HomeMy WebLinkAbout5 YEAR TRANSPORTATION STUDY 1985 *NEW FILE*
5 YEAR TRANSPORTATION
STUDY 1985
INTERCITY LIAISON COMMITTEE
FIVE-YEAR
TRANSPORTATION STUDY
UPDATE TO 1990
(INCLUDING SANTA ANA HEIGHTS
AND JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT)
PREPARED BY
BASMACIYAN-DARNELL9 INC.
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
AL HOLLINDEN
June 1985
INTERCITY LIAISON COMMITTEE
FIVE-YEAR TRANSPORTATION STUDY
UPDATE TO 1990
Prepared by:
BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC.
4262 Campus Drive, Suite B-1
Newport Beach, California 92660
(714) 852-1006
in Association With
Al Hollinaen
June 1985
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DESCRIPTION PAGE NO.
EXECUTIVESUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SECTIONI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
THESTUDY AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2
STUDYOBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2
UPDATEMETHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4
SECTION11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
EXISTING LAND USE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LAND USE PROJECTION FOR 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . 11-2
COMPARISON OF 1984 AND 1990 LAND USE . . . . . . . 11-3
ESTIMATES OF STUDY AREA TRIPMAKING . . . . . . 11-4
TRAFFIC VOLUME PROJECTIONS FOR 1990 . . . . . . 11-6
SECTIONIII . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ALLOCATION OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY . . . . 3:11-13
PRIORITY SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-13
LONG-TERM TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT
. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-15
NEEDS . . . .
INTERRELATIONSHIP OF SHORT- AND LONG-TERM
IMPROVEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-17
SECTIONIV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1
BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1
INTERCITY LIAISON COMMITTEE FEE . . . . . . . . . . IV-1
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS IN INCLUSION OF COUNTY AREA IV-6
ADMINISTRATION PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . . IV-8
CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-11
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE NO..
II-1 SUMMARY OF MAJOR LAND USES IN THE
STUDY AREA IN 1984 . . . . . . . . . . . II-1
11-2 SUMMARY OF MAJOR LAND USES IN THE
STUDY AREA IN 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . 11-3
11-3 SUMMARY OF LAND USE INCREASE IN STUDY
AREA BETWEEN 1984 AND 1990 . . . . . . . 11-4
11-4 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED TRIPMAKING IN
THESTUDY AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-6
iii-i LIST OF PROJECTS, ESTIMATED COSTS,
AND ALLOCATION OF FINANCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-2
111-2 SUMMARY OF COST ESTIMATES . . . . . . . . . 111-14
111-3 PRELIMINARY LIST OF LONG-RANGE
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT NEEDS
AND COSTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-16
IV-1 TRIP FEES FOR THREE SCENARIOS . . . . . . IV-2
IV-2 AMOUNTS RAISED WITH UNIFORM AREAWIDE
FEE OF $60 (FOUR CITIES ONLY) . . . . . IV-3
IV-3 AMOUNTS RAISED WITH UNIFORM FEE OF $58
(FOUR CITIES PLUS SANTA ANA HEIGHTS) IV-4
IV-4 AMOUNTS RAISED WITH UNIFORM FEE OF $57
(FOUR CITIES PLUS SANTA ANA HEIGHTS
PLUS JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT) . . . . . . . . IV-5
IV-5 LAND USE FEES (DOLLARS ) . . . . . . . . . IV-6
IV-6 TOTAL FUNDS TO BE RAISED BY EACH
JURISDICTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-7
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE NO. TITLE PAGE NO.
1-1 ICLC STUDY AREA BOUNDARY . . . . . . . . . 1-3
ii-i INCREMENTAL DIFFERENCE IN TRIPMAKING
1984-1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-5
11-2 1990 TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS ON
COMMITTED NETWORK . . . . . . . . . . . 11-7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IC L C FIVE YEAR
TRANSPORTATION STUDY- UPDATE
BACKGROUND
in the spring of 1982, the inter-City Liaison Committee Five Year
Transportation Study was initiated by the Cities of Irvine, Costa
Mesa, Newport Beach and Santa Ana for the purpose of analyzing
short-term transportation needs in an area encompassing
approximately 15 square miles and portions of each of the Cities.
The study area is the locale for the most intensive development
to have occurred in the County in the last ten years. it
includes John Wayne Airport, Irvine Business Complex, and South
Coast Metro.
Since the completion of the study in mid-1983, development has
continued within the area. It is anticipated that the entire
�rea will continue to experience rapid, high-density development
in the future. Auto access to and from the area, as well as
circulation within, continues to be of major concern to the
Cities within whose jurisdiction the study area lies .
In mid-1984 the Cities of Irvine, Costa Mesa, Newport Beach and
Santa Ana authorized Basmaciyan-Darnell , Inc. (BDI) and its
subconsultants to update the earlier ICLC Five Year Transporta-
tion Study. Because of recent decisions about land use and
development in the Santa Ana Heights area (under County of orange
jurisdiction) and about future levels of flight activity at John
Wayne Airport, the' four cities have undertaken another re-
evaluation of the ICLC program, specifically to assess the desi-
rability of inviting the County to participate in the fee
program.
STUDY AREA
The ICLC Study boundaries have been expanded in this update and
consist of Warner Avenue on the north, the Santa Ana River on the
west, the San Diego Freeway, the Co3�ona del mar Freeway and Del
Mar Avenue on the sou�h and San Diego Creek on the east. The
study area is not isolated, but surrounded by similar urban
development. Changes in land use or in the roadway system within
the study area would, to a lesser degree, also impact these
surrounding areas and vice versa.
STUDY OBJECTIVES
The major objective of the ICLC Five Year Transportation Study
has been to develop a realistic five-year capital improvement
program, and an accompanying financing program, based on short-
range transportation needs and solutions. The processes and
techniques developed in the ICLC Five-Year Transportation Study
were designed to be� dynamic tools, to be used on an ongoing basis
by the cities involved.
In the present update, the base year conditions are those exist-
ing in mid-1984. The planning target year is 1990 . The general
methodology is the same as developed for the original study. The
update process involved the following steps, as set forth in the
original study.
1 . Update of existing and projected land uses.
2. Review of the status of circulation system improvements
including committed projects.
3 . Analysis of deficiencies on the basis of the updated land
use and circulation system improvements.
4. Reevaluation of priority groupings, costs, and funding stra-
tegies.
GROWTH IN FIVE-YEAR PERIOD
During the . five year period (mid-1984 to 1990 ) significant
additional development is anticipated in the Study Area within
the jurisdictional boundaries of each of the four participating
cities and in Santa Ana Heights. For purposes of this update,
the Airport is assumed to be at the level of activity
corresponding to 73 flights daily. Construction in office, com-
mercial, hotel, industrial and residential categories and the
expanded Airport are expected to add considerable amount of
travel demand in an area where there are already substantial
circulation system deficiencies .
DEFICIENCIES IN EXISTING CIRCULATION SYSTEM
The study completed in mid-1983 identified deficiencies in the
circulation system serving the Study Area. Since that time each
of the Cities has implemented or is implementing improvements
designed to alleviate some of the problems identified. However,
numerous deficiencies in the circulation system identified
GROWTH BETWEEN .1984 AND 1990
0
EXISTING
FUTURE
0 OFFICE
C COMMERCIAL
H HOTEL
I INDUSTRIAL
R RESIDENTIAL
Lu
ul
U.
uJ
z r
0 < u
co W
m
0
Z Z
v C) < I co
to co 10
0 C-i
0 0 co
x ir c;
Lu
L0
10
t: a N
Al so
so
40
V
fa ft
F, t2o co
10
0 C H I R C H I -R 0 C H I' R R
SANTA ANA COSTA MESA NEWPORT BEACH IRVINE SANTA ANA HEIGHTS
previously, continue to exist or have worsened since mid--1983.
As discussed in the original ICLC study, deficiencies can be
generally categorized as follows:
Freeways: Congestion on the San Diego Freeway ( 1-405) and the
Costa Mesa Freeway (Route 55) is experienced during peak periods;
at certain locations and at certain times the congestion is
severe. On the Corona del Mar Freeway (Route 73) northboun
motorists incur substantial delay at the junction with 1-405
during the afternoon, peak hour.
Arterial Segments : Congestion is observed on several arterial
segments in the Study Area because of heavy traffic volume (which
exceeds capacity) or operational problems . Many of the arterial
segment deficiencies are in the immediate vicinity of freeway
interchanges.
Intersections: Numerous intersections are considered deficient
on the basis of comparison of traffic volume to capacity, lack of
signalization, or physical features which present traffic
operational/safety problems.
Development in the Study Area is particularly intensive
immediately adjacent to the freeways. Therefore, the circulation
system deficiencies in the Study Area are attributable, to a
large extent, to heavy traffic demand for access to/from and on
the 1-405 and Route 55 Freeways.
COMMITTED CIRCULATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
The construction of several circulation system improvements is
11committed" . "Committed" in this sense means that construction
funding is programmed and planning is advanced to such a level
that the implementation of the facility within the five-year
period is virtually assured. Major committed freeway improvement
projects in the Study Area include the extension of the Corona
del Mar Freeway to MacArthur Boulevard; the widening of the Route
55 Freeway; the widening of 1-405 to add one lane in each direc-
tion, plus auxiliary lanes; and the extension of Route 55.
In addition, several arterial segment improvements and numerous
improvements at intersections ( including the addition of a lane
or lanes, traffic signal modification, or new signal installa-
tion) are in committed status.
FUTURE DEFICIENCIES IN CIRCULATION SYSTEM
The committed improvements are expect ed to alleviate some of the
existing circulation system deficiencies. The most significant
improvements will result from the extension of the Corona del
Mar Freeway, the widening of 1-405, and the widening of the Route
55 Freeway. Nevertheless, some deficiencies will remain and will
be worsened as traffic volumes increase. In addition, increasing
iv
traffic volumes will result in deficiencies at additional
locations in the circulation system. Future deficiencies (taking
into consideration traffic growth and the benefits of the
committed projects ) would be expected in the following major
categories.
Freeways: Without the committed widening, the existing deficiency
on the Route 55 Freeway will worsen significantly with the addi-
tion of approximately 45 ,000 vehicles per day (vpd) to/from the
Study Area. On 1-405, the committed widening will alleviate the
existing deficiency. The Corona del Mar Freeway would be expec-
ted to operate satisfactorily.
Freeway-Access: Access to/from the freeways will continue to be
a major problem. Significant congestion and operational problems
at virtually every interchange along 1-405 and Route 55 would be
expected.
Arterial Segments: Deficiencies along portions of Bristol
Street, Sunflower Avenue, MacArthur Boulevard, Anton Boulevard
and Main Street (throughout the Study Area) would be expected.
Intersections: It is expected that numerous inters'ections would
be deficient in 1990 due to heavy travel demand, lack of
signalization, or physical features which present traffic
operational/safety problems.
RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
To accommodate the anticipated traffic growth in the Study Arear
circulation system improvementst in addition to the committed
projects will be required. The list of improvements, presented
in Table 111-11 is similar, but not identical, to the list deve-
loped as a result of the 1984 update. The major difference is
that improvements in the Santa Ana Heights area have been
included. Other differences reflect the effects of changes in
traffic projections including the added traffic to/from John
Wayne Airport improvements implemented since 1982 or committed
for construction, and refinements on the basis of additional
recent information.
In addition to the committed widening projects on 1-405 and Route
55, recommended freeway-related improvements are interchange area
modifications along 1-405 (at Harbor Boulevard, Fairview Road,
Bristol Street, MacArthur Boulevardr and possibly Jamboree Boule-
vard). and modification of the interchange of Route 55 at Dyer
Road. Numerous arterial segment improvements and intersection
improvements are also recommended.
The addition of one lane in each direction on the Route 55 Free-
way between Dyer Road and a point north of Warner Avenue (the
Study Area boundary) , a committed project, is of utmost import-
ance for the study area. The northerly limit of the widening
should be at least as far north as the interchange of Route 55
v
and 1-5. The improvement of the Route 55/1-5 interchange is also
a committed project. The widening of the Route 55 Freeway would
be meaningful and beneficial only in conjunction with the
improvement of the Route 55/1-5 interchange.
The widening of the Route 55 Freeway and improvements in freeway
access at various locations are major items in the list of
projects ( as they were in the original study) . Improvements
along arterial segments, at intersections , and in traffic
controls constitute other categories of improvements.
Feasibility studies for analyzing major freeway interchange
modifications (along 1-405 and along Route 55 ) and for evaluating
the relocation of the northerly Airport Access Road on Campus
Drive are included in the list of projects similarly to the
original study.
Because access to/from the freeways in the Study Area (especially
1-405) is now a problem and will continue to be a problem, it is
recommended that the feasibility of major improvements of the
freeway access provisions be studied. For such a feasibility
study a long-range perspective would be appropriate rather than
the five-year time frame of this ICLC Study. Coordination and
cooperation with Caltrans , the Orange County Transportation
Commission, and the County of Orange would be extremely
important.
COST OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
The cost of implementing the recommendations is:
Improvements in Santa Ana $ 6,318?000
improvements in Newport Beach 332rOOO
Improvements in Costa Mesa 4,648,000
Improvements inIrvine 3, 405, 000
Improvements in County Area 1 ,290,000
Freeway Improvements 15 ,826 ,000
Subtotal for Improvements $31F819,000
Feasibility Studies (a) 300,000
TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . $32 ,119,000
(a) Feasibility Studies consist of:
1 . 1-405 Access : Santa Ana River to south of Jamboree
Boulevard.
2. Complete Revision of Route 55 interchange at Dyer
Road.
3. Relocation of airport access road and evaluation
of options for widening, Campus Drive.
NOTE: These are approximate estimates of cost. They are
not based on detailed engineering analyses and
evaluations. Right-of-way costs are not included.
Costs are in terms of 1984 dollars.
vi
ALLOCATION OF COST RESPONSIBILITY
Three categories of responsibility for the cost of implementing
the recommended improvements are identified. The following table
is a summary of the total cost by funding responsibility
category.
SM4MARY OF COST ESTIMATES
Total Developer Areawide Governmental
cost Responsibility (Developer) Responsibility
Responsibility
Improvements in Newport Beach $ 332,000 $ 332,000 $ -
Improvements in Santa Ana 6,318,000 $2,519,000 3,789,000 10,000
Improvements in Costa Mesa 4,648,000 795,000 2,873,000 980,000
Improvements in Irvine 3,405,000 - 2,465,000 940,000
Improvements in County Area 1,290,000 - 570,000 720,000(b)
Freeway Improvements 15,826,000 - 10,826,000 5,000,000
Feasibility Studies (a) 300,000 - 300,000
TOTAL $32,119,000 $3,314,000 $21,155,000 $7,650,000
(a) Fes Jibility studies consist of:
1. 1-405 Access: Santa Ana River to South of jamboree Boulevard
2. Complete revision of Route 55 interchange at Dyer Road
3. Relocation of airport access road and evaluation of options for widening campus Drive
(b) Governmental responsibility denotes John Wayne Airport
NOTE: These are apprcximate estimates of cost. They are riot based on detailed
engineering analyses and evaluations. Right-of-way costs are not
included. Costs are in terms of 1984 dollars.
vii
PRIORITY GROUPINGS
Recommended improvements are placed into three priority
groupings . Costs for the priority groups are:
Priority Group I (Projects needed primarily
to alleviate existing deficiencies) $15F553, 000
Priority Group 11 (Projects associated with
a specific development and needed primarily
to alleviate a future deficiency) 91111 , 000
Priority Group III (Projects programmed pri-
marily to alleviate future deficiencies and
with long-range benefits ) 71155f000
Feasibility Studies 300r000
-----------
TOTAL $32f119,000
( See Section III for further details)
FUNDING
Since the preparation of the original study, each of the Cities
has enacted provisions for collecting developer fees in the area
for transportation system improvements. These are:
Newport Beach - A fee of $85 per trip end
Santa Ana A fee of one percent of building value (Afe-K !t4,6/Tepe_-a)
Costa Mesa A fee of $58 per trip end
Irvine - The Irvine Business Complex (IBC)� fee
(approximately $250 per trip end)
In view of the existence of these fees, the Cities must work out
credit arrangements with developers in the event that a fee
structure for the Intercity Liaison Committee is enacted by the
participating cities.
The amount needed to finance the improvement projects allocated
to "Areawide (Developer) Responsibility" and therefore to be
funded through the Intercity Transportation Committee Fee
Program, is $21 ,155, 000.
A fee structure for the ICLC to raise a total of $21 , 155, 000
would be in the range of $57 to $60 per trip end, depending on
whether or not the County of Orange. is included in the fee
program. If both the Santa Ana Heights area and the Airport are
included, the fee would be $57 per trip end. If only Santa Ana
Heights were included, the fee would be $58 per trip end.
Without any County participation (and without those improvements
in Santa Ana Heights and those associated with the Airport) , the
fee would be $60 per trip end.
viii
From the viewpoint of funding short-term transportation system
improvements in the ICLC area, the inclusion of the County has
very little impact on the ICLC fee. Based on other
considerations , however, it is recommended that the Santa Ana
Heights area, but not the Airport, be included in the ICLC fee
program. The reasons for this recommendations are:
- The inclusion of Santa Ana Heights in the fee program
would put the entire area on a equal footing from the
perspective of attractiveness for development. (This
consideration does not apply to the Airport, since the
level of activity at the Airport is not contingent on
development pressure. )
- The inclusion of Santa Ana Heights would make it possible
to implement some of the improvements cooperatively and
more efficiently.
- The participation of the County in the ICLC program would
strengthen the position of the four cities (and that of
the County) in competing for areawide funds with other
agencies for federal, state, and other funds .-
Each j.urisdiction will be responsible for raising and
contributing its share of the areawide developer fees, under the
terms of a multi-agency agreement.
FEE BY LAND USE TYPE
On the basis of an ICLC fee of $58 per trip end, the fee for each
land use type would be:
$ 650 per single family housing unit
$ 475 per multiple family housing unit
$ 750 per 1 , 000 sq. ft. of office space
$2,600 per 1 ,000 sq. ft. of commercial space
$2, 025 per 1 , 000 sq. ft. of regional
commercial space (South Coast Plaza)
$5,800 per 1 , 000 sq. ft. of restaurant space
$ 700 per hotel room
$2,325 per acre of industrial property
$1 ,750 per acre of warehouse property
Based on the fee structure presented above, it is estimated that
each the following revenue would be generated:
City of Santa Ana $ 7.,795r200
City of Newport Beach 893,200
City of Costa Mesa 6 , 600r400
City of Irvine 4, 500,800
Santa Ana Heights 11374, 600
-----------
TOTAL $21 , 164,200
ix
LONG-TERM CONSIDERATIONS
Long-term transportation needs in the ICLC area have been
identified on a preliminary basis and are presented in Section
III . The estimated cost of the long-term improvements is
approximately $86 million. The major portion of this cost is for
1-405 access revisions, including the exclusive ramps to serve
the Airport, as presented in the County' s EIR for Airport
expansion.
As the short-term improvements in the ICLC program are
implemented, long-term implications should be taken into
consideration. This will help avoid piecemeal construction and
right-of-way acquisition.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES AND IMPLEMENTATION MATTERS
It is recommended that each jurisdiction be the lead agency in
implementing improvements within its own boundaries. This would
apply to all arterial and intersection improvementse except that
in cases where boundaries are shared inter-agency coordination
would be required. Inter-agency coordination would also be
necessary in those cases where an improvement along an arterial
street crosses jurisdictional boundaries, such as Main Street in
Irvine, Santa Ana and Costa Mesa. in the case of freeway
improvements , the lead agency would also be the jurisdiction
where the improvement is located, with the exception of MacArthur
Boulevard at 1-405 . For this improvement, it is recommended that
the' County of Orange be the lead agency, with close coordination/
cooperation with Irvine, because of the implications in terms of
Airport access.
Freeway access improvements require a long time to implement.
Placement of the project on the State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP) in itself is time-consuming; planning? design, and
construction are also lengthy processes . Planning and procedural
requirements of the Orange County Transportation Commission and
the California Transportation Commission must be satisfied before
a project is placed on the STIP. A key element of these
requirements is a commitment of funding. It is recommended that
the ICLC make its funding commitments as early as possible so
that the projects with a long implementation lead time can be
expedited to the extent possible.
x
SECTION I
BACKGROUND AND STUDY OBJECTIVES
BACKGROUND
in the spring of 1982, the inter-City Liaison Committee Five Year
Transportation Study was initiated by the Cities of Irvine, Costa
Mesa, Newport Beach and Santa Ana for the purpose of analyzing
short-term transportation needs in an area encompassing approxi-
mately 15 square miles and portions of each of the Cities. In-
cluded within the area were John Wayne Airport, Irvine Business
Complex, South Coast Metro and the most intensive levels of de-
velopment to have occurred in the County in the last ten years.
The study, completed in Mid-1983t provided a list of circulation
system deficiencies existing in 1983 and deficiencies expected to
exist in 1987. A list of recommended roadway improvements to
alleviate the deficiencies was developede and the estimated costs
of the various improvements were itemized. Finally, financing
options for the implementation of the various improvements were
discussed, and an implementation program was recommended.
In Mid 1984 the Cities of Irvine, Costa Mesa, Newport Beach and
Santa Ana authorized Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc. (BDI ) and its sub-
consultants (Mr. Al Hollinden, Financial and Institutional Analy-
sis; COMSIS Corporation, Computer Program Development) to update
the earlier ICLC Five Year Transportation Study. The base year
analysis was updated to represent conditions existing in mid-
1984. The target year was also redefined as 1990 .
Since the completion of the 1984 update, the County of Orange has
adopted policies which could increase traffic to/from John Wayne
Airport and could increase development and land use intensity
within the Santa Ana Heights area located adjacent to and sou-
therly of the original ICLC Study Area. In the course of plan-
ning work for the Airport and the Santa Ana Heights area, the
County and its consultants identified automobile access and cir-
culation improvements for the surrounding area, which encompasses
a large portion of the ICLC Study Area.
in view of these decisions by the County of Orange, in April 1985
BDI and Mr. Hollinden were authorized by the Cities of Irvinef
Costa Mesa, Newport Beach and Santa Ana to update the ICLC Five
Year Transportation Study once more to include the most recent
development assumptions for John Wayne Airport and Santa Ana
Heights, to expand the Study Area to 'include Santa Heights, and
to analyze the financial implications of adding the County as a
fifth participant in the ICLC program.
THE STUDY AREA
In the previous two ICLC Five Year Transportation Study efforts,
the ICLC Study boundaries consisted of Warner Avenue on the
north, the Santa Ana River on the west, the San Diego and Corona
del Mar Freeways on the south, and San Diego Creek on the east.
In the present update, the ICLC Study boundaries have been
expanded, as depicted in Figure I-1 , to consist of Warner Avenue
on the north, the Santa Ana River on the west, the San Diego
Freeway and University/Del Mar Avenue on the south and San Diego
Creek on the east. As depicted in Figure 1-1 , the area within
the study boundaries falls within five separate jurisdictions :
1 . City of Irvine
2. City of Costa Mesa
3 . City of Newport Beach
4. City of Santa Ana
5. County of Orange
The study area is not isolated, but surrounded by areas of
similar urban development and residential communities. Changes in
land use or in the roadway system within the study area would, to
a lesser degree, also impact these surrounding areas and vice
versa. Therefore, for travel modelling purposes only,. an
"extended area" was defined in the original ICLC study. On the
north, in the City of Santa Ana, the extended area includes the
area between Warner Avenue ( study boundary) and Edinger Avenue.
On the south, in the City of Costa Mesa, it extends from the I-
405 Freeway (study boundary) to Adams Avenue. On the east in the
City of Irvine, the area from San Diego Creek ( study boundary) to
Culver Drive was included. On the west, since the Santa Ana
River is a natural boundary, the modelling area is coincident
with the study area. In the subsequent updates of the ICLC
study, the modelling area boundary has been retained unchanged.
STUDY OBJECTIVES
The major objective of the ICLC Five Year Transportation Study
has been to develop a realistic five-year capital improvement
program, and accompanying financing program, based on short-range
transportation needs and solutions. A comprehensive program has
been developed to accomplish this objective.
In the present update, as in the one previous, the base year
analyses assume conditions existing in mid-1984. The planning
target year is 1990. The general methodology is the same used in
the previous update. However, the Study area has been expanded
to include the area within the County of Orange jurisdiction,
known as Santa Ana Heights. As a corollary to that, the implica-
tions, financial and other, of including the County of Orange in
the ICLC program are evaluated.
1-2
own
Ir �m
dl Ift—Ww-"
§714
Wif
�Tj
FIGURE 1 - 1
ICLC STUDY ARE� BOUNDARY
UPDATE METHODOLOGY
County of Orange Environmental Management Agency staff has, prc-
vided information on existing land uses and five-year land uL
projections for Santa Ana Heights based on the Adopted Land Use
Compatibility Program for this area. Data has also been provided
for existing levels of automobile traffic to/from John Wayne
Airport, and estimated five-year projections. Several studies
documenting recommended transporation system improvements to be
implemented in conjunction with development in the John Wayne
Airport/Santa Ana Height area have been made available for input
to the process .
City staffs have provided updated information on transportation
system improvements . In particular, the City of Santa Ana
identified several additional improvements on the basis of recent
actions by Caltrans associated with the widening of Route 55, and
more detailed information about the access provisions of major
proposed developments .
Based on the inputs from City and County staffs, the list of
roadway improvement projects included- in the previous ICLC study
has been updated. The revised list is a composite of ICLC
improvements and the improvements which have been identified for
John Wayne Airport and Santa Ana Heights. The composite list is
intended to eliminate duplications , and ensure consistency, com-
patibility, and general adequacy to meet 1990 transPoration sys-
tem needs. It has been designed to facilitate timing coordination
and to optimize opportunities for shared savings.
To ensure that the short-range improvements identified in the
ICLC program are compatible with long-range objectives, and to
acknowledge the potential impacts of long-term developments such
as the Airport Expansion, Santa Ana Heights developments and the
buildout of the Irvine Business Complex, a preliminary assessment
of long-range transportation system needs has been performed.
Based on input from City and County staff a preliminary list of
long-range transportation system improvements has also been com-
piled.
This report provides a discussion of the changes in land use
between 1984 and 1990 , and the resulting increases in tripmaking;
the recommended roadway improvement projects to accommodate ex-
pected growth, and the estimated costs; a preliminary assessment
of long-range transporation system needs ; and the opportunities
and constraints to funding the five-year roadway improvement
program, including the implications of the County' s involvement
in the ICLC fee program.
1-4
SECTION II
LAND USE AND TRIPMAKING
EXISTING LAND USE
The existing land use information for the study area is based on
conditions in mid-1984. In the previous (first) update of the
original ICLC study, the staffs of each City were asked to update
the spring 1982 land use inventory compiled in the original study
to reflect conditions in the summer of 1984. At that time, the
County staff provided information for 1984 land use within Santa
Ana Heights based on data compiled for the Land Use Compatibility
Program Study. In this current (second) update, the data from the
Cities has not been changed. The County data for Santa Ana
Heights has been updated to reflect the recent approvals by the
County Board of Supervisors. John Wayne Airport has been
included at the level of 73 flights per day.
Table II-1 is a summary of 1984 land use for the major land use
categories within the study area by jurisdiction.
TABLE 11-1
SUMMARY OF MAJOR LAND USES IN THE STUDY AREA
IN 1984
LAND USE
CITY OFFICE COMMERCIAL HOTEL INDUSTRIAL
(Square Feet) (Square F eet) ooms ) (Acres)
Santa Ana 1 ,341 ,800 1 ,763,400 0 596
Costa Mesa 3 , 977,800 2 ,324f7OO 694 347
Newport Beach 3,826r200 146,100 798 39
Irvine 14 , 970r700 27r400 1 ,007 580
County (Santa 165,600 113,000 124 0
Ana Heights )
TOTAL 241282f000 4,374, 600 2F623 1561
In conjunction with the preparation of the Environmental Impact
Report for John Wayne Airport, traffic counts were conducted
along the internal roadway through the Airport in 1983 . An
estimate of the number of vehicles which were using the airport
roadway to bypass traffic congestion along MacArthur Boulevard
was made based on an earlier study conducted by BDI during the
preparation of the original ICLC Five Year Transportation Study.
Estimated bypass traffic was subtracted from the total number of
vehicles counted. The resulting County estimate of average daily
traffic to/from John Wayne Airport in 1983 was 17 ,650 vehicles.
To verify the reasonableness of using the 1983 tripmaking
estimate to reflect conditions at John Wayne Airport in 1985, BDI
obtained enplanement data for 1983, 1984 and the first quarter of
1985 from the Airport administration. The number of enplanements
had increased only slightly since 1983. During this period the
maximum number of flights at the Airport was 41 per day. Since
then the maximum has been raised to 55 . Based on this informa-
tion, it was determined that the 1983 estimate for airport-
related traffic would be approximately indicative of conditions
early in 1985. Airport-related traffic would undoubtedly
increase as enplanements increase in conjunction with the higher
maximum limit on flights.
LAND USE PROJEtTIONS FOR 1990
Land use projections for 1990 were compiled by the staffs of the
County of Orange and each City for single family and multiple
family residences, hotels ? office, commercial and industrial land
uses. The criteria for selection of developments to be included
in the 1990 projection are the same as used in developing the
initial 1987 projection. Developments included in the 1990 ,pro-
Jections are those which:
a. are presently under construction
b. have been approved for construction
c. . are currently in the planning approval process of
the County or the appropriate City with a commit-
ted completion date prior to 1990
The above guidelines for selecting developments to be included in
the five year land use projections were for purposes of ensuring
th�t the projections for Santa Ana Heights in the County and for
each City were based on compatible assumptions. However, it was
understood that the staffs of each agency would be required to
use some professional judgement in the selection of developments
to be included.
In most cases, the land use projections for 1990 in each City and
in the County area represent increases in development over the
earlier 1987 forecasts. However, in some instances the 1990 land
use projections are lower than the pieviously forecasted 1987
levels of development. This occurs in the projected office
development in the City of Costa Mesa, the hotel development in
Newport Beach, and commercial development in Irvine.
11-2
Estimates of future tripmaking for John Wayne Airport were
provided by the County of Orange based on information contained
in the Airport E.I.R. For 1990 conditionst the 39,500 trips per
day estimated in the E.I.R. to be associated with a maximum of
73 . flights per day to/from the Airport, has been used in this
study.
Table 11-2 is a summary of 1990 land use for the major land use
categories in the study area by jurisdiction.
TABLE 11-2
SUMMARY OF MAJOR LAND USES IN THE STUDY AREA
IN 1990
LAND USE
CITY OFFICE COMMERCIAL HOTEL INDUSTRIAL
(Square- Feet) (Square Feet) (To—oms) (Acres)
Santa Ana 41615 ,100 1 , 970,400 i , 475 567
Costa Mesa 7 ,945r800 3 , 237, 100 2,705 358
Newport Beach 4,714,100 166r800 798 41
Irvine 19,210, 700 27, 500 2t191 611
County ( Santa 488,800 347,900 424 0
Ana Heights )
TOTAL 36f485,700 51401 , 800 7r169 1577
COMPARISON OF 1984 AND 1990 LAND USE
It is expected that between 1984 and 1990 land use will grow
substantially within the study area. Table 11-3 is a summary of
the projected land use increase between 1984 and 1990 by juris-
diction. The most substantial growth is in additional office
space with large amounts expected in each jurisdiction. The
Cities of Irvine, Costa Mesa and Santa Ana are projecting sub-
stantial increases in hotels within the study area. Costa Mesa,
Santa Ana, and Santa Ana Heights expect significant commercial
development to occur in the next five years within the study
area. With the exception of Newport Beach and Santa Ana Heights,
each jurisdiction projects residential growth within the study
area.
11-3
TABLE 11-3
SUMMARY OF LAND USE INCREASE IN STUDY AREA
BETWEEN 1984 AND 1990
LAND USE
CITY OFFICE COMMERCIAL HOTEL INDUSTRIAL
(Square Feet) ( square Feet) (Rooms ) (Acres )
Santa Ana 31273 ,300 207, 000 11475 -29
Costa Mesa 3f968,000 912, 400 2 , 011 11
Newport Beach 887, 900 20 , 700 0 2
Irvine 41240 ,000 100 1 , 184 31
County ( Santa 323 ,260 234, 900 300 0
Ana Heights )
TOTAL 121692r400 1 ,375,100 4, 970 15
ESTIMATES OF STUDY AREA TRIPMAKING
The land use information is used in detail in the traffic
modelling phase of the study. The land uses are traislated into
tripmaking and the estimated impacts on study area roadways are
analyzed. Table 11-4 presents a summary of estimated tripmaking
within the study area, by jurisdiction for 1984 , 1990 and the
estimated difference.
Growth in land use is expected throughout the study area; there-
fore increases in tripmaking are expected throughout the study
area. However, development is expected to occur with greater
intensity in some areas than in others. Figure II-1 depicts the
increment of growth in tripmaking by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) ,
expected to occur between 1984 and 1990 .
11-4
mm mmm mum mmm
152 153 154 05 MT ma 41
LEGEND
XX— INCREMENTSIN ' 42
TRIPMAKING 0 4850
144 1)42
ws 148 147 146 143 5040 44
5330 0 0 0. 0
151 20475
3810 4000 4T
0
6L35
4090 J95 E
!0 02
us 59730 52 48
3520 0 0 12400
127 6750 137 139 150 0 1840
134 139
0 ok.,j W� 300 53 45
0 w 240
0 125 0 4902 1 0205 49
126 123 22 1 7820 "1 28920 0 54
30630120 126 1 0 117 0 061 59 50
42 Gil 54
023 860 0 63 0163 2210
& 114 115 114 to 12 56
112 us 31 1
Will n22 0 m 9 a 51
Sao 200
104 21850 '&50
4070
107 0 0 75
74 67 0
4670 AAQ 2595
146
106 05 50
71 69
94
2810 79 —40
93
at 92 so
0 7590
INTER—CiTY LIAISON COMMITTEE
FOUR CITIES TRAFFIC STUDY
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONES
(a) FOR ALL OF SANTA ANA HEIGHTS
FIGURE 11-1
BASMACIYAN-DARNLI.L.INC. INCREMENTAL PIFFERENCE IN TRIPMAKING
�zow 1984-1990
�Iellihl-
>
X,
TABLE 11-4
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED TRIPMAKING
IN THE STUDY AREA
CITY 1984 1990 INCREASE
Santa Ana 212,000 346, 400 +134f4OO
Costa Mesa 207, 900 321f700 +113, 800
Newport Beach 87,400 102, 800 + 15 ,400
Irvine 235, 700 313,300 + 77 , 600
County (Santa 34,000 57, 700 + 23,700
Ana Heights ) (a)
John Wayne
Airport(a) 17, 650 39,500 + 21 , 850
TOTAL 794, 650 11181 , 400 386,750
(a) Estimates of County tripmaking are from the Airport E.I.R.
and from the Land Use Compatibility Program.
TRAFFIC VOLUME PROJECTIONS FOR 1990
In the previous ICLC Five Year Study update, the land use projec-
tions for 1990, provided by the staffs of each City, were input
to the computer modelling process to generate 1990 average daily
traffic volumes forecasts. In this current update, only the
tripmaking forecasts for John Wayne Airport required significant
updating. In the previous studies, Airport tripmaking was not
assumed to increase between 1984 and 1990 . Based on tripmaking
forecasts in the Airport E. I.R. , Airport tripmaking would
increase approximately 21f850 trips per day between 1984 and 1990
( See Table 11-4 ) . To update the 1990 traffic volume forecasts
along the roadways within the ICLC study arear the additional
trip increment estimated for the Airport was manually distributed
and assigned to the roadway system based on trip distribution
patterns contained in the E.I .R. Figure 11-2 presents 1990 traf-
fic volumes on a roadway network which includes those roadway
improvement projects which are "committed" as of mid-1984. "Com-
mitted" projects are those which:
a. are presently under construction
b. are local projects which the City staff within whose
jurisdiction the project is located, is confident
will be complete prior to 1990
11-6
tz�,jjz r-
L;ii 43"
q
it 7111
fill
4M
lw�
44
.LEGEND
Vol— q'R,
7.1 L _q tlqn
F I
36 �i XXX - AVERAGE Dj
JAI 3
TRIPS IN THO S
m-a 4 0
%g 22
17 39 sp
37
;As Y .ala '%34gfq*-b_- 20
27
I kA a
&�Y4 aa
wig
Met,;
T4
UNA 7
62
A;
17 Al
21
'1,4 ,
Z L
FIGURE 11-2
BASMACIYAN-DARNELL.INC.
1990 TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS ON COMMITTED NETWORK
c . are regionally significant projects currently on the
County of Orange' s Regional Transportation Improvement
Program (RTIP) and on the State Transportation Improve-
ment Program (STIP) .
Traffic volumes presented in Figure 11-2 are very similar to the
traffic volume projections contained in the previous update
except for the impact of traffic to/from John Wayne Airport.
Traffic volume increases associated with the Airport are most
significant along Campus Drive, MacArthur Boulevard, and the
freeway access ramps. The impact of land use intensification at
Santa Ana Heights is not major because the 1990 land use
projections for Santa Ana Heights are very similar to those
contained in the previous update.
11-8
SECTION III
RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS AND ESTIMATED COST
RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
In this current ( second) update, the list of recommended projects
was developed using a methodology similar to the previous (first)
update. Specificallyt projected 1990 traffic volumes and the
previous list of projects were reviewed to identify additional
improvements, taking into consideration the incremental traffic
associated with John Wayne Airport. The list was also expanded
to include improvements in Santa Ana Heights, since the addition
of Santa Ana Heights to the ICLC area is under consideration.
The list of recommended improvements is presented in Table 111-1
along with approximate and preliminary estimates of cost and
allocation of financial responsibility. The list of improvements
is similar, but not identicalt to the list in the previous
update.
The widening of the Route 55 Freeway and improvements in freeway
access at various locations are major items in the list of
projects (as they were in the original study and the previous
update) . Improvements along arterial segmentst at intersections,
and in traffic controls constitute other categories of improve-
ments. Feasibility studies for analyzing major freeway inter-
change modifications ( along 1-405 and along Route 55) and for
evaluating the relocation of the Airport Access Road and options
for widening Campus Drive are included in the list of projects.
Estimated costs for the improvements were reviewed and updated as
necessary. In some instances, detailed cost estimates were
available from the Cities . These were used as appropriate.
TABLE 111-1
LIM OFF PRWB=S, ESrn-%TW COSTS, AM ALLOCATION OF FINAICIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Cost Allocation
Areawide
Reference Developer (Developer) Governmental
Number Total Cost Responsibility Responsibility Respxxsibil
improvements in Newport Beach a)
Campus Drive between Bristol Street
and MacArthur Boulevard(a):
install a median in area north
of Bristol Street and in area
south of MacArthur Boulevard to
reduce left turn opportunities (c) 1 $ 40,000 40,000
Campus Drive at Dove Street:
Install a traffic signal (c)(f) 2 100,000 100,000
Quail Street between Birch Street
and Campus Drive:
Eliminate parking and restripe
to provide one M left turn lane
and one right/through lane at
approach to Campus Drive 3(b) 20,000 20,000
Dove Street between Birch Street
and Campus Drive:
Eliminate parking and restripe,
to provide one M left turn lane
and one right/through lane at
approach to Campus Drive 4(b) 20,000 20,000
MacArthur Boulevard at Campus Drive:
Add a second EB to NB left-
turn lane (c) 5 152,000 152,000
Subtotal for Improvements in
Newport Beach $ 332,000 332,000
(a) Tvm projects from previous list have been deleted
(b) New projects
(c) Possible joint projects with County of Orange
M Governmental Responsibility means John Wayne Airport
111-2
TABLE 111-1 (Continued)
Cost Allocation
Areswide
Reference Developer (Developer) Governmental
Number Total Cost Responsibi Responsibility ResponsibilitY
LTprovements in Santa Ana
Main Street from north of Warner
Avenue to Route 55:
Upgrade to 6 lanes and improve
all major intersections $1,772,000 $ 361,000 $1,411,000
MacArthur Boulevard between Flower
and Bear Streets:
Eliminate parking on north
side to provide a third
travel lane 10,00o $ 10,OC)O
Bristol Street at Warner Avenue:
Add additional NB through lane
an Bristol Street 3 744,000 744,000
Bear Street between MacArthur
Boulevard and Alton Avenue:
Construct west side of roadway 4(d) 250,000 150,000 100,000
Bristol Street between railroad tracks
and MacArthur Boulevard:
Add third SB lane 5 100,000 100,000
Warner Avenue at Grand Avenue:
Add third lane in each
direction on Grand Avenue 6 234,000 234,000
MacArthur Boulevard at Route 55*
Add tJIIrd WB lane on MacArthur
Boulevard between SB Route 55
off-ramp terminal to just east
of main Street and lengthen SB
Route 55 off-ramp terminal 7 30,000 30,000
(d) Cost estimate revised from previous list
111-3
TABLE iii-I (continued)
Cost Allocation
Areawide
Reference Developer (Developer) Governmental
Umber Total Cost Responsibility Responsibility ResPmsibilitY
Grand Avenue between Dyer Road and
SB Route 55 off-ramp*
Install raised median B $ 55,000 $ 55,000
Sunflower Avenue between Susan Street
and Fairview Road:
Widen to provide one additional
WB lane 9 60,000 60,000
Sunflower Avenue between Greenville
Street and just west of Bear Street:
Widen to provide 1 additional lane
in each direction (M is within
City of Santa Ana jurisdiction) 10 533,000 $ 533,00b
Route 55 at SB Dyer Road off-ramp:
Reconfigure ramp to allow left
turns onto M Dyer Road 11 375,000 375,000
Main Street at Sunf lower Avenue:
Intersection improvements and
signalization. 12 200,000 200,000
Raitt, Street between MacArthur
Boulevard and Alton Avenue:
Construct new roadway to
Secondary standards 13(b) 350,000 350,000
Alton Avenue between Fairview
Street and Bristol Street;
Widen to Secondary standards 14(b) 550,000 550,000
Segerstrom Avenue between Fairview
Street and Susan Street:
Widen to provide one additional
WS through lane 15(b) 75,OOOL 75,000
(b) New projects
111-4
TABLE 111-1 (Continued)
Cost Allocation
Areswide
Reference Developer (Developer) Governatental
Segerstrom Avenue between Susan Number- Total Cost Responsibility Responsibility Responsibility
Street and Channel:
Widen to provide one additional
WB through lane 16(b) $ 180,000 $ 180,000
Dyer Road between Halladay Street
and Main Street:
Widen to major standards within
100 feet of right of vay 17(b) 300,000 300,000
MacArthur Boulevard between Greenville
Street and Bear Street:
Widen to provide two additional
WB through lanes 18(b) 200,000 200,000
Greenville Street between MacArthur
Boulevard and north of Alton Avenue:
Widen to Secondary standards 19(b) 300,000 300,000
Subtotal for Lnprovements in
Santa Ana $6,318,000 $2,519,000 $3,789,DDO $ 10,000
nnprovements in Costa Mesa
Bristol Street between Redhill Avenue
and Baker Street:
Construct as 6-lane major arterial 1 $ 766,000 $ 193,000 $ 493,000 $ 801000
Baker Street between Bristol Street
and Route 73:
Widen to provide three M and
two EB through lanes; intersec-
tion improvenents at Baker StJ
Bristol Street 2 120,000 120,000
(b) New projects
TABLE III-1 (Continued)
Cost Allocation
Areawide
Reference Developer (Developer) Governmental
Sunflower Avenue between Harbor Number Total cost Responsibility Responsibili Responsibil
Boulevard and Fairview Road:
widen to provide one additional
EB lane 3 352,000 $ 352,000
Sunflower Avenue at Hyland Avenue:
install a traffic signal 4 100,000 $ 100,000
1-405 NB off-ramp at Harbor
Boulevard:
Widen NB off-ramp from 1-405
at Harbor Boulevard 5 250,000 250,000
New 1-405 NB on�ravp near Harbor
Boulevard:
Construct NB orr-ramp to 1-405
from South Coast Drive/Elyland
Avenue. Close existing SB
Harbor Blvd. to NB 1-405
on-ramp 6A 140,000 140,000
Widen Harbor Boulevard on SB
approach at NB 1-405 off-ramp
at South Coast Drive (a) GB 80,000 80,000
Bristol Street at Sunflower Avenue:
Construct M right-turn lane
and eliminate median signals 7 100,000 100,000
Bristol Street at Town Center Drive*
Provide M right-turn lane,
extend NB right-turn lane,
reconstruct signals 8 100,000 100,000
Bristol Street between Town Center
Drive and Anton Boulevard:
Provide fourth SB through lane 9 200,000' 200,000
(e) Item addW to list to describe complete project.
111-6
TABLE 111-1 (Continued)
Cost Allocation
Areawide
Reference Developer (Developer) Governmental
Bristol street between NB 1-405 NmPber Total Cost Responsibi Responsibility Responsibility
on-ramp and NB 1-405 off-ramp:
provide fourth NB lane 10 50,000 50,000
Bristol Street on SB approach
to 1-405:
Construct overhead lane assign-
ment sign bridge 11 20,000 20,000
Bristol Street at Route 55 Ramps:
Add storage area and improve
signal coordination 12 100,000 100,000
South Coast Drive:
Complete South Coast Drive
between Fairview Road and
Bear Street 13 300,000 300,000
Fairview Road at 1-405 Ramps:
Widen Fairview Road overcrossing
to provide six lanes 14 1,000,000 250,000 $ 750,000
1-405 NB off-ramp at Fairview
Road:
Widen off-ramp is 250,000 250,000
Construct Connector Road:
between Anton Boulevard and Main
Street and install traffic
signal at Main Street 16 250,000 $ 250,000
Widen NB 1-405 Bristol Street
off-ramp and restripe DIB 1-405
near off-ramp 17 200,000 200,000
111-7
TAwz in-i (continued)
Cost Allocation
Areawide
Reference Developer (Developer) Governmental
Nmd)er Total Cost Respcnsibil Responsibil Responsibility
Del Mar Avenue between Route 55
and Elden Avenue:
Widen to 4 lanes 18(b) 150,000 $ 150,000
Del Mar Avenue at Orange Avenue:
Add WB and EB left turn lanes
and install traffic signal 19(b) 120,000 120,000
Subtotal for Improvements in
Costa Mesa $4,646,000 795,000 $2,873,000 $ 980,000
improvements in Irvine
Main Street from. Route 55 to east
of San Diego Creek-
Upgrade to 6 lanes, improve
all major intersections and
widen San Diego Creek bridge 1 $3,055,000 $2,115,000 940,000
macArthur Boulevard at Red Hill Avenue*
improve substandard SB right turn
lane 2 50,000 50,000
Main Street at South Sky Park
Boulevard:
Install traffic signal 3 100,000 100,000
Jamboree Boulevard at 1-405:
Provide free rtght-turn from NB
1-405 off-ramp onto NB Jamboree
Blvd.; improve Jamboree Blvd. to
accommodate free-right turn lane; 4 200,000, 200,000
restripe NB Jamboree Blvd. on its
approach to NB off-ramp to provide
third through lane
Subtotal for Improvements in
Irvine $3,405,000 $2,465,000 $ 940,000
(b) New project
M-8
TABLE 3:11-1 (Continued)
Cost Allocation
Areawide
Reference Developer (Developer) Governmental
Number Total Cost Responsibility Responaibil. Responsibility
improvements in County of Orange Area-
MacArthur Boulevard between SB 1-405
on-Ramp and Douglas:
widen to eight through lanes
(per John Wayne Airport EIR) W(g) 1 $ 350,000 $ 350,000
Campus Drive between Bristol Street
and MacArthur Boulevard:
install medians at selected
locations to reduce left turn
opportunities (h) 2 120,000 120,000
Campus Drive at Quail Street:
Install a traffic signal and
make intersection improvements
as necessary (per John Wayne
Airport EIR) (f)(h) 3 150,000 150,000
Michelson Drive at MacArthur
Boulevard:
Intersection improvements and
signal modification to
accommodate Airport access
(per John Wayne Airport EIR) (f)(g) 4 100,000 100,000
Del Mar Avenue at Santa Ana Avenue:
Add WE and EB left turn lanes;
install traffic signal W 5 150,000 150,000
Mesa Drive at Santa Ana Avenue:
Modify WE and EB approaches to be
one right/through plus one
left turn lane; install traffic
signal U) 6 150,000 150,000
M Governmental Responsibility means John Wayne Airport
(g) Possible joint project with Irvine
(h) Possible joint project with Newport Beach
U) Possible joint project with Costa mesa
111-9
TABLE 111-1 (Continued)
Cost Allocation
Areswide,
Reference Developer (Developer) Governmental
Njzber Total Cost Responsibi Responsibility Responsibili
Mesa Drive at Irvine Avenue:
Modify EB and WB approaches
to allow one right/through
and one left turn lane;
modify traffic signal 7 150,000 150,000
University Drive at Irvine Avenue:
Modify BE approach to provide
two left turn lanes and one
right/through lane. 8 20,000 20,OD0
Irvine Avenue at orchard Drive-
install a traffic signal 9 100,000 100,OC)O
Subtotal for Improvements in
County of Orange Area $1,290,000 570,000 $ 720,000
P�� Improvements:
On 1-405: Restxipe NB off-rang
approaches I Minor
On Route 55 add one lane in each
direction from north of MacArthur
Boulevard to north of Warner Avenue 2 $5,000,000 $5,000,000
Dyer Road at Grand Avenue/Route 55:
Revise configuration of Dyer
Road ramps along with recommended
widening of Route 55 and widen
NB off-ramp 3 450,000 450,000
III-10
TABLE im-i (continued)
Cost Allocation
Areawide
Reference Developer (Developer) Governmental
Number Total Cost Responsibility Responsibility Responsibility
New Ramps in Santa Ana-
Add SB Route 55 off-ramp at
Sunflower Avenue/main Street and
add orr-ramp from Sunflower
Avenue/Main Street to connector
Road frm SB Route 55 to SB 1-405 4 $2,700,000 $2,700,000
New ramp at Anton Boulevard in Costa Mesa*
Construct NS on-ramp to corr*
nector road from SB Route 55
to NB 1-405 5 375,000 375,000
South Coast Drive in Costa Mesa:
Construct NB off-ramp from
1-405 to South Coast Drive 6 300,000 300,000
1-405 between Bristol Street and
Route 55 in Costa Mesa:
Reconstruct SB on and off-ramps
as partial cloverleaf design,
including traffic signals and
any other work to avoid weaving
problems 7 600,000 600,000
MacArthur Boulevard at 1-405 Ramps in Irvine:
Add capacity on 1-405 overcrossing;
provide two SB left turn lanes
on MacArthur Boulevard at both the
SB and the NB 1-405 on-ramp terminals;
provide free-flowing right-turn at
NB 1-405 off-ramp; widen segment
between 1-405 and Main Street,
including NB free right turn 3,976,000 3,976,000
TABLE 111-1 (Continued)
Cost Allocation
Areawide
Reference Developer (Developer) Governmental
NAmber Total cost Responsibility Responsibility Res sibility
Janftree Boulevard at the 1-405 ramps:
Widen Jamboree Road as necessary
and widen 1-405 SB and NB otr-ramps 9 $ 2,425,000 $ 2,425,000
Subtotal for Freeway Improvements $15,826,000 $10,826,000 $5,000,000
Feasibility Studies(j): $ 300,000 $ 300,000
Subtotal for Feasibility Studies 300,000 300,000
TOTAL ALL EVENDITUMS $32,119,000 $3,314,000 $21,155,000 $7,650,000
(J) Feasibility Studies consist of:
1. 1-405 Access: Santa Ana River to south of Janftree Boulevard
Z. Complete revision of Route 55 interchange at Dyer Road
3. Relocation of airport access road and evaluation of options for widening Campus Drive
NM: These are approximate estimates of cost. They are not based on detailed engineering analyses and evaluations.
Right-of-way costs are not included. Costs are in terms of 1984 dollars.
111-12
ALLOCATION OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
AS indicated in Table III-1 . financial responsibility for the
improvements is allocated to three potential sources of funding:
1 . Developer Responsibility - improvements directly associated
with and adjacent to a specific proposed development.
2 . Areawide (Developer) Responsibility - improvements
necessary for the functioning of the areawide circulation
system but not attributable to a specific development.
3 . Governmental Responsibility - improvements that would be
expected to be funded (wholly or partially) by Federal or
other governmental sources.
Table 111-2 is a summary of the cost of improvements in each City
and in each category of financial responsibility. The total cost
of improvements is slightly more than $32 million of which
slightly more thin $21 million has been allocated to Areawide
(Developer) Responsibility. Governmental Responsibility consists
of approximately $7. 5 million, of which $5 million is for the
widening of the Route 55 Freeway between MacArthur Boulevard and
the northern boundary of the Study Area at Warner Avenue.
PRIORITY SYSTEM
The system of priorities cannot be very rigid because funding
will be dependent to a large extent on the schedule for
developments. Since development schedules are subject to change
(often and without too much advance notice) , the- schedule for the
implementation of projects must be flexible. Accordingly, a
generalized priority system consisting of three priority groups
is suggested:
- Priority Group 1 : This group would include those projects
needed now to alleviate immediate existing deficiencies.
Generally, the proposed improvement would be the only means
of solving an existing problem.
- Priority Group 2: This group would include those projects
that would be needed when a specific development takes
place. While the improvement project might help alleviate
an existing deficiency, its primary function would be the
solution of a future problem.
- Priority Group 3: This group would include those projects
needed to alleviate future deficiencies. These projects
generally would have long-range benefits beyond the five-
year period.
Placement of a project in Priority Group 1 would not necesarily
ensure that the project would indeed be constructed before a
project in P riority Group 2. The significance of placement in
111-13
TABLE 111-2
SUMMARY OF COST ESTIMATES
Total Developer Areawide Governmental
cost Responsibility (Developer) Responsibility
Responsibility
Improvements in Neaport Beach 332,000 $ 332,000 $ -
Improvements.in Santa Ana 6,318,000 $2,519,000 3,789,000 10,000
Improvements in Costa Mesa 4,648,000 795,000 2,873,000 980,000
Luprovements in Irvine 3,405,000 - 2,465,000 940,000
Improvements in County Area 1,290,000 - 570,000 720,000(b)
Freeway Improvements 15,826,000 - 10,826,000 5,OC)O,000
Feasibility studies (a) — 300,000 - 30dOOO
TOTAL $32,119,000 $3,314,000 $21,155,000 $7,650,000
(a) Feasibility studies consist of:
1. 1-405 Access: Santa Ana River to south of Jamboree Boulevard
2. Complete revision of Route 55 interchange at Dyer Road
3. Relocation of airport access road and evaluation of options for widening Campus Drive
(b) Gove=rental responsibility denotes John Wayne Airport
NOTE: These are approximate estimates of cost. They are not based on detailed
engineering analyses and evaluations. Right-of-way costs are not
inclu6ed. Costs are in term of 1984 dollars.
111-14
Priority Group 1 would be that the implementation process would
begin before projects in other groups.
A preliminary allocation of projects to the three priority groups
has been made. The total cost of projects by priority group is :
Priority Group cost.
1 $15, 553, 000
2 9 ,111 ,000
3 7 ,155tOOO
Feasibility Studies 300 ,000
TOTAL $32 ,119 ,000
LONG-TERM TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT NEEDS
The focus of the ICLC study is the short-term futuret the five-
year period between 1985 and 1990 and the transportation system
improvements that would be needed during this period. Travel
demand in the area will continue to increase beyond .the five-year
period because of further intensification of development.
Accordingly, long-term transportation system improvements will be
required over and above those identified for the Year 1990.
The City of Irvine has made extensive studies of long-term growth
and development, including the Irvine Business Complex
Circulation Study and the Freeway Access Study. In addition, the
Orange County Environmental Management Agency has -evaluated long-
term transportation system improvement needs in conjunction with
planning work for John Wayne Airport and Santa Ana Heights area.
The Cities of Santa Ana, Newport Beach and Costa Mesa have also
evaluated long-term needs in their respective jurisdictions in
conjunction with specific development proposals and cumulative
traffic volume projections.
Based on this prior transportation planning work, a preliminary
list of long-range transportation improvement needs has been
compiled. The intent of this list, presented as Table 111-3 , is
to provide a general indication of long-term needs and the magni-
tude of cost (in terms of today's dollars) of implementing these
improvements. Continuing analysis by the individual agencies and
ongoing periodic updates by the ICLC will provide refinements to
the list of long-term improvements.
TABLE 111-3
PRELIMINARY LIST OF LONG-RANGE TRANSPORT21TION
IMPROVEMENT NEEDS AND COSTS
Project Number and Description Estimated Cost
1 . Braided Ramps on 1-405. MacArthur to $25,000,000
Harvard
2. Widen MacArthur to 8 Lanes SR55 to
Main Street 1r000,000
3. Widen Jamboree to 8 Lanes Barranca
to Michelson 1 ,000,000
4. Extend Armstrong to MacArthur 600, 000
5. Widen Von Karman to 6 Lanes - between
Main Street and Michelson 1 , 400, 000
6. Widen Red Hill Overcrossing of 1-405
to 6 Lanes 1r100,000
7 . Alton Avenue Overcrossing of Rt. 55 2,500,000
8. Widen Alton Avenue to Secondary
Standard - between Maple & Rt. 55 400,000
9. Widen Barranca to Eight Lanes between
Route 55 and Jamboree 2,400, 000
10. Grade Separation at Red Hill/Barranca 3f100,000
11 . Grade Separation at Jamboree/Main 4f3001000
12. Grade Separation at Jamboree/Alton 4r3OOrOOO
13. Widen Warner Avenue Overcrossing of
Rt. 55 4r000r000
14. Warner Avenue Widening - Bristol to
Standard 3 , 000, 000
15. Intersection Widening Red Hill/Bristol 500,000
16. Paularino Widening - Bristol to Bear ir5oor000
17. Susan between South Coast Drive and
Sunflower Avenue 350,000
18. Bear Street between Baker Street and
South Coast Plaza Entrance 1r000 , 000
111-16
TABLE 111-3 (Continued)
PRELIMINARY LIST OF LONG-RANGE TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENT NEEDS AND COSTS
Project Number and Description Estimated Cost
19. Ramp Al - EB off-ramp from Rt. 73 to
Airport Way South 91520,000
20. Ramp E - WB on-ramp from Airport Way
South to Route 73 11400?000
21 . Ramp F1 - Off-ramp Rt. 55/Rt. 405
Connector Road to Airport . 4F500f000
22. Ramp B - Off-ramp NB 1-405 to Airport 7 ,200r000
23. Ramp D1 - On-ramp Airport to SB 1-405 7r0001000
24. Improvements at the intersection of 200r000
Jamboree Boulevard and MacArthur
Boulevard
25. Improvements at the intersection of 200rOOO
Jamboree Boulevard/Campus Drive
26. Improvements at the intersection of 200, 000
MacArthur Boulevard/Birch Street
27. Construction of Route 57 between 1-5 (a)
and 1-405/Route 73 (only southernmost
portion would be in ICLC Study Area)
TOTAL (b) $87,67OrOOO
( a) Cost of this major improvement has not been estimated because
the type of facility and a specific alignment have not been
determined.
(b) Not including cost for Route 57
INTERRELATIONSHIP OF SHORT- AND LONG-TERM IMPROVEMENTS
Generally, the short-term transportation system. improvements
included in the ICLC five-year program can be implemented
independently of the long-term projects identified in Table III-
3. In certain instances, however, the implementation of short-
term improvements must take into consideration long-range needs
to ensure ease of implementation and to minimize duplication of
111-17
effort and disruption to the traveling public. Major instances
in the ICLC area where such considerations would be important
are:
- The short-term improvements at the interchange of 1-405
and MacArthur Boulevard and how these relate to the long-
term freeway access provisions in the area, including the
1-405 on- and off-ramps to serve John Wayne Airport. In
fact, the design of the long-term Airport on- and off-
ramps should be coordinated with the long-term braided
ramp system under consideration in the Freeway Access
Study. This will help achieve the most cost-effective
long-term solutions to serve the Airport and areawide
needs.
- Short-term intersection improvements along arterials which
would be widened to accommodate long-term traffic volumes
should be designed and implemented in a manner consistent
with the ultimate long-term configuration of the roadway.
With such coordinated and comprehensive approach, right-
of-way can be acquired in an orderly fashion, rather than
piecemeal, and the design of the improvements can stress
cost-effectiveness not only for the short-term but for the
long-term, as well.
Arterials along which short-term improvements as well as
long-term widening would be necessary include Campus
Drive, Jamboree Boulevard, MacArthur Boulevard, Red Hill
Avenue, Warner Avenue, Von Karman Avenue, and Barranca
Road.
- Intersections where short-term improvements would be
needed followed by much more extensive enhancement of
capacity such as a grade separation. This consideration
would apply to the intersections of:
o Jamboree Boulevard at Main Street
o Red Hill Avenue at Barranca Road
- The short-term improvements at the interchange of 1-405 at
Jamboree Boulevard and the improvements along Jamboree
Boulevard in the vicinity of 1-405 should be implemented
within the context of the "braided" ramp concept for 1-405
in this area.
While the "braided" ramp concept has been studied for the
portion of 1-405 south of Route 55, similar treatment
would likely be necessary along 1-405 through the ICLC
study area north of Route 55 , as well. Long-term freeway
access considerations in the northern portion should' be
evaluated (as recommended under Feasibility Studies ) so
that short-term freeway access improvements can be imple-
mented without precluding any long-term options.
111-18
SECTION IV
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
BACKGROUND
A detailed description of transportation revenue sources,
expenditures and other pertinent matters were described in detail
in the original study and the supplement to the original study.
Also various scenarios for fuftding the transportation
improvements in the study area were evaluated. Since the
preparation of the supplement to the original study, each of the
Cities has enacted provisions for collecting developer fees in
the area for transportation system improvements . These are:
Newport Beach - A fee of $85 per trip end
Santa Ana - A fee of one percent of building value
Costa Mesa - A fee of $58 per trip end
Irvine - The IBC (Irvine Business Complex) fee -
In view of the existence of these fees, the Cities must work out
credit arrangements with developers in the event that a fee,
structure for the intercity Liaison Committee is enactedby the
participating cities.
INTERCITY LIAISON COMMITTEE FEE
Three scenarios were used to determine the amount needed to
finance the improvements allocated to "Areawide (Developer)
Responsibility". The three scenarios are as follows :
Scenario 1 The existing four ICLC cities: Costa Mesa,
Irvine, Newport Beach, and Santa Ana
Scenario 2 The existing four ICLC cities plus the County
area known as Santa Ana Heights
Scenario 3 The existing four ICLC cities , Santa Ana Heights
and the County Airport
Table IV-1 presents the "Areawide (Developer) Responsibility"
costs , trips and trip fee requirements for each of the three
scenarios. In the ensuing discussion only this amount, rather
than the total cost of the projects, . is addressed because, the
other two categories of financial responsibility, "Developer" and
"Governmental" are matters to be handled individually by the
Cities and by Caltrans.
IV-1
TABLE IV-1
TRIP FEES FOR THREE SCENARIOS
Area Wide Trips Actual Recom-
(Developer) (Increase Trip mended
Scenario Costs 1985-90) Cost Fee*
1 . Four Cities $201585f000 $341 ,200 $60. 33 $60.00
2. Four Cities
and Santa
Ana Heights $21 ,155fOOO $364, 900 $57. 97 $58. 00
3 . Four Cities ,
Santa Ana
Heights and
Airport $21 , 875f000 $386 ,750 $56 .56 $57. 00
*Nearest Whole Dollar
IV-2
Four Cities Only
Analysis of the fee structure for the ICLC to raise a total of
$201585r000 is presented in Table IV-2 which represents Scenario
1 (Four Cities Only) . Because the fee is rounded to the nearest
whole dollar, the actual amount raised at $60 .00 per trip end
would be $20, 472 , 000 . This total amount consists of $9, 459, 000
for arterial improvements in the cities and $11 ,013 ,000 for
freeway access improvements and feasibility studies . The wide-
ning of Route 55 ($5,000 ,000) is allocated to "Governmental"
financial responsibility and is not included in the ICLC fee
structures.
TABLE IV-2
AMOUNTS RAISED WITH UNIFORM AREAWIDE FEE OF $60
(FOUR CITIES ONLY)
Total Arterial Freeway
Total Fees Fees Fees
City Fee Raised Required Available
Newport Beach $60 .00 $ 924rOOO $ 332rOOO $ 592,000
Santa Ana 60.00 81064,000 31769r000 41275, 000
Costa Mesa 60.00 6r828r000 2,873r000 31955rOOO
rvine 60.00 41656r000 2,465r000 21191f000
TOTAL $20, 472tOOO 9t459 ,000 $11r013F000*
*This would raise 99% of anticipated freeway needs.
IV-3
Four Cities Plus Santa Ana Heights
Table IV-3 presents an analysis of the fee structure to raise a
total of $21 ,155, 000 required for Scenario 2 which adds the needs
and fees of the County area of Santa Ana Heights to the four ICLC
cities. At $58 .00 per trip end, the actual amount raised would
be $21 ,164,200. The total would consist of $10, 029, 000 for area
arterial improvements and $11 ,135, 000 for freeway access improve-
ments and feasibility studies.
TABLE IV-3
AMOUNTS RAISED WITH UNIFORM FEE OF $58
(FOUR CITIES PLUS SANTA ANA HEIGHTS )
Total Arterial Freeway
Total Fees Fees Fees
Jurisdiction Fee Raised Required Available
Newport Beach $58 .00 $ 893 , 200 $ 332 ,000 4 561 ,200
Santa Ana 5-8.00 - 71795, 200 3f789 ,000 4,006, 200
Costa Mesa 58.00 6,600,400 2,873 ,000 3,727,400
Irvine 58.00 4,500,800 2 , 465,000 21035r800
County/
Santa Ana
Heights 58.00 1 ,374, 600 570r000 804,600
TOTAL $21 ,164,200 $10 ?029FOOO $11 ,1351200*
*This would raise 100% of anticipated freeway needs.
IV-4
Four Cities Plus Santa Ana Heights Plus Airport
Table IV-4 indicates the effect of adding the airport area to the
ICLC plus Santa Ana Heights Group. At $57. 00 per trip end, the
actual amount raised would be $22 ,044, 750, consisting of
$10 ,699 ,000 in arterial improvements and $11 ,345,750 for freeway
access improvement and feasibility studies.
TABLE IV-4
AMOUNTS RAISED WITH UNIFORM FEE OF $57
(FOUR CITIES PLUS SANTA ANA HEIGHTS PLUS JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT)
Total Arterial Freeway
Total Fees Fees Fees
Jurisdiction Fee Raised Required Available
Newport Beach $57.00 $ 877, 800 $ 332, 000 $ 545r800
Santa Ana 57.00 71660 , 800 3,789f000 3?871F800
Costa Mesa 57. 00 6 , 486, 600 2 , 873 , 000 31613, 600
Irvine 57 .00 4, 423 ?200 21465 ,000 lf958,200
Orange County/
Santa Ana
Heights 57. 00 1 , 35Or9OO 570,000 780, 900
Orange County/
John Wayne
Airport 57.00 1 , 245, 450 670, 000 575, 450
TOTAL $22, 044, 750 $101699t000 $11 ,345,750
*This would raise 100% of anticipated freeway needs
IV-5
Fee For Each Land Use Category
Although the concept of fees based on a trip generating basis is
generally acceptedr it is important to note what that means in
terms of land use development. Table IV-5 presents the charges
per unit of development for the major categories of development
for each of the three scenarios. Single family housing varies
from $625 to $650 per unit and multiple housing varies from $450
to $475 per unit. Commercial space varies between $2. 57 to $2.70
per square foot and hotels would pay from $675 to $725 per room.
TABLE IV-5
LAND USE FEES
(DOLLARS)
4 Cities,
4 Cities Santa Ana
Plus Santa Heights,
4 Cities Only Ana Heights and Airport
Nearest Nearest Nearest
$60 $25 $58 $25 $56 $25
Single Family
Housing (Unit) $660 $650 $638 $650 $627 $625
Multiple Family
Housing (Unit) 480 475 464 475 456 450
Office Spaces
( 1000 ft) 780 775 754 750 741 750
Commercial Space
( 1000 ft) 2700 2700 2610 2600 2565 2575
Regional
Commercial
( 1000 ft) 2100 2100 2030 2025 1995 2000
Restaurant
Space (1000 ft) 6000 6000 5800 5800 5700 5700
Hotel Room
(rooms) 720 725 696 700 684 675
Industrial Space
( acre) 2400 2400 2320 2325 2280 2275
Warehouse
Space (acre) 1800 1800 1740 1750 1710 1700
IV-6
Funds Raised by Each Jurisdiction
In order to estimate the amount each jurisdiction would raise?
trip fees and trip generation were analyzed. Table IV-6 shows
the total funds that would be raised by each jurisdiction for
each of the three scenarios.
TABLE IV-6
TOTAL FUNDS TO BE RAISED BY EACH JURISDICTION
4 Cities,
4 Cities Santa Ana
Plus Santa Heights,
4 Cities Only Ana Heights and Airport
Santa Ana $8,040,000 $7 ,772r000 $7 ,660 ,800
Costa Mesa $6, 828, 000 $6F6001000 $6, 486r600
Newport Beach $ 924fOOO $ 893,200 $ 877,800
Irvine $4, 656 ,000 $4? 500 ? 800 $4r423,200
County ( Santa
Ana Heights) --- $1 ,374, 000 $1 ? 350, 900
County Airport --- --- $1 ,245, 450
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS IN INCLUSION OF COUNTY AREAS
The decision of the members of ICLC is whether or not they should
continue to operate as they do currently or whether they should
include one or both County areas (Santa Ana Heights and the
Orange County Airport) the regional system. The County must in
turn make the decision as to whether or not it would want to
participate in the system.
The Santa Ana Heights area represents a fifth "city" in many
respects . There is some development scheduled in the first five
years and continued development beyond that. They clearly have a
regional responsibility and the fees would ensure the completion
of the arterial requirements and would assist the four cities in
completing the freeway requirements .needed in the rest of the
century as well as in the near future. In addition, the fees
would ensure that there would be no competitive development
advantage in the Santa Ana Heights area compared to the area now
under the jurisdiction of the four cities. Development in the
entire five- jurisdictional area would then be paying for
IV-7
regional improvements as well as local and arterial improvements.
It is recommended that Santa Ana Heights (Orange County) be
included as a member of ICLC.
Orange County Airport represents a different set of circumstances
entirely. First of all, there is no competition factor as far as
development is concerned. Although the airport obviously
generates regional traffic? many of the mitigating improvements
specified in the Airport EIR are also regional in nature and will
benefit the cities as well. The increase of trip generation
after the first five year period is negligible and nothing is to
be gained by having the Airport as an ICLC member.
However, ICLC members should work closely with Airport officials
to share and reduce costs on several major projects such as the
MacArthur off ramps and overpass. This will work to the advan-
tage of all parties.
In summary, it is recommended that the four ICLC cities consider
adding Santa Ana Heights to the ICLC Program. With this scena-
rio, the fee would be $58 per trip end, and Santa Ana Heights
would not have a competitive development advantage over adjacent
areas. The ICLC should invite the County, representing the Santa
Ana Heights area, to participate as a full member of the regional
group.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
Arterial Improvements
Arterial improvements would continue to be the responsibility of
each jurisdiction. Each city and the County would set its own
priorities and to the maximum extent possible would consider the
impacts of its program upon the regional traffic picture.
It is recommended that a master project list and a master map of
ICLC projects be maintained. This project list and map should be
updated at six-month intervals to indicate projects completed.
This Vill allow the policy makers to view the progress of the
total program. Cost information should also be maintained so
that comparisons between consultant estimates and actual costs
can be made. This will allow the policy makers to keep track of
the adequacy of the fee structures.
Freeway Access Improvements
Freeway access improvements such as 'South Coast Drive in Costa
Mesa and Dyer Road/Route 55 ramps in Santa Ana will expectedly be
funded by the cities in which they are locatedt and the lead
agency role would remain in that city.
However, a project such as MacArthur/1-405 freeway access will
probably involve funding from all of the jurisdictionst and ICLC
will have to develop a specific financial plan and operations
IV-8
plan to effect the eventual *construction of these badly needed
facilities. As part of this plan, a lead agency designation will
have to be made, which should probably be based on long-term
financial commitments (e.g. County Airport EIR Commitments)
rather than the physical location of the facility.
Procedures To Prolects In Place State Transportation Improvement
Program ( STIP)
In this section procedures for getting projects authorized on the
State Transportation Improvement Program are discussed. The most
important item is for project sponsors to make a firm commitment
on funding availability. Therefore, the major ICLC task, where
more than one jurisdiction is involved, is to develop a simple
financial plan, which will be primarily a schedule of financial
commitments for each of the jurisdictions involved in the
project.
It may take three to five years to construct a project after it
has been placed on the STIP; in addition, considerable activity
must take place before a freeway project can be placed on the
STIP. After a project is placed on the STIP by the California
State Transportation Commission (CTC) , it can proceed through the
EIR, Final Engineeking and Construction phases. In order for a
project to be considered by the CTC for inclusion on the STIP, it
must be recommended by both OCTC and Caltrans. Each of these
agencies have requirements .before the project can be considered.
OCTC Requirements
For locally and privately funded projects, the Commission
requires that the following additional information be provided
with the project sponsor' s submittal to OCTC:
1 . Assurance that concept plans developed for the project
have been reviewed by Caltrans.
2. A ' copy of a letter from the Caltrans District office
indicating that Caltrans has reviewed the concept plans
and that the project is consistent with applicable state
and federal design standards . The letter from Caltrans
must indicate its support for the project as conceived.
3. Assurance that local or private funds have been secured
or are committed to cover the project cost. This
assurance can take the form of a resolution or minute
order of the sponsoring jurisdiction' s governing board.
I
4. A schedule of major milestone dates and an indication of
the status of environmental clearance for the project.
OCTC staff is available to local project sponsors to provide
assistance when needed and they will facilitate arrangements with
Caltrans when needed.
IV-9
Caltrans Requirements
in order to process a locally funded project through Caltrans, a
project study report must be prepared by the staff of District 7 .
They provide forms that must be completed and the following
informationmust be provided by the local sponsor.
1 . Introduction
What is the proposal?
What is it intended to serve?
What is estimated cost or range of costs?
What local agency or agencies are involved?
What is the funding source?
2. Problem Definition
What are the land use development proposals that generate
the need for the highway improvement?
What are the controversial aspects or issues of both the
development and the proposed highway work?
3. Analysis of Proposal
What is the existing and forecasted traffic?
Does main line have capacity adequate to accommodate
added traffic?
Are there alternative solutions?
How costly are alternatives?
What additional mitigation measures are required?
4. Environmental Document
How is environmental clearance to be handled?
What steps are needed for FHWA approvals?
S. Funding and Staffing
What is proposed fiscal year funding schedule of pro-
posing agency?
Is there a substantial commitment to provide the funds?
What are the staffing responsibilities of Caltrans and
local agency? (A MOU must be coordinated between Cal-
trans and local agency)
What is the schedule for the following milestones?
Personnel Year Requirement Report
Environmental Clearance
Submit Bridge Site Data
Maps to Right-of-Way
District P.S. and E
(plans, specifications, and estimates )
Right-of-Way Certification
IV-10
CONCLUSION
it is important in dealing with CTC, OCTC and Caltrans that the
projects be carried as cooperative projects . Multi-jurisdiction
projects with a lead agency identified will usually get priority
over single-agency projects .
The long lead times required by the whole STIP and construction
process require that ICLC act in rapid fashion. Efforts by ICLC
must begin immediately to make sure that the processing of pro-
jects , especially the freeway access projects, can proceed
through the long and involved steps of implementation. Thus the
cash from development fees can be converted into traffic improve-
ments with a minimum of delay and in time to serve its intended
purpose, namely the enhancement of mobility in the ICLC area and
the accommodation of increasing travel demand.
IV-11