Described on pages 5-14 to 5-23 (PDF, 482K) of the report (PDF 3.3M) these are all some variation on putting the additional traffic somewhere else. In most cases (except for the I-205 improvements scenario), in a new corridor. A new corridor would open up new land for development and quite likely encourage sprawl and more auto-dependence, so I’m happy that staff is not recommending moving these forward.
Read the Ground Rules for CRC Week.
| ID | NAME | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | Q6 | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RC-14 | New Corridor | P | F | P | F | F | F | F |
| RC-15 | New Corridor Plus I-5 Widening | P | F | P | F | F | F | F |
| RC-16 | I-605 (New Western Highway) | F | F | F | F | F | F | F |
| RC-17 | New Eastern Crossing | F | F | F | F | F | F | F |
| RC-18 | I-205 Improvements | F | F | F | F | F | F | F |
| RC-21 | 33rd Ave Crossing | F | F | F | F | F | F | F |
Described on pages 5-14 to 5-23 (PDF, 482K) of the report (PDF 3.3M) these are all some variation on putting the additional traffic somewhere else. In most cases (except for the I-205 improvements scenario), in a new corridor. A new corridor would open up new land for development and quite likely encourage sprawl and more auto-dependence, so I’m happy that staff is not recommending moving these forward.
Comments have been closed and will be submitted to the project public record. If you have additional thoughts, please comment on the open thread for this purpose.