News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

2019 Orange County road projects

Started by MarkF, January 01, 2019, 04:16:31 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

MarkF

Here's a list of some of the major road constructions projects in Orange County for 2019:

https://www.ocregister.com/2018/12/31/2019-will-be-a-busy-year-for-big-road-construction-projects-in-orange-county/

405 Freeway from State Route 73 to the 605 Freeway - lanes added
5 Freeway from State Route 55 to State Route 57 - carpool lanes added
5 Freeway from State Route 73 to El Toro Road - lanes added
Oso Parkway Bridge - connecting the south end of CA241 and Los Patrones Pkwy
Orange Crush (5/22/57 interchange) modifications:
https://www.ocregister.com/2018/12/28/the-orange-crush-is-finally-getting-a-fix-thankfully/
Southbound 405 Freeway from Sand Canyon Avenue to Jamboree Road in Irvine - aux lanes added


sparker

Quote from: MarkF on January 01, 2019, 04:16:31 AM
Here's a list of some of the major road constructions projects in Orange County for 2019:

https://www.ocregister.com/2018/12/31/2019-will-be-a-busy-year-for-big-road-construction-projects-in-orange-county/

405 Freeway from State Route 73 to the 605 Freeway - lanes added
5 Freeway from State Route 55 to State Route 57 - carpool lanes added
5 Freeway from State Route 73 to El Toro Road - lanes added
Oso Parkway Bridge - connecting the south end of CA241 and Los Patrones Pkwy
Orange Crush (5/22/57 interchange) modifications:
https://www.ocregister.com/2018/12/28/the-orange-crush-is-finally-getting-a-fix-thankfully/
Southbound 405 Freeway from Sand Canyon Avenue to Jamboree Road in Irvine - aux lanes added

What is really needed within the Orange Crush complex is a replacement of the "hook" ramp from EB 22 to NB 57 by a flyover; the present ramp could conceivably be retained for EB 22 to NB I-5 traffic, as that is an obtuse angle that will find less intrinsic usage.  As a former OC resident, improvements to the 22>57 movement are long overdue.  What is being currently proposed is merely a stopgap or "band-aid" approach. 

Occidental Tourist

#2
Quote from: sparker on January 03, 2019, 01:44:01 AM
What is really needed within the Orange Crush complex is a replacement of the "hook" ramp from EB 22 to NB 57 by a flyover; the present ramp could conceivably be retained for EB 22 to NB I-5 traffic, as that is an obtuse angle that will find less intrinsic usage.  As a former OC resident, improvements to the 22>57 movement are long overdue.  What is being currently proposed is merely a stopgap or "band-aid" approach. 
Yes, just the other evening as I was transitioning from the 22 West to the 57 North during rush hour, I enjoyed watching (participating in?) the mad dash of folks weaving from the right lane of that button-hook connector from the 22 East to the left lanes that connect to the 5 North.

The plans for fixing the 22 interchange include adding another lane to the button hook.  Not sure how that doesn't exacerbate the weaving issue. Once it's finished, some of the crazier drivers can try a three-lane change in 1,000 feet instead of just a two-lane change.


djsekani

Quote from: Occidental Tourist on January 03, 2019, 10:58:46 AM
Quote from: sparker on January 03, 2019, 01:44:01 AM
What is really needed within the Orange Crush complex is a replacement of the "hook" ramp from EB 22 to NB 57 by a flyover; the present ramp could conceivably be retained for EB 22 to NB I-5 traffic, as that is an obtuse angle that will find less intrinsic usage.  As a former OC resident, improvements to the 22>57 movement are long overdue.  What is being currently proposed is merely a stopgap or "band-aid" approach. 
Yes, just the other evening as I was transitioning from the 22 West to the 57 North during rush hour, I enjoyed watching (participating in?) the mad dash of folks weaving from the right lane of that button-hook connector from the 22 East to the left lanes that connect to the 5 North.

The plans for fixing the 22 interchange include adding another lane to the button hook.  Not sure how that doesn't exacerbate the weaving issue. Once it's finished, some of the crazier drivers can try a three-lane change in 1,000 feet instead of just a two-lane change.

A flyover ramp from the 22 East to I-5 North seems like a better option, it would eliminate the weaving on the current ramp. As for the other issue, the last-minute lane jumping, I don't know if that has an engineering solution.

Occidental Tourist

Quote from: djsekani on January 04, 2019, 10:30:30 AM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on January 03, 2019, 10:58:46 AM
Quote from: sparker on January 03, 2019, 01:44:01 AM
What is really needed within the Orange Crush complex is a replacement of the "hook" ramp from EB 22 to NB 57 by a flyover; the present ramp could conceivably be retained for EB 22 to NB I-5 traffic, as that is an obtuse angle that will find less intrinsic usage.  As a former OC resident, improvements to the 22>57 movement are long overdue.  What is being currently proposed is merely a stopgap or "band-aid" approach. 
Yes, just the other evening as I was transitioning from the 22 West to the 57 North during rush hour, I enjoyed watching (participating in?) the mad dash of folks weaving from the right lane of that button-hook connector from the 22 East to the left lanes that connect to the 5 North.

The plans for fixing the 22 interchange include adding another lane to the button hook.  Not sure how that doesn't exacerbate the weaving issue. Once it's finished, some of the crazier drivers can try a three-lane change in 1,000 feet instead of just a two-lane change.

A flyover ramp from the 22 East to I-5 North seems like a better option, it would eliminate the weaving on the current ramp. As for the other issue, the last-minute lane jumping, I don't know if that has an engineering solution.

If they built a direct flyover to the 5 north as you suggest, they could build a barrier between the lanes coming off the button hook and the lanes coming from the 22 West. This would leave the option for the lanes coming from the 22 West to take either the 5 or 57 North, and a barrier would force the button hook lanes to stay right onto the 57 North.

sparker

The design of the entire Orange Crush interchange is weird; the "button hook" ramp from EB 22 to NB 5/57 is just the weirdest of that weird!  I'm having 2nd thoughts about retaining that ramp for any reason if a flyover were constructed; traffic heading to I-5 north (not that there's an overwhelming amount of that, being an obtuse angle as I previously iterated) still would have to cross NB 5>NB 57 traffic to get over to the I-5 slip ramp, which has been part of the overall problem.  Better to simply spend the extra $$ and split the flyover into 2 through lanes to CA 57 and a single lane to I-5 and raze the buttonhook.   Even with the obtuse EB 22>NB 5 angle (and the reverse-direction movement) there is some traffic for that movement due to the lack of any N-S freeways until one gets to I-605 considerably to the west (courtesy of the 1976 elimination of the CA 39 freeway plans), so a connection is necessary there. 

Occidental Tourist

#6
Quote from: sparker on January 05, 2019, 02:08:16 PM
The design of the entire Orange Crush interchange is weird; the "button hook" ramp from EB 22 to NB 5/57 is just the weirdest of that weird!  I'm having 2nd thoughts about retaining that ramp for any reason if a flyover were constructed; traffic heading to I-5 north (not that there's an overwhelming amount of that, being an obtuse angle as I previously iterated) still would have to cross NB 5>NB 57 traffic to get over to the I-5 slip ramp, which has been part of the overall problem.  Better to simply spend the extra $$ and split the flyover into 2 through lanes to CA 57 and a single lane to I-5 and raze the buttonhook.   Even with the obtuse EB 22>NB 5 angle (and the reverse-direction movement) there is some traffic for that movement due to the lack of any N-S freeways until one gets to I-605 considerably to the west (courtesy of the 1976 elimination of the CA 39 freeway plans), so a connection is necessary there. 
I'm guessing you've hit the nail on the head.  At the time it was built the only movement part of that button hook was the 315 degree movement from the 22 East to the 5 North.  What was then a low volume movement plus dealing with being penned in by La Veta Avenue to the north probably explains why engineers chose that over a direct flyover.



As for another fix to prevent weaving without building a new flyover, there's enough room in the median under the La Veta Avenue bridge between the transition lanes from the 22 and the 5 North mainline that you could braid a dedicated ramp for 22 East to 5 North traffic off the button hook.  The ramp would start on the southernmost lane of the upper end of the button hook, travel west over the transition lanes from the 22 West, touch down in the median between the 5 mainline and the transition lanes, travel under the La Veta Avenue bridge, and then merge back into the 5 North split off the 22 transition lanes.

MarkF

Here's some detail on the Orange Crush horseshoe curve reconfiguration, there will be separate exits for I-5 south and northbound from eastbound 22:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/d12/alerts/22/Horseshoe/index.html

Seems like the Bristol and City Drive onramps would be limited to I-5 access only.

Plutonic Panda


sparker

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 01, 2019, 02:57:06 AM
I thought there was a thread about the 241 to 91 express lane connector.

https://www.ocregister.com/2019/05/22/transit-agencies-in-orange-riverside-counties-headed-for-showdown-over-241-91-toll-lane-connection/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Much of the problem here lies not only with issues between the separate agencies responsible for the toll facilities but also between Caltrans districts, since OC was split off decades back into its own Caltrans district (D12).  That district, in conjunction with OCTA, has tended to function as if it were an autonomous and isolated entity -- i.e., it goes its own way and often doesn't "play well with others".  The 91 express lanes, which for years simply ended at the county line east of the 241 interchange, have been extended east to and past I-15 in Corona -- but now that the governing body for those lanes also crosses county lines there is conflict with their "cousins" within OCTA, which governs the other toll roads (241, 261, 133).  OCTA's concern is what happens within their jurisdiction; their goal is to ameliorate the traffic jams on NB 241 by allowing a hunk of that traffic to segue directly onto the 91 traffic lanes, located on the inside of the 91 freeway (requiring a pair of flyovers and some rather extensive interchange reconstruction to accommodate the additional overall facility width at the junction point).  But the problem is that right now the general-purpose EB 91 lanes "filter" this extra traffic coming off 241, which must keep merging left on them over a few miles in order to get to the next access point for the EB 91 express lanes; while hardly efficient by any means and resulting in an overall slowdown of traffic (to be fair, hardly noticeable at the 10-15 mph speeds encountered during commute times!), so far the current process has kept the express lanes flowing relatively well (not all traffic can or does complete the toll-road-to-toll-road transition requiring a series of 4-5 leftward lane changes; the remainder remains within the overall GP lanes).  What the Riverside County representatives on the panel fear is direct dumping of 2 lanes of 241 traffic onto the express lanes -- which, after the toll-to-toll direct merge, are also just two lanes -- i.e., potentially twice the traffic seen currently -- with no further room for toll-lane expansion through Corona.   It's a matter of conflicting agendas -- both OCTA and D12 want to solve their backup issues on NB 241; the 91 toll road folks and D8 want to avoid adding to their own problem further eastward at or near the 91/15 interchange. 

Now -- much of the EB 91 backup comes from that toll traffic having to merge with general lanes onto I-15, particularly northward into Norco and Ontario, where much of the housing development that addresses commuters coming out of OC is situated.  Effecting that merge causes EB back up on all lanes, toll or general-purpose.  The plan is now to construct a direct EB 91>NB 15 toll-lane ramp in conjunction with the construction of toll lanes in the median of I-15 north to Ontario; this should have the effect of lessening the backup by bypassing the backup endemic to merging with the 3 lanes of NB I-15 general-purpose traffic.  But the timeframe for doing this lags behind the projected timeframe for the 241>91 direct toll merge -- it's felt that EB 91 toll traffic will, for a time, become much worse until the 91>15 direct-access project is on line.  This conflict could be resolved by coordinating efforts of both projects so that they open to traffic as a single unit.  But the "go it alone" attitude within OC entities ("take care of our own problems first") has stymied such coordination.  This'll have to be resolved to avoid having EB 91 between Anaheim Hills and I-15 become much worse (if one has ever used that route during commute hours, it's difficult to imagine it being more difficult than it is!) than ever.   

Similar issues between D12 and D7 delayed the I-5 upgrades from Buena Park to Downey for years -- but that was eventually resolved; they didn't have the added burden of separate toll agencies creating a dysfunctional "sideshow". 

Plutonic Panda

^^^^ favoritism of commuting corridors is not the modus operandi you'd expect from those that would ensure regional and statewide mobility.

mrsman

The problems with 241/91 issues seem so short sighted.

241 (and nearby toll roads) was largely created as a way to get from Irvine, which has a significant share of OC jobs (particularly in the tech sector), to Riverside County.  It largely took some traffic off 55 and provided a significant shortcut in mileage as well.  IMO, the best way to address the problem would be for EB express lanes to merge to a single lane right where the 91 and 55 traffic comes in, expanding to two lanes when 241 joins in.  The traffic flow issues can be corrected by raising the toll higher, but I don't believe this would be significant.

TheStranger

Speaking of 241, what is the progress of the extension on the southern end (Los Patrones Parkway)?  Is there a definitive southern terminus for that yet?
Chris Sampang

Occidental Tourist

Cow Camp Road will be the final terminus.  Once it was determined that Los Patrones Parkway would not be a part of the Eastern Toll Road, consideration of a crossing over San Juan Creek was abandoned and the road was treated thereafter as a local access road for Rancho Mission Viejo and San Juan Capistrano residents rather than as a regional arterial.

Plutonic Panda

^^^^ I thought there were still studies underway to determine a possible routing to I-5? If that is dead throw that into another extremely stupid move in California.

TheStranger

Quote from: Occidental Tourist on June 02, 2019, 03:01:31 PM
Cow Camp Road will be the final terminus.  Once it was determined that Los Patrones Parkway would not be a part of the Eastern Toll Road, consideration of a crossing over San Juan Creek was abandoned and the road was treated thereafter as a local access road for Rancho Mission Viejo and San Juan Capistrano residents rather than as a regional arterial.

How congested/slow are the surface roads from I-5 to the eventual end of Los Patrones Parkway (Route 74, Antonio Parkway, Cow Camp Road)?  I wonder if even completing it there would have a similar effect to if all of the ETR south of there existed.
Chris Sampang

Occidental Tourist

#16
The southern extension got sued out of existence:
QuoteOn Thursday, November 10, 2016, TCA announced the settlement of five lawsuits regarding the previously proposed projects known as State Route 241 Foothill-South and Tesoro Extension.
That killed the prior San Juan Creek alignment.  Other options for a connection were being studied but have faced significant opposition.

One idea to which the toll road authority has retrenched and the City of San Clemente is pushing is toll lanes on I-5 along with a possible extension of Las Patrones Parkway to Avenida La Pata being considered (but the extension is possibly DOA because of the threat of further lawsuits):
QuoteFollowing input from the community and stakeholders, a new idea for consideration that results in a balanced solution to provide regional traffic relief to South Orange County was unveiled at the February 8 Joint TCA Board Meeting.

In response to public feedback and initial analysis by planners and engineers, the new idea would extend Los Patrones Parkway in Rancho Mission Viejo from Cow Camp Road to connect with Avenida La Pata prior to the Prima Deschecha Landfill. The new idea also includes adding managed lanes in the median of Interstate 5 from State Route 73 to south of the San Diego County Line.
A local school district said it would sue if any of three of the recently-proposed southern connections was selected.

Plutonic Panda

That sucks ass. Hopefully one day this country will wise up and build more urban freeway again. I get we need more transit and bike facilities other roads but this is getting ridiculous with nearly every proposal DOA in major cities that are severely congested. Especially in SoCal. Ugh.

djsekani

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 02, 2019, 06:10:35 PM
^^^^ I thought there were still studies underway to determine a possible routing to I-5? If that is dead throw that into another extremely stupid move in California.

To be honest there's no practical need for CA-241 to extend all the way to I-5 other than to look good on a map. Let it end at CA-74, no one past there would ever use that road, unless there's suddenly a huge influx of commuters from San Clemente to Riverside.

Plutonic Panda

Quote from: djsekani on June 05, 2019, 01:05:44 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 02, 2019, 06:10:35 PM
^^^^ I thought there were still studies underway to determine a possible routing to I-5? If that is dead throw that into another extremely stupid move in California.

To be honest there's no practical need for CA-241 to extend all the way to I-5 other than to look good on a map. Let it end at CA-74, no one past there would ever use that road, unless there's suddenly a huge influx of commuters from San Clemente to Riverside.
I could have used it many times.

sparker

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 05, 2019, 07:58:11 PM
Quote from: djsekani on June 05, 2019, 01:05:44 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 02, 2019, 06:10:35 PM
^^^^ I thought there were still studies underway to determine a possible routing to I-5? If that is dead throw that into another extremely stupid move in California.

To be honest there's no practical need for CA-241 to extend all the way to I-5 other than to look good on a map. Let it end at CA-74, no one past there would ever use that road, unless there's suddenly a huge influx of commuters from San Clemente to Riverside.
I could have used it many times.

Let's face it -- the idea of extending CA 241 south around San Clemente just to merge with I-5 (and add more traffic to that facility -- but by then not OC's problem!) was dictated by the presence of Camp Pendleton, which extends from the shore up to the ridgeline.  A more logical -- but infinitely more expensive -- solution would be to skirt Pendleton on the east and end up somewhere on CA 76 south of Fallbrook -- where it could disperse east to I-15 or west to I-5.  CA 241 would then be a true inland corridor (and not have to deal with the Coastal Commission, which was the original agency to put the kibosh on the San Clemente routing).   But besides the topology issues, OCTA and its often interlocked D12 cohorts would have had to deal with both the MPO covering northern San Diego County as well as Caltrans D11 -- and address the agendas of both those entities.  Obviously CA 74 over the hill to Elsinore cannot possibly handle tollway-level traffic (such as it is by the time it gets down to Oso); what there is (and has been for 21 years) simply dissipates onto Los Patrones and its connectors, Oso back down to I-5 as per usual, or simply percolates into the local housing areas.  OCTA/D12 are obviously weary of banging their collective heads against the South County wall -- so they're just going to pack it in; if they can't internally control the agenda, they just won't play the game any longer.   What is ironic is that the worst of the Santa Ana mountain terrain is north of CA 74 and currently bypassed by the existing 241 toll road; the stuff between CA 74 and CA 76 rarely peaks out above 3500 feet.  IMO, if they could build 241 down that steep gradient between Windy Ridge and CA 91, taking it further southeast around Pendleton would be at least doable (unless Fallbrook NIMBY's raise a ruckus).  But then it wouldn't be OC's "private" thoroughfare, with an underutilized stub-end tailor-made for the RSM and Coto elites!     

Plutonic Panda

Sometimes the raison d'etre(thank you for teaching me that phrase) of a road network should be just that, a network. One that is connected and not disjointed. California will never get over its traffic problem if they keep playing blame and lacking capacity– things they purposely do.

djsekani

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 06, 2019, 04:02:20 AM
Sometimes the raison d'etre(thank you for teaching me that phrase) of a road network should be just that, a network. One that is connected and not disjointed. California will never get over its traffic problem if they keep playing blame and lacking capacity– things they purposely do.

You don't solve traffic problems either by building relatively useless roads just for the sake of having a "network". The Foothill Transportation Corridor network could've ended in Irvine and been complete. The extension of CA-241 beyond the 133 junction has a lower traffic count than most of the surface streets in that area, and I'm still having a hard time coming up with a use case for the connection with I-5 that would be significantly more useful than current routes.

For what it's worth, I currently live in San Clemente and frequently travel to the Inland Empire and beyond to visit family and friends. I make use of the 241/Los Patrones stub since it's there, but I'm not delusional enough to believe that this is a vital link to the rest of the freeway network.

TheStranger

Quote from: djsekani on June 08, 2019, 05:15:29 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 06, 2019, 04:02:20 AM
Sometimes the raison d'etre(thank you for teaching me that phrase) of a road network should be just that, a network. One that is connected and not disjointed. California will never get over its traffic problem if they keep playing blame and lacking capacity– things they purposely do.

You don't solve traffic problems either by building relatively useless roads just for the sake of having a "network". The Foothill Transportation Corridor network could've ended in Irvine and been complete. The extension of CA-241 beyond the 133 junction has a lower traffic count than most of the surface streets in that area, and I'm still having a hard time coming up with a use case for the connection with I-5 that would be significantly more useful than current routes.

For what it's worth, I currently live in San Clemente and frequently travel to the Inland Empire and beyond to visit family and friends. I make use of the 241/Los Patrones stub since it's there, but I'm not delusional enough to believe that this is a vital link to the rest of the freeway network.

I don't know that part of Orange County well enough to have an opinion one way or another, but is the existing traffic using I-5 and Route 133 busy enough that 241 bypassing Irvine would make a difference?

I ask this because I think of the experience of the Octavia Boulevard/Central Freeway project in SF.  The demolition of the north part of the Central Freeway past Market Street and its replacement with a surface street in 2005 was specifically justified by the idea that the freeway's traffic was approximately the same level as surface streets in the area, thus not necessitating a limited-access facility.  Yet in the years since, traffic has steadily increased on the remaining segment of freeway between Duboce/Mission/Van Ness and Market/Octavia, with Octavia Boulevard itself being a bit of a crawl - in part due to numerous restaurants and businesses that sprung up in the old freeway right of way and in Hayes Valley in general.   I've always found it ironic that the biggest side effect of the partial freeway removal there is an increase in the utility of the segment between Market and I-80 that remains!
Chris Sampang

sparker

^^^^^^^^^
Tolled or not, the concept of bringing CA 241 back to I-5 in San Clemente was always as a relief route to I-5.  It was essentially to provide the same -- albeit on the east side of I-5 -- function as ascribed to the CA 73 toll road as a "relief route" for the combination of I-5 and I-405 from South County to Costa Mesa -- as well as be a full I-5 bypass until essentially out of the county (IIRC, the last mile or so of the proposed corridor straddled the county line).  IMO, this was a "sop" to developers of the hilly areas behind San Clemente; already a mecca for biotech companies, the toll road, complete with interchanges at the major uphill arterials, would be a selling point for companies looking to locate in the area (in a similar fashion to Rancho Santa Margarita further north on 241).  There isn't a significant San Diego via Oceanside-to-Riverside or Corona through traffic flow that would have been able to take advantage of a completed CA 241; that traffic has always been inland on I-15 and/or I-215.   The long-term South Orange County modus operandi has been to expedite both commercial development and higher-end housing to accommodate the personnel;  having only one viable freeway corridor (I-5) in that neck of the woods has always been a sticking point in that process (it still is the only viable freeway from San Juan Capistrano southward).  While served by both Metrolink and the "Coaster" Amtrak services, the traffic situation has more or less reached a point of stasis -- it's getting marginally worse over time, which hardly functions as a selling point for further development of the area (the local mantra, for better or worse, seems to be "grow or die").  But with more residents come an ever-growing number of NIMBY's, who have no qualms about using environmental issues to underscore their self-interest -- once their personal situations are dealt with, there's little desire to boost the developers' agendas.  So more and more development takes place while the access points to such remain static -- and eventually inadequate.  Welcome to OC, South County edition!   :pan:   



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.