Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC STUDY 197211111111 lill 11111111111111111111111111 lill III 111111. *NEW FILE* NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC STUDY 1972 N E WPO RT QO:10 REMOVE BEACH TRAFFIC STUDY PHASE i SUMMARY REPORT PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION elan m. Voorhees & associates, Inc. ■ TRANSPORTATION & URBAN PLANNING I I A . , . 5252 BALBOA AVENUE, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92117' 714/2783363 r II �I II II II II II &W7 ALAN M. VOORHEES t ASSOC1ATUS, INC. TRANSPORTATION AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS September 26, 1972 Mr. Robert Jaffe Traffic Engineer City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Mr. Jaffe: On behalf of Behavior Science Corporation, Toups Engineering and Alan M. Voorhees and Associates, we are pleased to submit this Summary Report for Phase I of the Newport Beach Traffic Study. We are very appreciative of the assistance provided by the Citizens Advisory Committee on Transportation, City Staff members, and the many organizations and residents of Newport Beach. It has been our pleasure to perform this study phase, and we look forward to completion of the Transportation Plan in the next two study phases. Very truly yours, Foulm? ila,a,� Marti. an Vice President MJB/pb WASHINGTON. DC. • LONDON • HONOLULU • DENVER • ORLANDO In TORONTO • ST•LOUIS • CARACAS • SEATTLE • BOSTON • $ANJUAN • HOUSTON BUFFALO • ATLANTA 0 SAN DIEGO 0 LOS ANGELES • ZURICH • NEW BRUNSWICK • DALLAS • CHICAGO • PHILADELPHIA • SAN FRANCISCO • MELBOURNE 1 NEWPORT BEACH ' TRAFFIC STUDY PHASE I ' SUMMARY REPORT PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION ' 1 ' September, 1972 ' Prepared for THE CITY OF ' NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA ' Prepared by ALAN M. VOORHEES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 5252 Balboa Avenue San Diego,, California 92117 TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Page I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. ASSESSMENT OF CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 III. PUBLIC ATTITUDES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 IV. TRAFFIC FORECAST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 V. STUDY PHASES II AND III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 LIST OF FIGURES Title Page 1. Study Area Boundaries and Road Network . . . . . . . . 2 2. Existing Traffic Deficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3. Traffic Zones . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4. Estimated 1980 Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5. Estimated 1990 Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6. 1980 Road Network Deficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7. 1990 Road Network Deficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 I I 1 1 I. INTRODUCTION The comprehensive transportation plan being prepared for the City of Newport Beach consists of three major phases. Phase I of the study includes a data inventory, a public attitude survey, and 1980 and 1990 traffic volume projections on the major road network. Phase II will develop alternative transportation plans which can accommodate the demands, create minimum environmental disturbance, and have an anti- cipated public acceptance. In Phase III, a final plan will be selected, and a program presented which lists the recommended transportation improvements in order of priority. This report summarizes Phase I, which has now been completed by Alan M. Voorhees & Associates, along with two assisting consultants, Behavior Science Corporation, and Toups Engineering, Inc. To lay the groundwork for this comprehensive transportation plan, it is necessary to analyze the causes of present problems and to forecast what problems may develop in the future. Because the future of the planning area is necessarily linked with surrounding communities, the study area boundaries cover a much larger area than just Newport Beach, as shown in Figure 1. The City's economic consultant developed population and employment forecasts, beginning with 1972 as the base year and pro- jecting to 1980 and 1990. Forecasts for areas around Newport Beach were obtained from the Cities of Huntington Beach and Costa Mesa, along with data from the Irvine Company and other developments occurring or ' being planned. These projections form a basis for estimating future traffic volumes on the major road network shown on Figure 1. Thus it is possible to anticipate the magnitude and location of transportation prob- lems in the study area, and provide guidance to residents, businessmen, ' and public officials in alleviating these problems. Throughout this Phase I study, the consultants have received guidance and ' assistance from the Citizens Advisory Committee on Transportation, the -1- I �I City Traffic Engineer, the Community Development Department, and numerous City staff members, and we are grateful for this cooperation. A note of thanks is also in order to all of the citizens who participated in the public attitudes research. A continued close working relationship is necessary to ensure that the final program has all the necessary in- put for a realistic and workable transportation plan. -3- II. ASSESSMENT OF CONDITIONS Newport Beach is not only a residential community and a recreational area, but also a commercial center. Like other coastal cities, the com- munity has the problem of accommodating large volumes of traffic in a relatively narrow corridor. As additional development occurs and prop- erties continue to increase in value, the possibilities for developing addi- tional or alternate transportation facilities, particularly in new corridors, become fewer and the choices more difficult. To thoroughly assess these possibilities, the problem identification phase of this study included an inventory of existing and planned facilities, conditions and policies. When- ever possible, this information was put into map form for current and future use. The following information was gathered. • Physical Conditions - Topography, drainage conditions and facilities, tidal and flood plain boundaries, natural land marks, scenic vistas. • Land Use - Patterns and intensity for residential, commercial, and recreational areas, including neighborhood development plans. • Community Facilities - Existing and planned schools, libraries, hospitals, public buildings, historical buildings and sites, parks and other facilities. • Economic Conditions - Property values, general building conditions, residential vacancy levels, location and magnitudes of employment, specific site development plans. • Demographic Conditions - Population statistics, resident character- istics, age distribution, income level, trends of changing conditions. • Socio-Political Characteristics - Neighborhood boundaries, school districts, fire department service areas, improvement districts. IM 1I Utilities - Major existing and planned utilities such as high voltage power lines, trunk water mains, sewer lines. • Transportation Facilities - Existing and committed major street system, capacities, public transportation and coverage, parking. The City's economic consultant during the first six months of 1972 com- pleted an inventory of existing population, retail employment, and total employment for traffic zones in Newport Beach, and also made projections for the years 1980 and 1990, as follows: Percent Retail Percent Total Percent Year Population Increase Employment Increase Employment Increase 1972 55,800 3,200 1980 96,300 72% 3,800 19%22,300 40,500 1990 108,900 13% 4,700 24% 60,200 49% This data was used to forecast future travel demands. An assessment of beach usage and beach oriented traffic was made using current traffic census information, and data developed in a 1967 traffic report. 1' Beach usage is expected to increase about 7516 by 1990. This is described in Chapter IV. - Traffic Forecast. The City Traffic Engineer furnished existing traffic volumes for the major road network within the City boundaries. Traffic volumes for areas outside Newport Beach were obtained from the Orange County Road Department Traffic Flow Map. These volumes were compared with the capacity which L'"Newport Beach Traffic Planning, Parking and Operations Study", Wilbur Smith and Associates, March 1968. -5- 'I I 1 LJ 1 1 can reasonably be expected on roads with certain physical characteristics. Generally, such capacities expressed in ADT (Average Daily Traffic) are: 14, 000 for 4 lane undivided secondary roads; 25, 000 for 4 lane divided primary roads; 40, 000 for 6 lane divided major roads; 100, 000 and 135, 000 for 6 and 8 lane freeways respectively. Whenever actual traffic volumes exceed capacity, a deficiency is prevalent which is apparent in conges- tion, delay and accidents. Figure 2 shows existing deficiencies in the road network. The ADT's shown on Figure 2 represent the numbers of vehicles greater than the efficient capacity. It should be noted that Dover Drive is not shown as being deficient, since it is within the 25, 000 ADT limit criteria. However, Coast Highway is well beyond the 25, 000 limit and causes overall intersection congestion. In addition to congestion caused by insufficient street capacity, congestion is also caused by traffic circulation due to an insufficient parking supply. This is particularly evident in the areas of Newport Pier -McFadden Place. Projections!/ show that there will be an overall increase in parking de- mand, with the greatest demand of 1, 000 spaces occurring around Newport Pier. To obtain an understanding of what this means, it will require ap- proximately 350, 000 sq. ft. of parking space for these 1, 000 spaces. This does not take into account deficiencies in the other penninsula areas, which could require another million sq. ft. of space. A transportation feature which could have a significant impact on traffic and parking needs in Newport Beach is public transit. Present transit service is generally rated poor, and the level of patronage has virtually no impact on street capacity and parking demands. Studies by the Orange County Transit District leading to improved bus service have recently been completed. Long range alternatives for rapid transit service are also being studied. 2/See reference p. 5 0 J m K O m a x 6-q \ �e O-q 1972 ADT DEFICIENCES, 1000's - iiiiiii I — 5 V,1'ZZX 11 — 15 �� 16-20 SAN DIEGO E FWY SJ. 0 J m N E W PORT REACH TRAFFIC STUDY 11972 NETWORK DEFICIENCIES ALAN Y. I1M ESA A1[ :�. FIGURE 2 ' III. PUBLIC ATTITUDES ' No transportation plan is complete unless it has the public's viewpoints in- cluded in it. Without this input, the plan may lack community support, and thus may never be capable of implementation. Behavior Science Corporation (BASICO) of Los Angeles conducted detailed research to identify the attitudes, opinions and expectations of the residents of Newport Beach with respect to transportation and related issues. A thorough review was made of all print ' media coverage relating to City transportation issues. Interviews were conducted with members of the Citizens Advisory Committee on Transpor- 1 1 II II II II II II II 'i tation and others, both in and out of government. Focused depth discus- sions were held with 18 organized groups representing a cross-section of the community. The major survey effort involved a questionnaire admini- stered to 303 citizens on an in -person basis. The most important findings were obtained from this questionnaire. The following conclusions were summarized from the overall study effort. For those wishing to pursue certain topics in greater depth, a complete set of data is available in the office of the City Traffic Engineer. • The overwhelming majority of residents enjoy living in Newport Beach in spite of their perception that the City faces serious problems. • Residents anticipate residential, commercial, industrial and tourist industry growth, although the expected growth is not necessarily wanted. • Newport Beach residents are very automobile oriented, using auto- mobiles almost exclusively to travel to work, shopping, and re- creational areas. • A majority of residents experiences some personal difficulties with traffic and transportation within the City. • Not only are traffic and transportation problems considered serious, but most residents feel that the situation is growing worse. 10 A great majority of residents attributes the traffic difficulties to outsiders or non-residents. Most residents feel that traffic difficulties are worse during the summer season and on weekends. Traffic and transportation problems expressed with much frequency and intensity in order of importance were: 1. Summertime access to islands and peninsula 2. Congestion on streets and highways 3. Inadequate on -street parking 4. Lack of Upper Bay crossing 5. Traffic slowed by parked cars 6. Inadequate signals and standards 7. Traffic too fast 8. Wintertime access to peninsula and islands The following five specific locations where traffic congestion is perceived to be most serious are listed in their order of ranking. 1. Coast Highway Bridge between Bayside Drive and Dover Drive 2. Balboa Island Bridge 3. Coast Highway in Corona del Mar 4. Balboa Boulevard on the peninsula 5. Newport Boulevard inland from the Arches A majority of residents feels that parking is inadequate in the beach and recreational areas. Most residents feel that the traffic congestion problem is sufficiently serious to warrant immediate corrective action. Wz • The following list of potential solutions to the City's traffic and transportation problems was developed, and rated by residents on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest or most important. The average ratings are shown. 6.5 Developing additional beach parking facilities 6.3 Establishing rapid transit systems to Santa Ana and Los Angeles 6.3 Building a new Upper Bay crossing to relieve Coast Highway 5.9 Developing public bus transportation within Newport Beach 5.6 Broadening the existing Coast Highway by adding or modifying lanes 5.5 Building a new freeway or major highway more than a mile inland to relieve Coast Highway 5.1 Completing the Newport Highway 4.3 Completing the Corona del Mar Freeway 3.4 Adding more traffic signals, signs and safety features to streets 2.9 Improving traffic law enforcement 2.6 Building a new freeway or major highway parallel to the exist- ing Coast Highway • Residents are not in favor of restricting beach parking to City residents holding low cost car identification stickers. Residents would support a plan requiring beach visitors to park in special structures located inland. • Conservative groups feel that an Upper Bay crossing would endanger and/or destroy the ecology of the bay, and would rigorously oppose implementation of such a crossing. • Generally speaking, residents thoroughly enjoy living in the area and prefer that it not change. However, they are willing to accommodate sensible growth, provided that solutions are found to improve the flow of traffic without destroying the integrity of the City or tarnishing its natural beauty. -10- IV. TRAFFIC FORECAST ' Prior to making any decisions or recommendations on a comprehensive transportation plan, it is necessary to have as clear a picture as possible of the amount of future traffic to be accommodated. In describing the "future problem", the background, assumptions, and analysis methods leading to such description should be understood. 1 The initial step in this analysis was the development of a traffic zone sys- tem in and adjacent to the study area. These zones, shown on Figure 3, ' define the areas for which population and employment forecasts were made. In several locations, zone boundaries were chosen to coincide with zones previously developed by the Los Angeles Area Regional Transportation ' Study (LARTS) and other studies underway. Regional influences and origin and destination data were obtained by adopting 1980 base year data obtained ' from the Los Angeles Area Interim Transportation Study (LAITS). t Future traffic generation for Newport Beach is based on population, retail employment and total employment figures assembled by the City's economic ' consultant for the base year 1972, and projected to 1980 and 1990. These projections were based on current zoning and development trends. Other ' analyses based on alternative residential densities, population growth, and land uses may be made as the study progresses. The Cities of Costa Mesa and Huntington Beach furnished their latest population and employment esti- mates for this analysis, as did the Irvine Company. A factor of 2. 5 daily trips per person was used for areas consisting primarily of single family ' residences. For areas consisting primarily of apartment units, the figure is 3. 0 daily trips per person. Trip factors used for employment varied from t as low as 3. 1 trips per employee for certain industrial areas to a high of 15. 0 trips per employee for some commercial retail areas. Special consideration was given to the beach use traffic, which is not accurately portrayed through the application of population -employment factors. Beach traffic estimates for Newport Beach were based on information obtained in a traffic study ' prepared for the City in 1968, previously cited. Total daily vehicle beach 1 '1 T ''1 limit.: 1 V - �j ii•.� rfjl . 4 ViF,•`?i t i 1 rti. � I+ T, S -- C41 ( 40 pa: 1 ' ZONE 40 INTEI Owe _t i'=5.,"--'s� _ _ E �.11•s..;:. ; �� ,iltf; .1T `, 4�� �� � 1 ,TE; rhl�;�kf_ �.:i� - - !T T��.r=�• .�{, I.�: ��f�i= F« ,�'1' � / , r�T-, a�'.i. ,i. •i _; ("5 _•..iy ._I r_ �F. C � E_r �. � f�.�'r \\� i x :.T.::;i;i•�i{ :••,� �IY'r�r-��lf-'�j: �n�,:t{: •? F i ,'�. �la' �. r!/1;' •-�,`r'.��• �.. l � t, T��'I.j s �' S6 -,•-• - � �: k�''`S'/, tw��' � -;� t, _�_" I � ' Imlr� � �L T �L'i � •! t Y .,.. 61 _.51 52 ' J 50 ) 62 {.. ALL I : 44 E yJ' yl 1 49 148 47 53 ( 63 / ,T .F5^ar ` 1 G ,w N a64 �. .. %9 r 36 37 38. °'•. 30A ' 74 -% .y "T�i ,.�,.. Z'•'{ii_ _ 4 9 / 75 � 6E y�ry / 70 33 6932 • .. ..� '�\.` .Z, \' ._ i _lid 74 22 12 16 f e�.13 70 it \. I, xna8r •~' 72, 2WE O . l TRAFFIC ZONES •a ae o.+ca u cci ec i Teo. a aai:i`i.c FIGURE 3 -12- t H n F II trips in 1980 were estimated at 9, 800 and 12, 000 for 1990. These estimates assume maximum (comfortable) beach usage in 1990, with 1070 of the per- sons using a conveyance other than automobile, and with occupancy of 3. 5 persons per automobile. Beach traffic for Huntington Beach (Zone 40) was estimated at 12, 300 for 1980 and 14, 300 for 1990. The transportation network used for the traffic assignment was furnished by Newport Beach for the area within the City. This was supplemented by the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways for those areas out- side Newport Beach. This system, called the "existing plus committed street system" is shown on Figure 1, page 2. A computer program was then utilized, in which all projected vehicular trips from every zone to every other zone were "assigned" to the existing and committed network. The computer traffic assignments were made for 1980 and 1990, including computer plots of the volumes. Beach traffic was then hand -assigned to those roads serving the beach areas. The final volumes for years 1980 and 1990 are shown on Figures 4 and 5 respectively, along with a graphical presentation. It should be noted that in these initial traffic assignments, no consideration was given to trips made by transit. In Phase II of this study, various road networks and transportation mode alternatives will be considered, including public transit. The complete trip tabulations giving the traffic volumes assigned from each zone shown on Figure 3 to the road network are available in the office of the City Traffic Engineer. The same technique used in Section II of this report to denote road de- ficiencies in 1972 is used to show the forecasted 1980 and 1990 road deficiencies. Figure 6 graphically shows the anticipated road deficiencies for 1980 and also numerical amounts of these deficiencies. The greatest deficiency in 1980 is on Coast Highway between Dover Drive and Jamboree Road. If there is no major diversion to transit, it appears that in 1980 Coast Highway will be called upon to carry almost twice the traffic it can efficiently Handle. -13- 11 PA C/ F/ C ' CCE ' --- - - - - -- STUDY IIIEA BOUNDARY ' NEW PORT REACH TRAFFIC 1980 TRAFFIC, I . .. Y YC.II.i[. .. ....I f.V.[ i..l.[[.111• I.� ....... ....... .....Ift- LJ_f . J ' FIGURE 4 ADT,1000's FREEWAY _ 61-80 _ 41 - 60 21 - 40 - 10-20 LESS THAN 10 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , I , I 1 is PAC/ P/ C O C E A N --- - - - - -- STUDY AREA BOUNDARY NEW PORT REACH TRAFFIC STUDY 1990 TRAFFIC, 1000's ♦1.4 Y Y0014ttt A .ttO tIAIII 4400Y�44 [4�IY tf 111t �� 14 t. t FIGURE 5 ADT, 1000's ZZZZ1 FREEWAY - 61 - 60 _ 41 - 60 - 21 -40 10 - 20 LESS THAN 10 -15- 1 a e I I I I I I ,I I I I I I I I 00 H a PA C/ F/ C O C E A N --- - - - - -- STUDY AREA 000NUARY 11111011111 FREEWAY r NEW FORT BEACH TRAFFIC STUDY 1980 NETWORK DEFICIENCIES Al ... ,...........T.. {MA, 1011 [ 011.. TOY.. [.......... 1110. FIGURE 6 1980 ADT DEFICIENCIES, 1000's BBB>•Bl• I — 10 _ 11 — 20 _ 21 — 30 — 31 —40 -16- 1 Similar conditions prevail all along Coast Highway from easterly of Mac ' Arthur Boulevard to the westerly boundary of the study area. This is also true on Newport Boulevard -Balboa Boulevard in the vicinity of the pier. Other road segments showing major deficiencies in 1980 are Dover Drive ' north of Coast Highway, Jamboree Road and Mac Arthur Boulevard from San Joaquin Road to Corona Del Mar Freeway, Newport Boulevard south ' of Newport Freeway, and Harbor Boulevard south of San Diego Freeway. Also, the San Diego Freeway westerly of Harbor Boulevard has sufficient volume to become congested during peak hours. t The major network deficiencies in Newport Beach for 1990 (Figure 7) are essentially in those same areas as in 1980, but the magnitudes of the deficiencies have increased. The section of Coast Highway between II II IL II Jamboree Road and Dover Drive shows an ADT deficiency of 44, 000, with varying deficiencies extending all along Coast Highway. The ADT deficiency on the section of Newport Boulevard around the pier increased from 28, 000 to 33, 000, which is a substantially less percentage increase than most other areas. The ADT deficiency on the San Diego Freeway in the vicinity of Harbor Boulevard is 70, 000, which is the largest amount on the network. However, in terms of impact, the Newport Beach deficient sections of Coast Highway, Newport Boulevard, Balboa Boulevard, Jamboree Road and Mac Arthur Boulevard all present more serious problems. Network deficiencies easterly of Newport Beach in the Irvine area are few. This is due partly to the character of the development, and partly due to the assumption that some areas would not be fully developed by 1990. For instance, the University of California and supporting facilities were taken at 75°Jo of full development for the year 1990. While some sections of the major road network show staggering deficien- cies, other sections merely indicate the need for some good planning for selective treatments such as access restrictions, parking restrictions and additional turning lanes. -17- P A C/ F/ C N C CEAN --------- STUST AREA SWNMRY IRRIRURRIIE FREEWAY NEWPORT LEACH TRAFFIC STUDY 1990 NETWORK DEFICIENCIES L L1M Y VOO II MLEL..'......L. 'IiOYIL•.IIOIFLl111M• 14C. IOM FIGURE 7 p, F 1990 ADT DEFICIENCIES, 100ds .�. 1 - 10 - 11 - 20 _ 21 - 30 31 - 40 GREATER THAN 40 -18- , , I , i As traffic continues to increase within the network, average speeds will decrease, with corresponding travel time increases. As this occurs, some routes will begin to be more attractive, and some traffic diversion to these routes will take place. However, in some areas such as Coast Highway, there is not a choice of a suitable alternate route. The affect of this is that the peak hours begin to stretch out to the point where there is congestion beginning with the morning commuter hours, continuing all day, and extending well into the evening hours. II II II II II 1 U C' V. STUDY PHASES II AND III The location and magnitude of the transportation problems determined in Phase I of the study provide the input for Phase II, Alternative Plan Development. These alternative plans will be developed with close support from the Citizens Advisory Committee, and the City technical staff. The alternative plans will represent preliminary solutions, which will be evaluated and tested. The plans must be reasonable from the standpoint of accommodating future transportation demands and being acceptable to the public. In Phase III, following the narrowing down of the alternative plan list, a final plan will be selected as being the most suitable. A multi -criteria evaluation process consisting of 13 items, each forming a portion of the study goals and objectives, will be used in this selection. The consultant will depend heavily on the Citizens Advisory Committee in determining weighted values for these 13 items. For the selected transportation plan, a program will be presented which details the recommended additions and improvements to the system in order of priority. Included will be cost estimates, project phasing and potential funding sources. -20- 1 NEWP4RT BEACH TRAFFIC STUDY PHASE Il SUMMARY REPORT ALTERNATE PLAN DEVELOPMENT alan m. voorhees & associates, Inc. ■ TRANSPORTATION & URBAN PLANNING 5252 BALBOA AVENUE, SAN-DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92117 714/2783363 ' ALAN M. VOORHEES 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. ' TRANSPORTATION AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS March 22, 1973 Mr. Joseph T. Devlin Public Works Director City of Newport Beach ' 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 ' Dear Mr. Devlin: On behalf of Behavior Science Corporation, Toups Engineering and Alan M. Voorhees and Associates, we are pleased to submit this Summary Report for Phase Il of the Newport Beach ' Traffic Study. We wish to thank the Citizens Advisory Committee on Transpor- tation, City staff members, and the many organizations and concerned residents for their assistance, guidance, and con- structive comments. We look forward to working with you in selecting the most suitable plan and developing an implementation program in ' the final study phase. Very truly yours, A. H. Krier Regional Manager AHK /pb WASHINGTON, D.C. • LONDON • HONOLULU • DENVER • ORLANDO • TORONTO • ST. LOUIS • CARACAS • SEATTLE • BOSTON • SANJUAN • HOUSTON ' BUFFALO • ATLANTA 0 SAN DIEGO • LOS ANGELES • ZURICH • NEW BRUNSWICN • DALLAS ■ CHICAGO • PHILADELPHIA • SAN FRANCISCO • MELBOURNE NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC STUDY PHASE II SUMMARY REPORT ALTERNATIVE PLAN DEVELOPMENT Prepared for THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA March, 1973 Prepared by LiislA'/ZL V` ALAN M. VOORHEES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 5252 Balboa Avenue San Diego, California 92117 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES Page 1. Study Area Boundaries and Base Network 2 Z. Existing and Committed Network 1990 Traffic Volumes 4 '3. Alternate Network A 7 4. Alternate Network B-C 8 5. Alternate Network D 9 6. Existing and Committed Network 1990 Traffic Volumes 15 and Deficiencies 7. Alternate A 1990 Traffic Volumes and Deficiencies 16 8. Alternate B-C 1990 Traffic Volumes and Deficiencies 17 9. Alternate D 1990 Traffic Volumes and Deficiencies 18 10. Select Link Alternate A Fifth Avenue Extension 21 11. Select Link Alternate B-C 17th Street Bay Crossing 23 12. Select Link B-C Coast Highway Bay Crossing 24 13. Select Link Alternate B-C Newport Freeway Connection 25 14. Select Link Alternate D 22nd Street Bay Crossing 27 TABLE Summary of Traffic Volumes on Bay Crossings 26' t ' I. INTRODUCTION Phase I of the comprehensive transportation plan being prepared for the City of Newport Beach was completed in September 1972 and included a ' data inventory, a public attitude survey, and 1980 and 1990 traffic volume projections on the major road network. ' Phase II, documented in this report, consists of the investigation of alter- nate transportation plans which can meet future travel demands while creat- ing minimal environmental disturbance and receiving public acceptance. IPreparing alternative transportation plans calls for input from many sources, combined with imagination and judgement to arrange facilities so ' that future travel demands can be accommodated. From strictly a planning viewpoint, travel demands can usually be accommodated with the proper ' mix of transportation modes. Realistically however, it may not be pos- sible to provide for all transportation needs because of financial, eaviron- ' mental, geographical, mode -choice and other constraints. The final part of the study, Phase III, will utilize a multi -criteria evalua- tion process which considers these factors. From that process will come ' the selection of the best plan and the development of a program showing the recommended transportation improvements by priority. ' It must be emphasized that the movement of persons and goods is a problem of regional nature which is neither controlled by, nor much concerned with, ' political boundaries. Thus, while this study is being undertaken by the City of Newport Beach, it is clearly the consultant's responsibility to con- sider the traffic impact resulting from many external influences, rather than just that traffic generating within, and impacting upon the corporate limits of the City of Newport Beach. The reader is urged to first scan Figure 1, which shows the study area boundaries, together with the exist- ing base transportation network. It depicts the major area of traffic influence; the starting point from which the problem is defined, and possible solutions uncovered. -1- 7 m m m m I w jJJ�t�" �- a _}� 'r,'-.__ ram'' __ _-�''a °` ,•/ �°i r• j ° •'9:r�y -�' _ - •1 E : T. sue• "i • ._+ a •i.♦er�� . ♦• � _ _""ql ' ... 1 d •1n � �'EO .'aY.,�T Tt `• g �� . �I10 i t / N oo �i ��� ? + - � � �; -1{M--f ,\. �y,.r�OR.�...�n•n•a►vo�o ♦ •�"' f T e - \ - � - / i , inn• / NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC STUDY BOUNDARY AND BASE NETWORK ALAN N VOORHEES \ ASSOCIATES SEMI EM IOP SCIENCE CCIpp1ATION YOU" ENOINEENNO WC. 0 1 3 0 s S I I I I I I FEET IN THOUSANDS 1 LEGEND ti `1 y I Jd�•� •� i f FREEWAY p9c ' 1 A INTERCHANGE .•••• / •I MAJOR MAD (SIX LANE DIVIDED) ---� PRIMARY ROAD(FOUR LANE DIVIDED) �•••• r •♦+ J -- ••• •Y ••• SECONDARY ROAD (FORM LANE UNDIVIDED) ---- STUDY /C' AREA BOUNDARY , �••� ♦•♦ 6 1 O• 9 1• 2 �S FIGURE 1 I f I LJ II. BACKGROUND, ASSUMPTIONS, AND ANALYSIS METHODS Before any decision can be made on a transportation system, the back- ground, assumptions, and method of analysis leading to the development of the information should be understood.. In this case the background materials are the traffic volumes and deficiencies. The assumptions are reflected in the distribution of land activity (population and employ- ment) and the assumed level of transportation service. The analysis methods leading to the forecasted traffic on the transportation network have an influence on how the study findings should be interpreted. The traffic volumes and deficiencies for the years 1980 and 1990 were developed in Phase I of this study for the "Existing And Committed Network. " The procedures are explained in the Phase I Summary Re- port under Section IV, Traffic Forecast. Throughout this study, the forecasted traffic volumes are defined as a 24 hour summer weekday volume, which consists of normal daily traffic volumes including beach generated traffic. Base data was obtained from the Los Angeles Area Interim Transportation Study (LAITS) while specific development data was obtained from the Cities of Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, and Huntington Beach, along with data from The Irvine Company. Since the time of the Phase I work, an updated traffic forecast for 1990 was made based on a revised estimate of the magnitude and type of growth that might occur within some areas of The Irvine Company properties outside the boundaries of Newport Beach. These 1990 traffic volumes are shown on Figure 2. This revised trip table was used to make the assignments on the alternate networks for this report. The greatest impact on the road network resulting from the revised traffic forecast occurs in the Irvine areas to the east of Newport Beach, since these are the zones where the land use and density revisions were made. Early in Phase I of the study, the relation of present and future public transit usage to the overall transportation demands was considered. It -3- 15 PAC / F / C I OCEAN - - - - - - - - - STUDY MCA BOUNDARY NEW PORT REACH TRAFFIC STUD► EXISTING AND COMMITTED NETWORK • Ax R r oxxrtr x xno unto 11 A iix i 11118l1 ill0 0 4 1 01 lxli110x --N-------.IIIlCP �1- ---1 1990 ADT,1000!s VZZIZ/, FREEWAY 61-80 _ 41-60 _ 21-40 - IO-20 LESSTHAN 10 me 12 C , , , , , , I I I , I I I I 1 i FIGURE 2 II I! ' was concluded that public transit was not likely to have an overall significant impact on reducing street and parking requirements in Newport Beach in the foreseeable future. However, special transit projects for alleviating conditions for specific areas may have an appli- cation which would alleviate a particular problem, and could become a 1 part of the recommended transportation plan. Il III. DETERMINATION OF NETWORKS With a picture of future travel demands and deficiencies, it must be determined how these demands can best be satisfied. The development of a plan calls for preparing alternate plans, testing these alternatives to see how they meet future travel demands, evaluating the resulting transportation service and the effect on total area development of the alternatives, and finally adopting a plan consistent with established objectives and standards. The selected plan must be compatible with and promote other community objectives, while providing the best possible transportation service. The development of the alternate networks was accomplished through a series of working sessions with the Citizens Advisory Committee on Transportation, and other interested individuals. Alternate plans were submitted to the Committee in advance of the work sessions. At the work sessions, the individual links in the systems, as well as the total systems, were considered for meeting future travel demands, creating minimum environmental disturbance, and receiving public acceptance. It is recognized that certain links in the systems may develop little public support, considerably lessening the possibility of these links being included in the scheduled network. Without their evaluation, however, a scale of importance could not be established. For instance, the ability to alleviate or eliminate congestion (improvement of the environment) should be evaluated against the creation of possible en- vironmental disturbance in other areas. The alternative transportation systems analyzed were A, B-C, and D. Plan B-C was so called because of combining the best of Alternates B and C into one plan. Each alternate network was loaded with the 1990 traffic to determine the traffic volumes on the network. The Alternate Networks A, B-C, and D are shown on Figures 3, 4, and 5 respectively. Some areas of these alternates are similar or identical, particularly in LEGEND FREEWAY INTERCHANGE MAJOR ROAD (SIX -- PRIMARY ROAD(FC •-^^ SECONDARY ROAD ---- STUDY AREA BOU FIGURE 3 -7- LEGEND FREEWAY INTERCHANG MAJOR ROAE -- PRIMARY ROI ••^••••^• SECONDARY I ---- STUDY AREA FIGURE 4 r�'klilY TRAFFIC STUD ALTERNATE NETWORK D ALAN M VOORHEES A ASSOCIATES �NTOIJPS ENGINEER XO INC. N 1. 0 1 3 S A 0 1 I r-, areas outside the limits of Newport Beach. In several locations, the ' routes remain the same, but the roadway classification may vary; for instance, a primary road may be upgraded to a major road. ' During the development of the alternate networks, Behavior Science ' Corporation (BASICO) provided constructive comments from the point of view of the citizenry. These comments were based on expressions ' received from the survey research and community contact work completed in Phase I. At the time these comments were prepared, Alternates B and C were not combined; therefore,. the individual comments prepared II II II by BASICO for Alternates B and C have been applied to Alternate B-C wherever applicable. Also, by the very nature of the fact that the BASICO portion of the study was completed during the exploratory data gathering phase, the findings were more general, and not at the detailed level of the alternates now outlined. Accordingly, the establishment of some data interrelationships was necessary to interpret what the reactions would be to the specific alternatives. These comments could appropriately be included in the evaluation section of this report, but are presented here because they fall into the network development sequence of the study. COMMENTS ON SELECTED ALTERNATES Alternate A 1. Since there was no great support for completion of the Corona del Mar Freeway, there is not likely to be enthusiastic support for the major road through Bonita Canyon. At the same time, no strong resistance should be expected either since the matter did not gen- erate either a strong pro or con following. 2. A bay crossing in the vicinity of 17th Street received a comparatively high rating in the survey, but local ecology groups would be strongly resistive. Although opposition would remain for any new bay cros- sing location, the farther south such a ,crossing would be placed, the less antipathy it would generate. -10- n 1 II II II 3. The development of a major route along the 5th Avenue alignment in Corona del Mar to relieve the existing Coast Highway would re- ceive considerably mixed reactions. 4• Findings showed the area of Coast Highway -Dover Drive-Bayside Drive to be the most aggravated point of congestion in the City. Improvements should gain heavy support providing that the physical design is aesthetically acceptable. 5. The extension of a major facility on Superior Avenue to Balboa Boulevard will probably get mixed reaction. While it will assist movement to and from the Peninsula, there is a feeling that improvement will encourage more traffic, congestion and growth. 6. One other route proposed is the extension and upgrading of 17th Street as a primary route west of Newport Boulevard, which is in the City of Costa Mesa. Although Costa Mesa has been considering such an improvement for its road system, the possibility of some controversy in Newport Beach should not be overlooked. Alternate B-C 1. Extension of Corona del Mar Freeway - See Alternate A, Item 1. 2. The upgrading of Coast Highway to a major route should receive a fair amount of support so long as, it does not give the impression of being a "near freeway. " 3. Bay crossing in vicinity of 17th Street - See Alternate A, item 2. 4. The extension of Newport Freeway as a major road towards Huntington Beach will probably be acceptable to most residents. 5. The relocation of Coast Highway inland west of Superior Avenue around Newport Shores with the resultant elimination of through traffic on the existing Coast Highway should receive a fair amount of support. 11 -11- Alternate D ' 1. Extension of Corona del Mar Freeway - See Alternate A, item 1. ' 2. Bay Crossings - See Alternate A, item 2. 3. Coast Highway as a one-way pair within Mariner's Mile should receive a fair amount of support. 4. Extension and upgrading of 17th Street west of Newport Boulevard - See Alternate A, item 5. ' Throughout Study Phase II, Toups Engineering has provided information periodically needed to assess the physical impact of a route through a particular area. Both Toups and Basico will play an important role in Phase III of the study through the multi -criteria evaluation process and plan selection. In addition, Toups will have substantial input for the ' implementation program. ' Base land use data for this study was developed for the traffic zones within the City of Newport Beach by Development Research Associates ' (DRA), in cooperation with the City Community Development Department. This base data, for which population and employment forecasts were made is called the trend -growth projection, or growth Level A. Following ' this, Community Development compiled two additional sets of data called Growth Levels B and C, Level B being less development than A, and Level ' C being less development than Level B. In many of the zones there was no change in the growth levels due mainly to the area already being deve- 1 II II I� loped, or at least firmly committed to a certain development. A pre- liminary investigation made to determine the change in traffic generation within Newport Beach between Growth Level A and Growth Level C showed a reduction of less than 816. For the entire study area this amounted to less than 2% traffic generation reduction. It was concluded that revising the land use within Newport Beach even to the lower Growth Level C would not make a substantial reduction in the overall traffic volumes. Rather than make an entire network traffic assignment based on Growth -12- Level C, an investigation was made for those zones which could have a significant traffic impact on those segments of the road network adjacent or in proximity to them. This information was submitted to the City for possible future use in reducing traffic on certain road links, should that appear to be a practical alternative. I ' IV. EVALUATION OF TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENTS ' Section II of this report presented the forecasted 1990 traffic volumes ' for the "Existing and Committed Network, " which is the base network. deter- Each alternate was loaded with this same 1990 traffic forecast to mine the traffic volumes on each segment of these networks. The alternate networks were then compared with the base network, and with each other, to determine the effectiveness of each plan. The purpose ' here is not to select a plan, since that will occur in Phase III of this study, but rather to examine the capabilities of these plans to accom- modate the forecasted traffic. For ease of comparison, the base network and alternate networks with the 1990 volumes and deficiencies are shown on the following two foldout pages, Figures 6 through 9. It should be noted that no substantial changes have been made on those roads in the Peninsula area. However, improvements have been proposed which will ' alleviate some of the present deficiency. Most of the major differences in the three networks are within the City of Newport Beach, which is a small part of the total network used for this ' analysis. Differences outside the City of Newport Beach are in most cases not significant enough to substantially change the overall network character- istics and performance. The total vehicle miles traveled in the networks and the time spent in this travel are virtually the same, and therefore do not offer a comparison of performance. The deficiencies either created ' or eliminated by the alternates do provide a good comparison for network evaluation, and the selected link analysis helps to understand the traffic impact for the significant network variations. Alternate A The configuration of Alternate A is shown in Figure 7. Within the limits ' of Newport Beach, major deficiencies have been eliminated on: Coast Highway in Corona Del Mar, Coast Highway at Dover Drive, Dover Drive ' north of Coast Highway and Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard north of San Joaquin Hills Road. Routes outside the limits of Newport Beach which show substantial deficiencies are: Newport Boulevard -14- 24 ADT, IOOOIs FREEWAY 61 - s0 r—� 41 - SO 21 - 40 0 10-20 LESS THAN 10 - 00 A VOLUME — - 00 = DEFICIENCY LEGEND •� {REEV/AY • I.IFRCHANGE • • MAJOR ROAD (SIX LANE DIVIDED) ---- PRIMARY ROAD IFOUR LANE DIVIDED) ' SECONDARY ROAD (FOUR LANE UNDIVIDED) STUDY AREA BOUNDARY FIGURE 6 —17— ADT, IOOO's , FREEWAY ' ^U 61 61 1—L--�J 41 60 ' 21 0 2 ' 10 0 LESS THAN 10 .f F... FHy 14'.. 4S. i:,._ - © = 00 a VOLUME L �_ ft 9 =00 =DEFICIENCY 174-39 2 .. M,27 '1 r v ,LM1 f' h 0 b 24-10 125 H r • E 11 Y 1 ti .. Ma �� O•, 4•.•...�, �y o6 �• ._ . w_. (� i or - 1 20 • ti NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC STUDY ALTERNATE NETWORK A 1990 VOLUMES 6 DEFICIENCIES ALA Y. YOM-EES B ASSCCIA'ES BEHAVIOR SCIENCE CORPORATION YOOPS ENW_ 0 NEERING MC. • s I I I I I PEST IN THOUSANDS PaF , 23 . 4722 -hM - a '• 13 26 22 i LEGEND `,��♦� FREEWAY • INTERCHANGE • •' MAJOR ROAD (SIX LANE DIVIDED) • `' ' ---- PRIMARY ROAOIFOUR LANE DIVIDED) O� "'--` SECONDARY ROAD (FOUR LANE UNDIVIDED) STUDY AREA BOUNDARY A♦..••• ♦3 ' ' 3 FIGURE 7 ' -16- 1 1 1 1 4�y tFtui - Fiq c 1 1 I,L 1 1NP 1 \ 11 I� r � 1A h O U 1 C� O oc 9 1 1 1 NEWPOI 1 TRAFFI( ALTERNATE 1990 VOLUMES 1 ALA 4 VOOR pEHAV10R SC ttIUPS EN 6 I 1 FELL i 1 1 LEGEND FREEWAY INTERCHANGE •I MAJOR ROAD (SIX LANE DIVIDED) ---- PRIMARY ROAD (FOUR LANE DIVIDED) - ^- SECONDARY ROAD (FOUR LANE UNDIVIDED) STUDY AREA BOUNDARY - 17- ADT, 1000's FREEWAY 61 - 80 41 - 60 21 - 40 O 10 - 20 LESS THAN 10 �-•L� 00 -VOLUME -: 00 - DEFICIENCY FIGURE 8 OC y NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC STUDY ALTERNATE NETWORK D 1990 VOLUMES a DEFICIENCIES ALA M VOONHEES 6 ASSOCIATES BEHAVIOR SCIENCE CORPORATION TONPS ENGMEERINO INC. 0 1 23 • 6 FEET IM THD4SAM06 ADT, 10001s FREEWAY 61 - 60 41 - 60 Q 21 - 40 0 10 - 20 O LESS THAN 10 ' 00 ' VOLUME - = 00 = DEFICIENCY rvry 'may or 24 10 kz,., 18 E H '\ kc 21 O .Ay . ♦0 rye*, u,. 1 9 c u• � o QP : -. .` i 21 D- LEGEND FREEWAY INTERCHANGE • •I MAJOR ROAD (SIX LANE DIVIDED) -- PRIMARY ROAD (FOUR LANE DIVIDED) ----. SECONDARY ROAD (FOUR LANE UNDIVIDED) - - - STUDY AREA BOUNDARY E" s FIGURE 9 I N north of Seventeenth Street, Harbor Boulevard, San Diego Freeway, several roads just southerly of the San Diego Freeway and easterly of Redhill Avenue, University Drive east of the Corona Del Mar Freeway, and a segment of Canyon Crest Drive northerly of San Joaquin Hills Road. Alternate B-C Figure 8 shows the volumes and deficiencies on Alternate B-C. Major deficiencies which have been eliminated within Newport Beach are: Coast Highway from Jamboree Road to Newport Shores, Dover Drive north of Coast Highway, and Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard north of San Joaquin Hills Road. The new bay crossing connecting Coast Highway and Jamboree Boulevard with Seventeenth Street has an assigned volume of 36, 000 which creates a deficiency of 11, 000 using standards for a primary road. The assigned volumes on Seventeenth Street west of Dover Drive continue to show that Seventeenth Street is providing a bypass for Coast Highway, with resultant deficiencies on the route to the west. The Coast Highway deficiency in Corona Del Mar has been alleviated through classification to a major road, and by a volume reduction caused by the extension of the Corona Del Mar Freeway. Deficiencies in those areas outside the City Limits of Newport Beach are similar to those in Alternate A. Alternate D Alternate D network, with volumes and deficiencies, is shown in Figure 9. Major deficiencies eliminated on roads within the limits of Newport Beach include: Dover Drive north of Coast Highway and Jamboree Boulevard north of San Joaquin Hills Road. The volumes along Coast Highway have generally been reduced, and deficiencies lessened. At the time the pre- liminary report was distributed, it was thought that MacArthur Boulevard north of San Joaquin Hills Road had a significant volume deficiency. Later review showed this to be a graphical error, and that the volume on Mac- Arthur Boulevard was not substantially different from the other alternates. -19- I Alternate D is the only plan that contained a crossing of the northerly part of Upper Newport Bay. Figure 9 shows this route connecting ' Backbay Drive on the east with Twenty Second Street to the west. The traffic assigned to the bay crossing was 14, 000, with Twenty Second Street increasing to 25, 000. For the crossings of the bay connecting to Seventeenth Street, Alternate A had a combined volume of 44, 000 for the two crossings, Alternate B-C had 36, 000, while Alternate D had 12, 000 at the Seventeenth Street crossing. SELECTED LINK ANALYSIS To examine the assigned traffic as it relates to specific areas, selected link assignments were generated on the alternate networks at strategic locations. Plots of the selected links graphically display where all the ' traffic on that link is coming from (or going to), the volume of this traffic, and whether it is seeking a logical route. A total of 8 links were analyzed for the three alternates, three of which were similar. Five of the select ' links are included in this summary report. To simplify the graphical display, the sections in the network having less than 100 trips were not plotted. ' Alternate A Figure 10 is a plot of the selected link assignment for the Fifth Avenue extension in Corona Del Mar. The band width on the selected link repre- sents the 36, 000 two way trips plotted on the overall traffic assignment shown on Figure 7. The smallest band width represents 100 to 900 trips. It can be seen that the area of influence for this link extends into Costa Mesa and Huntington Beach (via Coast Highway), with a greater influence on the easterly end of Coast Highway towards Laguna Beach. The influence of traffic from the Peninsula on this road segment in Corona Del Mar can ' also be seen. This connection divides the traffic in Corona Del Mar and -20- I Link Volumes _ 100 - 900 1000 - 10,000 eI. -C YR� 4 11,000 - 20,000 ,a -ha Q � �'� — _., _ - E - .. - 21,000 - 30,000 E -- Over 30,000 I y V a E rL�. •� +lEi� ��� `x1F r I ; 4 9 NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC STUDY ' ALTERNATE NETWORK A FIFTH AVENUE EXTENSION ALAN R. VOORHEES 0 ASSOCIATE$ BE NAVIOR SCIENCE CORYORATN)N TWPS ENGINES ING INC. 0 1 23 A S FEET IN THOUSANDS 1 TOTAL TRIPS ON LINK 36,000 1 ��ti - II s-•�±1 - :,3�''_... LEGEND f REEWAY • INTERCHANGE •��� MAJOR ROAD NIX LANE DIVIDED) ^� PRIMARY ROAD (FOUR LANE DIVIDED) -- SECONDARY ROAD IFOUR LANE UNDIVIDED) STUDY AREA BOUNDARY SELECT LINK -21- FIGURE 10 I L, eliminates the deficiency on Coast Highway for that area. It should be noted that, except for the east and west ends of Coast Highway, there is little influence from other areas on the fringes of Newport Beach. Alternate B-C Three links were analyzed in this network, the combination of which pro- vided a good picture of traffic patterns in critical areas. Other networks having similar links would show characteristics similar to these. Figure 11 shows the travel patterns for the traffic using the bay crossing connecting Seventeenth Street with Jamboree Road and Coast Highway. A volume of 36, 000 trips were assigned to this link, most of which stayed in the Coastal corridor. Under the primary road classification, the route has a deficiency of 11, 000. It is interesting to note that Newport Freeway did not contribute a substantial number of trips to this link (volumes less than 100 were not plotted). This means that most motorists in the general northwest section of the study area desiring to go to the southeast would use the Corona Del Mar Freeway and other connecting routes. Figure 12 shows the select link of Coast Highway between Dover Drive and Bayside Drive and the related travel patterns. Note that Newport Freeway does have an effect ,on this section of Coast Highway, although not as pronounced as the diagram might indicate since the volume on Newport Freeway is about 1, 200 (this puts it into the 1, 000-10, 000 class). This is traffic that is generated by the land use adjacent to this section of Coast Highway and would not pass beyond Bayside Drive. The effect of the Perniinsula is shown, which amounts to about 11, 000 trips. The select link in Figure 13 is the major road connection from relocated Coast Highway to Placentia Avenue, which not only forms a continuous route with the Newport Freeway, but also with Seventeenth Street bay -22- E ii SOL L: tI _ � L • F r� • , I h�•� __ p• d< 1 ' NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC STUDY ' ALTERNATE NETWORK B-( 17TH STREET BAY CROSSING AEAN N. VOORHEES ! ASSOCIATES MHAVIOR SCIENCE Cg60RATION ' TWPC ENGINEERING INC. 0 1 A A 5 FEET IN THOUSANDS TOTAL TRIPS ON LINX- 36,000 Link Volumes 100 - 900 1000 - 10,000 11,000 - 20,000 - 21,000 - 30,000 ■ Over 30,000 , i 4 7YgNngp4C;C ;Y,1�,i .. V�"2 LEGEND F RFE WAY ANTE RCHANOE •� MAJOR ROAD (SIX LANE DIVIDED) ---- PRIMARY ROAD (FOUR SANE DIVIDED) .... -..... SECONDARY ROAD (FOUR LANE UNDIVIDED) STUDY AREA BOUNDARY /. SELECT LINK _23_ FIGURE 11 1 y}E U( I �r u x-Nip 1" IJ .a E: rt e a ! NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC STUDY ' ALTERNATE NETWORK B-C COAST HIGHWAY BAY CROSSING Aux A VOOIMEEE III ASSOCIATE S BEHAVIOR "IENOE C ATON ' TWF9 ENSHI EMINB In, O 1 23 A E FEET IN THOUSANDS TOTAL TRIPS ON LINK- 3I.000 1 1 fNN" 1 Link Volumes ff I i -1 LEGEND FREEWAY . INTERCHANGE • MAJOR ROAD (SIX LANE DIVIDED) --- PRIMARY WAD (FOUR LANE DIVIDED) ---•- SECONDARY ROAD (FOUR LANE UNDIVIDED) - - - STUDY AREA BOUNDARY SELECT LINK -24- 100 - 900 1000 - 10,000 11,000 - 20,000 21,000 - 30,000 Over 30,000 FIGURE 12 1 1 1 Link Volumes 100 - 900 1000 - 10,000 1' 11,000 - 20,000 21,000 - 30,000 l ■ Over 30,000 LEGEND FREEWAY INTERCHANGE • •� MAJOR ROAD (SIX LANE DIVIOEDI --- PRIMARY ROAD (FOUR LANE DIVIDED) -- SECONDARY ROAD (FOUR LANE UNDIVIDED) - - - - STUDY AREA BOUNDARY 1 SELECT LINK TOTAL TRIPS ON LINK+ 369000 1 1 1 -25- FIGURE 13 crossing. The volume on the link is 36, 000, 15, 000 of which is on Seventeenth Street, 15, 000 of which is on the southerly end of Newport Freeway (about 7, 000 on Newport Freeway at Corona Del Mar Freeway), with the other roads supplying the remaining 6, 000. The analysis shows that the Seventeenth Street route is serving as a by-pass for Coast Highway. Approximately 4, 600 trips on Coast Highway south of Corona Del Mar go through this selected link. This volume increases to 9,300 on Coast Highway east of Jamboree Road. Alternate D This alternate contained the bay crossing between Backbay Drive and Twenty Second -Street which is the select link shown on Figure 14. Total trips on the link were 14, 000. The area of influence on the road network is relatively small. All of the traffic using this link is coming from within the study area. Considering that the volume of traffic on the Seventeenth Street crossing on this alternate was 12, 000, the total volume on new bay crossings for Alternate D is 26, 000. A total of 52, 000 vehicles still remain on Coast Highway. With that high of a volume, some operational- problems would still exist in the vicinity of Dover Drive, although the one-way couplet through Mariners Mile with three lanes each direction would accommodate the traffic quite well. The following table is a summary of traffic crossing Upper Newport Bay for the various alternates. Traffic Volumes on Bay Crossings Alternate Coast Hwv Cliff St. 17th St. 22nd St. Total Existing Network 75,000 75,000 A 32,000 23,000 21,000 76,000 B-C 31,000 36,000 67,000 D 52,000 12,000 14,000 78,000 -26- 1 1 !i►n iV --At! T i ! Y TT _�. Y — 3I � �✓� A i ! 1 ! TOTAL TRIPS ON LINK- 14,000 ! ! ! Link Volumes 100 - 900 1000 .f i `.,.:._.. E•_. - ; 11,000 - 20,000 21,000 - 30,000 Over 30,000 "^, a M Z'r.,.L� 3 .. 1 �LI.11YY y ♦♦� - �'K nn - L ,' �� _'� _ ~�'•� A � fir.. 4 i LEGEND FREEWAY INTERCHANGE •' MAJOR WAD (SIX LANE DIVIDED) PRIMARY ROAD (FOUR LANE DIVIDED) --- SECONDARY ROAD (FOUR LANE UNDIVIDED) - - - STUDY AREA BOUNDARY SELECT LINK _27- FIGURE 14 The table shows that the t under B-C than other alte ' the northerly end of the b under Alternate B-C than I d II V. SUMMARY Phase II of the Newport Beach Traffic Study investigated alternate transportation plans and assessed the capability of these plans to accommodate projected traffic. The relative merits of each plan can be seen from plots of the volumes and deficiencies, Figures 6 through 9, and the select link analyses, Figures 10 through 14. From data presented and analyzed thus far, some fairly definite concepts can be formed for alleviating or eliminating present and future traffic problems in Newport Beach. Phase III of the study will use a multi - criteria evaluation process measuring the most positive and least negative impacts. For the selected plan, a priority implementation program will be developed with cost estimates and potential funding sources. As in Phases I and II, the Citizens Advisory Committee will play a major role in the evaluation process. -29- NEWPORT 'BEACH TRAFFIC PHASE III FINAL REPORT STUDY PLAN SELECTION AND IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM alan m. voorhees & associates, inc. ■ TRANSPORTATION & URBAN PLANNING NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC STUDY PHASE III PLAN SELECTION AND IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM Prepared for THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA October, 1973 Prepared by 1w7 ALAN M. VOORHEES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 5252 Balboa Avenue San Diego, California 92117 COORDINATING COMMITTEE Donald A. McInnis, Mayor Howard Rogers, Mayor Pro Tern Richard D. Croul, Councilman Carl J. Kymla, Councilman Milan M. Dostal, Councilman Paul Ryckoff, Councilman John Store, Councilman Robert L. Wynn, City Manager Joseph T. Devlin, Public Works Director Richard V. Hogan, Director of Community Development TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE William Agee, Chairman Richard H. Clucas Roland W. Landrigan William W. Dootson Woody Linton Grant Howald Mrs. Wm. B. Martin Walter J. Koch Robert Milum Howard Rogers, Mayor Pro Tern JohA Store, Councilman t li t t t TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter SUMMARY I. INTRODUCTION Study Background Study Organization II. PLAN EVALUATION AND SELECTION Land Use Considerations Vehicle Flow and Air Pollution Preliminary Cost Estimates Evaluation Process Assessment of Specific Segments of Plan Projected Deficiencies III. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS PRINCIPLES Relationship of Transportation to Other Planned Elements Goals and Objectives of Transportation Constraints to and Opportunities for Mobility and Interaction Function of Parking Specifics Applicable to Newport Beach IV. IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM Project Descriptions and Costs Project Priorities Financing Resources Financially Attainable Program Land Use Considerations Advanced Right -of -Way Purchase Access Control Project Schematics and Details V. CONTINUING PLANNING PROCESS Page vi 1 1 3 6 6 8 9 10 15 19 22 22 Z4 26 30 31 39 39 40 41 42 47 47 48 49 I TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) APPENDICES A. Traffic Forecast Process B. Preliminary Cost Estimates C. Levels of Service D. Assessment of Various Options on Coast Higliway -iv- Page A-1 B-1 C-1 D-1 LIST OF FIGURES Title 1. Organization and Planning Process 2. Relation of Speed and Level of Service to Vehicle Emissions 3. Alternate Network Plan Evaluation Within Newport Beach 4. Alternate Network Plan Evaluation Outside Newport Beach 5. Composite Plan b. Transit Routes and Coverage 7. thru 21. Project Descriptions 22. thru 24. Alternate Project Descriptions 1. 2. 3. 4. LIST OF TABLES Estimated City Revenues for Rights -of -Way, Design and Construction Summary of Estimated Costs of Rights -of -Way, Design and Construction Estimated Average Annual Expenditures Needed Project Descriptions Page I 16 17 20 32 53-67 82-84 43 M M, SUMMARY In September 1971, Alan M. Voorhees and Associates entered into agree- ment with the City of Newport Beach to conduct a traffic study for the purpose of analyzing the present and future transportation needs of the City and adjacent areas. The study was coordinated through the Trans- portation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee to provide citizen input and response to community attitudes and needs. A summary report of Phase I, Problem Identification was published in September, 1972, followed by Phase II, Alternative Plan Development, published in March 1973. Phase III report describes the plan evaluation and selection, and the implementation program for the recommended plan. The evaluation of the plans and the selection of the recommended plan were essentially based on subjective judgment. Thirteen criteria were con- sidered, assessed on the basis of a 'most positive" or "least negative" scale. One of these criteria consisted of "special considerations" which covered an array of concepts, considerations, and effects. Considerable attention was given to transportation systems principles including the relationship of transportation to other planned elements, constraints to and opportunities for mobility, and specifics which may apply to Newport Beach. The planning done now is based on what is known now. What happens in the future could significantly influence decisions towards solving transportation problems. Projects in the implementation program are classified into four categories of priorities. Since the actual order of construction will be affected by several factors, no further priority refinements are made. Projects in- volving Coast Highway are classified high priority, with the recommended projects for Dover Drive and replacement of the Upper Bay Bridge being of prime importance. -vi- II i 11I The estimated total cost of the plan being recommended is approximately $67, 600, 000. Funding responsibility is $27, 700, 000 for the City of Newport Beach, $26, 000, 000 for the State Department of Transportation, and $13, 900, 000 for other entities. The estimated average annual City revenue for this program is about $770, 000 per year. This amounts to an average annual shortage of $610, 000 for a 20-year program. With certain provisions, it is possible the program could be financed over 25- years with the estimated available funds. A key assumption is that revenue will keep pace with inflation cost increases. While the recommended plan does not eliminate all transportation defi- ciencies, it presents solutions which are likely to obtain public acceptance and support necessary for implementation. t t I. INTRODUCTION Transportation facilities constitute one of the largest and inost important elements of public investment. Funds to be spent on new transportation facilities or on the upgrading of existing facilities will likely be a sub- stantial share of public capital investment. It is essential that an effective and coordinated transportation plan be developed to ensure that these future funds are spent wisely. The development of the transportation system provides an opportunity to guide future orderly urban growth. This opportunity should be used to promote a constructive and desirable pattern of urban development, and to further the economic development of the area. Study Background In the past ten years the City of Newport Beach has grown rapidly in population, accompanied by substantial increases in commercial, office, and industrial construction. To meet the needs created by this growth, the City Council placed top priority on updating the City's general plan program. In August 1971, the Council approved a preliminary general plan work program. Included as a part of the circulation element of that program was authorization for specialized consultant work for a trans- portation study. In October 1971, Alan M. Voorhees & Associates was authorized to begin work on a three phased study for the development of a transportation plan for the City of Newport Beach. Assisting in this study were Behavior Science Corporation of Los Angeles, and Toups Engineering, Inc., of Santa Ana. The goals and objectives, though general in nature, formed a clear basis for the study approach, the final product being a transportation improvement program with projects in priority order, cost estimates, project phasing and potential funding. Phase I of the study defined the location and magnitudes of present and future problems. A summary report of the Phase I findings was published in September, 1972. A separate report was also published as part of Phase I on the work done I -1- I by Behavior Science Corporation titled, "Transportation and Traffic in Newport Beach from the Resident's Point of View. " Phase II of the study included investigation of alternate transportation plans which could provide for future travel demands, receive public acceptance, and create minimal environmental disturbance. The findings of Phase II were summarized in a report published in March, 1973. The traffic forecast process used in Phase I and II is described in Appendix A of this report. This report, the third in this series, covers the final stages of the planning study process leading towards implementation. This process, illustrated in Figure 1 along with the study organization, consisted of plan evaluation, plan selection, and an implementation program. The first step was to review the deficiencies set forth in Phase II with the objective of evaluating these alternate plans, and using these results to develop a final recom- mended plan. This is the subject of Chapter II in this report. Chapter III discusses principles of transportation systems and the roles the various .systems play individually and collectively. Specifics applicable to Newport Beach are presented in relation to what we know now and 'what is planned now. Chapter IV deals with the implementation program which includes con- struction priority, costs, potential funding, land use regulation and legislative actions. The last section of this chapter presents schematics of the projects and details of the recommended plan. Chapter V describes the continuing planning process and outlines some problems which will or may occur in the implementation of the plans. In addition to this report, the complete minutes of meetings held by the Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee from January 1971 to July 1973 have been published by the City as a supplement. Complete sets of these minutes are available for loan or inspection in the City Public Works Department. -2- Throughout the study the Citizens Advisory Committee has strongly and properly presented the citizens point of view in their considerations and deliberations, while the consultant has attempted to present the best realistic technical solutions to the City's transportation problems. A merging of these ideas produced the plans presented herein. Study Organization Urban transportation is not simply a local problem; it involves all levels of government. Transportation problems and needs are usually a co- operative effort for a metropolitan area, a county, or a region. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), of which Orange County and the City of Newport Beach are members, is responsible for regional planning in this area. Through SCAG, planning is coordinated with those other responsible planning agencies. Although the City's jurisdiction and the plans resulting from this study will be limited to the boundaries of the City of Newport Beach, coordination efforts with adjacent and surrounding jurisdictions must at some point be accomplished. The absence of coordination in the study plan was not an oversight. The City desired to proceed with no constraints in the development of a plan, recognizing that differences in the presently adopted Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways affecting adjacent jurisdictions would have to be resolved. This position was frequently restated during the course of the study. For this reason, the Study Organization illustrated on Figure 1 begins with the City Council rather than a regional coordinating body. The Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee was authorized by the City Council in October, 1970 for the purpose of meeting with the consultant throughout each phase of the study to provide citizen input. The Committee held approximately 38 evening meetings during the three study phases, many of these meetings lasting four hours or more. Addi- tional time demands were made on committee members through frequently -3- ORGAN/ZING CITY COUNCIL CITIZENS TRAFFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE I CITY STAFF I CONSULTANT GETTING THE FACTS— Z'I STREET EXISTING EXI8TIN0 STREET STREET TRAFFIC TRANSIT �) USE SYSTEM SERVICE SERVICE yI_ v DEFINING THE PROBLEM CA SIN I I COST I I PUBLIC LAND ATTITUDE REPORT OF ANALYSIS _ _ 1 TECHNICAL COMMITTEE I OF THE TRANS ORTATION I. EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.FUTURE LAND USE &TRAVEL PATTERNS r _ _ I CITIZENS 1 COMMITTEE ' ._ J O ( &.DEFICIENCIES PREPAR//JG THE REPoRT QZ _ _ REPORT ON I I TECHNICAL , TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITIZENS R f I. ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS �I I MMITTEE 2.COSTS COMMITTEE COI S. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS OBTAINING PLAN APPROVAL PUBLIC INFORMATION I� 1 TECHNICAL � � I CITIZENB7 ' COMMITTEE COMMITTEE L — --I LEGISLATIVE ACTION �----� PUTTING THE PLAN TO HORK CARRYING OUT THE (� 1 TECHNICAL PLAN 1 CITIZENS ' I.EBTABLISNING PRIORITIES ' COMMITTEE 2.COORDINATINO THE WORK COMMITTEE I_ _ _ J &FUNDING L_ _ -J I LEGISLATIVE BODY I ANNUAL BUDGET FIGURE 1. ORGANIZATION AND PLANNING PROCESS -4- mailed material requiring review, and through inquiries from individuals and groups. The minutes of these meetings contain a wealth of background information describing the study direction and decision making. To ensure that this information will be conveniently available for reference, these minutes were assembled in a separate document, on file in the City Public Works bepartment. 11 �c Ii li Il IT It I1 li It II IL II 1 k II. PLAN EVALUATION AND SELECTION There is no analytical technique which can directly and accurately produce the "best" plan to relieve the transportation network deficiencies. As a result, the procedures used in the plan development phase were essen- tially those of subjective judgment. Included were those features which appeared would resolve the problems. Those features which appeared would not do the job or were quite questionable were not included nor were they entirely eliminated. One of these features is public transit which is discussed in some detail in Chapter III. The three alternate plans developed in Study Phase II were based on a thorough analysis of future travel patterns, land use considerations, and the existing street system# They were arranged in an attempt to test the full range of feasible actions which might alleviate present and anticipated deficiencies, as well as meet existing and proposedland use development objectives. In this manner, detailed insights as to the ' implication of various possible actions were obtained. This in turn led to the preparation of a composite plan. The following sections of this chapter discuss the development and evaluation of the alternate plans and the formulation of the composite plan. Land Use Considerations The land use data for this study was developed for the various traffic zones within Newport Beach by Development Research Associates under the direction of the City Department of Community Development. The base data on which traffic projections were made was at that time called the trend -growth projection, or growth level A. Growth levels B and C were later developed. In many of the zones there was no change or little change in the growth levels due mainly to areas already being developed, or firmly committed. Preliminary investigation showed that revising the land use in Newport Beach even to the lower growth level would not make a substantial reduction in traffic volumes, although certain areas could have a significant impact on adjacent road links in the network. -6- The following table lists those traffic zones (sec snap Appendix A) which have a change in trip generation between Alternate Growths A and C of greater than 107o. In terms of net change in trip generation, zone 32 has the greatest. The only instance where trip generation for Alternate C is greater than Alternate A is zone 16. Although there was a decrease in population in Zone 16, there was an increase in employment which had higher trip generation. Trip Generation Net Change in Traffic Zone Alternate A Alternate C Trip Generation 1 7,350 5,500 - 1,850 4 30,800 27,070 - 3,730 7 39,100 34,980 - 4,120 16 124,500 128,500 + 4,000* 17 20,100 17,540 - 2,560 26 25,500 22,230 - 3,270 27 5,540 2,740 - 2,800 31 26,100 23,100 - 3,000 32 38,600 20,350 - 18,250 *This does not represent a 107o change, but is the only zone which had a + net change from Alternate A to Alternate C. Although population decreased, employment increased. Land use planning never remains static, even in an area which is fully developed. The Community Development Department is continually study- ing and reviewing developments and growth policies within Newport Beach and adjacent areas as well. There is no reason to believe the adjacent communities of Huntington Beach and Costa Mesa will vary substantially from the land use information furnished for this study. Developments in the open area east of Newport Beach, however, could widely vary from what is now planned and what eventually is constructed. This does not imply that such development will adversely affect transportation in Newport Beach. These areas have an opportunity to develop public transportation facilities quite uninhibited by constraints imposed by development, and Newport Beach would have the opportunity to link with these facilities. For instance, major traffic_ generators such as the shopping area in Corona del Mar and Newport Center could be linked to an innovative public transporta- tion system, providing a very positive step towards reducing •private vehicle usage. -7- Vehicle Flow and Air Pollution In simplified terms, the emission of principal pollutants related to urban automobile travel - carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons - decreases as average speed increases, up to a point. Increasing cruise speed much above 30 miles per hour may likely increase carbon monoxide and hydro- carbon emissions. Figure 2 shows the relationship between speed, level of service and carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrocarbons (HC) emissions meas- ured in grams per vehicle mile, between the limits of 10 to 30 miles per hour. The concentration of CO in exhaust gases of a vehicle traveling at 10 mph is over twice that of a vehicle traveling at 25 mph. If an objective is to minimize the concentration of CO and HC, it is beneficial to smooth the traffic flow by reducing idling, acceleration and deceleration. The improvements proposed in this report are generally of the type which will reduce or eliminate congestion thereby reducing vehicle idling, accelera- tion and deceleration, with a resultant reduction in vehicle emissions. 10 E / Id D 20 �0 e � W / Source: U.S. Department of Commerce ` PB 204 870 Nov. 1971 30 A 70 80 90 160 110 120 1& 140 1& 160 170 140 190 20f CO EMISSIONS, SM./VEN. MIZE 10 it 12 Ib 14 16 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NC EMISSIONS, OM./VEm M/LE FIGURE 2. RELATION OF SPEED AND LEVEL OF SERVICE TO VEHICLE EMISSIONS 20 Preliminary Cost Estimates One of the criteria to be assessed in the evaluation procedure was feas- ibility of funding and building. To provide this information, preliminary cost estimates were made for those facilities within Newport Beach City Limits, and some adjacent areas outside the City where route continuity was essential for a complete and adequate system. Costs were divided into right-of-way and construction, and an assessment made of the probable funding responsibility; Newport Beach, Other Cities, County, State, Federal, Other (such as private development). Construction costs were estimated using the most current 1973 data available for the Orange County area. Right-of-way costs are often difficult to estimate without considerable research. The following procedure for estimating costs of right-of-way was used for this study. 1. Real estate maps were reviewed to determine additional right-of- way required for the various alternates. 2. Field inspections were made to determine existing road conditions. 3. Based on the assembled data, a decisions was made on the practi- cality of taking right-of-way on both sides of an existing roadway. In areas where existing buildings were close or next to the right- of-way line, the decision generally made was to acquire right-of- way on only one side. 4. The parcels along the streets to be newly constructed or widened were assembled, and the present market values of these parcels were obtained from the County Assessor. 5. The estimated right-of-way costs were increased by 2576 to provide for relocation aid and appraisal costs. 6. In some areas, the entire lot with existing buildings would have to be acquired. In those cases some initial costs may be recovered by selling surplus acreage not required for road construction, although no cost adjustments were made for possible surplus right-of-way sale. -9- The preliminary cost estimates for the base network and the three alternates are included as Appendix B. Evaluation Process In current evaluation procedures, there is a trend towards using techniques which are quite subjective, permitting participants with a wide range of values to judge the desirability of the various alternatives according to their own values. The cost -benefit procedure, which not too many years ago was the primary consideration in making build/no build decisions on transportation facilities, has become quite secondary in importance. In this analysis, no attempt was made to convert evaluations into a monetary scale, or to weight criteria in terms of preference. In the original study design there were 13 points or criteria which were the basis for evaluation, to be assessed on a "most positive" or "least negative" scale. These 13 criteria were further defined to give the Committee a more clear idea of the meaning, as follows: 1. Newport Beach Public Acceptance and Support The alternate plans must be evaluated in terms of general accept- ance (or rejection). If public support cannot be obtained, the likelihood of implementation is reduced. 2. Community -Environmental Protection/Enhancement Some alternates may have some strong points for enhancing the community and the environment. For instance the elimination of serious congestion may enhance the community, but the measures taken (a grade separation or a high fill for instance) may not enhance the environment. 3. Conformance with Coastal Highway Planning Policy Where coastal plains 4ie adjacent to the ocean, (as is the general case in Newport Beach), the coastal zone will generally be limited to -10- one-half mile in width. Transportation facilities within the zone should be planned to: a. Encourage and support human uses which are dependent on the coastal zones natural resources. b. Enhance and conserve environmental qualities or amenities. C. Maintain the widest number of options possible for future generations. d. Assist in preserving unique scientific. educational and recreational opportunities. e. Emphasize safe business and recreational driver enjoyment. 4. General Transportation Service Best road network to meet future transportation demands and reduce or eliminate present deficiencies. The road network in the City of Newport Beach should be reviewed, and a separate review made for the network within the study area, but outside Newport Beach. Such things as environmental and community impact should not be considered here, only traffic service. 5. Reduction -Elimination of Congestion, Accident, and Parking Problems The alternate plans should be evaluated in terms of how well the congestion, accident and parking problems are resolved. In some cases, the problems may not be alleviated, and may even be worsened. For instance, congestion may be reduced or eliminated through prohibition of on -street parking, which in turn increases the parking problem. 7. Traffic Accommodation Across Bay Evaluation should be based on the proposed provisions in each network for additional traffic capacity across Newport Bay. Some net- works obviously meet the capacity criteria better than others. For -11- 'I I I instance, the base network (existing and committed system) provides no additional traffic capacity across the bay. 11, 8. Accommodation of East-West Through Traffic Through traffic is defined here as traffic having neither an origin or destination in Newport Beach. A good example of such a route is the Coast Highway, which although having a high "local" traffic demand be- cause of adjacent land uses, also has a high traffic demand from motor- ists passing through the area who have no better route. 9. Special Considerations A review of the 51 special considerations was made, and those which were either duplications in other evaluation criteria or no longer applicable were eliminated. The remaining criteria are: a. Feasibility of transportation modes other than the private automobile, and their long range effects, in the Newport Beach area. b. Traffic and community impacts if Newport Freeway is terminated, (1) at city limits, (2) at Coast Highway. C. Use of automobile ferry crossing near Upper Bay, with consideration of costs. d'. Effects of routing Corona del Mar Freeway northerly of San Joaquin Hills Road in its downcoast reach through Corona del Mar (Bonita/Coyote Canyon Route). e. Transportation by other modes such as bicycles, minibuses, special pedestrian paths. f. Use of school buses in summer for transportation to beach area. g. Future technological and operational changes involving small cars, express bus lanes, car pools, people movers, etc. h. Future legal restrictions on smog, trucks, noise, engine type and size, etc. -12- It t t i. Providing out of City parking with tram service to the beach. j. Providing tram service throughout the community. k. Establish higher beach parking fees. i. Permit free ferry passage for bike riders. M. Permit only Newport Beach resident autos south of Coast Highway during certain periods. n. Create one-way streets in grid section of Corona del Mar. o. Construction of a second bridge to Balboa Island. P. Short and long range effects of possible bay crossing on water quality, recreation, marine environment, ecology. q. Impact of non -transportation uses on street system such as parades, special events, "beach cruising," etc. 10. People Access to Concentrated Areas The alternate plans should be evaluated for the extent to which they ease traffic loadings, or better accommodate traffic, into areas of "people concentration" such as the Peninsula beaches, Balboa Island, Newport Center, etc. The potential in the alternatives for transit service or special pedestrian/bike facilities should be included. 11. Integration and Balance Between Auto -Transit Since the beginning of the study, the aspects of transit have been discussed several times. Present transit usage is rated poor, and the transit patronage level has little effect on street capacity and parking demands. However, more important than actual transit usage at this time is the flexibility of the transportation network to accommodate transit implementation as it occurs. As a guide for evaluation the following points should be considered: a. Probable general transit impact on Newport Beach traffic within the next 15 years. -13- b. Routes on the network where transit may receive substantial patronage. C. Routes on the network which have the flexibility for accom- modating good transit facilities. d. Adoption of local regulations to "force" transit usage. e. Adoption of regional, State and national regulations, to "force" transit usage. f. Other controls (such as gas rationing, or user taxation) which might increase transit usage. 12. Ability for Handling Seasonal Traffic Surges Plans must be reviewed for the capabilities to meet varying traffic demands. The plan should meet most demands, but should not be exces- sive in its accommodation. For instance, it may be possible to have the flexibility of providing additional traffic capacity through part-time parking prohibition, thereby eliminating the need for constructing additional traffic lanes. 13. Utilization of Freeway Systems Since the San Diego Freeway is already constructed, is on the fringe of the study area, and has the same connections under the various alter- nates, it has much less importance in evaluation than the Newport and Corona del Mar freeways. Serious consideration for local connection and access must be given to the service provided by the Newport Freeway in the west Newport area. Very little of the Corona del Mar Freeway is within the Newport Beach City limits, but considerable interest has been shown in the alignment easterly of Newport Beach. These alignments should be considered in terms of the effects on Newport Beach. One additional item which the Committee and staff thought should be added was "compatibility of planning with other agencies." This was very appropriate since the study had not considered this factor up to this point. -14- t These 14 items were arranged in the format shown on the figures refer- red to below, and the Committee was asked to make two evaluations: 1. The alternate networks within Newport Beach 2. The alternate networks outside the limits of Newport Beach within the study area limits. The rating legend used was : + for good, O for fair, - for poor, and ? for insignificant or uncertain. These ratings were then combined to form a visual display of the +, O, —, and ? legend using for good, G for fair, O for poor, and no symbol at all for insignificant or uncertain. A separ- ate rating was made for the special considerations listed under Criteria 9 above. A composite ranking of these ratings was then developed for the overall evaluation form. The results of the evaluation procedure are shown in Figures 3 and 4 for the alternate networks within and outside Newport Beach respectively. The darker the array of boxes for the alternate networks, the better the ratings satisfied the criteria for the networks. A casual review shows Alternates B-C and D rate the highest, while a more detailed inspection shows that Alternate B-C rates higher than Alternate D. Accordingly, Alternate Network B-C was selected as the plan for more detailed study on those road segments which showed severe construction problems or capacity deficiencies. Assessment of Specific Segments of Plan Many of the roads shown on the Master Plan of Arterial Highways for Orange County are included in each of the alternate plans developed for this study. Some of these roads are either fully or partially constructed and are the backbone of the present transportation system. Some of the roads not yet constructed have had the alignments fairly well established for many years and do not seem to be controversial, at least not at this time. The area of most concern is the east -west coastal corridor, specifically Coast Highway, and related proposals for crossing Upper Newport Bay, which would significantly affect Coast Highway. As the evaluation process progressed it became evident that more detailed in- formation was needed for the Coastal Corridor options before they could -15- Alternate • 6'JtYw 'Mq a'S(:1. AMM a�MMAMMMi AMMM ©luau❑❑U❑❑�❑�❑❑' FIGURE 3. ALTERNATE NETWORK PLAN EVALUATION WITHIN NEWPORT BEACH Rating Legend: . Good Q Fair O Poor (Blank) Insignificant or Uncerta:n t i [ F f I i l l t ! i ! I t e t i I jl i r ;m is* iw ;� i� I I= I Ime Igo I m I_ I me I! I an I m I m I` I m; r I m i m I m I m 4 / 5 h a W G ❑ c1 m W Q y W O zi94 i Alternate g° vo c w y o Network Q o r,, (Pi Grcup II IGroup III t 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 13 14 q 'N C FIGURE 4. ALTERNATE NETWORK PLAN EVALUATION OUTSIDE NEWPORT BEACH y W Q Fair O Poor (Blank) Insignificant or Uncertain be properly evaluated. To evaluate the options in the corridor, Coast Highway was divided into five sections: Corona del Mar to MacArthur, MacArthur to Jamboree, Jamboree to Dover, Dover to Newport Boule- vard, Newport Boulevard to Santa Ana River. Through the services of a separate consultant, the City had very preliminary design drawings prepared. These drawings showed fairly exact alignments, and required rights -of -way. In those areas where elevations were of concern, the grades of the facilities were investigated. Along with this information, the options for each section were arranged in an increasing order of improved traffic service, and an assessment made of these various options. These assessments for the five sections of Coast Highway are included in Appendix D. Preceeding the assessments in Appendix Cis an explanation of Level of Service, a term which is used for describing traffic service in the assessments of the various options. Under all the options listed for each section of Coast Highway are ratings for "Probable Public Support. " The terminology follows the pattern used in the initial evaluations of the alternate networks with the term unacceptable being added. Committee members were asked to vote on each of the options. The votes of those Committee members who responded were tabulated and the results of these votes are shown for the assess- ment of the various highway options in Appendix D. In those cases where there was a tie vote, both ratings are shown. By vote of the committee, the following options were recommended for implementation: Coast Highway Segment From To Corona del Mar MacArthur Blvd. MacArthur Blvd. Jamboree Road Recommended Option No Recommendation* 3. Widen Coast Highway to six lanes with interchange at MacArthur Blvd. *Although the Committee deliberated longer on this segment than any other, the final determination was that no recommendation be made. The Committee reported to the City Council that no proposal for resolution of the problem could be determined. -18- U U U Jamboree Road Dover Drive 5. Widen Coast Highway to six lanes, replacing Upper Bay Bridge with a new bridge which extends westerly to form interchange with Dover Drive. Incor- porate provisions for pedestrians, bicycles, and transit into bridge design. Dover Drive Newport Blvd. 2. (Modified) Develop additional off- street parking and promote better traffic circulation; plan for possible future removal of on -street parking during peak hours to provide for six traffic lanes. Newport Blvd. Santa Ana River 4. Realign Coast Highway northerly around Newport Shores (six lanes) with interchange at major road extending from Newport Freeway; existing Coast Highway to cul-de-sac at Santa Ana River. The recommended plan is shown on Figure 5. Those segments for which the Citizens Advisory Committee recommends alternate solutions are explained in Chapter IV under Project Schematics and Details. Projected Deficiencies An ideal transportation plan would benefit everyone, inconvenience few, and provide ease of mobility for the traveling public whether they travel by private vehicle, public transit, or walk. Few jurisdictions have the options available for developing the ideal transportation plan, or the resources for implementing this plan, although financial resources are often not the deciding factor on whether a plan or specific segment of that plan is accepted. Therefore, in almost all transportation plans there are segments on which current deficiencies remain, or future deficiencies can be forecast. Some deficiencies are expected in the coastal corridor with the network shown in Figure 5. Initially of course, some of the existing deficiencies will be alleviated or eliminated with completion of Priority A projects. As more of the network is completed and alternate routes become available, some relief can be expected on Coast Highway. Should revisions be made to the recommended plan some deficiencies may be eliminated, some created, or some transferred to other locations. -19- U Fsf itr, %I pnr5.- 50 r- txj I4 }i=F ;Ftr Eel ;rater_'-: . � F ....�..-'={-•.... N O NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC STUDY RECOMMENDED COMPOSITE PLAN Deq diwlDeY< ♦f Illl IM 1MOV3llOt LEGEND ti FREEWAY IMI[KN.NDF IMJOFIO\OWIAMt ONIOfW �-•� IYNAtf= 1FOIM LAME VIIIND) ' �— FItlMAIY IIOW (N9DIN[W SKONOMy WAD W IIt LANE LNbItt YO) p MCI AREA EODNOAAT p Ty I t I: r I Deficiencies for the individual segments of road are described in Chapter III under the individual project listings. The importance of constructing the Corona del Mar Freeway on the Bonita/Coyote Canyon alignment and continuing downcoast cannot be over- stressed. This particular alignment provides an attractive alternate route which will divert an estimated 15, 000 vehicles per day away from the Coast Highway corridor. This is particularly important if no new facilities are constructed or there is lengthy delay in implementing recom- mended projects in the easterly section of the coastal corridor. With the deletion of Corona del Mar Freeway downcoast, some traffic would divert to major roads outside the Coast Highway corridor. -21- III. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS PRINCIPLES Relationship of Transportation to Other Planned Elements Transportation, perhaps more than any other single control factor, plays a major role in shaping, building, supporting, and conversely, limiting, damaging, and destroying urban centers. Clearly, transportation is a vital public necessity, but one which should serve rather than dictate. Particularly in an urban core, it should be the local "people activities" which make their demands for a transportation system, rather than the transportation system controlling or limiting the things people may do. Thus, the area's cultural activities, finananciai activities, commercial activities, industrial activities, civic activities, and recreational activities, all place their demands upon a transportation system which should bxing people to activity centers, allow them to circulate among activities, and carry therm back to their point of origin. Such a system should not limit, control, or impede land development consistent with community goals and objectives. In that regard, it would appear to be clear that as much as an urban area requires transportation facilities which provide easy access and circula- tion for persons within, it is just as important that people and vehicles without interest, origin, or destination in the area be kept out. Ironically, the separation of "local traffic" and "through traffic" is a paradox yet to be solved in thousands of American communities. All too often, small or medium-sized City B happens to lie on the main route between Big Cities A and C. As City B grows, the conflict between local and through traffic also grows, to the point where eventually physical steps must be taken to make the separation. It was this need for separation of move- ments and elimination of conflict which gave birth to freeway systems as they are now known. Freeways too however, have had their shortcomings, for while they may adequately carry through traffic, their cost can rarely be justified on just that basis. Thus, we have urban freeway systems developed which do not bypass the urban area, but pass directly through it. Included in the design of such freeways are ramp connections to -22- I provide for long -haul "through" traffic as well as distributing short -haul "local" traffic from the the freeway to the local street system. In theory, it is efficient and safe. In practice however, severe shortcomings remain. In practically every American metropolitan area, freeway congestion, caused by "local" traffic, takes place at regular and predictable intervals. That, compounded by the negative environmental impact of urban freeways have caused many communities to seek other means of solving their transportation problems. Newport Beach of course, is an example of such a community. In essence, the system that must be sought is one which seeks to solve all the transportation problems. Specifically, the system must provide for high-speed through travel for those without origin or destination in an area, it must provide for quick and efficient local access via a surface street system, it must provide for the storage of hundreds of private automobiles in convenient and properly priced locations, and it must provide for a public transportation system which if properly designed and utilized can attract patronage and put a "balance" into the total transportation system. Obviously, major policy decisions are required before parts or all of such a system can be effectively implemented. In summary, it should be clear that a transportation system for Newport Beach should be designed to serve the various interactions occurring as a result of existing activities, and of planned development and redevelop- ment. In certain cases, because of irreversible historical situations, it will be found that transportation will be the controlling factor which will dictate where and what kind of development may occur. That is unfortunate. Where that is not the case however, where development alternatives are available and where good planning of various functions and facilities can create exciting and viable community sub -areas, it is the duty of the transportation planner to see that proper combination of freeways, arterial streets, pedestrian ways, parking, transit, and other technological means -23- be utilized so the activities of the City will be accessible to its citizens, will be free of unwanted traffic and people, and will have reasonable "external" access for those who are attracted from outside the city. Goals and Objectives of Transportation A. Service Systems Transportation should be regarded as a service system which enhances and complements efficient and economic utilization of land and "people activities. " Certainly then, a primary transportation goal is to provide a system which offers users the opportunity to make a reasonable choice of mode (such as between private automobile, mass transit, local transit, cycling, walking, etc.). One way to state such a goal might be to set a specific level of transportation service which the community should pro- vide to its citizens. For example, (strictly) it might be stated that utilizing either a single mode or a combination of avaflable modes, any trip in the community should be capable of being made at an average speed of not less than 10 miles per hour. Sometimes, goals have been expressed in economic terms. An example (strictly) might be that total "out-of- pocket" travel cost from origin to destination should not exceed 5� per mile. A specific transit goal might be that no person's home or place of employment should be more than one-half mile from a major transit route, and that a transit trip of any length be made for 25� or lase. Clearly, the setting of such transportation goals constitutes an important community policy -making decision. The primary goal however, should always be kept in mind; namely, that citizens should have a choice of transportation mode if possible. If that is not possible, then whatever transportation is offered should be efficient, economical, and safe. Overriding of course is the objective that the transportation system be a public service element which enhances the ability for the community to thrive and prosper in a pleasant environment, under a planned program of physical and economic growth and development. -24- 13. Community Growth & Development Perhaps the most critical transportation goal that can be stated by community policy makers is not just a transportation goal, but one with far broader implications and consequences; --namely, the future of the community. Since there is overwhelming evidence that adequate or inadequate transportation can dictate the success or failure of growth and development, it becomes clear that transportation must be designed to complement the amount and type of development which is supported and/or permitted by policy makers. The often unanswered questions however, are "What kind and quantity of development is wanted? , " "What sort of a community do we want? " Clearly,these are profound questions. In the case of Newport Beach, we have proceeded on the foundation that the general character of the city will not change over the years. There will be growth of course, but it will be controlled growth of low to medium density. The physical, recreational, cultural and commercial attractions will continue to draw people: as residents, because of the high quality of life, and as tourists because of the numerous recreational opportunities. Such a development foundation has major implications in the transportation sense. It means essentially, that there is a general expectation that the private automobile will continue to be the primary, almost exclusive, means of transportation. The point is, transportation can serve as a tremendously influential tool in aiding and guiding the kind of development which the community has expressed to be its desire. In that regard, the City's growth policy and its transportation system, require reappraisal and monitoring in a continuing evaluation process. It is possible, after some experience, Newport Beach may wish to reconsider some of its policy decisions relative to community growth, development and transportation. A "grand plan" should not be followed if early experience serves as an indication that the plan, or some of its components, are not destined for success. I I -25- '11 Constraints to and Opportunities for Mobility and Interaction A. Effect of the Energy Crisis At the time of the writing of this report, acute evidence of a domestic (and perhaps worldwide) energy crisis is manifesting itself. Although it is not possible to predict the extent to which such an energy crisis will affect our daily lives, there seems to be a prevalent attitude that the price of gasoline will increase to levels estimated at 200 to 300 percent of today's. Should that occur, and it seems prudent that we at least consider the possibility, it is likely the very minimum effect will be a curtailing of personal mobility via the mode of the private automobile. Some elements of our socio-economic structure will find it impossible to pay a dollar per gallon for gasoline. The result of course would not only be a diminished use of the private automobile, but a substantial reduction in the number of automobiles themselves. Certainly, at such operational cost levels the number of two, three, and four -car families will be notably reduced. The economic and physical implications are profound; more and better streets and highways will probably not be needed.. Concurrently however, with the vastly reduced amount of gaso- line purchased, the Federal, State, and local gas tax collection will be materially reduced so the highway Users Trust Fund will have nowhere near the amount of funds it enjoys today. Thus, while fewer highway facilities might be needed, by the same token, less money will be available to build them. Clearly, since people will continue to desire and seek as much mobility as possible, the transportation burden must fall upon public transportation. The energy crisis then, particularly that of gasoline, may well be the catalyst to spur massive development of mass transit systems and highly efficient connector -feeder bus systems in every major metropolitan area in the world. -26- A good question then is: "What do we do now? , " since no one seems to be able to give assurance that an energy crisis, to the magnitude expressed, is really coming. The answer is, we must plan now for what we know now. That means, as undesirable as it may be to some planners, full provision for the private automobile, along with the promotion of a viable public transportation system which at the very minimum, offers the public some reasonable choice of transportation mode. The key of course will be to remain flexible, maintaining full cognizance of technological advance, energy availability, environmental constraints, and citizen desires. We must not overbuild one system in preference to another at this point. Rather, we must be ready to alter the course of our transportation system development to meet and match energy crises or such other automobile travel constraints as may be forthcoming. B. Role of the Automobile As previously stated, in today's planning for today's situation, we simply must recognize that the automobile must be provided for --not only in terms of its movement over and upon freeways, highways, and local streets, but in terms of its storage in properly designed and located parking facilities. In so doing, we are not merely recognizing the predominant mode of transportation, but what we honestly believe to be the one that is preferred by a vast majority of the traveling public. It would be naive to state that the automobile is not a major element in our daily life. Entire genera- tions of Americans have grown up in an automobile -dominated age where one of the primary goals in life is to enjoy the mobility, convenience, and status afforded by the ownership of one or more automobiles. We do not see that changing, unless of course such a change is forced by constraints on auto travel as discussed earlier in this chapter. Thus, recognition of the automobile as king, for the time being at least, is neither pessimistic nor optimistic, but simply realistic. We feel it to be the duty of the transportation planner to accommodate the desires and demands of the traveling public by providing adequate facilities for the preferred means of travel, while yet offering a reasonable choice of mode for those who may be ready to accept a change. -27- 11 C. Role of Transit Public transit unfortunately has suffered a serious decline in patronage, revenue, and general well-being ever since the close of World War II. The transit industry gives the reason for such a deterioration as American personal affluence which has created a domination by the luxury and con- venience of the private auto. The result was a downward spiral of transit patronage, revenue, service, etc. Critics of the transit industry however, point out that the industry has the cart before the horse. They charge that transit's indifferent attitude and strong profit motives led to almost complete avoidance of attempts to attract new riders through improved service and equipment. There is really no point in attempting to set the blame. As a matter of fact, the truth probably lies somewhere be- tween the two viewpoints. However, the transit industry does rightfully point out that the private automobile has headed the public spending policy for transportation, and that its emergent dominating role has been abetted by public subsidy to build freeways, arterial highways, local streets, parking lots, drive-in facilities, etc. Private business naturally has taken advantage with auto -oriented attractions such as drive -through banking establishments, drive-in theaters and restaurants, etc. Even the staunchest highway supporters would admit that there has been such a public subsidy, designed to serve and enhance facilities catering to the private automobile. They point out however that such subsidy has come from a Highway Users Trust Fund which has derived its financial resources directly from those who benefit; namely, the automobile owner and driver. They have no objection to transit doing the very same thing: "The automobile driver is supporting himself, so let the transit rider support himself. " There is some fallacy in such an argument however for it can be demonstrated that automobile users benefit from an efficient and well -patronized public transportation system, both from an economic standpoint and one of reduced traffic congestion and delay. Transit advocates argue quite properly, that if fewer people were in their auto- mobiles and more were on public transportation, there wouldn't be the need for so many automobile -oriented facilities and the subsidy could well 5T..E 11 l I be directed toward mass transit. Yet, without heavy automobile usage, the total available subsidies would be far less, and accorindgly, the pot to be divided much smaller. And so the argument continues. Meanwhile however, we are experiencing a rennaisance of public transit. Federal, State, and local governments are showing extreme interest in rebuilding public transportation to the point where it can be made the major element in providing needed relief and revitalization for the Nation's urban areas. Billions of dollars in Federal grant programs are being funneled into urban areas annually in order to foster new, or rebuild faltering public transportation systems so they may attract passengers from the adversary, the private automobile. And the plan seems to be working. Gradually, metropolitan areas that have seen their utilization of public transportation drop as low as one percent of the total daily person trips, are climbing a percentage point or two per year. Particularly encouraging is the fact that in several downtown areas, the usage of public transportation is creeping back toward the 25 to 30% figures enjoyed during the World War II transit -boom days. The key of course is competition, and the transit industry realizes that it must meet and beat its competitor, the private automobile. To do this, numerous innovative measures are being taken. New equipment is being purchased, much of it air-conditioned with deluxe comfort appurtenances including airplane type seats, stereo music, large windows, etc. Several areas have reduced fares to a flat 25fi for a transfer -free ride anywhere on the system. In Orange County it is possible to ride a modern transit coach over surface arterial streets from Laguna Beach to La Habra, a distance of about 40 miles, at a fare of 25�, in a time span of approxi- mately two hours. It is this kind of service endeavor that can gradually bring transit back into a competitive position so it can lure people out of their automobiles. As to the present however,, we are still faced with the problem of plan- ning now for the now situation. In that regard, the best we can do is -29- cater to the automobile, but without such rigidity that we cannot adapt to a gradual emerging revitalization of public transportation, together with the fiscal and physical means to bring it about. Function of Parking The function of parking is a further manifestation of the dominance of the private automobile in urban areas. Clearly, there is no point in providing highly efficient streets and highways for the private automobile if adequate facilities for its storage are not provided at both ends of the trip. In most cases, the urban auto trip starts at home, and on the return journey, ends at home. Rarely is there a problem in accommodating the automobile at the home location. At the other end of the trip however, which is most likely at an industrial, commercial, or other high activity location, the problem of automobile storage becomes profound and serious; profound because thousands of dollars must be spent and thou- sands of acres of valuable property utilized, simply to accommodate the parking needs of the auto -dominated transportation mode; serious be- cause in an economic sense, a public facility or a business endeavor cannot prosper without making provision for close -in, convenient, and reasonably priced parking. Clearly, adequate and convenient parking is a public demand which should be met. In that regard, parking demands, based on the amount of people activity and consequently motor vehicle trips, is quite predictable, at least in terms of the number of spaces required. As to cost however, those will vary from place to place depending upon the value of land, cost of improvements, and other economic factors. The most meaningful thing that can be said about the function and pro- vision of parking is that it is extremely responsive to the laws of supply and demand, and it is a positive requisite in any transportation scheme which is dominated by the private automobile. The tremendous challenge of providing enough parking, at proper location, would appear in itself to be enough to prompt a concerted effort to improve and enhance public -30- transit operations so as to snake the provision of numerous "close -in" parking spaces unnecessary. Specifics Applicable to Newport Beach A. Role of Public Transit Significant improvements have been made in bus transit service since authorization by the public of the Orange County Transit District in November 1970. New routes have been established and the frequency of service increased to approximately one-half hour intervals. Figure 7 shows the transit routes and coverage for Newport Beach and the sur- rounding area. Coverage is assumed to extend 1/4 mile on either side of a route. Although transit usage has substantially increased with the improved service, it is not likely that significant reductions in private vehicle usage will occur in the near future. However, investigations are now under way which could lead towards transit service attractive enough to have a significant impact on the reduction of automobile travel. The Orange County Transit District Alternative Corridor Study will select mass rapid transit corridors which will connect Orange County to sur- rounding areas, and at the same time provide a surface feeder bus system which will efficiently serve every section of the County. Of primary importance to the District is the development of a level of service neces- sary to effectively serve peak hour travel, and by doing so, give high quality service to all users of the system. The reduction of traffic con- gestion and air pollution is a significant by-product of such a system. Throughout this study, public transit methods were considered for moving people to and from the beach areas, thereby reducing the amount of auto- mobile travel and the demand for parking. An area where the consultant and the committee showed extreme interest is the Peninsula where serious traffic congestion exists. The traffic will increase as more intensive land uses and the beaches attract more people. A "park and ride" opera- tion could alleviate some of the traffic and parking congestion on the Peninsula, but certainly is not a panacea for solving the City's most serious traffic problems. -31- !)PISTOL g� at , LEGEND t LINE 53—SANTA ANA-BALBOA - VIA COSTA MESA LINE 57—SANTA ANA-LAGUNA i aty BEACH VIA COSTA MESA E x LINE 65—SOUTH COAST PLAZA- \sta fit. at. BALBOA VIA IRVINE W L iyIm O = W awe t A s if C - 6 COAST HWY. 94LgO� O .� t,Y4 PACIFIC { ; iiii' OCEAN FIGURE b. TRANSIT ROUTES AND COVERAGE i■! in """""""""""" ins " " " r I Serious consideration was given to a proposal for parking vehicles in the area north of Coast Highway and west of Newport Boulevard and providing tram service to the Peninsula. A strong incentive to use this service would be the lack of public parking available on the Peninsula, together with strict enforcement policies on the limited parking available. The following table shows how traffic and parking would be affected by such a plan. Estimated 1973 Beach Traffic = 16,400 ADT (2 Way) Vehicle Occupancy to Beach is 3.5 Persons/Vehicle Assumed % No. of Reduction in Park N' Ride People 2-Way ADT 10% of ADT 2,900 1,640 20% of ADT 5,700 3,280 3076 of ADT 8,600 4,920 40% 11,500 6,560 Acres of Vehicles to Parking Required be Parked at 350 sq.ft. /Veh. 820 6.6 1,640 13.2 2,460 19.8 3,280 26.3 These calculations are shown simply to provide a "yardstick" on the affect of possible Park N' Ride. For instance, if we assume 20% of the beach traffic will use Park N' Ride, that would amount to a reduction in ADT to the beach of 3, 280. About 13 acres of parking would be needed (if all cars were parked at the same time). In addition, it is estimated that 43 transit vehicles would be needed to carry the people and their beach gear. The above is based on a peak hour of 301/c of the 5700 beach users, traveling to the beach in 40 passenger buses. Park N' Ride fees would have to be reasonable and the public would have to be offered service and accommodations approaching that which they have with the private automobile. A successful operation would be bene- ficial to traffic and parking on the Peninsula, but not for the major arterials leading to the point of transfer from private vehicle to tram. Since most of the vehicles would arrive via Coast Highway and Newport Boulevard, the Park N' Ride operation would do little towards alleviating congestion on these major arterials. However, if Park N' Ride lots could be located -33- I further to the west, north and east, clear benefits to the arterial street system can be visualized. Such a project is of regional significance and should receive support from the surrounding communities, particularly in investigating potential parking sites and making them available. Earlier in this chapter evidence was cited of the growing national interest in, and support of, public transit. The consultant feels that the City of Newport Beach is extremely fortunate to be served by the Orange County Transit District (OCTD). The OCTD has already demonstrated a con- scientious and aggressive attitude toward providing high quality transit service for all of Orange County. Newport Beach has benefited from some of the OCTD's earliest service implementations, and of course, will benefit even more In the future. While the study implementation program of Chapter IV assumes predominant travel by the private auto, the significant potential of transit usage should not be overlooked. There are numerous factors at work over and above the offering of transit service which may take people out of their auto- mobiles and put them on buses. More obvious are the high cost of motor vehicle fuel, the unavailability of parking, and intolerable traffic conges- tion. Some of the more subtle reasons are a threat to public health which mandates that automobile pollution must be reduced, a real energy crisis in which automobile fuel simply would not be available, adverse environ- mental impact of thousands of automobiles in the streets and highways needed to accommodate them, and civic and publicly supported governmental policies (such as the Coastal Freeway ban, and the Coastal Environmental Protection Act),which legally limit the ability of a community to provide facilities for the automobile. If the above are considered to be negative influences in the sense that they may force people from their automobiles and into public transit , then there may also be some positive forces at work in the future. These could well come in the form of the inclusion of transit facilities in new road construction. These might include special bus lanes, special bus -34- U turnouts, and preplanned bus stop locations. Additionally, there is reason to believe that since there will be no freeway construction in the coastal corridor, pressures can certainly be brought to bear to create mass rapid transit development in the coastal corridor as a substitute for the former freeway. Of course, the above positive factors are not simply going to happen by themselves. Newport Beach, as well as other coastal communities must make themselves aware of the potential benefits associated with these positive transit factors, and accordingly make such awareness known at local County, State and Federal levels so that transit will not be forgotten as it has so often in the past. In summary, though the consultant wishes to make it clear that while he considers the traffic generation estimates of this project to be realistic, they are based on the consultants best estimate of travel mode habits that may be expected in the Newport Beach community. However, from the above paragraphs it can be gleaned that various factors are at work which may well change the travel habits of Newport Beach residents and visitors. If that were to be the case, the effect can only be a positive and beneficial one; in the sense that travel by private auto would be reduced, traffic flow might be considerably lower than estimated, fewer auto oriented facilities would be needed and fewer dollars spent. In view of the above, it is the consultant's recommendation that the imple- mentation program in Chapter IV of this report not be considered lightly nor frivolously, but certainly cautiously. As time goes on, and as individual elements of the program are implemented, there should be a constant vigilance for changing travel habits, and accordingly a changing need for traffic improvements. Such evaluation becomes particularly important on some of the more controversial elements of the implementation program. The consultant suggests a scheduled monitoring and reevaluation program be established within the City administration for the purpose of accomplishing the above. -35- I B. Land Use Densities As mentioned elsewhere in the report, future traffic generation for Newport Beach is based on various land use densities as contained in the General Plan for City development. However, land uses have a way of not always following anticipated plans, and of course when that happens there is a direct impact on the need for certain transportation facilities. As in the case cited in A above where it is suggested there may be a substantial switch from the auto mode to the transit mode, the results of lower land use density would also be beneficial in the sense that number of person trips would be reduced, regardless of whether those trips were made by the auto mode or the transit mode. The result would be beneficial in bath cases, and again would result in the need for fewer traffic improve - menu than is anticipated in this study. Under the monitoring and evaluation program suggested for the City administration in A above, we suggest this area of community develop- ment also receive close attention so that needed traffic improvements may bear their proper relationship to travel demands. C. Environmental Constraints It is evident that we are just entering an age of environmental awareness which is unprecedented in the United States. In literally thousands of communities, environmental impact of developments and improvements is being evaluated, and in many instances deemed to be of such magnitude that projects are forestalled, altered, or often abandoned completely. It is the opinion of the consultant that environmental awareness will, if anything, increase rather than decrease. This is particularly true in a community such as Newport Beach where the protection of the environ- ment has already in several instances manifested itself to prevent undesirable environmental impacts from occurring. -36- J 11 -1 I Protection of the environment as in A and B above can have profound implications insofar as the transportation system is concerned. In fact the coastal freeway ban in Newport Beach has already made such an impact. Others are likely to follow. Again, it is a factor to be considered in the communities ability or desire to implement recommendations contained in this report. It is not possible to predict just how far, or how intense environmental protection will become in the future. It seems safe to say however, that environmental protection definitely will have the affect of controlling or changing developmental patterns and accordingly the type of transportation facilities that may be needed in order to accommodate travel demands. In addition to A and B above, it is another factor which should be subject to constant monitoring and evaluation on the part of the City administration so that its impact may be properly related to the transportation facility building program. D. Technological Advances In determining its own implementation policy of the recommendations produced by this report, the City of Newport Beach should also consider the technological basis that may accrue to the transportation industry. Without question, freeway and highway design will continue to improve as it has over the years, and in addition, it is quite likely that technological advances in both transit vehicle and private vehicle design could have an impact on transportation habits. It is not possible to predict whether or not such technological advances will enhance or be detrimental to the attractiveness of travel by the private auto mode. As an example, there seems little question that a technological advance in the design of transit buses will occur by 1975 at the latest (by which time there will not have been a major technological advance in bus design for 15 years) that certainly should enhance the patronage potential of public transit. At the same time however, if we consider air pollution limits were constituted as a potential for ultimately constraining auto use, then we should also consider that air pollution reduction devices for automobiles will surely -37- solve or drastically reduce that problem in the next three or four years which in turn would be a plus for the private auto. Just how fast and how intense such technological advances may take place is another matter for constant monitoring and evaluation. Technological quality also has the ability to alter a communities travel habits and patterns, with its consequent potential impact for the need for a street improvement program. In summary for Newport Beach, we have planned now for what we know now. All persons reading this report should be cognizant that what hap- pens in the future may well influence the decision of the City as to the way they wish to proceed in solving the transportation problem. -38- I IV. IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM The preparation, testing evaluation, and adoption of a transportation plan for Newport Beach is only a starting point toward meeting the existing and future transportation needs of the City. Unless followed by effective actions, the effort expended in the preparation of the plan will be largely wasted. An implementation program must be developed and pursued to obtain the potential benefits of the adopted plan. The major elements of such a program are: construction priorities and costs, funding, land use regulations and legislative actions. These elements are discussed in the following sections. In reviewing and utilizing the information contained in this chapter, the scale of the study should be kept in mind. By 1990, the size and com- plexity of the area in terms of population and Land use does not allow the planner to be too concerned with such traffic devices as channelization and traffic signal timing. These are important problems, but in most cases are at too fine a level of detail for an analysis of this type. Like- wise, final locations and geometric designs are not possible at this level of study. Instead, a city-wide and regional planning scale has been followed, spelling out the dimensions of the main elements of regional networks of highways. Final locations of new routes require detailed study of real property, soil conditions, utilities, and intimate correlation with land use plans. Routes shown in this report which are not on existing alignments show general rather than exact locations. Final locations will be worked out only when it is feasible to acquire property or to begin construction. In short, the plan to be considered for adoption by the City of Newport Beach describes a full system or network as the base from which to work towards more detailed and exact locations. Project Descriptions and Costs In determining projects and their costs, it is of prime importance to remember that no matter how well a program is developed, little will -39- I be accomplished if public acceptance and support is not received. It is not usually very difficult to determine those improvements which will solve pure traffic problems and provide a good level of service. Often, however, the purely technical solution does not receive public support, and in some instances, it may not be possible to truly assess what may be acceptable at the time of implementation. The immediate or shorter range projects very often receive the most attention. Throughout the study the Citizens Committee was very aware of the probability of lack of support, or firm resistance, to particular projects. This by no means eliminated such projects from investigation, but stressed the need for alternatives which could be implemented in lieu of the "best" technical solution. The last section of this chapter contains schematics and details for all projects in the plan. For ease of reference, Table 4 - Project Descrip- tions and Costs, has been placed at the beginning of that section (page 50). In the development of the recommended program shown in Table 4, not all projects listed were the best technical solution to immediate or future problems, but the projects do represent a consensus of the Citizens Committee and the consultants recommendations. For those locations where the Citizens Committee expressed serious doubt that the technical solution would be publicly accepted, the Committee recommended the best solution which would likely receive community support. Those projects which the consultant recommended on a technical basis, but were not included in the implementation program due to lack of public support, are included at the end of this chapter. For purposes of reference, these projects are given the same number as the projects which are in the recommended program. The letter "Al' has been added to distinguish them from the recommended projects. Project Priorities Of immediate importance in implementing this plan are the questions of what to build first and what to build next. While there may be some agree- ment for the need of a large and accelerated program, much of the Mo construction is far in the future and may seem relatively unimportant in contrast to the real problem of what to build first or next. The problem of priorities is very important in directing the engineering and construc- Ition program towards efficient plan implementation. A variety of factors should be considered in assigning construction priori- ties. Available and committed financing is always a key factor. Availability of engineering studies, land use development programs, traffic needs, and system continuity must all be considered. In view of traffic needs, public interest, and investigative work already done, projects of most immediate need were not too difficult to classify. The further one tries to look into the future, the more difficult it becomes to assign meaningful priorities. Through coordination with the City Department of Public Works Director and his staff, the projects were classified into categories A, B, C, and D and are arranged in that way in Table 5. Classification A is the highest priority or most immediate concern, while classification D represents those projects not likely necessary for many years. No attempt has been made to further refine the priorities since actual order of construction will be af- fected by several factors such as available funds, timing of land develop- ment, coordination between projects, and ability of other entities such as the State to provide improvements. Therefore, while those projects classified A may be the most important, it may not be possible or practical to attain all of them ahead of some projects in classification B. Financing Resources The final question in evaluating the proposed transportation plan is financing - Can the capital investment required to obtain the economic and level of service improvements be afforded? There are no analytical techniques which can answer this question. It is a matter of policy which depends on how the community wishes to allocate total resources among many public services. The approach taken here is one of reviewing present and probable future allocations and determining whether this will result in sufficient funds to support the implementation program. -41- The City derives its revenues for street right-of-way purchase, design and construction from gas tax apportionment, County funds and federal funds. The total of these revenues will average approximately $10.30 per capita in 1974 and will provide approximately $620, 000. In 1990 with population estimated at 100, 000, the annual revenue will be $1, 030, 000 based on these same apportionments. The estimated annual available revenues from 1974 to 1990 for rights -of -way, design and construction are shown on Table 1. For the 17 year period from 1974 to 1990, the average annual revenue is about $770, 000. Financially Attainable Program It would be quite coincidental if the available revenue for street construc- tion matched the needs. Historically there have seldom been areas where the needed program could be attained when desired. Sufficient funding is usually not available and the program lags. The main alternatives in such cases are to reduce the size of the program, obtain additional revenues, or a combination of these two things. If the decision is to continue road construction at the present level of funding, then priorities become even more important, and the program must stretch out beyond the usual accepted 20-year planning span. It is a possibility, of course, that the entire road network being presented for the General Plan considera- tion may not be needed in 20 years. Table 2 is a summary of estimated costs by priority classification and anticipated funding responsibility. Since it is not known to what extent the City may participate in projects involving State highways, an estimate of 2076 of costs to the City was made for those projects where there may likely be City participation. Table 2 shows that the total costs for priority classifications A through D are $27, 710, 000 for Newport Beach, $26, 000, 000 for the State, and $13, 860, 000 for other entities such as the County, other cities and private developers, for a total of $67,570,000. From Table 1 we have seen that the estimated average annual City revenue available for rights -of -way, design and construction is about $770, 000 based on a 17-year projection. This is far short of being able to finance -42- TABLE 1 ESTIMATED CITY REVENUES FOR RIGHTS OF WAY, DESIGN, AND CONSTRUCTION Estimated City Gas Tax Revenues By Year, $1, 000's* 1974 $ 620 1975 640 1976 670 1977 700 1978 720 1979 750 1980 770 1981 800 1982 830 1983 850 1984 880 1985' 900 1986 930 1987 950 1988 980 1989 1,000 1990 1,030 Total $ 13, 120 Average for 17 Years = $770, 000 *Based on population increasing from 60, 000 to 100, 000 and present level of funding which includes: City Gas Tax Funds $ 5.00 per capita County A.H.F.P. Funds 3.00 per capita County Bridge Funds 0.30 per capita F.A.U. Funds 2.00 per capita Total $10.30 -43- TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COSTS OF RIGHTS OF WAY, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION Division of Costs, $1, 0001s Priority Classification Newport Beach State Other Entities Totals (1) A $ 4,830 $ 7,990 $ 4,840 $ 17,660 B 6,760 16,670 3,130 26,560 C 4,190 1,340 2,040 7,570 D 11-, 930 0 3,850 15,780 Totals $ 27,710 $ 26,000 $ 13,860 $ 67,570 i ("Assumes 207* City participation in two State projects on Coast Highway: Dover Drive interchange, and ,rp Newport Boulevard to Santa Ana River. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TABLE 3 ESTIMATED AVERAGE ANNUAL EXPENDITURES NEEDED, $1, 000's Length of Program, Years Newport Beach State Other Entities Totals 20 $ 1,380 $ 1,300 $ 690 $ 3,370 25 1,110 1,040 550 2,700 30 920 870 460 2,250 I 11 II I II II a 20-year implementation plan. Table 3 shows an average annual expendi- ture of $1, 380, 000 is necessary for a 20-year plan. A 30-year program will require $150,000 more per year than is projected as being available. City revenues available for rights -of -way, design, and construction are based on per capita, with anticipated population being 100, 000 by 1990. Other sources of revenue could be considered to increase annual revenues available for roads. However, there is a current trend towards diverting funds to other uses previously designated for road purposes. Rather than assume additional funds may be available for road purposes, it was assumed funding will remain constant on a per capita basis. This is certainly not an optimistic approach, but may prove to be the most realistic. Further, the present methods of funding are not geared to keep pace with inflationary construction costs, and without some changes in these methods, the program could be substantially underfunded. With an anticipated shortage of road funds, a way of approaching this matter is to consider only those projects which are in priority classification "A", and treat them as immediate and short range, say a total construction per- iod of five years. The City portion of these projects is $4, 830, 000. Table 1 shows the estimated available revenues for the first five years (1974-1978) is $3, 350, 000, which means there is a City shortage of $1, 480, 000 for the first five-year increment. Assuming no additional funds are available, the question to be answered is, "What can be eliminated from the five-year pro- gram to reduce expenditures by $1, 480, 000? " A review of Priority A pro- Jects in Table 4 shows this is a most difficult question to answer. It was stated in Table 2 that 205c of Coast Highway -Dover Drive -Upper Bay Bridge costs were assigned to the City, which amounts to $1, 300, 000. If that amount was eliminated as City participation, or at least substantially re- duced, the "A" projects would more closely fit into a five-year plan. The improvements recommended for Coast Highway across Upper Bay (new bridge replacing existing) and at Dover Drive will provide a reasonable level of traffic service for many years. This is why projects 33 and 34, which provide for a second Upper Bay crossing connecting with Westcliff Drive on the west and Bayside Drive on the east, have been placed in -45- Priority D classification. It must be noted that the costs of projects 33 and 34 are estimated at $8, 640, 000 which amounts to 307c of the estimated total City program costs of $27, 710, 000. The importance of including a second route across Upper Bay in the long range plan should not be over- looked. It provides a link to the easterly side of the Bay without having to travel on Coast Highway. However, the cost does tend to distort the annual expenditures for the program. If this Upper Bay project was separated from the program, estimated costs for the City of Newport Beach would be re- duced to $19, 250, 000. This would reduce City annual expenditures from $1, 380, 000 to $960, 000 for a 20-year program. This is still considerably in excess of the estimated available annual average of $770, 000. However, for a 25-year program the average annual expenditure would be $770, 000, which by coincidence matches the estimated average annual revenue. So far nothing has been said about the ability of the State or other entities to finance the construction program. Other entities include other cities and private development, and the total costs are substantially less. Costs to private development usually come in right-of-way dedication and street construction adjacent to property being developed, which means the improvements precede or closely follow the needs. Other cities finance road improvements in much the same way as Newport Beach. An example of an "Other Cities" project is the construction of Del Mar Avenue from Newport Freeway to Tustin Avenue, which is Project 30 under Priority Classification A, with an estimated cost of $2, 330, 000. This project is in the City of Costa Mesa. It was included in the program to emphasize its importance in complementing the University Drive project through providing a good continuous route. Table 2 shows the estimated State costs for priority classification A projects total $ 7, 990, 000. If we again assume a five year program, this amounts to an average annual expenditure of•$1, 600, 000. Whether the State can budget these amounts will depend on statewide funding levels and priorities. The replacement of the existing upper Bay Bridge on Coast Highway, and improvements at Coast Highway and Dover Drive should be of such importance to rank in the State's top priority projects. -46- t t In summary, assuming the entire road system will or should be built in t 20 years, there are not sufficient revenues under present City road funding practices to implement all projects within a 20-year span. From tthe current trends in road funding, additional funds cannot be expected. Some projects will have to be delayed, and priorities frequently updated tto ensure that the most essential projects receive first consideration. tLand Use Regulations The alternate transportation plans were developed to serve a specific existing and proposed land use. If actual land development in the future departs significantly from the planned pattern, many of the projected benefits of the highway construction program may be lost. This is true both in terms of achieving overall higher levels of traffic service as well as coordinating land development and highway construction. It is not only a serious consideration within Newport Beach, but also in the ad- jacent communities which have a substantial effect on traffic in Newport Beach. It must also be remembered that Newport Beach can have a substantial effect on traffic in surrounding jurisdictions. Advanced Right -of -Way Purchase Not too many years ago a familiar saying was, "No one wants a highway on his property, just near it. " Today the saying must be modified for those who don't want a highway anywhere near their property, or for that matter anywhere at all. However, property must have access and people must be provided good transportation facilities. Few people are enthusi- astic about selling their property at someone else's recommendation even though being compensated for the property including financial assistance for residential or business relocation. There are natural and immediate reactions as people and businesses are required to move and readjust. These disruptions and shifts of people and businesses can be minimized through good planning. ,— There are many ways in which the process can be improved, a most important one being advance designation and purchase of rights -of -way. -47- n It is possible to work out final locations of routes and to plan future land developments around these commitments. Designation of future locations allows consolidation of local land planning and zoning. In fast growing areas land development and transportation facilities can proceed together. Definite commitments enable the adjustment of people and land uses to a revised highway system. To make this process of advance designation of specific rights -of -way both fair and effective, the responsible agencies should have funds for buying the required property in advance. Zoning and other legal means can control land development, but cannot reserve land for ultimate highway purchase thereby preventing building on the land. The most practical way of making advance transportation location designations is to purchase right-of-way as far in advance of construction as is consistent with the public interest. Access Control Transportation facilities in recent years have usually been built with either full control or no control of access. Often this all or none situa- tion prevents agencies charged with transportation from responding in an effective manner. While full control of access around a freeway is important, the arterial street or highway is the backbone of the City in terms of land development and traffic service, and some access control should be considered. Urban arterials should primarily serve traffic, and direct property access should be minimum. The arterials should provide direct access to the collector street system and large traffic generators. To plan and con- struct such facilities and ensure their future usefulness, selective control of access is required. Without it, the area may be left with no arterial type traffic service, and there may not be opportunity for providing future arterial facilities. -48- U I Project Schematics and Details At the beginning of this chapter, the format of Table 4 was briefly de- scribed. Table 4 contains all the projects necessary to complete the recommended plan for Newport Beach. The projects are arranged in order of priority from A through D. As explained earlier in this chapter, the projects were not ranked in an exact order of priority, but rather in general order of priority. The project numbers, are used to identify the projects and locations, and have no relation to the project priorities. The costs are allocated to the various jurisdictions as nearly as practical at this planning stage. The remainder of this section which follows Table 4 provides schematics for all the projects and provides a brief description for each project. The schematics are arranged in numerical order, and are labeled with their number and priority. -49- I TABLE 4 NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC STUDY PHASE III COMPOSITE PLAN PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS AND COSTS Key to Table (1) F = Freeway 8 lanes (2) N = New Construction M = Major 6lanes W = Widen P = Primary 4lanes M = Modification S = Secondary 4 lanes B = Bridge (3) Right of way costs include 25% increase in estimated property costs for acquisition and costs of relocation assistance. Construction costs include 207c for contingencies Costs, $1, 000's (3) i. w y o o o Right of Construc- N O. z Project Name and Limits Gi U U z Way tion Total A 5 Coast Highway Upper Bay Bridge & M B 1,230 5, 270 6,500 Dover Drive Interchange A 6 Coast Highway from Jamboree Road M W 870 280 1,150 to Upper Bay Bridge A 8 Coast Highway from MacArthur Blvd. P M 40 40 through Corona del Mar 0 A 7 Coast Highway from MacArthur Blvd. M W 1,100 Soo 1,600 to Jamboree Road A 28 University Drive from Tustin Avenue P N 2,870 1,500 4,370 to Corona del Mar Freeway A 29 University Drive Bridge P B 500 500 A 30 Del Mar Avenue from Newport P W 1,430 900 2,330 Freeway to Tustin Avenue A 14 Dover Drive from Westcliff Drive P W 160 290 450 to Coast Highway A 24 San Joaquin Hills Road from M W 300 300 MacArthur Blvd. to Marguerite Ave. A 27 Ford Road from MacArthur Blvd. to P W 420 420 Jamboree Road Costs by Jurisdiction. $1, 000'_s Newport Other Beach Cities State Other Cost Division to be made in Final Planning Stage 1,150 40 1,600 2,070 500 2,330 450 300 210 2,300 210 M M M M OEM M M M r M �W PW fn fm TABLE 4 (Continued) y , S Costs, $1, 000's (3) Costs by Jurisdiction, $1, 000's 'y, Q ti o A o o Right of Construc- Newport Other a, 014 Project Name and Limits 01 U U 1 Way tion Total Beach Cities State Other B 4 Coast Highway from Dover Drive to P M 40 40 40 Newport Boulevard B 3 Coast Highway -Newport Boulevard M N 1,170 380 1,550 1,550 Interchange B 1 Coast Highway from Newport Blvd. M N 4,260 10,140 14,400 to Santa Ana River Cost Division to be made in Final Planning Stage B 2 Interchange at Newport Freeway Ext. M N 1,500 1,500 B 9 Superior Avenue from Coast Highway P M&N 1,690 740 2,430 1,210 1,220 to to Newport Boulevard B 17 Jamboree Road from Coast Highway M W 340 340 170 170 to San Joaquin Hills Road B 18 Jamboree Road from San Joaquin M W 190 190 100 90 Hills Road to Ford Road B 19 Jamboree Road from Ford Road to M W 190 190 90 100 Bison Avenue B 20 Jamboree Road from Bison Avenue to M W&B 1,000 1,000 800 200 Corona del Mar Freeway B 31 Avocado -New MacArthur from Coast P N&W 700 600 1,300 300 1,000 Highway to San Joaquin Hills Road B 32 New MacArthur from San Joaquin P N&W 290 410 700 350 350 Hills Road to Ford Road B 35 Newport Boulevard from Coast Hwy M W&B 1,800 1,120 2, 920 560 2,360 to 30th Street C 21 State Route 73 from Coast Highway M W 130 280 410 410 to San Joaquin Hills Road Project Name and Limits TABLE 4 (Continued) u N • `-m i `- Costs, $1, 000's (3) a 0000 Right of Construc- a: U U T, Way tion Total C 22 State Route 73 from San Joaquin Hills M W 200 Road to Ford Road C 23 State Route 73 from Ford Road to M W 100 Bison Avenue C 25 San Joaquin Hills Road from M W Marguerite Ave. to Spy Glass Hills Rd C 26 Bison Avenue from MacArthur M N&W 240 to Boulevard to Jamboree Road N C 10 15th Street from Superior Avenue P N&W 2,770 to Coast Highway C 36 Balboa Boulevard from 33rd to 44th P W 1,500 D 11 17th Street from Newport Freeway P N 2,140 to Orange Avenue D 12 17th Street from Orange Avenue P W 11150 to Irvine Avenue D 13 Westcliff Drive from Irvine P W 1,000 Avenue to Dover Drive D 15 Dover Drive from Westcliff Drive P M&B to Irvine Avenue D 16 Irvine Avenue from 15th Street to P W 1,200 Cliff Drive D 33 Back Bay Drive—Westcliff Ext. from S N&W 3,450 San Joaquin Hills Rd. to Dover Dr, D 34 Upper Bay Bridge S B 420 620 2I0 310 140 140 260 500 820 3,690 500 2,000 290 2,430 270 1,420 200 1,200 800 800 270 1,470 1,550 5.000 3,460 3,460 Costs by Jurisdiction, $1, 00018 Newport Other Beach Cities State Other 140 250 1,850 2,000 1,200 800 1,470 5,000 3,460 2,430 1,420 620 310 1,840 r � a# is RIVERSIDE OR.I LTUHTIN AVE. 3)B 4 B E 4 ?J�C°,4,9r 4 B ■ ■ M Proposed Projects • Interchange FIGURE 7. pO Project Number A Indicates Priority A{ 6 A 0p 4 0� 0 400' 800' 1200, I".soo' " -53- O M 6 A p err*°OASTrrr■ r►���rr COASr ' low■ A \ C SANTENELLA TER •■�loA ■yWY I fit• ■ f�� e }� h f A COAST 8 COYRTLANO ■■ rrMEN ■rrrii ■rrrrINr ORIYS } y� �4 HAY►Y[N R0, 88 o LEGEND ■■■Proposed Projects pO Project Number • Interchange A Indicates Prtorkr 0 4od 800' 120d FIGURE S. -54- MATGN LINE 7� V PV. o� s a�O B to. . REAL/ONED • COAST NWY.I 000, NWT. BALBOA &�O I■ O M Proposed Projects . Interchange ST. 'H I ST. -PROPOSED / REALIGNMENT OF /TTN ST. lb . r :O a� COMMEI y9 WAY 'POSS/ALE' FREEWAY . AL/GNMENT s 1p • INDUST /NT£ACNANRE WAY pO Project Number A indicates Priority FIGURE 9• -55- ISTH ST. t 40W Soo' mw 1"•eoo' ■NEProposed Projects • Interchange FIGURE 10. QO Project Number A indicates Prierity t q 4W Soo' Imo' i saw -56- Ausmm r ST. t t� D 1w, t2 D of s 17TN MIN; WESTCLIFF �:�■ MINE; ■EN'0 W _ 7D 13 D ■NEProposed Projects O Project Number • Interchange A Iadicates Priority FIGURE 11. Q 400' Boo' @00' 1.Saw -57- ■ ■ M Proposed Projects 0 Interchange FIGURE 12. pO Project Number A Indicter Priority i MArcH UNE Q� 400' goo' 1200' 1. Apo' .58- I I J J L I I I d II IL II It MATCH L INC A HILLS R0. •' � ! 0190N AV J� J,J ' ■ ! ■ SpH ■ ■ ■ z■ 19 B ■ cis it ■ ■ ■ 1 ■ ■ ri ■ t � ■ 17 B ! FORQ . � t W if we ■ O ■ 07 a■ w■ 18 B Ca ■ w . H,Hy. ■ ■ t OOpS 1 MATCN L /NE A MOMProposed Projects pO Project Number • Interchange A Indicates Priority FIGURE IS. ■ oAMpNOq s> Q 400' Soo' 12OW WON" I"•So0' �1 a -59- � IlA• !M CO � . 21 �� � r'� mC�•. J � � 6I10M W ■� f i G Q it b w C 22 Jim' � ■ � N �C M� 23 C ■ ■ all o • °°T4TM7; ♦■ f ♦ ���♦ �0. LEGEND ■EMProposed Projects p� Project Number • Interchange Lriicates Priority o 40W 600' 1200' FIGURE 14. M. i ■OMProposed Projects • Interchainge FIGURE 15. Op Project Number A Indicates Priority Q 400' Soo' 1200, i".aoo' -61- ■ ■ ■ Proposed Projects O Project Number • Interchange A IiWicatos Priority FIGURE 16. -62- p +oc' wo' aoo' UNIVERSITY MOMME� ■ ■ M Proposed Projects • Interchange ay DR. FLOOD CavrRx CHANNEL . �o�• 28 A 29 pO Project Number A Indicates Priority FIGURE 17. -63- o Soo' Boo' 120V O.Bod Y s W DEL li MAR ■■N mom M ■ ■ Proposed Projects • Interchange ON ■■ ■■■ ■ f 30 A JProject Number A In&cater Priority 0 400' $00' Ix00' FIGURE 18. -64- r So W i W!lTCLI�� - f 33 D ■ ■ ■ Proposed Projects • Interchange Up Project Number A Wicates Pri*vUy ■ON NAn7/ EXISTINO CONNECTION TO JAMONE Q W $00' 1200, I* FIGURE 20. -66- MEMProposed Projects QO Project Number • Interchange A Indicates Priority p 400' Boo' 1200' 1".800' FIGURE 21. -67- I I Project 1 & 2 Descriptions , Projects 1 and 2 provide a new alignment for Coast Highway between the Santa Ana River and Newport Boulevard. The new route swings inland around Newport Shores and interchanges with a route which , connects to the Newport Freeway alignment. The existing Coast Highway becomes a Cul-de-Sac on both sides of the Santa Ana River, and reverts to a local access street. The new alignment is planned in such a way to accommodate a future marina with ocean access. The roadway will generally provide good traffic service, and pro- W' vide a good east -west alternative to the existing Coast Highway. Separate facilities for bicyclists, pedestrians and future transit J will be provided. The "barrier" effect of the present Coast Highway paralleling the beach will be eliminated, and it's possible some of the existing road right -of -Way could revert back to private interests. The estimated cost of the project is $15, 900, 000, of which $4, 260, 000 is for right-of-way. These costs include a bridge across the Santa Ana River, a bridge in the vicinity northerly of Newport Shores which would provide for development of a marina without being disrupted by the roadway, and an interchange with the road exten- sion from Newport Freeway. The division of costs would be made r, in the final planning stages. Project 3 Description WI This project provides for the construction of a new interchange on Coast Highway at Newport Boulevard. No specific geometrics are suggested other than a single structure for the interchange. Pro- visions for bicyclists, pedestrians and transit are contemplated both on Coast Highway and Newport Boulevard, with eight lanes on ' both routes. The estimated cost is $1, 550, 000, which is State W responsibility. , W _.1 -68- -.6' I I I I I - Project 4 Description This project provides for parking prohibitions at selected hours on Coast Highway from Dover Drive to Newport Boulevard to gain additional street capacity. The estimated cost of implementing this part-time parking prohibition is $40, 000. Full-time prohibition of parking will require off-street parking spaces be provided to replace lost on -street spaces. Estimates show the cost of develop- ing off-street parking in this area may vary from $5, 000 to $8, 000 per space. There are approximately 225 on -street spaces in this area, which means the cost of replacing these spaces could run as high as $1, 800, 000. Some capacity deficiency is expected, but this will essentially be eliminated as the alternate east -west route is provided with the second crossing of Upper Bay described under Projects 33 and 34. Project 5 Description This project includes the construction of a bridge on Coast Highway across the Bay to replace the existing bridge which is not only deficient in capacity, but is becoming structurally deficient. The bridge of relatively low profile would permit most trailerable vessels to pass under. After crossing the Bay, the structure would continue westerly, providing an interchange with Dover Drive, and dropping back down to the grade of existing Coast Highway west of Dover Drive. Provisions are planned for bicyclists, pedestrians and transit. The plan includes widening of Dover Drive to provide two right turning lanes from Coast Highway to Dover Drive. The bridge would essentially be eight lanes, six lanes of which would provide for relatively free flow of traffic, the additional width being for the other facilities. No traffic deficiency is projected with this design. The total estimated cost is $6, 500, 000, with jurisdictional cost division to be made in the final planning stage. These improvements would eliminate what is considered to be the most heavily congested section in the City of Newport Beach. I- Project 6 Description This improvement provides for widening Coast Highway to six lanes from Jamboree Road to the proposed Upper Bay Bridge replace- ment. The intersection at Jamboree Road would continue to be operated with signalization, with a new signal being constructed on Coast Highway at Bayside Drive. Future capacity deficiencies can be expected to occur at these intersections, but can be delayed through the continued use of access controls. It is important this project be implemented with Project 5 to utilize the improvements which the new Upper Bay Bridge will provide. The estimated cost is $1, 150, 000 with funding being State responsibility. As traffic volumes continue to increase, the need for a second Bay crossing will become very apparent. This second route across the Bay is described under Projects 33 and 34. Project 7 Description Project 7 is the widening of Coast Highway to six lanes from Mac- Arthur Boulevard to Jamboree Road. As with Project 6, it has Priority Classification A. Pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities are part of the construction. Major turning movements would be made at signalized intersections. While some deficiency in capacity is expected in the long range plan, this section should operate quite well. The estimated cost is $1, 600, 000. It is anticipated that all or most of this cost would be State responsibility. An alternate proposal which could significantly affect the intersection operations at State Route 73 and Coast Highway is described at the end of this chapter under project 21-A. I I I J 0 I Project 8 Description Project 8 on Coast Highway from MacArthur Boulevard through Corona del Mar provides for parking prohibitions on Coast Highway at selected hours to obtain street capacity. The estimated cost of implementing this parking prohibition is $40, 000. Full-time parking prohibition, if implemented, will require provision of off-street parking spaces to replace the on -street spaces. The cost of developing off-street parking may vary from $5, 000 to $8, 000 per space for the approximately 250 spaces to be replaced. Traffic deficiencies on this section will be substantially reduced with the construction of the major road network to the north and east, particularly the Corona del Mar Freeway and San Joaquin Hills Road, and connecting north -south roads such as Canyon Crest Drive. Project 9 Description This project is essentially widening Superior Avenue on the exist- ing alignment to four -lanes divided. A short new section would be constructed on the southerly end to connect as a tee intersection with Coast Highway. With Coast Highway relocated northerly of its present alignment, the increased elevation of Coast Highway would enable good alignment and grade to be maintained on Superior Avenue. The estimated cost of this project is $2,430,000, half of which is the responsibility of Newport Beach, the other half being the responsibility of property owners. No traffic capacity defi- ciencies are projected. -71- I- Project 10 Description This is a partially new road which is on the present General Plan of Arterial Highways. It involves the widening of existing 15th Street to four -lanes divided from Superior Avenue easterly, con- tinuing on with new construction crossing and intersecting with the proposed relocated Coast Highway, then turning southerly and con- necting as a tee intersection with existing Coast Highway. This road- way provides a good alternate for the south part of Superior Avenue. The estimated cost is $3, 590, 000, half of which is estimated as the City's share. Of the total cost, $2, 770, 000 is estimated for right-of-way. Projects 11 & 12 Descriptions This is a new section of 17th Street in the City of Costa Mesa which would connect with Newport Freeway on the west and extend to Orange Avenue on the east, then widening of the existing 17th Street to match the new four -lane divided section. The projects are in Priority D classification, which means towards the end of the program. The projects are meant to complement any new east -west route across Upper Bay in Newport Beach. Estimated cost to the City of Costa Mesa is $3, 850, 000. Project 13 Description This is the widening of Westcliff Drive to a primary roadway be- ginning where the name 17th Street terminates (Irvine Avenue) and ending at Dover Drive, It is another segment in the development of the east -west route in this area. The extent of capacity deficiencies which will occur along this route will be dependent on the timing and extent to which other routes are improved. With a new connectign across Upper Bay to Bayside Drive and on to San Joaquin Hills Road (Projects 33 & 34), the section will provide an alternate route for Coast Highway. Estimated cost to the City of Newport Beach is $1, 200, 000. -72- A Q t t t t I L L L I Project 14 Description This is a Priority A project providing for the widening of Dover Drive from Westcliff Drive to Coast Highway. This project on the existing General Plan route will improve this section to full primary roadway status and complement the improvements being made at Dover Drive and Coast Highway. Long range traffic capacity deficiencies are forecast only if a second Upper Bay crossing is not constructed. The estimated cost of the Dover Drive improve- ments is $450, 000. Project 15 Description This is an improvement to Dover Drive between Westcliff Drive and Irvine Avenue. It involves leaving the existing section as is for one-way traffic southbound and .developing the roadway to the east of the drainage channel as one-way northbound. Box culverts would be used to cross the channel in two locations. The estimated cost to the City of Newport Beach for this Priority D project is $800,000. Project 16 Description This is the section of Irvine Avenue to be widened to four lanes from 15th Street to Cliff Drive. It is the only .section of Irvine Avenue left in the City which is not four lanes. Because of its location and relatively low existing and projected traffic volumes, it is in Priority D. No traffic deficiency is projected. The estimated cost is $1, 470, 000, of which $1, 200, 000 is for right - of -way. U -73- Project 17 Description Project 17 is the widening of Jamboree Road to six lanes (Priority B) from Coast Highway to San Joaquin Hills Road. All the right- of-way for widening this General Plan route is available. The construction cost is $340, 000, of which half is city responsibility, and half anticipated as the responsibility of property to be developed. Although Jamboree Road is a very important route now, its im- portance will increase as Upper Bay develops and Backbay Drive- Bayside Drive form a continuous route around the southern part of the Bay, connecting to a second Upper Bay crossing (projects 33 & 34). No capacity deficiency is projected for Jamboree Road providing traffic on MacArthur and Jamboree splits evenly. Projects 18, 19 and 20 Descriptions These projects involve the same type of widening on Jamboree Road as Project 17. The sections are from San Joaquin Hills Road to Ford Road, Ford Road to Bison Avenue and Bison Avenue to the Corona del Mar Freeway. Construction costs (no right-of-way needed) are $190, 000, $190, 000 and $1, 000, 000 respectively. Of the $1, 000, 000 for the section from Bison Avenue to the Corona del Mar Freeway $570, 000 is for a bridge across San Diego Creek. All these projects are in Priority B classification. These projects will make Jamboree six lanes for its entire length. -74- J I I I A 1_1 0 t It Project 21 Description This *section of State Route 73, (Old MacArthur Boulevard) from Coast Highway to San Joaquin Hills Road is very important. Project 21 is a widening of the section to six lanes at a cost of $410, 000 (State responsibility) of which $130, 000 is for right-of- way. In the interim period before a good alternate route is developed downcoast, such as the Corona del Mar Freeway or some facility to take its place, MacArthur will continue to carry much of the through traffic. This traffic either comes from or goes to downcoast via Coast Highway. An alternate proposal for this section of State Route 73 is described at the end of this chapter under Project 21-A. Projects 22 & 23 Descriptions This is a continuation of the widening of Route 73 to six lanes from San Joaquin Hills Road to Bison Avenue. Since there is no access to this section of Route 73, and it is assumed there will be no access in the future, traffic is now and will be free flowing. No capacity deficiencies are projected for these sections unless a good alternate route downcoast, such as the Corona del Mar Freeway, fails to develop. The estimated cost for this State widening is $620, 000 for Project 22 and $310,000 for Project 23. 11 Projects 24 & 25 Descriptions These projects represent the widening of San Joaquin Hills Road from State Route 73 to Spy Glass Hills Road to the full six -lane General Plan width. Project 24 extending to Marguerite Avenue is estimated to cost $300, 000 (Priority B) and Project 25 $140, 000 (Priority C). All the necessary right-of-way is avail- able for both projects. Further extension to the east will depend on how and when the area develops. -75- I11 Pr4lect 26 Description This is a short section of Bison Avenue being developed as a major road connector between two other major roads, Jamboree and MacArthur. This route will provide an important circulation element in the system when the Corona del Mar Freeway is con- structed. Estimated cost is $240, 000 for right-of-way and $260, 000 for construction, the costs being apportioned equally between the City, and others. Project 27 Description This project involves the upgrading of Ford Road to the General Plan primary status between Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard. Its importance is emphasized by being in Priority .A classification. All the necessary right-of-way is available. Construction costs are estimated at $420, 000, half of which is the responsibility of the City. Projects 28 & 29 Descriptions Project 28 is the construction of University Drive from Tustin Avenue to the Corona del Mar Freeway to link with the section of University Drive east of State Route 73 in the City of Irvine. Project 29 is the bridge which must be constructed across the flood control channel. This new roadway is very important in the system since it will provide the major road link around the end of Upper Bay. Because of its importance, some capacity deficiency could develop, particularly if construction on the Corona del Mar Freeway is substantially delayed. The esti- mated cost of these Priority A projects is $4, 370, 000 for the roadway and $500, 000 for the bridge. -76- 11 Project 30 Description This is the continuation of University Drive, actually called Del Mar Avenue, within the City of Costa Mesa between Tustin Avenue and Newport Freeway. The project is intended to complement the City of Newport Beach projects on University Avenue by completing the through route to major, road standards. The estimated cost to the City of Costa Mesa is $2, 330, 000. Project 31 Description This is the proposed new General Plan primary roadway, Avocado Avenue, from Coast Highway to San Joaquin Hills Road. The estimated cost is $1, 300, 000. An alternative to this project is Project 21-A, the one-way couplet plan for Avocado -MacArthur. Regardless of the alternative implemented, Avocado Avenue has a relatively high priority and will provide an important link in the system. Project 32 Description This is a continuation of Project 31 along New MacArthur from San Joaquin Hills Road to Ford Road. It involves some new road construction and some widening. The estimated cost is $700, 000, half of which is City responsibility. -77- Projects 33 & 34 Descriptions These projects provide for a second crossing over Upper Newport Bay. A new four -lane divided roadway would begin on the Westcliff Drive alignment at Dover Drive, cross the Bay and continue on to the Bayside Drive alignment. The roadway would then curve around the Bay, connecting back with Jamboree Road at San Joaquin Hills Road. This is a very long range project (Priority D), but it was recognized that recommendations of the General Plan Circulation Element would not be complete without some provision for a second Bay crossing. Many proposals were made, but this particular align- ment offered acceptable traffic service, with the least disruption of existing and future facilities. The estimated cost of road construction (Project 33) is $5, 000, 000, and $3, 460, 000 for the bridge (Project 34). Project 35 Description This is a Priority B widening project on Newport Boulevard from Coast Highway to 30th Street. A complete six -lane divided roadway would be provided with a new bridge across the channel which would replace the existing bridge. The State has responsibility for the project from Coast Highway to Finley Avenue, including the bridge, for an estimated cost to the State of $2, 360, 000. The estimated cost to Newport Beach is $560, 000. It is expected that some capacity deficiency can still be expected. However, the improvements will significantly help the traffic flow. Project 36 Description This project is the widening of Balboa Boulevard to primary status from 33rd Street to 44th Street. Traffic circulation will be sub- stantially improved and no capacity deficiency is projected. The estimated cost for this Priority C project is $2, 000, 000. -78- I t 11 Alternate Project Descriptions The following projects are alternates only in the sense that they were considered as being good technical polutions for specific road segments. These projects were recorrunendations of the consultant, as were many of the projects which are now included in the implementation program. They were given •very serious consideration, but were eliminated as part of the recommended plan after final evaluation. The costs and lack of public support were the main reasons for the projects being eliminated. For purposes of identification, the numbers of these projects have the same number as the recommended project in the implementation program, and are given the letter A to denote alternate. The project descriptions are followed by the schematics for the proposals. Projects 1-A & 2-A Description -- This proposal was for widening of the present four -lane Coast Highway to six lanes from Newport Boulevard to the Santa Ana River. A new three lane one-way bridge would be con- structed for westbound traffic, with the existing bridge serving three lanes eastbound. Both bridges would provide for pedestrians, and bicycles, with sufficient, room for a future transit lane. A section of Coast Highway between Newport Boulevard and Balboa Boulevard would be realigned to the north so that grades could be attained to accommodate an interchange at Balboa Boulevard, as well as a grade intersection with Superior Avenue. The estimated cost of right-of-way is $2, 070, 000 and $1, 520, 000 for construction, with the State having primary funding respon- sibility. Under this proposal, Balboa Boulevard extension from Coast Highway to 16th Street would also be included (Project 1 would relocate Coast Highway on this alignment) with an estimated cost of $2, 130, 000. Project 4-A Description -- This proposal covers the segment of Coast Highway from Newport Boulevard to Dover Drive. A one-way couplet would extend from Newport Boulevard to Rocky Point (generally the area known as Mariner's Mile). The existing highway would become one-way eastbound, with a three -lane roadway constructed to the north for west- bound traffic. Sufficient right-of-way is available on existing Coast -79- U Highway to develop separate bicycle facilities. The segment of Coast Highway between Rocky Point and Dover Drive has few intersections and little side friction; therefore this segment could attain sufficient capacity through periodic prohibition of parking. The estimated cost of right-of- way is $10, 230, 000, with an additional $1, 470, 000 for construction. Project 8-A Description -- This proposed project involves the construction of an entirely new six -lane roadway along the Fifth Avenue corridor in Corona del Mar, from MacArthur Boulevard easterly to connect with the proposed relocated Coast Highway east of Corona del Mar. This route is in effect a relocation of Coast Highway and would bypass the Corona del Mar business district, passing by the Community Center and the adjacent residential areas. Only two crossings are proposed, one at Canyon Crest Drive and one at Marguerite Avenue. As proposed, the roadway would essentially be "at grade, " and the two crossings would operate with traffic signal control. Access would be controlled so no other streets would intersect or cross, and no driveways would be permitted. The roadway would be similar to the classification of an expressway, having partial control of access : This new route would eliminate present traffic defi- ciencies in Corona del Mar, and provide future capacity necessary to maintain good traffic service. If the roadway was constructed using cul- verts for the canyon crossings, the estimated cost is $3, 780, 000. If bridges are constructed across the three canyons, the estimated total cost is $8, 600, 000. The roadway could also be designed as depressed (versus at grade), with the advantage being a reduction in noise on the westerly section. *Definition of Expressway: A divided arterial highway for through traffic with full or partial control of access and generally with grade separations at intersections. Source: American Association of State Highway Officials Project 21-A Description -- This project would involve the development of Avocado Avenue between State Route 73 and Coast Highway as a three - lane one-way roadway southbound, with existing State Rotate 73 serving -80- as one-way northbound. The interchange at State Route 73 and Coast Highway as proposed in Project 7 would not be required if Project 21-A was implemented. The total cost of Project 21-A is estimated at $950, 000, of which $530, 000 is for right-of-way. An addition to this alternate is an interchange on State Route 73 at San Joaquin Hills Road. a vrovosal which has freouently been mentioned. With would the k impox a 'A B �'� to B COAST �+ 'W' t lEAtRonE � on. o i u 2 2A B 1A B 2A B N;..,r•�i • x co.�••010, ■O■Nr,IS■ ■■sty r s _ ..• �•I•V•. . �. • .. .••"I WIN a B 2A 4A B "�► a � 4 M:o ! 0 3 B �4 ? �•C�s% AA B DMft on. • •• r■ ■ ■M Y.1 CRESTVIC DR. LEGEND ■.Proposed Projects pO Project Number . Interchange Indicates Priority o •oo' @oo' aoo' P.wo' MMMd FIGURE 22. -82- l I I I A It LI 11 I 11 i 8A Q RELOCATED COAST ESPMMMMMMam■ din■ MMUMN HWY. ti AVE. ei 0 W RELOCATED COAST HWY. NNEEN■ MEMN ■ ti 00 SA Q 00 CORONA Va _ MAR SURREY OR. M E M Proposed Projects . Interchange FIGURE 23. Op Project Number Q Indicates Priority p 400' goo' 1200' 1".g0d It wim ■ ■ ■ Proposed Projects • Interchange 9W t pO Project Number A Indicates Priority q 40W 400' 1200, NOON l.saw FIGURE 24. -84- V. CONTINUING PLANNING PROCESS Regardless of how good a plan may be and how effectively the plan is implemented, conditions will evolve which were unforeseen during plan development. These changing conditions or situations must be worked into the planning process to insure that the investment in the transpor- tation program is not dissipated. tThe continuing planning process consists of two major programs, sur- veillance and plan updating. Surveillance is the continuous function which tprovides the data and administrative framework for: • Determining growth and change in the area • Determining and evaluating deviations from the projected course • Quickly and accurately evaluating modifications in the plan • Continuing coordination of the various implementing programs • Providing detailed travel data for new facilities design tThe plan updating program is required to: t• Update and extend the basic data sources concerning future land use and transportation demands • Incorporate improvements in planning procedures • Review and modify the regional goals and objectives • Test, evaluate and modify the transportation -land use plan and program in response to changing conditions There are several conditions which could require consideration for up- dating the plan. For example, if it becomes clear that the Corona del Mar Freeway will not swing downcoast through Bonita -Coyote Canyons as outlined in recommended plan, then even more importance would be placed on Coast Highway in Corona del Mar, and on MacArthur Boulevard. Similarly, if Coast Highway is not relocated inland around Newport Shores, -85- an alternate will have to be considered which ties up all the "loose ends" resulting from this decision. Significant changes in land uses may have local and regional impacts requiring plan updating. Should the use of public transit eventually have a significant effect on transportation, a reassessment of the entire plan could be required. Experience in other studies has shown that, exclusive of such major factors as described above, only minor plan updates are required on a short term basis. M. 11 i I'I II I� i h lu I I I I APPENDICES 11 Ll d 1.1 IL I L I I I I I APPENDIX A TRAFFIC FORECAST PROCESS The development of travel forecasting was outlined in the project study design. The 1980 Los Angeles Interim Transportation Study (LAITS) conducted by the Los Angeles Regional Transportation Study group was used as the data base. The LAITS traffic forecast was based on 1967 origin and destination data, the most recent available at the time. The 28 LAITS zones covering the Newport Beach Study area were subdivided into 75 internal zones to get the desired level of detail, and 27 external zones were added to account for trips passing into or out of the study area. The LAITS data outside the study area boundaries was used to develop the "regional influence on the external stations. The traffic zones developed for the Newport Beach Study are shown on Figure A-1. Within the study area, the LAITS data was subtracted (removed) from all the zones, and the most current data available was used in its place to develop trip generation. The City of Newport Beach retained the consulting firm, Development Research Associates, specifically to pro- vide current population and employment estimates for the zones with Newport Beach City Limits for 1980 and 1990. This data is summarized in Table A-1. The City of Costa Mesa furnished population estimates for those zones within the City Limits, and estimates of commercial and industrial acreage since employment data was not available. This data is summarized in Table A-2. Huntington Beach furnished data for the two zones within their city boundaries, shown on Table A-3. In addition to data furnished by Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, and Huntington Beach, data was furnished by the County and by The Irvine Company for zones within the City of Irvine and the unincorporated areas of The Irvine Company. The data received from The Irvine Company is shown on Table A-4. Data was also furnished by C.J. Segerstrom & Sons for zones in the Segerstrom Industrial District, and by other industrial interests in adjacent industrial areas. A-1 With this forecast of future land development, trip generations were established for the 75 zones. For areas consisting primarily of single family residences, the figure of 2.5 daily trips per person was used. For areas consisting primarily of multiple dwelling units, 3.0 daily trips per person was used. Trip factors for employment varied from 3.1 daily trips per employee in certain industrial areas to 15.0 trips per employee in some commercial areas. Trip generation for the industrial -commercial acreage in Costa Mesa varied from 105 to 300 trips per gross acre. Special consideration was given to traffic generated by beach use, since population and employment factors do ndt provide a base for this projection. Beach traffic estimates were based on information obtained from a study completed for the City in March 1968, "Newport Beach Traffic Planning, Parking and Operations Study," by Wilbur Smith and Associates. Total vehicle trips in 1980 were estimated at 9, 800 in 1980 and 12, 000 for 1990. These estimates assume comfortable beach usage (approximately 200 sq.ft. per person), automobile occupancy of 3.5 persons, and 1070 of the people using conveyances other than automobile. For zone 40 in Huntington Beach, beach traffic was estimated at 12, 300 in 1980 and 14,300 in 1990. The initial traffic assignment for years 1980 and 1990 was made on a road network furnished by the City of Newport Beach for the area within the City. For areas outside the City, the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways was used to complete the network. A computer program was used to assign trips from every zone to every other zone based on the relative attraction between zones. Special consideration was given to those zones having little or no attraction now, but having high future trip generation. For the beach traffic described above, a manual assign- ment was made to those major roads where there would be a substantial impact. The results of these traffic assignments were published in Phase I Summary Report in September 1972. Three alternate networks were developed in Phase II of this study on which to test the traffic assignments. Early in Phase II it was determined A-2 t that incomplete or incorrect traffic data had been used for some zones tin the Phase I traffic assignment, and that some revisions in the magnitude and type of growth had been made within some areas outside the boundaries of Newport Beach. This revised data was used to make the traffic assign- ments for the three alternate networks. In addition, the revised data was also used for a reassignment of the 1990 estimated traffic on the base network developed in Phase I. The results of these traffic assignments were published in Phase II Summary Report in March 1973. Also published in the Phase II Report are results of selected link analyses for the alternate networks, which show the traffic influence from all zones in the study area on specific locations. Data not published in report form, such as the complete trip tabulations giving the traffic volumes assigned from each zone to the road network, are available for reference in the City Public Works Department. A-3 1�I �IIr•,I� igo 11v K' 1r1Entt `,JtkO� {,. 1• �'r 1�1. - �� II i' { \ �,1 {may. I.y ij } � �. . �•.: 1 u 62 41 At 31 33 py it, to 31 AS u 1 u + _ - • rti a i I� yp j .'y f : v �/�7'�1 Y J .tH'•f' t At Ofmru art +�" �\\• � ' -WOWPORT f1ACN ilAlllC ftYYT TRAFFIC ZONES w"r t. tit .mot ti FIGURE A-1. A-4 fi TABLE A -I PROJECTED POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT DATA FOR NEWPORT BEACH* Zone Year 1980 Year 1990 (See Figure A-1) Population Employment Population Employment 1 1,953 0 2,450 0 2 5,572 2,093 6,451 2,479 3 2,622 0 2,320 0 4 7,103 489 7,652 518 5 5,213 329 5,498 322 6 1,704 155 1,775 175 7 7,245 1.070 8,133 985 10 1,923 0 1,923 0 11 2,494 19 2,494 19 12 8,709 153 8,709 153 13 2,549 45 2,549 125 14 6,091 4,270 6,091 6,732 15 5,797 371 5,628 613 16 3,020 10,337 3,020 14,656 17 4,534 535 4,534 587 18 2,330 560 2,330 570 19 2,071 710 2,071 742 20 2,301 760 2,414 852 21 3,477 1,091 4,003 1,067 26 6,185 418 7,691 418 27 2,197 15 2,197 15 28 525 0 525 0 30 661 430 395 3,911 31 4,023 2,622 6,561 3,138 32 2,030 122 11,001 1,384 Total 92,329 26,594 108,415 39,461 *Data applies to the area within the City Limits of Newport Beach in June 1972. Source: City of Newport Beach. In addition: trip generation for zone 67 (airport) was calculated using passenger projections obtained from the City of Newport Beach; trip generation for zones 74 and 75 was based on square footage for the Planned Community (P-C District). Zones 10 and 11 are partially within The Irvine Company. F.W TABLE A-2 PROJECTED POPULATION AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ACREAGE FOR TRAFFIC ZONES IN COSTA MESA* Year 1980 Year 1990 Zone Acreage Acreage (See Figure A-1) Population Comm. Indust. Population Comm. Indust. Z2 2,340 42 2,340 42 23 4,620 44 4,960 44 Z4 3,9Z0 14 3,920 14 25 3,810 20 3,810 20 Z9 4,630 20 4,630 20 33 7,280 34 225 7,280 34 34 6,280 102 12 8,150 102 35 10,980 10,980 36 6,160 46 6,290 46 37 91040 85 27 10,550 85 38 1,750 3 1,750 3 19 6,730 26 31 80810 26 43 9,020 47 91020 47 45 2,560 17 2,560 17 46 2,740 3,500 48 6,970 40 8,240 40 53 2,420 17 3,470 17 Total 91,250 557 295 100,260 557 *Data applies to the area within the City Limits of Costa Mesa June 1972. Source: City of Costa Mesa 207 W 235 A-6 TABLE A-3 PROJECTED POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT DATA FOR TRAFFIC ZONES IN HUNTINGTON BEACH* Zone Year 1980 Year 1990 (See Figure A-1) Population Employment Population Employment 40 19,000 2,325 22,000 2,714 41 41,000 3,550 48,000 4,140 Total 60,000 5,875 7-0,000 6,854 *Data applies to the area within the City Limits of Huntington Beach in June 1972. Source: City of Huntington Beach A-7 TABLE A-4 PROJECTED- TRAFFIC GENERATION DATA FOR TRAFFIC ZONES IN THE IRVINE COMPANY (Source: The Irvine Company) 1990 Developed Acres Newport Developed 1990 Beach Zone by 1990 Population(l) Commercial Industrial Other(2) 8 100 24,126 96 0 662 9 88 14,710 9 0 102 10(3) 50 2,480 14 0 7 11(3) 100 16,658 24 0 393 62 100 0 4 720 0 63 100 0 4 1,230 0 64 100 16,031 40 400 333 68 100 11,015 130 298 698 69 70 32,030 108 4 705 70 87 19,530 8 0 185 71 50 18,390 9 0 82 72 50 8,120 18 0 331 (1) Land uses reflect population projections lower than the officially adopted 1964 Orange County Southern Sector Irvine Ranch General Plan. (2) Other land uses are recreational, educational and institutional. ,> (3) These zones partially in the City of Newport Beach and partially in The Irvine Company. 3 PRELIMINARY APPENDIX B ESTIMATES NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC STUDY PHASE In PRELIMINARY PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS AND COSTS BASE NETWORK Costs. $1,0003s (3) Total Probable Funding Source Road Construc- Right of Construc- Cost _ Newport Other Project Name and Limits Class(l). tion (2) Way tion $1, 000's Beach Cities County State Other Pacific Coast Highway Interchange with Newport Blvd. M N 1,170 380 1,550- X Superior Avenue Pacific Coast Hwy. to Newport Blvd. P W 1,690 740 2,430 X X 17th Street Orange Ave. to Irvine Avenue P W 1,150 270 1,420 X Irvine to Dover P W 840 100 940 X W Jamboree Road i N Pacific Coast Hwy to San Joaquin Hills Road M W 340 340 X X San Joaquin Hills Rd. to Ford Rd. M W 190 190 X X Ford Road to Bonita Canyon M W 190 190 X X Bonita Canyon to Corona del Mar Freeway M W 430 430 X X Del Mar Avenue Newport Fwy. to Tustin Avenue P W 1,430 350 1,780 X University Drive Tustin Ave. to Corona del Mar Fwy. P N 2,870 590 3,460 X X Channel Bridge P B 500 5U0 X (1) F = Freeway 8 lanes (2) N = New Construction M = Major 6lanes W = Widen P = Primary 4lanes M = Modification S = Secondary 4 lanes B = Bridge (3) Right of way costs include: 25"/c increase in estimated property costs for acquisition, costs of relocation assistance Construction cost include: 200/c for contingencies �ft *0 I* '6W * i00 60 ioo 'o &a 00 low Is" low lamMa06 " lam ," .a ,*w '!'r err �■� 1r NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC STUDY PHASE III PRELIMINARY PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS AND COSTS BASE NETWORK Costs, $1,000's (3) Total Probable Funding Source Road(1) Construc- Right of Construc- Cost Newport Other Project Name and Limits Class. tion (2) Way tion $1, 000's Beach Cities County State Other Dover Drive 17th St. to Pacific Coast Hwy. P W 160 290 450 X 17th to Irvine (1-way pair with 2 bridges over channel) P W 150 150 X State Route 73 Pacific Coast Hwy. to San Joaquin Hills Rd. M W 130 Z80 410 x San Joaquin Hills Rd. to Ford Rd. M W 200 420 620 X Cd Ford Rd. to Bonita Canyon M W 100 210 310 X i W Bison Street Bonita Canyon to Jamboree Rd. M N 500 490 990 X X Ford Road Jamboree to MacArthur Blvd. X W 420 420 X San Joaquin Hills Road MacArthur to Spy Glass Hill Rd. M W 320 320 X X 19th Street Newport Blvd. to Irvine Avenue P W 1,700 620 2, 320 X (1) F = Freeway 8 lanes (2) N = New Construction M = Major 6 lanes W = Widen P = Primary 4lanes M = Modification S = Secondary 4 lanes B = Bridge (3) Right of way costs include: 257e increase in estimated property costs for acquisition, costs of relocation assistance Construction cost include: 207. for contingencies Project Name and Limits Irvine Avenue 15th Street to Cliff Drive Production Street Superior to Pac. Coast Hwy. Avocado -MacArthur Ford Rd. to Pacific Coast Hwy. N-S Road 19th St. to Production Production to Pacific Coast Hwy NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC STUDY PHASE III PRELIMINARY PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS AND COSTS BASE NETWORK Costs, $1,000's (3) Total Probable Funding Source RoadConstruc- ) Right of Construc- Cost Newport Other Class tion (2) Way tion $1,000's Beach Cities County State Other P W 500 180 680 x P N 3,160 930 4,090 X X X P N&W 990 1,010 2,000 X X P N 1,100 740 1,840 X x X X P N 580 450 1,030 X X X (1) F = Freeway 8lanes (2) N = New Construction M = Major 6lanes W = Widen P = Primary 4lanes M = Modification S, = Secondary 4lanes B = Bridge (3) Right of way costs include: 25'/e increase in estimated property costs for acquisition, costs of relocation assistance Construction cost include: 207e for contingencies •.i �{ M ;fir {�{� ors � � {�.� iir ,� i� +� r low w No M NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC STUDY PHASE III PRELIMINARY PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS AND COSTS ALTERNATE NETWORK A Costs, $1,000's (3) Total Probable Funding Source Road (1) Construc- Right of Construc- Cost Newport Other Project Name and Limits Class. tion (2) Way tion $1, 000's Beach Cities County State Other Superior Avenue Pacific Coast Hwy. to Newport Boulevard M W 2,440 940 3,380 X X Pacific Coast Highway Interchange with Newport Blvd. M N 1,170 380 1,550 X 17th Street Superior Ave. to Orange P N 1,250 180 1,430 X Orange to Dover Drive P W 1,910 370 2,280 X X Dover Drive to Upper N. P. Bay P N 1,110 440 1,550 X m Upper Newport Bay Bridge P B 3,120 3,120 X X Upper N.P.Bay Bridge to Jamboree P N 1,150 440 1,590 X Jamboree Road San Joaquin Hills Rd. to P. C.Hwy. M W 340 340 X X San Joaquin Hills Rd. to Corona del Mar Freeway M W 810 810 X X Del Mar Avenue Newport Fwy. to Tustin Avenue P W 1,430 350 1,780 X X (1) F = Freeway 8 lanes (2) N = New Construction M = Major 61anes W = Widen P = Primary 4lanes M = Modification S = Secondary 4lanes B = Bridge (3) Right of way costs include: 25% increase in estimated property costs for acquisition, costs of relocation assistance Construction costs include: 200/c for contingencies NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC STUDY PHASE III PRELIMINARY PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS AND COSTS ALTERNATE NETWORK A Costs. $1.000's (3) Total Probable Funding Source Road Construc- Right of Construc- Cost Newport Other (1) Project Name and Limits Class. tion (2) Way tion $1, 000's Beach Cities County State Other University Drive Tustin Avenue to Corona del Mar Freeway P N 2,870 590 3,460 X X Channel Bridge on University Dr. P B 500 500 X Dover Drive 17th to Pacific Coast Hwy P W 160 290 450 X 17th to Irvine Ave. (I-waypair with two bridges over channel) P W 150 150 X State Route 73 Pacific Coast Hwy. to Bonita Canyon M W 430 910 1,340 X Bison Street Bonita Canyon to Jamboree M N 500 490 990 X X Ford Road Jamboree to MacArthur Blvd. S W 420 420 X X Fifth Street Ext. s MacArthur to Popp! Avenue M N 460 780 1,240 X Buck Gulley Bridge M B 80 2, 100* 2,180 X (1) F = Freeway 8 lanes (2) N = New Construction M = Major 6lanes W = Widen P = Primary 4lanes M = Modification S, = Secondary 4 lanes B = Bridge (3) Right of way costs include. 2501a increase in estimated property costs for acquisition, costs of relocation assistance Construction costs include: 200e for contingencies '6 &W '&* in be be b *0 '&A 1,6 66 low '60 (6 60 16 �' be 4110 NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC STUDY PHASE III PRELIMINARY PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS AND COSTS ALTERNATE NETWORK A Costs, $1, 000's (3) Total Probable Funding Source Road 1) Construe- Right of Construe- Cost Newport Other Project Name and Limits Class. tion (2) Way tion $1, 000's Beach Cities County State Other Fifth Street (Continued) Buck Gulley to Seward Drive M N 110 200 310 X Bridge S.E. of Seward Drive M B 70 1, Boo* 1,870 X S.E. of Seward to N. of Cameo Highlands Drive M N 140 230 370 X Bridge N. of Cameo Highlands Dr. M B 70 1, 800* 1,870 X N. of Cameo Highlands Dr. to Coast Highway M N 310 530 840 X *Total cost of Fifth Avenue Extension could be decreased from $8, 680, 000 to to $3, 780, 000 if three canyons were filled rather than completely bridged. i v San Joaquin Hills Road MacArthur to Spyglass Hill Rd. M W 320 320 X X 19th Street Newport Blvd. to Irvine Avenue P W 1,700 620 2,320 X Irvine Avenue 15th Street to Cliff Drive P W 500 180 680 X Cliff Drive to Pacific Coast Hwy. P N 1,910 170 2,080 X (1) F = Freeway 8 lanes (2) N = New Construction M = Major 6lanes W = Widen P = Primary 4lanes M = Modification S = Secondary 4 lanes B = Bridge (3) Right of way costs include: 250/c increase in estimated property costs for acquisition, costs of relocation assistance Construction costs include: 20% for contingencies NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC STUDY PHASE III PRELIMINARY PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS AND COSTS ALTERNATE NETWORK A Costs, $1,000's (3) Total _ Probable Funding Source Road Construc- Right of Construc- Cost Newport Other (1) Project Name and Limits Class. tion (2) Way tion $1,000 s Beach Cities County State Other Cliff Drive Ext. Bridge Dover to Pacific Coast Hwy. P B 410 4,800 5, Z10 X Interchange at Pacific Coast Highway & Cliff Drive Ext. P N 960 300 1, 260 X Bonita Canyon Ext. Bonita Canyon to MacArthur Blvd. M N 580 510 1,090 X 17th Street Superior to Whittier Ave. P W 1,360 390 1,750 X Whittier Ave. to S.A. River Bridge P N 1,040 620 1,660 X X X Co Santa Ana River Bridge P B 1,440 1,440 8 X X Santa Ana River Bridge to Brookhurst P N 290 160 450 X Production Street Superior to Pacific Coast Hwy P N 3,160 930 4,090 X X X Avocado -MacArthur Ford Rd. to Pacific Coast Hwy P N&W 990 1,010 2,000 X X N-S Road 19th Street to Production P N 1,100 740 1,840 X X X X (1) F = Freeway 8 lanes (2) N = New Construction M = Major 6lanes W = Widen P = Primary 4lanes M = Modification S = Secondary 4 Ianes B = Bridge (3) Right of way costs include: 25-ye increase in estimated property costs for acquisition, costs of relocation assistance Construction costs include: 20016 for contingencies bw big ims I6 6W Ibe b ins 'ho ibe 'be be bw �6 k1w ime b bw NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC STUDY PHASE III PRELIMINARY PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS AND COSTS ALTERNATE NETWORK B-C Costs, $1,0009s (3) Total Probable Funding Source Road (1) Construc- Right of Construc- Cost Newport Other Project Name and Limits Class. tion (2) Way tion $1, 000's Beach Cities County State Other Pacific Coast Highway ' Brookhurst to Superior M N 3,180 1,660 4,840 X X X X Bridge at Santa Ana River M B 2,500 2,500 X X X Lagoon Bridge M B 5,000 5,000 X X X Marina -Bluff Bridge M B 1,500 1,500 X X X Superior to Newport Blvd. M W 780 160 940 X X X Interchange with Newport Blvd. M N 1,170 380 1,550 X bi Superior Avenue Pacific Coast Highway to Newport Boulevard P W 1,690 740 2,430 X X Newport Freeway Extension End of Freeway to Pacific Coast Highway M N 4,890 1,170 6,060 X Interchange at end of N. P.Fwy. M N 270 120 390 X 17th Street End of Freeway Interchange to Orange Avenue P N 2, 140 290 2,430 X X Orange to Irvine Avenue P W 1,150 270 1,420 X Irvine to Dover P W 840 100 940 X (1) F = Freeway 8 lanes (2) N = New Construction M = Major 6lanes W = Widen P = Primary 4lanes M = Modification S = Secondary 4 lanes B = Bridge (3) Right of way costs include: 25% increase in estimated property costs for acquisition, costs of relocation assistance Construction costs include: 207c for contingencies NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC STUDY PHASE III PRELIMINARY PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS AND COSTS ALTERNATE NETWORK B-C Costs. $1,000's (3) Total Probable Funding Source Road 1 Construe- Rightof Construe- Cost Newport Other Project Name and Limits Clasp) tion (2) Way tion $1. 000's Beach Cities County State Other 17th Street (Continued) Dover to Upper N. P. Bay P Upper Newport Bay Bridge P Thru Henry Wells Park P Harry W. Park to Jamboree Rd. P Jamboree Road Interchange P Jamboree to P.C. Highway P Jamboree Road Pacific Coast Hwy. to San r+ Joaquin Hills M O San Joaquin Hills Rd. to Ford Rd. M Ford Road to Bonita Canyon M Bonita Canyon to Corona del Mar Freeway M Del Mar Avenue Newport Fwy.to Tustin Avenue P University Drive Tustin Ave. to Corona delMar Fwy. P Channel Bridge P N 530 200 730 x B 4,320 4,320 x x N 360 120 480 x B 220 3,120 3,340 x N I40 380 520 x N 550 200 750 x W 340 340 x x W 190 190 x x W Igo 190 x x W 430 430 x x W 1,430 350 1,780 x N 2, 870 590 3,460 x x B 500 500 x (1) F = Freeway Blanes (2) N = New Construction M = Major 6lanes W = Widen P = Primary 4lanes M = Modification S = Secondary 4lanes B = Bridge (3) Right of way costs include: 25^fe increase in estimated property costs for acquisition, costs of relocation assistance Construction costs include: 20% for contingencies 60 ,be 'be 1" 60 ,be US 60 to 'be ifte lim 60 I* wo ba 60 �im bw +r". ! +r"" err" r 'r" r " " +r " *'„ " FM low " r■ pa Fm NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC STUDY PHASE UI PRELIMINARY PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS AND COSTS ALTERNATE NETWORK B-C Costs, $1,000's (3) Total Probable Funding Source Project Name Limits Road Construc- Right of Construc- Costs ^yl, Newport Other and Class) tion (2) Way tion 000's Beach Cities County State Other Dover Drive 17th to Pacific Coast Hwy. P W 160 290 450 X 17th to Irvine Ave. (1-way pair with 2 bridges over channel) P M&B 150 150 X Pacific Coast Highway Newport Blvd. to Dover Dr. M W 2,010 490 2,500 X Bridge over Upper N.P.Bay M B 2,100 2,100 j--Not included in Cost is the X possible construction at Coast Hwy -Dover Dr. Intrsctn. Bridge to Jamboree Rd. M W 870 280 1,150 X �j Jamboree to MacArthur M W 1,050 420 1,470 X r MacArthur to Canyon Crest M W 4,290 4,920 X State Route 73 Pacific Coast Hwy. to San Joaquin Hills M W 130 280 410 X San Joaquin to Ford Road M W 200 420 620 X Ford Road to Bonita Canyon M W 100 210 310 X Avocado -MacArthur Ford Rd. to Coast Highway P N&W 990 1,010 2,000 X X (1) F = Freeway Blanes (2) N = New Construction M = Major 6lanes W = Widen P = Primary 4lanes M = Modification S = Secondary 4 lanes B = Bridge (3) Right of way costs include: 257c increase in estimated property costs for acquisition, costs of relocation assistance Construction costs include: 2016 for contingencies NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC STUDY PHASE III PRELIMINARY PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS AND COSTS ALTERNATE NETWORK B-C Costs, $1,000's (3) Total Probable Funding Source Road I) Construc- Right of Construc- Cost Newport Other Project Name and Limits Class .tion (2) Way tion $1,OOO's Beach Cities County State Other Bison Street Bonita Canyon to Jamboree M N So0 490 990 X X Ford Road Jamboree to MacArthur S W 420 420 X if San Toaguin Hills Road MacArthur to Spy Glass Hill Rd. M W 320 320 X X 19th Street (1) Newport Blvd. to Irvine Avenue P W 1,700 620 2,320 X i N Irvine Avenue 15th Street to Cliff Drive P W 500 180 680 X Production Street Superior to Coast Highway P N 3,160 930 4,090 X X X (1) F = Freeway 8 lanes (2) N = New Construction M = Major 6lanes W = Widen P = Primary 4lanes M = Modification S = Secondary 4lanes B = Bridge (3) Right of way costs include: 25% increase in estimated property costs for acquisition, costs of relocation assistance Construction costs include: 20%for contingencies +� r fir■► � � �s � � r �" +�s �" �" �" � �■" NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC STUDY PHASE III PRELIMINARY PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS AND COSTS ALTERNATE NETWORK D Costs, $1,000's (3) Total Probable Funding Source Road Construc- Right of Construc- Cost Newport Other Project Name and Limits 1 Class(.) tion (2) Way tion $1, 000's Beach Cities County State Other Pacific Coast Highway Superior to Santa Ana River M W 960 560 1,520 X Superior to Newport Blvd. M W 750 160 910 X Interchange with Newport Blvd. M N 1,170 380 1,550 X Newport Blvd. to Dover Drive M W 10,200 1,500 11,700 X Bridge over Upper N. P. Bay M B 2,100 2,100 ]--� Not included in cost is possibleX construction at Coast Hwy -Dover Dr. Intersection Bridge to Jamboree Road M W 870 280 1,150 X W Jamboree Road to MacArthur M W 1,050 420 1,470 X ,I-. MacArthur to Canyon Crest M W 4,290 630 4,920 X w Production Superior to Pacific Coast Hwy. P N 3,160 930 4,090 X X X 17th Street Superior to Whittier Avenue P W 1,360 390 1,750 X Whittier Ave. to Pacific Coast Hwy. P N 1,040 620 1,660 X X X Bridge at Pacific Coast Hwy P B 60 600 660 X X (1) F = Freeway 8 lanes (2) N = New Construction M = Major 6lanes W = Widen P = Primary 4lanes M = Modification S = Secondary 4 lanes B = Bridge (3) Right of way costs include: 25"/c increase in estimated property costs for acquisition, costs of relocation assistance Construction cost include: 200/c for contingencies NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC STUDY PHASE III PRELIMINARY PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS AND COSTS ALTERNATE NEWORK D Costs, $1,00019 (3) Total Probable Funding Source Road Construc- Right of Construc- Cost Newport Other (1) Project Name and Limits Class. tion (2) Way tion $1,000's Beach Cities County State Other Superior Avenue Pacific Coast Hwy.to Newport Blvd. P W 1,690 740 2,430 X X Interchange at Superior & Newport Boulevard P N 260 120 380 X State Route 73 Pacific Coast Hwy. to San Joaquin Hills Road M W 130 280 410 X San Joaquin Hills Rd. to Ford Rd. M W 200 420 620 X Ford Road to Bonita Canyon M W 100 210 310 X �. Bison Street Bonita Canyon to Jamboree Rd. M N Soo 490 990 X X Ford Road Jamboree to MacArthur S W 420 42O X X San Joaquin Hills Road MacArthur to Spyglass Hill Rd. M W 320 320 X X Jamboree Road Pac. Coast Hwy. to San Joaquin Hills Road M W 340 340 X x San Joaquin Hills Rd, to Ford Rd. M W 200 200 If X (1) F = Freeway 8 lanes (2) N = New Construction M = Major 6lanes W = Widen P = Primary 4lanes M = Modification S = Secondary 4 lanes B = Bridge (3) Right of way costs include: 25% increase in estimated property costs for acquisition, costs of relocation assistance Construction cost include. 207c for contingencies ka ` low V V ININ it �Nw Ills INE �00 �= �88 �= ime �10 1� I� I i 1 t i 1 I l I I 1 I I i I I I 1 fME NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC STUDY PHASE III PRELIMINARY PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS AND COSTS ALTERNATE NEWORK D Costs, $1,000's (3) Total Probable Funding Source Road Construc- Right of Construc- Cost Newport Other Project Name and Limits 1 Class! ) tion (2) Way tion $1,000's Beach Cities County State Other Jamboree Road (Continued) Ford Road to Bonita Canyon M W 200 200 X X Bonita Canyon to Corona del Mar Freeway M W 500 500 X X Del Mar Avenue Newport Fwy. to Tustin Avenue P W 1,400 400 1,800 X University Drive Tustin Avenue to Corona del Mar Freeway P N 2,800 600 3,400 X Channel Bridge P B 500 500 X 22nd Street Newport Fwy. to Newport Bay P W 2,910 870 3,780 X X Ul 22nd Street Bridge P N 3,120 3,120 X X Upper Bay to Jamboree Rd. P W 428 480 908 X 19th Street Newport Blvd. to Irvine Ave. P W 1,700 620 2,320 X Dover Drive Irvine Ave. to 17th St. (1-way pair with 2 bridges over channel) P W 150 150 X 17th to Pacific Coast Hwy. P W 160 290 450 X (1) F = Freeway 8 lanes (2) N = New Construction M = Major 6lanes W = Widen P = Primary 4lanes M = Modification S = Secondary 4lanes B = Bridge (3) Right of way costs include: 25% increase in estimated property costs for acquisition, costs of relocation assistance Construction cost include: 200/. for contingencies W 01 }+ Project Name and Limits Irvine Avenue 15th Street to Cliff Drive 17th Street Orange to Dover Drive Dover Drive to Upper N. P. Bay N.P. Bay Bridge Bridge to Pacific Coast Hwy. Interchange with Pac. Coast Hwy. NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC STUDY PHASE IU PRELD41NARY PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS AND COSTS ALTERNATE NEWORK D Costs, $1,000's (3) Total Probable Funding Source Road Construe- Right of Construe- Cost Newport Other Class.(I) tion (2) Way tion $1,000's Beach Cities County State Other P W 500 180 680 X P W 11910 370 2,280 X X P N 530 200 730 X P N 3,920 3,920 X X P N 410 230 640 X P N 300 450 750 X X (1) F = Freeway Blanes (2) N = New Construction M = Major 6lanes W = Widen P = Primary 4Ianes M = Modification S = Secondary 4lanes B = Bridge (3) Right of way costs include: 250/c increase in estimated property costs for acquisition, costs of relocation assistance. Construction costs include: 200/c for contingencies 1�60 r I m[ on low rr I M low I M 1,40 l im i fir low 1 i" {� l !m 1 r[ i= it APPENDIX C DESCRIPTION OF LEVEL OF SERVICE Level of Service is a qualitative measure of operating conditions that may occur on a given lane or roadway when it is accommodating various traffic volumes. Some of the factors affecting levels of service include: speed, travel time, traffic interruptions, freedom to maneuver, safety, driving comfort and convenience, and operating costs. The highest level of service is denoted by A and the lowest is denoted by F. Level of Service E corresponds to capacity and is generally characterized by low speeds, frequent delays and high accident probability. Level of Service F is forced flow. Sometimes the term level of service is not correctly understood even after lengthy explanation. For this reason, photos are often used to illustrate examples as shown in Figure C-1. C-1 t SERVICE LEVEL A SERVICE LEVEL C SERVICE LEVEL E SERVICE LEVEL 8 SERVICE LEVEL D SERVICE LEVEL F LEVELS OF SERVICE ILLUSTRATIONS FIGURE C-I. C-2 APPENDIX a ASSESSMENT OF VARIOUS OPTIONS ON COAST HIGHWAY ASSESSMENT OF VARIOUS HIGHWAY OPTIONS IN CORONA DEL MAR Arranged in Increasing Order of Improved Traffic Service (Traffic volumes shown assume regional road network is completed) Option I. - No Change From Adopted Master Plan a. ADT deficiency on Coast Highway will be 28, 000. (Leval of Sol -vice F) b. Congestion most of the day. c. Traffic will divert to secondary and minor street network In attempt to bypass congestion. d. High concentration of air pollutants from automobile congestion. e. High number of traffic accidents. f. Pedestrian and bicycle circulation will be extremely hazardous. g. Poor traffic access and circulation will be detrimental to business. h. No additional construction cost, but high cost to user in terms of travel time and accidents. I. No lose of parking spaces. PROBABLE PUBLIC SUPPORT: _ GOOD ,L FAIR _ POOR ,& UNACCEPTABLE _ UNKNOWN Option 2. - Remove Parking on Coast Highway Through Corona Dal Mar, Modify Median, and Provide for Six Traffic Lanes a. b. ADT deficiency on Coast Highway -will be 18, 000. (Level of Service F) Congestion most of the day. c. Traffic will divert to secondary and minor street network in attempt to bypass congestion. d. High concentration of air pollutants from automobile congestion. e. High number of traffic accidents. f. Pedestrian and bicycle circulation will be extremely hazardous. g. Dolotion of -approximately 250 oarstreet parking spaces. h. Poor traffic access, circulation, and lack of parking will be detrimental to business. I. Approximate cost of $24, 000. * (State) PROBABLE PUBLIC SUPPORT: X GOOD _ FAIR I. POOR _ UNACCEPTABLE _ UNKNOWN *To offset or alleviate conditions g k h, off-street parking would have to be developed, which would Increase cost of modifications by approximately $1, 250, 000, assuming surface lot parking. Option 3.-- Widen Coast Highway to Six Lanes (Major Road) a. ADT deficiency on Coast Highway will be 14, 000. (Level of Service F) b. Congestion during A.M. and P.M. peak hours. c. Reduction in air pollutants. d. Reduction in traffic accidents. c. Pedestrian and bicycle circulation hazard may be reduced. f. Access and circulation, along with parking conditions, will be improved. g. Relocation or elimination of established businesses. h. Approximate cost of $5, 000, 000. (State) PROBABLE PUBLIC SUPPORTf , GOOD ,_ FAIR.X POOR _ UNACCEPTABLE _ UNKNOWN Option 4. - Construct 5th Avenue Extension as Four Lanes One-way Westbound and Make Existing Coast Highway Four Lanes One-way Eastbound a. No traffic deficiency. (Level of Service D) b. Moderate traffic congestion during peak hours, depending on provisions made for north - south cross traffic on intersecting streets. c. Ability to provide for special considerations for pedestrians and bicycles. d. Reduction of air pollutants. a. Reduction in traffic accidents. I. Enhancement of business community through Improved traffic circulation. g. Disruption of residential areas from circulating traffic. h. Some disruption to established community through grading, noise, barrier effect. i. Possible increase in parking spaces. J. Approximate coat $2, 800, 000.(State). Approximato coat if 3 canyons completely bridged, $6, 200, 000. PROBABLE PUBLIC SUPPORT: GOOD _ FAIR _ POOR .X UNACCEPTABLE _ UNKNOWN Option 5. - Construct 5th Avenue Extension as New Coast Highway from MacArthur Boulevard to East of Corona del Mar (Six Lanes, Two-way Traffic) a. No traffic deficiency. (Level of Service D) - b. No congestion on now highway, or existing Coast Highway in Corona del Mar, c. No traffic diversion to secondary or minor road network. d. Elimination of congestion and atop -and -go traffic will reduce air pollutants. e. Reduction of traffic accidents. f. Special provisions for pedestrians and bicycles can be incorporated into roadway design. g. Improved traffic circulation with no removal of parking spaces will enhance business. h. Disruption to established residential community through grading, noise, barrier effect. I. Dis=upttoo to community youth center and school from access control, noise, barrier effect J. Approximate cost $3, 800, 000. (State), Approximate cost if 3 canyons completely bridged, $8,600,000. PROBABLE PUBLIC SUPPORT: _ GOOD _ FAIR _ POOR IL UNACCEPTABLE_ UNKNOWN D-2 ASSESSMENT OF VARIOUS HIGHWAY OPTIONS ALONG COAST HIGHWAY FROM MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD TO JAMBOREE ROAD (Traffic volumes shown assume regional road network is completed) Option 1. - No Change from Adopted Master Plan a. ADT deficiency on Coast Highway will be 33, 000. (Level of Service F) b. Congestion most of the day. C. Some traffic will divert to roads around Upper Bay (University and Corona del Mar Freeway) even though considerable adverse distance is involved. d. High concentration of air pollutants from automobile congestion. e. High number of traffic accidents. f. Extreme hazards to pedestrians and bicycles. g. Poor access to major traffic generator in the area (Newport Center). h. High cost to users, but no additional construction cost. PROBABLE PUBLIC SUPPORT: — GOOD _ FAIR X POOR _ UNACCEPTABLE _ UNKNOWN Option 2. - Widen Coast Highway to Six Lanes a. Deficiency on Coast Highway will be 18, 000 (Level of Service F) b. Congestion through the peak hours. C. Some reduction in air pollutants. d. Some traffic diversion likely around Upper Bay. e. Reduction in traffic accidents. f. Hazardous for pedestrians and bicycles. g. Improved access to major business center although less than desirable. h. Little disruption to businesses and residences. i. Approximate cost $1, 600, 000*. (State) *Cost can be substantially reduced if parking is partially or fully prohibited, since there is a low demand for on -street parking on this segment. GOOD FAIR POOR UNACCEPTABLE UNKNOWN PROBABLE PUBLIC SUPPORT: X X — Option 3. - Widen Coast Highway to Six Lanes with Interchange at MacArthur a. Deficiency on Coast Highway will depend on treatment at Jamboree Road and other intersecting streets. Good connection at Jamboree with left turn restric- tions at other streets will give Service Level of C or D. b. Little or no congestion. C. Reduction in air pollutants from free flowing traffic. d. Substantial traffic accident reduction. e. Pedestrians and bicycles can be safely accommodated. f. Some access control necessary to avoid capacity deficiency. g. Little disruption to businesses and residences. h. Left turn access to major business center would be made either at Jamboree or Mac Arthur interchange. i. Approximate cost $2, 600, 000*. (State) *Cost be if is or fully can substantially reduced parking partially prohibited. PROBABLE PUBLIC SUPPORT: X GOOD _ FAIR _ POOR X UNACCEPTABLE _ UNKNOWN D-3 AS.SLSSMLNT OF VARIOUS HIGHWAY OPTIONS ALONG COAST 111CHWAY FROM SAMBOREE ROAD TO DOVER DRIVE (Traffic volumes shown assume regional road network Is completed) Option 1. - No Change From Adopted Master Plan a. ADT deficiency on Coast Highway will be approximately 45, 000, (Laval of Sorvlce F) b. Extreme traffic congestion. c. Considerable traffic diversion likely around northerly and of Upper Bay (University Drive and Corona del Max Freeway). d. High concentration of automobile air pollutants. e. High number of traffic accidents. f. Pedestrianand bicycle circulation will be extremely difficult and hazardous. g. High costs to users in terms of lost time and accidents. h. Bayalde Drive access to Coast Highway will become increasingly difficult as additional development occurs. PROBABLE PUBLIC SUPPORT: _ GOOD _ FAIR _ POOR x. UNACCEPTABLE _ UNKNOWN Opton 2. - Widen Coast Highway to Six Lanes, Replacing Upper Bay Bridge with new Six Lane Bridge; Assumes signalized intersections at Bayside Drive UJamborae Road (RBF Plan A). a. Deficiencies will occur at signalized Intersections (Jamboree Road, Bayalde Drive, Dover Drive) with most eevore deficiency at Dover Drive of approximately 30. 000 (Laval of Service P). Conditions will be no better than preaont conditions. b. With construction of new Upper Bay Bridge, there will be opportunity for pedestrian and bicycle considerations, also Special provisions for transit. c. Comments from Option 1 which also apply to this option arc b, c, d, e, g, and h. d. Approximate cost $3, 900, 000. (State) PROBABLE PUBLIC SUPPORT: GOOD,, FAIR IL POOR_ UNACCEPTABLE_ UNKNOWN Option 3. - Same as Option 2 Except That Upper Bay Bridge Alignment Is Moved Northerly of Present Location, Turn Restrictions at Bayahore Drive (RBF Plan A-1) a. Conditions would not essentially be changed train Option 2 except that bridge construc- tion cost might be reduced by as much as 3"o; right-of-way coat.may change depending on cost differential in acquisition versus disposing of surplus. b. Assuming right-of-way costs are the same, approximate cost is $3, 200, 000. (State) PROBABLE PUBLIC SUPPORT: GOOD PAIR IL POOR _ UNACCEPTABLE _ UNKNOWN Option 4. - Same as Option 3 Except That Coast Highway is Eight Lance (RBF' Plan B) a. Traffic service would be substantially Improved from six lanae, but substantial peak hour delays would continue, particularly at Dover Drive intersection. b. Complete separation of pedestrians and bicycles from motor vehicles on Coast Highway Is desirable; essential if capacity advantage from wider roadway is to be attained. c. With Intersection widenings and elimination of pedestrian -bicycle conflicts with motor vehicles on Coast Highway, Laval of Service E may be achieved. d. Approximato cost assuming separate pedestrian-bicyclo facilities $5,300, 000. (State) PROBABLE PUBLIC SUPPORT: _ GOOD IL FAIR _ POOR IL UNACCEPTABLE _ UNKNOWN Option 5. - Same as Option 2 Except That New Upper Bay Bridge is Extended Westerly to Form Interchange With Dover Drive; Plan Ipcludes Widening of Dover Drive to Accommo- date Two Right Turning Lance From Coast Highway (RBF Plan C) a. Level of Service D could be maintained within the Interchange most of the time for Dover traffic. Coast Highway traffic would be free Row. b. Doftciencios described In Option 2 would continue to occur at Jamboree Road and Bayslde Drive. C. Approximate Cost $6, 500, 000 . (State) PROBABLE PUBLIC SUPPORT:. GOOD _ FAIR _ POOR _ UNACCEPTABLE _ UNKNOWN Option 6. - Some as Option 4 Except With Interchange at Jamboree Road (RBF Plan B-1) A. Conditions not essentially changed from Optima 4 except Interchange at Jamboree would provide necessary separation for pedestrians & bicycles from Coast Highway traffic, and congestion could be virtually eliminated at Coast Highway -Jamboree Road connection. b. Approximate Cost$6, 500, 000.(State) PROBABLE PUBLIC SUPPORTS _ GOOD g FAM _ POOR$, UNACCEPTABLE _ UNKNOWN Option 7. - Aeaumas Now Four Lane Primary Roadway Beginning Where Bayside Drive Connects to Jamboree Road, Extending Southwesterly Around Newport Dunas, and Generally Paralleling Existing Coast Highway Westerly To Dover DYIVe With New Bridge Across Upper Bay, Existing Coast Highway Widened to Six Lanes In Option 3. (RBF Plan D) a. The new route paralleling Coast Highway around the Duane would not be as convenient as the more direct crossing which was the concept on Alternate B.C. However, it to estimated that traffic on Coact Highway would be reduced within a range which the six. Lane roadway could adequately accommodate, (up to 40, 000 ADT with proper intersection design). b. The now route paralleling Coast Highway would have an ADT of approximately 27, 000 (assuming 40, 000 on Coast Highway), which could be accommodated with proper Inter- section design. Spacial intersection considerations would have to be made on the section of Bayside which concocts Comet Highway and the new parallel route. c. Question of whore now route may pass through Castaways area. It could connoct with Dover Drive at Cliff Drive or at some point further to the north of Cliff Drive. d. Approximate cost of widening toast Highway $3, 200, 000. (State) a. Approximate cost of now route Is $9, 700, 000. It Is likely that all or most of the cost of the new route would have to be borne by the City of Newport Beach. PROBABLE PUBLIC SUPPORT: _ GOOD $, FAIR _ POOR _ UNACCEPTABLE _ UNKNOWN D-4 ASSESSMENT OF VARIOUS HIGHWAY OPTIONS ALONG COAST HIGHWAY FROM DOVER DRIVE TO NEWPORT BOULEVARD (Traffic volumes shown assume regional road network is completed. Magnitudes of traffic volumes and related problems on this segment of Coast Highway depend on development of new Upper Bay Crossing to 17th Street with good connection to Newport Freeway Extension on west.) Option 1. - No Change From Adopted Master Plan a. ADT deficiency on Coast Highway will range from 17, 000 to 39, 000 depending on surround- ing road network which is developed. (Level of Service F). b. Extreme traffic congestion. c. Traffic diversion around Upper Bay or other alternate routes, the amount related to extent of delays on Coast Highway versus increased travel time around Upper Bay. d. Potentially high automobile air pollutants. e. High number of accidents. f. Poor accommodation for pedestrian and bicycle circulation. g. Poor traffic access and circulation may adversely affect business establishments. h. No disruption of existing on -street parking. i. No additional construction cost, but relatively high cost to users in terms of travel times and accidents.* PROBABLE PUBLIC SUPPORT: _ GOOD _ FAIR _ POOR X UNACCEPTABLE _ UNKNOWN *Not included is $1, 700, OOO for replacing existing interchange at the Arches. Option 2. - Remove Parking on Coast Highway, Modify Median and Provide for Six Traffic Lanes a. ADT deficiency on Coast Highway will range from 8, 000 to 28, 000 depending on surround- ing network which is developed. (Level of Service E to F). b. Moderate io extreme traffic congestion. C. Some traffic will divert around Upper Bay or other alternate routes offering better service. d. Potentially high automobile air pollutants. e. Poor pedestrian -bicycle accommodation. f. Congestion may be detrimental to established businesses. g. Potentially high accident rates. h. Loss of approximately 225 on -street parking spaces.* i. Approximate cost $30, 000. * (State) PROBABLE PUBLIC SUPPORT: X GOOD FAIR X, POOR UNACCEPTABLE UNKNOWN _ *To offset or alleviate the impact of loss of on -street parking, off-street parking would have tobe developed at strategic locations. Cost of developing 225 off-street parking spaces would be approx imately $1, 125, 000. Also, not included in above costs is $1, 700, 000 for replacing existing inter- change at the Arches. Option 3. - Widen Existing Coast Highway to Six Lanes a. ADT deficiency on Coast Highway will range from 2, 000 to 24, 000 depending on develop- ment of surrounding road network (Level of Service D to F). b. Varying levels of congestion. C. Concentration of air pollutants and traffic accidents may still be major problems. d. New construction will enable provisions to be made for pedestrians and bicycles. e. Established businesses will be disrupted or eliminated. f. Approximate cost $2, 600, 000. * (State) PROBABLE PUBLIC SUPPORT: _ GOOD _ FAIR X POOR _ UNACCEPTABLE _ UNKNOWN *Not included is $1, 700, 000 for replacing existing interchange at the Arches. , Option 4. * - Construct New Three -Lane Roadway for One -Way Westbound in Mariners Mile, and use Existing Coast Highway for Three -Lanes Eastbound. The Six Lane Section of Coast Highway from Dover to Mariners Mile Would be the Same as Option 3. (See Option 3 for assessment from Dover to beginning of Mariners Mile) a. ADT deficiencies will depend on development of surrounding road network, ranging from no deficiency to 12, 000. (Level of Service C to F) b. Traffic congestion may vary from none to moderate. c. Reduction in air pollution concentration and accidents. d. Business community will be substantially enhanced through improved access and circulation. e. Convenient and safe pedestrian and bicycle circulation can be provided with minimum cost. f. Disruption of some established businesses and off-street parking facilities. New on -street parking will more than offset these off-street parking spaces lost through construction. g. Approximate cost $11, 700, 000, of which $10, 2000 000 is for right-of-way. (Additional cost of $1, 700, 000 for replacing existing interchange at the Arches). (State) *If a suitable alternate route across Upper Bay Is not developed to relieve Coast Highway, then additional capacity will be required. A variation of Option 4 (Option 4A) is two four -lane one-way roadways rather than two three -lane one-way roadways. The width for four lanes is available on existing Coast Highway, while additional right-of-way would have to be acquired on the new align- ment for an additional westbound lane. A second variation, Option 4B, is to make Coast Highway four lanes one-way eastbound, and construct three lanes one-way westbound. With proper control of access and intersection design, section would operate quite well under most conditions. PROBABLE PUBLIC SUPPORT: GOOD FAIR POOR X UNACCEPTABLE UNKNOWN I- D-5 ASSESSMENT OF VARIOUS HIGHWAY OPTIONS ALONG COAST HIGHWAY FROM NEWPORT BOULEVARD TO SANTA ANA RIVER (Traffic volumes shown assume regional road network completed. Magnitudes of traffic volumes on Coast Highway from Newport Boulevard to Newport Freeway Extension depend on development of new Upper Bay Crossing to 17th Street with good connection to Newport Freeway Extension.) Option 1. - No Change from Adopted Master Plan a. Severe congestion at major intersection of Balboa and Superior, and along developed area to the west. ADT deficiency will range from 21, 000 to 34, 000. (Level of Service F) b. Congestion most of the day. c. High concentration of air pollutants from automobile congestion. d. High concentration of accidents, particularly along strip commercial in Newport Shores area. e. High hazard to pedestrians and bicycles. f. Some traffic will divert to an alternate route if available. For instance, if Balboa Boule- vard is extended to the north as shown on the Base Network, some traffic may divert via that route to Igth Street, then westerly across the Santa Ana River. g. Highway presents barrier between ocean beach and development on the northerly side of Coast Highway. h. Present low level bridge across Santa Ana River channel would not provide adequate access to possible marina development to the north. I. No additional construction costs, but high cost to users and inconvenience to beach users. PROBABLE PUBLIC SUPPORT: GOOD FAIR POOR.X UNACCEPTABLE UNKNOWN Option 2. - Widen Coast Highway to Six -Lanes With New Bridge Across Santa Ana River a. ADT deficiency will range from 6, 000 to 11, 000 depending on development of other parts of road network. (Level of Service E to F). b. Traffic will flow reasonably well except for intersection of Balboa Boulevard -Superior Avenue, which will likely have high incidence of accidents and concentration of air pollution. c. Provisions for pedestrians and bicycles can be incorporated into Coast Highway widening. d. Highway presents barrier effect between Ocean Beach and community on the north. e.* Low level bridge across Santa Ana River would present access problem for possible marina development to the north. f. Approximate cost $3, 600, 000, of which $1, 100, 000 is for new bridge across Santa Ana River channel. (State) PROBABLE PUBLIC SUPPORT: _ GOOD .X FAIR _ POOR —UNACCEPTABLE _UNKNOWN. *High level bridge could be constructed across Santa Ana River Channel, thereby increasing the overall costs for Option 2 from $3, 600, 000 to approximately $4, 000, 000. Option 3. - Same so Option 2 except with Interchange at Balboa Boulevard a. With slight realignment of Coast Highway northerly, interchange at Balboa Boulevard would not disrupt present development on south side of highway. b. Superior Avenue would be realigned to form tee intersection with Balboa Boulevard north- erly of interchange, thereby eliminating 5-Leg Intersection. c. Major capacity deficiency of Option 2 would be eliminated. d. Approximate construction cost would increase from $3, 600, 000 to $4, 500, 000. (State) PROBABLE PUBLIC SUPPORT: GOOD Z_ FAIR POOR _& UNACCEPTABLE UNKNOWN. Option 4. - Realign Coast Highway Northerly Around Newport Shores With Interchange at Newport Freeway Extension; Existing Coast Highway Would Cul-De-Sac at Santa Ana River (Alternate B-C) a. Roadways would have access control. Moderate capacity problem would occur at Superior Avenue-Baiboa Boulevard intersection. Roadway would generally operate under Level of Service E. b. Barrier effect of present Coast Highway would be eliminated. c. Separate facilities could conveniently and safely accommodate pedestrians and bicycles. d. Approximately 1, 000 feet more travel distance with Coast Highway realigned, but this is not considered significant. e. Possible marina development requires that roadway be kept elevated on structures within that area. f. Acquisition of right-of-way could present additional problems since road alignment is in area of oil field, g. Approximate cost $15, 900, 000, of which 5, 200, 000 is for right-of-way. (State, Others) PROBABLE PUBLIC SUPPORT: eX GOOD _ FAIR _ POOR _ UNACCEPTABLE _ UNKNOWN M. Hmeran Consulting Services a Engineering/Planning �smacyan Transportation Transit and Associates Traffic 1821 Port Renwick, Newport Beach, California 92660 (714) 640.5737 August 4, 1977 City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Beach Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Attention: Mr. Bill Darnell Dear Mr. Darnell: FILE 'COPY DO NOT RINIOVE Enclosed is Progress Report No. 5 for the month of July, 1977, for the project titled "Development of Traffic Circulation Models". The Progress Report represents a summarization of the activities of this entire project team including City staff, Herman Kimmel and Associates, Inc.,'and-Herman Basmaciyan and Associates. Please contact me if I can help provide further details pertaining to any phase of -the project. Sincerely, HERMAN BASMACIYAN AND ASSOCIATES vo Herman Basmaciyan, P.E. HB/cb - - ; to �ry A U G I P 19 77,,;;- NEVJPORi CALIF. OITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 0, DEVELOPMENT OF TRAFFIC CIRCULATION MODELS PROGRESS REPORT NO. 5, JULY 1977 GENERAL Overall progress during the month of July was slow attributable primarily to the delay in receiving the Regional travel pattern information. This data, reportedly, is being compiled by the Regional agency and should be available shortly. While the project is behind schedule at this time, it is expected that the "milestone" dates will be met barring any further lengthy delays in receiving the Regional travel pattern information. PROGRESS BY TASK The attached chart presents the percentage completion of each task as of July 31, 1977, with reference to the scheduled time of performance for the task. The tasks associated with regional travel data (G-10, G-11 and E-7) are behind schedule pending the receipt of the Regional travel pattern information. Network coding and trip end estimating tasks, while behind schedule, are progressing satisfactorily. Trip generation rates for additional categories of special traffic generators have been established. MEETINGS The list of meetings held in July in conjunction with this project is presented in Attachment I. PROBLEMS While several tasks are behind schedule, completed in accordance with established the Regional travel pattern information August as anticipated. Respectfully submitted by: Herman Basmaciyan, P.E. it is expected that work will be milestone dates -- assuming that will be available early in PROGRESS REPORT NO. 5, JULY 1977 ATTACHMENT NO. I LIST OF MEETINGS (NOTE: In the list of participants, RE denotes Richard Edmonston from City staff; EG denotes Edward Granzow, Jr., from Herman Kimmel and Associates, Inc.; HB denotes Herman Basmaciyan; HKA denotes Herman Kimmel and Associates, Inc.) DATE Participants Subject 7/6/77 B. Nolan, B. Darnell, D. Hogan (City Discussed model capabilities and Staff), HB potential uses and its role as a toll in making phasing decisions. 7/28/77 RE, HB Discussed the status of the City's data collection tasks for traffic volumes and speed studies. r i �C 1 • d'kr • it jv;h f r u ., .J DI M 1VEHICLE CODE r rr ENFORCED y�. ®aaao©ai_WHITE DIMENNS saaa®a BACKGROUND WIT11 BLACK BORDER LEGEND SYMBOL._ BACKGROUND .mCE OF i r' t 1. CITY OF I41-.1NPORT BEACH GENERALIZI: ORK FLOW AND SCHEDULE FOR VELOPMENT OF COMWTERIZED TRAI'[IC ESTIMATIOMW DELS PcnrtFnt.nerp Comn]etion by Task Major Responsibility 1977 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineering 65# 90# 100 0-1 Collect Peak t Off -Peek Minter Treffie Count. C 90i '1 00 C 0-2 Make Peak t Off-peak Speed Studies �O _ _ _ G-I Conduct Vehicle License Plate Survey In Cooperation with Orange County LNA G-4 Perform Additional Trip Generation Studies 30# EQA 100 p `' G-10 Re4uont i Obtain Regional DataLa VO JC/1Y6 G-12 Collect Summer Peak t Off -Peak Tralfir Count. G-11 Maka Summ+v Speed Studies ' G-14 Conduct Summer Vehicle O..-eve 1'I,11e Survey (LMA Partiolpetisn) G-15 Complle Summer Trip Generation Data foe Selected Lend Uses City of Newport Beach Community Development E-1 Compile Existing 1.snd Use and/or Socto Economic Data 113 Format Suitable for 5 5 0 100 Model Input r-1 Compile Future Land Use t Socla Economic Data in Format Suitable for Model Input 70 V0 Lj - Consultants G-5 Define Study Area Boundary G-6 Define Trip Generation i Trip Distribution Procedures in Specific Terms lao 0 O/ i 00 100 80 0-7 Define AP41;.1s Zones G-9 Defin• Lind Ilse t Regional Data Re Rui,.nemte 5 0 100 0 80 100 G-9 Analyze Traffic Data from G-li G-2, G4, 0-4 0 0# G-11 Evaluate Pegional Data r-2 Dr LI"eate rxintleg Net 10 Oh 0 g0# 80# 100 lob E-1 AnelYse Zen.. t Net far Cnmpetibility E-4 Cs ... terlsr rxinting Net Tncluding nennralized Cnpasitlrn 0 20 QO 50# 50# f� E-5 rntimate Existing Trip Ends In Study Area # 0alyz- E-6 AuPath., Rnvirw/MmirY ej r-I Re..neiln with ROCIOndl Dote 1 0# C-s Drvrlop Existing Trip T.tble r-9 inml Net t Evaluate APAlnnt Ground' counts - Use Capacity Rentraint Cd0 Adiunt/Modify as Nreeamary , E-11 Asens./Cvnlu.te Winter -Summer t Pesk-Off Peak Rrlati.nship. ' I Develop Comparative Factors ' t-12 Complete Documentation of Existing Model r-2 Delineate Future Network, - City Circu- Intl.. Clement Plus Appropriate Assumptions for Facilities Outside City n 2 0 r-2 Computerize Future Network with Capacity 0 r-4 Estlmste Future Trip Ends F-5 Evaluate Path, t Modify r-s Develop Future Trip Table Using Regional Infornatlon to Best Advantage F-F Load Network t Evaluate - Use Capacity Ron traint r-t Adiuet/Madify as Necessary F-9 A...../Evaluate Minter/Summer t Peak/ Off Peak Relationships and Develop Cooperative Factors F-10 Complete Documentation of Future Model Milestones 1 working "[.!sting",Model Available for Average Day 2 Working "Future' Model Available foe Average Day 2 Peek/Off Peak t Sumt.r/Winter R,%etl.n- ships for "Ex/ating" Yodel A 4 Peak/Off Peak t Summer/winter Relation- ' ships for "Future- Model - Note : Numbers in each month for each task indicate percentage of the task completed as of the end of that month. Arrows pointing to the left indicate that the task was initiated grior to anticipated start time. if indicates task was -behind schedule at end of month. r and Associates r f-oc ( . ' Consulting S ices Engineering/Planning Transportation Transit Traffic 1821 Port Renwick, Newport Beach, California 92660 (714) 640-5737 October 1, 1977 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Attention: Mr. Bill Darnell Dear Mr. Darnell: Enclosed is Progress Report No. 7 for the month of September, 1977, for the project entitled "Development of Traffic Circulation Models". The Progress Report represents a summarization of the activities of this entire project team including City Staff, Herman Kimmel and Associates, Inc., and Herman Basmaciyan and Associates. Please contact me if I can help provide further details pertaining to any phase of the project. Sincerely, MERMAN BASMACIYA14 AND ASSOCIATES � G. Herman Basmaciyan, P. L. HB.b �- t Encs. v± OCTi 1917t* I��� io CITY OF NEGIPORT BEACH DEVELOPMENT OF TRAFFIC CIRCULATION MODELS PROGRESS REPORT NO. 7, SEPTE B ER 1977 GENERAL The regional travel information was received from the Regional• Plan- ning Agency during the month and considerable progress was made. How- ever, the first milestone has not yet been achieved..Several days are needed to complete the work associated with the "Existing Model". PROGRESS BY TASK The attached chart presents the percentage completion of each task as of September 30, 1977, with reference to the scheduled time of performance for the task. The tasks behind schedule at.this time are E-8 through E-10 (the few remaining activities for the "Existing Model" and some of the tasks associated with the development of the "Future Model." Major accomplishments during the month consist of the computerization of the existing network and checking of the travel paths, and the estimates of total tripmaking. MEETINGS The list of meetings held in September in conjunction with this project, other than technical staff discussions, is presented in Attachment 1. PROBLEMS With the imminent achievement of the first Milestone, no problems are anticipated. Intensive work on the "Future Model" during October will lead to the completion of the second Milestone on or near schedule. Respectfully submitted by Herman Basmaciyan, F.E. r • • PROGRESS REPORT NO. 7, SEPTEMBER, 1977 ATTACIiMENT NO. 1 LIST OF MEETINGS Date Participants Subject 9/ 7/77 Presentation by Bill Darnell and H. Basmaciyan to City's Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee about the project 9/13/77 Bill Darnell (City Staff) Review• H. Basmaciyan Progress 9/16/77 B. Darnell and D.•Dmohowski Review future land (City Staff),H. Basmaciyan use projections 9/19/77 9/27/77 Presentation by B. Darnell and H. Basmaciyan at City Council Study Session about the project R. Edmonston (City Staff) H. Basmaciyan Major progress Review 1'1,0"-; mill: ClII,*!1IiLI; I'LC7I"Id�i•:11;1I1' Of• CO,I6TI:RfZED TRAI*; IC !:G;TIHA'1'[011 Iit)hGLi i'•: r,,cn Lo.(,o (, o•r ola Ll.nn by 1C1s1•. 1977 :ajor Responsibility ;6--Ir Ali I•lay Juu Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineering r 6i=i1 O,oi loo G-1 Collect Peak t Off -Peak Winter Ttatf3c Counts it J iQj 0 n 17,01: G-7 Make Peat t Off -Peak Speed Studies G-3 Conduct Vehicle License Plate Snrvvy in , Cooperation with Orange County IHA G-V Perform Additional Trip Generation Studies 1 v G-10 Request t Obtain Regional Data G-11 Collect Summer Peak 6 Off -Peak Traffic Counts C-13 Make Summer Speed Studies G-14 Conduct Summer Vehicle Lleeuum Plate 'tIl Survey (EMA Peetielpatinn) G-0me 5 Compile Summer Trip Generation Data for Selected Land Uses ' City of Newport Beach Community Development 5 5 o /i 1 00 E-1 Compile Existing Land Use and/or Seel. Economic Data in Format Suitable for Model Input %J _4>f 1 00 F-1 Compile Future Land Use t Seelo Economic Data in Format Suitable for Model Input Consultants O G-5 Define Study Area Boundary O0 100 G-6 Define Trip Generation t Trip Distribution Procedures in Specific Terms ° goll 1 00 G-7 Define Analysis Zones �jand 1 7011 100 0-4 Define LUse t Regional Data Roquirenents J 801¢ ' 100 10 50/ , G-9 Analyze Traffic Data from G-11 G-7, G-3, G-4 0// 0TT •f 100 G-11 Evaluate Regional Data 0� 1 0 50;; 0 1 ei/ 1co t-9 Delineate Existing Net 6 L� 5 r' 1 807rt 100 E-3 Analyze Zones 6 Net for Cempntibility f/�� 20.E C �i a r. 100 E-4 ComputrrSae Existing Net Including .aL. zf _JOif ./51 Generalized Capacities 0 20i1 ro 4i G0T E-5 Estimate Existing Trip Ends in 100 Study Area y. 100 0 7 E-6 Analyze, Patho, Review/Hodify ' Olf 0J. 100 E-7 Reconcile with Regional Data 10 /1 f 10 T Q E-6 Develop Existing Trip Table •'0J ^ �r E-9 Load Ntt 6 Evaluate Agtinst Ground 0.7/ Counts - Use Capacity Restraint 0 /' 07 E-30 Adjust/Modify as Necessary C-11 Assess/Evaluate winter -Summer t 304 Peak -Off Peak Relationships 9 Develop Comparative Factors e E-19 Complete Documentation of Existing Model 20 7 ,4 20A 100 F-Z Delineate future Network - City Circu- 11 lation Clement Plus Appropriate Assumptions for Fee ilities Outside City 0 0# 10 F-3 Computerize Future Retwork with Capacity () 17071,7 20 F-4 Estimate Future Trip Ends 0 0•• F-5 Evaluate Pathe 9 Modify 0 F-6 Develop future Trip Table Using Regional Information to Beat Advantage F-7 Load Network t Evaluate - Uss Capacity Restraint F-B Adjust/Hodify as Necessary f-9 Asoeco/Evaluato Winter/Summer 6 Peak/ Off Peak RclationDhipo and Develop Comparative rectos F-10 Complete Documentation of Future Model Milestones 1 Working "Ekisting",Hodel Available for Average Day I Working "Future" Model Available for Average pay Q 3 Peak/Off Peak t Su=tr/Winter Relation- ships fee "Eziacing" Model �+ 4 Peak/Off Peak 9 Summer/Winter Relation- ships for "rutura" Model Note : Num:bers in each month for each tusk indicate task completer, as of the end of that months Arroirs nointin; to the le" to indicate that the nrior to anticipated start times in ;lc,:.tas ta_:ac ..a.. _ . in ..s _ s,,,..... i_ e at -?nd o percentaSe of the task was initiated f --a 13.Za 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 1974 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH August 9, 1974 STUDY SESSION TO: Planning Commission ITEM NO. 2 FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Alternate Land Use Traffic Study Attached is the Alan M. Voorhees, Inc., report on the Alternate Land Use Traffic Study. As described in this report, the purpose of the study is to assess the traffic impact created by projected land development on those road segments where deficiencies are projected (per the AMV Phase III Study) and then consider limitations on development as a possible means of alleviating the traffic problem. This study concludes that "the concept of reduction in travel through reduction in density or changed land use cannot be applied unless spread over a large area", and that the deficiencies in the street system may be "improved through study and application of specific improvements;". The study also indicates that, of the several traffic zones which contribute significantly to the traffic problem, only two lend themselves to development limitations: Traffic Zone 16 (Newport Center) and Traffic Zone 32 (Banning Property). Mr. Al Krier, from Alan M. Voorhees, Inc., will attend the August 15, 1974 Study Session to present his report and answer questions. Staff would suggest that the Planning Commission discuss the desirability of limiting development intensity in Newport Center (Traffic Zone 16) to the projections utilized in this study. Although it may not be practicable or desirable to substantially reduce development intensity, uncontrolled 1411, 11 `, DO $NOT REMOVE TO: Planning Commission - 2 development in Newport Center is contrary to General Plan policy and could result in critical aggravation of the traffic problem. i If the Planning Commission agrees that this is desirable, staff will prepare a proposed method of limiting development intensity in Newport Center for the Commission's review and action. The only other area where City regulation of development intensity could have a significant effect on traffic volumes, according to the AMV Study, is the Banning property (Traffic Zone 32). This area is designated for a Specific Area Plan prior to development; the Specific Area Plan will address both land use intensity and the circulation system in the area. At that time, the results of this study will be considered in the development of the Specific Area Plan. Staff would also suggest that the Planning Commission support the concept of detailed study for critical segments of the street system and the development of specific roadway and intersection improvements. Such improvements could significantly increase traffic capacity on critical segments. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT R. V. Hogan, Director By - --�� "- Ti&/Cowd11 Advance Planning Administrator TC:jmb Att. 0 0 ALAN M. VOORHEES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 19 July 1974 AMV REF. 256.000 �'%� •'� %' Mr. Richard Mogan, Director o`A' Community Development Department City of N<:wport Boesch 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Mr. Hogan: In November, 1973, following discussion with you and your staff, we outlined a work program for analyzing possible land use revisions in Newport Beach which might lessen traffic impacts at critical capacity locations. As a result of this work outline, you authorized us to pro- ceed with this investigation the latter part of December, 1973. You later furnished us with revised land uses for zones within Newport Beach, for which detailed investigation was to be made. The following report follows the outline and work tasks described in our November letter. All exhibits mentioned in this text are attached to this report. The purpose of this analysis is first, to determine the traffic impact, created from 18 selected traffic zones, on those road segments which are considered over capacity, and then consider revisions in the land use to alleviate capacity problems, .should that appear to be a practical solution. The 18 traffic zones are shown on Exhibit 1. The following steps and procedures were used in conducting this study: 1. Revise Network The last revisions made to the Newport Beach Traffic Study road network were during Phase II of the study. In Phase III of that study a Composite Network was developed which incorporated some signi- ficant changes to the selected network, Alternate B-C. These revisions and others which were recommended by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council were as follows: Changed University`Avenue from primary to major road status between Newport Freeway and Corona del Mar Freeway. Deleted second bay crossing. Bison Avenue changed from major to primary i� i,l VT Mr. Richard Hogan City of Newport Beach 19 July 1974 Page 2 / 21i6.000 Gh.uigcd Nord Ituad from secondary to primary between Jamborce Road and Corona del Mar freeway. Ghanged 22nd SLrccL from secondary to primary. Delete Cliff' Drive florn General Plan network. Change Coast highway from major td primary (modified) from Newport Boulevard to Dover D�ivei, and from MacArthur Boulevard to east of Canyon Crest Drive. Realign Corona del Mar Freeway down coast, and designate Coyote Canyon Drive as a primary road. Show Newport Boulevard as a, major road between Coast Highway and 32nd Street. Add link on southerly end of Newport Freeway to connect into Newport Boulevard. Realign section of Culver Drive between Bonita Canyon Drive and San ,Joaquin hills Road. 2. Analyze Revised Network After incorporating the above changes, the revised network was analyzed to determine if logical trip patterns were being produced. Paths from selected zones were traced and the network was found to be producing those paths which a motorist would logically choose between the trip origin and destination. 3. Assign Traffic• The trip table which was used in Phase 11 of the Newport Beach Traffic Study was modified to include changes in zones as furnished by the Goinniunity Development Department. These changes are shown on Exhibit 2, and the total trip gencrati6ns for the previous and revised zones are compared. Of the 18 zones examined, eight de- creased in trip generation, four increased, and six were unchanged. The revised trip generation totaled 646, 447, while the previous trip generation total was 627, 677, or a net gain of 18, 770. The trip generation and zone reap for Zone 16 (Newport Center) are shown on ISxhibits 'LA and 2B. This new trip generation was incorporated into the previous trip table and the assigned to the revised network. A plot of these volumes was made for the entire• network. Road segments in Newport Beach Mr. Richard Ilogan City of Newport Beach 19 July 1974 Page 3 / 256.000 having traffic volumes in excess of l,cvel of Service L were tabulated for further analysis. For explanation on rapacity and Level of Service, see Exhibit 5 at tho end of this report. 4. Plot Travel Patterns for Zones in Newport Beach Individual machine traffic plots were made for the 18 traffic zones being analyzed. These plots show the paths taken by the traffic going to and coming from the: individual zones to all other zones within the network. P or any particular road segment within the network, the amount of traffic contributed by each zone can be determined. From these plots it is possible to make an estimate of the change in traffic irrrpact which may occur from changed land use or density. This information was reviewed at a meeting with members of the City Community Development Department. 5. AnaLvze Traffic Volumesiand Patterns A stumnary table was prepared (Exhibit 3), which shows those road segments having a traffic capacity deficiency in Newport Beach. Included in Exhibit 3 are volumes and percentages of traffic which each I of the 18 zones contributes to those capacity deficient road segments. For this analysis, any zone contributing 100/c or more of the total ADT to a capacity deficient toad segment was considered to have significant impact on that road segment. Combinations of zones can also be con- sidered. The following two examples are used as further explanation. Example 1. - Single zone contributing 10% or more of the total ADT to a road segment. Referring to Exhibit 3, road segment 432-520, relocated Coast Highway from Arookhurst Street to Lhe Newport Shores area has an assigned ADT of 46,000. Of this ADT, Zone 2 contributes 15.2% (from Exhibit 3), Zone 4, 10.4%., and Zone 32, 10.6'%•. The other zones each contribute loss than 10%. to road segment 432-520. These three zones were then further investigated to determine if the land uses could bo changed or modified, and what effects may occur from such revisions. Example 2. - Several zones individually contributing less than l0c/a: of the ADT to a road segment. Almost .ell Oho road segments listed in Exhibit 3 would fall in this category. Vor instance, road segment 155-158, which is Coast Highway from Newport IlouLevard to Riverside Avenue, has three Ll Mr. R.ichardllogan City of Newport Reach 19 July 1974 Page 4 / 256.000 zones over 10%. (2, 16 and 21), while there are six zones ranging between 4.7%, and 7.4'%•, :and totaling 39%. of the ADT. Changes or modifications in the land uses in these six zones might collectively or in combination have a significant impact on road segment 155-158. Two separate meetings were hold with City staff members to discuss the information in Exhibit 3. Representatives of the Irvine Company were invited and attended these meetings. At the first meeting (April 30) Exhibit 3 was reviewed in considerable detail. Information v.as distributed on land use an3 trip generation which went into the; development of this analysis. It was determined that many of the zones could be eliminated from further consideration since the land uses could neither be reduced in density or modified due to existing developments. A meeting was scheduled for May 14 to further review those zones having a significant impact on road segments showing traffic capacity deficiencies, and to arrive at some conclusions how they may be treated. At the May 14 meeting we were informed by representatives of the Irvine Company that the retail (Fashion Island) square footage in Zone 16 (sub zone 9) was not 1.76 million as used in the analysis, but instead 1.2 million. I -low this occurred is not clear, but the change makes a considerable difference in the results of the analysis. In addition, Irvine Company representatives also stated that their studies in February 1974 in Newport Center showed that generation from office space is 13 trips per 1, 000 square feet rather than the 15 which was used in the analysis. There are of course, varying trip factors for office use, with the factor of 15 being commonly accepted. however, with the specific information being furnished by the Irvin; Company (although belatedly), its use was recommended. These changes resulted in a reduction in daily trip generation in 'Lone 16 frorn 16 1, 910 to 129, 340, for a net reduction of 32, 570 or about 20'%. The reduction in retail space accounts for about three - fourths of this reduction. The revised trip generation table for Zone 16 is tabulated on Exhibit 4. These changes affect the traffic assignment in several ways. Trips attributed to retail land use are based on the relative attract- ion between residential areas and the retail services offered. In general, we can say that much of the reduction'in trips generated by this retail would be from residential zones outside Newport Beach, although there may be some reduction from residential areas within Newport Beach. An estimate of the reduction in traffic volumes on the Individual links in the road network can be obtained by reducing e Mr. Richard Hogan City of Newport Beach 19 .July 1974 Page 5 / 256.000 all the volumes on the plot (tr1•u) for the Zone 16 traffic assignment. The result of' this would he revisions in the data, previously described in Exhibit 3. This revised data is shown on Exhibit 4A. It should be noted that Lhe traffic volume deficiencies for road segments 234-239 and 231-229 have been eliminated, whit: for the segments 222-286 and 231 -236, the deficiency has been reduced to 1, 000. if road seg- munL 229-233 is eliminated from further consideration because of the small defic•icnc•y (4, 000), then there are only three segments left to consider in Newport Reach. These segments are 220-221, 221-222 and '286-226, which are all on Coast. highway. A further review of all zones still under consideration for reducing traffic irnpac•Ls showed that Zone 32 in West Newport was the only other zone over which sonic cxerc•Lsc of control by the City may be practical. Much of 'Lone 32 is virtually free of development, while some redevelop- ment can also be expected to occur. Referring again to Exhibit 4A, the first three road segments listed have 10.6%c•, 34.5%,-, and 16.8%r., respect- ively, of the total traffic contributed by Zone 32. The total traffic gen- eration for Zone 32 (from Exhibit 2) is 32,400 which is a reduction of 6, 200 from that used in the Newport Beach Traffic Study. Much of this impact comes from what would be a limited major road system in the area, causing this traffic to load on to the network at two loca- tions. 6. Possible Measures and Effects One of Lhe purposes of this analysis is Lo consider revisions in land use which would reduce traffic generation and help to reduce traffic capac ity problems in Newport Beach. There is a wide vari- ation in trip generation from different land uses, which may be in- creased or reduced for ;cny particular development depending on density. Consider the worlc and shopping trip generation possibilities on one parcel of property if developed in the following alternate land uses. Residential - Almost all residents would travel out of area for employment. Daily needs may be met by "neighborhood commercial, " but trips would be made out of area for other goods and ser- vices. The dovoLopment would essentially generate trip origins (productions), with destinations (attractions) outside the dev(�lop- ment. rI Mr. Richard Rogan City of Newport Reach 19 July 1974 Page 6 / 256.000 Retail Goniinercial - This activity would be supported by surrounding residential, but the greater the size of the commercial development, the larger the surrounding area needed to support it. The development would essen- tially generate trip destinations,attracting traffic frorn outside to within. Office - Similar to retail commercial, but provides jobs rather than satisfying shopping needs. Industrial - Similar to retail commercial, but provides jobs rather than satisfying shopping needs. Multi -Use: Center - Multi land use components to some extent complement each other, with interaction of persons within the center reducing the need for people to make trips to points outside. The internal trip activity is greater, but on the other hand the center Ls likely to attract more external trips than developments of equal size in which components are less physically integrated. The one factor not mentioned in the above land uses is density; how much is put on the land in terms of type and number of dwelling units, square feet of commercial and office space, or types and size of social /rec:reational uses. For instance, if we have 100 acres of single family residential at four units per acre and 10 trips per dwell- ing unit, there is a total trip, generation of 4, 000 per day. This same parcel may contain multi -family residential at, say 20 units per acre with eight trips per unit, for a total trip generation of 16, 000 per day. It' this sarne 100 acres was developed as industrial with trip gen- eration of 100 per acre, the total daily generation would be 10, 000. Consider this 100 acres containing an office center of 2, 000, 000 aquacre {ect with trip generation of 15 per 1, 000 square feet. The total daily Irip generation would be 30, (700. Or consider this same 100 acres containing a regional shopping center of I, 000, 000 square feet, which is a fairly common size development. With trip generation of 45 per 1,000 square feet, the total is 45,000 per day. Mr. Richard Llogan City of Newport Beach 17 July 1774 Rage 7 / 256.000 While it can be seen that the type of development and the land uses surrounding it have a substwitial affect on trip generation, a factor of equal and sunictimes greater importance is density. It is quite apparent that densities can be increased to the: point where it is not physically possible to adequately provide for the private automobile in serving the lauid uses, either in terms of access or parking. The above examples could be, applied to any number of different land uses or variations thereof, such as substituting a mobile home park for single family residential. Ilowevex, the above categories of residential, industrial and commercial generally cover those uses involving Large land parcels. ]From review of Exhibit 4A, the effects of changing the retail use in "Lone 16 from 1.76 million square feet to 1.2 million squire feet can be seen. Although some, major deficiencies still exist, the over- kill impact has been substantially lessened. These of course, are estirnates and the exact effect cannot be determined without going through a complete traffic: reassignment. Additional reduction in retail or other uses in Zone 16 may further reduce the traffic impact. However, it should be understood that a certain minimum level of goods and services are necessary for the community. If these are not provided, then there must be travel outside the community to obtain these goods and services. The road system around Zone 16 has been design(.(] to acconimodate anticipated traffic with one exception, that being Coast Ilighway. Coast highway is currently deficient in capa- city and, on the segments in question, the improvements planned will not remove these deficiencies. It is not possible to remove these deficiencies on the road system through revising or reducing land use density in Zone 10; they can only be alleviated. Again referring to Exhibit CIA, consider segment 220-221 for example, which is Coast Highway I'rona Ilayside Drive to Jamboree Road. The revised volume on than segment from Zone 16 is 16, 000, while the capacity defici- ency is 17, 000. What this means is that to remove this deficiency simply by considering rucluc:ing Zone 16 aneans that Zone 16 would have to cease to exist. Zone 32 in West Newport is a different situation from Zone 16 in that the road system is Limited clue to the type of land use proposed (recreational -marina development). The traffic assignment shows 26,000 loading directly on to Coast Highway with over 21, 000 of this on the segment immedl.,tely to the south of the zone. It is possible to ruduce the impact in this area through either providing more choices of traffic distribution (through more roads) or to change the land use to reduce trip generation. Mr. Richaidl-logan City of Newport Beach 19 July 1974 Page 8 / 21i6.000 The adopted circulation elcrnent for the City of Newport Beach contains "planned defic:ioncics;" in other words, there are roadway sections that will be substantially over capacity when the system is completed, using trip generation based on the current City land use plan. Although a decision has been made not to upgrade the classifi- cation of certain roads or construct certain improvements, there are specific things which could help to improve conditions without violating the intent of the adopted circulation element. For instance, intersection approach treatment could be accomplished on Coast Highway at some locations where there are capacity and safety dbficiencies. These treatments could include such things as minor street widenings, traffic signal upgrading, selective parking and turn prohibitions, and special provisions for pedestrians. In view of the alternatives available for resolving some of the transportation problems, detailed study of improvements for these deficient locations is strongly recommended. A conclusion reached is that the concept of reduction in travel through reduction in density or changed land use cannot be applied with much success unless spread over a wide area. The concept must be carefully applied to ensure that a balance in land use is also attained which will furnish the goods and services required by the community. Strict but realistic growth policies may produce results, but may also take a long time to do so. Land use change or density revision in Zones 16 and 32 in Newport Beach can alleviate, but not by themselves eliminate, traffic capacity deficiencies in Newport Beach. The circulation element of the City contains some locations with "planned deficiencies, " but these conditions may be improved through sturly and application of specific: improvements. Very truly yours, A.LAN M. VOORTIEES & ASSOC. A. II. Krier Regional Manager AIIK:,js Attachments In addition to the attached Exhibits 1 through 5, Exhibit 6 lists those items which were developed for this study and turned over to the City. ...... .: it - p It.. 1: 11(fL: IIJt Ii : - r %V11 '. . . I If" . Iv I-u ....... ... `4 rn I (ig) :zi (96 L I. II It It r'I 01 Isorl is 111 lip " d 1"1 .1 60 lilt J1, I S4 WIL 2- 42 52 5D 51 62 44 tie 49 48 4; 33 63 64 7 66 '39 73 At 37 4.1 36 35 is 30,4 74 69 it 2 27 49 t:r. 24 ...... .. is 69 lilt j04 31 ..19 70 . fv; 16. 4 10 .3 40 1 j EXHIBIT I NEWPORT BEACH ALTERNATE LAND USE TRAFFIC ZONES ANALYZED 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 31, 32, 74, 75 n EXHIBIT 2 NEWPORT BEACH ALTERNATE LAND USE STUDY POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT €: TRIP GENERATION A er:eed prey:a0a Empinymem T,,p-Can. Factors 1990 Trip Genera:.an Employment Trip Gen. Facture 1940 Trip Generation lone Pop. Total Pop. Total Total Read P.P. I Emp1ol, Pop. Employ. Total Retail Pop. Employ. Pop. Employ. 1 217E - - 3.0 - 6, 520 - 6520 24SO - 3.0 - 7350 - i350 2 6321 2479 509 3.0 i5 19.000 37.200 56.200 64SI 2479 503 3.0 15 19.300 37.200 S6.$00 4 5 7652 i 5226 S18 322 61 i39 3.0 3.0 IS IS 22.900 15.700 7.900 4.900 30.800 20.602 7652 5409 518 322 63 139 3.0 3.0 IS IS 22.900 16, SOO 7,a00 4, 903 30,511 =1,4C0 7 I 7527 985 199 3.0 IS 23.500 14,700 38.200 3133 985 199 3.0 IS 24, 110 14, 700 1o, 100 IIZI- I 3500 Ill 94 2.5 ne 21,200 nc 39. 7C3 3709 153 94 Z.5 15 21, 800 2,200 39.700 14 42CO 673E Z65 2.3 3.1 10. SCO 20. 897 31.397 6091 673E 265 2.S 3.1 15, 200 20, 8i7 36.097 IS 7540 613 IDS 2.5 15 18. ODD 9.200 28,000 5628 613 105 2.5 15 14,100 9. 200 23.303 16 1500 18,30D Z400 3.0 Varlable 4,500 157.410 161.910 3020 14.656 I'm 2.5 8 7.SSO 116.950 124,SDD 17 1200 $07 95 3.0 i5 3.60D 8.800 12.400 4534 537 95 2.5 IS 11.300 8.600 20, 100 18 Z330 570 215 3.0 IS 7.000 8.470 15.470 2330 STO 2I5 2.S IS 5.850 8.470 14.300 19 3000 742 17 2.3 IS 7.500 11,120 I8, 620 2071 742 17 2.5 .IS 5.130 11,120 16.300 ZO Z414 8S2 IS2 Z.5 IS 6.030 12.870 18.900 2414 852 152 2.5 IS 6.030 12, 070 13.000 ZI 4003 1478 Z32 2.5 i5 10.000 16.100 26.100 4003 1067 171 2.3 IS 10.000 16.300 2a,100 31 4391 4740 578 2.5 3.t 10,900 9.830 20,730 6561 3138 Z73 2.5 3.1 16.300 9.830 26, 130 3Z $534 13" Z47 2.5 8 . 21.300 11.100 32, 400 11.001 1334 247 Z.5 a ZT. SOO 11, NOR 35. 600 74 i5 - 22, 252 299 33.500 35.000 31. 500 55.000 33.500 55,000 33.500 55.000 No G6an8a from pearl., as al8+unent 646,447 627.677 • T+rnaLLu r L. City of ]lna 4a P...oaa Is from x"port Iia..h Trrf31c 8ta4r u • I • • Sub Zone 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 13 A 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 E:XTIiBIT 2A NEWPORT BEACH ALTERNATE LAND USE Newport Center Trip Generation Zone 16 Land Use Office Office Office Office Office Condos Office Hotel Retail Office Office Medical Office Theatre Office Office Cultural Ctr Specialty Sh. Office Country Club Residential Auto Dealer SG. Ft. or Other Units 40,000 200,000 150,000 1,148,000 42.0,000 245 D.U. 300,000 377 Rooms 1,760,000 560,000 150,000 150,000 80,000 500 seats 150,000 165,000 120,000 320,000 528 D.U. Trip Factor 15/1000 15 15 15 15 8/D.U. 15 10/Room 45/1000 15 15 40/1000 15 .5/seat 15 15 30/1000 15 10 ADT 600 3,000 2, 250 17,220 6,300 1,960 4,500 3,770 79,200 8,400 -2, 250 6,000 1,200 250 2,250 2,480 4,500 3,600 4,800 1,700 5,280 400 161,910 LAND USE Sub Zone 1 40, 000 S. F Office 2 200, 090 S.F. Office 3 150, t.•30 S.F. Office 4 1, 14000 S.F. Office 5 420.. 10 S.F. Office 6 245 Condominiums 'r 300, •J :>. F.' Office 8 Hotel ;__ Rooms ? 1, 7uu, 000 S.F. Retail 10 560,01 0 S.F. Office 11 150..,,.0 S.F. Office 12 150, t •10 S.F. Medical 13A The..'.re 13 80,0-JS,F. Office 14 150, Ct•0 S.F. Office 15 165,000 S.F. Office 16 Cwltural Centre 17 120, 000 S.F. Specialty Shops 18 320,C00 S.F. Office 19 Coun;i) Club 20 66 Acres, 528 Units 21 Auto Dealer Changed to 1,200, 000 in Revised Trip Generation Table, Exhibit 4 I 41" Hul Rd. J 10 6 I1 9 12 7 ti I ? i 3A 14 15 19 Numbers Indicate Sub -Zone Coast H 18 'v 16 EXHIBIT 2B. SUB ZONE - LAND USE MAP FOR NEWPORT CENTER ZONE 16 0 17 • ■ r Sub Zone 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 ,8 9 10 11 12 13 13 A 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ` 21 E XH 113I T 4 NEWPORT BEACH ALTERNATE LAND USE Revised Trip Generation Table For 'Lone 16 Land Use Office Office Office Office Office Condos Office Hotel Retail Office Office Medical Office Theatre Office Office Cultural Ctr Specialty Sh. Office Country Club Residential Auto Dealer Sq � Ft. or Other Units 40,000 200,000 150,000 1,148,000 420,000 245 D,U. 300,000 377' Rooms 1,200,000 560,000 150,000 150,000 80,000 500 seats 150,000 165,000 120,000 320,000 528 D.U. Trip Factor 13/1000 13 13 13 13 8/D.U. 13 10/Room 45/1000 13 13 40/1000 13 .5,/seat 13 13 30/1000 13 10 ADT 520 2,600 1,950 14,920 5,460 1,960 3,900 3,770 54,000 7,200 1,950 6,000 1,040 250 1,950 2,150 4,500 3,600 4,160 1,700 5,280 400 129,340 NEWPORT BEACH ALTERNATE LAND USE STUDY COMPARISON OF NETWORK VOLUMES AND TRAFFIC DEFICIENCIES IN NEWPORT BEACH - ____ _.-.... .. r.., r.•r• .w, w, r•1v nllD •f RL•Ar U Road Segment Road Name No. 432-520 Coast Hwy. (Reloc) 520-228 Coast Hwy. (Reloc) 228-553 Coast Hwy. (Reloc) 155-158 Coast Hwy. 158-159 Coast Hwy. 220-221 Coast Hwy. 221-222 Coast Hwy. 222-286 Coast Hwy. 286-226 Coast Hwy. 155-156 Newport Blvd. 156-214 Newport Blvd. 231-236 Jamboree Rd. 229-233 MacArthur Blvd. 234-239 MacArthur Blvd. 442-464 MacArthur Blvd. 231-229 San Joaquin Hills R 243-4779: University Dr. Location From Brookhurst :Newport Shores Area Interchange Newport Blvd. Riverside Ave. Bayside Dr. Jamboree Rd. Newport Ctr. Dr. MacArthur Blvd. Coast Ilwy. Via Lido San Joaquin Hills Rd. San Joaquin Hills Rd. Ford Road Michelson Dr. Jamboree Rd. Corona Del Mar Fwy. * Outside Newport Beach City Limits To Newport Shores Area Interchange 15th Street Riverside Ave. Dover Dr. Jamboree Rd. Newport Ctr. Dr. MacArthur Blvd. E of Marguerite Ave. Via Lido McFadden Pl. Bonita Canyon Rd. Ford Road Bonita Canyon Dr. San Diego Fwy. MacArthur Blvd. California Ave. _ A DT, Thousands Assigned I Capacity Defi 46 43 3 62 43 19 50 43 7 51 36 15 43 36 7 64 43 ++ i 21 59 43 16 46 43 3 52 32 20 59 50 9 62 32 30 52 43 9 55 43 12 49 43 6 55 43 12 47 43 4 , 65 43 22 Traffic Volumes in 1,000's on Deficient Links in Road Network From Various Zcnes '{% is Zone Volume on Link Dividod by 1 2 4 5 7 - -- -- - 1DT Assi 31 Vol 0"C Vo. Vol 1 °te Vol % Vol °c VO1 '- % VOl` _ °%c VOl -D �e VO1 .D °/e VO1 17 18 19 20 21 1 me 'r n; �c Vol VO1 °'e V o i Vol ,g 1.7 7.(3 I15.2 4.8I 10.4 .8 1.7 1.2 2.6 .4 .9 - - - - 1.3 2.8 ,2 4 1.= 3.3 1.7 3.7 1,8 3.9 2.9 6.3 3.2 1.1I 1.8 9.Z i1=.8 5.61 9.0 1.1 1.8 1.4 2.3 .6 I 1.0 .1 .2 .1 2.2 3.6 I I I .2 ,3 .5 1 . 2.7 2.0 3.2 2.1 3.4 3.4 5.5 4.3 3.6 j 7.2 11.8123.6 7.0I 14.0 1.2 2.4 1.6 3.2 - - - - - - 2.5 5.0 1.3I 2.5 12.4124.3' 3.8 7.4 2.4 4.7 3.2 6.3 .5 I 1.0 .7 1.4 1.0 8.2 16.1 .4 .8 2.' 4.4 .5 ,g 1.6 3.5 6.9 1.0 2.3 10.2123.71 i 3.0 7.0 2.8, 6.5 3.6 8.4 .8 1.9 .9 2.1 .7 1.6 9.7 22.6 .9 2.1 3.9 9.1 ,8 1.3 7.2lI.2 2.4 3.8 5.9 19.2 7.2 11.2 1.6 2.5 2.0 3.1 1.7 2.7 20.7 32.4 1.6 2.5 6.5 10.2 .6 I 1.0 5.8 i 9.8 2.0 I 3.4 16. 4 10.8 8.5 14.4 1.9 3.2 - - .1 .2 23.6 40. 1, 7 1.2 4.1 7.0 .4 j .9 3.6 7 . 81 1.3 2. 8 I i 3. 2 7.0 12.2 26.5 2.3 5.0 .4 . 9 - - 7.5I 16.3 .6 1.3 2.1 4.6 .3 .6 2.8 5.41 1.1� 2.1 2.6 5.0 24.7 47.5 2.1 4.0 .5 11.-0 .4 7.5�14.4 I .8 .6 1.2 1.6 3.1 .4 .7 33.2,56.3 20.2 34.3 .7 1.2 .9 1.5 .4 .7 .5 .8 .5 .8 3.1 I 5.3 ,2 .3 .9 1.5 .3 .5 2.4 3.9I22.8 36.8 .1 .2 .2 .3 .1 .2 .1 1.1 I .2 .1 .2 .7 _ _ .1 .2 .1 .2 .8 1.51 .2 .4 6.4 112.3 .4 .8 - - 2.9 5.6 8.9 17.1 37.7I72.5 7.1 13.7 1.6 3.1 I - 9.0 16.4 - I- 7.0 12.7 - - 37.7.68.6 _ - - - - - - - - - 8.5 17.3 - - - - - 31.6 64.6 - - - 2 .4 .2 .4 .1 .2 .2 .4 I .2 I .4 .3 .5 .3 .5 1.9 3.5 .1 .2 .1 I .2 - - - - - - - - .4 .9 12.6 6.5 13.8 6.3 13.4 45.9 97.7 2.6 5.2 1 I .2 .7_ 1.LI,3 .5 .4 .6 .7 1.1 1.1.2 2 I.3 2.3 3.5 1.9 12.9 9.5 14.6 .8 1.2 3 1 .5 4.4 8.8 5.4 1.3 i 2.5 1.3 I 2.5 14.2 27.8I 2.8 :. 3.0 1.3 3.0 5.8 13.5 2.4 I10.3 5.6 i 6.7 110.5 5.0 7.9 1.9 1•9 8.3 5.0 8.5 4.0 6.8 1.7 ?.5 i 5.4 2.5 I 5.4 2.3 5.0 1.1 1.9 i 3.7 2.0, 3.8 2.0 3.8 1.0 :.0 1.7 1.0 j.7 3.1 5.3 2.0 2 .3 .1 1 .2 .7 1.1 .4 s 1.5 .9 11.7 .5 11.0 - = I= 1 I .2 .1 2 1 .6 .3 .5 I .3 I .5 .4 32 I 74 ( 75 Vol 1, % I Vol I 41C I Vol 7.0 4.9 10.6 - - - - 6.9 21.4 34.5 .1 .2 .2 .3 10.8 8.4 16. 8 _ - _ _ 5.5 3.7 7.3 - - - - 5.6 3.2 7.4 - - - - 3. 0 2.9 4.5 - - - - 2.9 2.6 1 4.4 - - - - 2.4 1.7 3.7 . 1 .2 . 1 .2 1.9 1.5 2.9 .3 .6 .5 1.0 3.4 .9 1.5 .3 .5 .6 1.0 .6 .7 1.1 .1 .2 .2 .3 - - - .5 1.0 .6 1.2 - - - 6 1.1 .8 1.5 - - - 8 1.0 1.2I 2.4 2 .2 .4 6.9 12.5 10.8 19.6 I 1 .2 . 1 I .2 .6 .6 .9 - - 4.31 6.6 EXHIBIT 4 A NEWPORT BEACH ALTERNATE LAND USE STUDY REVISIONS OF EXH=BIT 3 FOR ZONE 16 Zone 16 Vol. in Thousands Road Segment No. Road Name From To ADT Thousands S `'c 9n.Defic'11e nt Links in Ro is 'Network Assigned Vol Cap. Deficiency evise Orig. Rev. Orig. Rev.1 Vol. i 'c Vol. 1 ii. 220-221 Coast Highway Bayside Dr. Jamboree Rd. 64 60 43 21 17 20.7 32.4 16.6 27.7 221-222 Coast Highway Jamboree Rd. Newport Ctr. Dr. 59 54 43 16 11 23.6 40.1 18.9 35.0 222-286 Coast Highway Newport Ctr. Dr. MacArthur Blvd, 46 44 43 3 1 7.5 16.3 6.0 13.6 23t-226 Coast Highway MacArthur Blvd. F.of Marguerita 52 50 32 20 13 7.5 14.4 6.0 12.0 231-236 Jamboree Rd. San Joaquin Hills Bonita Cyn. Rd. 52 44 43 9 I 37.7 72.5 30.2 68.7 229-233 MacArthur Blvd. San Joaquin Hills Ford Rd. 55 47 43 12 4 37.7 68.6 30.2 64.3 234-239 MacArthur Blvd. Ford Rd. Bonita Cyn. Dr. 49 43 43 6 0 31.6 64.6 25.3 58.8 231-229 ' San Joaquin Hills Jamboree Rd. MacArthur Blvd. 47 38 43 4 0 45.9 97.7 36.7 96.7 243-477 • University Dr. Corona Del Mar California Ave. 65 63 43 22 20 9.5 14.6 7.6 12.1 Freeway ► Outside Newport Beach City Limits • • 1 • • Sul) Zone 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 ,8 9 10 11 12 13 13 A 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ` 21 EXI-I[BIT 4 NEWPORT BEACH ALTERNATE I..AND USE Revised Trip Generation Table For Zone 16 Land Use Office Office Office Office Office Condos Office Hotel Retail Office Office Medical Office Theatre Office Office Cultural Ctr Specialty Sh. Office Country Club Residential Auto Dealer Sq. Ft. or Other Units 40,000 200,000 150,000 1,148,000 420,000 245 D,U. 300,000 377 Rooms 1,200,000 560,000 150,000 150,000 80,000 500 seats 150,000 165,000 120,000 320,000 528 D.U. Trip Factor 13/1000 13 13 13 13 8/D.U. 13 10/Room 45/1000 13 13 40/1000 13 .5/scat 13 13 30/1000 13 10 ADT 520 2,600 1,950 14,920 5,460 1,960 3,900 3,770 54,000 7,200 1,950 6,000 1,040 250 1,950 2,150 4,500 3,600 4,160 1,700 5,280 400 129,340 EXIIII3IT 5 Roadway G.Lpac:ity Roadway capacity is defined as the maximum number of vehicles that can pass over a given section of a roadway during a given time period under prevailing roadway and traffic conditions. In expressing capacity, it is essential that prevailing roadway and traffic conditions be stated. In Newport Bc.u•h, we have assumed maximum capacity with standard conditions such as good roadway surface, standard lane widths, relatively level terrain, clear weather, and no disruptive effects such as road maintcnance or accidents. Roadway (•npacity can be defined in terms of vehicles per lane per hour or, per day, in one or both directions. For long range planning it is most practical to define capacity in terms of Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for a particular type of roadway. The ADT's used for various types of road- w%,ys in Newport Beach are as follows - Road ay Tyne ADT Secondary 15,000 Secondary with 2-way left turn lane 22,000 Primary 27,000 Primary with parking prohibited during peak hours 32, 000 - 36, 000 Major 43,000 6-lane freeway 110,000 8-lane freeway 150,000 These volumes represent maximum roadway capacity under standard conditions. At these volume levels, speeds would be relatively low, for instance shout 30 miles per hour for free flowing conditions on a freeway, and stoppages may occur. In terms of Level of Service, this would be considered as E Traffic volume demands greater than this would create constant stop-go conditions, and substantial delays would re SUlt. Level of Service 1) was used in Newport Beach Traffic Study. The two :tttaclied Figures graphically illustrate typical traffic volume conditions on roadways operating within capacity limits, and with demand exceeding capacity. Figure I shows a typical roadway operating within capacity limits. Patti the AM and PM peaks are. relatively sharp. Figure 2 illustratcs what occurs when demand exceeds capacity. Between 2 PM and 3 PM the roadway 1)(,gins to card% the maximum capacity and does not fall below this imiximitin until after 6 PM. This is essentially what frequently occurs at Coast Highway and Dover Drive when demand exceeds capacity. The volume reaches maximum capacity and'stays that way for several hours. Speeds are low, delays may be lengthy, congestion is very evirlent, and accidents are likely to occur. Conditions are less than tolerable and such locations are constant sources of aggravation to the motorists. Since traffic is not likely to decrease (but rather increase), locations such as Coast Highway and Dover Drive operate at capacity for increasingly longer periods, sometimes all afternoon and into the evening hours. NOTE: For a more detailed explanation of capacity, see highway Research Board Special Report 87, highway Capacity Manual, 1965. a 1 W T a 0 — Maximum Capacity — _ — _ _ _ _ _ — _ PM Peak AM Peak 12M 2A 4.A 6A 8A 10A 12N 2P 4P 6P 8P 10P 12M TIME OF' DAY FIGURE 1 TYPICAL ROADWAY OPI-.RATING WITIiIN CAPACITY LIMITS Maximum Capacity fi AM Peak 0 Demand Exceeds. Capacity in PM Peak 12M ?.A 4A 6A 8A JOA 12N 2P 4P 6P 8P tOP 12M D!: Y 11C;uiCl L a:.tl...:�::,ua.ai a aai iCl 1�x..V1Ai�L kXC�lDS CAPACITY DURING I'M PEAK I • EXHIBIT G Other Information Furnished to Ow City Community Development Department as a Part of 'Ehis Study. Plots - one sheet showing the projected traffic assigned to the road network . 18 sheets showing individual plots of traffic assignments for the 18 ?,ones analyzed. Trip Generation - Trip Generation Reference Table Tabulations FromComputer Analysis: NO. 11. Select Tree Minimum Time Paths VI. Trip Find Surnmary of Revised Trip Table VII. Traffic Assignment to Road Network Including Turn Volumes Villa. & Link and Turn Volumcs for 18 Individual Zones IX. • • NEWPORT BEACH AI.,TERNATE LAND USE LIST OF .EXHIBITS 1 Traffic Zones Analyzed 2 Population, Employment and Trip Generation 2A Newport Center Trip Generation 2B Newport Center Sub Zone -Land Use Map 3 Comparison of Network Volumes and Traffic Deficiencies in Newport Beach with Volume of Traffic Generated From Zones in Newport Beach 4 Revised Trip Generation Table for Zone 16 4A Revisions of Exhibit 3 for Changes in Zone 16 5 Explanation of Capacity and Level of Service 5252 BALBOA AVENUE, SAN DIEGO, O.-IFORNIA 92117 '(3�p`0 714/278.3363 ILI kv) F ALAN M. VOORHEES & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS 19 July 1974 AMV REF. 256.000 Mr. Richard Hogan, Director Community Development Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Mr. Hogan: In November, 1973, following discussion with you and your staff, we outlined a work program for analyzing possible land use revisions in Newport Beach which might lessen traffic impacts at critical capacity locations. As a result of this work outline, you authorized us to pro- ceed with this investigation the latter part of December, 1973. You later furnished us with revised land uses for zones within Newport Beach, for which detailed investigation was to be made. The following report follows the outline and work tasks described in our November letter. All exhibits mentioned in this text are attached to this report. The purpose of this analysis is first, to determine the traffic impact, created from 18 selected traffic zones, on those road segments which are considered over capacity, and then consider revisions in the land use to alleviate capacity problems, should that appear to be a practical solution. The 18 traffic zones are shown on Exhibit 1. The following steps and procedures were used in conducting this study: 1. Revise Network The last revisions made to the Newport Beach Traffic Study road network were during Phase II of the study. In Phase III of that study a Composite Network was developed which incorporated some signi- ficant changes to the selected network, Alternate B-C. These revisions and others which were recommended by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council were as follows: Changed University Avenue from primary to major road status between Newport Freeway and Corona del Mar Freeway. Deleted second bay crossing. Bison Avenue changed from major to primary DO INOT REMOVE .7"HOIGTON 0� • LONDON . H07*UJUJ a DENVER • ORLANDO W TORONTO • ST. LOUIS • CARACAS . SEATTLE • BOSTON • SANJUAN • HOUSTON EW,10 • wT•LANTA . .AN DIEGO v L02 ANGELES • ZURICH v NEW BRUNBVJICK • DALLAS a CHICAGO • PHILAOELPHIA • EAN FRANCISCO K MELBOURNE • r L_ Mr. Richard Hogan City of Newport Beach 19 July 1974 Page 2 / 256.000 Changed Ford Road from secondary to primary between Jamboree Road and Corona del Mar Freeway. Changed 22nd Street from secondary to primary. Delete Cliff Drive from General Plan network. Change Coast Highway from major to primary (modified) from Newport Boulevard to Dover Drive, and from MacArthur Boulevard to east of Canyon Crest Drive. Realign Corona del Mar Freeway down coast, and designate Coyote Canyon Drive as a primary road. Show Newport Boulevard as a major road between Coast Highway and 32nd Street. Add link on southerly end of Newport Freeway to connect into Newport Boulevard. Realign section of Culver Drive between Bonita Canyon Drive and San Joaquin Hills Road. 2. Analyze Revised Network After incorporating the above changes, the revised network was analyzed to determine if logical trip patterns were being produced. Paths from selected zones were traced and the network was found to be producing those paths which a motorist would logically choose between the trip origin and destination. 3. Assign Traffic The trip table which was used in Phase II of the Newport Beach Traffic Study was modified to include changes in zones as furnished by the Community Development Department. These changes are shown on Exhibit 2, and the total trip generations for the previous and revised zones are compared. Of the 18 zones examined, eight de- creased in trip generation, four increased, and six were unchanged. The revised trip generation,totaled 646, 447, while the previous trip generation total was 627, 677, or a net gain of 18, 770. The trip generation and zone map for Zone 16 (Newport Center) are shown on Exhibits 2A and 2B. This new trip generation was incorporated into the previous trip table and the assigned to the revised network. A plot of these volumes was made for the entire network. Road segments in Newport Beach Mr. Richard Hogan City of Newport Beach 19 July 1974 Page 3 / 256.000 having traffic volumes in excess of Level of Service E were tabulated for further analysis. For explanation on capacity and Level of Service, see Exhibit 5 at the end of this report. 4. Plot Travel Patterns for Zones in Newport Beach Individual machine traffic plots were made for the 18 traffic zones being analyzed. These plots show the paths taken by the traffic going to and coming from the individual zones to all other zones within the network. For any particular road segment within the network, the amount of traffic contributed by each zone can be determined. From these plots it is possible to make an estimate of the change in traffic impact which may occur from changed land use or density. This information was reviewed at a meeting with members of the City Community Development Department. 5. Analyze Traffic Volumes and Patterns A summary table was prepared (Exhibit 3), which shows those road segments having a traffic capacity deficiency in Newport Beach. Included in Exhibit 3 are volumes and percentages of traffic which each of the 18 zones contributes to those capacity deficient road segments. For this analysis, any zone contributing 10% or more of the total ADT to a capacity deficient road segment was considered to have significant impact on that road segment. Combinations of zones can also be con- sidered. The following two examples are used as further explanation. Example 1. - Single zone contributing 101c or more of the total ADT to a road segment. Referring to Exhibit 3, road segment 432-520, relocated Coast Highway from Brookhurst Street to the Newport Shores area has an assigned ADT of 46, 000. Of this ADT, Zone 2 contributes 15.27o (from Exhibit 3), Zone 4, 10.416, and Zone 32, 10.67c. The other zones each contribute lesscthan 1076 to road segment 432-520. These three zones were then further investigated to determine if the land uses could be changed or modified, and what effects may occur from such revisions. Example 2. - Several zones individually contributing less than 107c of the ADT to a road segment. Almost all the road segments listed in Exhibit 3 would fall in this category. For instance, road segment 155-158, which is Coast Highway from Newport Boulevard to Riverside Avenue, has three C, Mr. Richmd)Hogan City of Newport Beach 19 July 1974 Page 4 / 256. 000 zones over 100/6 (2, 16 and 21), while there are six zones ranging between 4.77o and 7.476, and totaling 38% of the ADT. Changes or modifications in the land uses in these six zones might collectively or in combination have a significant impact on road segment 155-158. Two separate meetings were held with City staff members to discuss the information in Exhibit 3. Representatives of the Irvine Company were invited. and attended these meetings. At the first meeting (April 30) Exhibit 3 was reviewed in considerable detail. Information was distributed on land use and trip generation which went into the development of this analysis. It was determined that many of the zones could be eliminated from further consideration since the land uses could neither be reduced in density or modified due to existing developments. A meeting was scheduled for May 14 to further review those zones having a significant impact on road segments showing traffic capacity deficiencies, and to arrive at some conclusions how they may be treated. At the May 14 meeting we were informed by representatives of the Irvine Company that the retail (Fashion Island) square footage in Zone 16 (sub zone 9) was not 1.76 million as used in the analysis, but instead 1.2 million. How this occurred is not clear, but the change makes a considerable difference in the results of the analysis. In addition, Irvine Company representatives also stated that their studies in February 1974 in Newport Center showed that generation from office space is 13 trips per 1, 000 square feet rather than the 15 which was used in the analysis. There are of course, varying trip factors for office use, with the factor of 15 being commonly accepted. However, with the specific information being furnished by the Irvine Company (although belatedly), its use was recommended. These changes resulted in a reduction in daily trip generation in Zone 16 from 161, 910 to 129, 340, for a net reduction of 32, 570 or about 20%. The reductibmin retail space accounts for about three - fourths of this reduction. The revised trip generation table for Zone 16 is tabulated on Exhibit 4. These changes affect the traffic assignment in several ways. Trips attributed to retail land use are based on the relative attract- ion between residential areas and the retail services offered. In general, we can say that much of the reduction in trips generated by this retail would be from residential zones outside N-ewport Beach, although there may be some reduction from residential areas within Newport Beach. An estimate of the reduction in traffic volumes on the individual links in the road network can be obtained by reducing ��� Mr. Richard Hogan City of Newport Beach 19 July 1974 Page 5 / 256.000 all the volumes on the plot (tree) for the Zone 16 traffic assignment. The result of this would be revisions in the data previously described in Exhibit 3. This revised data is shown on Exhibit 4A. It should be noted that the traffic volume deficiencies for road segments 234-239 and 231-229 have been eliminated, while for the segments 222-286 and 231-236, the deficiency has been reduced to 1, 000. If road seg- ment 229-233 is eliminated from further consideration because of the small deficiency (4, 000), then there are only three segments left to consider in Newport Beach. These segments are 220-221, 221-222 and 286-226, which are all on Coast Highway. A further review of all zones still under consideration for reducing traffic impacts showed that Zone 32 in West Newport was the only other zone over which some exercise of control by the City may be practical. Much of Zone 32 is virtually free of development, while some redevelop- ment can also be expected to occur. Referring again to Exhibit 4A, the first three road segments listed have 10.676, 34.57c, and 16. 87c, respect- iveiy, of the total traffic contributed by Zone 32. The total traffic gen- eration for Zone 32 (from Exhibit 2) is 32,400 which is a reduction of 6, 200 from that used in the Newport Beach Traffic Study. Much of this impact comes from what would be a limited major road system in the area, causing this traffic to load on to the network at two loca- tions. 6. Possible Measures and Effects One of the purposes of this analysis is to consider revisions in land use which would reduce traffic generation and help to reduce traffic capacity problems in Newport Beach. There is a wide vari- ation in trip generation from different land uses, which may be in- creased or reduced for any particular development depending on density. Consider the work and shopping trip generation possibilities on one parcel of property if developed in the following alternate land uses. Residential - Almost all residents would travel out of area for employment. Daily needs may be met by "neighborhood commercial, " but trips would be made out of area for other goods and ser- vices. The development would essentially generate trip origins (productions), with destinations (attractions) outside the develop- ment. Mr. Richard Hogan City of Newport Beach 19 July 1974 Page 6 / 256.000 Retail Commercial - This activity would be supported by surrounding residential, but the greater the size of the commercial development, the larger the surrounding area needed to support it. The development would essen- tially generate trip destinations, attracting traffic from outside to within. Office - Simila:E to retail commercial, but provides jobs rather than satisfying shopping needs. Industrial - Similar to retail commercial, but provides jobs rather than satisfying shopping needs. Multi -Use Center - Multi land use components to some extent complement each other, with interaction of persons within the center reducing the need for people to make trips to points outside. The internal trip activity is greater, but on the other hand the center is likely to attract more external trips than developments of equal size in which components are less physically integrated. The one factor not mentioned in the above land uses is density; how much is put on the land in terms of type and number of dwelling units, square feet of commercial and office space, or types and size of social/recreational uses. For instance, if we have 100 acres of single family residential at four units per acre and 10 trips per dwell- ing unit, there is a total trip generation of 4, 000 per day. This same parcel may contain multi -family residential at, say 20 units per acre with eight trips per unit, for a total trip generation of 16, 000 per day. If this same 100 acres was developed as industrial with trip gen- eration of 100 per acre, the total daily generation would be 10, 000. Consider this 100 acres containing an office center of 2, 000, 000 square feet with trip generation of 15 per 1, 000 square feet. The total daily trip generation would be 30, 000. Or consider this same 100 acres containing a regional shopping center of 1, 000, 000 square feet, which is a fairly common size development. With trip generation of 45 per 1, 000 square feet, the total is 45, 000 per day. Mr. Richard Hogan City of Newport Beach 19 July 1974 Page 7 / 256.000 While it can be seen that the type of development and the land uses surrounding it have a substantial affect on trip generation, a factor of equal and sometimes greater importance is density. It is quite apparent that densities can be increased to the point where it is not physically possible to adequately provide for the private automobile in serving the land uses, either in terms of access or parking. The above examples could be applied to any number of different land uses or variations thereof, such as substituting a mobile home park for single family residential. However, the above categories of residential, industrial and commercial generally cover those uses involving large land parcels. From review of Exhibit 4A, the effects of changing the retail use in Zone 16 from 1.76 million square feet to 1.2 million square feet can be seen. Although some major deficiencies still exist, the over- all impact has been substantially lessened. These of course, are estimates and the exact effect cannot be determined without going through a complete traffic reassignment. Additional reduction in retail or other uses in Zone 16 may further reduce the traffic impact. However, it should be understood that a certain minimum level of goods and services are necessary for the community. If these are not provided, then there must be travel outside the community to obtain these goods and services. The road system around Zone 16 has been designed to accommodate anticipated traffic with one exception, that being Coast Highway. Coast Highway is currently deficient in capa- city and, on the segments in question, the improvements planned will not remove these deficiencies. It is not possible to remove these deficiencies on the road system through revising or reducing land use density in Zone 16; they can only be alleviated. Again referring to Exhibit 4A, consider segment 220-221 for example, which is Coast Highway from Bayside Drive to Jamboree Road. The revised volume on that segment from Zone 16 is 16, 000, while the capacity defici- ency is 17, 000. What this means is that to remove this deficiency simply by considering reducing Zone 16 means that Zone 16 would have to cease to exist. Zone 32 in West Newport is a different situation from Zone 16 in that the road system is limited due to the type of land use proposed (recreational -marina development). The traffic assignment shows 26, 000 loading directly on to Coast Highway with over 21, 000 of this on the segment immediately to the south of the zone. It is possible to reduce the impact yn this area through either providing more choices of traffic distribution (through more roads) or to change the land use to reduce trip generation. Mr. Richar Hogan City of Newport Beach 19 July 1974 Page 8 / 256.000 The adopted circulation element for the City of Newport Beach contains "planned deficiencies;" in other words, there are roadway sections that will be substantially over capacity when the system is completed, using trip generation based on the current City land use plan. Although a decision has been made not to upgrade the classifi- cation of certain roads or construct certain improvements, there are specific things which could help to improve conditions without violating the intent of the adopted circulation element. For instance, intersection approach treatment could be accomplished on Coast Highway at some locations where there are capacity and safety deficiencies. These treatments could include such things as minor street widenings, traffic signal upgrading, selective parking and turn prohibitions, and special provisions for pedestrians. In view of the alternatives available for resolving some of the transportation problems, detailed study of improvements for these deficient locations is strongly recommended. A conclusion reached is that the concept of reduction in travel through reduction in density or changed land use cannot be applied with much success unless spread over a wide area. The concept must be carefully applied to ensure that a balance in land use is also attained which will furnish the goods and services required by the community. Strict but realistic growth policies may produce results, but may also take a long time to do so. Land use change or density revision in Zones 16 and 32 in Newport Beach can alleviate, but not by themselves eliminate, traffic capacity deficiencies in Newport Beach. The circulation element of the City contains some locations with "planned deficiencies, " but these conditions may be improved through study and application of specific improvements. Very truly yours, ALAN M. VOORHEES & ASSOC. /�i!�� A. H. Krier Regional Manager AHK:js Attachments In addition to lhe;Attached Exhibits 1 through 5, Exhibit 6 lists those items which were developed for this study and turned over to the City. • .:.,1t IT 'h''-."ek4a��.ia• � �_ : :11.: i r' _'rii-'1':.. �:ulll� ` i-Y j t' ,� � .�. :r�i 1: j( y _iSFL �:{c= 1 i �y.y'=�,. •a r- ...! F u'1, r` ,I F}�{,1:��7j. ^i �•' L. \— .I. y, i s1,>n;� k�. •.'. - 'in tj'C.• V:i `p! r. t•. ..:1:, i. :t Oil {' r' t ='t ry yr e'6 �.�i t •k1 ~, ' ,• ,� ` •�i�'.mr14 • Nil � �1; �.1. tY :�", :.i4 _ 82 i R 61 '^!'S9' -1 56!..}.v .!s�F�1���1_' j:tr��[�- i � !l:. :'ii k!'i'!-.=!;t�^tt'": �( !7+:.Lt•-i !t f�lf�rx.T4 ��`-�''• '�_ h-'-1 e�j 1 ,� � r,�! .,r{r�:,-1_..r �-.�{-I.' �' ' ' 4L'I"It UM —I it�;F seH tl_, _ w1IL� '!'V+ I1i5i 442 60 Yt rs-si __`•.- rit Ilr E yl _rl: �.��11•`s•�rr^e, r, •;. - .: N ° + _s1 53 '• ,., ..t�+�VT`r" l,,t �• �rY^ ,ry so r } 49 f48 47 s3 , F ��i7�_ 't!t,W � ,�y'S.,' ' _,'4 •_-.:��!('�"i"� ����'yf �, �.r._y�-� k •"t 63 64 LE- .,,;�i�•:+�66 .r `u:{;!_ ,.: v i-!. 6'r,• /` ^17 c a r'C it ; •• _ _ f'^ -its 1•,��-!!'' 41 _.!: x' 117 a 35 74 r/��I.Y f ❑❑�{ - �nJ { '1--.a' `(�vl., fir! 30. 70* r 75 68 4� 1 • hf 'yr,' : K- "t ._ a t&Z .O , �. '�'{.� !t't-'•;' l'` (�• i^: _ Win_ --'t •' qle, ,?"' L• . '•?S :-� /77' �~• Ui` -�. ,' •:24}: a 2e�:'I , p.; ...r �..,.. ,e... L 1 `%e t ti�t'L-... _ .. ' i .•I�, r;,t. ts�J`� 5e s � _ 1 ^; 33�t'j :�3' f �\c5j �•�! IM.�,i.^?f���Ti: 69 02 _ \ WX , 4 26 12 • 1 '%•y?<. �, yii,.\'' .20 .19 'ems' 17 v ., 16 ' `r`T=iri�tli�"� `ram-t� �,' *k��a/•' ��t7 � to y li EXHIBIT 1 9 NEWPORT BEACH ALTERNATE LAND USE TRAFFIC ZONES ANALYZED c+ , 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 31, 32,-74, 75 i ' I Zoe. 1 2 4 5 7 (12 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 51 ]2 74 75 Sub Zone 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 13 A 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 EXHIBIT ZA NEWPORT BEACH ALTERNATE LAND USE Newport Center Trip Generation Zone 16 Land Use. Office Office Office Office Office Condos Office Hotel Retail Office Office Medical Office Theatre Office 'Office Cultural Ctr Specialty Sh. Office Country Club Residential Auto Dealer Sq. Ft. or Other Units 40,000 Z00; 000 150,000 1,148,000 420, 000 245 D.U. 300,000 377 Rooms 1,760,000 560,000 150,000 150,000 80,000 500 seats 150,000 165,000 120,000 320,000 528 D.U. Trip Factor 15/1000 15 15 15 15 8/D.U�. 15 16/Room 45/1000 15 15 40/1000 15 .5/seat 15 15 30/1000 15 10 ADT 600 3,000 2,250 17,220 6,300 1,960 4,500 3,770 79,Z00 8,400 2,250 6,000 1,200 250 2,250 2,480 4,500 3,600 4,800 1,700 5,280 400 161,910 LAND USE Sub Zone 1 40, 000 S.F Office 2 200, 000 S.F. Office 3 150, 000 S.F. Office , 4 1, 148, 000 S.F. Office 5 420, 000 S.F. Office 6 245 D.U. Condominiums 7 300, 000 S.F. Office 8 Hotel 377 Rooms 9 1, 760, 000 S.F. Retail 10 560,000 S,F. Office 11 150, OUO S.F. Office 12 150,000S.F. Medical 13A Theatre 13 80, 000 S.F. Office 14 150, 000 S',F. Office 15 165, 000 S.F. Office 16 Cultural Centre 17 120, 000 S.F. Specialty Shops 18 320,000 S.F. Office 19 Country Club 20 66 Acres, 528 Units 21 Auto Dealer �= Changed to 1, 200, 000 in Revised Trip Generation Table, Exhibit 4 2 III 3 20 IT, 10 00 EXHIBIT 2B. SUB ZONE - LAND USE MAP FOR NEWPORT CENTER ZONE 16 P. r 17 NEWPORT B ACH ALTERNATE LAND USE STUDY COviPARISON OF NETWORK VOLUMES AND TRAFFIC DEFICIENCIES IN NEWPORT BEACH „-- ., ...,•„ A r- T- r T nr= A"Mn =nXA 7!l\i Vq TNT T\1VWPCIRT RF.A C'H VV 11 f1 VVLu _ Road Segment g No. I,l Vx 111!] I'1 Road Name - Location -- - -- --- - - ADT, Thousands Traffic Volumes in 1, 000's on Deficient Links in Road Network From Various Zcnes; % is Zone Volurzle on Link Divided by A Assigned Assigned Capacity Defic_ icnc 1 2 4 5 7 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 31 32 74 75 From � To Vol m ,c Vo, � ?Ic Vol % Vol % Vol Qc Vol % Vol °c Vol 0 Vol % -Vol% Vol % .roi % Vol % Vol Ic Vol % c Vol ' % Vol °/c Vol % 432-520 Coast Hwy. (Reloc) Brookhurst Newport Shores Area 46 43 3 .8 1.7 7.0¢ 15.2 4.8 10.4 .8 1.7 1.2 2.6 .4 • 9 - - - - 1.3 Z. 8 .2 .4 1.5 3.3 1.7 3.7 1.8 3.9 2.9 6.3 3.2 7.0 4.9 10.6 520-228 Coast Hwy. (Reloc) Newport Shores Area Interchange 62 43 19 1. 1 1.8 9.2 !14. 8 5.6 9.0 1. 1 1.8 1.4 2.3 .6 1.0 1 2 1 .2 2.2 3.6 ,3 .5 1.7 2.7 2.0 3.2 Z. 1 3.4 3.4 5.5 4.3 6.9 21.4 34.5 .1 .2 .2 .3 228-553 Coast Hwy. (Reloc) Interchange 15th Street 50 43 7 3.6 7.2 11.8 23.6 7.0 14.0 1.2 2.4 1.6 3.2 - - - - - - 2.5 5.0 ,4 .8 2.2 4.4 - - - 4.4 8.8 5.4 10.8 8.4 16.8 _ _ _ _ 155-158 Coast Hwy. Newport Blvd. Riverside Ave. 51 36 15 1.3 2.5 12.4124.3 3.8 7.4 2.4 4.7 3.2 6.3 .5 1.0 .7 1.4 .5 1.0 8.2 16.1 .8 1.6 3.5 6.9 U3 2.5 1.3 2.5 14.2 27.8 2.8 5.5 3.7 7.3 158-159 Coast Hwy. Riverside Ave. Dover Dr. 43 36 7 1.0 2.3 10.F 23.7 3.0 7.0 2.8 6.5 3.6 8.4 .8 1.9 .9 2.1 .7 1.6 9.7 22.6 .9 2. 1 3.9 9.1 1.3 3.0 1.3 3.0 5.8 13.5 2.4 5.6 3.2 7.4 2 221 Coast Hwy. Bayside Dr. Jamboree Rd. 64 43 21 .8 1.3 7.2 11.2 2.4 3.8 5.9 9.2 7.2 11.2 1.6 2.5 '2.0 3.1 1.7 2.7 20.7 32.4 1.6 2.5 6.5 10.2 6;6 10.3 6.7 10.5 5.0 7.8 1.9 3.0 2.9 4.5 2 222 Coast Hwy. Jamboree Rd. Newport Ctr. Dr. 59 43 16 .6 1.0 5. $ I '9.8 2.0 3.4 6.4 10.8 8.5 14.4 1.9 3.2 - - .1 2 23.6 40.1 .7 1.2 4.1 7.0 4.9 8.3 5.0 8.5 4.0 6.8 1.7 2.9 2.6 4.4 222-286 Coast Hwy. Newport Ctr. Dr. MacArthur Blvd. 46 43 3 .4 .9 3. b i' 7. 8 1.3 2.8 3. 2 7.0 12.2 26.5 2. 3 5.0 .4 .9 - - 7.5 16.3 .6 1.3 2.1 4. 6 2.5 5.4 2.5 5.4 2.3 5.0 1.1 2.4 1.7 3.7 .1 .2 .1 .2 286-226 Coast Hwy. MacArthur Blvd. E of Marguerite Ave. 52 32 20 .3 .6 2.$ 5.4 1.1 2.1 2.6 5.0 24.7 47.5 2.1 4.0 .5 1.0 .4 .8 7.5 14.4 .6 1.2 1.6 3.1 1.9 3.7 2.0 3.8 2.0 3.8 1.0 1.9 1.5 2.9 .3 .6 .5 1.0 155-156 Newport Blvd. Coast Hwy. Via Lido 59 50' 9 .4 .7 33.256.3 20.2 34.3 .7• 1.2 .9 1.5 .4 .7 .5 .8 .5 .8 3.1 5.3 .2 .3 .9 1.5 1.0 1.7 1.0 1.7 3.1 5.3 2.0 3.4 .9 1.5 .3 .5 .6 1.0 156-214 Newport Blvd. Via Lido McFadden Pl. 62 32 30 .3 .5 2.4 3.9 22.8 36.8 .1 .2 .2 .3 .1 .2 .1 .2 .1 .2 .7 1. 1 _ _ .1 .2 ? .3 .1 .2 .7 1.1 .4 .6 .7 1.1 .1 .2 .2 .3 231-236 Jamboree Rd. San Joaquin Hills Rd. Bonita Canyon Rd. 52 43 9 .1 .2 .8 1.5 .2 .4 6.4 12.3 .4 .8 - - 2.9 5.6 8.9 17.1 37.7 72.5 '7. 1 13.7 1.6 3.1 .8 1.5 .9 1.7 .5 1.0 - - - - .5 1.0 .6 1.2 229-233 MacArthur Blvd. San Joaquin Hills Rd. Ford Road 55 43 12 - i - - - - - - - 9. 0 16.4. - - 7.0 12.7 - - 37.7 68.6 _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .6 1.1 .8 1.5 234-239 MacArthur Blvd. Ford Road Bonita Canyon Dr. 49 43 6 - - - - - - - - 8.5 17.3 - - - - - - 31.6 64.6 - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .8 1.6 1.2 2.4 442-464 MacArthur Blvd. Michelson Dr. San Diego Fwy. 55 43 12 - - .2 .4 .2 .4 .1 .2 .2 .4 .2 .4 .3 .5 .3 .5 1.9 3.5 .1 .2 .1 .2 - .1 .2 .1 .2 .1 2 .2 .4 6.9 12.5 10.8 19.6 231-229 San Joaquin Hills Rd Jamboree Rd. MacArthur Blvd. 47 43 4 - - - - - - - - •4 .9 1.2 2.6 6.5 13.8 6.3 13.4 45.9 97.7 2.6 5.2 _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - _ 2t477 University Dr. Corona Del Mar Fwy. California Ave. 65 43 22 .1 .2 .7 1.1 .3 .5 .4 .6 .7 1.1 .2 .3 2.3 3.5 1.9 2.9 9.5 14.6 .8 1.2 3 I ,5 .4 t .6 .3 .5 .3 .5 .4 .6 .6 9 * Outside Newport Beach City Limits Sub Zone 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 13 A 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ` 21 EXHIBIT 4 NEWPORT BEACH ALTERNATE LAND USE Reyised Trip Generation Table For Zone 16 Land Use Office Office Office Office Office Condos Office Hotel Retail Office Office Medical Office Theatre Office 'Office Cultural Ctr Specialty Sh. Office Country Club Residential Auto Dealer Sq. Ft. or Other Units 40,000 200,000 150,000 1,148,000 420,000 245 D.U. 300,000 377 Rooms 1,200,000 560,000 150,000 150,000 80,000 500 seats 150,000 165,000 12.0,000 320,000 528 D.U. Trip Factor 13/1000 13 13 13 13 8/D.U. 13, 10/Room 45/1000 13 13 40/1000 13 .5/seat 13 13 30/100/0 13 10 ADT 520 2,600 1,950 14,920 5,460 1,960 3,900 3,770 54,000 7,200 1,950 6,000 1, 040 250 1,950 2,150 4,500 3,600 4,160 1,700 5,280 400 129,340 EXHIBIT 4 A NEWPORT BEACH ALTERNATE LAND USE STUDY REVISIONS OF EXHIBIT 3 FOR ZONE 16 ' 16 Vol. in Thousands Road ADT Thousands �Zone Ro as ND fietw.c Links in Segment Aasi ned Vol Deficient t ins Revised Orig. Rev. Orig. Rev. Vol. I % Vol. Bic No. Road Name From To Cap. 220-221 Coast Highway Bayside Dr. Jamboree Rd. 64 60 43 21 17 20.7 32.4 16.6 27.7 221-222 Coast Highway Jamboree Rd.. . Newport Ctr.Dr., 59 54 43 16 11 23.6 40.1 18.9 35.0 222-286 Coast Highway Newport Ctr. Dr. MacArthur Blvd. 46 44 43 3 1 7.5 16.3 6.0 13.6 286-226 Coast Highway MacArthur Blvd. E.of Marguerita 52 50 32 20 18 7.5 14.4 6.0 12.0 231-236 Jamboree Rd. San Joaquin Hills Bonita Cyn. Rd. 52 44 43 9 1 37.7 72.5 30.2 68.7 229-233 MacArthur Blvd. San Joaquin Hills Ford Rd. 55 47 43 12 4 37.7 68.6 30.2 64.3 234-239 MacArthur Blvd. Ford Rd. Bonita Cyn. Dr. 49 43 43 6 0 31.6 64.6 25.3 58.8 231-229 San Joaquin Hills 'Jamboree Rd. MacArthur Blvd. 47 38 43 4 0 45.9 97.7 36.7 96.7 243-477 University Dr. Corona Del Mar California Ave. 65 63 43 22 20 9.5 14.6 7.6 12.1 Freeway * Outside Newport Beach City Limits rA EXHIBIT 5 Roadway Capacity Roadway capacity is defined as the maximum number of vehicles that cari pass over a given section of a roadway during a given time period under prevailing roadway and traffic conditions. In expressing capacity, it is essential that prevailing roadway and traffic conditions be stated. In Newport Beach, we have assumed maximum capacity with standard conditions such as good roadway surface, standard lane widths, relatively level terrain, clear weather, and no disruptive effects such as road maintenance or accidents. Roadway capacity can be defined in terms of vehicles per lane per hour or per day, in one or both directions. For long range planning it is most practical to define capacity in terms of Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for a particular type of roadway. The ADT's used for various types of road- ways in Newport Beach are as follows: Roadway Type ADT Secondary 15,000 Secondary with 2-way left turn lane 22,000 Primary 27,000 Primary with parking prohibited during peak hours 32, 000 - 36, 000 Major 43,000 6-lane freeway 110,000 8-lane freeway 150, OOO These volumes represent maximum roadway capacity under standard conditions. At these volume levels, speeds would be relatively low, for instance about 30 miles per hour for free flowing conditions on a freeway, and stoppages may occur. In terms of Level of Service, this would be considered as E*. Traffic volume demands greater than this would create constant stop-go conditions, and substantial delays would r e sult. * Level of Service D was used in Newport Beach Traffic Study. The two attached Figures graphically illustrate typical traffic volume conditions on roadways operating within capacity limits, and with demand exceeding capacity. Figure 1 shows a typical roadway operating within capacity limits. Both the AM and PM peaks are relatively sharp. .Figure 2 illustrates what occurs when demand exceeds capacity. Between 2 PM and 3 PM the roadway begins to carry the maximum capacity and does not fall below this maximum until after 6 PM. This is essentially what frequently occurs at Coast Highway and Dover Drive when demand exceeds capacity. The volume reaches maximum capacity and stays that way for several hours. Speeds are low, delays may be lengthy, congestion is very evident, and accidents are likely to occur. Conditions are less than tolerable and such locations are constant sources of aggravation to the motorists. Since traffic is not likely to decrease (but rather increase), locations such as Coast Highway and Dover Drive operate at capacity for increasingly longer periods, sometimes all afternoon and into the evening hours. NOTE: For a more detailed explanation of capacity, see Highway Research Board Special Report 87, Highway Capacity Manual, 1965. I W a 0 — Maximum Capacity PM Peak AM Peak 12M •2A 4A 6A SA 10A 12N 2P 4P 6P 8P IOP 12M 'TIME OF DAY, FIGURE 1 TYPICAL ROADWAY OPERATING WITHIN CAPACITY LIMITS Maximum Capacity A AM Peak Demand Exceeds. Capacity in PM Peak d 12M 2A 4A 6A 8A 10A 12N 2P 4P 6P 8P 10P 12M TD,M OF DAY FIGURE 2 TYPICAL ROADWAY WHERE DEMAND.EXCEEDS CAPACITY DURING PM PEAK EXHIBIT 6 Other Information Furnished to the City Community Development Department as a Part of This Study. Plots - one sheet showing the projected traffic assigned to the road network. 18 sheets showing individual plots of traffic assignments for the 18 zones analyzed. Trip Generation - Trip Generation Reference Table Tabulations From Computer Analysis: NO. II. Select Tree Minimum Time Paths VI. Trip End Summary of Revised Trip Table VII. Traffic Assignment to Road Network Including Turn Volumes VIII. & Link and Turn Volumes for 18 Individual Zones IX. d NEWPORT BEACH ALTERNATE LAND USE LIST OF EXHIBITS 1 Traffic Zones Analyzed 2 Population, Employment and Trip Generation 2A Newport Center Trip Generation 2B Newport Center Sub Zone -Land Use Map 3 Comparison of Network Volumes and Traffic Deficiencies in Newport Beach with Volume of Traffic Generated From Zones in Newport Beach 4 Revised Trip Generation Table for Zone 16 4A Revisions of Exhibit 3 for Changes in Zone 16 5 Explanation of Capacity and Level of Service 6 Other Information 9 MEMORANDUM TO: Dick Hogan - Rod Gunn DATE: 13 May 1974 FROM: Al Krier JOB: 256 SUBJECT: Explanation of Traffic Volume Plots for Trees in Newport Beach Alternate Land Use Study At our meeting on Tuesday, April 30, I attempted to explain the trip duplication when volumes from individual zones are. taken from the plots of the trees and added together. Our computer technicians have assured me that this duplication occurs and that adjustments must be made if you want to consider the additive effect of zones. The procedure is perhaps best understood using an example of two zones. Consider the interaction between zone 5 and zone 16. Zone 5 is the area south of Coast Highway at Jamboree Road, and zone 16 is Newport Center. The volumes from the plot of the tree for zone 5 to zone 16 are as shown on the following sketch. Remember that these are one-way volumes and were doubled when presented in Exhibit 2, the table showing the network deficiencies (copy attached). (18, 978) (6438) 3219 Zone 5 to (and from) Zone 16 1467 (2934) This means that of the trips coming out of zone 5, 3219 went east on Coast Highway, and 1467 of these went to zone 16. The numbers in parentheses are the volumes doubled to give 2-way ADT. Now consider the volumes from the plot of the tree for zone 16 to zone 5. (23, 610) 11,805 (2930) Zone 16 to (and from) Zone 5 ' 5,812 r The trips coming out of zone 16 to zone 5 are 1465, and the two-way volume i$ 2930. Note that the corresponding volumes shown on the sketch for zone 5 to zone 16 are 1467 and 2934. These are the same volumes as zone 16• to zone 5. The slight variation (1467 vs 1465) is due to the rounding process. If the zones are considered together, the volumes must be reduced to avoid double counting. AMV-F-75-A To: Dick Mogan - Rod, Gunn , 13 May 1974 Page 2 Consider what occurs if zone 5 is modified. The total two-way volume for zone 5 is 18, 978 after adjustments made by the computer program for internal trips. Lets say we modified the land use in zone 5 so that the total two way volume was changed to 10, 000. What effect does this have on zone 16? It depends on howthe land use was modified, but if we assume the changes were in direct proportion to what the previous land uses were, then there would be a reduction in the volume on Coast Highway to 10, 000 x 6438 or about 3390. The two -way volume on 18,978 zone 16 as a result of the change in zone 5 would be reduced to 10, 000 18,978 x 2934 or about 1540. It must be noted that we have not changed the total trip generation to zone 16, but we have changed the amount of traffic contributed by zone 5. Unless the trip generation in zone 16 was reduced through a reduction in land use, it would be assumed that the..reduction in trips from zone 5 would now come to zone 16 from other locations. Another situation which should be noted is that a change in volume will affect many segments on the road network. For instance, assume we modify the land use in zone 32 which is in west Newport so that trip generation is reduced by 507c. Then all segments of the road network which had traffic assigned from zone 32, as shown on the plot of the tree, would be re- duced accordingly. Some reductions would be insignificant while others could be very significant. Of course we do not need to look at all of these segments in the network since we are concerned only with those having a capacity deficiency. 0 1 IIII S LT 2 _. NEWPORT 13EACII ALTERNATE LAND USL; STUDY COMPARISON OF NETWORK VOLUMES AND TRAFFIC DEFICIENCIES IN NEWPORT BEACH WITH M ZO`Ir.S IN NEWPORT BEACH Road Segment No. 432-520 520-228 228-553 155-158 158-159 220-221 221-222 222-286 286-226 155-156 156-214 231-236 229-233 234-239 442-464 231-229 243-477* VOLUME OF TRAFFIC GENkRA1ED FRO kDT, thousands Traffic Volumes in 1, 000's on Deficient Links in Road Network From Various .ones; % is Zone Volume on Link Divided by A Assigned Location I De{ic• 2 4 5 7 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 31 32 74 75 Road Name Assigned Capacity From To ienc %Vol % Vol 1, Vol I % %voll % i Vol Avol °,/c Vol % Vol I °° Vol I O/C3Vol oc Vol Ic Vol % Vol leVol % Vol % Vol °I° Vol % Vol % Coast Hwy. (Reloc) Brookhurst Newport Shores Area 46 43 3 . 8 1• 7.0 15.2 4. 8 10. 8 1. 1. 2 2.6 4 . 9 - - - - 1. 3 2. 8 _ - - - _ .4 I.5 3. .7 3. .8 3. 2.9 6.3 .2 7. 4.9 10.6 Coast Hwy. (Reloc) Newport Shores Area Interchange 62 43 19 . 1 1. 9. 2 4. 8 5.6 9.0 1 1 1 8 1.4 2.3 6 1. 1 1 2.2 3. 6 7 2. .0 3 2 1 3. 3.4 5.5 3 6. 21.4 4. 5 .2 .3 Coast Hwy. (Reloc) Interchange 15th Street 50 43 7 . 6 7 2 11.8 23. 7.0 14. 0 1 2 2 4 1. 6 3.2 - - 2.5 5. 0 2 4 4 - 4.4 8. 8 5 4 10 8 8.4 16.8 - - _ Coast Hwy. Newport Blvd. Riverside Ave. 51 36 15 1 3 .5 12.,4 24.3 3.8 7.4 2. .7 3.2 6. 3 1 0 .4 .0 8.2 1f 1 . 8 �.6 3115 6 9 1. 3 .5 1. .5 14.2 27. 8 2. .5 3.7 7.3 - Coast Hwy. Riverside Ave. Dover Dr. 43 36 -7 1. .3 10.2 3. 3.0 7.0 2. .5 3.6 8.4 .8 .9 .1 .6 9.7 Z2.6 ,9 .1 3. .1 1. 10 1. .0 5.8 13. 2. .6 3.2 7.4 - 1.3 7.2 1. 2.4 3.8 5. 9.2 7.2 11.2 1.6 2.5 2. 3.1 1. 2.7 20.7 2.a 1.6 2.5 6. 1 .2 6. 0.3 6.7 0.5 5.0 7.8 1.9 3.0 2.9 4.5 Coast Hwy. Bayside Dr. Jamboree Rd. 64 43 Z1 .8 - - - Coast Hwy- Jamboree Rd. Newport Ctr. Dr. 59 43 16 .6 1.0 5.8 9.8 2.0 3.4 5.4 0.8 8.5 14. 1.9 3.2 - - .1 .2 23.6 40.1 .7 i.2 4.1 7.0 4.9 8.3 5.0 8.5 4.0 6.8 1.7 2.9 2.6 4.4 - - - - Coast Hwy. Newport Ctr. Dr. MacArthur Blvd. 46 43 3 .4 . 9 3.6 7.8 13.0 28. 3.2 7.0 12..2 26.5 Z. 3 5.0 .4 . 9 - - 7.5 16. 31 .6 1. 3 2. 1 4.6 2.5 5.4 2.5 5.4 2.3 5.0 1. 1 2.4 1.7 . 3.7 . 1 .2 .1 .2 Coast Hwy. MacArthur Blvd. E of Marguerite Ave. 52 32 20 .3 .6 2.8 5.4 10.8 20. 2. 611. 5.0 24.7 447. 2. 1 4.0 .5 1. 0 .4 . 8 7.5 14.1f .6 1.2 1.6 3. 1 1.9 3.7 2.0 3.8 2. 0 3.8t46 1.5 '. 2.9 .3 .6 .5 1.0 Newport Blvd. Coast Hwy. Via Lido 59 50 9 .4 .7 33.2 56.3 20.2 `34. .7 1 1.2 .9 1.5 .4 .7 .5 .8 .5 .8 3.1 5.3 .2 .3 .9 .5 1.0 1.7 1. 1.7 3.1 5.3 .9 1.5 -.3 .5 .6 .0 Newport Blvd. Via Lido McFadden Pl. 62 32 30 .3 5 2.4 3.9 22.8 36. .1 2 .2 .3 . 1 2 .1 2 .1 .2 .7 1. 1 _ 1 2 .2 3 .1 2 .7 1.1.7 1.1 .1 .2 .2 3 Jamboree Rd. San Joaquin Hills Rd. Bonita Canyon Rd. 52 43 9 2 . 8 1.5 .2 .4 6. 1 . 3 .4 . 8 - - 2. . 6 8. 7. 1 37.7 72. 4 7. 13 7 1 6 3 1 .5 .7 .5 1.0_ _ MacArthur Blvd. San Joaquin Hills Rd. Ford Road 55 43 12 - - - - - - - - 9. 0 16.4 . - - 7. 12 7 - 37.7 68. f _ _ - - - - - -- 0 1MacArthur Blvd. Ford Road Bonita Canyon Dr. 49 43 6 - - - - - - 8.5 17.3 - - - - - 31.6 64. _ _ --- 1 112 - .2 .4 .2 .4 1 .2 .2 .4 2 .4 .5 .3 .5 1.9 3.Sj l 2 1 6 2 2. MacArthur Blvd• Michelson Dr. San Diego Fwy. 55 43 _I 2 1 .2 .1 .2.2 .4 .9 12. 8 19.6 San Joaquin Hills Rd Jamboree Rd. MacArthur Blvd. 47 43 4 - - - - - - - •4 9 .2 2.6 5 13.8 .3 13. 45.9 97.7*)2.6 5.5' _ _ _ _ y 1 2 .1 .2 University Dr.Corona Del Mar Fwy. California Ave. 65 43 22 • 1 .2 .7 1.1 .3 5 .4 . 6 .7 1. 1 .2 3 3 3. 5 1. 9 2.9 0 5 14.01. g 1.2 3 5 .4 6 . 3 .5 .3 .5 . 6 - - 9 .4.3 6.6 * Outside Newport Beach City Limits * Outside Newport Beach City Limits Roadway Capacity Roadway capacity is defined as the maximum number of vehicles that can pass over a given section of a roadway during a given time period'under prevailing roadway and traffic conditions. In expressing capacity, it is essential that prevailing roadway and traffic conditions be stated. In Newport Beach, we have assumed maximum capacity with standard conditions such as good roadway surface, standard lane widths, relatively level terrain, clear weather, and no disruptive effects such as road maintenance or accidents. Roadway capacity can be defined in terms of vehicles per lane per hour or per day, in one or both directions. For long range planning it is most practical to define capacity in terms of Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for a particular type of roadway. The ADT's used for various types of road- wzys in Newport Beach are as follows: Roadway Type ADT Secondary 15,000 Secondary with 2-way left turn lane 22,000 Primary 27,000 Primary with parking prohibited during peak hours 32, 000 - 36, 000 Major 43,000 6-lane freeway 110,000 8-lane freeway 150, 000' These volumes represent maximum roadway capacity under standard conditions. At these volume levels, speeds would be relatively low, for instance about 30 miles per hour for free flowing conditions on a freeway, and stoppages may occur. Traffic volume demands greater than these volumes would create very undesirable conditions and should be avoided. a -1- u• � The two attached Exhibits graphically illustrate typical traffic volume conditions on roadways operating within capacity limits, and with demand exceeding capacity. Exhibit 1 shows a typical roadway operating within capacity limits. Both the AM and PM• peaks are relatively sharp. Exhibit 2 illustrates what occurs when demand exceeds capacity. Between 2 PM and 3 PM the roadway begins to'carry the maximum capacity and does not fall below this maximum until after 6 PM. This is essentially what frequently occurs at Coast Highway and Dover Drive when demand exceeds capacity. The volume reaches maximum capacity and stays that way for several hours. Speeds are low, delays may be lengthy, congestion is very evident, and accidents are likely to occur. Conditions are less than tolerable and such locations are constant sources of aggravation to the motorists. Since traffic is not likely to decrease (but rather increase), locations such as Coast Highway and Dover Drive operate at capacity for increasingly longer periods, sometimes all afternoon and into the evening hours. NOTE: For a more detailed explanation of capacity, see Highway Research Board Special Report 87, Highway Capacity Manual, 1965. Attachment -2- Maximum Capacity ,4-' PM Peak ;:'AM Peak 12M ZA 4A bA 8A 10A 12N ZP 4P 6P 8P 101' 1ZM TIME OF DAY, EXHIBIT 1 TYPICAL ROADWAY OPERATING WITHIN CAPACITY LIMITS Maximum Capacity A AM Peak Demand Exceeds Capacity in PM Peak f 12M • 2A ' 4A 6A 8A 10A 12N 2P 4P 6P SP IOP 12M TIME OF DAY EXHIBIT 2 TYPICAL, ROADWAY WHERE DEMAND,EXCEEDS CAPACITY DURING PM PEAK • EXHIBIT I NEW PORT BEACH ALTERNATE LAND USE•STUDY REVISED POPULATION,' EMPLOYMENT & TRIP GENERATION ' Revised Prevloua Employment Trip Ceo. Factors 1990 Trip Ceearalion Employment Trip Gem, Factors 1990 Trip Generation Z... V.P. Total Pop, Total Total Retail Pop. EmPlor. Pop. Em icy Total Retail P.P.m P• Io P r• Pop. Emp1oY, 1 -2172 - - 3.0 - 6. 5ZO -652D Z450 - 3.0 - 7350 7350 2 -63ZI 2479 'SOB 3.0 l5 19.00D 37.200 -56,i00 64SI 2479 508 3.0 15 19.300 37.200 .56.500 4 7652 518 63 3.0 IS 22.900 7.900 30,600 7652 518 63 3.0 15 22,900 7.900 30. EDO 5 -5226 322 139 3.0 IS 15,700 4,900 -20,600 .5498 32Z 139 3.0 15 16.500 4.000 21. 'Do 7 4827 985 199 3.0 IS 23. Sao 14,700 -38,200 8133 985 199 3.0 IS 24.400 14.700 V. 100 1121• .8500 153 94 Z.5 no 21,200 ne 39,700 8709 153 94 2.5 75 21.800 2.ZOO 3a,7D0 14 -4200 673Z 265 2.5 3.1 10.500 20. 897 -31,397 609L 673Z Z6S 2.5 3.1 I5.200 20.807 36.007 IS ♦7540 613 IDS 2.5 IS 18,800 9,200 428,000 56ZO 613 IDS 2.5 ' IS 24,100 91200 23,300 16 -1500 +18,300 2400 3.0 Variable 4,500 157,410 161.910 3020 14,656 1,525 2.5 8 7.SSO 116.930 124.soo 17 .1200 567 95 3.0 IS 3.600 8,800 -12,400 4534 587 95 2.5 is 11.300 8.600 20, IDo I8 Z330 570 215 3.0 IS 7.000 8.470 il%470 Z330 570 215 Z.5 IS S,830 8,470 14.300 19 ♦3000 74Z 17 2.5 Is 7.500 11,120 +10,620 2071 742 17 2.S IS 5.100 11.120 io. 300 20 2414 8S2 15Z 2.5 15 6,030 12,870 18,900 2414 852 152 2.5 IS 6,030 12.8i0 IB,uOD ZI 4003 ' ♦1478 232 2.5 i5 10,000 16,100 Z6. too 4003 1067 111 2.5 IS 10,000 16.100 Z6. 100 31 4391 -4740 518 2.S 3.1 10,900 9.830 -20.730 6561 ,3138 218 2.5 3.1 16.300 9.830 2e.130 32 -8534 1384 247 2.5 8 21,30D 11,100 -32, 400 11L001 1384 747 2.3 B 27,500 11.100 38. rOO T{ 75 22.252 299 73, 500 S5, 000 33.500 Ss, aaOChange • 33,SO0 $3.000 33.500 S5. D.•.• from prerlons ,aalgmneot • 646,447 627.677 a Partially In City of Irvine , Cemparleee of Reelesd Land Us; Trip Generation With Land Use Trip Ganarelion Used to Newport Batch Traffic Stody , EXHIBIT 2 NEWPORT BEACH ALTERNATE LAND USE STUDY i i COMPARISON OF NETWORK VOLUMES AND TRAFFIC DEFICIENCIES IN NEWPORT BEACH 111c rIT TTT.'TXTT] nm OL An L VV 11 n V ll U1v1.G l x . Sl x x IL. � l , i ADT, Thousands Traffic Volumes in 1, 000's on Deficient Links in Road Network From Various Zones; % is i one_Volume on Link Divided by ADT Assi ned Road Location Assigned Capacity Defic- 1 2 4 5 7 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 31 32 74 75 Segment Road Name No. From To ienc Vol n % Vol % Vol % Vol % Vol c Vol 1, Vol % Vol % Vol Ic Vol % Vol % Vol % Vol % Vol % Vol % Vol % Vol % Vol 432-520 Coast Hwy. (Reloc) Brookhurst Newport Shores Area 46 43 3 .8 1.7 7.0 15.2 4.8 10.4 .8 1.7 1.2 2.2 .4 .9 - - - - 1.3 2.8 .2 .4 1.5 3.3 1.7 3.7 1.8 3.9 2.9 6.3 3.2 7.0 4.9 10.6 - - - - 520-228 Coast Hwy. (Reloc) Newport Shores Area Interchange 62 43 19 1.1 1.8 9.2 14.8 5.6 9.0 1.1 1.8 1.4 2.3 .6 1.0 .1 .2 .1 .2 2.2 3.6 .3 .5 1.7 2.7 2.0 3.2 2.1 3.4 3.4 5.5 4.3 6.9 21.4 34.5 .1 .2 .2 .3 228-553 Coast Hwy. (Reloc) Interchange 15th Street 50 43 7 3.6 7.2 11.8 23.6 7.0 14.0 1.2 2.4 1.6 3.2 - - - - - - 2.5 5.0 .4 .8 2.2 4.4 - - - - 4.4 8.8 5.4 10.8 8.4 16.4 - - - - 155-158 Coast Hwy. Newport Blvd. Riverside Ave. 51 36 15 1.3 Z.5 12.4 24.3 3.8 7.4 2.4 4.7 3.2 6.3 .5 1.0 .7 1.4 .5 1.0 8.2 16.1 ,8 1.6 3.5 6.9 1.3 2.5 1.3 2.5 14.2 27.8 2.8 5.5 3.7 7.2 - - - - 158-159 Coast Hwy. Riverside Ave. Dover Dr. 43 36 7 1.0 2.3 10.2 Z3.7 3.0 7.0 2.8 6.5 3.6 8.4 .8 1.9 .9 Z.1 .7 1.6 9.7 22.6 ,9 2.1 3.9 9.1 1.3 3.0 1.3 3.0 5.8 13.5 Z.4 5.6 3.2 7.4 - - - - 220-221 Coast Hwy. Bayside Dr. Jamboree Rd. 64 43 21 .8 1.3 7.2 11.2 2.4 3.8 5.9 9.Z 7.2 11.2 1.6 2.5 2.0 3.1 1.7 2.7 20.7 32.4 1.6 Z.5 6.5 10.2 6.6 10.3 6.7 10.5 5.0 7.8 1.9 3.0 2.9 4.5 - - - - 221-222 Coast Hwy. Jamboree Rd. Newport Ctr. Dr. 59 43 16 .6 1.0 5.8 9.8 2.0 3.4 6.4 10.8 8.5 14.4 1.9 3.2 - - .1 .2 23.6 40.1 ,7 1.2 4.1 7.0 4.9 8.3 5.0 8.5 4.0 6.8 1.7 2.9 2.6 4.4 - - - - 222-286 Coast Hwy. Newport Ctr. Dr. MacArthur Blvd. 46 43 3 .4 .9 3.6 7.8 13.0 28.3 3.2 7.0 12.2 26.1 2.3 5.0 .4 .9 - - 7.5 16.3 .6 1.3 2.1 4.6 2.5 5.4 2.5 5.4 2.3 5.0 1.1 2.4 1.7 3.7 .1 .2 .1 .2 286-226 Coast Hwy. MacArthur Blvd. E of Marguerite Ave. 52 32 20 .3 .6 2.8 5.4 10.8 20.8 2.6 5.0 24.7 47.5 2.1 4.0 .5 1.0 .4 .8 7.5 14.4 .6 1.2 1.6 3. 1 1. 9 3. 7 2. 0 3. 8 2.0 3. 8 1.0 1.9 1.5 2. 9 .3 .6 .5 1.0 155-156 Newport Blvd. Coast Hwy. Via Lido 59- 50 9 .4 .7 133.Z 56.3 20.2 34.3 .7 1.2 .9 1.5 .4 .7 .5 .8 .5 .8 3.1 5.3 .2 .3 .9 1.5 1.0 1.7 1.0 1.7 3.1 5.3 2.0 3.4 .9 1.5 .3 .5 .6 1.0 156-214 Newport Blvd. Via Lido McFadden Pl. 62 32 30 .3 .5 I Z.4 3.9 22.8 36.8 .1 .2 .2 .3 .1 .2 .1 .2 .1 .2 .7 1. 1 - - .1 .2 .2 .3 .1 .2 .7 1.1 .4 .6 .7 1.1 .1 .2 .2 .3 231-236 Jamboree Rd. San Joaquin Hills Rd. Bonita Canyon Rd. 52 43 9 .1 .2 .8 1.5 .2 .4 6.4 12.3 .4 .8 - - 2.9 5.6 8.9 17.1 37.7 72.5 7.1 13.7 1.6 3.1 .8 1.5 .9 1.7 .5 1.0 - - - - 5 1. 0 .6 1.2 229-233 MacArthur Blvd. San Joaquin Hills Rd. Ford Road 55 43 12 - - I - - - - - - 9.0 16.4. - - 7.0 12.7 - - 37.7 68.6 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ .6 1.1 .8 1.5 234-239 MacArthur Blvd. Ford Road Bonita Canyon Dr. 49 43 6 - - - - - - - - 8.5 17.3 - - - - - - 31.6 64.7 _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ .8 1.6 1.2 2.4 442-464 MacArthur Blvd. Michelson Dr. San Diego Fwy. 55 43 12 - - .2 .4 .2 .4 .1 .2 .2 .4 .2 .4 .3 .5 .3 .5 1.9 3.5 .1 .2 .1 .2 - - .1 .2 .1 .2 .1 .2 .2 .4 6.9 12.5 10.8 16.9 231-229 San Joaquin Hills Rd Jamboree Rd. MacArthur Blvd. 47 43. 4 - - - - - - - - .4 .9 1.2 2.6 6.5 14.1 6.3 13.7 45.9 97.7 2.6 5.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - .1 .2 .1 .2 243-477* University Dr. Corona Del Mar Fwy. California Ave. 65 43 22 .1 .2 7 1.1 .3 .5 .4 .6 .7 1-1 .2 .3 2.3 3.5 1.9 2.9 9.5114.61.8 1 1.2 1 .3 1 .5 .4 1 .6 .3 .5 .3 .5 .4 6 6 9 - - 4.3 6.6 * Outside Newport Beach City Limits 0 0 Sub Zone 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 ,8 9 10 11 12 13 13 A 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 EXHIBIT 3 NEWPORT BEACH ALTERNATE LAND USE Newport Center Trip Generation Zone 16 Land Use Office Office Office Office Office Condos Office Hotel Retail Office Office Medical Office Theatre Office Office Cultural Ctr Specialty Sh. Office Country Club Residential Auto Dealer 0 Sq. Ft. or Other Units 40,000 200,000 150,000 1,148,000 420,000 245 D.U. 300,000 377 Rooms 1,760,000 560,000 150,000 150,000 80,000 500 seats 150,000 165,000 120,000 320,000 528 D.U. Trip Factor 15/1000 15 15 15 15 8/D.U. 15 10/Room 45/1000 15 15 40/1000 15 .5/seat 15 15 30/1000 15 10 ADT 600 3,000 2,250 17,220 6,300 1,960 4,500 3,770 79,200 8,400 2,250 6,000 1,200 250 2,250 2,480 4,500 3,600 4,800 1,700 5,280 400 161,910 LAND USE Sub Zone 1 40, 000 S. F Office 2 200, 000 S.F. Office 3 150, 000 S.F. Office 4 1, 148, 000 S. F. Office 5 420, 000 S.F. Office 6 245 D.U. Condominiums 7 300, 000 S.F. Office 8 Hotel 377 Rooms 9 1, 760, 000 S.F. Retail 10 560, 000 S.F. Office 11 150, 000 S.F. Office 12 150, 000 S.F. Medical 13A Theatre 13 80,000 S.F. Office 14 150, 000 S.F. Office 15 165,000 S.F. Office 16 Cultural Centre 17 120, 000 S.F. Specialty Shops 18 320, 000 S.F. Office 19 Country Club 20 66 Acres, 528 Units 21 Auto Dealer Joa4u- �---� �--�--y�-n- 11 2 11 3 I 4 20 EXHIBIT 4 LAND USE IN ZONE 16 NEWPORT CENTER 10 0 R 17 •I LA EXHIBIT 5 NEWPORT BEACH ALTERNATE LAND USE STUDY AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC CAPACITY FOR VARIOUS STREET SECTIONS IN NEWPORT BEACH (Level Of Service E) ADT Liste 1 Estimated ADT Roadway Section in Phase I� ) L.O.S. E (2) Secondary 14,000 15,000 Secondary w/2-way left turn lane 22,000 Primary 25,000 27,000 Primary w/parking prohibited during peak hours 32,000-36,000 Major 40,000 43,000 6 Lane Freeway 100,000 110,000 8 Lane Freeway 135,000 150,000 (1) Level Of Service D (2) Estimated at 8% greater than Phase I ADT for other than freeway; approximately 10016 for freeway , 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNED MEETING AGENDA February 28, 1974 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING ADOPTION OF THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN; REVIEW OF THE NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC STUDY, PHASE II19 AND ACCEPTANCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EIRAB 73-045 1. Representative of the Allan M. Voorhees Associates, Inc. to present a summary of the consultant's responsibilities to the City and findings or conclusions. 2. Chairman of the Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee to present an overview of the Comfmittee's responsibilities and historical activities. 3. Representative of the Community Development Department to present a broad overview of the Planning Commission's review and conclu- sions. 4. A public hearing to receive testimony. Section 1 S R co SectionIM 2 Section 2 t, gev0oP — Section 3 £ F� ox V Va CPS\F• Section 4 1 N Section 5 5. Council Discussion h • �� 9 i3.ZD MEMORANDUM TO: Dick Hogan - Rod Gunn FROM: Al Krier SUBJECT: Newport Beach Alternate Land Use DATE: 7 May 1974 JOB: 256 At our meeting on April 30, we discussed Exhibit 2, which is a "Com- parison Of Network Volumes And Traffic Deficiencies In Newport Beach With Volume of Traffic Generated From Zones in Newport Beach. " Some of the 18 zones investigated do not have a substantial impact on the road network. On the attached Exhibit 2, I have dossed out those zones which I suggest can be eliminated from further investigation because of small impact on the road network. They are Zones 1, 5, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 31, 74, and 75. The suggestion for eliminating these zones from further investigation should be taken in the context that they should be eliminated from individual consideration. Its possible that some of these zones could be modified in combination with other zones. This should be on our May 14 meeting agenda for discussion and resolution. Please note on Exhibit 2 that I have circled the percentages in the remaining zones which exceed 1001a so that they can be readily identified and compared with other zones for the same street segments. Attachment IN R�•Py;� .0�IPay ET�po P��F AMV—F-75—e NEWPOR'T BFACIi ALTERNATE LAND USE STUDY rnnAPART.4nN nF NETWORK VOLUMES AND TRAFFIC DEFICIENCIES IN NEWPORT BEACH WITH VOLUME Road Segment No 432-520 520-228 228-553 155-158 158-159 220-ZZI 2Z1-222 222-286 286-226, 155-156 156-214 Z31-236 229-233 234-239 442-464 231-229 243-477* OF TRAFFIC Road Name Coast Hwy. (Reloc) Coast Hwy. (Reloc) Coast Hwy. (Reloc) Coast Hwy. Coast Hwy. Coast Hwy. Coast Hwy. Coast Hwy. Coast Hwy. Newport Blvd. Newport Blvd. Jamboree Rd. MacArthur Blvd. MacArthur Blvd. MacArthur Blvd. San Joaquin Hills Rd University Dr. GENERATED FROM G(Jl` Location 1Sb Liv AD'T, Thousands Traffic Volumes in 1, 000's on Deficient Links in Road ]Network From Various .ones; % is Zone Volume on Link Diu ided by A Assigned Assigned 46 62 50 51 43 64 59 46 52 59 62 52 55 49 55 47 Capacity 43 43 43 36 36 43 43 43 32 50 32 43 43 43 43 43 Defic- ienc 3 19 7 15 .7 21 16 3 20 9 30 9 12 6 12 4 22 1 2 4 5 7 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 31 32 74 75 From � Brookhurst Newport Shores Area Interchange Newport Blvd. Riverside Ave. Bayside Dr. Jamboree Rd. Newport Ctr. Dr. MacArthur Blvd. Coast Hwy. Via Lido San Joaquin Hills Rd. San Joaquin Hills Rd. Ford Road Michelson Dr. Jamboree Rd. Corona Del Mar Fwy. To Newport Area P Interchange 15th Street Riverside Ave. Dover Dr. Jamboree Rd. Newport Ctr. Dr. MacArthur Blvd. E of Marguerite Ave. Via Lido McFadden Pl. Bonita Canyon Rd. Ford Road Bonita Can on Dr. Y San Diego Fwy. MacArthur Blvd. California Ave. V01 .8 1 6 1 3 1. .8 .6 .4 .3 .4 .3 - - .1 Ic 1. 1. 7 2 .5 .3 1.3 - 1.0 .9 .6 .7 5 2 - - - - .2 Vol 7.0 9.2 11.8 12:4 10.2 7.2 5.8 3.6 2.8 33.2 2.4 .8 - - .2 - .7 °' ,c 15.2 4. 23. 24. Vol 4.8 5.6 ?.0 3.8 3.0 2.4 2.0 13.0 10.8 20.2 Z2.8 .2 - - .2 - .3 °Jc 10. 9.0 14.0 7.4 7.0 3.8 3.4 28. 20. 34. 36. .4 - - .4 - .5 Vol 8 1 1 1 2 2. 2. 5. 6.4 3.2 2.6 .7 . 1 6. - 1 .4 qC 1. 1 8 2 4 .7 .5 9.Z 0.8 7.0 5.0 1.2 2 1 . 3 - - .2 - .6 Vol 1.2 1.4 1.6 3.2 3.6 7.2 8.5 12.2 Z4.7 .9 .2 .4 9.0 8.5 .2 •4 .7 c Z.2 Z.3 3.2 6.3 8.4 Vol 4 .8 1.6 1.9 2.3 2.1 .4 1 - - - 2 .2 .2 % Vol .9 - 1. 1 - 1 0 .9 .5 2. 3.2 - 5.0 .4 4.0 .5 .7 .5 2 .1 - 2. - 7. - - .4 2.6 5 .3 .3 c Vol - - 1 .4 .1 3.1 1. - .1 .9 - 1.0 .4 .8 .5 2 .1 . 6 8. 12 7 - .5 .3 14. .3 3.5 1.9 ° c - .0 .6 2.7 .2 - .8 .8 .2 7. 1 - - .5 13. 2.9 Vol 1.3 2.2 2.5 8.2 9.7 20.7 23.6 7.5 7.5 3.1 .7 37.7 37.7 31.b 1.9 45.9 9.5 le 2.8 3.6 5,0 Wei , .8 9 1.6 .7 .6 .6 .2 _ 7. _ _ •6 8 % .4 .6 1 2.5 1.2 1.3 V Vol 1.5 •7 2 3 5 3. 6. 4.1 2.1 % 3. Z. 4 4 6 9 1 1 .2 7.0 4.6 3.1 .5 2 3 1. .243 _ 5.6 Vol .7 .0 1.3 1. 6. 4.9 2.5 /.4 C 3. 3 2 .5 .0 0.3 8.3 5.4 3.7 1.7 3 5 _ Vol .8 1 - 1. 1. 6.7 5.0 2.5 Z.0 1. .1 1 .3 % '3. 3. ,5 .0 O.b 8.5 5.4 3.8 1.7 2 .7 .2 _ .5 Vol 2.9 3.4 4.4 14.2 5.8 5.0 4.0 2.3 2.0 3. 1 .7 .5 .1 _ .3 % 6.3 5.5 8.8 Vol .2 3 5 4 2. 2. 1.9 1.7 1.1 1.0 2.0 .4 - _ - .4 % 7. 6. 10 8 .5 .6 3.0 2.9 2.4 1.9 3.4 6 .2 _ .6 Vol 4.9 21.4 8.4 3.7 3.2 2.9 2.6 1.7 1.5 ..9 .7 _ .2 _ .6 % 10.6 4.5 16.4 7.2 7.4 4.5 4.4 3.7 2.9 1.5 1.1 _ .4 _65 .9 Vol _ .>1 - - - .1 .3 -.3 .1 .9 •1 - c _ - .2 .6 .5 .2 .01 1 6 12. .2 - Vol _ ,2 _ .5 /4.3 % _ ,3 _ _ 1.0 .0 3 2 2. 16. .2 6.6 16.1 ZZ. 2. 40.1 16.3 14. 5.3 1. 1 72. 68. 64. 3.5 97. 14. Z7.8 13. 7.8 6.8 5.0 3.8 5.3 1.1 1.0 .2 _ .5 3. 1. 9.8 7.8 5.4 56. 3.9 1.5 - - .4 - 1.1 11.2 14.4 26.1 47. 1.5 .3 . 8 16.4 17.3 .4 .9 1.1 j I d * Outside Newport Beach City Limits • • TABLE 2 NEWPORT BEACH ALTERNATE LAND USE STUDY COMPARISON OF NETWORK VOLUMES AND TRAFFIC DEFICIENCIES IN NEWPORT BEACH WITH VOLUME OF TR.AFFTC GFNF.R ATVT) FROM RON7?S fN NF.w Dnp T, REACH Road Segment No. Road Name Location ADT, Thousands Traffic Volumes in 1, 000's on Deficient Links in Road Network From Various Zones; % is Zone Volume on Link Divided by A Ass i ned Assigned Capacity Defic- ienc 1 Vol % 2 Vol °fc 4 Vol % 5 Vol % 7 Vol °)c 12 Vol % 14 o Vol /1c 15 Vol % 16 o Vol )c 17 Vol % 18 Vol % 19 Vol % 20 Vol o)c 21 Vol % 31 Vol % c 32 Vol % 74 Vol I o)c 75 Vol % From To 432-520 Coast Hwy. (Reloc) Brookhurst Newport Shores Area 46 43 3 .8 1.7 7.0 15.2 4.8 10.4 .8 1.7 1.2 2.2 .4 .9 - - - - 1.3 2.8 .2 .4 1.5 3.3 1.7 3.7 1.8 3.9 2.9 6.3 3.2 7.0 4.9 10.6 - - - - 520-228 Coast Hwy. (Reloc) Newport Shores Area Interchange 6Z 43 E.`� 1.1 1.8 9. Z - 5.6 9.0 1.1 1.8 1.4 2. 3 .6 1.0 .1 .2 .1 .2 2.2 3.6 .3 .5 1.7 2.7 2.0 3.2 2. 1 3.4 3.4 5.5 4.3 6.9 21.4 34_.5.,, .1 Z 2 .3 228-553 Coast Hwy. (Reloc) Interchange 15th Street 50 43 7 3.6 7.2 11.8 23.6 7.0 14.0 1.2 2.4 1.6 3.2 - - - - - - 2.5 5.0 ,4 ,8 2.2 4.4 - - - - 4.4 8.8 5.4 10.8 8.4 16.4 - - - - 155-158 Coast Hwy. Newport Blvd. Riverside Ave. 51 36 5*� 1.3 2.5 12 _4. Z4.3 3.8 7.4 2.4 4.7 3.2 6.3 .5 1.0 .7 1.4 .5 1.0 8.2 •16. 1 .8 1.6 3.5 6.9 1.3 2.5 1.3 2.5 1 Z 27:_8, 2.8 5.5 3.7 7.2 - - - - 158-159 Coast Hwy. Riverside Ave. Dover Dr. 43 36 7 1.0 Z.3 10.2 23.7 3.0 7.0 2.8 6.5 3.6 8.4 .8 1.9 .9 2.1 .7 1.6 9.7 22.6 ,9 2.1 3.9 9.1 1.3 3.0 1.3 3.0 5.8 13.5 2.4 5.6 3.2 7.4 - - - - 220-221 Coast Hwy. Bayside Dr. Jamboree Rd. 64 43 mil .8 1.3 7. Z 11.2 2L.4 3.8 5.9 9. Z _7.,2_ 11.2 1.6 2.5 Z. 0 3.1 1.7 2.7 20.7 32.4 1.6 2.5 6.5 10.2 6.6 10.3 6.7 10.5 5.0 7.8 1.9 3. 0 2.9 4.5 - - - - 221-222 Coast Hwy. Jamboree Rd. Newport Ctr. Dr. 59 43 !(1 6 1.0 5.8 9.8 2.0 3.4 6�4 _ 10.8 _ . .8.5_\p14V.4 1. 9 3.2 - - . 1 . Z 23.6. 40. 1 ,7 1.2 4, 1 7.0 4.9 8.3 5.0 8.5 4. 0 6. 8 1.7 2.9 2.6 4.4 - - - - 222-286 Coast Hwy. Newport Ctr. Dr. MacArthur Blvd. 46 43 r 3 .4 .9 3.6 7.8 13.0 28.3 3.2 7.0 12.2 26.1 2.3 5.0 .4 .9 - - 7.5 16.3 ,6 1.3 2.1 4.6 2.5 5.4 2.5 5.4 2.3 5.0 1.1 2.4 1.7 3.7 .1 .2 .1 .2 286-226 Coast Hwy. MacArthur Blvd. E of Marguerite Ave. 52 32 ;20) .3 .6 2.8 5.4 10.8 g0.8 2.6 5.0 24..7, 47.5_ 2.1 4.0 .5 1.0 .4 .8 _7.e5 14.4 .6 1.2 1.6 3. 1 1.9 3.7 2.0 3.8 2.0 3.8 1.0 1.9 1.5 2.9 .3 .6 .5 1.0 155-156 Newport Blvd. Coast Hwy. Via Lido 59 50 9 .4 .7 33.2 56.3 20.2 34.3 .7 1.2 .9 1.5 .4 .7 .5 .8 .5 .8 3.1 5.3 ,2 ,3 .9 1.5 1.0 1.7 1.0 1.7 3.1 5.3 2.0 3.4 .9 1.5 .3 .5 .6 1.0 156-214 Newport Blvd. Via Lido McFadden Pl. 62 32 30f .3 . 5 2.4 3.9 ZZ.8 -.2 m 36. 8 . 1 .2 . 2 . 3 . 1 . 2 . 1 .2 . 1 .2 . 7 1. 1 - - 2 , 2 3 1 2 7 1. 1 .4 6 7 1. 1 1 2 2 .3 Z31-236 Jamboree Rd. San Joaquin Hills Rd. Bonita Canyon Rd. 52 43 9 .1 .2 .8 1.5 .4' 6.4 12.3 .4 .8 - - 2.9 5.6 8.9 17.1 37.7 72.5 7.1 13.7 1.6 3.1 .8 1.5 .9 1.7 .5 1.0 - - - - 5 1.0 .6 1.2 229-233 MacArthur Blvd. San Joaquin Hills Rd. Ford Road 55 43 12) - - - - - - - - 2._9 16.4 F17.3 - - 7.0 12.7 - - 37.7. 6$ f _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .6 1.1 .8 1.5 234-239 MacArthur Blvd. Ford Road Bonita Canyon Dr.49 43 6 _ _ _ _ _ - - 8.55 - - -V - - - 31.6 64.7 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - .8 '1.6 1.2 2.4 447.-464 MacArthur Blvd. Michelson Dr. San Diego Fwy. 55� 43 `12� - - 2 .4 Z .4 .1 Z .2 .4 .2 .4 .3 .5 .3 .5 :11.9 3.5, .1 .2 .1 Z - - .1 .2 .1 .2 .1 .2 .2 .4 _6-.9-12,,5 2.2 10.8 g.1 16.9 231-229 San Joaquin Hills Rd Jamboree Rd. MacArthur Blvd. 46 43 3 - - - - - - - - .4 .9 1.2 2.6 6.5 14.1 6.3 13.7 45.9 - '2.6 5.2 _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - - - .1 .2 243-477 ' University Dr. Corona Del Mar Fwy. California Ave. 65 43 -'22 1 1 2 7 1. 1 .3 .5 .4 . 6 .7 1..1 Z . 3 2. 3 3. 5 1. 9 Z. 9 5 14. 6 , g 1.2 5 4 6 3 5 3 5 4 .6 .6 .9 - - 4.3 6.6 Outside Newport Beach City Limits ►3.ab MEMORANDUM TO: Dick Hogan - Rod Gunn DATE: FROM: Al Krier JOB: SUBJECT: Newport Beach Alternate Land Use Data 21 March 1974 256 This package contains the following items: i 1. The plots of the traffic assignments for the 18 study zones. 2. An acetate overlay for the traffic assignment showing street names (the plots of the traffic assignments do not show street names) 3. Table 1, "Comparison of Revised Land Use Trip Generation With Land Use Trip Generation Used in Newport Beach Traffic Study." 4. Table 2, "Comparison of Network Volumes and Traffic Deficiencies in Newport Beach With Volume of Traffic Generated From Zones in Newport Beach. " 5. 'Table 3, "Average Daily Traffic Capacity for Various Street Sections in Newport Beach." I suggest what you might do is scan the plots of the individual zones for those road sections which are deficient, while at the same time looking at TABLE 2 which shows how much traffic the individual zone contri- butes to that section of the road network. You will note that in most cases, the percentages shown in TABLE 2 are very low. However, in some uses the percentage is very high. For instance, TABLE 2 shows that for the road segment 231-236, Jamboree Road from San Joaquin Hills Road to Bonita Canyon Drive, zone 16 (Newport Center) contributes 72. 51a of the traffic. If the volumes (and percentages) of traffic for individual zones in Table 2 are not particularly significant (quite low), but a large traffic deficiency exists in the immediate area, then the traffic is probably being generated by zones outside the City of Newport Beach. You will recall at our last meeting we discussed the possibility of re- ducing trip generation in several zones in order to lessen the deficiency on specific road segment. TABLE 2 enables you to scan all 18 zones at once for any specific road segment. This can give you a feel for those AMV-F-75-4 OFF • • C, G Dick Hogan - Rod Gunn 21 March 1974 Page 2 / Job 256' zones which may be considered for revision to reduce traffic impact on specific road segments. A few words of caution and explanation: A. Remember that all volumes shown on the zone traffic assignment plots must be doubled to obtain two-way Average Daily Traffic (ADT). B. The traffic assignment was made on the basis of the road network being fully developed; therefore some trip patterns may appear different that you would visualize them today. If you happen to see any unlikely trip paths in your review of the plots, make a note of them and we can discuss them later. C. Considering levels of service and capacity, the numbersare never absolute since they depend on many variables. For purposes of this study, I suggest we stick with the volumes shown in Table 3. They are at or near the upper level of capacity and I believe would not be disputed. D. We have proceeded on the premise that planned land use in zones outside Newport Beach will not substantially change, and that the amount of automobile travel will not substantially change. In some areas this may prove untrue, but that cannot be predicted at this stage of planning. E. The traffic assignment is a "desire" assignment, or in other words, it represents the, paths people would take if their choice was not influenced by congestion. For that reason, an adjustment or balancing of volumes on the assignment is necessary to utilize road capacity and better depict what is occurring or would occur. The best example of this is Zone 16 (See plot) where most of the traffic to Newport Center from the north is on MacArthur. This is logical since the Corona Del Mar Freeway would feed MacArthur. However, as MacAxfhur becomes overloaded, traffic would divert to Jamboree Road. We therefore "balanced" the traffic on MacArthur and Jamboree to take this diversion into account. The next step in our study procedure is to jointly review TABLE 2 and determine the practicality of making land use revisions in selected zones. We can set up another meeting date after you and your staff have reviewed'the data sent to you. Please call me if you have any questions. B TABLE 1 NEWPORT BEACH ALTERNATE LAND USE STUDY _ Revised Previous Employmen` Trip Gen. Factors 1990 Trip Generation Employment Trip Gen, Factors 1990 Trip Can eratlon Zoos Pop. Total Pop. Total Total Retail Pop. Employ. Pop. Employ. Total I Retail Pop. Employ Pop. Employ. 1 •2112 5 •508 3.0 6.520 - -6520 2450 - - 3.0 - 7350 - 7330 2 -6321 2479 3.0 IS 19,000 37,200 -56,200 6451 -2479 508 3.0 IS 19.300 37,200 .56.500 4 7652 75I8 63 3.0 35 22.900 7.900 30,800 7652 SIB 63 3.0 15 22.900 71900 30. 600 5 -5226 322 139 3.0 15 15,700 4.900 -20,660 .5498 322 139 3.0 15 16.500 4.000 21.400 7 -7827 985 199 3.0 15 23,500 14,700 -38, 200 8133 985 199 3.0 15 24.400 I4,700 30.100 1121a -8500 153 94 2.5- oe 21.200 nc 39,700 8709 163 94 2.5 15 21.800 Z. zoo 30.700 14 -4200 6732 265 2.5 3.1 10.500 20,897 -31,397 6091 6732 265 2.5 3.1 IS.200 20,8a7 36. 007 15 +7540 613 105 2.5 15 10,800 9.200 +28,000 5625 613 105 2.5 IS 14,100 9.200 23.300 '4 -I500 418,300 2400 3.0 Variable 4,500 157,410 161,910 3020 14,656 1,525 2.5 8 T. 550 116,930 124.500 17 -1200 587 95 3.0 15 3,600 8,800 -12,400 4534 587 95 2.5 IS 11.300 8. Bo0 20. 100 IB 2330 570 2l5 3.0 15 7.000 8.470 +15.470 2330 570 215 2.5 IS 5, 830 8,470 14,300 19 43000 742 17 2.5 15 7,500 11.120 +18,620 2071 742 17 2.5 IS 5.180 11.120 to. NAt 20 2414 852 152 2.5 15 6,030 12,870 18,900 2414 852 152 2.5 15 6,030 12.870 Id,+00 21 4003 +1478 232 2.5 15 10,000 16,100 26.100 4003 1067 In 2.5 15 H2Oo0 16,100 26.100 31 44391 -4740 $78 2.5 3.1 10.900 9,830 -20.730 6561 3138 278 2.5 3.1 16.300 9.830 20. 130 32 •8534 1384 247 2.5 B 21.300 11.100 .32, 400 11. 001 1384 N7 2.5 B 27,500 II,100 75.+00 74 22,252 299 33,500 33, 500 33.500 33.000 )],500 33.50 75 - 55,000 55. 000 No Change 4om prerlous assignment - 646,447 • Partially in City of h los ' Comparhton of Rerlsed Lad Uai Trip Generation With Land Us* Trip Gsnezatlon Bard to Newpart Beach Traffic Study • I • 627.677 NEWPORT BEACH ALTERNATE LAND USE STUDY TABLE 3 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC CAPACITY FOR VARIOUS STREET SECTIONS IN NEWPORT BEACH (Level Of Service E) ADT Listed(,) Estimated ADT Roadway Section in Phase I L.O.S. E Secondary Secondary w/2-way left turn lane Primary Primary w/parking prohibited during peak hours Major 6 Lane Freeway 8 Lane Freeway 14,000. 15,000 22,000 25,000 27,000 32,000-36,000 40,000 43,000 100,000 110,000' 135,000 150,000 (1) Level Of Service D (2) Estimated at 81/a greater than Phase I ADT for other than freeway; approximately 100/a for freeway 0 r 13.E 714/2783363 , 5252 BALSOA AVENUE, SAN DIEGO, I-FORNIA 92117 ALAN M. VOORHEES & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS Mr. Robert L. Wynn City Manager City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Bob: 14 March 1974 AMV Ref: 465.039 OOmmuni DevDIOPmeo DoPt. VAR 18197.gi. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. It appears that after two and one-half years of meetings, discussions and reports for the Newport Beach Traffic Study that last Monday night was our last meeting. I recognize that a couple of amendments must be sent back to the Planning Commission but I presume that our attendance at meetings involving those items will not be required. In keeping with our schedule for requested attendance at the hearings, our charges for the March 11 meeting with the City Council are as follows: One-way travel time to Newport Beach 2 hours Attendance at meeting 2 hours Total 4 hours 4 hours at $32.00 = $128.00 Round trip distance San Diego -Newport Beach = 176 miles 176 miles @ $0. 12 per mile = $21.12 Total charges $128.00 + $21.12 = $149. 12 Please send the payment to the San Diego office since we have established that procedure. As you know, we are working with the Community Development Depart- ment on reviewing alternate land uses as they relate to traffic generation. I expect that in the coming weeks I will be seeing you regarding that work. cc: R. Gunn Accounting Best regards, �o A. H. Krier Regional Manager R L %; V DO NOT REMOVE WASHINGTON. D.C. • LONDON • HONOLULU • DENVER • ORLANDO • TORONTO • ST. LOUIS ■ CARACAS • SEATTLE • BOSTON • SANJUAN • NOUSTON BUFFALO • ATLANTA • SAN DIEGO • LOS ANGELES • ZURICH 0 NEW BRUNSWICK • DALLAS • CHICAGO 0 PHILADELPHIA • SAN FRANCISCO • MELBOURNE 2-28-74 L197 NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC STUDY SUMMARY OF PHASE III FINAL REPORT The Newport Beach Traffic Study has been carried out in three phases. Phase I defined the magnitude and location of present and future problems. Phase II investigated alternative transportation plans which could provide for future travel demands, receive public acceptance, and create minimal environmental disturbance. The Phase III Report covers the final stages of the study and recom- mends an implementation program of specific improvement projects. Alternative plans were evaluated, and the evaluation applied to developing the final recommended plan shown on the attached sheet. In the report, considerable discussion is included on the principles of transportation systems and the roles that various systems may individually and collec- tively play. It needs to be emphasized that the study dealt with real problems, and appropriate solutions as they were known to the study team at the time. Transportation however, is ,perhaps the most critical and dynamic issue facing Newport Beach. The energy problem has given an entirely new dimension to our traditional desire for personal mobility. What happens in the future will significantly influence decisions towards solving transportation problems. The Phase III Report contains 36 improvement projects classified into four general categories of priorities. The actual order of construc- tion will be governed by many factors, the most important of which are availability of funds and need for immediate short-range relief. Projects involving Coast Highway are classified high priority, with projects for Dover Drive and replacement of Upper Bay Bridge being of prime importance. The estimated total cost of the recommended plan to the City of Newport Beach is $27, 700, 000 (based on 1973 dollars). It would be possible to fund the program over a 25-year period, provided that revenue to the City will keep pace with cost increases of the program. While the recommended plan does not eliminate all transportation deficiencies, it presents solutions which are likely to obtain public support for implementation. This was a key technical consideration in the study. .I r� 01 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DEMAND FOR PAYMENT Date February 15. 1974 Demand of: Alan M. Voorhees & Associates, Inc. Address: 5252 Balboa Avenue San Diego, California 92117 In the amount of $. 154.56 ITEM OF EXPENDITURE 'BUDGET # AMOUNT Attendance and presentation at.the Planning Commission meeting of February 7. 1-974 regarding Circulation Element of the General Plan. 025697288 $154.56 Annrnved Pnr Pavment TOTAL f -_""�uepai Audited and Approved: Finance Director V DO NOT REMOVE 5252 BALBOA AVENUE, SAN DIEGO, *ORNIA 92117 *kl4o� 714/278-3363 ALAN M. VOORHEES & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS 8 February 1974 Mr. Rodney L. Gunn City Plan Administrator Community Development Department 3300 Newport Boulevard City of Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Mr. Gunn: `V g 0 it�m e90 s" peot- qr E �8c�rc °8tiP°.� At the City's request, I attended the February 7, 1974 evening meeting of the Planning Commission to make a presentation and answer questions concerning Coast Highway at MacArthur Boulevard, and related loca- tions. It was agreed that our firm would be reimbursed for this meet- ing, and future meetings as well, provided we are requested to be present to discuss the traffic study and the circulation element of the General Plan. Our charges for the February 7, 1974 meeting are as follows: One-way travel time to Newport Beach 2 hours Attendance at meeting 2.5 hours 4.5 hours 4.5 hours @ $32.00 per hour = $144.00 One-way distance San Diego to Newport Beach - 88 miles 88 miles @ $0.12 per mile = $10.56 Total charges $144.00 plus $10.56 = $154.56 We normally would charge mileage for the round trip distance. However, since the trip actually served a dual purpose (Jim Federhart made a presentation for Lido Village), we charged only half the mileage to the City. To avoid any accounting confusion on our part, will you please send payment of $154.66 to our San Diego office, rather than to our McLean, Virginia office. Thank you for the invitation to appear before the Planning Commission. I hope our efforts helped to resolve the questions which were of con- cern to the Commission and the public. Very truly yours, `/// A. H. Krier cc: Accounting Regional Manager ll �'nRIGT21, DC • LCIDY• • HO,XLVLU • DENVER • ORLANDO + TORONTO • ST. LOUIS • CARACAS • SEATTLE • BOSTON • SANJUAN + HOUSTON eU�l Jig • ciL.,NTA • jA?I DIEGD • LDS ANGELES • ZURICH • NEW BRUNSWICK • DALLAS • CHICAGO • PHILADELPHIA • SAN FRANCISCO • MELBOURNE a 5252 BALBOA AVENUE, SAN DIEGO, FORNIA 92117 AL.AN M. VOORHEES & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS Mr. Robert L. Wynn City Manager City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Bob: 4 March 1974 13,2b 714/278-3363 0 �n c E m Dp R peg o5 �p N. 00�p0 )7rc NEAP GP�\hh <� Some time ago Marty Bouman discussed with you the completion of our contractural obligations on the Newport Beach Traffic Study. I believe it was agreed that obligations would be fulfilled following our presenta- tion of the Phase III Report and participation at the Planning Commission public hearing. This occurred Thursday, December 13, 1973. Since that time, I attended another meeting of the Planning Commission (February 7, 1974) at their request. We were reimbursed for this meeting through the Community Development Department. A copy of the letter to Rod Gunn regarding those charges is enclosed for your information. We would prefer to bill the City for these meetings on an individual basis. We are agreeable to using the fee schedule outlined in our contractural agreement with the City for investigating alternate land use which was approved by the City Council January 22, 1973. Our charges for attendance and participation at the February 28 meeting of the City Council are as follows: One-way travel time to Newport Beach 2 hours Attendance at meeting 2.5 hours Total 4.5 hours 4.5 hours @ $32.00 = $144.00 Round trip distance San Diego -Newport Beach = 176 miles 176 miles @ $0. 12 per mile = $21. 12 Total Charges $144.00 + $21. 12 = $165. 12 As in the previous payment procedure, we ask that you send the pay- ment of $165.12 to our San Diego office to avoid accounting confusion on our part. I will see you on Monday, March 11 at the Public Hearing before the City Council. Best regards,rIL� �®e'"11 cc: R. Gunn/Actg. A. H. Krier DONOT REMOVE ON WASHINGTON, D.C. Is LONDON • HONOLULU • DENVER • ORLANDO • TORONTO • .ST. LOUIS • CARACAS • SEATTLE • BOSTON • SAN JUAN • HOUST BUFFALO • ATLANTA • SAN DIEGO 0 LOS ANGELES • ZURICH • NEW BRUNSWICK • DALLAS • CHICAGO • PHILADELPHIA • SAN FRANCISCO • MELBOURNE w • Aw/l/ o N4gnnvwa �7CEa/H� VON 12/13/73 . /ylB6yi/ya Qf ,OEQ, i?� /993. NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC STUDY SUMMARY OF PHASE III FINAL REPORT The Newport Beach Traffic Study has been carried out in three phases. Phase I defined the magnitude and location of present and future problems. Phase II investigated alternative transportation plans which could provide for future travel demands, receive public acceptance, and create minimal environmental disturbance. The Phase III Report covers the final stages of the study and recom- mends an implementation program of specific improvement projects. Alternative plans were evaluated, and the evaluation applied to developing the final recommended plan shown on the attached sheet. In the report, considerable discussion is included on the principles of transportation systems and the roles that various systems may individually and collec- tively play. It needs to be emphasized that the study dealt with real problems, and appropriate solutions as they were known to the study team at the time. Transportation however, is perhaps the most critical and dynamic issue facing Newport Beach, and in fact, the entire nation. In just the last few months, the energy crisis has given an entirely new dimen- sion to our traditional desire for personal mobility. What happens in the future will significantly influence decisions towards solving transportation problems. The Phase III Report contains 36 improvement projects classified into four general categories of priorities. The actual order of construc- tion will be governed by many factors, the most important of which are availability of funds and need for immediate short-range relief. Projects involving Coast Highway are classified high priority, with projects for Dover Drive and replacement of Upper Bay Bridge being of prime importance. The estimated total cost of the recommended plan to the City of Newport Beach is $27, 700, 000 (based on 1973 dollars). It would be possible to fund the program over a 25-year period, provided that revenue available to the City will keep pace with cost increases of the program. While the recommended plan does not eliminate all transportation deficiencies, it presents solutions which are likely to obtain public support for implementation. This was a key technical consideration in the study. FILE COMFY DO 'NOT REMOVE t- .ti E n U 13. 2.6 27&3363 ALAN M. VOORHEES & ASSOCIATES, INC. Mr. Robert L. Wynn, City Manager Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Mr. Wynn: l December 3, 1 I appreciate receiving your letter of November 29, 1973. Al Krier and I will attend the Planning Commission hearing on December 13, 1973. As your consultants, I think that from the beginning, we as well as the fine people who served on the Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee, demonstrated a keen appreciation of the importance of this study to the citizens of Newport Beach. Although the study suffered some unfortunate time delays, I don't believe the project team ever lost sight of the primary goal, namely to provide Newport Beach with a sound technical solution to the City's transportation problems. As in any study of this type, there will be some criticism. In the planning and development of any arterial street system, there are bound to be some individuals who will be dislocated or who will suffer some form of real (or imagined) hardship. These people can and should be heard from. The Fifth Avenue alignment through Corona del Mar is a good case in point. We consider "community acceptance" to be a serious technical consideration, and as we stated in our original proposal which became part of the contract: "A reasonable solution, ---, will be one which can accommodate present and future traffic demands, create mini- mum environmental disturbance, and have an anticipated public acceptance." • Thus, while there have been some compromises, your consultant considers them to be technical in nature, and aimed at making the plan truly workable. The meetings leading to such compromises were honest factual discussions at which the pros and cons were measured against various planning criteria. They were not sessions of pressure, bias, or distortion. Now that the study is complete, I will be perfectly honest and tell you that it was one of the most difficult we have ever undertaken. We knew at the outset that solving Newport Beach's transportation problems would not be easy. Even then, we underestimated the delicacy and com- plexity of the situation. Nevertheless, it has been our pleasure to work Mr. Robert L. Wynn December 3, 1973/Page - 2 cooperatively with you, the Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee, the City Council, and members of your City Technical Staff. We trust that at some time in the future we may again have the privilege of performing consulting services to the City of Newport Beach. Martin 'J. Bouman Vice President MJB /pb . 11 �Zcln!can Link Diviticd b ADT Assigned 20 —� 21 31 32 74 75 NEWPORT BEACIi ALTERNATE LAND USE STUDY COMPARISON OF NETWORK VOLUMES AND TRAFFIC DEFICIENCIES IN NEWPORT BEACH WITH VOLUME OF TRAFFiC (-.7•:NF:RATF1_) FROM 7.nNF:S TN NTTF:WPf)TZ,r RF.ACc-T Road Location ADT, Thousands Segment No. Road Name Assigned Capacity Defic- ienc From To 432-520 Coast Hwy. (Reloc) Brookhurst Newport Shores Area 46 43 3 520-228 Coast Hwy. (Reloc) Newport Shores Area Interchange 62 43 19 228-553 Coast Hwy. (Reloc) Interchange 15th Street 50 43 7 155-158 Coast Hwy. Newport Blvd. Riverside Ave. 51 36 -15 158-159 Coast Hwy. Riverside Ave. Dover Dr. '43 36 7 ! 220-221 Coast Hwy. Bayside Dr. Jamboree Rd. 64 43 II i 21 221-222 'Coast Hwy. Jamboree Rd. Newport Ctr. Dr. 59 43 16 i 222-286 Coast Hwy. Newport Ctr. Dr. MacArthur Blvd. 46 43 3 286-226 Coast Hwy. MacArthur Blvd. E of Marguerite Ave. 52 32 20 155-156 Newport Blvd. Coast Hwy. Via Lido 59 50' 9 156-214 Newport Blvd. Via Lido McFadden FL. 62 32 30 231-236 Jamboree Rd. San Joaquin Hills Rd. Bonita Canyon Rd-. 52 43 9 229-233 MacArthur Blvd. San Joaquin Hills Rd. Ford Road 55 43 12 Z34-239 MacArthur Blvd. Ford Road Bonita Canyon Dr. 49 43 6 442-464 MacArthur Blvd. Michelson Dr. San Diego Fwy. 55 43 12 231-229 San Joaquin Hills Rd Jamboree Rd. MacArthur Blvd. 47 43 4 243-477* University Dr. Corona Del Mar Fwy. California Ave. 65 43 22 * Outside Newport Beach City Limits A Traffic Volumes in 1. 000's on Deficient Links in Rnacl Npfwnrly F,,,, 7am 1 2 4 5 7 12 _ 15 10 17 18 Vol I °C V0 Vol "/c Vol % Vol I °c Vol "/c V01- "fc IVol "c Vol "/c .8 1.7 7.G 15.2 4.8I 10.4 .8 1.7 1.2 2.6 .4 .9 - - - - 1.3 2.8 ,2 4 1.5 3 1.1 1.8 9.Z 14.8 5.6 9.0 1.1 1.8 1.4 2.3 .6 1.0 .1 .2 1 .2 2.2 3.6 ,3 ,5 1.7 2 3.6 7.2 11.8I23.6 7.0 14.0 1.2 2.4 1.6 3.2 - - - - - - 2.5 5,0 ,4 .8 2.2 1.3 2.5 12.4�24.3 3.8 7.4 2.4 4.7 3.2 6.3 .5 1.0 .7 1.4 .5 1.0 8.2 16.1 ,8 1.6 3.5 ,4 6 1.0 2.3 10.2 23.7 3.0 7.0 2.8 6.5 3.6 8.4 .8 1.9 .9 2.1 .7 ' 1.6 9.7 22.6 ,9 L.1 3.9 9 ,8 1.3 7.2 ll.2 2.4 3.8 5.9 9.2 7.2 11.2 1.6 2.5 '2.0 3.1 1.7 2.7 20.7 32.4 1.6 2.5 6.5 i10 .6 1.0 5.8 9.8 2.0 3.4 6.4 10.8 8.5 14.4 1.9 3.2 - - ,1 ,2 23.6 40.1 ,7 1.2 4.1 '7 .4 .9 3.6 7.8I 1.3I 2.813.2 7.0 1-2.2 26.5 2.3 5.0 .4 .9 - - 7.5 16.3 .6 1.3 2.1 ?4 .3 .6 2.8) 5.41 1. 1, 2.1 2.6 5.0 24.7 47.5 2.1 4.0 .5 1.0 .4 .8 7.5 14.4 .6 1.2 1.6 3 .4 .7 33.2 56.3 20.2 34.3 .7 1.2 ,9 1.5 .4 .7 .5 .8 .5 .8 3.1 5.3 ,2 .3 .9 1 .3 .5 2.4 3.922.8 36.8 .1 ,2 .2 .3 .1 .2 .1 .2 .1 .2 .7 1.1 . 1 .2 .8 1.5 .2 .4 6.4 12.3 .4 .8 - - Z. 9 5.6 8.9 17.1 37.7 72.5 7.1 13.7 1. 6 3 - - - - - - - - 9.0 16.4. - - 7.0 12.7 - - 37.7 68.6 - _ _ _ - - - - - - - - 8.5 17.3 - - - - - - 31.6 64.6 - - - .2 _4 .2 .4 .1 .2 .2 .4 .2 .4 .3 .5 .3 .5 1.9 3.5 - - -- - - - - - .4 .9 1.2 2.6 6.5 13.8 6.3 13.4 45.9 97.7 2.6 5.2 i. . 1 2 .7- 1. 1. .3 .5 .4 .6 .7 1-. 1 .2 .3- 2.3 3.5 1.9 2.9 9.5 14.6 , 8 1.2 3 ' 13. za •_ • MINUTES - TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 16, 1973 PRESENT Chairman Bill Agee Bob Milum Dick Clucas Roland Landrigan Wally Koch mayor Pro Tem Howard Rogers Bill Dootson Joe Devlin Carol martin Al Krier Consultant: Al Krier ABSENT Grant Howald Chairman Bill Agee callers the meeting to order at 7:40 P.M. I. minutes of the July 10, 1973 meeting were presented for approval, moved, seconded and carried unanimously that the minutes be approved as submitted. II. There were no comments on attachments to the current agenda. III. Final Selection on West Newport Plan Mr. Clucas moved the Committee accept the alignment as shown on the consultant's map B-Cs covered by Option 4, and adhere as closely to that alternate in the West Newport Beach area as possible. Carol martin seconded. Following discussion, motion carried unanimously. IV. Final Selection on mariner's mile, Plan Mr. Clucas recommended Bob milum report on the position of the Chamber of Commerce with respect to this area prior to taking any action. DO NOT REMOVE Mr. milum stated the Chamber is not taking a specific position on Mariner's mile and no consensus exists within the business community; the marine Division had spent many hours working with marine -oriented people but found it hard to get a total commitment. Chairman Agee moved that Option 2 be adopted, reworded as follows: "Additional off-street parking capacity be developed in the Dover Drive -Newport Boulevard district and better traffic circulation throughout the district; also, plan for possible future removal of parking at peak hours as required to make room for six usable lanes after additional off-street parking is provided." Mayor Pro Tem Rogers discussed possibility of acquiring off-street parking areas through use of off-street parking fund, now approximating S250,o00, held in trust by the City. Stated he will be looking into this matter further to determine if money from the fund can be "loaned" to areas currently unmetered to be used as "seed" money for down payment on land, which would be paid for from parking revenues. After further discussion, it was the sense of the Committee to defer decision on this matter until Item V on the agenda has been discussed and decision taken. V. Final Selection on Dover Drive - Bridge Plan i Mr. Clucas moved adoption of Option 7 which contains a crossing from somewhere on Jamboree to somewhere on Dover or 17th Street as well as Bridge Option A-1 since the IV. addition Qf a second crossing probably makes it unnecessary to have complex and expensive interchange in Bridge Option C. After discussion, Mr. Landrigan proposed a substitute motion to adopt Option 5 intact. Mr. Dootson spoke in support of the substitute motion. motion carried on a vote of 4/3. Chairman Agee recommended discussion with respect to bridge height to give parameters engineers should work within. Ms. martin moved the Committee recommend a 25' height for bridge from ground level. Discussion determined that this proposed bridge height equated to 38' from mean high water to top of bridge, which would allow practically all trailer - able boats to pass under span. Mr. Devlin recommended the Committee specify a minimum height bridge as the design control factor would be the intersection of Dover Drive and Coast Highway. Following further dis- cussion, the Committee voted unanimously to support the concept of a low profile bridge. Mr. Dootson recommended vote be called on previous motion with respect to 25' height bridge. motion failed to carry by vote of 1/6. Final Selection on mariner's mile Plan Committee returned to discussion of this matter and Mr. Dootson moved adoption of Option 4, as recommended by the consultant, as best method of providing free -flowing traffic and greatest access to businesses in the area. Mr. Landrigan seconded; motion failed on vote of 3/3, one abstention. • - 4 • Ms. martin moved consideration of Option 3. Mr. Clucas seconded; motion failed on a unanimous vote ❑f 0/7. Mr. Dootson moved adoption of Option 4; Mr. Landrigan seconded; motion failed on vote of 2/4 with one abstention. Ms. martin proposed Committee vote on Option 2 without re -wording previously recommended by Chairman Agee. Mr. Clucas seconded. Prior to vote being recorded, Ms. martin modified motion to state addition of Section J to Option 2 which would indicate off-street parking will be constructed. I Motion failed on vote of 2/5. Chairman .A.gee oroposed reconsideration of his original motion, as follows: Option 2 to be adopted, re -worded as follows: "additional off-street parking capacity be developed in the Dover Drive -Newport Boulevard district and better traffic circulation throughout the district; also, plan for possible future removal of parking at peak hours as required to make room for six usable lanes after additional off-street parking is provided." Mr. Koch seconded; motion carried by vote of 4/3. Final Selection - MacArthur Boulevard to Jamboree Road Mr. Dootson moved adoption of consultant's recommendation Option 3. 1Mr. Clucas seconded. Chairman Agee spoke against adoption of Option 3 and supported concept of Option 2. Mr. Dootson's motion to adopt Option 3 was put to vote and carried 4/3. Qenuest to Reconsider Fifth Avenue Extension, Corona del mar Mr. Landrigan read a prepared statement relating to this matter and moved that the Committee advise the consultants to make their final report to the City Council for public hearing based upon adoption of Option 5 through Corona del Mar utilizing a depressed roadway. Mr. Dootson seconded. Mr. Landrigan amplified on his proposal stating that Option 5 should be the prime alternate. If Fifth Avenue Extension is not acceptable to the City Council, the Council should make that decision. Ms. martin stated her intent to abstain from participation in this discussion as it was her feeling that the matter had become a political question. Mr. Agee clarified Option 2 stating it was his understanding that parking would not be removed from Coast Highway unless additional off-street parking were provided. Mr. Landri6an's motion was put to vote and failed on tie vote of 3/3, one abstention. Mr. Landrigan stated he had a letter from Mr. Linton serving as proxy 'vote in support of Option 5. The Chairman ruled proxy vote was not acceptable and motion failed on tie vote. Mr. Clucas recommended adoption of Option 2. mayor Pro Tem Rogers referred the consultant to the Wilbur Smith Report which offered recommendations with respect to the parking problems in Corona del mar. Mr. Devlin stated copies of the Smith Reoort had been provided 'to Committee members . I I • - 6 - • at the time the Committee was formed but stated additional copies will be made available to Committee members for their study. The consultant stated the Wilbur Smith Report as it pertains to Corona del mar is a good report but does not give insight into how easy it will be to implement recommendations, and that in recommending the Fifth Avenue alignment, consultants felt they were proposing best technical solution to the problem. Consultant further stated that there is clear consensus on the part of the Committee that the best technical solutions may not take into account community attitudes and probable public support, and stated all these things will be included in the report to City Council -- technical assessment and Committee's assessment. Mr. Clucas moved that Option 2 be adopted as the Committee's recommendation to Council. Mr. Koch seconded. motion failed on a tie vote of 3/3, one abstention. Mr. Clucas recommended the Committee merely report to Council that the Lommittes can make no proposal for resolution of the problem. Mr. Dootson supported the suggestion and unanimous consent was given by the Committee. VI. Comments by A.M.V. on Relocation of Pacific Coast Highway Down Coast The consultant reported there is rho significant change in the Irvine Co.'s plan to re -locate,, Coast Highway a short distance inland and that he had found The Irvine Co. plan is the same as they have had before. J ( 1 • - 7 • _.- III. Set Date for Public meeting(s) Chairman Agee called for expression of the Committee's wish for date of public meeting to be held for the sole purpose of answering questions about the recommendations the Committee has made on the options proposed by consultant. Following discussion of merits of such a public meeting, in view of public hearings that will be held by the Planning Commission and the City Council, and the merits of members of the Committee appearing before local groups to answer specific questions, it was the sense of the Committee that a public question meeting be held on July 25, 1973 at 7:30 P.M. Adjournment Mr. Koch moved the meeting be adjourned; Mr. milum seconded; meeting adjourned at 11:35 P.m. Respectfully submitted, Elaine A. Polick Acting Secretary 13. Zb I "R NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC -STUDY PROGRESS REPORT OUTLINE Tuly 9, 1973 PHASE I PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION 1. Inventory 2. Identify location and magnitude of existing problems 3. Develop future travel demands 4. Identify location and magnitude of future problems 5. Summary Report published September 1972 PHASE II ALTERNATE PLAN DEVELOPMENT 1, Develop transportation ideas 2. Apply ideas to alternate networks 3,, Assign traffic to alternate networks 4. Identify location and magnitude of future problems S. Summary Report published March 1973 PHASE III PLAN SELECTION AND IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM (Schedule Attached) 1. Evaluate alternate plans 2. \Prepare cost estimates 3. Select alternate plan 4. Revise plan to most nearly meet following criteria: a. Accommodate present and future traffic demands b. Minimum disturbance to community c. Good probability of public acceptance 5. Develop implementation program 6. Phase III Report September 1973 Be a� A rij 31 PHASE III NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC STUDY PROJECT SCHEDULE I_iJ:iii�nmmmij M JUNE aSe . � I2 DULY AUGUST WEEK NUMBER Develop Evaluation Criteria Evaluate Networks Select Plan Implementation Finalize Costs Priorities & Phasing Potential Funding Report innsFinal f f t f f t f f Meeting with Citizens Advisory Committee & Progress Report City Council Briefing Final Report 1 A -4/24/73"' FELT C®PV DO SNOT REMOVE Pow" >e rj!!pL IL , N •� l "\ %.^°'' ,•^'•' 0� Q— l `� ` \\ 'rie•Et m I SYSTEM #3 SYSTEM -- ? ( ••- ,.- •, °•.,ee � a i II iiil 1lfiPii.,, �. - a�.,> �' � _ e,� o© �!®i%® � I j� — _'�_� }�i�a i i •--� r" ;� p;,� 1. �'�lly��%w:ig, i.�✓e �. _Pit e`- '����,1 �. — ©® � � � 1 f IF1il:lzs•Illi;lu`. �"�'' �Q. "a., '. ��� �' � ..~ •+ 'r � � i/ SYS l�L�'It' J..• "77r� .S � Qp9 _,ws.%"`��. ' — � �.ceexo— _ J '✓~ — OITY OF NEWPORT BEAM _ - • 0 13..20 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DEMAND FOR PAYMENT Date June 28, 1973 1 Demand of: Alan M. Voorhees & Associates, Inc. Address: 7600 Old Springhouse Road - Westgate Research Park Mclean, Virginia 22101 In the amount of $1,822.26 ITEM OF EXPENDITURE BUDGET # AMOUNT For professional services rendered in connection with the Newport Beach Alternative Land Use Stud 02-6697-288 $1,822.26 Per City Council Resolution 7913 Annrnvad Fnr Pavmantc _ TOTAL Audited and DO NOT RC&IOVE Finance Director A. NIY. A.M.Y. C.rAC. 9OCUMENTS SELECTSHC. /'�/�'/AYES PQEPA2E5 .DEFERS5/NGLE P. H. ON FOALOQT/ON ORAFT PLANANoPLAN OF ALL lPEPO,?TE GEN. PLAN lPEPORT 1LTEQNAT/!/ ECOMMENR 5UBMT5TO p,G. TO ELEMENTAT/OHS G, C.FOR P. f/. C, Q 707 /NPUT C. r.4. c. PURL/G A•M. u STAFF O.Q. CO. C G. HOLDS P. N• ON GEM. PLAN ELEMENT C, C. DOPTS F,V. PLAN CITY OF /VEWPOjer BEACH /RY/NE TRAAISPORUT/ON STUDY ACT/ON P44AI • _ I w dUNE 20,1973 ja. ao ARN M. VOORHEES & ASSOCIATES, I110C. TRANSPORTATION & PLANNING CONSULTANTS 7600 Old Springhouse Road Westgate Research Park McLean, Virginia 22101 To: City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 703: 903 - d310, June 11, 1973 Contract ,lob 1 256 (SK-65) Invoice I 6-7765 Period Inception thru April27, 1973 Terms: Payable upon receipt For professional services rendered in connection with the Newport Alternative Land Use Study. Salary of Record x 2.5 (See Schedule) Other Direct Costs Travel Reproduction Telephone Supplies & Miscellaneous Plus' 10% Handling Total Other Direct Costs AMOUNT DUE THIS INVOICE $21.60 4.70 11.70 2.96 40.96 4.10 DO NOT REMOVE $1,777.20 45.06 $1,822.26 Alf", , P1,EASE RETURN ONE COPY OF THIS INVOICE WITH REMITTANCE. i r t„ FULL,: Can AGREEMMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES N,7-mport Beach Transportation Stud_v DONOT R04OVE PHASE III THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this !� y ri. day of ,g p ,n_7 I � thce CITY OF NE6JPORT BEACH, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CITY", and the firm of ALAN M. VOORHEES & ASSOCIATES, hereinafter referred to as "ENGINEER": TA7 I T N E S S E T H WHEREAS, CITY proposes to study and analyze the present and future transportation needs of Newport Beach for the purpose bf identifying problems and developing an improvement program for automotive and other transportation systems; and WHEREAS, engineering services are necessary to carry out the aforementioned study; and WHEREAS, ENGINEER has submitted a proposal to perform Phase III of the study; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES agree as follows: I. GENERAL CITY engages ENGINEER to furnish the services here- inafter specified for the compensation herein stipulated, and ENGINEER agrees to perform such services upon said terms. II- DUTIES OF ENGINEER ENGINEER shall: A. Provide all necessary services to initiate and c?mole to Phase III of the Transportation Stud;- as deii_ d in .�G pit.' D-slgil ai.tachad hereto, d*sianated E hihi.t "tV", an, li?COC_7- th :s re�orerc-� as if fllily met forth, , - L- B, Submit a written progress report tothe Trans- portation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee within four (4) weeks after the start of work and each month thereafter; C, Attend such meetings of the Citizens Advisory Committee as may be called by the Chairman; D. Present one oral report to the Citizens Advisory Committee upon completion of Phase III. E, Produce a complete Phase III report including all information, data, tabulations, maps, illustrations and other detailed material necessary to fully document and identify all findings and conclusions; F. Provide one hundred copies of the complete Phase III report. III. DUTIES OF CITY CITY agrees to provide ENGINEER with the following: A. Access to all existing City files relating to the transportation and traffic system; B. Traffic volume court records; C. Traffic accident records; D. Existing improvement plans; E.' Existing records and reports on City land use data and plans; economic data; T'�7 ork F. Existing records and reports on City socio- G. Staff consultation as needed to accomplish this IV. CMAEPLETION OF SERVICES ;,MG 21R agrees to complete all the services specified E,erei.z in five months aftar receiving o Hci.al notice to proceed 4 V. PAYMEri BY CITY 1. CITY agrees to pay ENGINEER for all services called for under the provisions of this agreement on the basis of the rate scheduled attached hereto, marked Exhibit "B" and made a part ":ardn by this reference. Said amount small not exceed the total sum of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00), which shall include actual cost reimbursement for subprofessional and non -personnel items such as travel, secretarial, drafting, telephone and related costs. as follogs: 2. The amount to paid ENGINEER shall be payable A. Monthly partial payments - each payment to be the amount earned as determined by fee schedule. The sum of partial payments shall not exceed ninety per cent (90%) of the maximum fee; of, in the alternative B. Monthly partial payments - each payment to be computed on the basis of the percentage of completed work as can be acceptably demonstrated; the sum of partial payments not to exceed ninety per cent (90%) of the maximum fee. C. The balance of the total amount to be paid upon completion of the specified services. D, The CITY agrees to pay ENGINEER for additional costs required to produce copies of the complete Phase III report in excess of one hundred copies; the amount charged being eleven times the actual costs of services such as photo -litho, printing, twping, binding, etc., in producing the additional copies of the complete report. e°I. TEP-MIUATIO Tits a•gre�men•t may be terminated at any time by CITY hr•_e (3) days' written notice to ENGINEER; notice shall be s _.. msd 3erve1 upon placing , copy thereof in the United States pDs"—_a-Te AC, -:!paid, addressed to F',NGRKEC 's business office, -3- In the event of termination due to the fault. of ENGINEER, CITY shall be relieved of any obligation to compensate ENGINEER_ If this agreement is terminated for any reason other than the fault of ENGINEER, CITY agrees to compensate ENGIirER for the actual services performed up to the effective date of the notice of termination on the basis of the fee schedule contained in this agreement. VII. AMENDMENT The scope of the services to be furnished by ENGINEER may be changed and -the maximum fee and time period for completion revised only upon prior written approval of the CITY. VIII, ASSIGNMENT This agreement or any portion thereof shall not be assigned without the written consent of CITY.. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement on t e-datrst above written. CITY OF 1\E4PPORT BEACH ATTEST: + /:Mayor ALAN M. VOORHEES & ASSOCIATES City Clerk / c :+PPIOVED AS TO FOPai: . A Harold I. ' Millison L' Manager, Contracts Administration City Attorney 4 C 40 i August 5, 1971 INEViPORT BEACIH TRAFFIC STUDY STUDY DESIGN STUDY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 3 The following broad study goals and objectives are considered to be the basic products of the study. They are general, yet constitute a clear basis for approaching the study. They are broken down further in the Mu."'i-Criteria Evaluation Process (Phase III), and in the very specific locations and•proble=s defined under Special Considerations.. ' 1. . Front a series of alternative networks, utilize a Multi -Criteria Evaluation Process to select and recommend ,the best street and :dghvgay system to meet the present needs and the future needs to 1990. Recommendations are to be divided into three time - spans of priority and action: 1) Immediate, ?) Short -range -to 1980, 3) Long-range to 1990. Primary study emphasis will be concentrated on the first two, 2, Evaluate and recommend the role to be played by public transit. 3. analyze the locations of current traffic congestion which are not subject to improvement by the construction of additional traffic- carrying or storage facilities. Recommend a method for re- ducing such congestion. analyze a se.as of specific problem locations at which traffic,. par'-ing, or safety problems are prevalent. Recommend indi- -vidual solutions. 5. Present an improvement program with projects in a priority order. Include cost -estimates, project phasing, and potential ' funding resources. EXHIBIT „ A" ip i NVORK PROG:R-AM The traffic study will be carried out in three phases. Phase I: Problem Identification Phase II: Alternative Plan Development Phase III: Plan Selection and Implementation Prog3r2m Phase I - Problem Identification The problem identification Phase will include an inventory of existing and planned facilities, conditions, policies and attitudes. It will also include the developments of future travel demands in the Newport Beach area. The result of this phase will be the identification of existing and potentiiI transportation problems. The following Tasks summarize the inventories that will be made and describe the methodology for the development of the traffic forecasts, and the problem,_ identification. The Study Area Boundaries are, clockwise: The Pacific Ocean, the Santa Ana River, the San Diego Freeway and as approximate north - south line connecting the Jeffrey Road interchange and Morro Bay_ Task 1. Physical Conditions Inventory .Existing topography, drainage conditions, and facilities, tidal and Rood plaia boundaries, natural landmarks and scenic vistas will be identified and Mapped. Task 2. Corn _unity Facilities Inventory .Existing and planned schools, libraries, hospitals, other public buildings, historical buildings and sites, parks and other community facilities will be identified and their importance determined. -Task 3. Land Use Inventory Current land use patterns and use intensity trill be determined for=esidential, commercial and business areas. Neighborhood development plans and community ;Waster -glans will be obtained_ The source of.such plans will be documented, and their probability of implementation evaluated. 4 Task a Econon%ic Conditions layentory Current information on property values (tag base), general building conditions, residential vacancy levels and employment locations and magnitude +;vill be determined. Specific site develop- ment plans will be obtained and mapped. Task 5. Demographic Conditions Inventory .Dxisting population statistics and resident characteristics such as ethnic and racial composition, age distribution and family income _ Will be determined. Trends will he analyzed to determine the direc- tion of any changing conditions. Task 6. Socio-Political Characteristics Through interviews with residents and public officials, neighbor- hood boundaries will be identified both as defined for planning purposes as well as those perceived by the community. Other boundaries such as school districts, fire department service aress, and improvement : districts will also be identified. Task 7.. Utilities Inventory The location of major e;dsting and planned utilities such as high voltage power lines, • trunk water mains and sewer lines will be _ identified. Task S. Transportation Facilities inventory MxisU=- g and committed street system capacities. -will be developed and public transportation service levels and coverage determined. Proposed street additions and freeway plans will be obtained. Mdsting parking facilit--.es will be determined. Task 9., Public Attitudes Through interviews of and meetir_gs with, lay people and com- ityleaders, attitudes towards levels of future development, trans- portation needs, additional transportation facilities, community identi- �icatioa, .relocation possibilities, public 'transit, and related items will be detzrminecf. Specific questions to be answered by the discussion/ in;-_ry eyv process vi-H! be jointly determined by the Consultant/CAC team_ r The consultant team will confer viith the City Planning Department to determine if the survey can be adjusted to provide secondary benefits to the development of the general nlan. Task I0. Develop_n.ent of Traffic Forecasts Traffic forecasts will be developed from data available from the 1980 Los Angeles Interim Transportation Study (3 LAITS). This study - is being conducted by the Los Angeles Regional Transportation Study (LARTS) to develop a 1980 regionwide traffic forecast based on the most recent 1980 forecast of land use. To develop the 1980 forecasts for the Newport Beach Traffic Study, -LAITS traffic forecast (i.e., traffic zone to traffic zone trip movements) will be obtained from LARTS and all trips either passing through or having one end in the Newport Beach Traffic Study area will be extracted from the regionwide data. The LAITS traffic zones within the Study Area will be subdivided as necessary to get the desired level of detail, and then the LAITS 1980 forecast -rill be reassigned to the expanded traffic zone system. The finest step in this procedure will be any adjustments necessary in the trip generation to.account for differences between the 1980 land use .forecast used in LAITS and the current 1980 land use forecast of Newport Beach. The 1990 traffic forecast for the Newport Beach Study Area wLI1 be developed from the 1980 traffic forecasts through the application of growth factors based on anticipated growth in ponu- la on and employr_.ent. Comparisons with forecasts made For the Route I-55 Study, the North Orange Study (Route 57 Study) and for ' Irvine will be made to obtain' the most reasonable estimate of 1990 traffic. Task I1. Problem Identification A general determination of current movement demands will be Wade by summarizing the results of the 1967 Origin -Destination Survey conducted by LARTS. This will xesnit in a portrayal of the current movement aattern.s within the Newport Beach area, sad brill include e: vernal -external, internal -external, and internal -internal traffic movements. A more specific determination of current problems..... will result from a capacity analysis of the existing street system and I,? :fro -man. analysis of the transportation movement demands vrhich are being indadecuately met as determined from the community. surveys. Particular attention vt 11 be directed toward ider_tifying Problems resulting from the high volumes of beach oriented traffic during the summer Both the 19SO and 1990 traffic forecasts will be compared with -the capacity avai?able in the existing plus firmly committed street system_ The results of this comparison will indicate the location and . magnitude of potential traffic deficiencies and Swill be used to assist•ia the development of possible solution alternatives during - the second phase of the study. , Previously proposed transportation improvement plans vrM be analyzed based on information determined from the inventory of existing and :olaaned facilities and conditions and from public attitudes and opinions. The results of this analysis will be a description of negative as well as positive impacts the proposed plans would have on the community. The results of the capacity and impact analysis will be the essential input elements for the development of alternative solutions during the second phase of the traffic study. 'Phase Ii - Alternativ` Plan Development Toe de-reloprrnent of alternative transportation plans will be perfo-zed 'th close suaport from the Citizens Advisory Committee, and the City technical staff- The primary purpose of this phase is to determine a series of nrelircinary solutions for evaluating and testing.' While a dozer_ or more concepts might be considered, it's expected that those _alling into the reasonzble category will number four or less. A reason- able solution, at this paint, will be one which can -accommodate present and future traffic demands, create minimum er-vi.ronmental distrubance; a.nd h ,, a- anticipated public acceptance. -5- ask 12. Determination of letworks Based on the problem identification, numerous transportation ; networks will be devised, including some with public transit emphasis. The Citizens Advisory Committee, previous traffic studies; the City technical staff, and citizen response to the attitudinal surveys will all provide major input. 3 Task 13. Network Evaluation Based on tradffic accommodation, environmental impact and community acceptance, .the alternative systems to be "tested" will be aarrowed to four or less. The Citizens Advisory Committee will playa major role in this process. Task'li . Traf is Assignment This is the essential process in -which internal -internal, internal - external, and external-exEernal future traffic movements are assigned to the alternative net -works to determine their aperational feasibility. A computer assignment technique is planned -which will proceed through a determination of individual zonal attraction/generation characteristics_ Then, zone to zone traffic distribution (the amount of traffic moving, from each zone to every other zone), and finally to . traffic volumes on the net -work based on travel time through links of logically predicted. speed. Phasa Ill. - Plan Selection. and Implementation Program From the "narrovred" alternative list, a final plan will be selected as the most'suih ble.. Such a plan may well be. a -combination of earlier alternatives, and may also utilize a combination of travel modes such as auto -bus -call. Although a single plan -will -be presented and recom- =ended, the other alternatives -wall be thoroughly discussed, and their z.valuation documented. It -will be made clear why the final plan_ emerged as roost suitable. Finally, a program kill be presented -which lists the racomrnended transportation improvements in a priority order, includin_-7 cost estimates_ 40 46 0 Taste 15. i,iulti-Criteria !:.valuation Process The evaluation prOC2» :vll consider a series of criteria in wIlUch satisfaction of each criterion shall consist'of the most positive, or least neJative impact. For example (strictly), a criterion may be assigned a weighted value, and points earned for a "solution." on the basis of the degree to which that criterion is satisfied. aThe point total for all criteria would then constitute the 'relative desirability Of that solution. The Citizens Advisory Committee shall share in the method of determining weighted values for the various criteria. The, following 13 criteria, each. forming a'portion of the Study Goals and Objectives, shall be the basis for evaluation: Best general freeway and/or major street network to'meet the transportation demands. While regional traffic demands - will be considered, primary emphasis Will be placed on serving internal traffic needs. 2. Best provision of additional traffic capacity across Newport Bay. 3. Best provision for handling through traffic in the total east - west (coastal) corridor. 4 Best integration and balance between automobile usage- and public transit. 5. Best utilization, of freeway systems through local connection and access. d. Best method of providing "people access" to the Balboa Peninsula and other concentrated areas., 7. Best method of reducing or eliminating present congestion, accident, and parking problems. S. Most workable method of traffic problem solution. 9. Most.possible plan to fund and build. ` 10, Best plan for community and environmental protection and er_hancement. i 1. Plan most lileely to obtain public acceptance and support_ 13, Best plan for handling major "seasonal" traffic surges. 1-3 Cons,orrnance to- the California Coastal Highway Planning Policy_ 1 . Task 16. Plan Selection Based on the -Lvfulti-Criteria Evaluation Process, 4 final plan will be selected and recommended. Other alternatives will be discussed and their evaluation documented. Task 17. Implementation Prograrn 9 For the selected plan, a program will be presented which lists the recommended additions and improvements to the transportation system in a priority, order. Cost estimates, project phasing Where necessary, and potential funding sources hill be included. ..A SFBCIzL COINSIDIERATIONS The stu-?y, Sy(+ere such soec;''cs have not been pre-iiously included in the evaluation of alternatives, will provide anaalysis, discussion, con- clusions, and recommer_dations coacernir_g the follovr_ng specific items- 1) Feasibility of transportation modes other than the private automobile in the Nevrport Beach area. 2) Long range effects of transportation modes other than automobiles. 3) Alternatives to a coastal freeway in Newport Beach. 4) Advantaoas and disadvantages of a coastal freeway in Newport Beach. �) Traffic impact if no major improverrients are made to the - existing transportation system. 6) Changes to arterial street system necessary to meet projected traffic demands without freeways. 7) �Io;n.,-•r_u_nity and n eighborhodd impacts of any recommended changes in the arterial street system - -:�ithout freeways.- 3) :erelixriaary cost estimates of any recommended changes,in the arterial street system - without freeways. 9) Rasponsibilities for costs of charges (state, county, city, .developers). l ))sripacr of coastal freeway on city street system traffic. 12) ' impact of coasta freeway on commurity and neighborhood - '12) Increase in local street traffic resulting from freeway-. • .:onstructian. '• .. - 13) Changes to arterial street system necessary to meet projected traffic demands - with freeways. '_•�) Preliminary cost estimates of any recommended changes in •-Mrterial street system - Nvi.th free -,*rays. 15) Possible alternative routes for coastal freeway. ;b) iomnunity and neighborhood impacts of alternate routes. 1 {) possible use of a sllallo6v draft automobile ferry crossing near ii:e unpzr bay narro'.vs, together with consideration -of capital t an. -I ?p$ra lino CO3iO. -9- - 18) Traffic needs for a mid -bay artarial street (bridge) crossing, (a) without a coastal freeway and (b) with a coastal freeway. 19) Possible need for more than one crossing of mid-bay- 20) Community and neighborhood impacts or mid -bay bridge or .bridges. 21) Costs of mid -bay crossing. 22) Assignment or costs for mid -bay crossing. 23) Effects on upper bay as an estuary if narrows bridge were constructed. 24) Effects on recreatior_al characteristics of upper bay if raid -bay crossing is constructed. 25)' Use of tunnels for upper bay crossings and other highways. 26) Traffic and community impacts if Corona del Mar Freeway terminated, (a) at San 3oaquin Hills Road, (b) at Coast Highway with no coastal freeway. 27) Traffic and community impacts if Newport Freevray terminated, (a) at, City limits, (b) at Coast Highway with no coastal freeway. :2SJ Effects of routing Corona del Max Freeway northerly of San 3oaquin Hills Road in its dowacoast reach through Corona del 3Iar.. (Bonita/Coyote Canyon Route) 29) Significaac_— of fog in alternative coastal freeway and Corona del Mar Freeway locations. 30) Effects_ of peripheral freeway imp ovements intended to carry, through. traffic completely around the area rather than through the coastal corridor. 32) Traasporuti.om by other modes such.as bicycles, minibuses, walking or special pedestrian paths, etc. 33) Use of school buses in 'summer for transportaizon to beach areas_ 34) Future technological and operational changes involving small cars, express bus lanes, car pools, people movers, etc_ 35) Future legal restrictions on smog, trucks, noise, engine type zed size, etc. 56) Encouragement of greater use of bicycles and motor -driven cycles (qu:et ones). 37) Construction of sidev;alks throughout city 3�) Cre:-tion of one -say streets_ i i 0) P.`O'v dl ng out of city parking 'JI-ith tra: 1 serS^_ce to beachh. 40) Providing `_razn service throughout co I 1I1LL^,lty. .11 is- '!is'l'-ng higher -priced beach parking. ;2) Providieg a bicycle lane on Coast Highway. ':J) ts1104i�P_g free ferry passage for bike riders. ' =iS) Allowing only -Newport Beach residents cars south o£'riighNtray during certain periods. ,5) E7izninating sides<rafks across Bay Bridge on Coast Highway and create emergency lane. Placing pedestrians on out with proper rails. 461 Creating one-way s Teets in grid section of Corona del Mar. 47) Building a Bridge across the bay from 17th Street to Jamboree s-toad: 48) Building a bridge from the soon dead end of Bayside Drive to the point of Balboa Island. 49)' Short and long range effects of possible bay crossings on ;:rater quality, recreation, maxine environment, ecology. - 50) The impact of non -transportation uses novr being exacted £rozn the street system such as parades, special events, youth "'beach cruising, :' etc. 52) .l easibility of a multi-laned 'nigh bridge over the bay. ' DEPORTS ? i�:U il4EE^1 ! TGS Monthly progress reports shall be submitted which shall give a brief dsscriptiou of project progress, adherence to schedules and financial status. „lcdItioCl7y, the consultant proposes t0 prapare summary reports at the conclusion of Phase I and II with provision for e-xpanding such reports -to £v?? 3ocumentatioa of study efforts completed, should the City elect to dTiscoatinue the study. at the conclusion of Phases I or H. modest final =sport, with single color narrative and graphics Trill d4octlrnent the study and its methodology. One hundred copies will be i?:rCii si: �3» .-Zal addition to ryAnthly meetings with the Citizens Advisory Committee, _ f.:,rn-:al p`esent,,%' 0.1 to th-. Council Sell be scheduled at the conclusion_ of i`.ud phase, ri public presentation concerning '' Y P' ,� the final xeport will alzf% b- .chcdulcd. , Alan M. Voorhees & Associates Labor Pate Schedule Effective July 1, 1972 Classification Principal Engineer, Planner Grade I Principal Engineer, Planner Grade I1 Senior Associate Engineer, Planner Associate Engineer, Planner Senior Engineer, Planner, Systems Analyst, Programmer Engineer Planner, Systems Analyst, Programmer Senior Technical Support Technical Support Project, Research Assistants Hourlv'Rate• $ 49.84 40.39 33.08 27.79 23.40 19.13 14.96 11.48 10.80 MINUTES TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE April 17, 1973 PRESENT Chairman Bill Agee Roland Landri an Woody Linton Al Krier (AMV� Bill Dootson Marty Bouman (AMV) Councilman John Store ABSENT Joe Devlin (City staff) Ted McConville (Orange Cty) Mike Bow (Costa Mesa) and guests Dick Clucas Wally Koch Robert Milum Grant Howald Mayor Pro Tem Rogers 1. Minutes were approved subject to changes submitted by Al Krier (see attached).. 2. Al Krier presented new tentative time and meeting schedule. 3. Councilman Store reviewed questions to council and answers, (see attached). 4. Discussion of schedule. Consultant will shorten report time if possible. 5. Considered an off -site weekend work session some time in late May or early June. Date to be determined later if desirable. 6. The tentative time schedule was accepted as amended. The asterisk (*) on the schedule should read, "council briefing" in lieu of "council consideration". 7. Discussed the Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce questionnaire. 8. Al Krier presented "suggested evaluation procedures". (see attached). Discussion followed. 9. "Special consideration" items will be discussed at next meeting when more members are present. 10. Consultant will bring to the next meeting an expanded description of the thirteen evaluation criteria. 11. Item 13 of evaluation criteria was omitted and "how well does system satisfy the special consideration" was added. 12. Phase III Study will not include detailed environmental impact, bridge design, etc, since it is primarily a general study of traffic movement. Page 2 MINUTES, CAC COMMITTEE 13. Consultant was requested to group criteria as to the following considerations: a. major consideration. b. etc. ) to be determined by consultant for C. etc. ) next meeting. 14. Mr. Devlin's office was requested to call members prior to meeting to assure better attendance. 15. Next meeting May 1, 1973 in City Council Chambers. 16. Meeting adjourned at 9:15.P.M. Roland Landrigan, Acting Secretary I 41 E Suggested Changes in Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee Minutes of April 3, 1973 Meeting (by Al Krier) page 2. Item 3. a. This study assumes a major road along the Irvine Avenue corridor interchanging with the Coast Freeway, and intersecting with Coast Highway. This would cause a radical change in coastal traffic patterns. page 2. Item 3. d. Gruen projected traffic on four network concepts and considered three levels of traffic. The upper traffic level is considered to be quite high. page 2. Item 3. f. The Socio-economic data used by Gruen was a pro- jection of 1970 data. More intense land uses were assumed for some areas, W Council Responses to Councilman Store's Questions 7. Does the Council desire a briefing at 8 or 10 weeks into Phase III? 2. Does the Council have a recom- mendation regarding the extent of and/or timing of public hearings? Yes Report should go through Planning Commission first for a public hearing then through the City Council. • • NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC STUDY PHASE III SUGGESTED EVALUATION PROCEDURES. AND PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT 1. Study individual routes or corridors within Newport Beach for the base network and the three alternates. Make general cost estimates for right-of-way and construction, with an estimate of the cost to the City of Newport Beach, and other entities (County, State, Federal, other). Evaluate according to established criteria. 2. Make a general review of the base network and the three alternates for the study area outside the City of Newport Beach, by jurisdiction, with general cost estimates. Evaluate according to established criteria. 3. Assess these evaluations for inside and outside the City of Newport Beach, and make plan selection. Determine any modifications to the plan that are necessary and desirable for the City of Newport Beach. 4. Modify the proposed network within the City limits of Newport Beach, and make the necessary changes outside the City boundaries to retain continuity in the system, and revise general cost estimates. 5. Develop a program for the selected plan within the City of Newport Beach which includes: a. Project description b. Project priority C. Project phasing where necessary d. Refined cost estimates e. Division of costs by potential funding source (City, County, State, Federal, other). I Ir To April 3, 1973 • PJtJ"� �/�r1,;S MINUTES In attendance: Dick C1ucas (CAC), John Store (City Council), Wally Ko{i_Nl (CAC), Woody Linton (CAC), Al Krier (AMV), Marty Bouman (AMV), Robert Milum (CAC), Roland Landrigan (CAC), Joe Devlin (City Staff), Rod Gunn (City Staff), Carol Martin (CAC), and guests. Absent: Grant Howland, Bill Agee, Bill Dootson 1. The Minutes of the last meeting were approved as mailed. 2. Rod Gunn gave a report on the changes in the study caused by re-evalu- ation of Residential Growth. a. Voorhies reviewed - unchanged growth trend projections b. Voorhies reviewed most drastic cutback possible c. The result of comparison was that there would be no significant change on the overall system. It was also concluded'that specific zones might show improvement as the result of Residential Zone limitations 1) Reduction in Newport Beach was 7-1/2% 2) Reduction in total study area was 2% 3) The specific zones which would be significantly affected are: Trend Growth Reduction ADT Base ADT a) Corona del Mar 4000 67,000 b) Pacific Coast Highway from Santa Ana River to Arches 1850 7,350' c) Balboa Peninsula 3730 30,800 d) Along Santa Ana River - Undeveloped Property 18250 38,600 e) Fifteenth Street and Placentia 3000 26,000 f) Newport Center +4000 .124,500 (Occasioned by shift from some residential to all commercial) g) Jamboree to San Joaquin 2560 20,100 h) Dover Area and Westcliff 3270 25,500 i) West Bay - 22nd Street area 2800 5,540 d. It was noted that "commercial" trend studies were not included in the Residential Growth statistics. Commercial projections are anticipated by July. 3. Comments by Al Krier on the general differences between the Gruen Traffic Study for Route 57 Freeway: a. This study assumes a freeway down Irvine Avenue to Coast Highway. This would cause a radical change in Coast Traffic Volume. b. This is a 1995 projection. c. This study used different inputs. Voorhies used most recent LAITS statistics for "external" statistics. Voorhies used current DRA Irvine and Costa Mesa data for "internal" statistics. It is the most recent and reliable data available. d. Gruen projected on four levels of traffic. The high level was reported to be very high. e. The Gruen projection included a Coastal Freeway which attracts traffic from the San Diego Freeway, which obviously would expand traffic volume in Newport Beach. f. The Socio Economic data used by Gruen was a projection of 1970 data. More intense land uses were assumed. 4. Schedule for Phase III - Al Krier a. We have not yet officially commenced Phase III. b. The Council should act on the implementation of Phase III on April 10, 1973. c. The schedule shows a possible delay in the llth week for presen- tation to the Council and/or public hearings. The Committee was asked how it thought this should be handled. It was concluded that we need Council direction. John Store will discuss it with the Council at the next study session, and will report at the next Committee Meeting. 5. Methodology - Marty Bouman An evaluation sheet was distributed. It was concluded that the Committee should review the evaluation chart and evaluation methodology. We should consider: a. Weighting Values? b. Additional Criteria? c. Evaluate each system in geographic segments? d. Evaluate each system on "external", "internal" basis I � �s • 0 6. Motion was made that the evaluation study sessions will not be open to public debate. Suggestions and comments from the public shall be limited to written items. There will be public hearings at a later date. 7. The next meeting will be April 17, 1973. Mr. Devlin will arrange the meeting place and send out notices. Respectfully submitted, R. H. Clucas TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITIZEN SUGGESTIONS 1. Traffic signal at Irvine -Santiago (being installed now). 2. Improved loading dock design at Villa Way and 30th. ' 3. Traffic signal at Eastbluff (north) - Jamboree (being installed now). 4. Encourage greater use of bicycles and motor -driven cycles (quiet ones) S. Construct sidewalks throughout city. 6. One-way streets. 7. Paint street corners red to keep them clear of parked cars -- especially in the 30th to 50th Street area. 8. Enforce noise level laws • 9. Have policemen on foot. + 10. Have more dead end streets. 11. Out of city parking with tram service to beach. 12. Tram service throughout community. i 13, Higner-priced beach parking for all day, with chalk test laa hour limit i for other area, ! 14. Bicycle lock -up poles at beach. 15. Bicycle lane on Coast Highway. 16. Free ferry passage for bike riders. 17. Allow only Newport Beach residents cars South of highway during certain periods. 18. Left turn lane on Balboa Boulevard northbound into 19th Street. { 19. Eliminate 3 parking spaces on east side of 19th Street north of Balboa 1 Boulevard. 0. Install warning sign (SLOW 25 MPH) or paint something on street on Balboa Boulevard near pedestrian crossing at l9th Street. 1. Obtain services of recognized expert environmentalist to observe overall V programming of work by Transportation Plan consultant in order to validate final product. i Transportation Plan - Citizen Suggestions j -Page Two 22.1 Crosswalks on Via Lido near Richards and Barrows and near the theater should not have those lines going the same as traffic -- they should be the same as they used to be. 23. Speed on Via Lido should be controlled, 0. • 24. Slow traffic down -- in Clubhouse area; possibly boulevard stops at more streets. 25. Don't build multi -family residences too close to corners creating blind intersections. 26. 35th street should be one-way (Clubhouse) 27. Eliminate sidewalks across Bay Bridge on Coast Highway and create emergency lane. Put pedestrians on outside with *proper rails. 28. Eliminate left turns from Via Lido Onto Central. �• 29. Perhaps Via Oporto should be one way. ' 30. Install stop light at Newport -Balboa near McFadden Place. 31. Open one lane for right turn to McFadden Place from Ocean Front Parking Lot to relieve congestion at 23rd-Balboa. 32. One-way streets in grid section of Corona del Mar. 33. 5th-11arguerite intersection is problem due to speed off hill and restricted vision. 34. Bayside Drive -Marguerite intersection bad for left turns from Bayside. 35. Crosswalks on Coast Highway are difficult to see -- maybe need center • marker. 36. Left turns onto Coast Highway are dangerous. 37. Build bridge across the bay from 17th Street to Jamboree Road. 38, Build bridge from the soon dead end of Baystde Drive to the point of Balboa Island. 39. In view of inaccurate news reporting,the Citizens Committee meetings should be tape recorded for reference. 40. In addition to recreational effects of mid -bay crossing, consider environmental effects such as marine, ecological, etc. 41. Consider short and long range effects of possible bay crossings on water quality. / 1 10 13 ab Ilk k t MEM6RANDUM TO: Joe Devlin FROM: Al Krier L V • DATE: March 14, 1973 JOB: 256.000 SUBJECT: Trip Generation Relating To Growth Alternates Enclosed are two letters containing information which became the subject of discussion last night at the Citizens Advisory Committee on Transpor- tation meeting. The November 21, 1972 letter describes figures which were included in the Phase II Summary Report. The December 7, 1972 letter describes possible trip generation change between Alternate Growths A and C for nine zones in Newport Beach. Both of these letters were appended to a Community Development report entitled, "Residential Growth Limits, Component Of The City Of Newport Beach General Plan. " I will be prepared to discuss this information at our meeting with the CAC on April 3. You may recall that Rod Gunn said he would also be available to discuss growth alternates. AHK /pb R. Gunn cc: �46 1) DO SNOT REMOVE AMV-F-75-0 5252 BALBOA AVENUE, SAN DIEGO, 1WORNIA 92117 • 714/2783363 &MU7 ALAN M. VOORHEES & ASSOCIATES. INC. TRANSPORTATION AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS Mr. Tim Cowell Associate Planner Community Development Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Mr. Cowell: December 7, 1972 AMV Ref: 256. 000 in my letter to Mr. Carl Neuhausen on November 21, 1972, I explained our preliminary analysis of growth alternative data, which Carl had furnished on November 7. My suggestion at that time was that we analyze the probable impact on links in the road system for which there may be significant traffic reduction from nearby zones. Carl agreed that we should proceed with that analysis, realizing of course that the City may still wish to proceed with a full network assignment using growth Alter- nate C data. Using the population and employment data furnished by the City, trip generation from the Newport Beach zones was computed for growth Alter- nate C, then compared with that used for growth Alternate A, AMVIs original traffic assignment. Those zones having 10%D or more differential in trip generation were investigated for their affect on the net change in traffic volume on nearby road links. Attached is our tabulation of trip generation for the eight.zones investi- gated, showing growth Alternate A and C trip generation, and the net difference between the two levels. Zone 16, which includes Newport Center, is the only zone where an increase in traffic was shown due to revised land use. Also attached is a sketch which shows how traffic is affected on the adjacent roadways. The net changes are plotted only in the vicinity of the zones, but much of the road network is of course affected by the reduction (or increase) in traffic volumes. However, as you get farther away from the center of the zone the change in traffic volume becomes small or non-existent. The most significant area of traffic reduction from, the revised land use is Zone 32. There is a net reduction of 18, 250 trips, of which approxi- mately 11, 100 would use Balboa Extension�to disperse, and the remaining 70 150 would disperse via Coast Highway. 'Zone 4, the Penninsula, would reduce traffic on Balboa Boulevard by 3,730. San Joaquin Hills Road at Newport Center would increase a maximum of 1, 500. WASHINGTON, D.C. • LONDON • HONOLULU • DENVER • ORLANDO • TORONTO • ST. LOUIS • CARACAS • SEATTLE • BOSTON ■ SANJUAN • HOUSTON BUFFALO 0 ATLANTA 0 SAN DIEGO • LOS ANGELES 0 ZURICH 0 NEW BRUNSWICH • DALLAS • CHICAGO • PHILADELPHIA • SAN FRANCISCO '• MELBOURNE 0 a Mr. Tim Cowell December 7, 1972 Page - 2 In summary, the overall net reduction in traffic between growth Alterna- tives A and C is not substantial. The zone having the most significant traffic reduction is 32, while Zone 16 shows a slight increase. Based on our preliminary analysis of November 21, and this analysis, we do not see any advantage of making a traffic assignment to the road network using growth Alternate C data. Very truly yours, A. H. Krier Regional Manager AHK/pb cc: R. Jaffe o Note: Zones shown (except Zone 16) represent at least 1056 change in Traffic between Alternate A & C. zoaE- 11 zo/ 40 IN I CHANGE IN TRAFFIC ON ADJACENT ROAD LINKS BETWEEN GROWTH ALTERNATES A AND C FOR -ZONES SHOWN 77 t. Trip Generation Net Change in Traffic Zone Alternate A Alternate C Trip Generation 1 7,350 5,500 - 1,850, 4 30,800 27,070 - 3,730 7 39,100 34,980 - 4,120 16 124,500 128,500 + 4,000* 17 20,100 17,540 - 2,560 26 25,500 22,230 - 3,270 27 5,540 2,740 - 2,800 31 26,100 23,100 - 3,000 32 38, 600 20,350 - 18,250 *This does not represent a 10% change, but is the only zone which had a + net change from Alternate A to Alternate C. Although population decreased, employment increased. AZ52-MLBOA AVENUE, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92117 • I(� ALAN M. VOORHEES Ot ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS In-%, . •... Mr. Carl Neuhausen . City'Planning Administrator Community Development Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Mr. Neuhausen: November 21, 1972 Upon receiving the growth alternative data transmitted with your November 7 letter, we developed the -trip generation for the various zones as the first step in preparing a "level CI' traffic assignment. From a preliminary review of the data, it appeared that there -vas not a sub- stantial reduction in the traffic impact as a result of the revised land use. A comparison was made between the Phase I trip generation data (level A) and the trip generation from level C, which showed the following: Total Phase I (level A) 1990 Trip Generation within 614,720 ADT Newport Beach City Limits (beach traffic not added) Total Level C 1990 Trip Generation within Newport 568,490 ADT Beach City Limits (beach traffic not added) Difference between level A and level C = 46,230 or 7. 51b Total 1990 Phase I (level A) Trip Generation In 2, 600, 000 ADT Network Phase I (level A) Newport Beach Trips As a Portion 23• 7% of Total Trips Level C Newport Beach Trips As a Portion of Total Trips Trip generation under level 'C alternative is 7. 57o less than level A. However, when compared with trip generation in the total network, the reduction is only 1.8%. With such relatively small reductions in the trip generation, it appears that there would not be significant reductions in traffic on the overall road network. It is therefore questionable if a new traffic assignment using Newport Beach level C data would produce much additional information about the traffic loading. Without eliminating the possibility that the City may still wish to proceed with a level C assignment, I suggest that we analyze the probable impact WASHINGTON.D.C. ■ LONDON ■ HONOLULU ■ DENVER ■ ORLANDO ■ TORONTO ■ ST.LOUIS ■ CARACAS ■ SEATTLE BUFFALO '■ ATLANTA 0 SANDIEGO ■ LOSANGELES ■ ZURICH ■ NEVIBRUNSWICK 0 DALLAS 5 CHICAGO 6 .PHILADELP1401 r� 6 Mr. Carl Neuhaus en November 21, 1972 on links in the road system for which there may be significant traffic reduction from nearby zones. This will take only a minor effort and should provide the City with sufficient information to determine if it is still practical to proceed with the full network traffic assignment. ' Please call me after you have discussed this matter and we will proceed according to the City,s decision. Very'truly yours, Ile A. H. Krier Regional Manager AHK /pb _tee.. .sj;,S• e..s7�.N'. ;... ,.ctr•.• �—.i`-.:�►. ..-+nY..i:t: :r.'�wn. �r: !;.:...?IJ.h. . 5252 SAL20A AVENUE, SAN DIEGO, QIFORNIA 92117 • 13.a.o 714/278.3363 r - V gD "3 ` g�%£tfp49t ALAN M. VOORHEES & ASSOCIATES, INC. OR / \ySVJpcp \`• TRANSPORTATION AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS Mr. Rod Gunn City Plan Administrator Community Development Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Mr. Gunn: . L . WIM DO NOT REMOVE February 28, 1973 On February 21 you furnished three plans of possible marina configurations just westerly of the Santa Ana River channel. You asked that we evaluate the proposed road systems for these alternate plans. First of all, I think that some general comments relating to the data developed by us for the Newport Beach Traffic Study will define the traffic problems needing solutions. The combined east -west 1990 daily traffic volume in the vicinity of the Santa Ana River between Coast Highway and 19th Street is approximately 105, 000, about half of which is on Coast Highway. If we plan for a six lane roadway on Coast Highway, with a reasonable operating capacity of 40, 000 vehicles per day, then there is still a deficiency of 10, 000 to 15, 000. This is also true of 19th Street, assuming there are .no crossings of the Santa Ana River between Coast Highway and 19th Street. The conclusion reached is that even with two six lane roadways for the area, the future traffic deficiency can only be alleviated, not entirely eliminated; therefore, the roads which will be improved or upgraded must be of good alignment and grades, but more importantly be properly located, if they are to accommodate .the traffic. The.Newport Beach Traffic Study shows that traffic in the east -west direction north of 19th Street does not present the problems shown in the Coast Highway corridor. Both Victoria Street and Atlanta Avenue in the vicinity of the proposed marina can be designed to accommodate the projected traffic. Plan A has a road system in the area of the proposed marina much like that of the present County Master Plan. Both Coast Highway and 19th Street are designated as six lane divided roadways, and there are three roads intersect- ing with Coast Highway between the river and the Arches; realigned Superior Avenue, Production Place extension, and 17th Street extension. These intersections are spaced far enough apart, approximately 1600 feet, to permit Coast Highway to operate efficiently. This plan is feasible, although traffic congestion could be expected, particularly on Coast Highway. Plan B is similar to Alternate B-C of the Newport Beach Traffic Study. The important differences are that there is not a good connection for east -,vest traffic in the Coast Highway corridor, and that no interchange or grade separations are provided where the major roads intersect. The road align- ment would require considerable adverse travel distance for motorists on Coast Highway between the Santa Ana River and the Arches. Extensive bridging would be required to cross the marina channel and the river channel. a ., a s .. ,J a ira�. r•� a ' LC .r3 v+-',,.c a _e Mr. Rod Gunn February 28, 1973/Page - 2 The five -legged intersection at Balboa -Superior -Coast Highway would pre- sent operational problems even though the traffic volumes through the area would be substantially reduced due to elimination of through traffic. Although the plan may be feasible, it is not desirable from the standpoint of traffic operations. Plan C is not similar in the coastal corridor treatment to any of the alternates studied in the Newport Beach Traffic Study. Any traffic in the Coast Highway corridor desiring to cross the Santa Ana River would have to divert to the Banning-19th Street crossing. The traffic demand on 19th Street at the river could be in excess of 100, 000 vehicles per day, since that is the first river crossing from the ocean northerly. This plan is not feasible for accommo- dating traffic. Both Plans A and B suggest that public transportation will be used to the beach area (perhaps this was also meant to be included on Plan C). If a substantial number of beach goers can be encouraged to use public transit, this will help relieve deficiencies on the major roads. The greatest relief will of course come on the two roads serving the immediate beach area, namely Balboa and Newport Boulevards. Without considering modifications, Plan A is the most practical as presented. Some of the traffic capacity deficiency could be overcome through specific treatments such as intersection approach widenings, separation of cross traffic, and access control. Plan B does .not provide convenient east -west access through the coastal corridor, but can be considered feasible. Plan C is not considered feasible because of total lack of convenient east -west access for Coast Highway traffic. In the coming weeks we will be discussing alternate road networks with the Citizens Advisory Committee and City staff. The area proposed for the marina will be one of the more'important considerations, not only because of Coast Highway, but also because of the treatment of the Newport Freeway extension. Although the network development phase of the Newport Beach Traffic Study has essentially been completed, other alternates in this area may still be proposed since the marina plans are now more detailed. No copies of this letter have been sent to other agencies or people, since you indicated that the marina plans are at this time confidential. Please call me if you need additional information. Very truly yours, A. H. Krer Regional Manager AHK / pb 13 •a.o 0 &W7 • MEMORANDUM TO: Dick Hogan DATE FROM: Al Krier JOB: January 24, 1973 SUBJECT: Alternate Network Maps for Newport Beach Traffic Study Bill Agee asked that I send 7 sets of the subject maps to you, and that you distribute a set to each member of the Planning Commission. ,Bill asked that these maps be distributed as soon as possible so the commission members will have some time to review them prior to their meeting on Thursday, February 1. Please note that I have sent a set of the maps to Bill Agee with a copy of this memo, so you need not distribute a set to him. cc: Bill Agee (w/maps) O �/�yM`pj1•t 9nt JP\vG,�� OV,PGN� Val, &'Y'r .e^ DO VOT REMOVE M CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: R. V. HOGAN FROH: ROD GUNN �3 �0 -- DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY UEVELOP�1E�dT (/ SUBJECT: AMV REQUISITION As you may recall, we budgeted $8,000 this year for two additional computer runs of the traffic model to test alternative growth policies. After evaluating our most restrictive growth alternative, Al Krier informed us that this alternative would have little effect on the overall transportation network; and therefore,'the computer runs would not be necessary. However, he also said traffic on certain road links could be substantially reduced. Carl Neuhausen at that time authorized AMV to analyze the probable impact on the links where there could be significant traffic reductions. This work has been completed and we should receive an invoice from AMV shortly. The major problem is that apparently there is no contract with AMV authorized by the Ci"t Council to perform this work. I recommen t at we prepare a resolution and contract to send to the City Council as soon as possible. If you agree, we will prepare a contract immedi- ately. I have already contact the Assistant City Attorney on this matter. The money expended to date for the network analysis will be less than the $8,000 budgeted. I also recommend that we write the contract on a time and materials arrangement for amount not to exceed $8,000. We would like to consult further with AMV on the following items: 1. Commercial Intensity Report - This would include a compara- tive analysis of various peak hour generation factors for various types of commercial/office/industrial uses. Preliminary Land Use Plan - A preliminary land use plan pre- pared by our Division is conducive to several changes in the transportation network. We would like to discuss these with AMV. 3. Presentation to P. C. and C. C. = It might be beneficial for Krier to discuss the relationship between the transportation DO SNOT REMOVE 0 40 studies and the land use plan at the Joint Meeting on February 19, 1973 when we present the land use plan. I would appreciate your thoughts as soon as possible. Rod Gunn Advance Planning Administrator RLG/ddb J > t 5202 BALBOA AVENUE, SAN DIEGO, G 'ORNIA 92117 714/278.3363 ALAN M. VOORHEES & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS Mr. Richard V. Hogan, Director Community Development Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Attn: Mr. Tim Cowell Gentlemen: DO 'NOT R0.10VE December 19, 1972 AMV Ref: 256. 000 In October, 1972, we began investigative work on the effects alternate growth levels would have on the road network traffic assignment in Newport Beach. It was initially intended that a traffic assignment would be made using growth Alternate C data. Our investigation showed, how- ever, that this would have little affect on Newport Beach traffic assignment, and it was suggested that we analyze the probable impact on links in the road system where there could be significant traffic reductions. In my letter of December 7, I described the possible traffic reductions on links adjacent to traffic zones having significant trip generation changes. The conclusion was that there was no advantage of making a traffic assign- ment to the road network using growth Alternate C data, although traffic on certain road links may be substantially reduced due to reduction of trip generation from adjacent traffic zones. In my correspondence to Mr. Robert Jaffe on December 9, 1971, the cost of an additional traffic assignment was estimated at $3, 800 per data set. Since at that time it was thought that two data sets may be used, the total cost quoted for this work was $7, 600, based on a Fixed Price contract. I believe that the City budgeted $8, 000 for this additional work. The recent work involving alternate growth levels described above is not of a Fixed Price contractual nature since a fixed quantity of work is not defined. However, it is applicable to a standard Time and Materials contractual arrangement in which we are reimbursed only for the work performed and materials used. Partly due to the investigative nature of the work recently completed, and partly due to Mr. Carl Neuhausen ter- minating his employment with the City, the contractual details were never completed. I suggest that, as in the past, we perform work in response to the City's request in development of the General Plan. Our standard professional fees for a Time and Material contract are 2.5 times actual salary of record. Travel and other incidental expenses such as telephone and printing are reimbursable at 1. 1 times actual cost. Exact salary billing .. _„�lpo11 D'_ • L�'L;'�t. • �= VlU_U • DEI11,ER • ORLANDO • TORONTO • ST LOUIS • CARACAS • SEAITLE • BOSTON • SMIJUAN • HOUSTON I,nf '_D • n'.R • + DfC, • 1r, In ZURICH • NEW ERUNSVACK • DALLAS • CHICAGO • FHILAOELFMIA • WI FRAMtSCO • Y.ELGOURNE r] Mr. Richard V. Hogan, Director December 19, 1972 Page - 2 rates will of course vary depending on individuals used. The following range of rates (at 2.5 times salary of record) apply to individuals likely to be used on this type of work: Classification Principal Engineer/Planner Grade II Senior Associate Engineer/Planner Associate Engineer/Planner Senior Technical Support Research Assistant Hourly Billing Rate (2.5 times salary of record) $40. 00 to $43.50 29. 00 to 32.00 24.00 to 28.00 11. 00 to 13.00 9. 00 to 11.00 I suggest that an upset of $8, 000 be established, where no charges above this amount would be authorized without the City's written approval. If the above is satisfactory, this letter can serve as an attachment to your Purchase Order. However, if the City prefers some other type of contractual arrangement, please let me know. AHK/pb cc: H. Millison P. Tutone Accepted for: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH By: Richard V. Hogan, Director Very truly yours, ALAN M. VOORHEES & ASSOC. By:_� A. H. Krier Regional Manager 52M .BAL40A AVENUE, SAN DIEGO, C*RNIA 92117 • /l r/ ALAN M. VOORHEES S �Goe 0 69'uc�.�Jj` 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. Q n J O� PGA• V !� TRANSPORTATION AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS December 26, 197 Mr. William Agee, Chairman Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee 715 Larkspur Corona del Mar, California Dear Bill: Enclosed are two letters to Community Development which will bring you up to date on our investigation of growth alternatives in Newport Beach. The conclusion reached is that there is no ad- vantage of making a traffic assignment using a reduced growth alternate. We will be working with the Community Development Depart- ment on land uses in specific areas, and I will keep you informed of our progress. In our last discussion, we talked about a tentative meeting date of January 3. At this time, I don't see that as being practical. The earliest date that we may have significant data to present and discuss would be January 9, but possibly waiting until the 16th. I'll be sure that both you and Joe Devlin are informed. Best wishes for the holiday season. Very truly yours, Y 'A. H. Krier AHK/pb Regional Manager Encl: (2) cc: R. Hogan✓ J. Devlin WASHINGTON, D.C. • LONDON • HONOLULU • DENVER • ORLANDO • TORONTO • ST. LOUIS • CARACAS • SEATTLE • BOSTON • SANJUAN • HOUSTON BUFFALO • ATLANTA • SAN DIEGO • LOS ANGELES • ZURICH • NEW BRUNSWICK • DALLAS • CHICAGO • PHILADELPHIA 9 SAN FRANCISCO • MELBOURNE 714/278.3363 5252.BALBOA AVENUE, SAN DIEGO, C40ORNIA 92117 • ALAN M. VOORHEES , >!t ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS December 7, 1972 Mr. Tim Cowell Associate Planner Community Development Department AMV Ref: 256. 000 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Mr. Cowell: In my letter to Mr. Carl Neuhausen on November 21, 1972, 1 explained our preliminary analysis of growth alternative data, which Carl had furnished on November 7. My suggestion at that time was that we analyze the probable impact on links in the road system for which there may be significant traffic reduction from nearby zones. Carl agreed that we should proceed with that analysis, realizing of course that the City may still wish to proceed with a full network assignment using growth Alter- nate C data. Using the population and employment data furnished by the City, trip generation from the Newport Beach zones was computed for growth Alter- nate C, then compared with that used for growth Alternate A, AMV's original traffic assignment. Those zones having 101c or more differential in trip generation were investigated for their affect on the net change in traffic volume on nearby road links. Attached is our tabulation of trip generation for the eight zones investi- gated, showing growth Alternate A and C trip generation, and the net difference between the two levels. Zone 16, which includes Newport Center, is the only zone where an increase in traffic was shown due to revised land use. Also attached is a sketch which shows how traffic is affected on the adjacent roadways: The net changes are plotted only in the vicinity of the zones, but much of the road network is of course affected by the reduction (or increase) in traffic volumes. However, as you get farther away from the center of the zone the change in traffic volume becomes small or non-existent. The most significant area of traffic reduction from the revised land use is Zone 32. There is a net reduction of 18, 250 trips, of which approxi- mately 11, 100 would use Balboa Extension to disperse, and the remaining 7, 150 would disperse via Coast Highway. Zone 4, the Penninsula, would reduce traffic on Balboa Boulevard by 3, 730. San Joaquin Hills Road at Newport Center would increase a maximum of 1, 500. WASHINGTON. D.C.* ■ LONDON ■ HONOLULU ■ DENVER ■ ORLANDO • TORONTO ■ ST. LOUIS ■ CARACAS ■ SEATTLE ■ BOSTON ■ SANJUAN ■ HOUSTON $UFFALO ■ ATLANTA 0 SAN DIEGO 6 '.OS ANGELES ■ ZURICH ■ NEW BRUNSWICK 0 DALLAS • CHICAGO ■ PHILADELPHIA 8 SAN FRANCISCO ■ MELBOURNE Mr. Tim Cowell December 7, 1972 Pale - 2 In summary, the overall net reduction in traffic between growth Alterna- tives A and C is not substantial. The zone having the most significant traffic reduction is 32, while Zone 16 shows a slight increase. Based on our preliminary analysis of November 21, and this analysis, we do not see any advantage of making a traffic assignment to the road network using growth Alternate C data. Very truly yours, % Lam' ///z A. H. Krier Regional Manager AHK/pb cc: R. Jaffe Vic MOM ' • ��9ao m , 3! , U �q�' o�u � 26 v �o �O ills KEY Note: Zones shown (except Zone 16) represent at least 10016 change in Traffic between Alternate A & C �3 ,� T•e.�FF�c ZONE' CHANGE IN TRAFFIC ON ADJACENT ROAD LINKS BETWEEN GROWTH ALTERNATES A AND C FOR -ZONES SHOWN Trip Generation Net Change in Traffic Zone Alternate A Alternate C Trip Generation 1 7,350 5,500 - 1,850 4 30,800 27,070 - 3,730 7 3% 100 34,980 -• 4,120 16 124,500 128,500 + 4,000* 17 20,100 17,540 - 2,560 26 25,500 22,230 - 3,270 27 5,540 2,740 - 2,800 31 26,100 23,100 - 3,000 32 38,600 20,350 - 18,250 *This does not represent a 10% change, but is the only zone which had a + net change from Alternate A to Alternate C. Although population decreased, employment increased. C ,&25;}-ML8OA AVENUE, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92117 97 r t • ALAN M. VOORHEES & ASSOCIATES. INC. TRANSPORTATION AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS Mr. Carl Neuhausen . City•Planning Administrator Community Development Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Mr. Neuhausen: • November 21, 1972 Upon receiving the growth alternative data transmitted with your November 7 letter, we developed the -trip generation for the various zones as the first step in preparing a "level CII traffic assignment. From a preliminary review of the data, it appeared that there was not a sub- stantial reduction in the traffic impact as a result of the revised land use. A comparison was made between the Phase I trip generation data (level A) and the trip generation from level C, which showed the following: Total Phase I (level A) 1990 Trip Generation within 614,720 ADT Newport Beach City Limits (beach traffic not added) Total Level C 1990 Trip Generation within Newport 568,490 ADT Beach City Limits (beach traffic not added) Difference between level A and level C = 46, 230 or 7.59/6 Total 1990 Phase I (level A) Trip Generation In 2, 600, 000 ADT Network Phase I (level A) Newport Beach Trips As a Portion 23.7% of Total Trips Level C Newport Beach Trips As a Portion of 21.9% Total Trips .. Trip generation under level•C alternative is ?. 5°fo less than level A. However, when compared with trip generation in the total network, the reduction is only 1. 81a. With such relatively small reductions in the trip generation, it appears that there would not be significant reductions in traffic on the overall road network. It is therefore questionable if a 'new traffic assignment using Newport Beach level C data would produce much additional information about the traffic loading. Without eliminating the possibility that the City may still wish to proceed with a level C assignment, I suggest that we analyze the probable impact i WASHINGTON. O.C. ■ LONDON ■ HONOLULU ■ DENVER ■ ORLANDO INTORONTO ■ ST. LOUIS • CARACAS • SEATTL BUFFALO '■ ATLANTA 9 SANDIEGO IN LOSANGELES 0 ZURICH ■ NEWBRUNSWICK ■ DALLAS 2 CHICAGO 0 PHILADELPHIA ( i . • Mr. Carl Neuhausen November 21, 1972 Pave - 2 on links in the road system for which there may be significant traffic reduction from nearby zones. This will take only a minor effort and should provide the City with sufficient information to determine if it is •still practical to proceed with the full network traffic assignment. Please call me after you have discussed this matter and we will proceed according to the City's decision. Very'truly yours, A. H. Krier Regional Manager tom.. +.. ea.a7—.N :: ,•••7.s'z � .yi.:�1. _ .�. Y:i"r:.«�-N:w. �..: •r,'L•rvy;-t? � s•�'r rt ;.� .-+no••ani. 2 9AL90A AVENUE, SAN DIEGO, ORNIA 92117 v , 14 TIT ALAN M. VOORHEES & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS Mr. Carl Neuhausen . City'Planning Administrator Community Development Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Mr. Neuhausen: U November 21, 1972 714/278-3363 (3Do Upon receiving the growth alternative data transmitted with your November 7 letter, we developed the •trip generation for the various zones as the first step in preparing a "level C" traffic assignment. From a preliminary review of the data, it appeared that there was not a sub- stantial reduction in the traffic impact as a result of the revised land use. A comparison was made between the Phase I t_ip generation data (level A) and the trip generation from level C, which showed the following: Total Phase I (level A) 1990 Trip Generation within 614,720 ADT Newport Beach City Limits (beach traffic not added) Total Level C 1990 Trip Generation within Newport 568,490 ADT Beach City Limits (beach traffic not added) Difference between level A and level C = 46, 230 or 7.50/6 Total 1990 Phase I (level A) Trip Generation In 2,600, 000 ADT Network Phase I (level A) Newport Beach Trips As a Portion 23.77o of Total Trips Level C Newport Beach Trips As a Portion of 21. 9% Total Trips A '. . 'tea .O i r - f ❑ *. ,1 , Trip` generation\under level C alternative is -7. 5%less �than�level�A. However, when compared with trip generation in the total network, the reduction is only 1. 816. With such relatively small reductions in the trip generation, it appears that there would not be significant reductions in traffic on the overall road network. It is therefore questionable if a new traffic assignment using Newport Beach level C data would produce much additional information about the traffic loading. Without eliminating the possibility that the City may still wish to proceed with a level C assignment, I suggest that we analyze the probable impact WASHINGTON, D.C. • LONDON ■ HONOLULU ■ DENVER ■ ORLANDO r TORONTO ■ ST. LOUIS ■ CARACAS r+ SEATTLE BUFFALO '■ ATLANTA ■ SAN DIEGO ■ LOS ANGELES It ZURICH ■ NEW BRUNSWICK 2 DALLAS ■ CHICAGO 0 PHILADELPHIA Mr. Carl Neuhausen November 21, 1972 Page - 2 on links in the road system for which there may be significant traffic reduction from nearby zones. This will take only a minor effort and should provide the City with sufficient information to determine if it is still practical to proceed with the full network traffic assignment. Please call me after you'have discussed this matter and we will proceed according to the City's decision. Very'truly yours, A. H. Krier Regional Manager AHK /pb an ,�_. � .�+ �4 �.nn., s•:'��'�: F.• af�,'�•ts`..t -��i,: J,�•'va'^'.'.'.4a_ :s �^�c�i�. r_^1 �.,�.�..,s ;• rs:^..l;,�i i . .«i" .`c`h 2. yr.'..t-. .:_Y-.. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS • The study, where such specifics have not been previously included in the evaluation of alternatives, will provide analysis, discussion, con- clusions, and recommendations concerning the following specific items: lj Feasibility of transportation modes other than the private automobile in the Newport Beach area. 2j Long range effects of transportation modes other than automobiles. 3) Alternatives to a coastal freeway in Newport Beach. 4) Advantages and disadvantages of a coastal freeway in Newport Beach. 5) Traffic impact if no major improvements are made to the existing transportation system. 6) Changes to arterial street system necessary to meet projected traffic demands without freeways. 7) Community and neighborhood impacts of any recommended changes in the arterial street system - without freeways. • 8) Preliminary cost estimates of any recommended changes in the arterial street system - without freeways. 9) Responsibilities for costs of changes (state, county, city, developers). 10) Impact of coastal freeway on city street system traffic. 11) Impact of coastal freeway on community and neighborhood amenities. 12) Increase in local street traffic resulting from freeway construction. 13) Changes to arterial street system necessary to meet projected traffic demands - with freeways. 14) Preliminary cost estimates of any recommended changes in arterial street system - with freeways. 15) Possible alternative routes for coastal freeway. 16) Community and neighborhood impacts of alternate routes. .17) Possible use of a shallow draft automobile ferry crossing near the upper bay narrows, together with consideration of capital • and operating costs. y 18) Traffic needs for a mid -bay arterial street (bridge) crossing, • (a) without a coastal freeway and (b) with a coastal freeway. 19) Possible need for more than one crossing of mid -bay. 20) Community and neighborhood impacts of mid -bay bridge or bridges. \ 21) Costs of mid -bay crossing. \ 22) Assignment of costs for mid -bay crossing. 23) Effects on upper bay as an estuary if narrows bridge were constructed. 24) Effects on recreational characteristics of upper bay if mid -bay crossing is constructed. 25) Use of tunnels for upper bay crossings and other highways. 26) Traffic and community impacts if Corona del Mar Freeway terminated, (a) at San Joaquin Hills Road, (b) at Coast Highway with no coastal freeway. 27) Traffic and community impacts if Newport Freeway terminated, (a) at city limits, (b) at Coast Highway with no coastal freeway. 28) Effects of routing Corona del Mar Freeway northerly of San • Joaquin Hills Road in its downcoast reach through Corona del Mar. (Bonita/Coyote Canyon Route) 29) Significance of fog in alternative coastal freeway and Corona del Mar Freeway locations. 30) Effects of peripheral freeway improvements intended to carry through traffic completely around the area rather than through the coastal corridor. 32) Transportation by other modes such as bicycles, minibuses, walking or special pedestrian paths, etc. 33) Use of school buses in summer for transportation to beach areas, 34) Future technological and operational changes involving small cars, express bus lanes, car pools, people movers, etc. 35) Future legal restrictions on smog, trucks, noise, engine type and size, etc. 36) Encouragement of greater use of bicycles and motor -driven cycles (quiet ones). 37) Construction of sidewalks throughout city. • 38) Creation of one-way streets. ti roviding out of city parking with tram service to beach. • 0 Providing tram service throughout community. 41) Establishing higher -priced beach parking. 42) Providing a bicycle lane on Coast Highway. 43) Allowing free ferry passage for bike riders. 44) Allowing only Newport Beach residents cars south of highway during certain periods. 45) Eliminating sidewalks across Bay Bridge on Coast Highway and create emergency lane. Placing pedestrians on outside with proper rails. 46) Creating one-way streets in grid section of Corona del Mar. 47) Building a Bridge across the bay from' 17th Street to Jamboree Road. 48) Building a bridge from the soon dead end of Bayside Drive to the point of Balboa Island. 49) Short•and long range effects of possible bay crossings on water quality, recreation, marine environment, ecology. 50) The impact of non -transportation uses now being exacted from the street system such as parades, special events, youth "beach cruising, " etc. 51) Feasibility of a multi-laned high bridge over the bay. • &W7 13•.*�)U MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Newport Beach Citizens Advisory DATE: Committee on Transportation November 8, 1972 Al Krier IJOB: 956.002 Procedure & Schedule for Phase II Completion The agenda for our November 8 meeting includes a review of previous suggestions for road network modifications, consideration of additional alternatives, and formulation of alternative networks. The following work and schedule is planned towards completing Phase H. Item 1. Preliminary Alternative Networks 2. Finalize Alternative Networks 3. Evaluate Networks (Reduce to four or less) - (Include Special Considerations) 4. Traffic Assignment 5. Summary Report Planned Completion Date November 8 (CAC Mtg. ) November 21 (CAC Mtg. ) December 22 January 15* January 31 Following our November 8 meeting, we will map the preliminary alternative networks,* and send copies to Toups Engineering and Behavior Science Corporation to begin evaluation of the networks. AHK/pb cc: Toups Engineering BASICO P. Taylor Traffic Assignment is planned to run concurrent with Network Evaluation which means that Traffic Assignment is scheduled to begin the first part of December. 40 AMv-F-75-a i 1 I [13 F A In MEASURES FOR INCREASING STREET CAPACITY • TRAFFIC CONTROL GROUP 1. Turn Movement Controls A. Peak hour turn prohibitions B. Full time turn prohibitons C. Separate turning lanes D. Full time (free) right- turn II. Turning Movement Controls Midblocic A. Median openings only at major driveway entrances (with left turn storage) B. Adequate interior circulation at major driveway entrances C. One-way driveways D. Control of U-turns E. Two-way left turn lanes III. Parking Restrictions • A. Prohibition near intersections B. Prohibition near driveways C. Peal, or selected hour prohibition, one or both sides of street D. Prohibition at all times IV. Unbalanced Lane Operation A. Permanent unbalanced lane operation B. Reversible lane operation V. One-way Streets A. Permanent one-way couplets B. Single isolated one-way street C. Reversible one-way operation VI. Improved Signal Operation A. Optimum phasing for demand B. Optimum cycle length for demand C. Optimum progression • D. Proper pedestrian control VII. Through -street Systems • A. Proper control on side streets (stop, yield) B. Partial access control C. Segregate vehicle types (truck routes) VIII. Signs and Markings A. Clearly defined striping B. Stop lines and crosswalks C. Turning lane markings D. - Directional signing E. Regulatory signing F. Street name signs IX. Channelization A. Painted islands B. Raised barriers X. Transit Operations • A. Proper bus zone locations B. Bus bay turnouts C. Minimum number of stops consistent with service XI. Clearance Restrictions A. Adequate lateral clearance B. Adequate vertical clearance XII. Street Lighting XIII. Pedestrian Control A. Elimination and closure of crosswalks at specific locations B. Using single crosswalk at signals when possible C. Elimination of midblock crossings XIV. Enforcement of Regulations • GROUP INVOLVING MODERATE EXPENDITURES — 4Cy ,000 I. Correction at Specific Locations A. Street widening B. Narrow bridge reconstruction C. Lateral clearance improvements II. Improving Major Intersections A. Approach widening B. , Alignment improvements C. Permanent channelization III. Upgrading Signal Systems A. Interconnect B. Traffic actuated installations C. Flexible signal control IV. Widening at selected midblock locations • V. Effective Night Lighting 46 GROUP INVOLVING MAJOR EXPENDITURES -(- 4-Oic=�= I. Reconstruction of At -Grade Major Intersections II. Grade Separations III. Major Street Reconstruction A. Widening for additional lanes B. Widening for median C. Widening for service roads IV. Construction of Additional Arterial Routes 0 0 /1,(at+clu.. A� 6A�e /iwArlAa � CtrL(i�,r.J • 11 1)i;VI;L0PN1f4.N'P REDSEARCII ASSOCIATES 711 cnVTH FLOWER STREET • LOS ANOELES, CALIFORNIA 90017 r IAPFA CODE 213) 626.2342 CABLE ADDRESS: OVELSEARCH .... .... 4 June 8, 1972 2387. 01 Mr. Richard V. Hogan Director Community Development Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Mr. Hogan: DO QT RDt�I9VE_ NI WII„'7I I;, A<:I I, v cnLI1 Development Research Associates is now rapidly approaching completion of the employment, population and land use projections, based on • F�:ting trends and physical "holding capacity" of Newport Beach, which Fc,rm the first and major, element of the Newport Beach General Plan Stud.• , onomic: • Ioment. Your office has previously received, and has currently under sl,:rly, the out- line for the cost/revenue system, also a component of the econoinic analysis, and we have, in numerous communications with your staff, conveyed the general nature of our findings to date, most recently in an intensive working; session With l your staff in the offices of DRA, held on .Tune 5. As you are aware, we,have found this analysis effort to be both an extremely comprehensive and challenging one with a number of problems having developed at the regional data level beyond the scope of DRA or City control, which have necessitated our request to you for a short extension of the original delivery date, June 1 to June 16. Additionally, both DRA and your senior staff personnel have worked closely and intensively to insure that the product of this effort will be: closely compatible with the community -scale data base gathered by your staff; within the bounds of acceptable statistical accuracy and best professional judgment; and capable of being utilized, with a high degree of assuredness,by the City's traffic consultant in his continuing studies of the community's circulation n10 S. In ardor to insure the above performance characteristics for noo efforts, particularly in light of the unique, and we believe highly appropriate nature of the Manning program which your office has developed for Newport Beach, we have extensively double-checked, and in many cases revised, our methodologies, calculations and conclusions, and have advised your staff, of what we believed to be areas of future concern which bear later checking during the a .:,Wing effort, as this data is reviewed and utilized. NEW FORK LOS ANGIFLES WA SUING TOr s Mr, Richard V. Hogan Page Two June 8, 1972 We are thus indicating that while our preliminary findings to be presented to you on June 16 are, we believe, the most accurate possible based upon available data, we would hope that continuing refinement by DRA and your staff, to reflect any new information, adjustments to original data, and so forth is understood as a necessary part of the study. We feel that this refinement would not be of such a degree to materially affect the traffic consultant's work, bui is necessary to insure accuracy in small areas of the .plan. In the course of the economic analysis process your staff has indicated to us a number of areas of particular importance, within the scope of their analyses of "Xransiklo at Areas " and "Large Undeveloped and Vacant Areas," which ' have formed a part of their comprehensive Newport Beach data base input to DRA. Among the numerous areas indicated have been two which are currently subject to extensive, and imminent, potential "transition" in use, and which are located within statistical areas L-4 and D-3as indicated on your department's statistical area base map developed for use in the General Plan Study. The remainder of this letter deals, in separate memo form, with our findings to date, concerning the role of these two areas within the entire scope of the economic analysis for the city and region. Since many of the more precise numerical findings Ire not yet completely checked, we hope that you will treat them as a "general order of magnitude" indication of the statittics supporting our written findings. We are looking forward to meeting with your staff and with city officials in the near future to review and discuss our findings at this point of the General Plan Study. Sincerely, 8 DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES. n C. Corrough Senior Associate !; Project Manager JCC:btt Enclosures cc: Carl Neuhausen, City of Newport Beach David L, Peterson, DRA; r Reservations concerning hotel absorption rates and othcr factors have been detailed above. PRELIMINARY OVERVIEW OF TRANSITIONAL AREA WITHIN STATISTICAL AREA D-3 Within this area is located one of the several "transitional" nodes of potential development activity which are currently found in the city, centering primarily on the 10-12 blocks of primarily older commercial uses between Adams and "A" Streets, which total approximately 49, 000 square feet of commercial and related uses. I1 Economic forces at work on this area, characterized in question form, ares o. How much of the existing commercial space can be expected to remain over the nekt 20 years? o How much, if any, 'new commercial space might be constructed in the area! . o What potentials exist fbr alternative uses within the area, if commerdial demand is diminished? While a number of viable specialty and convenience goods and commercial uses are located in the transitional area, inadequate parking, strong seasonal peaks and declines, marginal.or transitory uses and some deteriorating physical conditions combine to limit the future market for commercial uses in this area. DRA anticipates a net 'decline in square footage and acreage of commercial uses in this area over the next two decades amounting to approximately 20, 000 square feet, resulting in a total demand of 29-30, 000 square feet versus the existing 49, 000+ square feet. We feel that the economic viability of even this level of demand will depend largely on the following factors: o ( -Ability of viable, complementary uses to cluster m--or�-- `efficiently together;' and be suppo& ied by adequate, convenient '-,parking and pedestrian access, -6- DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES U$;iha.aiiiwl611 o Change in makeup of commercial uses to develop a greater preponderance of non -seasonal uses, pottsih(y focusing on a clustering into a year-round specialty commercial complex and convenience shopping complex, with seasonal and "image' uses as rounding out both market and the physical character of the area. o To insure the continued success of the above "economic - performance -boosting" measures, the area could be treated as a single planned land use unit, with encroaching residential uses phased out over time to be replaced by open space, parking, or should improved demand result, more commercial .uses. Alternatively, compatible existing residential could be permitted to remain. A considerable potential for residential demand exists within this statistical area. However, the numerous contingencies upon which the continued economic viability of the transitional area's' commercial operations depend, particularly the clustering, continui , and support (pedestrian access and parking), argue strongly for treating the retail land use component as a physical whole_, to insure economic reinforcement among the various commercial uses. For example, while individual uses may not,be able to develop their own required parking and access, shared parking and access (which depend upon proximity and continuity of uses served) might enable otherwise economically "fragile" but desirable specialty uses to continue or develop operations in a specialty complex. Additionally public revenues derived from both property and sales taxes and parking could exceed revenues derived from other uses in this area. Public costs, possibly higher with commercial uses than residential, would be offset by the anticipated additional iparking'and sales tax revenues. SUMMARY While diminished total demand for commercial u 40 percent over existing levels) appears to apply success of the remaining uses may well depend x throueh ciusterinE d other techniques necessax -7 (a decline of approximately this area, the economic. ase in DEVELOPMENT RESEARCK ASSOCIATES ♦.w �!.0;::7 1 \ 1 ems,.^.miian Alternative uses for phased out existing commercial operations should focus on high revenue production and complementary functions to the remaining com- mercial complex(es). Residdntial demand is highrwithin the statistical area; but anv development of this use within the general commercial area would have "' ;: ,•., • , 1 • . Ill ii• r I .. , ' 't, ` •'f r 1 • •i • 1 :,;1 .1. 1f'A: 1•rl ♦`Y .' • � rl' r. •"� 1 .! rr :, - t.' ,',tS'• .. .Ire^' r ,' ' •'111. i `I • 4•..' 1 Ir 1'i .. '', '14 r '1 ' r ilr •'r i I r f ( • 'Y' ' 1 , ' I, + 1� r . . f , ' t. , y` r i '� '\t. •„', ' : , v,'•• " ,r;P r r r ,1'I' , l i'if • 1 , �' , rr., 1. �iI'. 4 'i' ' � ri alr' 1 r ,' DEVELOPAXENT IiE$EAACK A$$OMATES Illlif�� 13• ZeJ , BEHAVIOR SCIENCE CORPORATION 1100 GLENDON AVENUE • LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90024 TELEPHONE; (213) 478-8240 BASICO No. 325-08 MEMORANDUM TO: Citizens Advisory Committee Members 'FROM- DavidRottenberg - Behavior Science Corporation DATE: January 6, 1972 The printed questionnaire is enclosed that was used in our survey of attitudes regarding transportation in the city of Newport Beach. Please continue to keep this material confidential. Bill Agee and Bob Jaffee have the schedule of group meetings. Please contact either of them to participate. Unfortunately, past meetings were scheduled too quickly to permit direct C.A.C. involvement. These dates are sufficiently in advance to permit attendance. Bill Agee and Bob Jaffee will also be notified of additional meetings as they are scheduled. REC 4 Co„EIVEu OcD Pnt ePt. me JAN 7 1`1l2a, NE CITY CITY OF OR-r CALIF EACy, �( I ASubsidiary of Planning Research Corporation Interviewer's Name Behavior Science Corporation 1100 Glendon Avenue Date of Interview Los Angeles, California 90024 (213) 478-8240 Location of Interview I.D. #1-5 BASICO NO. 325-08-03 ................................................................. Hello, I'm from Behavior Science Corporation and we are conducting a survey for the City of Newport Beach concerning peoples attitudes towards the City and its present and future transportation needs. I'd like to ask you some questions if I may. 1. To begin with, how long have you lived in Newport Beach? 6-1 Less than 1 year -2 1 - 3 years -3 3 - 7 years -4 More than 7 years 2. How do you like living in Newport Beach? Do you like it very much, do you like it moderately, do you dislike it somewhat, or do you dislike it very much? 7-1 Like very much -2 Like moderately -3 Dislike somewhat -4 Dislike very much . 3. Generally speaking, what do you feel are the biggest problems that face New- port Beach at this time. (INTERVIEWER: PROBE FOR MULTIPLE ANSWERS) 8-1 9-1 10-1 4a. What do you think will happen to the size of Newport Beach in the next 10 - 20 years? Do you think it will increase, stay the same, or decrease? 11-1 Increase -2 Stay the same -3 Decrease 4b. What would you like to happen to the size of Newport= ach in the next 10 - 20 years? Do you think you would like it to increase, stay the same, or decrease? 12-1 Increase -2 Stay the same -3 Decrease 4c. Thinking about how Newport Beach might change over the next 10 - 20 years, are you likely to see: (INTERVIEWER: ASK IN RANDOM ORDER) More year-round residents, less year- round residents, or about the same num- ber as there is now? 13-1 More -2 Less -3 Same More industry, less industry, or about the same as there is now? 14-1 More -2 Less -3 Some More apartments and condominiums, less, or about the same as there are now? 15-1 More -2 Less -3 Same More transient tourists, less, or about the same as there are now? 16-1 More -2 Less -3 Same 4c. (Continued) More office buildings, less, or about the same as there are now? 17-1 More -2 Less -3 Same 'More marina and recreational facilities, less, or about the same as there are now? 18-1 More -2 Less -3 Same More overnight tourists, fewer overnight tourists, or about the same as there are now? 19-1 More -2 Less -3 Same More stores and restaurants, less, or about the same as there are now? 20-1 More -2 Less -3 Same More single-family housing, less, or about the same as there is now? 21-1 More -2 Less -3 Same 5. (ASK ONLY OF RESPONDENTS LIVING IN NEWPORT BEACH FOR 2 YEARS OR LONGER) Over the past two years, do you think the traffic situation in Newport Beach is getting better, getting worse, or staying just about the same? 22-1 Getting better -2 Getting worse -3 Staying just about the same 6. Do you personally experience a consid- erable amount of traffic or transportation difficulties in the city of Newport Beach, some difficulties, not very much difficulty, or hardly any difficulty at all? 23-1 Considerable -2 Some -3 Not very much -4 Hardly any 7. (IF ANSWER TO Q.6 "CONSIDERABLE" OR "SOME") Do you experience these difficulties mostly on weekends and holi- days throughout the year, mostly in the summertime, or at all times? 24-1 Weekends and holidays through- out the year -2 Summertime -3 At all times 8. Here is a card listing different groups of people. (HAND CARD TO RESPONDENT) Generally speaking which groups seem to contribute the most to traffic congestion in Newport Beach? 25-1 Residents of Newport Beach -2 People who work or shop in New- port Beach but live elsewhere -3 People who drive through Newport Beach to get where they're going -4 Non-residents and tourists who visit the beaches, marinas and other City attractions • 9. 10. I am going to show you a list of commonly heard complaints about traffic and trans- portation in Newport Beach. (HAND CARD TO RESPONDENT) (a) I'd like you to tell me which you'think is the most serious problem and which is the least serious. (INTERVIEWER: WRITE A "10" NEXT TO MOST SERIOUS PROBLEM AND A "1" NEXT TO LEAST SERIOUS PROBLEM) (b) If, on a scale of 1 to 10, you gave a rating of 10 to the most serious problem, and a rating of 1 to the least serious problem, how would you rate the rest? For example, how would you rate... (MENTION ALL REMAINING PROBLEMS AND RECORD THE RATINGS) RATING 1 - 10 26- Summertime access to peninsula and islands 27- Congestion on streets and highways 28- Traffic is too fast 29- Inadequate street signals, lights and standards 30- Traffic slowed by parked cars 31- Inadequate on -street parking 32- No Upper Bay crossing 33- Wintertime access to peninsula and islands On this card is a list of 5 areas of traffic congestion. (HAND CARD TO RESPONDENT) Please tell me the order in -which they present difficulties for you, from most difficult to least difficult. RANK 1-5 34- Pacific Coast Highway in Corona Del Mar 35- Balboa Island Bridge 36- Newport Boulevard inland from the Arches 37- Balboa Boulevard on the Peninsula 38- Coast Highway bridge between Bayside and Dover Drive Are there any other areas that give you difficulty? Please name them. 39- 40- • c, 12. Now I'd like to ask you a question about parking in Newport Beach. I'd like you to tell me if you find parking adequate or inadequate in the following areas. (READ IN RANDOM ORDER) Over -night on -street parking by your home? 41-1 Adequate -2 Inadequate Parking For the beach and recreation? 42-1 Adequate -2 Inadequate Parking for restaurants on Pacific Coast Highway 43-1 Adequate -2 Inadequate Parking for marinas 44-1 Adequate -2 Inadequate Parking at shopping areas other than the newer shopping centers 45-1 Adequate -2 Inadequate 13. It has been suggested that parkinc beach and recreation areas be res to residents of Newport Beach wh be required to purchase low cost i fication stickers for their cars one year. Do you approve or disappri such a plan? 46-1 Approve -2 Disapprove 14. (IF APPROVE) How much would wi [ling to spend for such stickers' (READ ALTERNATIVES) 47-1 Less than $1 -2 $1 - $5 -3 $5 - $10 -4 More than $10 15. It has also been suggested that non- residents visiting beaches and marinas be required to park in special parking structures located inland away from the beach and take shuttle busses to the beach or marinas. Do you approve or disapprove of such a plan? 48-1 Approve -2 Disapprove 16. Some people feel that traffic congestion in Newport Beach is not too bad and that nothing needs to be done about at at this time. Generally speaking, do you strongly agree with this feeling, agree with it somewhat, disagree with it some- what, or strongly disagree with it? 49-1 Strongly agree -2 Agree somewhat -3 Disagree somewhat -4 Strongly disagree • 9 17a. Here is a list of different kinds of improvements that could be made to the present transportation situation in Newport Beach. (HAND CARD TO RESPONDENT) would like you to rate these possible improvements on a scale of 1 - 10, on the basis of how necessary you think these improvements are. A rating of 10 means you think an improvement is very necessary and a rating of 1 means you do not think the improvement is necessary at all. How would you rate: (READ IN RANDOM ORDER) RATING 1 - 10 50- Developing public bus transportation within Newport Beach 51- Broadening the existing Pacific Coast Highway by adding or modifying lanes 52- Adding more traffic signals, signs and safety features to streets 53- Developing additional beach parking facilities 54- Building a new freeway or major highway parallel to the existing Pacific Coast Highway 55- Improving traffic law enforcement 56- Building a new L. per Bay crossing to relieve the Pacific Coast Highway 57- Establishing rapid transit systems to Santa Ana and Los Angeles 58- Completing the Newport freeway 59- Completing the Corona Del Mar freeway 60- Building a new freeway or major highway more than a mile inland, to relieve Pacific Coast Highway 17b. What other kinds of traffic improvements do you think are necessary in Newport Beach? 61- 62- 63- 18a. Some people feel that any improvement of roads and transportation will simply lead to an increase of traffic, and will not solve any problems. Therefore, they add, the best solution is to do nothing at all. Do ou strongly agree with this feeling, mod- erately agree, slightly disagree or strongly disagree? 64-1 Strongly agree -2 Moderately agree -3 Slightly disagree -4 Strongly disagree 18b. Some people feel that many more visitors to beach areas and marinas could be ac- comodated, if something could be done about cars. Its the automobile conges- tion, not the people congestion that is the problem. Do you strongly agree with this feeling, moderately agree, slightly disagree or strongly disagree? 65-1 Strongly agree -2 Moderately agree -3 Slightly disagree -4 Strongly disagree 19. Now, if 1 may ask some questions about your driving habits. How many drivers are there in your household? 66-1 None -2 1 -3 2 -4 3 -5 4 -6 5 or more 20. And how many cars do you have in your household, including trucks, vans, and campers? 67-1 None -2 1 -3 2 -4 3 -5 4 -6 5 or more 21. What form of transportation do you usually use to go to and from work? 68-1 Own automobile -2 Drive with someone else in automobile -3 Taxi -4 Walk -5 Motorcycle -6 Other -7 Respondent not emp oye 22. What form of transportation do you usually use to do your shopping? 69-1 Own automobile -2 Drive with someone else in automobile -3 Taxi -4 Walk -5 Motorcycle -6 Other 23. What form of transportation do you usually use to go to recreational areas (parks, the beach, etc.)? 70-1 Own automobile -2 Drive with someone else in automobile -3 Taxi -4 Walk -5 Motorcycle -6 Other 24. And, if you are married, what form of transportation does your husband/wife use to go to and from work? 71-1 Own automobile -2 Drive with someone else in automobile- -3 Taxi -4 Walk -5 Motorcycle -6 Other -7 Respondent not married or spouse not employed 25. About how much time per day, on the average, do you think you spend driving or riding in a car within Newport Beach? 72-1 Less than 15 minutes -2 15 minutes - 30 minutes -3 30 minutes - 45 minutes -4 45 minutes - 1 hour -5 More than 1 hour Now, just some final questions for statistical purposes. 26. Do you own or rent this house (or apart- ment)? 73-1 Own -2 Rent 27. What is your marital status? 74-1 Single -2 Married -3 Divorced/widowed 28. What is your approximate age? (IF RE- SPONDENT REFUSES TO ANSWER, ESTIMATE THE AGE) 75-1 18 - 25 -2 26 - 34 -3 35 - 44 -4 45 - 54 -5 55 - 64 -6 65 and over 2?. How many years of schooling have you completed? 76-1 1 - 6 years -2 7 - 9 years -3 10 - 12 years -4 1 - 2 years of college -5 3 - 4 years of college -6 Graduate work -7 Respondent refused - don't know (HAND INCOME CARD TO RESPONDENT) And finally, here is a card with some yearly income figures. 30. Could you tell me which number most clearly corresponds with your total annual family income? 77-1 Under $5,000 -2 $5,001 - $7,500 -3 $7,501 - $12,500 -4 $12, 501 - $17, 500 -5 $17,501 - $25,000 -6 $25,001 or more ................................................................. 31. (TAKE CARD BACK FROM RESPONDENT) In case the company needs to verify this inter- view has taken place, how can they get in touch with you? Respondent's name Street Address City or town Telephone No. State Apt. # Thank you very much for your interest and cooperation. (INTERVIEWER: RECORD THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION AFTER THE INTERVIEW) Sex of respondent 78-1 Male -2 Female Location of interview Length of interview (in minutes Type of dwelling respondent lives in 79-1 House -2 Multiple unit dwelling -3 House trailer -4 Other Time of day interview took place :1 0 I D 1-5 I 2 AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES (Phase I of the Newport Reach Transportation Study) 3 4 THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day 5 of , 19710 by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT 6 BEACH, a municipal corporation; hereinafter referred to as "City", and the 7 firm of ALAN M. VOORHEES & ASSOCIATES, hereinafter referred to as "Engineer": 8 WITWESSET,H: 9 WHEREAS, City proposes to study and analyze the present and future 10 transportation needs of Newport Beach for the purpose of identifying problems 11 and developing an improvement program for automotive and other transportation i2 systems, and 13 WHEREAS, engineering services are necessary to carry out the 14 aforementioned study, and 15 WHEREAS, Engineer has submitted a proposal to perform Phase 1 of the 16 study, 17 NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 18 GENERAL 19 I. City engages Engineer to furnish the services hereinafter specified 20 for the compensation herein stipulated, and Engineer agrees to perform such 21 services upon said terms. 22 II. DUTIES OF ENGINEER 23 The Engineer shall: 24 (A) Provide all necessary services to initiate and complete Phase 1 25 of the Transportation Study as defined in the Study Design attached to this 26 agreement, designated Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference. 27 (B) Submit a written progress report to the Transportation Plan 28 Citizens Advisory Committee within 4 weeks after the start of work'and each 29 month thereafter. 30 • (C) Be prepared to produce a complete Phase I report including all 31 iinformation, data, tabulations, maps, illustrations and other detailed material 32 • necessary to fully document and identify all 'findings and conclusions. I� FILE,u®"py DONor Remove e 6 1 (D) Attend meetings of the Citizens Advisory Committee as may be 2 called by the chairman. 3, (E) Present one oral report to the Citizens Advisory Committee upon Y 4 completion of Phase I together with, either 5 1., a summary written report 4f findings and conclusions 6 with a minimum of tabulated and diagrammatic material, 7 2, or a complete documented Phase I report if requested 8 in writing by City. 9 III. DUTIES OF CITY 10 City agrees to provide the following: 11 A. Access to all existing City files relating to the traffic 12 and transportation system. 13 B. Traffic volume count records. 14 C. Traffic accident records. 15 D. Existing improvement -plans. 16 E. Existing records and reports on City land use data and plans. 17 F. Existing records and reports on City socio-economic data. 18 G. Staff consultation as needed to accomplish this work. 19 IV. COFIPLETION OF SERVICES 20 Engineer agrees to complete all the services specified 'herein within 21 four (4) months following written authorization to proceed. If the complete 22 documented Phase I report is required, six (6) additional weeks will be allowed. 23 V. PAYMENT BY CITY 24 City agrees to pay Engineer for all services called for under the 25 provisions of this agree-ment on the basis of the rate schedule set forth 26 beiaN, but not to exceed the total sum of thirty-two thousand dollars 27 ($329000.00) whicn shall include actual cost reimbursement for sub -professional 28 and non -personnel items such as travel, secretarial, drafting, telephone 29 and related expenses. 30 31 32 -2- to 1 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 29 30 31 321 Classification Hourly state Principal Engineers, Planners - Grade I 44.67 Principal Engineers, Planners - Grade II 37.28 Senior Associate Engineers, Planners 32,27 Associate Engineers, Planners 27.36 Senior Engineers. Planners,, Systems Analysts 22.46 Engineers, Planners, Programmers 16.64 Senior Technical Support 12.54 Technical Support 9.01 Project, Research Assistants 10.03 The amount to be paid Engineer shall be payable as follows: A. Monthly partial payments, each payment to be the amount earned as determined by fee schedule. The smn of partial payments shall not exceed ninety percent (90%) of the maximum fee, or B. Monthly partial payments,, each payment to be computed on the basis of percentage of completed work as can be acceptably demonstrated; the sum of partial payments not to exceed ninety percent (9000 of the maximum fee. C, The balance of the total amount to be paid upon completion of the specified services. 0. In the case that the complete documented Phase I report is required, the City agrees to pay Engineer for additional ` costs of preparation not to exceed four thousand dollars ($4,000.00); the amount charged being determined by the above fee schedule and the actual costs of supporting services such as photo -litho, printing, typing, binding, etc. In no case shall preparation of this complete form of the .3- li Phase I report be a chargeable item without prior 2 written authorization from City* 3 VI. TERMINATION 4 This agreement may be terminated at anytime by City upon three 5 (3) days written notice to Engineer by placing said notice in the United 6 States nail, postage prepaid. addressed to Engineer's business office. In 7 the event of termination due to the fault of Engineer. City shall be relieved 8I of any obligation to compensate Engineer, If this agreement is terminated 9 for any reason other than•the fault of Engineer, City agrees to compensate 10I Engineer for the actual services performed up'to the effective date of 11 the notice of termination on the basis of the fee schedule contained in 12 this agreement. 13 VII. AMENDMENT 14 The scope of the services to be furnished by Engineer may be 15 changed and the maximum fee and time period for completion revised only 16 upon prior written approval of the City. 17 VIII. ASSIGNMENT 18 This agreement or any portion thereof shall not be assigned 19 without the written consent of City. 20 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this 21 Agreement on the date first,Above written. 22 23 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 24 1 Mayor 25 APPROVE //AS TO FOR14: �1 ! ATTEST: 26 ./t /,•f �^ 27 ct ng LAty City ClerK CITY 28 ALAN M. VOORHEES 5 ASSOCIATES. 29 By. 30 31 32 By: ENGINEER