|
| |
To: Brad Mitzelfelt – First Dist. Supervisor
Dennis Hansberger – Third Dist. Supervisor
Deborah Barmack – SANBAG
Michelle Kirkhoff – SANBAG
Ryan Graham – SANBAG
Gary Green – Caltrans
Mazin Kasey – County Transportation
From: Chuck Bell, Sec. – Lucerne Valley Economic Development Association (LVEDA)
(760 964 3118)
Date: 11/5/07
RE: STATUS OF HWY 18/247 PROJECT LIST – LUCERNE VALLEY
Results of 4/21/06 meeting w/Caltrans/SANBAG/County Trans. – 11/17/06 and
10/19/07 Mt/Des. Committee meetings. 10/19/07 Meeting notes are in Italics.
All correspondence re: the history of project requests - including those listed
below – some initiated more than 15 years ago – are included in LVEDA files:
SR 18
1. Impact of “High Desert Corridor Project” on Lucerne/Morongo Valleys.
(Following is an excerpt from our 2/4/06 request to Caltrans:)
Future improvements to Hwys 18 and 247 to and through Lucerne Valley are
critical components of the "High Desert Corridor Project" (major planned highway
from Lancaster/Palmdale area to Apple Valley). The "planning" for this project
currently ends at Joshua Rd. in e. Apple Valley – totally ignoring the increased
traffic generated by this proposed highway that will continue east through Hwy
18 in Lucerne Valley - and east/south to the I-10 via Hwys 247 and 62. In order
to obtain funding for these eastern segments, LVEDA requests Caltrans to perform
a "Regionally Significant Transportation Improvement Study."
STATUS: (3/8/06 response from Dan Kopulsky – Caltrans:)
“We not believe a RSTIS Study is feasible for this highway corridor. We
will support you, LVEDA, Flamingo Heights, and Yucca Valley as much as
possible on the proposed SHOPP projects on both SR-18 and SR-247. You may
also want to discuss your proposal with your local elected official.
(County Supervisor Postmus) and elicited his opinion.
We would be willing to meet with you to discuss your concerns for that
corridor, if you so desire”.
LVEDA’s RESPONSE AND POSITION:
We were informed that a RSTIS Study was the best mechanism to deal with both
current problems and the future increased traffic generated by the High
Desert Corridor project. We are willing to work on whatever is the best
solution, but recent meetings with Caltrans have not been very productive. A few
“SHOPP projects” will not likely mitigate the impact. The eastern highway
segments affected by the “Corridor” will have to be included in an
institutionalized “plan” to guarantee adequate funding for the necessary
improvements.
STATUS - 10/07 MEETING: No response. LVEDA reps. to meet with Brad 11/07 who is
on the “Corridor” JPA – include SANBAG AND Caltrans reps. - to determine how
best to get Hwys 18/247/62 east of Apple Valley – and specifically – the
following projects included in “Corridor Plan”.
2. 1 mile passing lane (4 lanes) between Lucerne and Apple Valleys and
realignment from mile 80-81.
HISTORY: A few years ago this was a SHOPP project (#40320k). Funding was lost
when the State absorbed transportation revenue. Project not reinstated on SHOPP
list.
STATUS: Per SANBAG: Project to be re-scoped as a “safety project” only. ADT is
not the current issue – bunched traffic/unsafe passing traffic is. Current focus
will be on turn pockets.
RESPONSE: Turn pockets must be an “immediate” focus. We request an accelerated
schedule for this “safety project” and a description of the process. Biological
data from the “West Mojave Plan” can be utilized to streamline the environmental
review.
STATUS – 10/07 MEETING: “This project is inactive, no longer on the District’s
priority list, nor included in the 10-year SHOPP Plan.”
LVEDA RESPONSE: Must be reactivated as a “project”.
3. Status of left turn pocket at High Rd.
HISTORY: Requested and “approved” in mid 90’s. Initially funded but Caltrans
lost funding during State’s budget crisis. Environmental, planning and survey
work done.
STATUS: Caltrans “committed” to installation in early 07.
STATUS – 10/07 MEETING: “Currently scheduled as an operational improvement.
Award project 6/08, begin const. 7/08, and const. 11/08.”
LVEDA RESPONSE: This is a critical turning movement for increasing traffic – in
the middle of a high speed section of Hwy 18 with increasing truck traffic.
Put-off way too long. We need this done in early 08!!
4. Resurface west bound lane between Lucerne Valley and
Apple Valley - damaged by heavy truck traffic.
STATUS: This is a maintenance project. Dan provided name of contact (John
Ashton).
RESPONSE: Instead of us “making just another phone call” - it would be more
effective if Caltrans scheduled this work. Some minor repairs have been done.
Needs to be accomplished soon so that vehicles don’t have to straddle the rough
surface on the right side of the lane.
STATUS – 10/07 MEETING: “Plans Specifications and Estimate (PS&E) package to be
completed by Dec. 07. Const. scheduled to start in summer 08”.
LVEDA RESPONSE: High level of truck traffic on Hwy 18 certainly generates
sufficient fuel tax revenue to warrant getting it done sooner. In addition,
paving desert roads in summer often results in poor surfacing – which is the
current problem.
5. Left turn pockets at Custer, Kendall and Tradepost Rds. - right turn lane at
Highland Rd. - all 3 projects in conjunction with County Trans.
STATUS: Numerous requests made over past 10 years. Caltrans is in the process of
updating its SR-18 concept plan. When complete, County to review it relative to
the LV Community Plan and these projects. County constructs some of the turn
pockets - Caltrans does the others - to be negotiated? Or County may have to do
all? (see below). Do w/ $230,000+ currently in County road fee account – and
remainder via gas tax funding? Not sufficient $ now. County to meet re: road fee
plans – possibly increase fees and/or regionalize plans – but they won’t
generate sufficient $ for these projects.
From Mazin Kasey’s (County Trans.) -10/4/05 e-mail:
“As you know we contacted Caltrans (a couple of years ago) to participate in the
turn lanes on Custer and Trade post. Caltrans agreed to participate and also
suggested adding Highland to the list of locations. Because of State budget
problems, Caltrans asked to defer the project, which we agreed to do. Now it is
our understanding that Caltrans does not want any turn lanes on Highland because
its not warranted.
Since the decision to participate is taking longer than we anticipated and
because of the needs for the turn lanes and also because this project (turn
lanes at Custer and Trade post) is an original Measure I project, we decided to
move ahead with the design and construction of these two locations and approach
Caltrans to construct the turn lanes on the other two locations (Highland and
Kendal) as their share of the project. This way we will not tie up the work on
the original project. Construction of the two turn lanes (Custer and Trade post)
is scheduled for Summer 2007. If Caltrans would like to include the other two
locations to our project we still can do that but we need to know soon”.
10/5/05 e-mail from Bruce Mahmoudi (Caltrans):
“I forwarded your email (above) to proper channels and received a response. The
County could through our Encroachment Permit process pursue the construction of
the turn lanes at Custer and Trade Post, however, there is currently no plans by
Caltrans to participate in the construction of turn-lanes at any of the four
intersections you mentioned”.
Mazin’s (County) 10/5/05 response:
“We will pursue our project (Tradepost and Custer) and we will prepare
some cost estimates for the other intersections. We can try again with Caltrans
later on but I think we can include these two locations in our new Measure I
and do it as a county project. I will ask our traffic division to see if
turn lanes are warranted for these two locations and take it from there”.
RESPONSE: We appreciate County’s participation in these projects. We request an
update on the current status and a Caltrans/County resolution on ‘who does
what’. Is “Summer 2007” for Tradepost and Custer still the current schedule?
STATUS – 10/07 MEETING: “Caltrans Headquarters has approved funding of an
estimated cost of $750,000 for the Custer Ave. left-turn pocket. The project is
in the development review phase. The preliminary schedule shows project award in
3/09 and begin const. in 8/09. The County is pursuing a left-turn channelization
project for Tradepost through the District’s Encroachment Permit Process. R/W
appraisals anticipated by 8/30, R/W clearance anticipated a few months later.
Environmental has been cleared and 95% complete. Plans are pending submission to
Caltrans for review. Current traffic does not meet warrants for left-turn lanes
at this time on Highland Rd. No project has been initiated.” (MISTAKE – L/T LANE
EXISTS. PROJECT SUPPOSED TO BE R/T LANE – ORIGINALLY REQUIRED 20 YRS. AGO AS
PART OF USE PERMIT FOR SHOPPING CENTER PROJECT – NEVER INSTALLED – AND WHERE
POST OFFICE CURRENTLY EXISTS W/NUMEROUS TURNING MOVEMENTS). L/T pocket at
Kendall – “Current traffic does not meet warrants for left-turn lanes at this
time. No project has been initiated.”
LVEDA RESPONSE: These projects have been delayed long enough (see above). They
need to be accomplished in 08 at the very latest.
6. Caltrans' plans for the ultimate R/W and number of lanes.
(between AV and LV):
STATUS: ? In light of the proposed “Corridor” project, what are the long-range
plans between Lucerne and Apple Valleys?
(within LV commercial corridor):
STATUS: (Per most recent Caltrans plan:? 4 lanes plus turn pockets (not a center
"5th" lane). Route concept report being updated. Approx. 100' total r/w (80 -
84' shoulder to shoulder)? Note: re: the increasing access points along the Hwy
18 commercial corridor (with numerous small parcels yet to be developed) -
SANBAG strongly recommends the policy of "shared and/or alternative access" via
a circulation plan – which was included in County Gen. Plan and Dev. Code
Update. Goal is to keep state highways free flowing as possible.
RESPONSE: Is this the current plan? We have heard a number of different
scenarios over the years. Critical issue for our community and commercial
land-owners.
STATUS: 10/07 MEETING: No Response.
LVEDA RESPONSE: Unless we hear to the contrary – we assume Caltrans’ plan is 4
lanes plus turn pockets??
7. Re-align Hwy 18/247(Crystal Creek Rd.) intersection to 90 degree approaches –
add 4 way stop.
STATUS: Numerous verbal and written requests. The few replies said “not
warranted”. Accidents continue.
RESPONSE: The current configuration of this intersection cannot adequately
accommodate the significant increase in truck traffic from the new Robertson and
Service Rock sand/gravel/batch plants - and increasing cement/limestone hauling
from the existing Mitsubishi/Specialty Minerals/Omya plants. Note: Loaded trucks
from the Omya plant and increasing residential traffic enter Hwy 18 onto this
intersection from the south off of Crystal Creek Rd. – with poor line of sight
due to the misaligned intersection.
STATUS: 10/07 MEETING: No Response.
LVEDA RESPONSE: This needs to be included on a “project list” now – and if
necessary with cost-share funding pursued with Lucerne Valley’s cement,
limestone and sand/gravel industries.
SR 247
1. Flashing yellow light on southbound lane of SR 247 north of the Elementary
School (during student arrivals and departures).
HISTORY/STATUS: Numerous verbal and written requests have been rejected – “not
warranted”. Dan was to confer w/Haissam. (No response). Gary Green (909 383
4825) is new Caltrans contact. School Supt. Jim Buckley and Bell again made
requests at 11/17/06 meeting. School District could purchase flasher – and
Caltrans install? Emphasis should be on southbound lane to warn long-haul trucks
etc. since the school is the first major “urban” development after 35 miles of
open road from Barstow. Caltrans previously mentioned alternatives such as a
larger sign/speed bumps.
RESPONSE: Speed bumps might help reduce speeds, but a timed flasher is the best
solution. Many other schools on state highways and county roads have such
warning devices. This site needs one too!
STATUS: 10/07 MEETING: “A Project Initiation proposal (PIP) was approved in
March 07. The funding and project implementation schedule are pending”. The
School
Dist. “heard from Caltrans” that installation would be “2011”.
LVEDA RESPONSE: The School Dist. may have to purchase said flasher and install
outside Caltrans’ R/W.
2. Reduce speed limit on SR 247 (Old Woman Springs Rd.) - from 65 to 55 mph -
east of the 4-way stop from the park/fire stations to Camprock Rd.
STATUS: There are numerous turn movements on this stretch. It remained posted at
65 mph just east of fire station long after Caltrans changed speed limit to 55.
(Finally posted 55 @ 9/06).
RESPONSE: Question remains as to Caltrans’ requirement for the full stretch of a
hwy to be posted the same speed limit – since a higher speed limit may be viable
on eastern portions of 247 to Landers and from north of Lucerne Dry Lake to
south of Barstow?
STATUS: 10/07 MEETING: No response.
LVEDA RESPONSE: We are asking Caltrans a very simple question: “Can a variable
speed limit be posted on Hwy 247 north to Barstow and east to Yucca Valley”?
It’s “yes or no – and why” Why can’t it be answered? In addition: East-bound
passing is currently allowed immediately east of the 4-way stop through the
locations of the library, Senior Center, Park, County and CDF Fire Stations –
resulting in high-speed passing at these critical turning locations. REQUEST:
Designate this portion “no passing”!
3. Numerous requests for left-turn pockets east of the 4-way stop at Post Office
Midway and Medanos Rds. - and a right turn lane at Visalia Rd.
STATUS: No current plans. Per SANBAG - “County to look into doing a circulation
study for Lucerne Valley, focusing on areas of commercial development”. Said
turn pockets are included as goals/objectives in the LV Community Plan.
RESPONSE: The circulation study must include more than just the “commercial”
area since these turn pockets are outside the commercial area and are important
for residential traffic as well. They are needed now due to increasing ADT and
truck/car conflicts. This portion of Hwy 247 should be included in the “High
Desert Corridor” Plan for future funding - with these improvements installed
well before the “Corridor” is completed.
STATUS: 10/07 MEETING: “Current traffic does not meet warrants for left or
right-turn lanes at this time. No project has been initiated”.
LVEDA RESPONSE: Totally unacceptable. These turn lanes must become “projects”
now – not just to accommodate increasing traffic – but to be in place when the
“Corridor” is constructed.
4. Road bed repair north of Rabbit Springs Rd. intersection to north portion of
Lucerne Dry lake – (replace expansive clay soils).
STATUS: No response. Expensive and apparently not planned. This stretch of bumpy
and uneven surface is especially dangerous for vehicles pulling trailers at
higher speeds – resulting in loss of control. Resurfacing alone doesn't solve
road bed instability due to shrink/swell characteristics of its clay soils and
the lake bed’s desiccation cracking.
RESPONSE: In the interim, we request "bumpy road/reduce speed” signs on both
north and southbound lanes to warn drivers of this hazard.
STATUS: 10/07 MEETING: “Caltrans has resurfaced portions of Hwy 247 north to
Barstow. However, truck traffic is wearing/rippling the north-bound lane on the
inclines.”
LVEDA RESPONSE: Appreciate the work. Significant improvement. However, recent
re-surfacing on certain stretches is not holding up well to truck traffic (which
begs the question – are trucks overloaded?).
5. Install flashers/rumble strips/larger “stop ahead” signs/larger stop signs on
west and southbound approaches to Hwy 247/247’s 4-way stop.
STATUS: Numerous written and verbal requests – with only minor response. Traffic
is increasing (particularly long-haul trucking) – with running of stop signs.
NOTE: This is the first signed intersection after 35 miles of open/unrestricted
road from Barstow and 45 miles of the same from Yucca Valley. In addition,
southbound drivers (especially at night) - focusing on the flashing light at the
Hwy 247(Crystal Creek Rd.)/18 intersection south of the 4-way stop – can and
have blown through this intersection.
RESPONSE: These are very simple and inexpensive measures that will significantly
reduce traffic hazards and collisions - and should be installed ASAP.
STATUS: 10/07 MEETING: No Response.
LVEDA RESPONSE: Very simple, low cost, and effective. Let’s just do it!
6. R/L turn pockets – north and southbound lanes – Hwy 247/Rabbit Springs Rd.
intersection.
STATUS: Required (in addition to road widening) in the first or second phase of
the proposed (and mostly County-approved) Rancho Lucerne Planned Development -
northeast of the intersection. It is unlikely Rancho Lucerne will begin
development in the near future. Turn lanes are currently necessary and warranted
due to peak traffic to and from the high school located east of the
intersection.
REQUEST: Caltrans initiate it as a SHOPP project, with “payback” from Rancho
Lucerne developer. Most critical - and an interim solution - is a right turn
lane on northbound 247.
STATUS: 10/07 MEETING: No response.
LVEDA RESPONSE: Should have been required when High School was constructed.
Necessitated by increasing traffic, especially north-bound trucks. Include on
the “project list” – with payback from future Rancho Lucerne development per its
conditions of approval.
|
