No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNB TRAFFIC PLANNING PARKING AND OPERATIONS STUDY MARCH 1968111111111 lill 11111111111111111111111111 lill III III *NEW FILE* NB TRAFFIC PLANNING, PARKING, AND OPERATIONS STUDY MARCH 1968 L Prepared for THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH California March, 1968 NEWPORT BEACH MUM pdaMM MUM o MUM 11 EMU willurSmA &.. .43ocia%6 [1 COUNCILMEN DEE COOK AL FORGIT LINDSLEY PARSONS ' ROBERT SHELTON HOWARD ROGERS 1.1 I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PAUL J. GRUBER, MAYOR MRS. DOREEN MARSHALL, VICE MAYOR DIRECTOR OF PLANNING ERI4EST MAYER, JR. CITY MANAGER HARV'EY L. HURLBURT DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS JOSEPH T. DEVLIN CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER ROBERT L. JAFFE ( illur Smid C7Amociat¢3., J.,,. CALIFORNIA ' CASLE: WILSMITH CC] N S n LTI N G E N G I N E E R S 582 MARKET STREET ' SAN FRANCISCO. CALIF. 94104 902-3221 March 1, 1968 ' The Honorable Paul J. Gruber, Mayor City of Newport Beach Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Sir: We are very pleased to submit this report on our comprehensive traffic planning, parking and operations study for the City of Newport ' Beach, prepared pursuant to our agreement of October, 1966. The report contains an evaluation of current and projected future ' traffic and parking requirements, together with recommendations for street and parking improvements designed to serve these needs. ' The very fine cooperation and assistance provided throughout the course of the work by the city to our project manager, Mr. Keith Dellaway, has been greatly appreciated. We trust that our findings and recommendations will assist you in the implementation of your capital works program. ' Very truly yours, Henry K. va'� Vice President Registered Professional Engineer California No. 7534 1 TKD/bbs SECTION A SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS The following summarizes the principal operational measures, major street improve- ments, parking improvements, and other alternative proposals considered necessary for accommodating the present and future (1990) traffic and parking needs in the Newport Beach and Balboa Peninsula area. A description of the recommended improve- ments is contained in Chapters II, V, and VII of Section A of the report. ' Street Program Recommendations include; ' The installation of traffic signals along Balboa Boulevard at the intersections with River Avenue, 38th Street, 36th Street, 32nd Street, 28th Street, McFadden ' Place, 15th Street, Palm Street, and Main Street. Modifications to the five existing signals along Newport Boulevard from Via Lido to 28th Street to coordinate the progression of traffic at all times including the synchronization of the signal timing to obtain suitable lag times between successive phasing, thereby regulating the storage capacity and providing suit- able time gaps for the side streets. ' Modifications to the existing signals at the intersection of Balboa Boulevard and the Coast Highway to provide a separate phase and two left -turn lanes for traffic outbound on Balboa Boulevard. ' Channelization and street widening at the intersection of 32nd Street and Newport Boulevard, and at the intersection complex formed by 32nd Street, Lafayette Avenue, Lido Park Drive and Via Lido as shown in the inset of ' Figure 5. The removal of the curbed island and parking spaces along Balboa Boulevard from 32nd Street to 47th Street, and utilization of this space for left -turn lanes. ' The removal of parking at both curbside and median along Balboa Boulevard from McFadden Place to Alvarado Street, to obtain six lanes for movement of traffic, with use of the median for turning movements at the intersections. ' Installation of parking restrictions, during peak flows, on several streets such 7 as Lake Avenue, Marcus Avenue, River Avenue, 47th Street, 38th Street, 32nd Street, Seashore Drive, Via Oporto and Bay Avenue. The extension of River Avenue to connect with the Coast Highway, including ' installation of signals at this intersection, and also the connection of River Avenue to its intersection with Channel Place. ' The installation of one-way street circulation in West Newport including 48th Street to 54th Street and bounded by Seashore Drive and River Avenue. Conver- sion of the existing two-way side streets between Bay Avenue and Balboa ' Boulevard from 14th Street to Washington Street to one-way couplets. Straightening of the alignment in the loop road between Main Street and the Palm Street access to the beach parking lot. ' Widening of a number of streets such as Newport Boulevard, Balboa Boulevard, 32nd Street, Via Oporto, and Lafayette Avenue to service future traffic needs. Realignment and widening of Lido Park Drive and 32nd Street at the junction ' with Lafayette Avenue, Construction of Ocean Front from 23rd Street to 32nd Street to provide for the overall circulation needs of traffic requiring access between McFadden Place, ' Lido Isle, Lido Peninsula, the Via Lido commercial core and the remainder of the Peninsula. . . Consideration of the construction of an alternative street route parallel to Balboa Boulevard, either by widening and extension of Bay Avenue or construction of Ocean Front from Newport Pier to Balboa Pier. . . Construction of a grade separation at the, intersection of Newport Boulevard and Balboa Boulevard with alignment and design of structure dependent on the ulti- mate selection of a Bay Avenue or Ocean Front route. . . Construction of an overhead left -turn structure along Newport Boulevard commencing at the Arches Bridge and terminating in 32nd Street. . . Widening of the Arches Bridge overcrossing including revisions to the interchange ramps. . . Construction of an interchange at the intersection of the Coast Highway and Balboa Boulevard. . . Because of the detrimental impact on community values, the social life, the residential environment, and other factors, the construction of a bridge or tunnel connection between the Peninsula Point and Corona del Mar is not recommended. ' . . The installation and operation of some form of public transit between an off - Peninsula parking lot and the beach and harbor facilities. I Parking Program Recommendations include; . Construction by 1990 of off-street parking facilities aggregating approximately 3,990 parking spaces in all parking districts on Balboa Peninsula. As illustrated in Figure 18, this total number of parking spaces includes 1,500 spaces in the Via Lido shops and commercial core area. -(District B1) , 1,000 spaces in the McFadden Place area (Districts B4 and B5), 500 spaces between 15th Street and Alvarado Street (District D), 500 spaces in the Balboa Pier area (District E), 200 spaces in West Newport (District A) , and 100 spaces in both Districts B2 and B3 west of Newport Boulevard. This program would result in a net gain of 1,324 total spaces. Construction by 1985 of an off -Peninsula "mass transit parking lot" with 5,000 parking spaces. The use.of this parking lot would be supplementary to the pro- posals for some form of public transit to and from the beach and harbor facilities. LJ I [1 L i 1 I ' SECTION B SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS The following is a summary of recommendations for street improvements and parking ' facilities to accommodate existing and future (1977) traffic and parking needs in the Corona del Mar study area. A description of the recommended improvements is con- tained in Chapters 11 and V of Section B of the report. Street Program Recommendations include; ' Conversion of a number of the existing two-way north -south streets to one-way operation. The streets affected would be Poinsettia, Orchid, Narcissus, Mari- gold, Larkspur, jasmine, Iris, Heliotrope, Fernleaf, Dahlia, Carnation, Begonia, i and Acacia. Except for several existing one-way sections, two-way operation would be retained for the remainder the of street system. The proposals are shown in Figure S. Widening of Fifth Avenue on the north side and extension of this street west- ' ward to form a junction with the Coast Highway near the intersection with MacArthur Boulevard. . The construction of a new bridge on Goldenrod Avenue across Bayside Drive. This would be a combined vehicle and pedestrian bridge which would serve the area south of Bayside Drive. . Construction of a number of minor improvements along Coast Highway in the median strip to augment the proposed one-way circulation. . At the request of the City, consideration has been given to the possible pene- tration Of Bayside Drive across Marguerite Avenue and through to Marigold Avenue. Construction of this connection is not recommended. . The construction of crossovers in the median strip in Avocado Avenue so that it can function as a two-way street with one-way operation only on both sides of the median. Consideration should be given to the possible future connection of Avocado Avenue to Bayside Drive, contingent upon engineering investigations ' of the topography and soils, and relevant costs of construction. 11 Parking Program ' Recommendations include; . The immediate purchase (Stage I) of seven properties and construction of off- street parking facilities to provide for 202 parking spaces. The purchase by 1977 (Stage II) of an additional 22 properties and construction of off-street parking facilities, to provide for an additional 240 parking spaces. The proposed program is summarized in Table 31 and the sites are shown in ' Figure 26. . A parking program with construction of 15 surface parking lots in various blocks ' throughout the commercial district and construction of two portable parking structures in blocks 31 and 35 utilizing prefabricated modular components. Typical functional designs of the proposed facilities are illustrated in Figure 27. ' Total development cost for the entire program is estimated at $1,561,560. Development costs of Stage I lots are estimated at $310, 660, Stage I structures at $284,500 and Stage II lots at $966,400. Annual amortization costs for the ' whole program are estimated at $110,800, based on 25-year bonds at 5 percent interest. Including operating costs the annual cost per space would be about $320. ' Consideration by the GXty, its financial consultants, the commercial property owners, and other business interests, of the formation of a benefit assessment district inthe commercial district of Corona del Mar, as a means of obtaining finance for construction of the needed parking facilities. P 11 I [1 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chanter Page SUMMARY SECTION A. NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC PLANNING, OPERATIONS AND PARKING I INTRODUCTION 1 Growth Trends 1 Purpose and Scope 3 Previous Studies 3 Field Studies q II TRAFFIC OPERATIONS 5 Regional Routes 5 Major Streets 5 Traffic Volumes 6 Right -of -Way and Pavement Widths 7 Traffic Control and Regulations 11 Travel Speeds 13 Accident Experience 13 Traffic Capacity Versus Volume 16 Circulation and Improvements 20 IH PRESENT TRAVEL PATTERNS 27 Travel Characteristics and Study Area Definition 27 Magnitude of Existing Travel 29 Trip Generation 33 Trip Distribution 35 Traffic Assignment and Calibration 38 C I 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Chapter Page 1 1V FUTURE TRAVEL 41 1 1990 Land Use Growth Factors 41 42 Future Trip Generation 42 1 Future Trip Distribution 46 V MAJOR STREET PLAN 48 1 Selection of Test Plan 1990 Traffic Assignment 48 49 Major Street Design Standards 50 Description of Major Street Improvements 51 1 Continuing Study 63 VI PARKING INVENTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS 68 1 Parking Inventory 68 Parking Characteristics 93 1 VII PARKING DEMANDS AND NEEDS yy Current Demand and Supply yy 1 Surplus and Deficiency 80 Estimation of Future Supply and Demand 81 Future Parking Needs and Program - 1990 82 1 CI 1 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Chapter Page SECTION B. CORONA DEL MAR TRAFFIC OPERATIONS AND PARKING I INTRODUCTION 83 Purpose and Scope 83 Field Studies 83 II TRAFFIC OPERATIONS 85 Major Streets 85 Street and Traffic Characteristics 85 Circulation Element 89 Description of Major Street Improvements 92 III PARKING SPACE INVENTORY 96 Curb Parking 96 Off -Street Parking 96 IV PARKING CHARACTERISTICS 99 Trip Origins 99 Accumulation of Vehicles 99 Parking Turnover 103 Truck Parking 1103 Trip Purposes 106 Parking Duration 106 Walking Distance 109 II I I I it I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Chapter V PARKING DEMANDS AND NEEDS Current Demand Demand Versus Supply 1967 Surpluses and Deficiencies Estimation of Future Supply and Demand Future Parking Needs VI PARKING IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Curb Parking Reduction Off -Street Parking Program Financial Feasiblity Methods of Financing Page 113 113 117 121 121 126 128 128 128 133 138 Ll II 1 11 11 I [1 C 1 17 TABULATIONS Table TRAFFIC PLANNING AND OPERATIONS Page 1 Hourly Traffic Volume Variations - 1967 B 2 Street Physical Inventory - 1967 9 3 Off -Peak Speed and Delay Summary 14 4 Traffic Accidents on Principal Routes 15 5 Practical Capacity Criteria 18 6 External Station Traffic Volumes - 1967 30 7 Vehicle Trip Summary - 1967 34 8 Motor Vehicle Travel Desires - 1967 39 9 Screenline Comparisons 40 10 External Station Traffic Volumes - 1967 & 1990 43 11 Vehicle Trip Summary - 1990 44 12 Average Daily Motor Vehicle Trips - 1967 & 1990 45 13 Motor Vehicle Travel Desires - 1990 49 14 Recommended Major Street Improvements 53 PARKING NEWPORT BEACH 15 Parking Space Inventory For Districts A-G 69 16 Parking Space Inventory For Districts B & E 70 17 Parking Meter Revenues - 1966 96 18 Parking Space Supply Versus Demand - 1967 & 1990 78 PARKING CORONA DEL MAR 19 Parking Space Inventory gS 20 Parker Origins Classified by Trip Purpose 100 21 Driver Parking, Classified by Time and Type 102 I I ' TABULATIONS (Continued) Table Page 22 Turnover By Type Facility and Vehicle 104 23 Parkers By Purpose and Facility 107 24 Parkers Classified By Duration and Purpose 108 25 Distance Walked By Type of Facility 110 ' 26 27 Parkers By Distance Walked and Purpose Parkers Destined 111 To Each Block 114 28 Parking Demand of Selected Buildings 116 29 Current Parking Supply and Demand 118 ' 30 Parking Space Supply and Demand - 1977 124 31 Recommended Municipal Off -Street Program 131 32 Estimated Development Costs 134 ' 33 Estimated Annual Operating Costs 137 34 Summary of Annual Capital and Operating Costs 138 APPENDIX TABLES A Land Use Data - 1967 & 1990 B Trip Distribution to External Zones - 1967 C Trip Distribution to External Zones - 1990 E Parking Inventory and Characteristics C 11 [1 I ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page TRAFFIC TRAFFIC PLANNING AND OPERATIONS 1 Population Trends 2 2 Growth in Motor Vehicle Registrations 2 3 1967 Traffic Volumes 6 4 Traffic Controls - 1967 12 5 Traffic Operations Plan 21 -6 Traffic Study Zones, Stations and Screeniines 28 7 External Zones 31 8 Daily Traffic Approaching and Leaving - 1967 32 9 Attraction Factors - Vehicle Trips 37 10 1967 Travel Deisres 38 11 1990 Travel Desires 46 12 1990 Traffic Volumes 49 13 1990 Major Street Plan 52 14 Major Improvement Priorities 61 PARKING - NEWPORT BEACH 15 Parking Inventory Districts A-G - 1967 69 16 Parking Inventory District B 71 17 Parking Inventory District E 72 18 Parking Supply Versus Demand - 1967 & 1990 99 PARKING - CORONA DEL MAR 19 Parking Space Inventory - 1967 99 20 Parker Accumulations - Typical Weekday - December, 1967 101 21 Curb and Off -Street Turnover - 1967 105 22 Current Parking Space Surplus and Deficiency 120 23 Current Parking Supply Versus Demand 122 24 1977 Parking Space Surplus and Deficiency 123 25 1977 Parking Supply Versus Demand 127 26 Recommended Off -Street Parking Program 132 27 Typical Functional Designs 135 I 1 1 I SECTION A. '�i:1' a ski INTRODUCTION The City of Newport Beach, California, is located on the Pacific Coast in Orange County north of Laguna Beach and adjoining the cities of Huntington Beach and Costa Mesa. From its early beginnings as a natural landlocked bay of sandbars, Newport Harbor has been developed into a marine haven, becoming the center of yachting, sportfishing and water sports activities. Not only a center for recreational boating, the city with its sunny beaches is an attraction for year-round aquatic activities. In addition to various bay beaches within the city, a wide golden ribbon of sandy beach extends some six miles along the waters of the Pacific Ocean. During the summer months Newport's beaches attract more than 5 million bathers. Growth Trends The continued growth of Newport Beach as a recreational and commercial center and as a residential community will depend to a considerable extent upon its capacity to serve the needs of an increasing number of both residents and visitors with respect to its local accessibility and adequacy of street circulation and parking. As late as 1950 Newport Beach had a resident population of only 12,000. By 1967 the population had increased to over 40,000. The population of Orange County in 1967 was estimated at 1,350,000. Projections by Newport Beach City Planning Department indicate that the resident population will increase to at least 68, 000 by 1980 and to a minimum of 94, 000 by 1990. The Planning Department considers that these projections could be conservative. The population growth graph for Newport Beach City in Hgure 1 is therefore shown as having an upper and lower range. Comparative Orange County and State of California population data are also shown in Figure 2. The use of private automobiles in Newport Beach has grown rapidly with the rate of increase exceeding that of the population growth. The growth in motor vehicle registrations with projections through to 1990 is shown in Figure 2. Purpose and Scope On October 27, 1966, the City of Newport Beach authorized Wilbur Smith & Associates to undertake traffic planning, operations, and parking studies for Newport Beach, such ' studies to include Balboa Peninsula, Lido Isle, and Corona del Mar. Section A of this report summarizes the results of traffic planning operations and park- ing studies for Balboa Peninsula and Lido Isle. Section B describes the results of traffic operations and parking studies for Corona del Mar. ' The specific objectivies of Section A of this study are as follows: . To determine the sufficiency of the existing street system and terminal facilities, ' and where considered necesssary. to make recommendations for improvements of streets and parking facilities to alleviate current traffic conditions. . To develop a traffic model using existing land use and other information, and to verify its ability to synthesize accurately the patterns of traffic activity by calibration with existing traffic volumes on the major street system. . To analyze projections of future land use and to develop patterns of future traffic ' desires associated with these estimates and forecasts of future population and economic growth. . To assign the future traffic distribution to the city's existing Master Street and ' Highway Plan and related parking facilities so as to test their ability to serve future travel demands. . To develop a street and parking improvement program designed to meet future needs. Previous Studies On May 23, 1957, Hahn, Wise & Associates, planning consultants, submitted a master plan for the City of Newport Beach. The plan made proposals and recommen- dations for improvements to the street system, and also included sections dealing with land use, parks and recreation. ' In November, 1964, Murton H. Willson & Associates, in collaboration with the City Planning Department, submitted a planning study of the Corona del Mar area. The 3 E proposals suggested in this study have been evaluated and reference made to them in Chapter VI of the Corona del Mar section of this report. ' Field Studies Field studies for this section of the study were undertaken in December, 1966, January, April, June, and July, 1967. These studies included the following; Travel time and delay studies to determine operating characteristics of the existing ' major streets, and to establish suitable parameters for use in the assignment of traffic to the street network. Origin -destination studies including a "lights -on" and "license plate" survey to ' determine existing travel patterns between Balboa Peninsula and external zone locations. ' Interviews of motorists on the Balboa Island Ferry to obtain additional data on travel patterns. Traffic volume counts and turning movement counts to supplement the extensive coverage provided by the City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineer. Volumes were obtained on principal streets for both winter and summer weekdays and for peak summer days during weekends. This information was used in the analysis of existing traffic operations and also as an aid in calibrating the traffic model. A street physical inventory was made to obtain right-of-way, pavement widths, number of moving lanes and curb use, for use in the volume capacity analyses ' of existing streets. Field observations and records were made of traffic operations related to streets and parking facilities during peak hours. . Inventory of the existing parking capacity of the study area including legal curb spaces, public off-street facilities and private off-street facilities except those located on residential property. . License plate turnover counts were conducted and accumulation of parked vehicles determined in the business centers and adjacent to the major beach areas. This information together with data from interviews of a sample of parkers was obtained tto determine parking demand on the Balboa Peninsula. . A vehicle occupancy study was carried out by the City Traffic Engineer and infor- mation from this study was utilized in relating volume of vehicles to the number of persons counted on the beach. 0 11 C ' CHAPTER II TRAFFIC OPERATIONS This chapter discusses the results of traffic operation studies for existing conditions ' on the Balboa Peninsula, including Lido Isle and Lido Peninsula. It contains a description of major streets and traffic characteristics, and makes specific recommen- dations relating to the need for improvements in circulation patterns, traffic control ' devices, channelization, and other operational measures considered necessary to alleviate existing traffic problems. ' Regional Routes Access to Newport Beach from Orange County and the metropolitan area of Los Angeles ' is presently obtained by means of the San Diego, Garden Grove and Newport Freeways, and along the major routes of Newport Boulevard, Harbor Boulevard, and the Coast Highway. The future construction of the Pacific Coast Freeway, the Corona del Mar ' Freeway, and the completion of the Newport Freeway, will have a profound effect on the growth of the City of Newport Beach and its environs. As the population of Orange ' County continues to expand, these regional highways will play an increasingly signifi- cant part in influencing the business, socio-economic, and recreational environment of the communities within the City of Newport Beach. Major Streets ' The street system in the central business district of Newport Beach, on Lido Isle and on Balboa Peninsula is basically in rectangular pattern. The principal arterials serving the area are Newport Boulevard, Balboa Boulevard, Seashore Drive, Via Lido, 32nd Street, 30th Street, Via Lido Nord, and Via Lido Soud, The main collector streets ' connecting to -these arterials include River Avenue, Marcus Avenue, Lake Avenue, Orange Street, Lafayette Avenue, Lido Park Drive, 28th Street, McFadden Place, 15th ' Street, Palm Street, Main Street, and Bay Avenue, 5 II II II J Traffic Volumes Figure 3 shows the 1967 daily summer traffic volumes on major streets within the city area bounded by the Coast Highway and the Pacific Ocean. In the Balboa Peninsula study area the streets carrying the greatest traffic volumes are Newport Boulevard, Balboa Boulevard and Via Lido. Newport Boulevard summer daily volumes range from 40,300 at the Arches Bridge to 22,000 at 26th Street. Balboa Boulevard carries from 12,000 at 28th Street to 25,500 at 19th Street. Via Lido carries 7,000 to 11,300 vehicles daily. These volumes range from 50 percent to 100 percent greater than the daily volumes recorded during the winter months. The large increases in volumes during the summer months are UYOd -ISLE' yii 3`ti3 L�, N/�Jys �.� .� IVOOfIU�_ELI�. ODL '•5. I�J�J (G��• it 1 �� BAY OOc=, /BLAND n FT. d G 9 RONAIJ £ Q VOLUMES SHOWN AREEES TO PERDAY 1000 `,�c �IIIh q0� W ��✓•j BA'BOA rRAFF/C SCALE AO 30 ?0 et I. 1 010 3 F AC I AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC IN THOUSANDS — SUMMER 1967 TRAFFIC VOLUMES A.y�ffn o. x _u 3 N 0 R N 0 9 18 27 36 45 54 MAP SCALE /N HUNDREDS OF FEET NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC PLANNING, PARKING AND OPERATIONS STUDY Wi[bw.SAmii�i �'Y�Qmociaf¢a II Idue to the influx of recreation traffic which is generated by the beach and marina facilities. Because of this increase, streets such as Seashore Drive, 32nd Street, 15th Street, Palm Street, Main Street, McFadden Place, and the connecting local ' streets, all of which provide access to the beach, carry relatively heavy volumes of summer traffic. Both winter and summer daily variations of hourly traffic flow for Newport Boulevard and Balboa Boulevard are listed in Table 1. The peak hour percentages of 24-hour traffic vary from 8.3 to 9.4 in the winter months and from 7.0 to 8.0 in the summer 1 months. During the winter months there are peak hours of flow on Newport Boule- vard between 7:00 and 9:00 A.M., in the morning and between 4,00 and 6:00 P.M. , in the evening. However, the differences in volumes between these peak periods ' and the hourly flow during the 11 hour period from 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. are relatively small. This is indicative of the high degree of local activity during the midday period. During the summer months the recreation traffic adds considerably to the local traffic, particularly between the hours of 10:00 A.M. and 3:00 P.M. The beach oriented 1 visitors start arriving between 10:00 A.M. and 11:00 A.M. and as the cool mid -after- noon breeze springs up, they exit via Newport Boulevard and Balboa Boulevard. ' On Newport Boulevard, south of the Arches Bridge, the hourly summer peak flow is shown as 3,300 vehicles (both directions combined). During the 1967 Easter period ' a maximum peak hourly flow of 2,000 vehicles was recorded in each direction at different times of the day. On Balboa Boulevard, south of the Coast Highway, the total hourly peak flow is shown as 1,420 vehicles. During the same Easter period a maximum peak hourly flow of 1,000 vehicles was recorded in each direction at different times of the day. Eastward of McFadden Place a maximum peak hourly flow of 1,300 vehicles was recorded during the Easter period in one direction. ' Typically the later afternoon lull in traffic is followed by an increase due to sight- seer traffic between the hours of 8:00 P.M. and 10:00 P.M. For example, a peak hourly inbound flow of 1,200 vehicles has been recorded east of McFadden Place during ' the late evening at Easter time. Right -of -Way and Pavement Widths 2 Table contains a major street inventory and shows the right-of-way and pavement 7 F I Table 1 HOURLY TRAFFIC VOLUME VARIATIONS - 1967 Newport Beach Traffic Operations Study I Ir1 I 1, E I I i, [_l HOUR BALBOA BLVD. BEGINNING AT COAST HIGHWAY Winter Summer NEWPORT BLVD. AT ARCHES BRIDGE Winter Summer NEWPORT BLVD. AT 30TH STREET Winter Summer BALBOA BLVD. AT ADAMS STREET Winter Summer 12:00 Mid. 95 482 340 1,258 225 435 115 310 1:00 A.M. 60 335 180 860 135 180 80 185 2:00 45 250 140 622 65 150 29 135 3:00 25 135 60 325 20 110 20 95 4:00 15 70 25 185 10 140 20 50 5:00 35 112 90 277 50 160 55 105 6:00 200 141 365 380 180 250 130 235 7;00 635 220 1,570 628 640 740 400 525 8:00 570 353 1,995 910 820 880 470 545 9:00 415 580 1,850 1,555 740 1,200 500 665 10:00 455 896 2,075 2;355 990 1,350 540 795 11:00 535 1,295 2,270 3,065 1,240 1,670 630 1;060 12:00 Noon 635 1,420 2;515 3,300 1,360 2,020 720 1,110 1:00 P.M. 525 1,400 2,410 3,255 1,390 2,080 790 1,030 2:00 625 1,363 2,550 3,150 1,365 2,350 850 1,140 3:00 720 998 2i430 3,015 1,320 2,210 830 1;000 4,00 820 1,160 2;730 2;940 1,270 1;890 760 1,000 5:00 845 1,010 2,110 2,770 1,265 1,800 650 1,080 6:00 535 840 1,430 2,295 810 1,660 535 820 7:00 395 944 1,480 2,035 780 1,410 490 950 9:00 250 785 1,030 1,995 680 1,520 430 1,160 9:00 215 920 920 1,830 560 1,390 370 1,010 10:00 205 850 715 1;965 435 1,430 280 890 11:00 135 714 515 1,580 310 1,090 175 510 Total 8,990 17,273 31,795 42,550 16,660 28,115 9,860 16,405 8 ' Table 2 ' STREET PHYSICAL INVENTORY - 1967 Newport Beach Traffic Operation Study It ILI IL Il 1 STREET Newport Blvd. Balboa Blvd. Via Lido 32nd Street Lafayette Ave. Bay Ave. Seashore Dr. Lido Park Dr. LIMITS Arches -Via Lido Via Lido-30th 30th-Balboa Coast Hiway-32nd 32nd-Newport Newport -Alvarado Alvarado -Main Newport -Via Oporto Via Oporto -Bridge Balboa -Newport Newport -Lafayette Via Lido-32nd 32nd-28th Main-8th 8-15th Orange-45th 45th-34th Lafayette-29th RIGHT- PAVE- OF- MENT NO. OF WAY WIDTH LANES (feet) (feet) 100-130 70 4 90-100 70 4 100-120 70-80 4 65-80 54 4 65-100 64-74 4 100 90 4 70 58 4 100 74 4 70 56 4 30-50 20-36 1-2 60-90 36-50 2 66 30 2 40 30 2 40-50 28-30 1 50 36 2 40 32 2 40 30 2 70 62 2 Notes: NP = No parking; P = Parking at curbside or median. Number of lanes indicates moving lanes. Right-of-way and pavement widths are in feet. Daily summer volumes are maximum for street limits. VOLUME - CURB DAILY SUMMER PRACTICAL CAPACITY USE VOLUME CAPACITY RATIO (vehicles) (vehicles) NP 40,300 30,000 1.34 P 30;000 23,000 1.30 P 24,000 23,000 1.04 P 15,300 13,000 1.18 P 12,500 20;000 0.63 P 25,000 20;000 1.25 P 18,000 14{000 1.29 11,300 20,000 0.57 9,500 14,000 0.68 P 8,000 6,000 1.33 P 5,000 6,000 0.83 NP 3,500 4,000 0.88 P 2,500 4,000 0.63 P 1,100 4,000 0.28 P 1,100 6,000 0.18 P 2,300 4,000 0.58 P 2,400 4,000 0.60 P 3,200 10,000 0.32 P I L widths of streets, the number of moving lanes, the curb use and volume -capacity relationships. ' The right-of-way width of streets on the Balboa Peninsula varies widely, from a minimum of 30 feet to a maximum of 130 feet and the pavement width varies from 20 feet to 99 feet. ' Along Newport Boulevard from the Arches Bridge to 30th Street the pavement width is fairly constant at 70 feet and the right-of-way varies from 90 feet to 130 feet. ' From 30th Street to 26th Street one-way pavement widths of 44 feet and 40 feet are contained within rights -of -way of 100 feet to 120 feet. From 26th Street to Balboa Boulevard the four -lane pavement is separated by a median strip and channelized ' on the approaches to the intersection. t Along Balboa Boulevard, from Coast Highway to 32nd Street, the right-of-way for a major portion of the length is 65 feet. The pavement width of 54 feet is restricted by a median strip with parking on one side. From 32nd Street to the intersection ' with Newport Boulevard, the right-of-way width is 100 feet and the pavement widens from 64 feet to 74 feet. From McFadden Place to Alvarado Street, Balboa Boulevard has a 100-foot right-of-way and a pavement width of 90 feet. This section of Balboa Boulevard has both curbside and median parking so that for the most part there are ' four effective lanes for movement of traffic. From Alvarado Street eastward there are four lanes for traffic and two curbside parking lanes in a 58-foot width of ' pavement. In general on the Peninsula there is considerable variation in the right-of-way and pavement widths along different sections of the same streets, as well as discon- ' tinuity of street routes. In the face of increasing traffic needs such deficiencies can be expected to increase in significance; therefore, a program of right-of-way acquisition must be established, together with street widenings to satisfy these ' needs. Streets such as Bay Avenue, River Avenue, and Lafayette Avenue lack continuity, while others like 32nd Street, Lafayette Avenue, Newport Boulevard, ' and Balboa Boulevard require widening, or other improvements, to cope with the traffic. 10 II LEI Traffic Controls and Regulations ' Within the city limits there are a total of 33 street and highway intersections controlled by traffic signals with 7 of these intersections being located in the Peninsula study area. The signals along Newport Boulevard at Via Lido and Finley Avenue are operated ' by the California Division of Highways and the remaining signals on the Peninsula are under the jurisdiction of the City of Newport Beach. ' All signals are vehicle actuated with the exception of the two flashing red signals on Balboa Boulevard at 36th Street and Main Street. The signals at 28th Street are two- phase in operation with pedestrian walk -wait signals across Newport Boulevard. The other four intersections at Via Lido, Finley Avenue,32nd Street and 30th Street, have three-phase signals, and incorporate separate left -turn phases as well as the pedestrian walk -wait signal. The capacity of these signalized intersections is adequate to accommodate the normal off-peak daily fluctuations in traffic volumes. However, during the summer peak hours ' the capacity of the approaches on the main boulevard are increased by extending the green time to the detriment of traffic service on the side streets. Although the volume of the side street traffic is relatively light, it is local in character and must be ' accommodated; particularly such essential services as provided by the police and fire departments, or ambulance services. ' Figure 4 shows the existing traffic controls and also the locations where additional signals are recommended. In addition to the signalized intersections, traffic is also regulated by stop and yield signs at many other locations as shown in Figure 4. ' Regulations, such as the tow -away zone on the north side of Newport Boulevard from 15th Street to McFadden Place, have helped to speed up the flow of traffic. A regulation procedure, such as the police check point at Newport and Balboa Boulevards at 26th Street, although considered necessary by the City to prevent overloading of ' the street system during certain summer evening hours, is operated at the cost of delay to all traffic and moreover lowers the volume -capacity ratio of the boulevard beyond the check point. 11 r11 ;i" 911�i a h � a e � W i W QO h • STOP SIGN O YIELD SIGN • ACTUATED SIGNAL CONTROL O FLASHING SIGNAL CONTROL ® PROPOSED SIGNAL CONTROL �y CHANNEL LI[ fl s Q°4ofl����ll�i�]Ili�t�[ PEN/NSULA ���Al � ARANNEL � n = , o ©£IL�Q�t�O�o cean wo �sA� BALBOA 4Rox 9=�Z k� 9 ;y JUL Q + a i 9 \I 0 C \\ E A N w a 4 jjk N 0 6 12 18 24 MAP SCALE /N NUNOREW OF FEET TRAFFIC CONTROLS 1967 N E W P 0 R T B E A C H T R A F F I C P L A N N I N G P A R K I N G A N D O P E R A T I O N S S T U D Y WAN, S di &-4aoti w ' Travel Speeds An adequate major street system should ideally provide for overall average speeds of ' about 25 mph on arterials in peak periods, 35 mph in off-peak periods, and 20 mph ` on collector streets during peak traffic flow periods and 25 mph in off-peak periods. Local streets, such as Via Lido in the business and commercial district, should ' operate at somewhat lower speeds, at least 10 mph in peak periods and 20 mph in off -peaks,- since they provide for predominately terminal operations. The results of the analysis of the speed and delay study are summarized in Table 3. Along Newport Boulevard the relatively low operating speeds between Finley Avenue and 28th Street are due primarily to the delays at the traffic actuated signals. The ' City Traffic Engineer is presently working with the California Division of Highways to improve traffic service on this section of Newport Boulevard. 1 Balboa Boulevard has a 25 mph posted speed limit so that the operating speeds of 21 mph to 28 mph are satisfactory. The average operating speeds along the remaining streets on the Peninsula and Via Lido range from 13 mph to 28 mph. The low operating ' speeds recorded on 32nd Street are due to the delays at the signalized intersection with Newport Boulevard and the friction from traffic obtaining access to and from the ' side streets and adjoining property. Accident Experience Accident data on several of the main routes are summarized in Table 4 and ratios have been developed on the basis of vehicle miles of travel and route miles of roadway. ' As indicated in Table 4, six arterial routes, with several of the routes divided into different sections, were analyzed with reference to traffic accidents. On these routes the average annual number of injury accidents per mile of roadway was 15.7 and the average annual injury accident per 100 million vehicle miles was found to be 200. Based on standards developed nationally the accident rates on major arterial ' streets should not be expected to exceed 6 fatal and 200 personal injury accidents per 100 million vehicle miles. ' Although the average accident rate of 200, for all of the routes considered, is within the tolerable limit, there are certain sections of the routes as shown in Table 4 where 13 I! I! I I I I I I I I I Table 3 OFF-PEAK SPEED AND DELAY SUMMARY Newport Beach Traffic Operations Study ROUTE Newport Blvd. Balboa Blvd. Via Lido Via Lido Nord Via Lido Soud 32nd Street Coast Hiway Marguerite Bayside Ave. SECTION Arches -Via Lido Via Lido -Finley Finley-32nd 32nd-30th 30th-28th 2 8th-Balboa Coast Hiway-36th 3 6th-Newport Newport-15th 15th-Main Newport -Lafayette Lafayette -Via Lido Soud Via Lido Soud-Circle Via Lido Nord -Lafayette Balboa -Newport Newport -Lafayette MacArthur -Marguerite Marguerite -Poppy Ocean -Coast Hiway Coast Hiway-5th Marguerite-•C arnati cn Carnation -Marine LENGTH (miles) 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.6 1.3 0.3 0.2 1.0 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.4 1.0 TRIP TIME DELAY (seconds) (seconds) 30 10 25 10 30 10 45 15 25 10 40 10 85 3 89 3 85 3 180 10 55 10 28 3 180 6 180 6 30 3 55 10 72 10 54 10 48 4 70 4 58 4 130 10 DELAY PCT. OF TRIP TIME AVG. SPEED (mph) 33 24 40 14 33 12 33 8 40 14 25 18 4 21 4 28 4 25 6 26 18 20 11 26 3 20 3 20 10 12 18 13 14 25 19 20 8 15 6 15 7 25 8 28 14 I Table 4 TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS ON PRINCIPAL ROUTES Newport Beach Traffic Operations Study 100 VEHICLE ROUTE MILLION ALL MILE MILE ARTERIAL ROUTE LENGTH VEHICLE REPORTED INJURY INJURY INJURY AND LIMITS MILES 1966 ADT MILES ACCIDENTS ACCIDENTS RATE(a) RATE(b) Newport Blvd. - City Limits -Arches Arches -McFadden Balboa Blvd. Coast Hiway-McFadden McFadden -Main St. Coast Hiway City Limits -Balboa Blvd. Balboa Blvd. -Tustin Tustin-Bayside Bayside-MacArthur MacArthur -City Limits Marine Ave. Bayside-Park Ave. Seashore Dr. Orange-32nd St. MacArthur Blvd. City Limits -Coast Hiway Average 0.6 35,000 0.0701 30 8 114.1 13.3 0.8 20,000 0.0730 75 31 424.7 38.8 1.2 10,000 0.0526 71 21 399.2 17.5 1.8 17,000 0.1117 86 25 223.8 13.9 1.3 35;000 0.1661 42 25 150.5 19.2 1.0 35;000 0.1278 65 25 195.6 25.0 1.5 35,000 0.1916 125 63 328.8 42.0 2.0 37;000 0.2701 58 36 133.3 18.0 1.6 28,000 0.1752 70 35 199.8 21.9 0:3 12,000 0.0131 18 6 458.0 20.0 1.5 1,500 0.0082 17 4 487.8 2.7 2.0 20,000 0.1460 10 - 6 41.1 3.0 200.1 15.7 (a) Per 100 million vehicle miles. (b) Per mile of roadway. 15 U tthe tolerable limit is exceeded and consideration should be given to reducing the accident rate with additional safety measures. Accident totals have been increasing. A report prepared by the National Safety Council for the City of Newport Beach in 1966 showed that property damage accidents had increased from 219 in 1962 to 1,031 in 1965 and non- fatal injury accidents had increased from 292 to 514 in the same period. However, the number of fatal accidents decreased slightly during this time interval. Analysis of the ' traffic accident experience for 1965 shows that the death rate per 100,000 population was 13.6 and the corresponding figure per 10, 000 registered automobiles was 2.7. Both of these death rate comparisons were below the national average. An inventory of intersection accidents reveals that the most hazardous locations for personal injury accidents were at the intersections of -Balboa -Coast Highway, Dover Drive -Coast Highway, jamboree Road -Coast Highway, at McFadden Place and at the Arches Bridge interchange. The City Police Department is aware of these hazardous ' locations and is now processing and studying records of the accidents in order to put into effect the necessary preventive measures. Traffic Capacity Versus Volume The traffic problems now being experienced on the Balboa Peninsula are primarily the result of: . The large volume of recreation traffic attracted by the boating and the combination of bay and ocean front beaches and related marine facilities. • The inability of the street system, designed for normal local use, to cope with the demands of the peak overloads of traffic. ' The inadequate circulation due to lack of parallel side streets to the main boulevards. . The type of traffic, which is essentially slow moving recreation traffic engaged ' upon sightseeing and activities which do not necessitate speedy access to destinations. . The deficiencies in off-street parking space which cause drivers to travel extra distances looking for parking space, thereby adding to congestion. . The extent of curbside along the parking main streets which reduces capacity considerably. . The inadequate capacity of several of the major intersections and the lack of traffic control along the main boulevards which is necessary for regulating the movement of traffic and providing convenient and safe access from the side streets. 16 ' The traffic capacities shown in Table 5 reflect the ranges of practical capacity for collector streets and major arterials as derived from the Highway Capacity Manual published by the U.S. Department of Commerce, with adjustments based on subse- quent research. The major street inventory on Table 2 shows a comparison of the daily summer traffic volumes and the practical capacity of the main circulation streets. " From Table 2 it can be seen that Newport Boulevard, Balboa Boulevard, and 32nd Street are carrying volumes which are in excess of their practical capacity levels ' and at times are approaching their possible capacity. Such loads are being accom- modated at the expense of driver convenience and freedom of movement, as evidenced by congestion during periods of heavy traffic flow. At several intersections along Newport Boulevard the signals are timed to favor the heavy movement of traffic and because of this, the traffic on side streets is delayed significantly, as for example, ' at 32nd Street where two to three minute signal delays are not uncommon during peak flows. At these and some other intersections, which are not signalized, the problem is compounded, where backing up of the heavy boulevard traffic at certain times restricts the available storage capacity, and the side street traffic is thereby prevented from turning onto the boulevard. During the winter and summer when hourly traffic volumes on the main boulevard range from 1,000 to 1,200 vehicles on the intersection approaches, the actuated signals provide a satisfactory level of service. However, the corresponding range ' during the summer peak hours is 1,400 to 2,000 vehicles per hour, and since the signal equipment must accommodate the heavy summer volumes and still provide adequate service for the side streets, improvements are evidently necessary. This problem could be alleviated either by constructing additional lanes in the available right-of-way, or by synchronization of the signal equipment with suitable lag times between the phasing of successive signals, thereby regulating the storage capacity and providing suitable gap acceptances for the side streets. Along Newport Boulevard the five existing signals from Via Lido to 28th Street are ' interconnected and during peak summer flows the signals are adjusted to function as a simultaneous system with Via .Lido controlling. Consideration is now being given to coordinating the progression at all times through the successive signals. The master controller for these five signalized intersections should be capable of adjusting to the variable demands of peak directional flows with progression along 17 II 1 II I , L 1 t Table 5 PRACTICAL CAPACITY CRITERIA TWO-WAY COLLECTOR AND ARTERIAL STREETS VEHICLES PER DAY Newport Beach Traffic Operations Study ROADWAY WIDTH (ft. ) 20-24 26-30 32-36 38 - 42 44 - 48 50-54 56-60 62 - 66 68 - 72 74 - 78 80 - 84 86 - 90 92 - 96 COLLECTOR With Parking Without Parking 1,000 - 2,000 3,000 - 41000 4,500 - 5,200 5,600 - 61300 6,600 - 7,300 7,600 - 81300 8,600 - 9,300 9,600 - 10,200 10,500 - 11,200 11,500 - 12,200 12,500 - 13,200 131400 - 14,000 14,300 - 15,000 3,500 - 4,500 5,000 - 61000 6,500 - 71300 7,800 - 8,700 9,200 - 9,900 10,400 - 11,300 111700 - 12,400 12,900 - 13,700 14,100 - 14,900 15,300 - 16,200 161600 - 17,400 17,800 - 18,500 18,900 - 19,700 ARTERIAL With Parking Without Parking 7,000 - 8,200 81800 - 90800 10,400 - 11,500 12,000 - 13,000 13,500 - 14,500 15,100 - 16,000 16,500 - 17,500 18,100 - 191100 19,700 - 20,700 21,000 - 21,900 22,400 - 23,500 Note: Above values based on the following: Peak hour = 12 percent of A.D.T.; left turns = 10 percent; right turns = 10 percent; commercial traffic = 10 Percent; signal green time =35 percent for collectors and 55 percent for arterials; one direction volume two-thirds of other in peak hour. 5,500 - 7,000 7000 - 91400 10,200 - 11,600 12,200 - 13,700 14,400 - 15,700 16,400 - 17,700 181400 - 19,600 20,300 - 21,600 22,200 - 23,400 24,100 - 25,400 26,100 - 27,300 28,000 - 29,100 29,800 - 31,000 M5 the boulevard, and should also be flexible and sensitive enough so that it can be programmed by means of systems control to operate with variable cycles during the off-peak winter months. With the exception of the two flashing red signals at the Main Street and 36th Street stop signs, Balboa Boulevard has no signals throughout its length for controlling the movement of traffic at the more than 60 intersections with side streets. Field studies and subsequent analysis indicate that consideration should be given to the installation of signals along Balboa Boulevard at the intersections with RivevAvenue, 38th Street, 36th Street, 32nd Street, 28th Street, McFadden Place, 15th Street, Palm Street, and Main Street. River Avenue signals would require interconnection with the signals at the intersection of Balboa Boulevard and the Coast Highway. Signals at the other intersections should be installed with loop detectors and fully actuated local controllers. The capacity problem at the intersection of River Avenue and Balboa Boulevard is caused mainly by its proximity to the signalized Coast Highway - Balboa Boulevard intersection, with the heavy outbound traffic backing up from the latter and thereby preventing movement from the side streets. This outbound traffic is prevented from clearing rapidly through the intersection because of the left -turn movement being restricted by inbound traffic from Superior Avenue. The signal phasing requires modification to provide a separate phase and two left -turn lanes for traffic outbound on Balboa Boulevard, Moreover, the available green time at the signals is not being used to its full capacity because of the restrictions to all movement resulting from the side street traffic turning during the red phase of the signals into the intersection areas on Balboa Boulevard. Parking is presently permitted along the south side of the median strip on Balboa Boulevard between 32nd Street and 47th Street. The capacity of Balboa Boulevard would be increased by the removal of this parking and also by the utilization of this space for left -turn lanes to the side streets. On Balboa Boulevard, east of McFadden Place, parking is permitted at the curb on both sides and also on each side of the median strip. Without this parking during the peak hours, there would be adequate pavement width from 21st Street to Alvarado Street to obtain six lanes for movement of traffic and a median lane for turning movements at the intersections. Furthermore, the practical capacity of Balboa Boulevard would be increased from 20,000 to more than 30,000 vehicles daily, so that operational measures are available for improving traffic flow and accommodating more vehicles within the existing pavement width on Balboa Boulevard. I However, the parking inventory shows that there are about 1,055 parking stalls along Balboa Boulevard from McFadden Place to Main Street. In order to achieve the above improvements in street operation it would be necessary to provide alternate off-street parking for at least this number of vehicles. Removal of the 500 parking spaces along the median strip and conversion of the median for left -turn lanes would increase the practical capacity of the boulevard by 30 percent from 20,000 to 26,000 vehicles daily. The summer peak daily volume along this section of Balboa Boulevard is presently 25,500 vehicles. Circulation and Improvements The existing circulation patterns and the proposed traffic operational improvements are described below and illustrated in Figure 5. The circulation patterns for Lido Isle have already been established and are functioning satisfactorily. Via Lido Nord and Via Lido Soud form a perimeter road around the island. The north -south one-way couplets give access to this perimeter road and the intersections are controlled by means of stop signs-. A one-way circulation pattern for the streets giving access to Balboa Boulevard between Coast Highway and 32nd Street has also been established, and should be retained. Because of the heavy recreation traffic, the extent of curb parking, the difficulties of gaining access to and across Balboa Boulevard, and other factors, such as pedestrian movements to and from the beach, the circulation pattern is not operating efficiently. The provision of signals at River Avenue, 38th Street, 36th Street, and 32nd Street would provide the relief necessary for access to and across Balboa Boulevard. However, during peak flows, parking restrictions are needed on several of the streets, such as Lake Avenue, Marcus Avenue, River Avenue, 47th Street, 38th Street, 36th Street, 32nd Street, Seashore Drive, and Balboa Boulevard. From Balboa Boulevard to Marcus Avenue, 32nd Street is one-way northbound, with the narrow 20-foot pavement width being used for one lane of traffic as well as parking on the west side. Widening of the pavement to 64 feet minimum is necessary to obtain sufficient width for two-way traffic and improve circulation on this important connecting street between Balboa Boulevard and Newport Boulevard. Parking restrict- ions at the intersections of 32nd Street -with these two boulevards would then allow for marking out of two-lane approaches, thereby increasing the available capacity at the intersections. If the proposal for constructing Ocean Front from 23rd Street 20 PROPOSED OPERATIONS PLAN ` v MAP SCALE /N HUNDREDS OF FEET NEWPORT B E A C H T R A F F I C P L A N N I N 6, P A R K I N G A N D O P E R A T I O N S S T U D Y witlar nmitd C7�t�eociatee E 1 11 U LI to 32nd Street is accepted it will be necessary to extend the widening of 32nd Street from Balboa Boulevard to Ocean Front. Adequacy of circulation in this area of the Peninsula is contingent upon providing alternate access to and from the Coast Highway. Seashore Drive is one such route which has been improved to give access to the Coast Highway at Orange Street. The right-of-way is limited to 40 feet and the roadway has recently been paved -to a width of 32 feet. The peak daily summer traffic volume on this street is only 2,300 vehicles so that there is reserve capacity for an additional 2,000 vehicles daily. However, diversion of this volume of traffic from Balboa Boulevard to Seashore Drive could not be expected unless adequate provision for turning movements were avail- able at the intersections of these two streets with the connecting side streets. 1 The installation of signals at the intersections of 38th Street, 36th Street, 32nd Street, and 28th Street with Balboa Boulevard would help in this respect. However, a greater volume of traffic would be diverted from Balboa Boulevard and circulation ' improved considerably if Seashore Drive were extended one block eastward to connect with 32nd Street. 1 A further opportunity for improving circulation and providing alternate access to and from the Peninsula could be obtained if River Avenue were connected to the Coast Highway west of 54th Street. Between 54th Street and 47th Street, River Avenue has a 40-foot pavement width. Peak summer daily volumes average 2,000 vehicles so there is ample reserve capacity for an additional 4, 000 vehicles per day. On the northeast side of Balboa Boulevard, River Avenue has already been improved for a distance of 400 feet. This segment should be connected to the intersection of River Avenue and Channel Place, thereby providing a continuous route for traffic via the one-way couplets of Marcus Avenue and Lake Avenue through to 32nd Street, and 1 thence to the central business district. In West Newport one-way couplets from 48th Street to 54th Street would improve local circulation, and eliminate the need for parking restrictions. 1 The construction of the connecting links as suggested for River Avenue and Seashore Drive, in conjunction with the installation of signals at critical locations along Balboa 1 Boulevard would improve overall circulation in this area of the Peninsula, and also 22 U would give much needed relief to the traffic congestion now being experienced during the summer peak hours along Newport Boulevard and Balboa Boulevard. ' The circulation pattern in the area bounded by 32nd Street, Newport Boulevard and McFadden Place consists of two-way streets except for one-way movements on : Ird Street, McFadden Place, and Ocean Froat. The main problem in this locality is the convergence of heavy summer traffic at the intersection of Newport Boulevard and Balboa Boulevard and the need for a proportion of this traffic to gain access to the ' beach and the adjacent shopping facilities. At the intersection of Newport Boulevard and Balboa Boulevard there are a number of conflicting movements of traffic which reduce the capacity of the intersection. This can be increased by the following measures: . Restrictions of left -turns from westbound traffic on Balboa Boulevard to McFadden Place during peak hours, Restriction of right -turns at all times from Newport Boulevard into McFadden ' Place across the flow of traffic eastbound on Balboa Boulevard. Restriction of left -turns from McFadden Place to Newport Boulevard during peak hours. ' Installation of signals at the intersection of Balboa Boulevard and Newport Boulevard to regulate the turning movements of westbound traffic turning from Balboa Boulevard across Newport Boulevard, and to control the flow of ' traffic eastbound on both Newport Boulevard and Balboa Boulevard. It is anticipated that these measures and the other operational improvements suggested herein will obviate the need for a complex of signals which would ' otherwise be necessary at this McFadden Place intersection to link together such streets as 23rd Street and 20th Street. In conjunction with these operational measures it is considered essential that an extension of Ocean Front be constructed from 23rd Street to connect with an improved 32nd Street. ' This important circulation link is necessary for the McFadden Place and Newport ' Pier area for the following reasons: To provide for the overall circulation needs of traffic requiring access to and from Newport Boulevard, Balboa Boulevard and McFadden Place. 23 To allow for turning movements which would have to be restricted at the intersection ' and must be provided with an alternate route. . To provide for a circulation link between Newport Boulevard, Balboa Boulevard, 32nd Street, and Seashore Drive as an alternate access between these streets and ' McFadden Place. . To help divert traffic away from the existing overloaded intersection. To aid in the safe and expeditious movement of traffic which is now forced to exit ' via 23rd Street and turn against eastbound traffic on Balboa Boulevard. . To aid in the dispersion of traffic from the McFadden Place area and encourage ' parkers to use the city owned public parking lot between 23rd Street and 26th Street as well as the privately owned off-street lots between 26th Street and 32nd Street. ' To divert traffic inbound on Newport Boulevard and Balboa Boulevard onto the cross streets including 26th Street to 32nd Street which lead to the beach and McFadden Place, thereby utilizing the reserve capacity that is available on these cross streets and at the same time relieving congestion at other critical locations. . To give direct access for traffic inbound and outbound on Seashore Drive via 32nd Street and Ocean Front so as to encourage the use of Seashore Drive and thus help ' relieve traffic congestion on Balboa Boulevard. To complete the circulation pattern of streets which would link the downtown area, Lido Isle and Lido Peninsula with the residential and commercial area between ' 32nd Street and McFadden Place. For the area of the Peninsula eastward of McFadden Place the street system is primarily ' two-way with several of the streets such as Bay Avenue, Main Street, "A" Street and Miramar Drive having one-way circulation for a portion or all of their length. The main problem along this section of the Peninsula is caused by the fact that- there are ' insufficient streets parallel to Balboa Boulevard to augment the circulation of traffic. Balboa Boulevard performs as a 2-1/2 mile cul-de-sac giving access to and from the residential properties, the retail centers, the marina park, the grammar school, and the recreation facilities including the boat docks and the public beach. ' Preliminary plans have been considered from time to time by the City for construction and improvement of Ocean Front as a parallel route along the beach front. However, this proposal is opposed by permanent residents of the area. The other parallel street ' to Balboa Boulevard is existing Bay Avenue which is one-way from Main Street to 8th Street and two-way for the remainder of its length to 15th Street. Table 2 shows the 24 '1 J 1 I i,J I right-of-way and pavement widths for Bay Avenue and from the table it can be seen that considerable property acquisition would be required before this street could be widened sufficiently to make it suitable for the requirements of traffic circulation. Moreover, Bay Avenue now terminates at 15th Street and before it could function effectively as a relief corridor to Balboa Boulevard and funnel off traffic from the McFadden Place inter- section, it would be necessary to extend Bay Avenue westward and construct a grade separation over the intersection to terminate in Balboa Boulevard at its junction with 28th Street. Effective improvements in circulation along this section of Balboa Peninsula can only be accomplished by widening or extension of Bay Avenue or by constructing a route such as Ocean Front parallel to Balboa Boulevard, extending from Newport Pier to Balboa Pier. Because of the major construction work required and the implications with respect to the residential areas and the total environment, these two alternatives are discussed further in Chapter V in the "Description of Major Street Improvements." As an interim measure some degree of improvement to circulation could be made by restricting parking along Bay Avenue and converting the side streets between this street and Balboa Boulevard to one-way operation. Main Street from Balboa Boulevard to the Pier should remain two-way and 15th Street between Bay Avenue and Ocean Front Boulevard should remain two-way. However, the remainder of the side streets between Bay Avenue and Balboa Boulevard would form one-way couplets as shown in Figure 5. Palm Street, in this scheme, would be one-way towards the beach parking lot, and this would also be satisfactory for police control of the circulation of traffic around the loop via Main Street during Easter weekend and the late summer evening hours. Although some improvement has already been made to the loop road section, between palm Street and Main Street, further straightening of the alignment is needed to improve safety, and also to give better access from the beach parking lot. The street system east of Newport Boulevard serves the commercial and industrial area of the Peninsula and gives access tothe Lido Peninsula and Lido Isle. Lido Peninsula is served by Lido Park Drive. Between 28th Street and -Anchorage Lane, Lido Park Drive narrows from a 62-foot pavement width to 28 feet, and this is adequate for the present daily traffic volume of 3,200 vehicles. However, in the future, as changes in land use occur on Lido Peninsula and traffic volumes increase, it would be advisable to acquire sufficient property on the corner of Lido Park Drive W" and Anchorage Lane to increase capacity and improve the visibility of the approaches to the intersection. The limited visibility is a factor now in operations and safety at the intersection. In general the street system in this area does not carry a heavy overload of the addi- tional recreation traffic during the summer. The main problems of circulation occur relative to gaining access to and from Newport Boulevard and also because of the marginal friction from curbside parking on certain streets, such as Via Oporto. There are improvements which could be made at one or two intersections which would benefit circulation. The removal of parking on the western side of Via Oporto between Central - Avenue and Via Lido would improve traffic operation on this section of street. However, the heavy demand for parking in this locality would preclude making any operational improvements until the equivalent amount of parking space is provided in the near vicinity. Traffic westbound on 32nd Street would benefit from widening of the pavement and channelization at the signalized intersection with Newport Boulevard. A 64-foot pavement width would allow for a 16-foot left -turn slot and median protection, and a 24-foot pavement for through and right -turn movement on the approach to the inter- section, together with a 24-foot pavement width for traffic turning from Newport Boulevard. The vehicles now parking at the curbside near the intersection would have parking available in adjacent off-street lots. At the intersection complex formed by 32nd Street, Lafayette Avenue, Lido Park Drive, and Via Lido, turning movements should be channelized to minimize and regulate the many conflicts now occuring. Figure 5 shows a preliminary layout for this complex and also for the intersection of 32nd Street and Newport Boulevard. The proposal requires the widening of 32nd Street on the south side between Via Oporto and Lafayette Avenue, and also the widening of Lafayette from 32nd Street to 30th Street. The internal circulation pattern for the Lancaster Addition area could be augmented, and access to this commercial and industrial district would be improved considerably if official plan lines were established for future widening of Lafayette Avenue from 32nd Street to 26th Street. The city standards for secondary streets of 84-foot minimum street width would be satisfactory for this purpose. The traffic operation measures recommended in this chapter are illustrated in Figure 5 and other improvements necessary to accomplish better circulation are shown in Figure 14. C CHAPTER III PRESENT TRAVEL PATTERNS Current travel characteristics and patterns are discussed in this chapter. The ' analyses of related data and their projection to 1990 play a vital role in the develop- ment of major street and highway needs for the City of Newport Beach and the Balboa Peninsula study area. The determination of the transportation relationship between Newport Beach and its environs is perhaps the most significant part of this study. In this regard, two principal factors must be considered. First, the location of the study area in rela- ticntoOrange County and the Los Angeles metropolitan area, with the growth of population, industry, commerce and recreational activities inthis region far ' exceeding that of any comparable area in the nation. Second, and of paramount importance, is the general environment created by the climate and geography of Newport Beach. The attractiveness of the Peninsula, Lido Isle, Balboa Island, Corona del Mar, and other areas of the city, together with the relationship of these land masses to the ocean and harbor, act as a magnet for the people on the mainland seeking recreation. Both of these factors have a profound effect on the ' community and the socio-economic life of Newport Beach particularly as regards the traffic generated by the various land uses. In order to gain an understanding of the transportation patterns within and near Newport Beach, the current charac- teristics and magnitudes of various trip categories have been analyzed. Basic to this study and the development of traffic projections for 1990 is the consideration of current travel patterns. Traffic Characteristics and Study Area Definition Motor vehicle traffic observed on Newport Beach streets is composed of trips having many different origins, destinations and purposes. It is expedient to separate the traffic into various classifications to facilitate study and analysis. Three categories have been used to describe the trips taking place within the study area: 27 Internal trips being completely contained within the Balboa Peninsula study area. External trips having one trip end outside the study area and the other end within the study area. The external trips have been further separated into trips by local residents on the Peninsula having destinations outside the study area and trips by non-residents who enter the Balboa Peninsula for employment, shopping, business, and other purposes including recreation. Through trips having both origin and destination outside the study area. The field studies showed that the number of these trips in the study area was negligible. The majority of these trips occur on the Coast Highway outside of the study area. To aid in analyzing these different types of trips, the study area was defined and divided into 35 traffic zones, as shown in Figure 6. The study area cordon or boundary line contains the area south of the Coast Highway and includes West AV /�`I \✓'{\V(NY/M1F J£FNa/���- c J �m ll 13' 1 �' ➢OFCNf%GN ��/ iA L_ l �l,��w(-/o4�f ?!1`�.�/UUQ•%Ol('�$��b `Y ^oOQi JiOJHOF_ES "i ]9 ••••,. N N �r __ r_ NANBGF ,����ovr.i .. C\'. \\\�J.�`^�lif,lOOhQvIfG��$ay /SGANO Cev• G c L `"s xe- �� •n =G .®^�� '�Quao i.f z +3"' St+ �' /i � rJ�\Y!11 !jv �.�r �:� • r �� lo:l I.l J�1 U� �`G::rm /s[ANn(` '�� 3 � � i lC9 oNd 'O(l[Ju ail7R �U -:-�; �N1�'NC�A oS' ' ` ` . a i^a .l':h�; r/��\a � ®�xsut'. x Vamr J ^ rnl..n� �_�I� �_�-" � L %ioi-1_c _1�'_.cjL.•' Y,eM1��Sd�����, 1 �/y t,��ilo`r'��rlE[H e ""a`�"�c°'' �y!x" G nJ..i -11T =©G g �1Olr- V` �. ICJC�o� \'IJ., () ✓ i '�--E4M�fp LEGENDILI' 0 ZONE NUMBER 6V= E $ g ZONE BOUNDARY A EXTERNAL STATIONS ty° C -Y SCREEN LINE 6 NUMBER P C S i` kk ' 0 R N 0 9 IS Zl 36 45 54 TRAFFIC STUDY ZONES, STATIONS & SCREEN LINES MAP SCALE AV HUNDREDS OF FEET ' NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC PLANNING, PARKING AND OPERATIONS STUDY ia[ S,ini,4 C7'�mociaEe3 I Newport, Lido Isle, Lido Peninsula, the City Hall and Lido shops area, McFadden Place, and the remainder of the Peninsula, including the Peninsula Point. All study area access routes have been defined by 24 external stations which are shown in Figure 6. Stations 36 through 38 cover the corridor from Seashore Drive and Orange Street to the Coast Highway. Stations 39 through 47 cover the corridor where Balboa Boulevard exits to the Coast Highway. Stations 48 through 56 cover the corridor where Newport Boulevard exits to the Coast Highway. Stations 57 through 59 have been used to designate access across the cordon via the ferry to ' Balboa Island. As shown in Table 6 the external stations have been linked to a series of external zones. These zone numbers range from the 7,500 series through to the 9, 000 series, and the location of these external zones is shown in Figure 7. ' The external zone series include the LARTS zones as used by the California Division of Highways for LARTS (the Los Angeles Regional Transportation Study) and the boundaries follow those established by the LARTS zones. The 7,500 series (7,501 ' through 7,5'06) includes the LARTS zones for the remainder of the City of Newport Beach external to the Peninsula. The 8,000 series (8,001 through 8,005) includes the LARTS zones within 15 minutes driving time of the study area and includes the cities of Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, Santa Ana, and Laguna Beach. The 8,500 series (8,501 through 8,505) includes the remainder of the LARTS zones ' within Orange County and within 30 minutes driving time of the study area. The 9,000 series (9,997 through 9,999) includes the LARTS zones outside Orange County. tMagnitude of Existing Travel Traffic crossing the study area boundaries has been counted as part of the regular area -wide traffic counts by the City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineering Division, as well as other area agencies, including the California Division of Highways. As shown in Table 6 the total two-way traffic crossing the study area cordon in 1967 was 59,374 vehicles for an average weekday during the summer months. Internal motor vehicle trips not readily determined by ground counts alone are discussed ' later in this chapter. ' Through Traffic - As previously mentioned, there is a negligible amount of through traffic within the study area. Consequently through traffic has been omitted from the analysis. 29 II II �J Table 6 EXTERNAL STATION TRAFFIC VOLUMES - 1967 SUMMER WEEKDAY Newport Beach Traffic Planning Study EXTERNAL EXTERNAL GENERAL PURPOSE RECREATION TOTAL ZONE SERIES ZONE SERIES ZONE SERIES STATIONS 2-WAY VOLUME 2-WAY VOLUME 2-WAY VOLUME TOTALS PERCENT 9,000 36 462 132 594 39 891 254 1,145 42 1,486 424 1,910 47 595 170 765 48 836 239 11075 51 3,922 1,118 5,040 56 802 228 1,030 11,559 20 8,500 37 1,019 291 1;310 40 2,043 582 2,625 43 2,514 716 3,230 46 479 136 615 49 626 179 805 52 3,136 894 4,030 55 1,732 493 2,225 57 109 31 140 14,980 25 7,500-8,000 38 374 106 480 41 638 182 820 44 1;953 557 2,510 45 1,307 373 1,680 50 1,673 477 2,150 53 8,622 2,458 11,080 54 10,012 2,853 12,865 58 327 93 420 59 646 184 830 32,835 55 Total 46,204 13.,170 59,374 591374 100 Note; Zone Series 9y000 - 60.minutes driving time, Zone Series 8,500 - 30 minutes driving time, Zone Series 7,500-8,000 - 15 minutes driving time, Burbank Giendnle Pasadena Covina Pomona 9997 Huntington Park Downey EL 9998 Segundo La Habra 8603 Compton Fullerton Hermosa Beach Redondo Bench Lakewcod Corona Long Beach Anaheim 8602 Garden Grove 8501 Santa Ana 8003 Fountain / Valley I/ 8002 gnnton B001 NEWPORT BEACH STUDY AREA 8504 EL Modeno 8004 EL Toro Air Station 8505 V 9999 Laguna Beach 0 7 N 0 R T H EXTERNAL ZONES San e S - le Clemente MAPAas=I.M I. 5 NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC PLANNING PARKING AND OPERATIONS STUDY W([lMr&id C7./VddoGiafad II 91 II II a] I I 11 II I i External Trips -The total volume of external trips in both directions has been recorded as 59,374 vehicles for a 24-hour day during the summer months. As shown in Table 6, 55 percent of the two-way volume had either its origin or destination within 15 minutes driving time of the study area, 25 percent of the two-way volume had its origin or destination within 30 minutes driving time of the study area, and the remaining 20 per- cent of this two-way volume had its origin or destination outside of Orange County. Table 6 also shows the division of the total two-way volume between general purpose trips and recreational trips. The division of trips shown in the table has been estimated from "license plate" and "lights -on" field studies conducted during 1967, and also from land use information including beach use data supplied by the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. The average winter and summer daily traffic approaching and leaving the study area is shown in Figure 8. LEGEND 10,000 WEEKDAY WINTER DAILY TRAFFIC (BOTH DIRECTIONS) SUMMER DAILY TRAFFIC (BOTH DIRECTIONS) Is,000 STUDY AREA BOUNDARY !e p♦ C L Y' I C LLSDA^ 1, p C c�e DAILY TRAFFIC APPROACHING AND LEAVING STUDY AREA 1967 �N 0 � N 0 9 IS 27 36 45 54 MAP SCALE IN HUNDREDS OF FEET NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC PLANNING, PARKING AND OPERATIONS STUDY Wifl"&ag &_4,.a.&, I I Internal Trips - Internal traffic represents the difference between the total trip ends and the external trip ends in each traffic zone. To develop the magnitude of trip ends in each zone, land use has been analyzed and divided into four categories: residential, ' commercial, industrial, and recreational. The traffic generation of each land use has been estimated and the total trip ends determined for each of the 35 zones, based on trip generation indices obtained from studies of other comparable urban areas. The ' traffic generation for the beach use has been estimated from information of numbers of persons along the beach as counted by the City of Newport Beach Planning Depart- ment. The trip ends for each of the beach zones is based upon an occupancy factor of three persons per vehicle as determined by field studies. ' Trip Generation A motor vehicle trip has two trip ends, one termed a production end and the other termed an attraction end for the purpose of this analysis. Generally, in an urban area, 75 to 80 percent of trips are home -based (with one end at the home of the trip maker), and 20 to 25 percent are non home -based. A split of 80 percent home -based and 20 percent non home -based trips was used in the synthesis of current traffic ' desires. Home -based trips are usually associated with work, shopping, social - recreation, school, and other miscellaneous purposes. In this study, the vehicular trips were divided into two major categories of general purpose and a recreation ' purpose and each of these was split according to home -based or non home -based trips. The general purpose category includes work, shopping, social, school, and ' other trips including recreation trips made by both the residents and summer occupants of apartments, motels, and dwelling units. The recreation category includes only those trips made by external residents traveling to the beach and marina facilities ' within the study area and returning off -site during the course of a 24-hour day. Residential trip generation rates used in the analysis varied from 8 to 12 trips per dwelling unit and averaged 10 trips per dwelling unit. Trip attractions for the commercial and industrial land uses were based on the square footage of building area and the attraction rates were varied according to the types of businesses and their relative attraction. Land use data for 1967 in each traffic zone in the study area were supplied by the City of Newport Beach Planning Department to aid in the determination of study area ' trip production and attraction. Table 7 shows the vehicle trip summary for the two 33 E Table 7 VEHICLE TRIP SUMMARY - 1967 SUMMER WEEKDAY Newport Beach Traffic Planning Study TRIP TYPE TRIP ENDS TRIPS PURPOSE OF TRIP Productions Attractions Internal External Total Internal 27,560 18,468 46,340 18,468 0 18,468 w � w External 27,872 9,092 0 36,964 36,964 O xm w QSubtotal 55,432 55,432 18,468 36,964 55,432 P. Internal 6,890 4,618 11,586 4,618 0 4,618 a �4 w � A External 6,968-r�`�`�� 2,272 0 9,240 9,240 w O z� O Subtotal 13,858 13,858 4,618 9,240 13,858 z Total 69,290 69,290 23,086 46,204 69,290 Internal 0 10,536 0 10,536 10,536 rA A External 10,536 0 0 0 0 0 x CO as zz Subtotal 10,536 10,536 0 10,536 10,536 H H w w Internal 0 2,634 0 2,634 2,634 U O P4 External 21634 0 0 0 0 x x� O z Subtotal 2,634 2,634 0 2,634 2,634 Total 13,170 13,170 0 13,170 13,170 Grand total 82,460 82,460 23,086 59,374 82,460 34 1 LI 1 categories of general purpose and recreation. The production and attraction trip ends and the internal and external trips are indicated for both the home -based and non home - based purposes. The synthesis showed that there were a total of 82,460 trips both internal and external to the study area, including 69,290 general purpose and 13,170 recreation trips. From the land use data and other statistical information it was esti- mated that therewould be 23,086 internal to internal trips and that 18,468 of these trips would be home -based with the remaining 4,618 being non home -based trips. Out of the 46,204 external trips it was estimated that 34,840 would be from external locations to on -site attraction zones with the remaining 11, 3 64 trips being made by internal drivers traveling to external locations. In the general purpose category the 69,290 internal and external vehicular trips includes trips made by residents and also by vacationers housed in motels, hotels, and apartments during the summer months. The 13,170 recreation purpose trips are made by residents living external to the study area and traveling to and from the beach and marina facilities in the study area. ' Trip Distribution ' Analyses of origin -destination data from a large number of traffic studies have indicated that a consistent relationship exists between travel patterns and land use. These relationships may be used to develop a mathematical model to simulate traffic ' desires for the year for which the necessary land use data are available. The development of the trip distribution model is described here briefly. In essence, the distribution model states that the number of trips between each pair of zones will be directly related to the opportunities for trips to originate and term- inate within the zones_ and inversely related to the resistance tothe movement, or ' the "friction" of time necessary to make the trip. (This is similar to the gravity principle expressed in Newton's Law.) To utilize the model, three elements of data are employed for each trip purpose: (1) the number of trip ends produced in ' each zone, (2) the number of trip ends attracted in each zone, and (3) an attraction factor which is based on travel time between zones. The trip distribution model or equation may be stated as follows: 35 I E C I _ A. Fi-j Ti-j - P1 AF j=1 j i-i where: Ti-j = Trips produced in zone i and attracted to zone j Pi = Total trips produced by zone i Ai = Total trips attracted to zone j P. = Attraction factor for the respective trip purpose, related to travel time between zones i and j n = Summation over n zones. j=1 In applying the equation, interchanges are calculated between all possible zonal combinations for each of the trip purpose categories. The relative totals are summed and balanced to the predetermined control totals of each origin zone and each desti- nation zone through a series of mathematical iterations until the total interzonal movements related to the zones are within 5 percent of the control totals. This process requires a large number of calculations, so the model was programmed for the use of ' currently available high-speed electronic digital computers. In this study a CDC 3800 computer was utilized. ' Zonal trip productions and attractions were synthesized as previously mentioned, and interzonal off-peak travel times estimated from results of field speed studies. ' These minimum travel times were applied to a basic link -node network coded for computer use. Trip distribution rates (F in the preceding equation) representing the effect of distance upon the attraction of competing destinations for trips, are based on modifications of the curves used in the Los Angeles Regional Transportation Study (LARTS) . The attraction curves are shown in Figure 9. 36 100,000 50,000 20,000 10,000 5,000 ti O 2,000 h U Q ti 1,000 Q j 500 Qz W 200 100 50 zc 10 0 6 12 IB 24 30 36 42 48 TRIP LENGTH -MINUTES ATTRACTION FACTORS -VEHICLE TRIPS 54 60 6 II II II II I [1 11 i I i I Results of the 1967 synthetic O-D distribution are listed in Table 8 which shows the distribution of the generated trip ends. This distribution is schematically represented by trip desire lines in Figure 10 where the desire lines for individual zones have been combined to show distribution by parking Districts A-F. Traffic Assignment and Calibration To verify the accuracy of the model for trip distribution applications, comparisons were made of daily motor vehicle traffic volumes crossing several screenlines in the study area, comparing theoretical crossings from the synthesized O-D data and actual ground counts. In general the screenline values differed by 0 to 14 percent thus supporting the validity of the model for estimation of future travel patterns. � K want.,.,. lltw� LEGEND A-F DISTRICT NUMBERS DISTRICT BOUNDARY 7- K EXTERNAL STATIONS TRAFFIC SCALE 30 20 0 5 NENILLFS PER IW IN TH(R)WIS TRIPS MM 4W N" AIMN 1967 TRAVEL DESIRES e ianr_••Jr,�,,.�z....... ., ' ry t� � .✓ _ o ♦ p C' I IF t C IS4AND 0 I, .% p4 %m 10 �N 0 P N 0 9 I6 2T 36 45 54 MAP SCALE /N HUNDREDS OF FEET NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC PLANNING, PARKING AND OPERATIONS STUDY �ry/ILyur �nuiiL �?'�ysociaEea I� 'Table 8 MOTOR VEHICLE TRAVEL DESIRES - 1967 Newport Beach Traffic Planning Study INTERNAL INTERNAL ZONE ZONE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 - 8 - 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 I C I l j 28- INTERNAL EXTERNAL STATION EXTERNAL'TOTAL 34 35 TRIP ENDS 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 TRIP ENDS TRIPE 1 405 477 722 350 216 151 164 176 50 37 30 25 27 11 16 19 33 13 25 42 23 19 47 34 15 59 75 29 3,290 2 US 181 96 59 48 39 63 16 11 9 8 8 2 4 6 10 4 6 12 7 6 13 30 3 17 20 7 1,188 3 279 149 94 80 67 99 38 24 19 15 14 6 31 11 1S 30 11 38 16 12 46 53 44 49 35 22 1,875 4 313 154 136 146 180 66 54 30 23 30 8 22 17 35 13 21 56 28 14 59 41 40 61 60 37 2,826 5 131 116 103 165 43 36 31 22 20 6 9 17 22 11 14 33 20 15 32 24 30 36 57 23 1,904 6 76 76 98 36 33 19 13 17 4 12 11 21 7 13 32 16 8 32 19 15 34 34 21 1,301 7 101 132 38 48 26 21 26 5 9 16 32 11 21 44 22 13 32 24 14 35 55 21 1,353 8 145 52 53 32 24 29 9 14 28 36 13 23 47 24 17 44 34 15 SS 60 34 1,484 9 96 108 72 57 70 14 30 45 77 30 47 91 44 26 83 50 31 108 145 83 2,36S 30 63 42 36 49 8 56 35 51 22 30 75 27 21 81 68 74 95 97 61 1,446 11 66 50 83 17 41 56 72 31 37 90 35 21 60 49 34 94 146 59 1,516 12 60 90 31 35 58 74 39 37 73 24 15 59 44 24 94 124 48 1,305 13 120 45 48 62 65 35 32 67 22 12 54 41 22 88 115 44 1,234 14 106 89 94 97 52 36 98 31 17 56 57 33 92 117 55 1,613 15 31 25 22 12 9 24 7 3 17 13 7 28 27 10 507 16 37 43 24 31 03 27 23 94 74 41 138 46 25 1,133 17 62 34 26 50 16 12 39 30 10 66 89 41 1,020 18 43 45 86 29 22 74 54 26 122 157 77 1.505 19 20 39 13 10 33 24 11 SS 62 32 703 20 55 15 11 46 49 52 79 127 55 973 21 33 29 120 117 104 157 197 90 1,982 22 8 34 41 47 39 60 29 737 23 30 35 40 36 44 20 547 24 150 142 179 187 119 1,962 25 90 206 145 89 1,686 26 237 111 47 1,347 27 309 1S6 2,724 28-34 295 2,996 35 1,637 46,158 40 86 21 97 180 38 162 222 118 79 42 65 97 56 104 4S8 280 533 619 154 94 18 53 106 3.730 7,020 10 18 5 20 35 8 33 44 24 17 8 13 18 13 24 83 61 126 147 34 17 4 13 27 802 1,990 69 135 37 136 265 63 227 325 193 129 62 91 134 90 204 627 449 1,055 1,226 247 128 26 92 182 6,192 8 067 25 47 13 48 99 24 80 122 74 50 23 32 47 31 64 221 151 330 383 83 45 30 40 79 2 121 4,947 14 29 9 27 57 14 45 70 42 29 13 18 27 20 44 127 98 228 265 54 26 6 23 44 1 329 3,233 30 21 6 22 44 12 37 55 36 24 30 14 20 14 31 91 70 160 187 38 18 4 13 25 962 2 263 11 21 7 21 47 13 35 58 40 27 11 14 20 14 36 96 72 183 211 40 20 3 13 24 1 037 2,390 12 2S 8 22 50 14 38 62 42 28 11 15 22 16 38 104 78 196 228 44 21 3 11 21 1 109 2,593 31 71 24 64 143 43 106 176 132 88 33 42 57 44 120 271 224 622 723 124 55 7 21 42 3 263 5.628 35 78 29 66 158 51 110 195 157 105 37 44 63 50 144 296 250 740 858 139 60 6 17 34 3 722 5.168 26 62 23 51 127 44 85 156 135 90 29 34 45 37 108 211 183 553 643 101 43 5 11 20 2 822 4,338 16 39 }6 30 81 31 50 100 95 64 19 20 26 22 63 125 107 323 374 59 25 3 5 11 1 704 3.009 20 51 22 39 108 46 65 133 139 93 25 26 31 25 72 147 125 370 429 69 30 3 5 10 2 083 3.317 29 76 36 51 143 58 86 176 179 120 33 35 37 27 68 175 136 353 410 76 36 3 7 14 2 364 3,977 21 64 39 26 63 20 44 77 61 41 14 17 20 13 29 95 67 151 175 37 20 1 3 6 1 104 -1,611 16 42 18 34 94 40 56 116 121 81 22 23 22 16 40 106 83 208 240 45 22 3 5 10 1 463 2.596 9 24 10 10 48 20 30 60 60 40 12 12 15 11 31 67 55 157 183 30 14 1 3 6 916 1,936 12 28 12 22 59 21 37 72 66 44 14 15 19 17 50 91 83 258 299 46 18 2 5 9 1 299 2 804 6 15 6 12 32 12 20 39 35 24 7 8 10 8 22 48 40 113 132 23 10 1 2 4 629 1,332 30 20 7 19 44 14 31 55 45 30 11 12 18 16 49 85 78 252 293 43 17 1 4 8 1.162 2,135 19 44 16 37 97 34 62 119 105 70 22 24 35 29 91 162 147 471 546 01 33 4 9 18 2.275 4,257 0 16 6 15 36 12 25 44 36 24 9 10 13 11 30 62 54 155 ISO 30 12 1 4 9 802 1,539 6 14 5 11 27 9 19 32 25 17 6 7 11 9 25 50 44 126 145 25 11 1 3 6 634 1,181 22 49 18 41 96 30 68 119 92 62 23 27 42 36 109 201 180 564 655 100 41 4 12 23 2,614 4,576 17 38 14 35 82 26 58 101 82 54 19 23 33 28 86 157 141 442 514 78 32 4 8 16 2 088 3 773 9 20 8 18 43 14 31 53 42 28 10 12 19 15 49 85 78 250 291 43 17 2 S 9 1.151 2,498 35 78 29 64 151 47 108 187 144 96 35 43 73 63 207 338 315 1,069 1,242 174 69 6 16 31 4,620 7,344 33 70 23 68 148 43 114 182 131 87 34 45 69 54 147 322 267 760 883 148 66 6 12 24 3,736 6,732 14 33 11 31 67 19 52 83 60 40 16 20 30 23 64 142 117 327 379 64 29 3 6 13 1,643 3,280 59,376105,534 593 1,314 478 1,145 2,624 820 1,914 3,233 2,511 1,681 610 761 1,073 808 2,149 5,043 4,033 11,075 12,860 2,229 1,029 141 421 831 59,376 59,376 118,752164,910 39 The screenline comparisons are listed in Table 9 and the locations of the screenlines are shown in Figure 6. The resultant traffic assignment to the network is shown in Figure 3 as two-way 24-hour daily summer traffic volumes. Table 9 SCREENLINE COMPARISONS Newport Beach Traffic Planning Study SCREENLINE RECORDER COUNTS SYNTHESIZED TRIPS RATIO I 2,380 2,290 0.96 II 15,300 15,000 0.98 III 40,300 40,000 0.99 IV 11,300 10,600 0.94 V 6,600 61700 1.02 VI 10,500 12,000 1.14 VII 25,500 25,000 0.98 VIII 14,600 15,000 1.03 IX 7,000 7,000 1.00 Note; For location of Screenlines refer to Figure 6. M ' CHAPTER IV FUTURE TRAVEL The planning of a system of major streets to satisfy future traffic demands in Newport ' Beach requires careful analysis of the factors which combine to produce these demands. The projection processes and the data used in the analysis of these factors are described in this chapter. ' 1990 Land Use ' The 1990 land use for each of the 35 zones in the study area, as projected by the City of Newport Beach Planning Department, provided the basis for future motor vehicle ' trip generation estimates. A, tabulation of the Planning Department's land use projec- tions for 1990 are shown in Appendix Table A, together with comparison figures for 1967. For Balboa Peninsula, the projections have been predicated on increases in land use densities rather than on any major redevelopment. Areas such as Lido Isle, which are currently high quality residential neighborhoods and which are for the most part fully developed, are not expected to change significantly in the future. It is estimated that there will be a 12.5 percent overall increase in the number of dwelling units on Balboa Peninsula by 1990. An increase in commerical and office building floor area of 15 percent was estimated for the study area while industrial building usage is expected to decrease, particularly on Lido Peninsula. ' Beach attendance is estimated to increase by approximately 80 percent with the largest increase occurring in the -Newport Pier locality. It is interesting to compare the daily beach attendance of 46,740 persons as projected for 1990, the 1967 daily attendance figure of 26,840 persons, and the computed maximum usage capacity of the beach. The area of beach above high water from the harbor entrance to the Santa Ana River is approximately 200 acres. Assuming an average of 100 square feet per person, the beach could conceivably accommodate 80, 000 persons and with this number of people, would strongly resemble densities similar to Coney Island, However, the main concentrations of beach users are normally located within -100 to 150 feet of the high water line and within these limits, the beach would comfortably hold 52, 000 41 ' persons. The 1990 daily projections of 46,740 persons is 90 percent of this computed capacity. This figure is considered to be a reasonable assumption for the estimated weekday attendance at the beach and marina facilities, and has provided the basis for ' projecting recreational traffic which has been evaluated along with normal weekday general purpose traffic as utilized in basic development of the traffic model. ' Growth Factors ' Growth factors for external trips have been based on population and employment projections by several agencies. The City of Newport Beach and the Orange County Planning Department have compiled the information into jurisdictional and statistical ' areas which have been correlated with the external zones shown in Figure 7. The projected external traffic, as related to the population and employment data, was ' estimated using the average growth factor method. The growth factor used for expansion for each external station was a composite of the factors for the various exterior zones contributing traffic to that station averaged with the growth factor for the Balboa Penin- sula study area. Because of the decreased rate of attraction associated with longer trips, the growth rates of zones closer to the study area were given more weight than those of more distant zones. However, allowance was made for the decrease in trip ' time which would result from the construction of the future freeway network. The growth of general purpose trips at the external stations was related to the zonal ' totals of both population and employment. For recreation purpose trips the growth was based only on external zonal population totals, with direct proportioning of the projected 1990 beach attendance. Future Trip Generation The estimated traffic volumes for 1990 at external stations are shown in Table 10 together with the corresponding 1967 volumes and growth factors. From -the table it can be seen that the total estimated external trips will increase from 59,374 in 1967 ' to 109,850 in 1990. Adjustments have been made in the distribution of trips at the external stations to reflect the anticipated changes in the major street and highway network both within and outside the study area. The changes made in the network ' are discussed in Chapter V. ER d Table 10 EXTERNAL STATION TRAFFIC VOLUMES - 1967 and 1990 SUMMER WEEKDAY Newport Beach Traffic Planning Study STATION LOCATION Orange Street Coast Highway Balboa Boulevard Coast Highway Newport Boulevard Coast Highway Ferry Crossing River Avenue Coast Highway Total EXTERNAL STATION 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 1967 EXTERNAL TRIPS 594 1,310 480 1,145 2,625 •820 1,910 3;230 2,510 1,680 615 765 1,075 805 2,150 5;040 4;030 11,080 12;865 2,225 1,030 140 420 830 59,374 GROWTH FACTOR 1.35 1.98 1.25 1.75 1.98 1.95 2;09 1.86 1.99 1.96 2.28 1.96 1.67 1.49 1.63 1.19 1.49 1.99 1.94 1.35 1.46 1.43 1.43 1.20 1.85 1990 EXTERNAL TRIPS 800 2,600 600 2;000 5;200 1;600 4;000 6;000 5;000 3;300 1;400 1F500 1;800 1;200 3;500 6;000 6;000 22;000 25;000 3;000 1,500 200 • 600 1,000 •800 2,550 700 109,850 43 Table 11 VEHICLE TRIP SUMMARY - 1990 Newport Beach Traffic Planning Study TRIP TYPE TRIP ENDS BPS PURPOSE OF TRIP Productions Attractions Internal External Total Internal 40,140 26,400 76,244 26,400 0 26,400 O O ray External 49,844 �'� $ 13,740 0 63,584 63,584 a xw CA. Subtotal 89,984 89,984 26,400 63,584 89,984 a a� �3 Internal 20,035 1166,_6. 000 29,061 16,600 0 16,600 W z q External 12,461 '� 3,435 0 15,896 15,896 xV3 z9 O Subtotal 32,496 32,496 16,600 15,896 32,496 z Total 122,480 122,480 43,000 79,480 122,480 Internal 0 24,296 0 24,296 24,296 z w External 24,296 0 0 0 0 xC4 Subtotal 24,296 24,296 0 24,296 24,296 z 0 Internal 0 6, 074 0 6,074 6,074 a p A External 6, 074 0 0 0 0 Z p° Subtotal 6,074 6,074 0 6,074 6,074 Total 30,370 30,370 0 30,370 30,370 Grand total 152,850 152,850 43,000 109,850 152,850 44 Trip generation within the study area for 1990 was derived by applying trip generation factors to the 1990 land use estimates. Residential motor vehicle trip generation was increased by 20 percent to account for increasing automobile ownership and rising income which will stimulate automobile usage. A summary of the internal and external trips for 1990 is presented in Table 11. A comparison of 1967 and 1990 figures shows that internal trips will increase from 23,086 to 43,000 trips daily and external trips will increase from 59,374 to 109,850 trips daily. The greatest increase will occur in recreation trips (130 percent) from outside the study area to the beach and harbor facilities. Overall, the 152,850 total trips shown for 1990 represents an 85 percent increase. A comparison of the 1967 and 1990 trips is shown in Table 12. Table 12 SUMMARY OF AVERAGE DAILY MOTOR VEHICLE TRIPS - 1967 and 1990 Newport Beach Traffic Planning Study TRIP CIASS 1967 1990 RATIO 1990/1967 Number Percent Number Percent Internal All Purpose 23,086 28.0 43,000 28.0 1.86 External General Purpose 46,204 56.0 79,480 52.0 1.77 Recreation 13,170 16.0 30,370 20.0 2.31 Total External 59,374 72.0 109,850 72.0 1.85 Grand Total 82,460 100.0 152,850 100.0 1.85 45 t Future Trio Distribution The method described in the discussion of the 1967 trip distribution synthesis was also used to determine the 1990 motor vehicle travel patterns. Trip attraction factors for general and recreation purposes are assumed to be applicable in 1990. In the determination of inter -zonal travel times, network link speeds were selected commensurate with desirable running speeds for each appropriate type of route. Table 13 shows the estimated motor vehicle trip distribution for 1990. The result- ing travel desires are illustrated schematically in Figure 11, In this illustration, zonal trip distributions have been combined to correspond with the study area parking district boundaries. For example, the travel desires for zones 1 and 2 have been combined to coincide with parking District F. The external stations 36 through 62 have also been grouped and are represented by the letters G through K. or K LEGEND A-F DISTRIcr NuMBERs dSTMCT BOUNDARY E - K EXTERNAL STATIONS TRAFFIC SCALE 30 2 Io 5 I VF},GLES PIER MY IN THOUSAN0.4 TAPS ,M k wo NU MOWN 1990 TRAVEL DESIRES C JL NdBBBF�� .o���Q�a��,�'�1. n\• \ �e�� =iF �l rv�)!`/U\D`io gap a' n R6aYr� �� . R-=Jh1oOC7r� J J8,UQU?�'e3•�" `�y5 F� � ;�( j�°be,DO`ODc�QG °IC'JV)nc°xR2°ANn s ranieo,: q (. T LOR'BN B£GIABIn L ��� �A ' a ��: a e � • i r—C� U C I9 A N m Cam\ ■■ �N O � ' N 0 9 IS 27 36 45 54 MAP SCALE /N HUNDREDS OF FEET ' NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC PLANNING, PARKING AND OPERATIONS STUDY Wi(eu nmi[�C7�aaLrciaEes 'Table 13 MOTOR VEHICLE TRAVEL DESIRES - 1990 Newport Beach Traffic Planning Study ' TOTAL INTERNAL INTERNAL ZONE 28- INTERNAL EXTERNAL STATION EXTERNAL ZONE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 34 35 TRIP ENDS 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 5B 59 60 61 62 TRIP ENDS TRIP ENDS ' 1 541 669 748 355 264 179 187 626 590 183 36 31 39 19 29 21 45 19 44 64 34 21 50 43 61 70 109 83 5,160 71 174 28 178 370 77 356 429 245 160 96 134 172 83 166 563 448 999 1,119 209 141 27 80 135 70 179 32 6,741 11,901 2 303 234 123 90 71 55 196 235 132 13 11 10 6 9 7 17 7 12 23 14 8 19 16 17 25 36 28 2,263 17 40 7 39 78 16 77 90 53 35 20 29 35 20 42 112 101 245 275 48 2B 6 22 38 14 42 8 1,537 3,800 3 571 431 456 538 512 1,090 1,260 949 26 24 21 10 14 15 25 12 13 34 518 10 26 22 20 35 59 43 7,711 76 207 36 175 421 104 350 489 314 209 89 131 176 90 241 607 630 2,277 2,420 248 139 36 101 181 59 202 37 10,045 17,756 ' 4 313 188 158 164 322 319 271 33 28 32 12 20 17 42 16 33 73 43 16 57 35 47 73 79 80 4,024 26 71 12 67 153 36 134 177 114 75 44 50 63 37 B3 205 167 436 510 90 53 11 50 81 30 76 17 2,868 6,892 5 150 126 107 286 283 275 31 24 20 11 20 16 27 15 25 54 31 19 42 36 35 53 75 57 3,040 17 49 9 42 96 23 84 112 72 47 27 31 41 26 60 133 122 318 366 62 34 8 30 50 18 52 12 1,941 4,981 6 97 97 236 278 252 23 18 21 7 19 11 29 11 24 54 29 12 42 25 34 53 53 56 2,629 13 38 7 37 82 21 73 95 67 44 23 28 31 20 47 103 94 259 298 48 27 5 19 32 14 40 9 1,574 4,203 ' 7 116 269 282 274 34 26 29 10 20 16 43 17 39 78 40 19 46 39 55 56 79 60 2,816 14 40 8 36 89 24 72 103 74 49 24 27 34 20 53 110 101 285 327 50 28 5 16 31 14 43 11 1,690 4,506 8 277 309 277 35 27 30 15 31 26 44 17 40 81 41 24 64 55 57 86 B2 90 2,946 15 45 9 38 93 24 75 107 78 50 25 20 35 21 55 115 105 297 340 53 29 5 16 26 14 45 11 1,754 4,700 9 430 368 182 71 76 26 78 45 103 43 91 174 85 40 137 93 129 195 204 225 6,097 46 146 32 112 299 91 225 347 282 186 70 84 103 62 189 345 386 1,462 1,585 165 83 12 32 55 39 134 32 6,604 12,701 ' 10 360 176 74 87 25 68 58 100 41 70 136 264 36 105 93 100 161 205 203 6,348 58 181 42 130 381 127 261 442 389 258 83 96 127 79 263 435 526 2,351 2,513 213 101 13 29 50 43 168 40 9,401 15,749 11 98 107 106 45 73 65 Ill 57 68 134 52 23 86 77 98 134 236 173 5,084 39 132 30 95 274 95 18B 317 293 195 68 70 82 59 207 280 340 1,620 1,775 155 68 8 18 30 35 134 40 6,647 11,731 ' 12 64 81 42 66 48 82 45 56 101 34 16 66 58 79 123 163 123 1,934 19 65 17 45 136 51 89 158 159 105 35 33 38 27 93 128 150 636 708 70 32 3 7 13 16 63 19 2,915 4,849 13 113 69 101 55 78 44 63 112 36 17 72 61 87 130 152 115 1,810 25 87 25 58 187 78 115 217 244 159 44 43 47 29 93 154 177 677 735 76 37 4 7 12 20 84 25 3,459 5,269 14 139 158 73 101 57 75 141 44 20 88 75 105 117 162 123 2,143 34 124 37 76 236 95 151 275 299 195 60 57 54 35 99 178 186 607 680 87 44 4 8 15 30 136 51 3,853 5,996 ' 15 70 33 38 20 20 45 12 5 24 21 29 45 49 37 884 51 225 88 80 226 73 161 261 225 149 55 60 61 33 82 205 193 613 672 86 50 4 7 12 31 113 31 3,847 4,731 16 61 68 46 35 74 22 12 44 39 51 84 96 102 1,530 18 73 18 56 168 69 110 192 218 145 52 41 34 25 65 112 100 330 397 60 29 2 8 12 23 82 32 2,471 4,001 17 59 34 37 68 22 13 44 38 53 78 94 95 1,202 9 36 10 25 76 29 51 87 92 60 22 19 19 13 37 62 61 182 214 31 16 2 4 6 10 36 12 1,221 2,423 ' 18 57 78 138 47 27 92 79 110 166 215 207 2,248 17 56 15 40 116 41 80 134 128 84 33 30 34 26 79 109 116 381 447 62 28 3 7 12 15 56 17 2,166 4,414 19 31 59 19 11 37 33 44 69 85 85 1,031 9 33 8 24 67 24 46 78 75 49 20 18 19 13 38 63 59 189 224 33 17 1 4 6 10 33 11 1,171 2,202 20 78 25 12 49 45 64 117 191 137 1,572 14 51 10 43 113 36 86 128 113 76 36 32 38 33 108 126 124 556 676 79 33 2 9 13 20 56 18 2,629 4,201 ' 21 43 27 101 91 114 164 306 221 2,788 21 81 18 62 179 62 125 205 196 131 56 47 54 47 153 182 183 782 945 112 48 5 14 22 28 89 30 3,877 6,665 22 10 32 29 36 51 94 67 1,774 8 30 6 25 65 21 49 74 65 43 21 18 20 17 50 67 65 257 311 40 17 2 7 10 12 32 10 1,342 3,116 ' 23 20 15 18 34 52 48 585 5 18 3 14 36 11 27 41 33 23 12 10 12 11 30 41 39 159 193 25 11 1 3 5 6 17 5 791 1,376 24 69 72 125 236 210 2,055 17 58 12 45 116 35 89 133 109 73 37 33 44 38 123 145 144 629 761 90 38 3 12 18 23 64 21 2,910 4,965 25 78 113 209 186 1,773 14 49 10 41 109 35 83 125 105 73 34 32 36 32 104 123 124 529 639 76 32 2 8 13 19 54 17 2,518 4,291 ' 26 170 339 243 2,345 20 70 14 60 158 50 119 180 157 105 50 45 53 46 150 177 174 771 936 110 47 3 12 19 28 78 25 3,657 6,002 27 444 323 3,294 32 108 23 83 217 66 165 248 207 137 66 61 88 76 275 293 314 1,493 1,770 183 76 6 18 28 40 118 37 6,228 9,522 28-34 712 4,816 52 165 33 154 363 102 307 417 323 213 110 115 138 102 283 457 421 1,419 1,698 244 120 9 25 39 66 182 50 7,607 12,423 ' 35 4,132 43 149 30 123 294 84 246 339 264 175 88 92 111 82 231 371 348 1,239 1,464 197 96 8 22 35 53 146 40 6,370 10,502 86,034 109,834 195,868 ' 800 2,601 597 2,003 5,198 1,600 3,994 6,000 4,993 3,303 1,400 1,496 1,799 1,202 3,499 6,001 5,998 21,998 24,998 3,002 1,502 200 597 999 800 2,554 700 109,834 219,668 109,834 305,702 47 C I U 1 1 �J C n 1 1 C CHAPTER V MAJOR STREET PLAN The character of future travel demands having been identified, a system of streets and possible alternate proposals for servicing these demands are described in this chapter. The transportation needs of urban and suburban areas are indeed complex. Automobiles, taxis, trucks, buses, and pedestrians each with individual and unique requirements are intermixed in the flow of traffic. In Newport Beach, the transportation problem is complicated further by the necessity of providing for the seasonal demands of summer visitors with almost total dependence on the private automobile as a means of convey- ance and by the limited access to the beach provided by a street system designed to serve primarily local traffic. Selection of Test Plan Because of the current level of land development in the study area, it would be impossible to propose major new trafficways without extensive acquisition and clear- ing of many privately improved properties and without destroying that environmental quality of the Peninsula which not only makes it such a pleasant place to live but also makes it an attractive recreation area. With this in mind -and in order to gain an understanding of the magnitude of the future traffic problem, the estimated 1990 trip distribution matrix of travel desires was assigned to the current street system as a test with a minimum number of new facilities added to the network. The major additions to the external network which were considered are the future construction of the Corona del Mar Freeway, the Coast Freeway and the Newport Boulevard -Superior Avenue Freeway. The possibility of a connection between Balboa Peninsula and Corona del Mar was also studied to determine its effect on the diversion of traffic away from the two major existing access routes, Newport Boulevard and Balboa Boulevard. The internal network changes considered include the connection of River Avenue to the 1 Coast Highway, the extension of Seashore Drive to 32nd Street, the widening of 32nd Street between Newport Boulevard and Ocean Front, the construction of Ocean Front 48 1 from 32nd Street to McFadden Place, and the extension of Bay Avenue to connect with Balboa Boulevard by means of an overpass structure. An analysis was also made of the need for and the possible configuration of a structure to separate left -turns from Newport Boulevard to the downtown area via Via Lido or 32nd Street. 1990 Traffic Assignment The 1990 assignment to this network was accomplished utilizing a high speed digital computer. Since the computer assignment results in point loadings and creates volume discontinuities at zonal centroids, a manual refinement of the assigned values was made, based on knowledge of the land use in each zone, and the existence of parallel local streets. The resultant assignment is illustrated by the traffic flow map in Figure 12. mF agAm,m IGONa m COISr N,HxI OY REPRAA ., AA N EL/tl ."D INCR(ASF /N )RIF!/C VOLUYLS OVER .11 VOLUYLS 'NEWPO�F(\�\y�}`1/'/I�£/M/TS-'(!w/f 1 x "xYAN(—I£flfl` V'f i INe �( A, 'ARBOR rA"'� „\�\ `\LC'1`, Q`1QQ JQ \o R a Cr'j/;'i:. �. -'r✓QQ Q�lC.i _ ¢ IF"`\ ��� ♦ .0 i Mill V: ..uo� /SGSAYANO ry^// a �' Y ''n g c`" 1L%O�VI/Ii - ���(ll i//CtlL�PIS'� �FdMEgn idntnn /b r 1CA\EN�,NSAN< ... I'll "—•-=Rcx:l. e.rs •• ^,r11 fI�Il'�III'^ SNORE/ < J{LC/FFS No", 65. 45.008 VEHICLES PER DAY /// V BV C=t✓� �r-r- }�4ME0 b// " BALBOA `—�lr5lr� U�!/j SNOR\E�Sij ci VOLUMES SHOWN ARE TO NEAREST 1000 ^ TRAFFIC SCALE - " i y too <R C E a N L w � So ' AVERAGE DAILY TPAFFIC IN THOUSANDS — SUMMER S N � 0 9 I8 27 36 45 54 1990 TRAFFIC VOLUMES ' MAP SCALE /N NUNOREOSq OF FEET NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC PLANNING, PARKING AND OPERATIONS STUDY 2 AALI, S.id. f'j,/dmoaafEs i This flow map shows the average daily weekday summer traffic volumes which could be expected to use the streets if they were improved sufficiently to accommodate such high ' volumes. The greatest increases in projected travel desire volumes are found along Newport Boule- vard and Balboa Boulevard. Comparison with the 1967 traffic volumes (Figure 3) shows that desire volumes along these two major corridors could be expected to double by 1990. It would be neither practicable nor economically feasible to provide sufficient right-of-way along these corridors to accommodate these projected travel desire volumes. The magnitude of the travel desire volumes projected for the remainder of the street system are relatively small and could be accommodated with certain improvements. Traffic volumes along the Coast Highway and several of the other streets outside the study area were shown on the 1967 traffic flow map. Because the study area was limited to the Balboa Peninsula, comparable projected 1990 volumes on these external streets are not available. However, the California Division of Highways is presently conducting a traffic study in relation to the proposed freeways, and projected volumes from this study should be available to the City of Newport Beach in the near future. This information can be used in determining future improvements for the external street systems. Major Street Design Standards Although design standards of major streets vary considerably within any given area, lane widths of 12 feet on arterials and a minimum of 11 feet on collectors and one-way facilities are recommended. Parallel parking lane widths of 8 to 10 feet are desired to give good separation between parked vehicles and moving traffic. Raised medians to separate opposing traffic are advisable on multi -lane facilities and should be curbed with few, if any, openings except at intersections. Medians on major streets are generally 16 feet wide to allow for left -turn lanes as required. Major streets designed to accommodate six lanes of traffic without parkirg require rights -of - w ay of at least 104 feet in width; provision for four travel lanes with parking requires a minimum of 84 feet; and a standard right-of-way of 60 feet is adequate for collector and local streets where two moving lanes are required. 50 It is realized that in some cases the most desirable roadway section is not always physically or economically possible because of the effect on adjoining property. However, the observance of adequate design standards is necessary in the develop- ' ment of any successful major street plan. The street classification and the cross section standards adopted by the City of Newport Beach are considered adequate for street design on Balboa Peninsula. Description of Major Street Improvements ' The recommended plan is shown in Figure 13, and a detailed tabulation of estimated traffic desire volumes and proposed cross sections appears in Table 14. The develop- ment of each street in the recommended plan is discussed briefly in the following paragraphs. Newport Boulevard - The Arches Bridge overcrossing should be widened to accommodate six traffic lanes, and revision of the present ramp system is also necessary. The California Division of Highways is presently redesigning this interchange and the planning will include consideration of Newport Boulevard as a six -lane major arterial. From Via Lido to 30th Street, Newport Boulevard should be widened to six lanes, ' thereby increasing its design capacity to accommodate from 32,000 to 37,000 vehicles per day. Analysis of future travel patterns indicates a substantial increase in the volume of left -turn traffic from Newport Boulevard to Via Lido, Finley Avenue, and 32nd Street. Traffic making this turn would be traveling to Lido Isle and Lido Penin- sula or would have a destination in the commercial core. Because of the need to provide an adequate level of service for this traffic, and for other reasons such as alleviating peak traffic congestion along Newport Boulevard, it is recommended that consideration be given to the construction of a separate left -turn ramp from Newport Boulevard to 32nd Street. The improved access resulting from such a structure would not only relieve congestion but would also contribute substantially towards the efforts of the business community to attract more customers to the shopping district. ' Provision of the ramp would increase the design capacity of this section of Newport Boulevard to approximately 50,000 vehicles per day. ' It is recommended that this left -turn ramp be located above the central median strip in Newport Boulevard. The ramp would begin immediately south of the proposed 51 k % [FT zz,,/ LINDJ 1A A 7 �ftit 7 - ISLAND YD- 7S o N, �tiz� S F' 7,� t I -- --- - o tA, P,o SAL30A 7 MAJOR ROUTES GENERALIZED LAND USE ARTERIAL RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL COLLECTOR NOTE: ALTERNATE ROUTES BAY AVENUE AND OCEAN FRONT 13 INTERCHANGE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ARE SHOWN AS ALTERNATES ON THIS MAP. REFER TO CHAPTER M OF TEXT -"DESCRIPTION OF MAJOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS", FOR LOCAL BUSINESS DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATES- -A C T F I c 0 6 12 Is 24 MAP SCALE IV HUI;DRIMS OF FEET MAJOR STREET PLAN - 1990 EN E W P 0 R T B E A C H T R A F F I C P L A N N I N 6 P A R K I N G A N D 0 P E R A T 1 0 N S S T U D Y W,4 S.-d &Adt. H E Table 14 RECOMMENDED MAJOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS Newport Beach Traffic Planning Study STREET AND SECTION LIMITS NEWPORT BOULEVARD (a) Arches Interchange Arches - Via Lido Via Lido - 32nd 32nd - 30th 30th - Balboa Overhead ramp BALBOA BOULEVARD (a) Balboa Interchange Coast Highway - 32nd 32nd - 26th 26th - Newport Newport - Alvarado Alvarado - Main VIA LIDO (a) Newport - Via Oporto Via Oporto - Bridge 32ND STREET (a) Balboa - Newport Newport - Villaway Villaway - Lafayette Ocean Front - Balboa LAFAYETTE AVENUE (a) Via Lido - 32nd 32nd - Newport (incl. 1 bl, of 28th) BAY AVENUE(d) Main - 15th RIGHT- PAVE- PRIOR - TRAFFIC DESIRE OF- MENT ITY VOLUMES (1990) LANES WAY(c) WIDTH(c) RATING(b) REMARKS II By others 70,000 6 120 100 II Overhead ramp in median, NP 65,000 6 120 100 II Overhead ramp in median, NP 53,000 6 120 100 II Divided, NP 45,000 6 120 100 II Two one-way streets, NP II II By others 33,000 6 100 80 -1 Divided, NP 25,000 6 100 80 I Modifications 25,000 4 120 100 I Overhead ramp in median 33,000 6 100 90 I Existing, NP 25,000 4 70 58 I Existing, P 17,000 4 100 74 II Modifications, P 10,000 4 70 56 II Modifications, p 20,000 4 84 64 I Dividedexisting one-way, Np 19 ; 000 4 90 70 II Overhead ramp in median 16,000 4 90 64 II Divided, NP realignment 15,000 4 84 64 1 10,000 4 84 64 II Divided, NP 16,000 4 84 64 III Undivided, P 12,000 4 84 64 III Undivided, P 53 11 I l L' 1 Table 14 (Continued) STREET AND TRAFFIC DESIRE OF - SECTION LIMITS VOLUMES (1990) LANES WAY(c} BAY 'AVENUE (d). (Continued) 15th - 20th 15 ; 000 4 84 20th - 26th 15,000 2 50 (a) SEASHORE DRIVE Orange - 45th 11,000 2 40 45th - 34th 8,000 2 40 34th - 32nd 8,000 2 60 (a) LIDO PARK DRIVE Lafayette - Channel 10;000 4 70 29th - One block south 10,000 2 70 VIA OPORTO(a) Via Lido - 32nd 15,000 4 84 OCEAN FRONT 23rd - 32nd 15,000 4 60 Palm - Main (} d 17;000 4 60 23rd - Palm 15 , 000+ 4 60 (a) RIVER AVENUE • River Place - Balboa 4 ; 000 2 60 End - Coast Highway 6,000 4 84 FIFTH AVENUE Coast Highway -Coast Fwy. N.A. 4 100 GOLDENROD AVENUE At Bayside Drive N.A. 2 - PAVE- PRIOR- MENT ITy WIDTH RATING RATING(b} 64 III 30 III REMARKS Undivided, P Overhead ramp 32 I Pavement improvement 32 I Pavement improvement 50 I Painted left -turn slot 62 H Realignment 62 I 64 II Divided, NP 50 I Undivided, NP 50 I Undivided, NP 50 III Undivided, NP 40 I Undivided, P 64 I Curbed left -turn slot 80 III Divided 26 III New bridge (a) Priority I for all recommended signals channelization, one-way streets (refer to Chapter II) . (b) Priority I - By 1975, Priority H - by 1985 (recommended for implementation of mass transit proposals); Priority III - By 1990 (c) City standards for recommended cross sections. (d) Ocean Front (from 23rd - Palm Street) and Bay Avenue (from Main Street - 26th Street) are alternative proposals. Refer to text and Figures 13 and 14. Note: Desire volumes are not necessarily to be accommodated within the recommended roadway widths - see text discussion on p. 60. P = parking; NP -no parking; N.A. = not available. 54 widening of Arches Bridge, with the structure overcrossing the intersections at Via Lido, Finley Avenue and 32nd Street and would terminate at ground level prior to the intersection of 32nd Street and Villa Way. ' Consideration was given to the possibility of constructing this ramp so that it would ' terminate in Via Lido. However, there is insufficient distance along Via Lido between Newport Boulevard and Via Oporto to effectively obtain a reasonable grade with vertical curves for the ramp. In addition, Via Lido would also require widening to accommodate ' the ramp and this together with aesthetic considerations of the structure would very likely prohibit construction. ' These problems should not be a factor in terminating the ramp along 32nd Street. Moreover, the ramp in this location would serve a multiple purpose in providing direct traffic service to Lido Peninsula and Lido Isle and also in dispersing traffic ' in the commercial core in lieu of funneling heavy volumes along Via Lido. 32nd Street - Chapter II describes certain traffic operation measures for improving ' circulation along 32nd Street, including channelization of the intersections of 32nd Street with Newport Boulevard and Lafayette Avenue. The inset diagram in Figure 5 illustrates the channelization. These proposals would provide interim improvements prior to future construction of the left -turn ramp from Newport Boulevard. As shown in Figure 13 it is recommended that 32nd Street be realigned in the future to connect directly with Lido Park Drive. To accommodate the ramp as well as four parallel ' surface lanes and sidewalk, 32nd Street should be widened to a minimum of 90 feetin width. ' Between Newport Boulevard and Balboa Boulevard, 32nd Street requires widening to an 84-footwidth. This street width would allow for four moving lanes, a median strip and sidewalks on both sides. ' Via Oporto -To obtain adequate circulation between 32nd Street and the commercial core, Via Oporto should be widened to 84 feet. This would allow sufficient width for ' two-way traffic in lieu of the existing one-way pattern, with 4-12 foot lanes, a 16-foot median strip and sidewalks on both sides. This improvement would be necessary to handle the increased volume of traffic wishing to obtain access to Via Lido shopping from the proposed ramp in 32nd Street. 55 I Lido Park Drive - The present 70-foot width of Lido Park Drive will be adequate for future traffic needs. However, Lido Park Drive would require future realignment and widening at its approach to Lafayette Avenue to conform to the previously described proposal for changing the alignment of 32nd Street. The realignment and consequent intersection improvement with Lafayette Avenue and 32nd Street would facilitate access for the projected 1990 volume of 10,000 vehicles per day. Via Lido - Modifications at the intersections of Via Lido with Newport Boulevard and with Lafayette Avenue will be necessary to conform to improvements suggested. Otherwise, Via Lido would continue to function it does as presently. ' Lafayette Avenue - As described in Chapter II Lafayette Avenue should be widened to a width of 84 feet, thereby improving access to the Lancaster Addition area, and to Lido Peninsula. The widening of 28th Street to 84 feet on the eastern side of Newport Boulevard would augment the circulation via Lafayette Avenue. This would provide an alternate parallel route to Newport Boulevard, and would serve to link the Lido Shops area, Lido Isle and Lido Peninsula with the McFadden Place locality. This route would also provide reserve capacity parallel to Newport Boulevard for the relief of peak -traffic flow along this corridor. .Balboa Boulevard - A number of traffic operational improvements were recommended in Chapter II for Balboa Boulevard and ancillary streets between the Coast Highway and McFadden Place. These measures included connection of River Avenue to the Coast Highway, extension of Seashore Drive to connect with 32nd Street, construc- tion of Ocean Front between 32nd Street and 23rd Street, the installation of signals at specific locations and the replacement of the curbed median in Balboa Boulevard with suitable lane markings. These operational measures form part of the overall major street plan program. Because of the need to provide for future traffic volumes it is recommended that Balboa Boulevard be widened to accommodate six travel lanes, a median strip and sidewalks. This would require acquisition of property along Balboa Boulevard from the Coast Highway to 32nd Street where Balboa Boulevard has already been widened for this purpose. In order to facilitate the movement of traffic along Balboa Boulevard and to provide for access to the future Newport Boulevard -Superior Avenue and 56 I ' Coast freeways, it is recommended that consideration be given to the future construction of an interchange at the existing Balboa Boulevard -Coast Highway intersection. This proposal is indicated in Figures 13 and 14. The need for additional capacity along the Peninsula from McFadden Place to Main Street was discussed in Chapter U. In order to accommodate future traffic increases ' it is recommended that parking be restricted at curbside and on both sides of the median strip along Balboa Boulevard during the peak summer hours. Removal of the parking would enable Balboa Boulevard, between McFadden Place and Alvarado Street, to function as a six lane arterial with left -turns along the median strip and would provide design capacity for 32,000 to 37,000 vehicles daily. The ' maximum projected volume for 1990 along this section of Balboa Boulevard is 33,000 vehicles per day. Bay Avenue -Ocean Front - The improvements proposed for Balboa Boulevard would be adequate to accommodate only a portion of the projected 1990 summer weekday volume of 48,O00 vehicles per day along the Peninsula corridor. As discussed later in this chapter, recommendations for construction of an off -Peninsula parking lot, with some form of mass transit serving the needs of recreationists for conveyance to ' and from the beach, would alleviate much of the expected future congestion, satisfy a large measure of the future parking demand, and help to provide a balanced trans- portation system. However, it is not expected that these measures will resolve the whole traffic problem. Projected future traffic volume desires along the Balboa Peninsula corridor are of such magnitude, and the circulation and capacity of the existing streets so limited, that consideration should be given to the construction of a relief route parallel to Balboa Boulevard. As discussed previously in Chapter H, Bay Avenue or Ocean Front appear to be the only logical routes which would serve this purpose. Construction of an arterial street along Bay Avenue or Ocean Front would provide the improvements needed for traffic carrying capacity and adequate street circulation. Either route would be satisfactory from an engineering viewpoint, and any choice of route from this aspect alone could be resolved by an analysis of engineering costs and feasibility. t Bay Avenue would require widening and would have to be extended westward from 15th Street with construction of a grade separation over the McFadden Place inter- section. The widening would require considerable property acquisition. 57 I ' Ocean Front would be physically easier to construct and would not require as much property acquisition. There would, however, be problems associated with relocation t of the Grammar School playground, and the facilities at Newport Pier, 15th Street and Palm Street. An Ocean Front route would still necessitate future construction of a grade separation at the McFadden Place intersection with property acquisition along ' Balboa Boulevard sufficient to accommodate the structure. These are only some of the factors involved. However, the selection of route, or construction of any alter- native for that matter, is not primarily dependent on engineering factors. Historically, ' neither of the two alternatives is regarded as being particularly attractive or favorable by residents of Newport Beach. Other considerations such as aesthetics, environmental qualities and the total effect on community values and the social life of permanent residents are of paramount importance. The results of the current study have indicated that there will be a future requirement ' for a route parallel to Balboa Boulevard to serve the combined needs of Newport Beach and Orange County residents. The selection of which route, if any, is a matter for local determination based on the best available planning and engineering information together with considerations of community goals and objectives. As indicated in Table 14 the proposal for an off -Peninsula parking lot with suitable mass transit conveyance to the beach and harbor facilities has been recommended for implementation by 1985 under Priority II, and consideration of Bay Avenue or Ocean Front as alternative parallel routes has-been given a Priority III rating for implementa- tion by 1990. This interval of time and sequence of staging should provide the City with considerable latitude in their decision making process relative to all three proposals, Balboa Peninsula to Corona del Mar Connection - At the request of the City consid- eration has been given to the effects of constructing a bridge or tunnel between Balboa Peninsula and Corona del Mar. Never seriously proposed or favored by any organized group or governmental agency, this idea has nevertheless achieved a ' certain degree of local acceptance as a possibility. An evaluation of the future traffic distribution was made, as synthesized by the traffic model, to determine the probable effect on travel patterns and to establish the magnitude of future traffic ' volumes which might be diverted from the intersections of the Coast Highway with Newport Boulevard and Balboa Boulevard. 58 I ' It is estimated that by 1990,if such a connection were constructed, a total of 75,000 vehicles daily could travel over it and would have to be accommodated along the ' Balboa Boulevard corridor. This total includes approximately 18,000 vehicles daily (20 percent) of induced through traffic, which would not otherwise travel along Balboa Boulevard. The remaining 56,550 vehicles daily would comprise traffic diverted from the other external stations. Approximately 29,000 of these vehicles or 39 percent of the total would be Newport Beach City traffic having origin or destination within the city limits with the remaining 37 percent being comprised of motorists living outside ' the city limits. To serve a future volume of 75,000 vehicles daily, high quality approach routes would have to be developed, in addition to the bridge or tunnel itself. Specifically, this would require the construction of a freeway or multi -lane highway for the length of the Peninsula. A route of this character has never received serious consideration by the ' city and cannot be recommended due to the clearly detrimental impact upon the residential environment. As a consequence of the difficulty in providing access to such a facility construction of a connection (bridge or tunnel) between Balboa Peninsula and Corona del Mar cannot be recommended. Rather than improve traffic service this connection could, in fact, create almost insolubld problems for Newport Beach. Alternate Proposals - The recommendations contained in this report for major street improvements have been made primarily with the objective of serving the normal future traffic needs of the residents and business inter6sts of the City of Newport Beach. The improvements recommended are, therefore, designed to meet the traffic demands for general purpose trips during an average summer weekday with some reserve capacity being available for the needs of recreational purpose trips. Peak hour traffic flow desires expected at 1990 traffic volume levels, (Figure 12 ' and Table 14) will equal and in some cases exceed the design capacities of certain streets such as Newport Boulevard and Balboa Boulevard, even if they are constructed to the improved standards suggested in Table 14. The volumes have been shown to ' illustrate the desire for travel along the corridors rather than an actual assignment of vehicles to the route itself. With the overriding criterion that any proposed solution be commensurate with the objective of preserving the environmental quality of the community, it becomes 59 ' apparent that dependence on a totally automobile oriented transportation system is not a wholly acceptable solution for Newport Beach. It would be physically difficult, socially undesirable, and economically unfeasible to provide sufficient street capacity as the one means of accommodating all of the future demands of summer recreation and other travel along the Peninsula. The street network must be supplemented by some ' form of mass transit if a balanced system of transportation is to be provided along the main corridors of the Peninsula. It is not within the scope of this report to study mass transportation systems. However, it is recommended that consideration be given to the possibility of providing parking space off the Peninsula, possibly northwest of the Newport Boulevard interchange as ' shown in Figure 18. Moreover, studies should be made to determine the most accept- able method whereby people could be transported from this location to the beach and marina facilities, with perhaps a loop connecting the downtown business district. ' To obviate the congestion problem it appears desirabld that such a system be constructed on an "exclusive" right-of-way so that conflicts with other traffic could be reduced to a minimum or eliminated entirely. ' The construction of an overhead aerial tramway similar to that employed in ski resorts and as presently operating in Disneyland and San Diego offers one possibility for ' further investigation. Another alternate might be to operate a number of motorized "elephant trains" similar to those used in Laguna Beach during the Pageant of the Masters. There are a number of other alternates which could be studied for financial ' feasibility as well as acceptability by patrons and residents of Newport Beach. ' One such alternative which has already been discussed by various citizens' groups is the possibility of utilizing "water taxis" to transport beach patrons from the main- land to a specially constructed terminal between 19th Street and 20th Street on the ' northern side of Balboa Boulevard. From this location it would be necessary to construct an overhead pedestrian bridge across Balboa Boulevard to the beach where patrons could then transfer to other means of conveyance operating along the length ' of the beach. Consideration of mass transit as suggested above, appears to be the most feasible ' way of overcoming estimated future street and parking deficiencies and of assuring that Balboa Peninsula would be provided with a balanced transportation plan. 60 p 0 r \ �onHle Q /RV/NE TER Rc"F co4sr U l� coca w� II `l SHE/GH7��� L Re = U V �T J� SEADRIFT � > R ¢ w , r� U�Pyp� � � CLIFF ON � �� h'EWPO� "\ �, o iz xinss aO LI _/SL E-� aays: Ory sOn �a rf�Ra OR o �� '��� Vlee>y `� enE . FU/URE n �i\L^ t HARBO CDASTHWY.A BGTSHORE 0 O.�^iS�C uoo _ C IV R �,R�"CORON - _ rlHLAND Ao� s0�'- i o �� J�' `� a CAME y 0 ,SLANGl� 1_ H/C? LAND %R DOS c� 1 �(�`C^\ '� DUI )O GU��,v/ _ - _ _ _—_-HO __ e m� oc A F — m ' � OP 9 �: I W\ I PEN/NSULA ROUTE I I111 ^� _ 2 _-� EP���� �< A �O - Enn euwo�U� 1��������� �C FF �� oe� ROxecRr eHAANE� qvE AiTE AT . S'^ [J ��s Ary �� eT _ v 4 �- CAMEO 4 oceAry prv1\)W — /x TERN TER�p� -� \ sL ,y0 N1S 91 'O\ O FFON t fEi z> o0 LEGEND �� STREETS REQUIRING NO IMPROVEMENT Aa - C �' y 1 OR OUTSIDE OF STUDY AREA ��' A �' PRIORITY I IMPROVEMENTS BY 1975 IIIIIIIIWIIII PRIORITY II IMPROVEMENTS BY 1985 NOTE: ALTERNATE ROUTES- BAY AVENUE AND OCEAN FRONT M A A Z C ARE SHOWN AS ALTERNATES ON THIS MAP. REFER TO CHAPTER Y P 0 PRIORITY III IMPROVEMENTS BY 1990 t C I F" OF TEXT -"DESCRIPTION OF MAJOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS', FOR N 4 NUMBER OF LANES DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATES. 0 6 12 IB 24 MAP SCALE N HUNDREDS OF FEET MAJOR IMPROVEMENT PRIORITIES r N E W P 0 R T B E A C H T R A F F I C P L A N N I N G P A R K I N G A N D O P E R A T I O N S S T U D Y wii . s..A AA w D Priorities - A priority program was developed for major route improvements in the recommended plan. It is outside the scope of this report to develop construction costs and financial estimates for developing a realistic capital improvement program. These restraints should normally be considered as a prerequisite for finally estab- lishing such a program; however, recommendations are made as indicated in Table 14 and Figure 14 for certain priority ratings based upon the following criteria. a. Relative need as indicated by traffic volumes versus capacity relationship on the existing system under current and projected 1990loadings. b. Deficiencies in geometrics, right-of-way and pavement width of the existing street system. c. Patterns of growth and land use development anticipated for Newport Beach and the surrounding area. d. Development of the recommended system in usable increments. e. Satisfactory balance with respect to general levels of expenditure required over the implementation period. ' f. Consideration of the effect of proposed improvements on the ■ environment and community life of the Peninsula. Major route street improvements were assigned one of three priorities: I _ Current year to 1975 II 1975 to 1985 III - 1985 to 1990 ' It is anticipated that traffic operational measures such as signalization, channei- ization and conversion to one-way street couplets as described in Chapter II can be programmed for completion as the first stage priority between now and 1975.. It must ' be realized that the long range classification of Priorities II and III is subject to variable factors, particularly the financial constraints, and that these designations should be reviewed periodically as the program progresses to assess the affects of changing conditions. The adequacy of existing streets and the need for a number of street improvements is dependent to a certain extent on the completion dates of the proposed freeways, particularly the Newport Boulevard -Superior Avenue freeway. The latter construction 62 I could influence considerably the target date for proceeding with the proposed Coast Highway -Balboa Boulevard interchange. In addition to the traffic operation measures, there are 13 street sections recommended for improvement in Priority I. It is suggested that a staged program be developed during this phase by the City:br acquisition of necessary rights -of -way for Phase II and III ' construction work. Thirteen street sections are included in Priority II and five street sections in Priority III. It is recommended that one of the alternate proposals for mass transit also be implemented in Priority II, or possibly in Priority I if demonstrated to be feasible. The priority staging of recommended improvements is illustrated in Figure 14. ' Financing - Several methods of financing the recommended program may be considered by the- City. These methods include Federal Aid, State Gas Tax Funds, County Aid Funds, Assessment Districts, City General Fund, Bonds, or a combination of several ' of these sources. Funds collected by the State from Gas Taxes are distributed to the cities for -use on Selected System Streets. Expenditure these funds of can be for engineering, overhead or administration, equipment, as well as construction and right-of-way acquisition. Funds may be obtained through the sale of bonds for all or part of the proposed program. The principal advantage of this method of financing is that the funds for i' an entire program stage are available as soon as the bonds are sold. Continuing Study The development of the recommended plan is the initial step in achieving a soundly - based street system. The findings of this study of current and future travel characteristics provide the framework for a long-range plan. Although the recommended plan has been carefully formulated, it is based on 23-year travel predictions which control the selection of routes and priorities. Therefore, the plan must be periodically ' re-evaluateito measure the effects of unexpected changes in the predictions of area growth patterns. ' The transportation problem confronting Newport Beach involves the movement of people and goods at the least possible cost in optimum time. A substantial investment has 63 1 been made in the street and highway system, and many more millions of dollars will be invested in the future. Updating of study data will be essential. As changes occur which affect the street plan, necessary changes can be introduced. An established procedure and the ' proper assignment of responsibilities will eliminate inefficiencies which result from single planning efforts and "one-shot" surveys. ' Basic elements for which updating of inventories and analyses are required consist of: 1. Transportation facilities, including those for public transportation; 2. Travel patterns; 3. Parking facilities; 4. Traffic control features; 5. Economic factors affecting development; ' 6. Population; 7. Land use; including zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations; 8. Financial resources; and ' 9. Social and community values, such as preservation of open space, parks and recreational facilities; preservation of historical sites ' and buildings; environmental amenities; and, aesthetics. The collection, maintenance, analysis, and application of current data for the ' transportation study may be categorized into those primarily affecting planning, and those primarily affecting the traffic phase of the study. This broad grouping of the elements will aid in assigning responsibility for updating the study items. Of the nine basic elements, the first four primarily affect the traffic phase, and the last five affect the planning portion of the updating process. ITransportation Facilities - An inventory of the major street network was developed as part of the base year field studies, and is a source of information on their physical dimensions. As changes occur the inventory should be updated, at least on an annual ' basis. Any changes in freeway locations from the ones assumed in the recommended plan development should also be evaluated. Changes in local bus service and ' schedules should be evaluated in terms of impact upon street needs. The implications of the Southern California Rapid Transit District recommendations with respect to rail MI H transit should be examined, particularly as regards the effects on the operation of the South Coast Bus Transit between Newport Beach and the Rapid Transit Stations. Travel Patterns - Chapters III and IV and the Appendix include information used to ' simulate future travel patterns. This information should be periodically reviewed for reasonableness and changed as necessary to reflect major changes in travel charac- teristics. Traffic volume counts should be taken at selected stations on the external ' cordon and screenline, and at other points on the highway network to provide informa- tion on traffic trends. Parking Facilities - The inventory of curb and off-street parking facilities in the commercial district should be kept up to date. At approximately five-year intervals, limited parking studies should be conducted. These studies would determine the ' need for additional facilities, and any necessary changes in parking regulations, or adjustments in time restrictions or parking rates. At 10-year intervals, more detailed studies, including parking interviews, should be made. These studies should consider ' the provisions for development of off-street parking facilities designed to meet the needs for the following 10-year period. ' Traffic Control Features - Traffic signals, channelization, and other traffic control devices are a part of the recommended major street improvements. However, there may be many locations where installation of signals, channelization, spot widening, ' etc. , may as an interim measure, relieve congestion. Observation of existing signal operation and potential signal locations by the City Traffic Engineer as well as the constant inflow of information from accident records and citizen response, can pro- vide the basis of a traffic control implementation schedule. Economic Factors Affecting Development - The economic structure in Newport Beach ' has a pronounced influence on the area's travel characteristics. It affects employment, income level, car and home ownership, and particularly land uses, all of which exert 1 direct influence on the area travel patterns. It also reflects trip generating potential as well as car -ownership trends. The periodic updating of socio-economic factors may indicate the need for the revision of the trip generation and distribution models. 65 ' Population -The density and distribution of population are important factors in trans- portation planning. Changes in the above factors as well as changes in family size, income, and occupational characteristics should be evaluated; and, since population ' affects the area's economy, the updating and reappraisal of the projections of both elements should be considered in the same process. ' Population forecasts should be reviewed for applicability and modified to reflect recent growth trends. In some portions of the study area the population will remain relatively stable, while in many other areas increases will likely occur. Future distribution of population ' growth may differ from current forecasts; therefore, it is essential that the updating be conducted on a census tract and traffic zone basis to relate the population growth and distribution to the areas in which these changes occur. Population data related ' to traffic zones are essential in analyzing trip -making characteristics and travel patterns. Statistics related to population studies including the number of dwelling units, labor force, school enrollment, and school attendance must be analyzed according to census tracts and traffic zones and performed concurrently with popula- tion studies. Land Use - Characteristics of land use are also related to trip production and travel. ' Certain land uses tend to generate trips at established rates, while other land -uses attract trips. The land -use in each traffic zone is a principal determinant of socio- economic characteristics. Therefore, the land -use inventories should be re-evaluted periodically, preferably every five years. Should it be determined that socio-economic parameters are not following the projected patterns, new land -use projections leading ' to new parameters should be established. Data obtained through the land use inventories were utilized in relating trip production characteristics to land -use and in the development of formulas for projecting future travel. In the land -use updating process these data will be an important tool which must be prepared in a form which will permit ready use. The establishment of land use control measures designed,to maintain the traffic - carrying capability of transportation facilities is also of public benefit. Existing laws and ordinances should be examined and recommendations developed for needed revisions and additions. ' Financial Resources - Modifications to the transportation system: which have been proposed in this study, represent the expenditure of a large quantity of public funds over the next 23 years. The financial resources, including responsibilities and restrictions, of all agencies, federal, state, and local, should be investigated. A cost analysis of each stage of development and the determination of appropriate ' financial responsibilities should be made. With resources and costs at hand, means of acquiring necessary additional funds should be determined. Social and Community -Value Factors - The transportation system of any community is vital to its well being. As the community grows its transportation system must grow with it. In the development of the recommended plan, effort was made to minimize ' the disruption of neighborhood planning, schools, parks, and other community assets. In the execution of the plan, efforts should be directed to preserve, and, where possible, to improve or enhance aesthetics. For example, the judicious use of landscaping along the new construction would aid in softening its impact upon the community. When any of the above factors, especially land use, population, and freeway location, ' change considerably, the traffic assignment can be updated readily with the information developed for this study. ' Re-evaluating Transportation Plans - The preparation of a street and highway plan developed in accord with other planning processes is the objective of urban transpor- tation studies. The plan should be developed to complement other urban planning to achieve maximum benefits for the residents of the area and region. Continuing study is, therefore, necessary to keep up with changes. This periodic re-evaluation must include both the network as a whole and the network in its segments. Reappraisal as a whole would be undertaken to check whether changes are needed to react to changes noted in the inventories of the basic elements. Reappraisals of the system in its segments might be done to assure that new segments are usable when completed without waiting for the completion of the entire system. ' The stage construction programs might be varied from that proposed to accommodate development in some part of the study area that was faster than anticipated. Reappraisal might also be needed when a roadway construction project in the area, not part of the plan, is proposed. If found warranted, such proposals might be incorporated into the plan. 67 I U I r [] I I 1 I 11 I I I CHAPTER VI PARKING INVENTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS This chapter summarizes the inventory of parking space in the Balboa Peninsula study area and describes some of the characteristics of parkers utilizing these facilities. The study area has been divided into parking Districts A through G with District B being subdivided into sub -Districts B1 to B5. The purpose of this is to group together areas of similar geographic, land use and other characteristics so as to facilitate ease of identification and analysis of the parking problem. Each of the districts contains a number of internal zones as used in the analysis of present and future travel patterns. For example, Lido Isle which contains Zones 28 through 34 is designated as District C, and the Peninsula Point which contains Zones 1 and 2 is designated as District F. The land use in both of these districts is primarily residential. Parking Inventory Table 15 and Figure 15 show the parking inventory for Districts A through G. Table 16, Figure 16 and Figure 17 show a detailed curb and off-street inventory for Districts B and E, which include the main business areas and beach generators. District A covers Newport Island and West -Newport from 54th Street to 37th Street and contains a total of 692 parking spaces, 90 percent of which are curb spaces. District B covers the Lido shops and City Hall area, Lido Peninsula, and McFadden Place from 37th Street to 14th Street. Table 15 shows that of a total 4,949 parking spaces approximately 50 percent are at curbside and 50 percent are in off-street lots. Private customers and employee lots account for 24 percent of the total available parking in this district. District C covers Lido Isle and the 1,825 parking spaces available represent 12.5 Percent of the total district parking space. 68 11 Table 15 PARKING SPACE INVENTORY FOR DISTRICTS A-G Newport Beach Parking Study BALBOA PENINSULA TYPE PARKING A B C D E F Curb 622 2,438 1,825 1,205 435 920 Off -Street 70 2,511 0 65 1,345 0 Total 6 22 4,949 1,825 1,270 1,780 920 Note: For District locations A-G refer to Figure 15. BR HE/f $Jl �/�. J % /� IRVINF�IEF4A�L LINVA ISLE HAROQRl` ISLAND r /I� U� n'r ua \ iIPF_UDN/NSVYs� xCNau •Loan.=C :'OLiLI-�Vi,�_ rin... CORONA DEL MAR G TOTAL 1,661 1,053 9,106 5,044 2,714 14,150 .�� ,.. �' tV+t�•'_ �p�C=.Y//is:=.= .�� ,.. �' tV+t�•'_ �p�C=.Y//is:=.= it .�.�-1Jr CBOd IG�CJ �_\`„/.\ ��ii fl 2- <MEd�i`. SCALE r C¢i y .ei�ooG� : Ac3 NUMBER OF SPACES -1,200 t y?y - - C ' 06 r15 00 400 LEGEND 'Ue P C I` y I DISTRICT BOUNDARY j H 0 A DISTRICT DESIGNATION it0 it 0 9 IS 27 36 45 54 PARKING INVENTORY - DISTRICTS A-G 1967 - MAP SCALE I N NUNDREDS OF FEET NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC PLANNING, PARKING AND OPERATIONS STUDY ill,,,Sim C7�!lociaf¢a District E covers the Balboa Pier and Balboa business area and extends from Alvarado Street to "C" Street. Table 16 shows that there are atotal of 1,780 parking spaces in the district, 76 percent being in off-street lots. The beach parking lots account for 59 percent of the total spaces in the district. District F covers Balboa Peninsula Point and contains 920 curbside spaces. District G, the Corona del Mar study area,has been included for comparison purposes and contains 19.2 percent of the total parking space. Table 16 PARKING SPACE INVENTORY FOR DISTRICTS B AND E Newport Beach Parking Study TYPE PARKING Curb Total Off -Street Private,Cust. & Employees Private, Owners & Tenants Municipal, Public Use Private, Special Use Municipal, Special Use Off -Street Total Total DISTRICT B Spaces Percent 2,438 49.3 DISTRICT E Spaces Percent 435 24.0 1,155 23.3 184 10,2 385 7.8 88 4.9 510 10.3 1,042 59.1 282 5.7 31 1.8 179 3.6 0 0 2,511 50.7 1,345 76.0 4,949 100.0 1,780 100.0 Note: For location of curb and off-street facilities refer to Figures 16 and 17. 70 �1 OFF STREET F _ l PMATE CUSTOMMS G EMPLOYEES PIUVZE SPECIAL USE ® MATE OWNERS G TENANTS _ MUNICIPIAL PUBLIC USE MUNICIPIAL SPECIAL USE n NUMBER OF SPACES CURB AND OFF-STREET PARKING INVENTORY - DISTRICT B 1967 16 O S 4 6 B 10 wIP SCALE/N NUNORE0. O FEET NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC PLANNING, PARKING AND OPERATIONS STUDY UUijgu Smitk9,Amadates m BALBOA 4141Y PENINSULA LEGEND' OFF STREET CURB W 4 PRIJATE CUSTOMERS E EMPLOYEES NUMBER OF SPACES PFW,WrE SPECIAL USE NP NO PAifONO ¢ ® PPoMTE OWNER F TENANTS 017 - MUNICIPAL PUBLIC LOT 0 io NUMBER OF SPACES ® BLOCK NUMBER S L � N CURB AND OFF-STREET PARKING INVENTORY - DISTRICT E 1967 01 3 BNP E C IN MR21&9.S 6� FEET NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC PLANNING, PARKING AND OPERATIONS STUDY WA[ S'mid C9'./6m.za ' Overall there are 9,106 curbside spaces and 5,044 off-street spaces in all the districts, making a total of 14,150 parking spaces. The greatest number of spaces (35 percent) is ' contained within District B, and when combined with District E these two districts con- tain 48 percent of the available parking space in the Balboa Peninsula, Lido Isle, Lido Peninsula, and Corona del Mar study areas. Municipal parking lots in these two tdistricts contain 11 percent of the spaces. It is interesting to note that in Districts B,E, and G which contain most of the business development, only 52 percent of the parking space is,located in off-street facilities. Considering the spaces which are primarily for summer recreational use, the percentage of off-street spaces is about 15 percent lower than normally found in cities of a ' comparable population to Newport Beach. Parking Characteristics ' Field studies were conducted to determine parking characteristics of motorists parking on the Peninsula. ' Trip Origins -It was found that 40 percent of the parkers originated on Balboa Peninsula; 33 percent from the remainder of Newport Beach and from the nearby cities of Huntington ' Beach, Costa Mesa, and Laguna Beach; 15 percent from other cities in Orange County; and 12 percent from outside of Orange County. The high percentage of parkers with origin of trip 30 to 60 minute driving time away is attributed to the attraction of the ' beach and harbor facilities. Parking Turnover - The summer counts showed an average daily parking turnover rate of 2.5 vehicles per space for both curb and off-street facilities. The total number of spaces on Balboa Peninsula, Lido Isle, and Lido Peninsula was found to be 11,436, so that for an 8-hour period between 9:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. there would be approx- imately 28, 000 vehicles parking at the curb and in off-street lots. This volume of vehicles corresponds to approximately 70 percent of the daily summer trips within ' and to the Peninsula as determined from the land use data and as synthesized in the development of the traffic model. ' The daily turnover rate for curb and off-street spaces adjacent to the beach varied from 0.8 to 10.5 vehicles per parking space, with the lowest turnover rates found in unmetered curb space in the side streets leading to the beach. The large 73 E 1 900-space beach lot at Balboa Pier also showed a low turnover rate. High turnover rates, up to 10.5, were recorded at the short-term metered curbsides in the McFadden Place area. Turnover rates in the private customer and employee lots serving business in Districts B and E averaged 5.6, and at metered curbsides the corresponding turnover rate averaged 11.2. Parkimg Duration - Analysis of the turnover data taken on the private customer and employee lots showed that the average parker stayed for less than one hour for all trip purposes. The average duration for parkers utilizing the municipal lots on the beach during a summer Sunday was 3-1/2 hours. Accumulation of Vehicles - Accumulation counts were conducted on a weekday in both the winter and summer seasons and on a typical Sunday in August. ' A peak accumulation of 1,590 vehicles was recorded about midday in District B1, the area east of Newport Boulevard from Via Oporto to 26th Street and including Lido Peninsula. This is essentially the commercial core and industrial portion of Balboa Peninsula. The peak represents a 70 percent occupancy of the total number off-avaii- abie spaces. ' In McFadden Place, and the area adjacent to the beach from 14th Street to 31st Street, there was a peak accumulation on a summer Sunday of 1,366 vehicles, repre- senting an 82 percent occupancy factor. ' In District E on the same Sunday there was a peak accumulation about midday of 1,330 vehicles giving an occupancy factor of 75 percent. The reason for the relatively low occupancy factor in this district was the small number of parkers in the large beach lot adjacent to Balboa Pier. The two smaller beach lots on the eastern side of Balboa Pier containing 142 spaces, showed a 100 percent occupancy at midday. These two lots have free parking whereas there is a charge of 50¢ for the first hour and $1.00 over an hour for parking in the large beach lot west of the ' Pier. Excluding the latter facility, the curbs and other off-street lots in District E showed an average occupancy of 82 percent during the midday peak hour. r11 i II The peak hour occupancy in District A was 79 percent; in District C, 44 percent; in District D, 59 percent; and in District F, 58 percent. Table D in the Appendix shows ' that the total peak hour accumulation for all districts on Balboa Peninsula is 7,715 vehicles and the average occupancy is 68 percent of the total spaces. ' Because of the influx of beach traffic during the summer weekends, the peak accumu- lation of parkers in spaces adjacent to the beach occurs about midday. on Sundays. The number of vehicles parked each hour in these spaces remains fairly stable between ' 11:00 A.M. and 3:00 P.M. , and, depending upon the weather conditions, the accumulation normally falls off rapidly between 4:00 P.M. and 5:00 P , M. ' The peak accumulations shown in Table D for spaces in Districts A-F, which are not influenced directly by beach oriented traffic , normally occur about midday during summer weekdays. ' Parking Meter Revenues - Table 17 summarizes the curb and off-street parking meter revenues on Balboa Peninsula for 1966. Approximately 63 percent of the total revenue was obtained in the summer months of June through September, The average revenue per summer month, $13,560, was 3.3 times greater than the average revenue for the remaining 8 months of the year, and 90 percent higher than the average revenue for ' the full 12 months of the year. Revenue from meters located in the Lido shopping area, McFadden Place and Balboa Boulevard accounted for approximately 45 percent of the total revenue collected. Considerable additional revenue could be collected during the summer months by locating more meters on the unmetered municipal lots and also along certain side streets where residential parking is light and there is a need to ration parking adjacent to the beach and harbor facilities. 11 1 75 Table 17 PARKING METER REVENUES - 1966 Newport Beach Parking Study TOTAL PERCENT AVERAGE SEASON MONTH REVENUE OF TOTAL PER MONTH Winter October $ 6,780 7.8 November 3,040 3.5 December 2,490 2.9 January 2,570 3.0 February 2,500 2.9 March 3,090 3.6 April 5,630 6.5 May 61150 7.1 Sub Total $ 32,250 37.3 $ 4,030 Summer June $ 11,550 13.4 July 9,010 10.4 August 16,790 19.4 September 16,890 19.5 Sub Total $ 54,240 62.7 $13,560 Total $ 86,490 100.0 $ 7,200 Note ; The revenues shown are from municipal curb and off-street facilities on Balboa Peninsula. 76 ' CHAPTER VII PARKING DEMANDS AND NEEDS This chapter summarizes present Balboa Peninsula parking requirements during the ' summer months, estimated future parking needs based upon future land use projections for the Peninsula, and the projected growth of recreational traffic. Current Demand and Supply The parking space demands in each district on Balboa Peninsula, Lido Isle, and ' Lido Peninsula are shown in Table 18 and Table D of the Appendix, and are illus- trated in Figure 18. - The current demand in Districts A-F is a combination of the needs of business, industrial, residential, and recreational parkers. The demand ' for recreational parking occurs primarily during the summer months with peak demand on Sunday, whereas the peak demand for business and retail -commercial parking occurs during the summer on weekdays. Because of the nature of parking needs, therefore, the space demand data shown in Figure 18 reflect both Sunday and weekday peaks. ' Table 18 clearly indicates that Districts B and E generate the greatest parking demand for all purposes. It shows that District B was the destination of 16,590 parkers between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., with District Bl, the commercial and industrial core east of Newport Boulevard, accounting for 10,155 (60 percent) of these parker destinations; and Districts B4 and B5 accounting for ' 4,785 (30 percent). District E handled 6,960 parkers, approximately 25 percent of the total 28, 000 parker destinations in the study area. ' The number of spaces required to accommodate the demand for parking is shown in Table 18 as peak space demand which represents the number of spaces that would be completely filled during peak demand period by parkers destined to each of the ' districts. This demand ,figure was determined as the average of the three highest half-hourly accumulation totals of parkers destined to each district. The three accumulations may not have occured sequentially, or on the same day in each ' district. For example, in District B the highest half-hourly accumlations in the downtown area facilities would have been recorded during a summer weekday and 77 Table 18 PARKING SPACE SUPPLY VERSUS DEMAND 1967-1990 Newport Beach Parking Study ADJUSTED SUPPLY -SPACES PEAK SPACE DEMAND SURPLUS AND DEFICIENCY PARKING Off- PARKER Off- Off - YEAR DISTRICT Curb Street Total DESTINATIONS Curb Street Total Curb Street Total 1967 A 560 50 610 555 500 50 550 60 0 60 B1 760 1,100 1,860 10,155 680 910 1,590 80 190 270 B2 436 80 516 525 384 80 464 52 0 52 ' B B3 125 215 340 1,125 120 215 335 5 0 5 B4 440 431 871 3;455 440 431 871 0 0 0 B5 331 166 497 1,330 329 166 495 2 0 2 i, C 1;640 0 1,640 1,460 800 0 800 840 0 840 D 1,100 40 1,140 1,525 710 40 750 390 0 390 ' E 375 1,055 1,430 6,960 375 955 1,330 0 100 100 F 825 0 825 910 530 0 530 295 0 295 ' ' Total 6,592 3,137 9,729 28,000 4,868 2,847 71715 1,724 290 2,014 ' 1990 A 450 40 •490 3,500 450 700 1,150 0 660- •660- B1 460 1,060 1,520 19,000 460 2,500 2,960 0 1,440- 1,440- B2 315 75 390 2,900 315 300 615 0 225- 225- B B3 60 250 310 2,000 60 400 460 0 150- •150- B4 305 400 705 8;000 305 3000 3;305 0 2;600- 2,600- B5 145 160 305 4;500 145 1,500 1,645 0 1,340- 1,340- C 1,620 0 1,620 2;000 1,620 0 1,620 0 0 0 D 470 50 520 3,500 470 1,200 1,670 0 1,150- 1;150- ' E F 180 720 1,020 0 1,200 720 13,000 2,600 180 2,675 2,855 0 1,655- 1,655- 720 0 720 0 0 0 r' Total 4,725 3,055 7,780 ,, Note; Refer to Figure 15 for district locations they represent a surplus. 61,000 4,725 12,275 17,000 0 9,220- 9,220- Figures followed by a dash are deficiencies; with no dash 99 I t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LEGEND SWE5 the corresponding accumulations for the facilities adjacent to the beach and harbor would have been recorded during a summer Sunday. The supply of parking summarized in Table 18 has been derived from the inventory data. Since the inventory was taken a new 34-space municipal facility has been constructed on Newport Boulevard between 28th Street and 29th Street, as shown in Figure 16. The capacity of all curb spaces has been taken as 90 percent of such spaces, and a practical capacity figure of 85 percent of total spaces has been applied to public off-street facilities to allow for efficiency of operation. For private off-street facilities the capacity has been equated to the actual observed demand. rM PIIFIAi p L01 lm� .o 'i'€�k C . m AMnI B 46G DT - 18 �N o N N 0 9 18 27 36 45 54 MAP SCALE /N NUNOREQS OF FEET ' NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC PLANNING, PARKING AND OPERATIONS STUDYfy,�Q�q�P3 5.000 wPPLr DEM4VN 4.000 9wyN 04MMq 3,WO pEMAxo „ suFPLr T8OTAg L MXRM4 SPACES 2,000 RECOMMENDED BY 1990 "000 0 'My a S.P199D 1 Su DEMAND DEMANSUPPLY8 RECOMMENDED CE DEMAND OEMAHO PARKING SPACES D15TRICT BOUNDARY A 013TRICT DESIGNATION PARKING SUPPLY VS DEMAND - 1967 & 1990 Buildings - With approximately 712,000 gross square feet of commercial and industrial building floor area on Balboa Peninsula and Lido Peninsula, it is estimated that there is a requirement for approximately 2,850 parking spaces to serve the peak parking demand generated by this land use. The major generators are located in Districts B and E and these two districts contain 95 percent of the total gross floor area of commercial and industrial buildings. In District B the City Hall complex and the Via Lido businesses are the primary generators of parking demand. Surplus and Deficiency Table 18 and Figure 18 summarize the overall district surpluses and deficiencies in ' current parking needs. As indicated there are 1,724 surplus curbside spaces and 290 surplus off-street spaces in Districts A-F. Approximately 92 percent of the surplus curbside spaces are located in Districts A,C,D, and F, and primarily adja- cent to residential properties. In off-street facilities, 35 percent of the surplus spaces were recorded in District E, almost all of these surplus spaces being located in the large beach lot adjacent to Balboa Pier. The remaining 65 percent of the surplus off-street spaces were recorded in District Bl at various locations. Included in the latter group was the municipal public parking lot adjacent to City Hall and fronting onto Newport Boule- vard, where only 40 percent of the spaces were occupied during peak demand. The summer visitor and casual observer might consider that there is none or very little surplus parking space available, and this is true for the prime locations along the beach and adjacent to the commercial core. The surplus space occurs mainly in the fringe areas where there is no immediate reason to park and where the walking distance to destinations is the primary deterrent. In many of the private customer and employee lots in the commercial core area within District B, the peak occupancy exceeds 80 percent of the available spaces and this is indicative of a deficiency in parking space. In Districts B2, B3, B4, and B5, which are influenced by beach traffic, there is an overall balance in parking supply and demand. However, locations immediately adjacent to the beach at Newport Pier and McFadden Place show deficiencies in parking space. These deficiencies are causing a great deal of the traffic congestion due to continued circulation of motorists looking for parking space. am I ' Estimation of Future Supply and Demand Table 18 lists the anticipated future (1990) parking supply, demand, surpluses and ' deficiencies for parking Districts A-P, and Figure 18 illustrates the ranges of sur- pluses and deficiencies for 1967 and 1990 in each district. Future supply has been adjusted by eliminating the curb parking and off-street spaces which would be ' affected by the proposed street improvement projects and considering as practical capacities,90 percent of curb spaces and 85 percent of off-street spaces. Table D in the Appendix shows that the inventory of spaces in Districts A-F would be reduced ' from a total 11,436 spaces to 8,860 spaces so that there would be an overall loss of 2,576 parking spaces by 1990 for use during peak summer hours. Allowing for efficiency factors in the use of curb and off-street spaces, the corresponding supply of spaces (Table 18), would be reduced from 9,729,to 7,780 spaces, a reduction of 1,949 net parking spaces. ' Future demand as estimated will increase from a current peak of 7,715 spaces to 17,000 spaces by 1990. This increase has been determined on the basis of changes in land use by 1990 as anticipated by the city staff, the estimated growth in popula- tion within the primary trade area, and estimates of increase in beach and harbor facility usage. Table A in the Appendix shows the estimated increases in land use and other characteristics by zones for Balboa Peninsula. Equivalent dwelling units (i.e., occupied households) are expected to increase by approximately 700 units, commercial and office space is expected to increase by a net amount of 109,500 square feet and the increase in persons engaged in recreational pursuits has been ' estimated as 20,400. From this information and analysis of the 1990 traffic model trip distributions it has been estimated that there would be 61,000 parker destinations within the study area between 9:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. on an average summer weekday. ' This figure has been derived primarily from the total number of average daily one-way trips as adjusted to allow for purely residential and other trips which would not increase the demand for additional parking space. While the comparison of the 1967 and 1990 supply figures reveals an anticipated net loss of 1,949 parking spaces, future projections indicate a peak demand for 17,000 ' spaces, resulting in an overall deficiency of 9,220 parking spaces for all the Districts A-F. 81 Future Parking Needs and Program - 1990 ' Table 18 shows that by 1990 all the parking districts, with the exception of Districts C and F, would have deficiencies in parking space, and Figure 18 illustrates this ' situation. District B1, the downtown area and Lido Peninsula, would have a deficiency of 1,440 spaces and because of the purposes which parking would serve in this district it is recommended that consideration be given to providing 1,500 spaces in this district. District B4 and B5 would require a total of 3,940 additional parking spaces with the primary use being for beach activities. This figure includes 450 spaces which would be lost when improvements are made for movement of traffic. It is recommended that ' approximately 1,000 parking spaces be provided in these two districts to offset the deficit and provide additional parking with the remaining 2,940 spaces being accom- modated in the "mass transit" lot. It is also recommended that off-street parking space be provided for 500' cars in both District D and District E, 200 cars in District A, 100 cars in District B2, and 100 cars in District B3. (See Figure 18.) A total 3,900 off-street parking spaces should be constructed by 1990 in all districts. Including the 8,860 spaces which would be available at that time there would be a total of 12,760 parking spaces on the Peninsula, 1,324 spaces more than now exist- ing. The remaining calculated deficiency of 5,320 spaces can be accommodated by constructing a parking lot of about 5,000 spaces northwest of the Newport Boulevard interchange with suitable "mass transit" transportation between this lot and the Peninsula as suggested earlier in this report. (Allowing for a suitable "cushion," considerable additional capacity could be justified, theoretically. However, the public acceptance of a transit -parking lot is untested; hence this plan should be approached rather cautiously.) The parking lot would require acquisition of approx- imately 40 acres of land and there is more than double this area northwest of the interchange and west of Superior Avenue presently in open space. The costs could be recovered by charging a single fee which would include parking in the lot and transport to and from the beach. Possible future commercial and industrial development in the adjacent area, during both the winter and summer months, might make it economically feasible to con- struct a multi -purpose parking facility here to accommodate the combined needs of business and recreation uses. 82 Mac /.�:��• 3i Jo pq r ' SECTION B. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ' The City of Newport Beach has recognized the need to examine the parking needs of the Corona del Mar business district and the traffic access and circulation require- ments of the community contained within the city limits east of Jamboree Road and north of the Harbor and the Pacific Ocean. In the agreement of October 27, 1966, the City of Newport Beach authorized Wilbur Smith and Associates to undertake the ' Corona del Mar study, which is summarized in this section of the report. Purpose and Scope ' The specific objectives of Section B of this study are as follows: . To analyze the current street traffic operations and recommend a specific program including traffic controls and revisions in traffic patterns as may be found necessary to improve traffic conditions in the immediate future. ' To determine the need for and prepare a 10-year parking improvement program including anticipated costs, revenues and financial feasibility estimates for additional off-street parking facilities adjoining the Corona del Mar commer- cial district. Field Studies ' Field studies in Corona del Mar were undertaken in December, 1966, and in January, April, and July, 1967. These studies included the following: ' Travel time and delay studies. ' Vehicular volume and turning movement counts. Inventory of street rights -of -way and traveled way widths. Observations of traffic operations related to streets and parking facilities • during peak hours. Inventory of curb and off-street parking facilities. m II ' Interview of parkers (between 10:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. on a December weekday) to determine trip origin, purpose, destination, walking distance, duration and ' time of parking, and other pertinent facts. The interviews totalled 6,780 repre- senting a 100 percent sample of the total daily parkers. Parking accumulation counts and license plate checks to supplement the interview ' studies as an aid in evaluating parking activity and also to establish a relation- ship between winter and summer parking demand. Inventory of floor area of selected buildings to determine the parking space demand ' per 1,000 square feet of building area. I LJ m I LI CHAPTER II TRAFFIC OPERATIONS The following chapter discusses the traffic operational aspects of the Corona del Mar Street system. It describes the street and traffic characteristics, the circula- tion element in relation to land uses, and the street improvements required for optimum use of the existing street system. ' Major Streets The major streets giving access to Corona del Mar are shown in Figure 5. These are the Coast Highway, jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard, and Bayside Drive. Within the study area the Coast Highway and Bayside Drive serve as major arterials distributing traffic to and from the collector streets, such as El Paseo Drive, ' Avocado Avenue, Goldenrod Avenue, Marguerite Avenue, Poppy Avenue, Morning Canyon Road and Cameo Shores Road. ' In the more recent residential subdivisions such as Irvine Terrace, Shore Cliffs, Harbor View Hills, Broadmoor, Corona Highlands and Cameo Shores, the pattern of local and collector streets has been adequately planned with a minimum number of collector streets connecting to the major arterials. However, in the older established area of Corona del Mar the street pattern is a grid network with numerous local streets and collectors connecting to the arterials. ' These operational studies, therefore, have been primarily- directed towards this portion of the city with a view to improving the flow of traffic and obtaining ' adequate circulation to and from the various land use elements. Street and Traffic Characteristics ' The Coast Highway is the main arterial serving the study area. Control of this route is under the jurisdiction of the California Division of Highways. Table 2 ' shows that this highway has a right-of-way of 100 feet and a pavement width of 72 feet. There are four lanes for movement of traffic, with median left -turn slots 85 I at most intersecting side streets and provision for curb parking on both sides of the highway to serve the needs of customers of the adjoining commercial buildings. ' Vehicle actuated signals are operating at the intersections of the highway with jam- boree Road, MacArthur Boulevard, Goldenrod Avenue, Marguerite Avenue, Poppy Avenue, Morning Canyon Road, and Cameo Shores Road. The signals have three- phase operation with a maximum cycle length of 120 seconds and generally operate efficiently. The signals between MacArthur Boulevard and Morning Canyon Road are interconnected for coordinated operation and supervised by a master analogue ' computer. Traffic approaching the Coast Highway from the other side streets are cohtrolled by means of stop signs at the intersections, and in the case of Heliotrope Avenue, Carnation Avenue, and Fernleaf Avenue, there are "No Left Turn" signs posted at the intersections. Between jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard the 24-hour daily volume of traffic on the Coast Highway is presently 27,000 vehicles during the winter months and 41,000 vehicles during the summer months. From MacArthur Boulevard -to Poppy Avenue the volumes are 24, 000 in the winter and 33-, 000 in the summer, and from Poppy Avenue to the City Limits the volumes are 21,000 in the winter and 33,800 in the summer. The increase in traffic between the winter and summer months ranges from 37 percent to 60 percent along these three sections of the Coast• Highway. From MacArthur Boulevard to Poppy Avenue the summer volumes are approaching the practical capacity of the highway. The two-way peak is 2,800 vehicles per hour which is 8.5 percent of the 24-hour volume. ' The daily traffic approaching and leaving the central area of Corona del Mar during the winter and summer months is illustrated in Figure 8. ' Bayside Drive is an important connection between Corona del Mar and Balboa Island. It also provides access to Irvine Terrace, the Bayside shopping center, and boating facilities along the harbor. Between jamboree Road and Marguerite Avenue, the right-of-way of Bayside Drive varies from 40 feet to 160 feet and the pavement width varies from 20 feet to 40 feet. The topography along certain sections of Bayside Drive is a limiting factor M in widening of the pavement. Daily traffic volumes on Bayside Drive near its inter- section with jamboree Road range from 5, 000 vehicles during the winter to 8,400 ' vehicles during the summer months. The traffic volume entering the intersection of Bayside Drive and jamboree Road from ' all approaches averages 1,250 vehicles per hour for eight hours of the day during the summer months, and because of this, and other reasons, would meet the warrants established by the Bureau of Public Roads for installation of signal control. The ' intersection is presently controlled by four-way stop signs. Figure 4 shows the other traffic controls in force along Bayside Drive. Between Carnation Avenue and Marguerite Avenue the summer traffic volume on Bayside Drive is 5,800 vehicles daily. ' Avocado Avenue has been constructed to city standards for a primary street. Between the Coast Highway and Waterfront Drive the right-of-way is 110 feet and the two pavements of 36 feet and 21 feet are separated by a median strip. Traffic volumes are comparatively light and there is ample reserve capacity available. However, ' there is a section of Avocado Avenue 'south of Third Street which is presently being used by two-way traffic on both sides of the median. Cross-overs should be ' constructed in the median at the intersecting side streets so that this section of Avocado Avenue can be converted to one-way operation on both sides of the median. Construction of a median cross -over at the junction of Avocado Avenue and Second Street would enable residents of Irvine Terrace to obtain direct access via Second Street to and from the business district, thereby eliminating the need to travel around via the Coast Highway. ' Marguerite Avenue is the principal north -south street giving access to the beach and the residential properties south of Bayside Drive. The right-of-way width is ' 70 feet and the pavement width is 40 feet. The winter traffic volume of 3,200 vehicles per 24-hour day increases to 6,700 vehicles per day during the summer months. Almost all of this increase is due to traffic traveling to and from the ' State Beach. During the relatively high peak periods in the late morning and mid- afternoon when the beach traffic is moving there is no reserve capacity available on Marguerite Avenue. The practical capacity could be increased by 2,500 vehicles daily by the removal of parking. However, because this parking serves both the residential and commercial needs, it is considered desirable to find other 87 ' means of accommodating the north -south traffic movement between the Coast Highway and the beach. ' As regards the remainder of the street network, the east -west streets including Seaview Avenue and First Avenue through Fifth Avenue, generally have 50-foot rights -of -way and pavement widths of 30 feet. An exception is Ocean Boulevard which as a right-of- way varying from 80 to 110 feet and a variable pavement width of 40 to 70 feet. ' Apart from Ocean Boulevard, which gives direct access to the beach and carries 5,000 vehicles daily during the summer, the traffic volumes on the east -west streets are comparatively light and within practical capacity limits. With some exceptions the north -south streets from Avocado Avenue to Poppy Avenue have rights -of -way of 50 feet and pavement widths of 30 feet. Parking on both sides ' is permitted so there is an effective width of only 14 to 16 feet for movement of two- way traffic. Although traffic volumes generally do not exceed 2, 000 vehicles per day on most of the north -south streets, the narrow pavement widths and the parking ' maneuvers combine to restrict the convenience and safety with which traffic can operate on these streets. This is particularly true on the approaches to the Coast Highway, adjacent to the Corona del Mar elementary school, and near the junctions ' with Ocean Boulevard where drivers are looking for parking space near to the beach. The curbside parking and two-way operation on the narrow streets are causing other ' problems such as limitations in visibility for residents and visitors backing out of the numerous driveway entrances, delays in passing due to double parked vehicles, and delays while vehicles are maneuvering into parking spaces. ' From Coast Highway to Ocean Boulevard, Poppy Avenue has a 40-foot right-of-way and a pavement width of 24 feet. Parking is restricted on the west side to allow ' for limited two-way operation. As warranted by future increases in traffic, it should be expected that parking on both sides of Poppy Avenue may be prohibited ' during peak periods. Existing stop and yield signs appear to control the intersection movements effec- tively, but should be reviewed from time to time for adequacy. The location of these signs are shown in Figure 4. There are a number of street intersections where sight distance is substandard and, as the opportunity presents itself, efforts should be made to obtain improved visibility. Reports submitted by the City Traffic ' Engineer and Police Department based on accident records, citizen response and observation of hazardous situations, should provide the means for evaluating many of the operational improvements which are usually required in cities such as Corona ' del Mar. Circulation Element The studies that have been made of the street circulation system in the central Corona del Mar area indicate that improvements are required to facilitate the flow ' of traffic and to obtain adequate circulation to and from the residential properties, the beach, the commercial district, and the future freeway system. ' Figure 5 shows the proposed modifications to the existing travel patterns. The streets are essentially retained as two-way except for a system of one-way north - south couplets. ' The following discussion enumerates some of the controlling factors in the analysis and reasons for selection of the circulation plan recommended. The Coast Highway and the intersecting north -south streets have curbside parking. Because of the need for short-term parking for the commercial district and the ' requirements of residential parking in the side streets, as much as possible of this parking should be retained. Since the pavement widths on the majority of the side streets are too narrow for two-way operation without restricting parking, ' an acceptable alternative would be to make these streets one-way and preserve the curbside parking except where the space is required at intersections for reasons of visibility and storage space for turning vehicles. The Coast Highway is carrying a heavy volume of fast moving traffic throughout ' the greater part of the normal business day, making access from the uncontrolled side streets extremely hazardous. A reduction in the number of side streets from which traffic could enter the highway would substantially lessen the risks involved, ' particularly if this results in the elimination of certain streets where turning creates a high accident potential. jg U ' Between Avocado Avenue and Poppy Avenue, a distance of approximately one mile, there are 17 intersecting streets 4 of which are signalized with the remainder being controlled by stop signs. Six of the cross streets have offset intersections which add to the difficulties experienced by through and turning traffic. ' One-way operation of 12 of these side streets would help alleviate many of the conflicts which are occuring at the intersections with the Coast Highway. At certain locations, the alignment and vertical profile of the Coast Highway and ' several of the intersecting streets are such that visibility is limited, thereby resulting in restricted and unsafe traffic operation. This factor has been recog- nized by the installation of "No Left Turn" signs at the main highway approaches ' of Heliotrope Avenue and Fernleaf Avenue. The south approaches of Iris Avenue and Marigold Avenue are two other critical locations where hazardous operation exists. One-way operation would help overcome these problems without involving ' expensive reconstruction. In any one-way circulation plan, it is essential that the selected streets be of substantial length and be laid out in pairs to the best overall advantage of the contiguous area being served. Like the divided highway, one-way streets separate opposing traffic streams, decrease congestion, reduce conflicts at 1 intersections, afford more opportunity for passing, and provide more capacity, particularly where streets are narrow and there is a need to retain curbside parking. There are also some disadvantages, such as the greater length motorists ' are compelled to travel to get to their destinations. In Corona del Mar it is essential to select a one-way pattern which will minimize this latter problem and allow customers to obtain ready access to curb and off-street parking spaces ' serving the business district while still retaining the many advantages of one-way travel. ' Analysis indicates that the direction of the one-way couplets shown in the circula- tion plan would give better access from the Coast Highway to off-street parking ' than would a plan having the reverse direction for the couplets. Approximately 80 percent of the off-street parking spaces now available will be better served under our recommended plan. Access from the Coast Highway to the remaining 20 percent ' of the off-street spaces would require motorists to plan their approach differently or travel slightly farther. Of these off-street spaces affected, access to only two 90 I lots containing 41 spaces on Carnation Avenue would be difficult without modifications of existing conditions. For traffic westbound on the Coast Highway requiring access to Carnation Avenue, it would be advantageous to provide a left -turn slot in the exist- ing median on the Coast Highway, thereby overcoming the *difficulty. Traffic approaching these two lots from Fourth Avenue and Begonia Avenue could obtain access from the two alleyways. Examination of the traffic patterns to and from the Coast Highway, in relation to the existing left -turn lanes along the median strip, shows that the proposed direction of the one-way couplets would be the more favorable of the two alternates and would involve the least cost in alterations. ' There are -a number -of minor advantages and disadvantages to the proposed Circulation plan. For example, there are advantages to having Iris Avenue one-way from the highway because of the poor visibility in the reverse direction for traffic exiting to the Coast Highway. Northbound jasmine Avenue has much better visibility than Iris Avenue in this latter respect so that the directions proposed for these two couplets provide for safer operation. One disadvantage of the proposed direction would be in relation to circulation around individual blocks where the one-way streets are coupled with a parallel two-way street. Improvements are required in the circulation of traffic on the Corona del Mar street system. Despite some disadvantages, one-way treatment of the north -south streets offers an acceptable solution. The other alternative of retaining two-way operation, as presently existing, and of restricting curbside parking along one side, or in some cases on both sides, is not recommended as being acceptable. ' The California Division of Highways and the City of Newport Beach are presently studying proposed plans for the future Coast Freeway and the Corona del Mar Free- way. A circulation plan for the existing streets must therefore, be compatible with access to and from these freeways. Avocado Avenue, MacArthur Boulevard, Golden- rod Avenue, Marguerite Avenue, Poppy Avenue, Fifth Avenue, and the Coast Highway will become primary access streets giving traffic service both to and across the freeway. ' Because of the above and other reasons, such as the need to obtain the maximum possible service from the existing s• anals at the intersections of the Coast Highway SI with MacArthur Boulevard, Goldenrod Avenue, Marguerite Avenue, and Poppy Avenue, and because of the function of these streets in relation to the residential, commercial, and recreational land uses, it is proposed that they remain two-way. Avocado Avenue, with the modifications suggested earlier in this chapter,would remain two-way. Seaview Avenue, First Avenue, Second Avenue, Third Avenue, and Fourth Avenue would remain two-way. Because their function is local in character, serving the residential property, maintaining two-way operation for these and other streets would complement the one- way operation and retain maximum flexibility in circulation. ' Avocado Avenue, Fifth Avenue, Poppy Avenue, and Ocean Boulevard form the basis of a two-way circumferential route around central Corona del Mar. Because of the topography, there is a discontinuity of streets across Bayside Drive from Larkspur Avenue to Carnation Avenue. The cul-de-sac ends of the streets affected would necessarily have to remain two-way. Fernleaf Avenue has an existing two-way ramp down to Bayside Drive and this would remain in operation in the proposed plan. ' Carnation Avenue also provides an important connecting link between the higher elevation at First Street and the lower elevation at Bayside Drive, and this section would remain two-way. Pacific Drive from Acacia Avenue to Begonia Avenue would remain two-way. ' Description of Major Street Improvements The street improvements necessary to improve circulation in Corona del Mar, based ' upon an analyses of current summer conditions, are enumerated below. Fifth Avenue - When the freeway is constructed, Fifth Avenue is destined to become ' a major arterial street distributing traffic from the freeway and the future developments on the north side to central Corona del Mar via the system of north -south streets. Because of this and other reasons, such as providing an alternative route for through traffic which is presently occupying too much of the available capacity on the Coast Highway, Fifth Avenue will require widening on the northside. Consideration should also be given to extending this street westward to form a junction with the Coast ' Highway near the intersection with MacArthur Boulevard, as illustrated in Figures 5 and 13. ' From the aspect of scheduling it would be desirable to design this junction to con- form with plans being prepared by the California Division of Highways for the freeway 92 [_1 ' to freeway interchange adjacent to this same locality. The construction work could be programmed to coincide with the modifications to the existing intersection as ' necessitated by construction of the interchange. At the present time there is a gap in the continuity of Fifth Avenue between iris and ' Jasmine Avenues. This section could be completed at the same time as the freeway. The city standards for a primary street, having a 100 foot right-of-way and an 80- foot pavement width, including a 16-foot median strip, would be satisfactory for ' the reconstruction of Fifth Avenue. If the freeway is not constructed within the next 10 years it is evident that some relief must be provided along the Coast Highway corridor to avoid severe congestion and to serve traffic access needs for the residential areas and business districts of Corona del Mar as well as the future developments on the north side. An improved ' Fifth Avenue would be the most feasible way to provide an alternate parallel facility to -give the requisite traffic relief. Based upon investigations carried out during the course of the study, it is evident that the need for the widening and reconstruction 1 of Fifth Avenue would be greater without the freeway than with it. This area presently experiences heavy traffic. During the summer months daily ' traffic volumes approaching and leaving Corona del Mar along the Coast Highway range from 33,800 vehicles at Poppy Avenue to 41,000 vehicles at MacArthur Boule- vard. MacArthur Boulevard carries 16,000 vehicles and Bayside Drive 5,000 ' vehicles. Approximately 70 percent of this volume of vehicles is through traffic having neither origin nor destination in that portion of Corona del Mar between Poppy Avenue on the east and MacArthur Boulevard on the west. The California Division of Highways studies show that with the future growth of Newport Beach and Orange County, there will be a need for a freeway along the Coast Highway corridor to accommodate an approximate doubling of existing traffic volume anticipated by 1990. The freeway proposals envisage an inter- change northeast of the intersection of Poppy Avenue and Fifth Avenue to serve both Corona del Mar and future residential developments on the north side. The only other interchange along this section of the Coast freeway which would be ' available to serve Corona del Mar would be a considerable distance west of MacArthur Boulevard. 93 H ' For these reasons,and in conjunction with the proposed system of north -south one- way streets in Corona del Mar between Poppy Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard, it is concluded that there is a need for widening Fifth Avenue to primary arterial street ' standards. Fifth Avenue would then function as a distribution street connecting the one-way couplets and would also provide an essential link between central Corona ' del Mar and the future developments on the north side. If the freeway is not constructed, consideration could be given to extending Fifth Avenue easterly to connect with the Coast Highway south of the present city limits. This would complete the alternate parallel routing. However, construction of the freeway route would necessitate only extending Fifth Avenue easterly to the inter- change, and this section could form part of the freeway agreement with the California Division of Highways. The extension of Fifth Avenue northeast from the interchange to serve the future north side developments would then be a matter for resolution between the City of Newport Beach and private developers. Goldenrod Avenue - Goldenrod Avenue provides a through connection between ' Harbor View Hills and the central area of Corona del Mar. When the freeway is .constructed this connection will be retained by means of a bridge over the freeway. At the present time there is no continuation of Goldenrod Avenue across Bayside Drive to the residential property and the State Beach Park on the south side of Bayside Drive. There is, however, an existing footbridge for pedestrians across Bayside Drive. The construction of a new bridge combining vehicle and pedestrian ' service at this location would provide an auxiliary connection to the area south of Bayside Drive, thereby supplementing Marguerite Avenue as the future growth in ' activity and traffic places greater burdens on the north -south streets. The Coast Highway - There are a number of minor improvements which will be required along the median strip if the one-way circulation plan is adopted and ' placed in operation. A left -turn lane will be needed in the median at Carnation Avenue. The pavement markings must be removed for the left -turn lanes from the Coast Highway into Dahlia Avenue south, Fernleaf Avenue north, Iris Avenue north, ' Jasmine Avenue south, Larkspur Avenue north, Marigold Avenue south, Narcissus Avenue north, Orchid Avenue south and Poinsetta Avenue north. all ' Left -turn lanes will be needed in the existing curbed median for westbound traffic turning from the Coast Highway into Carnation Avenue south and Poinsettia Avenue south. ' Bayside Drive -At the request of the City, consideration has been given to the possible penetration of Bayside Drive across Marguerite Avenue and through to Marigold Avenue. At present, one-way operation is possible for eastbound traffic via the alleyway connection between the latter two streets. Because of the low ' volume of traffic which would use this route, the- difficulty of obtaining two-way operation without expensive property acquisition, and the improvements in operation at the intersection of Bayside Drive and Marguerite Avenue which could be achieved ' by adoption of the proposed circulation plan, construction of this connection is not recommended. ' Avocado Avenue - Cross-overs should be constructed in the median so that Avocado Avenue can function as a two-way street with one-way operation only on both sides of the median. There are proposals for extending Avocado Avenue across the Coast 1 Highway and the future freeway to connect with the Newport Center. If these improvements are implemented, consideration could be given to extending Avocado Avenue southward to connect with Bayside Drive, depending on detailed investiga- tions of the engineering problems and relevant costs of construction. Avocado Avenue would then provide a good circulation link for traffic traveling between Balboa Island and Corona del Mar. L� 95 C ' CHAPTER III PARKING SPACE INVENTORY ' This chapter inventories the existing curb and off-street parking spaces as observed and recorded during field studies in December, 1966, in January, 1967, and in July, 1967. Overall there are 2,714 parking spaces in the Corona del Mar business district study area, 61.2 percent of the spaces being at the curb and the remaining 38.8 ' percent of the spaces being in off-street facilities. Considering the commercial area within which parker interviews and detailed observations were made, the parking supply totals 1,745 spaces of which 1,053 are in off-street locations. 1 Figure 19 portrays the location, type, and number of parking spaces which are summarized in Table 19. Curb Parking There are 1,661 curb spaces in the study area with approximately 53 percent of ' these spaces having no time limits. Within the commercial area there are 692 curb spaces of which 467 (27 percent) have no time limits. There are 210 one -hour curb spaces in the commercial area located along the Coast Highway, and this represents 12 percent of the total number of spaces. Less than one percent of the curb spaces in the commercial area are 5-minute spaces, 20-minute spaces, and loading zones. ' Off -Street Parkin ' The major portion of the commercial area parking capacity is in off-street lots com- prising approximately 60 percent of all spaces. There are 753 private customer and employee off-street spaces representing 43 percent of the total spaces. ' Approximately 1 percent of the total spaces are restricted to the use of owners and tenants of a given building while 3 percent of the spaces are municipally owned and for public use. There are 232 off-street spaces (13 percent) which have been shown as private special use, and are not generally available to the patrons W. 11 MAR pEL -1nnnn OhF STREET LBRB MAM QISIIXAERS G EM%A(EES 5-MINI • •..^ PRN4E SPEGEI m ..0 E _:WE ® PNMitE O M 5 TEN 1-HWR _ MUNIQ9L PL9LIL l0T � � � � �. � URWJfEO !!iH'it 6 9fYE5 .a N'J WFIRIG O &MI( NIWB2i lZ ILMPIc IDNE pa 19 aoe CURB AND OFF -STREET PARKING INVENTORY 1967 a A WC SG[f M MM'IEIIS P^ iFf/ NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC PLANNING, PARKING AND OPERATIONS STUDY shopping or on business at other premises in the commercial area during the normal business day. They include lots for patrons at restaurants opening after 6:00 P . M. , at motels, and at the mortuary. Table 19 PARKING SPACE INVENTORY Corona del Mar Parking Study STUDY AREA COMMERCIAL AREA TYPE PARKING Spaces Percent Spaces Percent Curb 5-Minute 3 0.1 3 0.2 20-Minute 6 0,2 6 0.3 1-Hour 210 7.8 210 12.1 Unlimited 1,436 52.9 467 26.8 Loading Zones 6 0.2 6 0.3 Total Curb Spaces 1,661 61.2 692 39.7 Off -Street Private, Customers & Employees 753 27.7 753 43.2 Private, Owners & Tenants 18 0.7 18 1.0 Municipal, Public Use 50 1.8 50 2.9 Subtotal Off -Street 821 30.2 821 47.1 Subtotal Curb & Off -Street 2,482 91.4 1;513 86.8 Private Special Use (a) 232 8.6 232 13.2 Total Off -Street Spaces 1,053 38.8 1,053 60.3 Grand Total 2,714 100.0 1,745 100.0 (a) Not available for business and shopper parking during the daytime. 98 0 ' CHAPTER IV PARKING CHARACTERISTICS This chapter deals with the data on activities and the characteristics of approximately ' 6,780 parkers in the Corona del Mar central business district as gathered by field observations and interviews with drivers. Because some drivers park more than once in different locations, the number of individual drivers would be correspondingly less.. ' The parker characteristics shown in Tables 20 through 26 are derived from interviews of parkers in December, 1966, and represent the period 10:00 A.M. - 6:00 P.M. on a typical weekday.. ' Field studies carried out in July, 1967, have been used in conjunction with other data to establish a summer parking factor and Tables 27 through 30, which show ' parking demand, have been adjusted for summer conditions. ' Trip Origins Parker origins (defined as the previous place the car was parked) are summarized in ' Table 20. The table shows the origins of parkers according to the city or community of trip origin, classified by trip purpose. The majority of the parker trips, 54 percent, originated in Corona del Mar. Approximately -10 percent of the parkers came from the Balboa Peninsula, 8 percent from Costa Mesa, 5 percent from Laguna Beach, and 4 percent from Newport Heights. Other smaller percentages had origins in various cities or communities as indicated in the table. Less than 3 percent of the parkers ' had their trip origins outside Orange County. Accumulation of Vehicles ' The accumulations of parked vehicles on a typical weekday in December are shown by Table 21 and Figure 20. The number of cars parked at any one time remains fairly stable between 11:00 A.M. and 3:00 P.M. with a peak accumulation of 789 parkers reached about midday. ' The number of drivers parking each hour after 10:00 A.M. (when the survey began) is relatively stable and reaches a peak of approximately 940 in the hour betwe en 2:00 Table 2 0 PARKER ORIGINS CLASSIFIED BY TRIP PURPOSE Corona del Mar Parking Study SOCIAL & SALES TRUCK RECREA- EAT ORIGIN WORK BUSINESS SHOPPING SERVICE LOAD TION MEAL OTHER TOTAL PERCENT Balboa Peninsula 88 178 243 20 14 11 101 63 718 10.6 Newport Shores 5 10 11 1 0 0 14 8 49 0.7 Newport Heights 42 69 93 7 6 4 26 25 272 4.0 Harbor Highlands 9 21 37 1 0 4 6 6 84 1.2 Irvine - Coastal 19 65 88 4 2 2 50 .31 261 3.9 Corona del Mar 191 1,173 1,487 46 58 33 390 301 3,679 54.3 Huntington Beach 7 9 17 1 3 0 11 8 56 0.8 Costa Mesa 55 121 218 18 15 16 69 52 564 8.3 Santa Ana 14 40 51 0 7 3 13 9 137 2.0 Irvine - Central 6 30 22 1 0 3 21 6 89 1.3 Laguna Beach 29 87 129 4 10 2 63 38 362 5.4 Anaheim, Garden Grove, Fullerton, - 14 29 62 0 6 2 18 16 147 2.2 Seal Beach, Villa Park, Outside Orange County 8 36 62 5 6 7 47 18 189 2.8 Unknown 15 39 75 2 3 0 15 19 168 2.5 Total 502 1,907 2,595 110 130 87 844 600 6,775 Percent 7.4 28.1 38.3 1.6 1.9 1.3 12.5 8.9 100.0 100 C '1 t and 3:00 P.M. Drivers unparking also reach a peak rate between 2:00 and 3:00 P.M. After 5:00 P.M. the accumulation falls off rapidly to about 50 percent of its midday level. After the shops close the remaining parkers are mostly located close to the restaurants along the highway. Curbs - In December, accumulations at the curb reached a peak of 337 at midday. This is 50 percent of the available curb spaces. During the summer months it is estimated that the accumulation reaches 60 percent of the total curb spaces. Off -Street - Off-street accumulations in December reached a total of 452 parked vehicles at midday, 55 percent of off-street spaces. During the summer months it is estimated that this figure reaches 70 percent. ... 800 03 600 a 400 m J = 200 0. 1 1 1 10 11 12 1 2 3 A.M. P.M. PARKER ACCUMULATIONS TYPICAL WEEKDAY - DECEMBER, 1967 5 6 7 8 20 Table 21 DRIVERS PARKING, UNPARKING AND ACCUMULATED CLASSIFIED BY TIME AND TYPE OF PARKING Corona del Mar Parking Study PARKED IN CURB SPACES PARKED IN OFF-STREET SPACES TOTAL Accumulated Accumulated Accumulated TIME In Out At End of Hour In Out At. End of Hour In Out At End of Hour 10:00 A.M. 317 - 317 369 - 369 686 - 686 10:00-11,00 333 336 314 402 345 426 735 681 740 11:00-12.00 Noon 449 426 337 443 417 452 892 843 789 12:00-1:00 P.M. 321 382 276 451 501 402 772 883 678 1:00-2:00 380 350 306 428 436 394 808 786 700 2:00-3:00 442 481 267 496 482 408 938 963 675 3:00-4:00 397 384 280 370 397 381 767 781 661 4:00-5:00 393 407 266 415 430 366 808 837 632 5:00-6:00 157 243 180 210 332 244 367 575 424 7:30 - - 185 - - 233 - - 418 8:30 - - 190 - - 218 - - 408 Total 3,189 3,009 - 3,584 3,340 - 6,773 - 6,349 102 I 11 I H Parking Turnover The total number of parkers, classified by type of facility and type of vehicle, are summarized in Table 22. The curb spaces accounted for 47 percent of the total turnover while the off-street lots accounted for 53 percent of the total turnover. At the curb, the 1-hour spaces handled 30 percent of the total turnover and the unlimited spaces handled 13 percent of the total turnover. In the off-street lots the private customer and employee lots accounted for 51 percent of the total turnover. The municipal public lots handled only 1.4 percent of the total turnover. ' Turnover rate is defined as the average number of vehicles per space per 8 hour day (10:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M.). Table 22 and Figure 21 summarized turnover rates observed in the commercial area. The number of spaces is limited to those actually observed. Those at the extreme edge of the commercial area, utilized by parkers walking in, are excluded. The observed turnover rates, at 5-minute spaces is exceptionally high, 51.0 cars per space. As expected the turnover rate of 9.7 in the 1-hour spaces is reasonably high. The lowest turnover rate at the curb is 1.9 in the unlimited spaces. Approx- imately 40 percent of the parkers in the unlimited curbside spaces were employees and residents. Where these spaces are located within a reasonable walking distance of the shops and businesses, consideration should be given to installing 1-hour time limits. The private customer and employee lots showed a turnover rate -of 4.6 which is reasonable for this type of facility. The municipal public lots, however, showed a low turnover rate of 1.9. The interviews conducted ' during the study showed that the municipal public lots were mainly being used for employee parking. The average turnover rate for both curb and off-street spaces as recorded during December was 4.5. During the summer months field studies indicated that the average turnover for all facilities was 5.5. This turnover is ' similar to that in other cities where business districts are of the strip commercial type with a large proportion of convenience goods stores. Truck Parking The survey covered trucks observed at public curb and off-street parking -spaces and did not include the trucks using alleys. For purposes of this survey, trucks were defined as vehicles with dual -wheel or larger trucks. 103 Table 22 PARKING TURNOVER, CLASSIFIED BY TYPE FACILITY AND TYPE VEHICLE Corona del Mar Parking Study TURNOVER- PARKERS TYPE FACILITY PARKING SPACES TYPE OF VEHICLE TOTAL PERCENT PER SPACE No. Percent Autos Trucks Taxis C urb 5-Minute 3 0.4 150 3 0 20-Minute 6 0.9 60 0 0 1-Hour 210 30.3 1,880 149 2 Unlimited 467 67.5 831 53 5 Loading Zone 6 0.9 15 37 0 No Parking - - 4 n n Off -Street Private, Customers & Employees 753 Private, Owner & Tenants 18 Municipal, Public Use 50 Subtotal 821 IF] nn uu; -1 uu uu n GoRONA LEGEND RmxR: RR SN£ O 9AYiN OD-2 ® 2 -5 51-10 - p10.Y00.'ER 1u OCRV+I. RGTE o uu MR pE� A un 7 Fil-1 nn F-11-1 uu uu u a71 � 21 . 3 6 CURB AND OFF-STREET PARKING TURNOVER - 1967���� 'NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC PLANNING, PARKING AND OPERATIONS STUDY Wd..Y. &_4...,ta ' The most frequent truck parking purposes were observed to be for sales and service and commercial business. In the commercial area the trucks parked accounted for ' approximately 6 percent of the total vehicles parked. Some 57 percent of the trucks parked at curb spaces and 43 percent of the trucks parked in off-street lots. Truck drivers parked most frequently in private customer and employee lots and in 1-hour ' curb spaces along the Coast Highway. Only 15 percent of truck drivers were observed to park in actual designated loading zones at the curb spaces. ' Trip Purposes ' Table 23 summarizes the number of parkers classified by trip purpose and type of facility. Shopping was the major trip purpose reported by 2,595 or 38.3 percent of the total parkers. Business was the second most frequent purpose, amounting ' to 28.2 percent of total parkers. Eating a meal was the next in magnitude at 12.4 those percent while reporting going to work (fixed place of employment) accounted for only 7.4 percent of the parkers. ' Purpose of trip is defined as the primary reason of parking; thus many people who park to work in one part of the commercial area might also drive elsewhere ' for shopping during the day. The majority of those parkers shopping, on business, or eating a meal, were observed to use private customer and employee off-street lots. However, there were almost as many shoppers using the 1-hour spaces located along the Coast Highway. Approximately 53 percent of the total parkers were utilizing the off- street lots and 47 percent were utilizing curb spaces for all purposes. Parking Duration The average parker (including all categories) stays for 51 minutes. The observed durations are listed in Table 24. Shopper parkers were observed to average 28 ' minutes and business parkers averaged 32 minutes. Workers stayed on the average of 4 hours, 15 minutes while those engaged in social -recreation activities stayed for i hour, 19 minutes. Excluding workers, the average duration for parkers in all ' other categories was 35 minutes. 106 Table 23 NUMBER OF PARKERS CLASSIFIED BY TRIP PURPOSE AND TYPE FACILITY Corona Del Mar Parking Study PRIMARY PURPOSE OF PARKING Social Sales & Truck Recrea- Eat TYPE FACILITY Work Business Shopping Service Load. tion Meal Other Total Percent Curb 5-Minute 0 153 0 0 0 0 0 0 153 2.3 20-Minute 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 20 60 0.9 1-Hour 23 502 1,005 33 51 15 211 191 2,031 29.9 Unlimited (C.A.) 171 159 229 29 9 61 54 178 890 13.1 Loading Zone 7 6 14 1 21 0 1 2 52 0.8 No Parking 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 4 0.1 Subtotal 201 861 1,248 63 82 76 267 392 3,190 47.1 Percent 6.3 27.0 39.1 2.0 2.6 2.4 8.$ 12.3 100.0 Off -Street Private, Customers & Emp. 259 1,020 1,340 43 47 10 551 208 3,478 51.3 Private, Owners & Tenants 11 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 13 0.2 Municipal, Public Use 31 27 7 4 0 1 21 2 93 1.4 Subtotal 301 1,047 1,347 47 47 11 574 210 3,584 52.9 Percent 8.4 29.2 37.6 1.3 1.3 0.3 16.0 5.9 100.0 Total 502 1,908 2,595 110 129 87 841 602 6,774 Percent 7.4 28.2 38.3 1.6 1.9 1.3 12.4 8.9 100.0 107 Table 24 NUMBER OF PARKERS CLASSIFIED BY PARKING DURATION AND TRIP PURPOSE Corona Del Mar Parking Study PARKING DURATION AVERAGE TRIP 0-24 25-60 61-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-8 Over DURATION PURPOSE Mins. Mins. Hr. Hr. Hr. Hr. Hr. 8 Hr. TOTAL Hr. Min. Work No. 45 48 48 62 51 40 109 102 505 4 15 % 8.9 9.5 9.5 12.3 10.1 7.9 21.6 20.2 100.0 Business No. 1,355 327 128 53 23 7 9 6 1,908 32 % 71.0 17.1 6.7 2.8 1.2 0.4 0.5 0.3 100.0 Shopping No. 1,698 689 155 31 6 6 5 3 2,593 28 % 65.5 26.6 6.0 1.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 100.0 Sales & Service No. 50 34 17 8 0 1 0 0 110 45 % 45.4 30.9 15.5 7.3 0 0.9 0 0 100.0 Load Truck No. 106 18 4 0 0 0 2 0 130 24 % 81.5 13.9 3.1 0 0 0 1.5 0 100.0 Social- No. 21 32 11 15 6 0 2 0 87 1 19 Recreation % 24.1 36.8 12.7 17.2 6.9 0 2.3 0 100.0 Eat Meal No. 371 350 98 12 2 1 7 0 841 39 % 44.1 41.6 11.7 1.4 0.3 0.1 0.8 0 100.0 Other No. 248 164 131 26 9 6 13 2 599 58 % 41.4 27.4 21.9 4.3 1.5 1.0 2.2 0.3 100.0 Total No. 3,894 1,662 592 207 97 61 147 113 6,773 51 % 57.5 24.5 8.7 3.1 1.4 0.9 2.2 1.7 100.0 M i For all trip purposes 82 percent of the parkers stayed less than 1 hour with 58 percent staying less than 24 minutes. Less than 5 percent of the total parkers stayed more than 4 hours and this percentage includes those working in the commercial area. The low average parking durations of parkers for all trip purposes are indicative of convenience type of shopping and consistent with those experienced in comparable business districts in other communities. Walking Distance The distance walked by type of facility is shown in Table 25; the distance walked by trip purpose in Table 26. The walking distance between the interview location and the primary destination reported was determined for each parker by means of a scaled map, and represents the distance from the edge of the parking lot or curb space to the building entrance where the parker was destined. The average walking distance for all parkers was found to be 73 feet. This short walking distance is similar to that found in other cities of a comparable size to Newport Beach, and is much less than that of larger cities. Even in the larger cities, the walking distance which is acceptable for todays' parkers is generally 100 feet less than it was 10 years ago for the same area. One of the reasons for this is that parking is now much better located than previously with respect to parker destinations. Off-street parkers in this area generally walk a shorter distance than curb parkers and this can be seen from Table 25 where the average walking distance for off- street facilities is 53 feet compared to the average walking distance of 95 feet for curb parking. The longer walking distance of 169 feet shown for the municipal public lots is one of the reasons for the small number of parkers using the two existing facilities. Table 26 compares walking and trip purpose and shows that the longest average walking distance of 102 feet is associated with the sales and service parkers. The average walking distance of 99 feet for work purposes is extremely short. The fact that many workers are parking close to their place of employment may be to the disadvantage of many more shoppers or clients than represented by the 109 I Table 25 NUMBER OF PARKERS CLASSIFIED BY DISTANCE WALKED AND TYPE OF FACILITY Corona Del Mar Parking Study DISTANCE WALKED - FEET TYPE 50- 100- 150- 200- 250- 300- 350- 400- TOTAL AVERAGE FACILITY 0-49 99 149 199 249 299 349 399 499 500 PARKERS DISTANCE Curb 5-Minute 153 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 153 25 20-Minute 2Z 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 56 1-Hour 72"1 717 329 112 25 51 11 62 0 3 2,031 89 Unlimited 194 259 154 154 23 32 30 20 8 14 888 126 Loading Zone 27 15 5 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 51 67 No Parking 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 50 Subtotal 1,119 1,031 488 266 51 83 42 82 8 17 3,187 95 Off -Street Private, 2,509 439 335 150 23 8 11 1 1 3 3,480 50 Customers & Emp. Private, 7 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 55 Owners & Tenants Municipal, 1 45 11 0 20 0 8 1 0 7 93 169 Public Use Subtotal 2,517 489 346 151 43 8 19 2 1 10 3,586 53 Total 3,636 1,520 834 417 94 91 61 84 9 27 6,773 73 - 110 Table 26 NUMBER OF PARKERS CLASSIFIED BY DISTANCE WALKED AND TRIP PURPOSE Corona Del Mar Parking Study TRIP PURPOSE Work Business Shopping Sales & Service Load Truck Social -Recreation Eat Meal Other Total DISTANCE WALKED - FEET 50- 100- 150- 200- 250- 300- 350- 400- TOTAL AVERAGE 0-49 99 149 199 249 299 349 399 499 500 PARKERS DISTANCE 162 174 71 50 16 5 9 3 6 7 503 99 1,119 427 152 100 27 25 17 31 2 7 1,807 67 1,488 500 295 187 34 39 15 30 1 5 2,594 68 33 37 17 10 4 4 4 0 0 1 110 102 57 55 8 3 2 1 1 2 0 0 129 69 57 12 11 4 2 0 0 1 0 0 87 60 448 164 167 26 8 4 7 6 0 0 840 68 272 150 113 37 2 3 8 10 0 6 601 82 3,636 1,519 834 417 95 91 61 83 9 26 6;771 72 111 actual number of worker-parkers, due to the difference in turnover for these categories. Approximately 90 percent of the parkers were walking less than 150 feet and 54 percent were walking less than 50 feet for all purposes. In view of the present level of acceptable walking distance for all parkers it is evident that any proposals for additional off-street parking in Corona del Mar must necessarily be well located. n IJ 112 j ' CHAPTER V PARKING DEMANDS AND NEEDS This chapter presents survey findings of the demand for parking spaces in each block, ' relates demand to capacity, and summarizes present and future parking needs, based upon summertime parking requirements. Current Demand ' The parking space demand within each block of the commercial area, based on the parkers primary destination, is shown in Table 27. The table has been adjusted to reflect summer conditions. It shows for instance that block 35 was the destination of 1,264 parkers who parked 3 hours or less and 23 parkers who parked longer. These 1,287 parkers may have parked in block 35 or in an adjacent block. The spaces required to accommodate this demand are shown to be 82 for short-term parkers and ' 16 for long-term parkers. This demand figure was determined as the average of the 3 highest half-hourly accumulation totals of parkers destined to this particular block (the three accumulations did not necessarily occur sequentially). The space demand ' thus represents the number of spaces that would be completely filled during peak demand by parkers destined to block 35. It is noted that short-term parkers require less spaces than long-term parkers due to higher turnover rates. ' Table 27 clearly indicates that block 31 and block 35, situated on the south side of Coast Highway, generate the greatest parking demand. The pattern of demand for 1 the other blocks along the Coast Highway varies. Each one of blocks 6,31,35, and 37 were the destinations for over 500 parkers during the course of the day. ' Buildings - Parking demands generated by selected businesses are summarized by Table 28. The ratios of spaces for 1, 000 square feet of gross building floor area ' are listed. The highest unit demand is generally found in connection with the banks, restaurants, liquor stores, and clothing stores. The space demand figures shown in the table are generally within the range of average space requirements for similar buildings in business districts elsewhere. However, the overall average space demand of 4.6 spaces per 1, 000 square feet for the particular businesses selected 113 1 Table 27 PRESENT NUMBER OF PARKERS DESTINED TO EACH BLOCK AND PEAK SPACE DEMAND Corona Del Park Parking Study 0-3 HRS.DURATION OVER 3 HRS.DURATION TOTAL BLOCK Parker Space Parker Space Parker Space NO. Destinations Demand Destinations Demand Destinations Demand 1 173 25 26 19 199 44 2 64 13 8 8 72 21 3 494 11 0 0 494 11 4 144, 22 20 20 164 42 5 372 26 4 4 376 30 6 599 42 30 24 629 66 7 456 22 16 16 472 38 8 1 2 0 0 1 2 9 3 2 1 2 4 4 11 225 20 8 6 233 26 13 165 18 8 8 173 26 14 1 2 0 0 1 2 16 98 10 10 10 108 20 18 228 35 33 28 261 63 19 211 21 6 6 217 27 20 104 10 8 8 112 18 22 428 46 13 10 441 56 24 129 20 33 30 162 50 11FE11 '1 7 I Table 27 (Continued) 0-3 HRS.DURATION BLOCK Parker Space NO. Destinations Demand 26 205 26 27 7 0 28 182 23 30 323 36 31 519 57 33 109 13 34. 1 2 35 1,264 82 36 1 2 37 563 40 38 105 34 39 10 4 40 351 23 41 216 30 42 222 14 43 122 11 44 151 16 45 14 5 Total 8,260 765 OVER 3 HRS. DURATION Parker Space Destinations Demand 11 9 5 5 35 30 19 16 75 63 18 17 3 2 23 16 0 0 21 17 16 16 0 0 36 31 29 26 8 8 1 2 3 3 0 0 527 460 TOTAL Parker Space Destinations Demand 216 35 12 5 217 53 342 52 594 120 127 30 4 4 1,287 98 1 2 584 57 121 50 10 4 387 54 245 56 230 22 123 13 154 19 14 5 8,787 1,225 Note: The parker destinations and space demand figures have been adjusted for summer conditions. 115 I 1] F H D 11 ILI Table 28 PARKING DEMAND OF SELECTED BUILDINGS Corona del Mar Parking Study TOTAL DAILY BLOCK PARKING PEAK GROSS SQ.FT. NO. BUILDING DESTINATION DEMAND DEMAND FLOOR AREA (vehicles) (spaces) (000) 3 U.S. Post Office 484 10 5.9 5 Snack Shop 304 23 5.7 5 C.D.M. Library 52 9 2.2 6 Bank of America 265 26 14.2 6 Virginia's Snip & Stitch 150 13 1.9 6 Neal's Sporting Goods 110 15 1.9 7 La Cantina Liquors 150 6 1.0 7 C.D.M. Laundromat 65 4 0.9 11 Denny's Coffee Shop 92 9 2.2 19 Tivoli Square Shopping Center 114 14 3.8 20 Korker Liquor 101 9 2.5 22 Medical Building 148 23 7.2 22 Snack Shop 277 42 2.9 24 Coast Highway Building 94 30 6.5 30 Rag Shop 34 7 0.9 31 Security First National Bank 192 34 4.3 31 Harbour Investment Building 157 52 6.6 31 Mutual Savings Building 83 31 2.9 35 Albertson's Market 759 58 12.0 35 Rexall Drug Store 240 20 6.8 35 Yard's Coffee 118 13 0.3 37 United California Bank 205 26 7.8 37 Crown Hardware 205 13 6.4 38 Schroeder's Restaurant 109 41 7.6 42 johnnies Liquor Store 108 4 1.0 DEMAND PER 1,000 SQ.FT. (spaces) Average Note: The total daily parking demand and peak demand figures have been adjusted Range for summer conditions. 1.7 4.0 4.1 1.8 6.8 7.9 6.0 4.4 4.1 3.7 3.6 3.2 14.5 4.6 7.8 7.9 7.9 10.7 4.8 2.9 4.3 3.3 2.0 5.4 4.0 4.6 1.7 - 14.5 116 ' is slightly above present city requirements of providing a minimum of four spaces per 1,000 square feet of building area. ' Demand versus Supply ' The current status of parking supply versus demand and net surplus or deficiency in supply is summarized by Table 29 and Figure 22. This analysis is based on comparing the space demand (Table 27) and supply in each of the city blocks, classifing short- term (0 to 3 hours) and long-term (over 3 hours) parking separately. The resulting surplus or deficiency considers each block independently of all others. This com- parison is valid if it is assumed that each block should be self sufficient with respect ' to having enough parking space to accommodate all demand generated within that particular block. Usually it is expected that in a retail center or a downtown area, parkers will usually walk across the street utilizing parking spaces in blocks adjacent to the parkers' destinations. However, in Corona del Mar, field observations and analysis of ' walking distances indicate that the final estimation of parking needs should be determined on a block by block basis. Parkers in Corona del Mar business district expect to walk only a short distance. The current supply of parking spaces has been derived from the physical inventory with certain adjustments. The capacity of curb spaces has been calculated as 90 ' percent of the actual spaces, allowing a 10 percent "cushion" needed for smooth operation. Where turnover is relatively high, such as in this case, there must be on the average 1 space in 10 open during peak demand. Otherwise some would- be parkers would have to double park in the streets for a short time to await an opening. ' A practical capacity factor of 85 percent of total spaces has been applied to public off-street parking facilities since a slightly larger"cushion"is required where turn- over is slower and spaces not as quickly found as at curb locations. For private off-street facilities the capacity has been equated to the actual observed peak demand because it would be inaccurate to consider that there is any surplus capacity ' in such facilities to meet demands of nearby generators due to the restricted nature of the private parking. 117 Table 29 COMPARISON OF CURRENT PARKING SUPPLY AND DEMAND Corona del Mar Parking Study SURPLUS/ ADJUSTED SUPPLY DEMAND DEFICIENCY S & D BLOCK Short- Long- Short- Long- Short- Long- Short- Long - NO. Term Term Term Term Term Term Term Term 1 27 9 25 19 2 - 10 2 - 10 2 3 18 13 8 - 10 10 0 0 3 11 15 11 0 0 15 0 15 4 35 15 22 20 13 - 5 13 - 5 5 42 11 26 4 16 7 16 7 6 51 13 42 24 9 - 11 9 - 11 7 26 11 22 16 4 - 5 4 - 5 8 2 5 2 0 0 5 0 5 9 0 5 2 2 - 2 3 0 1 11 18 12 20 6 - 2 6 0 4 13 25 3 18 8 7 - 5 7 -. 5 14 0 5 2 0 - 2 5 0 3 16 16 8 10 10 6 - 2 6 - 2 18 39 12 35 28 4 - 16 4 - 16 19 17 10 21 6 - 4 4 0 0 20 28 12 10 8 18 4 18 4 22 13 15 46 10 - 33 5 - 28 0 24 34 12 20 30 14 - 18 14 - 18 26 54 5 26 9 28 - 4 28 - 4 COMBINED S&D Surplus Deficiency 8 0 15 8 23 2 - 1 5 1 4 2 3 4 - 12 0 22 - 28 4 24 118 Table 29 (Continued) SURPLUS/ ADJUSTED SUPPLY DEMAND DEFICIENCY S & D COMBINED S&D BLOCK Short- Long- Short- Long- Short- Long- Short- Long - NO. Term Term Term Term Term Term Term Term Surplus Deficiency 28 43 19 23 30 20 - 11 20 - 11 9 30 27 21 36 16 - 9 5 - 4 0 - 4 31 85 18 57 63 28 - 45 28 - 45 - 17 33 18 18 13 17 5 1 5 1 6 35 74 9 82 16 - 8 - 7 - 8 - 7 - 15 37 32 27 40 17 - 8 10 0 2 2 38 17 39 34 16 - 17 23 0 6 6 39 0 8 4 0 - 4 8 0 4 4 40 30 18 23 31 7 - 13 7 - 13 - 6 41 9 27 30 26 - 21 1 - 20 0 - 20 42 20 19 14 8 6 11 6 11 17 43 8 22 11 2 - 3 20 0 17 17 44 8 10 16 3 - 8 7 - 1 0 - 1 45 0 5 5 0 - 5 5 0 0 0 Total 812 456 761 453 + 51 + 3 + 126 - 72 172 - 118 Note: The demand, surplus, and deficiency figures have been adjusted for summer conditions. 119 0 I 1 1 1 0 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -luuuuu C0R0NA u �n� - 10-M 0- 9 or -MR ® NIIMPEP LL1 LJLJ u [E-- (H L i MAR n TILL] uu uu u uu uu u -1FI-1 unnuuuun 22 4 POP CURRENT PARKING SPACE SURPLUSES AND DEFICIENCIES NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC PLANNING, PARKING AND OPERATIONS STUDY 1 ' Adjusted deficiencies are obtained by balancing off comparable surplus and deficiency. Short-term deficiencies are applied against long-term surpluses to give an overall ' adjusted surplus or deficiency in each block. 1967 Surpluses and Deficiencies Table 29 shows 5 blocks with short-term space deficiency and 13 blocks, not necessarily the same blocks in every case, with long-term parking space deficiency. Combining the two types of deficiencies, there are 12 blocks with combined defic- iencies. This assumes that long-term parkers could park in short-term spaces by a change in the time limit in some cases. Because parkers do not expect to walk in this area from one block to the next, no allowance has been made to balance off deficiencies in one block against surpluses in adjacent blocks. Figure 23 shows the blocks in the commercial area which are considered as having deficiencies or surpluses in parking and also those blocks which are considered in balance at the present time. Only five of the blocks are shown as having deficiencies, totalling 92 spaces. Eighteen of the blocks where the deficiencies or surpluses are less than 10 are shown as being in balance and the remaining six are indicated as having surplus parking. Estimation of Future Supply and Demand Table 30 lists by block the anticipated future (1977) parking supply, demand, surpluses and deficiencies, and Figure 24 illustrates the range of surpluses and deficiencies in each block. Future supply reflects the loss of certain curb parking spaces as discussed in the next chapter, and considering as practical capacities 90 percent of curb spaces and 85 percent of off-street spaces. These adjustment ' factors were discussed previously in connection with developing current supply figures. ' Future demand has been estimated to increase over current demand figures by 25 percent. This increase has been calculated from changes in land use anticipated by the City Planning Department to take place by 1977, and also from estimated growth in population within the primary trade area. This growth in parking demand ) 21 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 G0RoNA LEGEND E1XL£ OEFFIUEN[Y IN 9NOILE _ SIYQ 9J6Nll9 o a� N�N �` uu L LLJ t R pEl Mp uuLiu uuuuu nn nn nn pP 23 P o P o i z s• s e CURRENT PARKING SUPPLY VS. DEMAND NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC PLANNING, PARKING AND OPERATIONS STUDY 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 nn ° �ULu -1nnnn CogoNA L MAR pE uu uu uu uu uu u u1u0jf IMF � i SURPLUS CEFlGENCI SPoCES � 4 ]O W i IF5$y F rr p g C SMrtY H nu uu nu uu uu uu « BLOCK 7 NWBEA PARKING SPACE SURPLUSES AND DEFICIENCIES - 1977 724 NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC PLANNING, PARKING AND OPERATIONS STUDY M.,-3.9 9,-4,..t. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 '1 1 Table 30 PARKING SPACE SUPPLY AND DEMAND - 1977 Corona del Mar Parking Study SURPLUS AND ADJUSTED SUPPLY DEMAND DEFICIENCY S & D COMBINED S&D BLOCK Short- Long- Short- Long- Short- Long- Short- Long - NO. Term Term Term Term Term Term Term Term Surplus Deficiency 1 27 9 31 24 - 4 - 15 - 4 - 15 - 19 2 3 14 16 10 - 13 4 - 9 0 - 9 3 11 11 14 0 - 3 11 0 8 8 4 35 15 27 25 8 - 10 8 - 10 - 2 5 42 7 32 5 10 2 10 2 12 6 51 9 52 30 - 1 - 21 - 1 - 21 - 22 7 26 7 27 20 - 1 - 13 - 1 - 13 - 14 8 2 3 3 0 - 1 3 0 2 2 9 0 5 3 3 - 3 2 - 1 0 - 1 11 18 8 25 7 - 7 1 - 6 0 - 6 13 25 1 22 10 3 - 9 3 - 9 - 6 14 0 5 3 0 - 3 5 0 2 2 16 16 4 12 12 4 - 8 4 - 8 - 4 18 39 8 44 35 - 5 - 27 - 5 - 27 - 32 19 17 6 26 7 - 9 - 1 - 9 - 1 - 10 20 28 12 12 10 16 2 16 2 18 22 13 15 57 12 - 44 3 - 41 0 — 41 24 34 12 25 38 9 - 26 9 - 26 - 17 26 54 3 32 11 22 - 8 22 - 8 14 124 Table 30 (Continued) SURPLUS AND ADJUSTED SUPPLY DEMAND DEFICIENCY S & D COMBINED S&D BLOCK Short- Long- Short- Long- Short- Long- Short- Long - NO. Term Term Term Term Term Term Term Term Surplus Deficiency 28 43 15 29 37 14 - 22 14 - 22 - 8 30 27 17 45 20 - 18 - 3 - 18 - 3 - '21 31 85 18 71 78 14 - 60 14 - 60 - 46 33 18 18 30 25 - 12 - 7 - 12 - 7 - 19 35 74 9 102 20 - 28 - 11 - 28 - 11 - 39 37 32 27 50 21 - 18 6 - 12 0 - 12 38 17 35 42 20 - 25 15 - 10 0 - 10 39 0 8 5 0 - 5 8 0 3 3 40 30 14 28 39 2 - 25 2 - 25 - 23 41 9 24 38 32 - 29 - 8 - 29 - 8 - 37 42 20 15 17 10 3 5 3 5 8 43 8 19 14 3 - 6 16 0 10 10 44 8 6 20 4 - 12 2 - 10 0 - "10 45 0 5 6 0 - 6 5 - 1 0 - 1 Total 812 384 960 568 - 148 - 184 - 92 - 240 77 - 409 Note: A minus sign in advance of a figure denotes deficiency. Lack of a minus denotes surplus. 125 ' appears reasonable when compared to increases for similar business districts in other cities and considering also the development of the nearby Newport Center. ' A comparison of Tables 29 and 30 reveals an anticipated net loss of 72 parking spaces while demand will have increased by 314 spaces. Future Parking Needs The analytical process used for current conditions was also applied to determine future parking space surpluses and deficiencies arising from the projected changes in parking space supply and demand. Table 30 shows that there are eight blocks ' with significant short-term space deficiency (over 10 spaces), and 10 blocks, not necessarily the same blocks in every case, with long-term space deficiencies over 10 spaces. Combining the two types of deficiencies, there are 16 blocks where the projected 1977 deficiency is equal to or more than 10 parking spaces. Eight of these blocks show deficiencies exceeding 20 parking spaces. Figure 25 shows the blocks in the commercial area which are considered as being either deficient (16 ' blocks) or having surplus space (4 blocks) for future parking needs. The remaining 9 blocks where deficiencies or surpluses are less than 10 spaces are shown as ' being in balance. Unforeseen major increases in parking demand through new construction, or a decrease in supply through loss parking of off-street parking facilities, could change the situation in those blocks which are here indicated as ' being in balance. In block 33 between Heliotrope Avenue and Iris Avenue, present zoning would allow for the construction high of a rise office building. If such a structure is built in the future there would be a requirement for both employee and customer parking space in excess of the future demand presently being projected. As shown by Figure 25 there will be a need by 1977 for about 372 additional parking spaces spread over 16 of the blocks in the Corona del Mar business district. I 126 0 nnnnnn CORONA nn� MAR pEL uu uu uu LEGEND & S C _ 9 E DEFIOE IN MANCE yp�{Y A£. BI=K gIM1RYER n nn nn nn nnnnnn '//�) /ram) 7ea LV a 1 PARKING SUPPLY VS. DEMAND - 1977 -e-a NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC PLANNING, PARKING AND OPERATIONS STUDY 'u4s.S.1d I 0 1 CHAPTER VI PARKING IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Preceding chapters have established the magnitude of existing and projected parking demand with respect to location, and areas of parking space deficiencies have been identified. Recommended locations of facilities adequate to meet future parking needs are presented in this chapter together with typical functional designs of the proposed facilities. The financial feasibility of the program is enumerated with estimates of development cost and operating expenses, and a method of financing the program is ' recommended. Curb Parking Reduction Because of the proposals for converting the north -south side streets to one-way operation, recommendations for eliminating curb parking have been kept to a minimum. A total of 72 parking spaces would be lost in those side streets where parking restrictions are not presently in force primarily in the right-hand approaches to the intersections adjacent to the Coast Highway. The one-way streets require parking restrictions to facilitate the turning movements of traffic and also to improve safety of operation. The observed low turnover rates and analyses of the interviews conducted during the parking survey showed that these relatively few spaces, which presently have no time limits, are being used mostly for.long-term parking. "No Parking" restrictions in these locations, therefore, should not result in a loss of customer patronage. Moreover, the majority of the actual spaces would be recovered ' by development of the proposed off-street parking program. Off -Street Parking Program As discussed in the previous chapter there is a current parking space shortage of ' 92 parking spaces. By 1977 the shortage will have grown to about 372 parking spaces or 280 more than the current need for additional spaces. Table 31 summarizes a proposed program of off-street parking development, designed to eliminate exist- ing and future deficiencies. 128 ' Several basic criteria were applied in the development of the proposed off-street program. The cost of property acquisition was one of the primary factors. Acquisition costs(') for the properties were provided by the City to aid in evaluating potential ' parking sites. These were converted to unit costs per square foot of land area to simplify comparison. The proximity of potential sites to parking demand was another important factor. Analysis of current parking characteristics shows that the walking distance of ' parkers in Corona del Mar presently averages 73 feet, and the average duration of parkers shopping and doing business is approximately 30 minutes. Because parker habits are not expected to change substantially in the forseeable future and because ' of the physical characteristics of the strip development of the commercial area along the Coast Highway, parking sites were selected where they would be closely related to the demand in individual blocks rather than in a centralized location. ' The Corona del Mar study carried out by Murton H. Willson and Associates contains some interesting concepts for creation of a village center in the triangular area bounded by Iris Avenue, the Coast Highway, Marguerite Avenue and Bayside Drive. If plans are implemented in the future as suggested in this consultant's report, ' there could be a need for some consolidation of parking sites in this locality. Other criteria used in determining future parking sites were the relationship of the sites to the proposed one-way street circulation system, and the suitability of existing lots for construction of multi -level decks. Only two of the existing parking lots in blocks 31 and 35 are suitable for double decking. Stage I (Immediate) -The sites selected for first stage development are shown in Table 31 and Figure 26. Implementation of the program would require the immediate ' acquisition of seven properties in blocks 1,18,22,40, and 41. The locations of these properties are described in Table 31. In blocks 31 and 35 it is recommended that portable parking structures utilizing prefabricated modular components, be (1) Source: J. A. Mueller, "City of Newport Beach Appraisal Report," November, 1965. En'l H ' erected over the existing lots in lieu of acquiring property in adjoining blocks. It ' will be necessary for the City, or businessmen, to negotiate with the present owners of the properties containing these lots so that acceptable agreements can be made for erection of the portable structures, including the possible acquisition of "air - rights." Alternatively, the present owners of the properties or businessmen in these blocks may prefer to carry out this portion of the program, Construction of the first stage program would result in the provision of 172 net park- ' ing spaces and this number would be adequate to meet the immediate need for 92 spaces with sufficient reserve for the next several years. ' Stage II (By 1977) - It is recommended that an additional 22 properties be acquired for Stage II development. As indicated in Table 31 this would make a total of 29 ' properties to be acquired by 1977. The 22 lots would provide land for construction of an additional 240 car spaces making a total of 412 net spaces by 1977. The locations of the properties are enumerated in Table 31 and shown as parking facilities in Figure 26. In most cases, the properties selected are located adjacent to existing parking lots so that full advantage can be taken of combining areas in the functional design of the lots. While parking supply and demand cannot be predicted with complete assurance beyond a 10-year period, there would appear to be a good probability of increasing ' demand after this time. The recommendation pertaining to the portable parking structures will permit flexibility in the parking improvement program for some changes or increase in demand. For example, should the concepts for a Village ' Center be implemented, as suggested in the Murton H. Willson report, a portable parking structure in block 35 within the area could be modified or removed to con- form with the design of the new center. ' Functional Designs - In addition to meeting the cost and proximity criteria mentioned above there are a number of design elements which must be taken into account. For ' example, access and egress points to both parking structures and lots should not be located close to intersections particularly where on -street queueing of incoming parkers could seriously impede traffic flow and be the cause of potential accidents. ' If the proposals for one-way circulation on most of the north -south streets are 130 I Table 31 RECOMMENDED MUNICIPAL OFF-STREET PROGRAM Corona del Mar Parking Study NUMBER OF SITES GROSS SPACES TO BE ACQUIRED BLOCK Stage I Stage II Stage I Stage II NO. Immediate By 1977 Immediate BY 1977 DESCRIPTION OF "SITES 1 10 10 1 1 2 20 2 6 22 2 ' 7 15 2 13 10 1 18 19 12 40 10 1 3 1 22 30 40 2 3 24 30 20 20 1 2 ' 31 33 65(50) 65(50) 20 0 0 2 35 55(40) 55(40) 0 0 37 40 10 22 23 1 2 2 41 20 40 2 4 44 10 1 Total 202 442 7 29 Gross Total (172) (412) ' Net Acquire one property north of existing lot frontage to Peppy. Acquire one property north of existing lot frontage to P:insettia. Acquire one property north of vacant lot frontage to Poppy. Acquire two properties east of existing lot frontage to Marigold. Acquire two properties rear of shops frontage to Marguarite. Acquire one property rear of shops frontage to Iris. Acquire three properties east of existing lot frontage to Goldenrod. Acquire one property east of existing lot frontage to Fernleaf. Acquire three properties south of existing lot frontage to Begonia. Acquire one property south of existing lot frontage to Begonia. Acquire two properties rear of shops frontage to Fernleaf and Goldenrod. Portable parking structure over existing lots. Acquire two properties rear of shops frontage to Heliotrope. Portable parking structure over existing lot. Acquire two properties rear of shops frontage to jasmine. Acquire two properties south of existing lot frontage to Marigold. Acquire four properties rear of shops frontage to Narcissus and Marigold. Acquire one property rear of shops frontage to Poinsettia. Note: All figures shown for Stage II are cumulative and include Stage I figures. ' Figures in parentheses represent spaces gained (net spaces). 131 ll I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 a y a s T g � a IF] ICI 1 n nn nn°nnInn CORONA 11uu COR �._ LEGEND VXISTING MUNICIPAL LOT , ISE7 STAGE [ PROPOSED LOT, IMMEDIATE SIDGE I PROPOSED STRUCTURE , WMEOIPTE - STAGE a PROPOSED LOT BY ISl] NUMBER OF PROPERTIC5 NUMBER OF SPACES i! BLOCI NUMBER PROPOSED ONE-WAY STREETS RECOMMENDED OFF-STREET PARKING PROGRAM uuUL LIU 4 FIF-1M [ OCL, MAR mlILL-1 uu uu. ul MI 3wil nn nn nn nn nn nn� �a 26 a O P 6 5 6 NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC PLANNING, PARKING AND OPERATIONS STUDY wid.-s:.d y�Q,. •.. 1 U implemented access to and from the parking facilities will be considerably improved. The parking lots themselves should have a completely self-contained circulation system so as to avoid unnecessary conflicts with pedestrians. The functional designs of a typical parking lot and the two portable parking structures are illustrated in Figure 27. The majority of the properties have a street frontage of 30-foot widths, so that two properties are required to obtain a minimum 60-foot module for an aisle and two rows of parking stalls. Almost all of the sites selected are located adjacent to existing lots or have a rear alley adjoining them and this is advantageous to the layout and operation of the lots. The existing lot in block 31 slopes away from the rear of the businesses towards Second Street. Advantage should be taken of this in the design of the access ramp to the deck of the proposed portable structure in block 35, the most suitable location for the access ramp appears to be parallel to First Street with the entrance facing Marigold Avenue. Marigold Avenue would be one-way towards the Coast Highway in the proposed one-way circulation scheme, and this would be satisfactory for ingress to and egress from the parking facility. Financial Feasibility ' Development Costs - Cost estimates for the development of the Stage I and Stage II programs are listed in Table 32. To compute the costs for the several items the following information and base costs were applied. Property: An evaluation was made of the average market values of properties in Corona del Mar based upon an "Appraisal Report" furnished to the City by Joseph A. Muller, Real Estate Appriaser. Grading, Paving and Marking: Costs for this work were estimated at $0.50 per square foot for new surface lots. Construction: Construction costs for the portable parking structures were estimated at $4, 50 per square foot including an allowance for necessary modifica- tions to existing surface lots. Design and Inspection: Costs for this item were estimated at 10 percent of construction costs for surface lots and 6 percent for structures. Lighting: Lighting costs were based on an average of $500 for every 30 spaces or less on new surface lots with an additional allowance for connection 133 U1 and service changes. Lighting costs are included in the estimated square footage costs of the portable structures. Table 32 ESTIMATED DEVELOPMENT COSTS Corona del Mar Parking Study STAGE I IMMEDIATE STAGE II BY 1977 Lots - 120 Structures Lots - ITEM 82 Spaces 90 Net Spaces 240 Spaces Land $ 231,000 $ 0 $ 726,000 Grading, Paving, Marking, 20,000 4,000 55,000 etc. Air -Rights 0 30,000 0 Construction of Structures 0 180,000 0 Design and Inspection 2,000 18,400 5,500 Lighting 2,500 0 7,000 Insurance 210 300 600 Demolition 14,000 0 46,000 Contingencies 4,000 18,000 11,400 Subtotal $ 273,710 $ 250,700 $ 851,500 Legal and Financial $ 9,580 $ 8,770 $ 29,800 Capitalized Interest 27,370 25,030 85,100 , Total $ 310,660 $ 284,500 $ 966,400 Cost Per Space $ 3,790 $ 2,360 $ 4,030 Cost Per Space Gained $ 3,790 $ 3,160 $ 4,030 Insurance During Construction: An allowance of $2.50 per space was made for this item. Demolition: Approximate lump sum estimates have been used for demolition costs and salvage values. 134 BUSINESSES FRONTAGE TO COAST HIGHWAY T---------------, b ALLEY TO GROUND LEVEL I o m ________ _ I i 4 64' I I BUSINESSES I eI FRONTAGE TO COAST HIGHWAY / UPPER LEVEL CS SPACES 12 I , I I A 5uf I o 3 IWI ICI �• rFFrr STAIgS' r SECOND AVE. PORTABLE PARKING STRUCTURE BLOCK 31 STAGE I i SHOPS FRONTAGE TO COAST HIGHWAY I I 0 o - u � If 2 IIB' IIB' 2 V � I a RESIDENTIAL � RESIDENTIAL I~ v ¢ I4 4I TYPICAL PARKING LOT LAYOUT BLOCK 40 STAGE 1 0 STAGE II SPACES C SHOPS rj co 9`rT H� Cy �9 t ALBERTON'S MARKET I WI 41 it 2 N a WN UP DOWNRAMP a b S + FIRST AVE. PORTABLE PARKING STRUCTURE BLOCK 35 STAGE I 27 TYPICAL FUNCTIONAL DESIGNS 1 O P H 0 40 80 120 160 MAP SCALE IN FEET NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC PLANNING, PARKING AND OPERATIONS STUDY warsmulk o� , I� II II I H Contingencies: An allowance of 10 percent of all costs excluding property costs was used. Legal and Financial: An allocation of 3.5 percent of total cost was made to cover legal and financial expenses. Capitalized Interest: This was based on 5 percent of total development costs for a period of 2 years. Operating Costs - Annual operating costs were estimated as shown in Table 33. Costs for the different items were based on the following assumptions: Salaries: For costs of enforcement of parking regulations and general supervision an annual gross expense was estimated based on anemployee salary of $ 6, 000 per annum. Administration: Increased costs for administrative expenses were estimated at $8,500 annually. Maintenance: These costs were computed at $4 per space for surface lots and $ 6 per space for the portable structure. Utilities: A cost of $3 per space was estimated to be appropriate for lots and $ 8 per space for the portable structures. Supplies: Costs for supplies was estimated at $1 per space. Contingencies: Ten percent of all operating costs was allocated to cover expenses for contingencies in operation. Annual Program Costs - A summary of annual program costs is presented in Table 34. The total development cost of the whole program is shown to be $1,561,560. A conservative estimate, assuming 25-year bonds at 5 percent interest, indicates an average annual cost for amortization of $110, 800. ' In addition to the annual amortization costs there would be approximately $20,800 expended in operating costs resulting in a total annual cost of $131, 600 for the full program at an annual cost of $320 per net space. ' Revenues - In most cities the revenues from parking meters and direct parking charges from new facilities are utilized to defray operating expenses or are applied towards the cost of constructing new parking facilities. For example, the City Council recently established a Parking Improvement Fund to set aside 50 percent of parking meter 136 ' revenues in those business areas now having metered curb parking. The fund is to be used for parking improvements in these same areas. Table 33 ' ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS Corona del Mar Parking Study ' STAGE I - IMMEDIATE STAGE II - BY 1977 ITEM Lots Structures Lots ' Salaries Administration $ 1,000 1,500 $ 2,000 2,500 $ 3,000 4,500 Maintenance 300 700 1,000 Utilities 200 1,000 700. Supplies 100 100 200 Contingencies 300 700 1,000 Total $ 3,400 $ 7,000 $ 10,400 Since it is not proposed to make any direct user charges for customer parking in Corona del Mar there would be no direct revenues from any of the proposed facilities. The financial feasibility of the program, therefore, will be dependent on the ability of the City, the commercial property owners, and the business community of Corona del Mar to finance the indicated demand for new facilities by means of general ' obligation bonds or the formation of a benefit assessment district, as discussed below in the methods of financing. The average annual cost per net space has been estimated at $320. The annual returns in gross retail sales per space in commercial districts such as Corona del Mar is normally many times this figure. Studies carried out in other cities show ' that, for each space, an average value of $3, 000 to $•6, 000 in annual retail sales can be attributed to the provision of adeugate parking, dependent, of course, on ' other values such as market demand and whether or not there is active effort to attract the market. Major department stores in large shopping centers frequently estimate the value of a parking space as the generator of up to $10,000 in annual ' retail sales. 137 I Table 34 SUMMARY OF ANNUAL CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS Corona del Mar Parking Study ANNUAL ANNUAL TOTAL ANNUAL DEVELOPMENT AMORTIZATION OPERATING ANNUAL COSTPER STAGE COSTS COSTS(a) COSTS COSTS SPACE Stage I Lots $ 310,660 $ 22,000 $ 3,400 $ 25,400 $ 300 Structures 284,500 20,200 7,000 27,200 300 ISubtotal $ 595,160 $ 42,200 $ 10,400 $ 52,600 $ 300 Stage II ILots $ 966,400 $ 68,600 $ 10,400 $ 79,000 $ 330 Total $1,561,560 $ 110,800 $ 20,800 $131,600 $ 320 (a) Based on 25-year bonds @ 5% interest. Methods of Financing , '. Several methods for financing municipal off-street parking programs are available and have been utilized in California cities. The most direct method, of course, is the collection of parking fees by means of parking meters, coin operated gates, or attendants. Other workable methods include the institution of a merchant operated parking validation system, contributions from municipal and private sources, issuance of bonds and formation of a parking assessment district. IAlthough it is not within the scope of this study to recommend a particular method r of financing, a discussion of the various methods utilized by other cities should be helpful in illustrating the choices available for Corona del Mar. 136 I 11 ' Short-term Parker Charges - This would be the most direct and equitable method of meeting the costs of the contemplated parking program. However, the provision of free parking in Corona del Mar has become well established and the imposition of direct parking fees could act as a deterrent to customers who might wish to visit this commercial district. Furthermore, if the central Corona del Mar business dis- trict is to attract its share of the retail business in competition with the nearby Newport Center which provides "free"' parking space, then it cannot be expected to do so with maximum success if customers are required to pay directly for parking space. Parking Validation System - Under such a scheme, the businessmen and merchants would, in effect, be paying for shopper parking. While there are a number of ways in which a validation system can be operated, in most cases attendant control of parking facilities would be necessary. Considering the number of small existing and proposed municipal lots, each of which would require attendant service, this method of financing would probably be impractical in Corona del Mar. The relatively high operating and administrative costs would make it infeasible, and moreover customers would have the impression they were being charged an indirect fee for parking. Use of General Funds - In many cities some use of general funds is made to finance parking facilities. However, since most communities operate within tightly planned budgets it is unusual if surplus funds are available in sufficient quantity for such ' purposes. The use of general funds to finance off-street parking has been limited, for the most part, to facilities built in connection with governmental offices or other public buildings. Revenue and General Obligation Bonds - Use of the municipal borrowing power has been the most popular method of government financing for off-street parking facilities. This has been accomplished, in most cases, through the sale of revenue or general obligation bonds. The main advantage of financing through use of general obligation bonds is the low interest rate usually obtained, whereby the full faith and credit of the community is pledged toward repayment of principal and interest. There are also further savings in financing cost and interest during construction of the facilities. Where the 139 r I 1' city's debt limit permits, general obligation bonds may prove to be a workable method for obtaining off-street parking. Because the annual debt retirement is spread over all of the property on the city tax rolls, and debt -service charges and amortization of the bonds are paid through general taxation, -this method would probably not be useful for solution of a localized problem, such as con- sidered here. Revenue bonds are becoming a popular way to finance off-street parking. Income from the parking facilities themselves is used to retire the bonds. Income from curb parking meters can also be pledged to make the bond offering more attractive; however, this plan has a possible disadvantage, in that it could make it difficult or even preclude the removal of such meters for traffic improvement. Require- ments for debt service coverage and higher interest rates often preclude the use of revenue bond financing except for the most lucrative faeilties located in core areas of heavily developed commercial districts. If "free" parking for customers is to be provided in the Corona del Mar business district, financing by means of revenue bonds would not be possible. Benefit Assessment Districts - In this method of financing, development costs are proportioned among properties that benefit from the parking facilities, In some cases the entire business district may become the benefited district with assessments based on valuations only. It can also be argued that the degree of benefit differs according to the location of the facilities and other variables such as the degree of attraction for customers to the whole commercial district. Therefore an assessment formula incorporating assessed valuation, front footage of establishment, area of retail, anticipated benefits, distance from the proposed parking facility, or some combination of these parameters could be used to Provide the basis for sharing the costs. In some communities the City may pay a proportion of the cost of parking facilities. Such participation by the City would be recognition of the general benefits to be derived from a stable and Profitable retail center. The assessment district method appears to offer an acceptable means to obtain financing for construction of the needed parking facilities in the Corona del Mar business district. This method is recommended as the subject for further study by the City and its financial consultants, together with the commercial property owners and other business interests. 140 e L H 11 C H I Table A LAND USE DATA - 1967 AND 1990 Newport Beach Traffic Planning Study ZONE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28-34 35 Total EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNITS 1967 1990 592 680 164 200 98 88 334 367 298 328 174 210 214 260 234 280 376 450 84 80 276 303 246 282 246 296 370 444 138 172 204 224 268 268 126 132 126 120 126 126 42 42 18 18 16 16 42 552 310 5,674 42 552 400 6,380 COMMERCIAL OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL SQ.FT. FLOOR AREA 1967 1990 73,000 42,000 9,000 9,000 56,000 5,000 30,000 30,000 55,000 34,000 30,000 117,000 69,000 65,000 83,000 5,000 712,000 109,500 44,100 10,000 10,000 61,600 5,500 5,000 31,500 5,000 2,000 31,500 60,500 37,400 33,000 128,700 75,900 71,500 91,300 7,500 821,500 BEACH ATTENDANCE PERSONS 1967 1990 600 1,200 300 600 9,000 11,000 300 400 300 400 300 400 300 400 300 400 3,000 5;000 4,500 11;000 3,000 5;000 1,200 2,200 1,800 3;200 900 2;000 540 3,540 26,340 46,740 Table B TRIP DISTRIBUTION TO EXTERNAL ZONES VIA EXTERNAL STATIONS -1967 Newport Beach Traffic Planning Study EXTERNAL ORANGE STREET BALBOA BOULEVARD NEWPORT AREA ZONES 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 IBOULEVA2� 48 49 OUTSIDE 9999 210 265 ORANGE COUNTY 9998 400 1,000 1,500 400 900 9997 194 145 200 100 175 ORANGE 8501 200 200 COUNTY 500 8502 800 1,425 1,830 305 8503 310 1,200 1,200 115 8504 200 8505 300 8001 50 300 8002 100 200 900 580 8003 100 120 410 100 8004 100 8005 300 NEWPORT 7501 50 200 200 BEACH 7502 50 800 200 7503 50 100 7504 40 100 7505 20 400 7506 20 Total 594 1,310 480 1,145 2,625 820 1,910 3,230 2,510 1,680 615 765 1,075 805 Table B (Continued) EXTERNAL NEWPORT BOULEVARD FERRY AREA ZONES 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 TOTAL TOTAL % OUTSIDE 9999 500 430 1,405 ORANGE COUNTY 9998 3,500 200 7,900 9997 1,040 400 2,254 11,559 19,5 ORANGE 8501 100 COUNTY 1,000 8502 2,500 1,500 8,360 8503 730 3,555 8504 400 700 70 1,370 8505 300 25 70 695 14,980 25.0 8001 900 1,250 8002 750 3,700 1,000 7,230 8003 100 2,600 3,430 8004 300 200 .600 8005 200 1,300 130 1,930 NEWPORT 7501 400 14,440 24.5850 BEACH 7502 1,880 500 3,430 7503 2,200 800 50 50 3,250 7504 200 865 120 50 1,375 7505 5,200 250 200 6,070 Total 7506 2,150 5,040 4,030 3,000 11,080 400 3;420 18.4395 3ln 12,865 2,225 1,030 140 420 830 59,374 59,374 100.0 e i i� Table C TRIP DISTRIBUTION TO EXTERNAL ZONES VIA EXTERNAL STATIONS - 1990 Newport Beach Traffic Planning Study NEWPORT EXTERNAL ORANGE STREET BALBOA BOULEVARD BOULEVARD AREA ZONES 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 -.48 49 OUTSIDE 9999 400 500 ORANGE COUNTY 9998 600 1,700 3,200 800 1,500 9997 200 300 400 200 300 8501 400 400 ORANGE 8502 1,600 2,200 2,000 COUNTY 8503 600 2,000 1,500 200 8504 500 500 8505 600 700 8001 70 500 600 400 8002 120 200 400 1,200 1,000 200 8003 100 240 800 200 8004 400 800 400 8005 200 500 NEWPORT 7501 70 200 360 300 400 BEACH 7502 70 100 1,000 300 200 7503 70 200 7504 60 400 500 300 7505 20 200 600 7506 20 Total 800 2,600 600 2,000 5,200 1,600 4,000 6,000 5,000 3,300 1,400 1,500 1,800 1,200 I Table C (Continued) ' RIVER EXTERNAL NEWPORT BOULEVARD FERRY AVENUE AREA ZONES 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 TOTAL TOTAL % ' OUTSIDE 9999 300 600 50 1850 ' ORANGE COUNTY 9998 9997 3700 1000 300 150 11950 600 50 3050 ORANGE 8501 200 400 1400 16850 15.0 ' COUNTY 8502 2800 1700 200 10500 8503 900 5200 ' 8504 600 1000 100 2700 8505 500 300 100 2200 22,000 20,0 8001 1000 550 3120 ' 8002 1070 4000 1500 500 10190 8003 200 200 4000 1000 200 6940 ' 8004 200 1500 500 3800 8005 500 2600 150 3950 NEWPORT 7501 400 28000 25,0 BEACH 900 2630 7502 500 3000 800 850 6820 ' 7503 330 3000 2000 100 80 200 5980 7504 800 600 5000 2600 170 80 10510 ' 7505 200 1000 9000 330 240 11590 7506 5000 450 5470 ' Total 3500 6000 6000 22000 25000 3000 1500 200 600 1000 800 2550 700 109850109850 100,0 �1 II F Table D PARKING INVENTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS Newport Beach Parking Study PARKING SPACES DAILY PARKER PEAK ACCUMULATION PEAK OCCUPANCY PERCENT PARKING Off- AVERAGE DESTI- Off- Off - YEAR DISTRICT Curb Street Total TURNOVER NATIONS Curb Street Total Curb Street Total ' 1967 A 622 70 692 0.8 555 500 50 550 76 71 79 B1 850 1,413 ?,263 4.5 10,155 680 910 1,590 80 64 70 B2 491 92 583 0..9 525 384 80 464 78 87 80 ' B3 139 311 450 2.5 1,125 120 215 335 86 69 74 B4 488 499 987 3.5 3,455 440 431 871 90 86 88 ' B5 C 470 1,825 196 - 666 1,825 2.0 0.8 1;330 1,460 329 166 495 70 85 74 800 800 44 44 D 1,205 65 1;270 1.2 1,525 710 40 750 59 62 59 ' E F 435 920 1,345 1,780 920 3.9 1.0 6,960 375 955 1,330 86 71 75 910 530 530 58 58 Subtotal 7,445 3,991 11,436 2,4 28,000 4,868 2,847 7, 115 65 71 68 Total G 692 8,137 821 4,812 1,513 12,949 5.7 2.8 8,790 36,790 580 634 1,214 84 77 80 5,448 3,481 8,929 67 72 69 ' 1990 A B1 500 510 50 1,260 550 1,770 3,500 450 700 1,150 19,000 460 2,500 2,960 B2 350 90 440 2,900 315 300 615 ' B3 B4 70 340 290 470 360 2,000 60 400 460 810 8,000 305 3,000 3,305 B5 160 190 350 4,500 145 1,500 1,645 ' C 1,800 - 1,800 2,000 1,620 - 1,620 D 520 60 580 3,500 470 1,200 1,670 E 200 1,200 1,400 13,000 180 2,675 2,855 ' F 800 - 800 2,600 720 - 720 Total 5,250 3,610 8,860 61,000 4,725 121275 17,000