Santa Clarita
Valley would be unlikely to compete favorably for State or Federal
funding. The County of Los Angeles could not fund such a route.
Due to the low benefit to cost ratio reflected in the cost per
lane/mile and cost per ADT and the probable significant
environmental impacts, the project is not feasible.
The level of detail provided in this report is sufficient to make
a determination of the feasibility of constructing the Northerly
Bypass Route. Further analysis of impacts to property and
environmental resources would be warranted only if the benefit to
cost factors were high. The physical aspects of building the
Northerly Bypass provide a compelling argument againstany further
substantial expenditure of public funds to perform more detailed
studies.
REPORT PREPARATION
This study was prepared in July 1997, by Mr. Hubert Seto,
Supervising Civil Engineer I and Mr. Hans Riedel, Senior Civil
Engineering Technician, under the supervision of Mr. Barry S.
Witler, Supervising Civil Engineer III, Planning Division of the
Los Angeles County Department.of Public Works.
HWR:nr
P-3:114
O
LOS L°abC ELES COUHTY
COUNTY LINE
FREEWAYS
- - --
------ EXPRESSWAYS
LOCATION MAP
ROUTE 126
BETWEEN INTERSTATE 5
AND STATE ROUTE 14
EXHIBIT
A
1 a
W /
♦ P - Q�./
�4 \\NX
,
,eeot •
t
\f
nn + <
t
t.
�YrZ s� I'Ft�r�it-� t�f"vaf»lJ0 P y S �.'\'Ay
't E+F
'
f ��(
'
Lam'" '�_•,r` ».
1 \ I
», l' DEVELOPMENT
/
T R VALLE DEVELO
��(�✓ n ESO 0 DEL
s
_.
�� n K,
K. R P S N HIMkR Y BYPA
$ 'i
a-'•t�'.-mit` �L �_�
� N ,- c
_
` V
1 , t[ ( 4 Y
J 'Y � U
r,
/r
1
.l
b- -
e
td
,
v
K3
:
. j :Y' � '•�� .t
1.1 4
Fc
1 -r
T-
�'
T \,
VI� r f
J
IV
0 'N
��
- 4
wYi r•�
.TRA Y_
. �• ,' � _ .'ter
. r
Z
l
` r w•, Li _
• 4L
•t
• �- 4S tr-
.f • r` _ � �+-1-. L• 1. 1 '•",' �' 1l, � �S-`-' •�:� �,. 4� CJI- •Q :.f.;'l - f .���,. � �� n
F
t l• _
C
rJ.x .>'� , -gar t __•�,.
. U
* 2 -
♦ 4' <
R• _7y. ....tom
r C.
- •r
- J
•'� // moi-
r -
<,J•
r TATI VE TEN
, .
t
'•'%,('' PETER J PITCME55 HONOR R NCHO1'_•�',' - � .'.. u � 4. •' x
.•. r' E,
x
• 3 900 ,.., -
R HILL O RIVET I
.CO PE >~-
3.
J' 1
,7 ✓ L A Ca GHF'IFF CORRECTIONAL FACILITY)) •
« l `',n•��a J
v L '•,T ar l If w
arlP � •6 • l L
Z
f f�
- 4 c.i
'
i ,i
'I>T
r
U
I
{{ K e -
4- J n
V f Com'
1 'I.
�r4 �`• PARK. 1.
al V' SINESS \ •
BU
TYy�rr '\ )j'{\� t •x �: ;
Y.VV{^j'7�k\Y-�
,� t+." r s•L-',' j�,fi�'4.t� T r�n � �' �"j^.7 � 'G;� ,�,,` ., -L4� .l't'�af
<
'(� ,. '.z� - � - '�'`'� .`t "4•<'-w•n rr.,,n" -' - \ :, --s ,.� n•�•.r`�'v? t� ;�. , Jc ty,v'
r -
/
. •„�.. .`r . ,Y �! .. o \ +y�• `mak C
O
S • r Varl,(u Wti •-�st
J'4..',Y- L" t j(,��, ?-rZsi �>/. r1: . 1rti`•.C IJLY" C f ,k,'L' \—s t„ '.4.,tDFCOR (
L
• •` I.
0J
bP'•fPO
r/J'•�••
' .
I
'•, ". j ',4
Z-7
'. L�f'"'� `"?o �,-`'_Xo2 ::-•�_"T"`l.•'/i'�`•,.- .:= t: y��f.o•,i, i.. �'.` Pp ,;: �i� c
a a P
•O
0
.. c
r. 'a
L .off
e•.. v
L 'Y
I
,
ti S
D t
0
J
1 � P'i
\ •A
t �A
1 1'
o C A S~
R"1 F wf
e
/
r `l.
S
q I,
/ r
4
J
r � �' O J 'y . d r✓
J• r
•1 , ''.A l r
— uh.
J�
2
�..
E � i• - 4R A e
-'�V✓ NEWHALL ' •I
RANCH7 D,` 1 ' !r�?'f•�¢`�t: '(?yh �'e°•1i/:•�• % /
' 7 ... � _.F 1..�f : 1 _ - c � ATI LF '� �-,ic•,. �n - ',r 8 ;1 - T'. i-�::t��' Y.� ',J,�(�
� 1
:CI \ \
- r-
' a I.
ry ', - r• l t�
AT
VA
RI
c• -�dS '. - -- 4 , IT
O FS
SANTA CLA
R
ITA �-
rR
•1
o
0
--..rl•,.ria-
- r 4 M m•,a '�'
d 7,
T � n
t
� J
O
•.4r�' O F
-L
a
/ O
a
s
n " `r•
-1_
Y r
/ ~O
-P
ft I w,+••+
•s e o
rN
- 1
P <S
l
• f•
// •fir 'fib.:_% l't`• _
a. (•'
•wL� � �. 1 _ 1. �� A 7 P
1 t '
/ -.•A i
:� � i ,
) 3L VA
f� r .
/� l
.+.
R,
`s
x. C
V'/ L 1 1 - J37-
V,
A
'ri P
"l
_ nL
i
.y.
f' r
♦1`J/lp / /
J V'• t �I J .
'.a -� -ve Y c' '•,/•1 tem 4'e
-
T
w
Y4 i- / I a fir. ❑�-
_i -
�= t
,y _
h._
a'
=,r
is
_ r
.>M
D
•v-" ! ' V f I • l= rtl•w .
V I
9 , 7 1 o•
ts� _-'`�'�--'�� �ryL.. '�'L'v ,�1`...r <...r�;•Jl .7 :moi.' ,rr '�� P- � r~' `-.-,.�',.,�'- .;•� 1 "GG.�`'
�•.y �' /G Yl[µ/T�y`'�J' +`ri. cJ' _� i.rt ID„ �/-\.'''P •�\ -.'�„ S2-n��?7G^ •. �1Y�`% ��-�.L.a�f
3,5':�'ta���"��i..Se�h•.-�`-Ltc.�ru�,1f�� �.en7S'i:_. J.^•°v�_t ., .2_-� ,ir'-r. .. ^ , a.,.J• -:/.' tt-
lr ,
-
! S 1J 7
•a• W
Jin • _
r1
a.
.. 1
r 5t`
I - (Jy�
ti• I
_ in
V / ' ,,.J1
C P
J
.r
C
4
,
j V
- r
- ` � v
'A 74
is ��-:f -a
1\11,\\
- I - _:...>;.I,. •' e': • ::=2e _, '' - - •. •,- NATI NA FOREST
.t�.. - ANGELS
— a.;
e
ES ', � �J - •,•�
/_ •P f rr .-/ 1 -
r.
r, � I � V :.• ..�� O• " A j'L � _ U tib. 1 I .
_
...� �_.{ , _:r,'• 6 :fi 1.1 _ p �-,--Y.•:..� Y( -
` `J
r -}
o _
1
J'
i�
i
1 _
9 L /
3Y 5
! L
JJn
J -
,• N N OA
SOU
�T1
l i
.J]
0 ' - •L7 t �
c / 1
T'
W J'
L
a �
r —
\' I
_ � L
Y'
1
„ _ - •': -... _ __ __ __ _ _ ____ : _. } _ ..h .rte... . • _, •' _ !. 1
JL \ .. � u...A .......••••, ."•,� .. _r.a ..._..- !� .. 1. .., a CV,. ,.
t ! J
a• r s - - -
A •�'. 17
_ Z
f i• r ,
o er
1
,
I
_
_f
• 1_ 1
-
'i
'�n J
U-.
C
3 /
S •t
a•Y'r
I -
r � -
_
,
H
R• - -
r- P Y
til -
Q _
J -
1t ` rf
U
\ � i G•o j
_ C O
r�
�•r
d
- lr
V •' y1 `
L
N' I
1
G, -
D S'
r - -
1` I
N
_ r n
r' Z
J 7�
�_
+v t'
- ,-1
r. .
U ✓
+
,
,
I /
1 .
\ t
1
1
P
n
Y I
I r .• 1
. lA II -1
v 1
J'
S
` t
7 x
i�
J\"
! o
Y 1
}
V (
o
/
J�
•M1 _
_ ��ti - - � .:I _ -/ < , _ � • 5 err'-' , ,: r ^� D . ?�.:;:� I -
- E �'
,f I:
^� TL r e• *`
l
s 1.
I
I
(vim
r
l' t , -✓ 1
, H
1
J• L
a.r
•y Y J
`V
J •ti'
1 -
E
I -
7 - •'•Tb'�! of FS f•l � \t t 'i P _ _
-
- ANT • V - : 1.. .
,
'c
..� i� .CLAM u' _�o:'� :, I„ \. a. ..•,. \ :..r,,. ..l.
— 5
r
7.
--7
>
r.
R:
,.n
SO,
..
Cr.
• � - STATE
ROUTE ALIGNMENT
U E 1 26 STUDY MAP
J•
' E (
between Interstate 5 andd StateRouts 14 1
'r _ -
r .
` 2t
.et • . i /
t' 2
If 1
• 1Cs rC
l)
L . I
'�.• J -aJ l iU
/ C„q x501 EDAO CANYON aOAD E� I - IQ • � / _ P � ,;
-.(•'
O J
l e
RIPFR�. ^! + ,:e.• - _A -a�J: EXISTING HIGHWAY
O ,
• ,. CL'' \. Q < /i� /. nti•1 •\ P Il--�� //i -� to � / f,�, r�:
/W I
t+u,
1
UCTED N N TR HIGHWAY
W
U CO S AY
Q
v v
el
— - Y
PROPOSED EXPRESSWAY
\
foL
...
'l
'l
�:
.t_
I t�
Ll .'�
i SCALE
( •c � t ' \
, NCH O FEE P
ro,ec number: SM -139-1A
<:. (
S' t
\ 1
3 �
3 .L
' V 'J' - i
7 . 1 (y2i.� i "\
�o �. v i
G '
3 \
/ r
s '7
_
-
I
NORTHERLY BYPASS
ROUTE
4 -LANE EXPRESSWAY
(16.5 mi.)
1992 CALTRANS NORTH
ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVE
(9.5 mi.)
GLENN ANDERSON FRWY
INTERSTATE 105
(14 mi.)
COMPARISON CHART
TOTAL COST PER
PROJECT COST LANE -MILE
$ 850 million $12.9 million
$ 283 million $ 3.7 million
$ 1.2 billion $10.7 million
SAN JOAQUIN HILLS $ 750 million $ 8.9 million
TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR
(14 mi.)
COST PER ADT
(AVERAGE
DAILYTRAFFIC)
$27,500
$ 3,000
$ 8,333
$ 7,150
EXHIBIT E
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
PROPOSED ROUTE 126
INTERSTATE 5 TO STATE ROUTE 14
EARTHWORK
$150,000,000.
TUNNEL EXCAVATION
$175,000,000.
BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION
$ 56,000,000.
ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION
$ 34,000,000.
UTILITIES RELOCATION
$ 2,000,000.
DRAINAGE FACILITIES AND
WILDLIFE MIGRATION TUNNELS
$ 3,000,000.
FREEWAY INTERCHANGES
$116,000,000.
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE _ $ 536,000,000.
CONTINGENCIES $200,000,000.
ENGINEERING & SURVEY $ 10,000,000.
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS AND REVIEW $ 2,000,000.
RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION & RELOCATION COSTS $100,000,000.
ESTIMATED COST OF PROJECT $ 848,000,000.
use $850 million
EXHIBIT D