Overview

The High Desert Corridor

The High Desert Corridor (HDC) project proposes the construction of a new, approximately 63-mile, east-west freeway/expressway linking State Route (SR)-14 in Los Angeles County with SR-18 in San Bernardino County. This new freeway/expressway connection would link  some of the fastest residential, commercial and industrial growth areas in Southern California, including the cities of Palmdale, Lancaster, Adelanto, Victorville and the Town of Apple Valley. In addition to addressing the issue of growth, the HDC project will address traffic safety and support the growing need to move goods through our region.

The project is proposed as a means of improving mobility and access for people and goods in the rapidly growing Antelope, Victor and Apple Valley areas and will accommodate an expected three to six fold increase in traffic.

Goals of the project include:

• Address significant regional growth
• Increase east-west roadway capacity and connectivity
• Enhanced safety
• Improved connections between regional airports and efficient movement of goods

Background

The HDC was originally proposed in the 1970s as a metropolitan by-pass for trucks to alleviate truck traffic in the Los Angeles Basin and to facilitate truck movement from Mexico to points north and east. In 2004, the Metro Board adopted the North County Combined Highway Corridor Study that recommended strategies for addressing the high volume of truck traffic traveling north and south on the I-5, SR-14 and SR-138 Freeways. The HDC was one of the preferred strategy improvements for some of the following reasons:  

• The High Desert communities in the northern Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties are some of the fastest growing subregions in Southern California
• Both counties have experienced tremendous growth and demographic changes in the last 20 years
• The rapid growth has caused travel demands to exceed roadway capacity resulting in deteriorating east-west travel speeds for an area that is served primarily by two-lane rural highways

In April 2010, the Metro Board authorized entry into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the implementation of the HDC Project. Metro is working on an MOU with the High Desert Corridor Joint Powers Authority (HDCJPA), the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG), the State of California represented by the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Districts 7 and 8, the County of Los Angeles and the County of San Bernardino represented by their respective Departments of Public Works, and the Cities of Lancaster, Palmdale, Victorville, Adelanto and the town of Apple Valley for the implementation of the HDC. Caltrans will serve as the lead agency for the environmental clearance. 

Process

Study Process

The project development process is defined by federal and state environmental requirements. The following flow chart highlights the major milestones in the process from beginning to end. Currently the project is in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Report (DEIS/R) study phase. 

• Release of the Daft EIS/EIR - Fall 2012
• Public Hearing - Winter 2012
• Final EIS/EIR - Spring 2013

Project Alternatives

HDC Functional Alternatives and physical variations carried forward for further study in the Draft EIS/EIR:

• No Build Alternative
• Transportation Systems Management/Transportation Demand Management (TSM/TDM) Alternative
• Freeway/Expressway Alternative (Avenue P-8, I-15 and SR-18)
• Freeway/Expressway Alternative with High Speed Rail Feeder Service Right-of-Way
• Freeway/Tollway Alternative (Avenue P-8, I-15 and SR-18)
• Freeway/Tollway Alternative with High Speed Rail Feeder Service Right-of-Way
• Hybrid Corridor Alternative

No Build Alternative

This alternative consists of those transportation projects that are already planned and have committed funds to be constructed by or before 2035 (subject to additional requirements under CEQA and NEPA).  Consequently, the No Build Alternative represents future travel conditions in the HDC study area without the HDC Project and it is the baseline against which other transportation alternatives proposed for the study area will be assessed.  

Transportation Systems Management/Transportation Demand Management (TSM/TDM) Alternative

The TSM/TDM alternative for the High Desert Corridor (HDC) is a collection of lower cost roadway improvements through the project corridor that can be evaluated against the proposed project alternatives.   The TSM/TDM alternative focuses on improvements that connect SR-14 with SR-138 and then extend east to connect with US-395, I-15 and SR-18. The key elements that are under consideration for this alternative include:

• An eight lane, grade-separated freeway from SR-14 to 30th Street East,
• A transition to a four lane at-grade expressway from 30th St. East to 125th Street East,
• A four lane at-grade highway connecting to SR-138 and extending east to US-395,
• A six lane arterial highway from US-395 to I-15, and
• Minor roadway and signal improvements along SR-18 from I-15 to Bear Valley Rd.

Except for the freeway portion between SR-14 and 30th Street East, these TSM/TDM roadway improvements would maintain at-grade intersections with local roads and driveway access.

Freeway/Expressway Alternative (Avenue P-8, I-15 and SR-18)

This alternative consists of a combination of a controlled-access freeway and an expressway.  It generally follows Avenue P-8 in Los Angeles County and then runs slightly south of El Mirage Road in San Bernardino County; it then extends to Air Expressway Road near I-15 and curves south to terminate at Bear Valley Road.  There are four physical alignment variations that will be considered:

• Variation A
  • Located in the City of Palmdale, this variation would result in the freeway/expressway running slightly south of the main alignment, approximately between 15th St. East and Little Rock Wash.
• Variation B (south)
  • The freeway/expressway variation would run slightly south, of the main alignment between Oasis Rd. and Caughlin Rd. east of the county line.
• Variation D
  •  Located near the community of Lake Los Angeles, this freeway/expressway variation would run slightly south of the main alignment, just south of Avenue R, approximately between 150th St. East and 230th St. East.
• Variation E
  • Located near the cities of Adelanto and Victorville, the freeway/expressway would run just south of the federal prison.

Freeway/Expressway Alternative with High Speed Rail Feeder Service Right-of-Way

This Alternative follows the same route as the Freeway/Expressway Alternative (with Variation A, B, D and E) and includes additional right of way for a High Speed Rail (HSR) Feeder Service with possibilities of green technologies.  If a HSR Feeder Service is proven to be viable, its engineering and environmental analysis would be funded by others at a later date.

Freeway/Tollway Alternative (Avenue P-8, I-15 and SR-18)

This alternative follows the same route as the Freeway/Expressway Alternative (with Variation A, B, D and E) with alterations made in coordination with a Public Private Partnership analysis.

Freeway/Tollway Alternative with High Speed Rail Feeder Service Right-of-Way

This Alternative is similar to the Freeway/Tollway Alternative (with Variation A, B, D and E) and includes additional right of way for a High Speed Rail (HSR) Feeder Service with possibilities of green technologies.  This alternative would include a Public-Private Partnership analysis.  If a HSR Feeder Service is proven to be viable, its engineering and environmental analysis would be funded by others at a later date.

Hybrid Corridor Alternative

This alternative would consist of a combination of all or some of the previously identified alternatives, whose elements (TSM/TDM, Freeway, Expressway, Tollway and HSR Feeder Service) would be pieced together to best fit the needs of each section of the corridor.  The determination of which elements to use, and at which locations, would be determined based on the results of the traffic study, environmental studies and public input.

Back to top

• 
  Scoping Meetings 2010 (15)

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

View More Galleries