Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR JUNE 1980
11111111111111111111111111111111111111 lill 1111111. *NEW FILE* SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR JUNE 1980 City Manager's Briefing Proposed Phase I Rapid Transit Program October 14 and 15, 1980 1. General Background A. Multi -Modal Transportation Study - high priority corridor identified B. Stage I Alternatives Analysis - 19 alternatives under consideration C. Other Rapid Transit Studies - technologies, economic impact and joint development 2. Joint OCTD/OCTC Meeting - November 10, 1980 A. Draft Final Report - key findings and recommendations - highway and transit 3. Next Steps in Implementation Process A. Project Schedule B. Public Participation Process - November -January 4. Key Issues for Cities Relative to Rapid Transit Development A. Land Use and Densities (housing) B. Alignments and Station Locations (RTAC) C. Financial Plan and Joint Development BP:js (I RA..rd uS, fir^-�M� , Pv-AtAQvn %.txvw� Gt(L/ N, vnA�N STi S.A. �-a S,/A, Civtc C � r-2 -� s, C,R�2P�RT- ryll + 7 6,0 re.A2(sn GaJNay SAyS --� k�t.tr CCMb^(Z. v�r� u trwr (ukil, i. Rv6yY Gfi- 'IlyLls. q , (r2oop Ilpflo T(+.P,d$ t'r' w t,, )OU ?�,��� lJ, vj o /2,de)0 io-ram ��p Plt/ pdnr"' 4)k26-lq N, h� /N S7- /ZvS�=w dLvr+e 4x C l �tj Cc=.✓TLi2 od:rc- C�n� P11-70/'% S 1s %M�.�1.kr l0'1P J (--G '� 2 40 December 22, 1980 STUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 8 TO: CITY COUNCIL • FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: Santa Ana Transportation Corridor Alternatives Analysis Study DISCUSSION: At the study session of December 22, 1980, Mr. Al Hollinden, Chairman of the Orange County Transportation Commission, will make a presentation on the Santa Ana Transportation Corridor Study. This presentation is part of the public participation phase of the study. The element of the study that most affects Newport Beach is a proposed 24-mile rapid transit "starter line" from Anaheim through Santa Ana to Irvine near John Wayne Airport. If extended, this starter line could also serve Newport Center. Attached for reference are copies of the "Summary Report - Stage 1 Technical Evaluation - Santa Ana Transportation Corridor Alternatives Analysis" •and a Fact Sheet. Alternatives 8, 9, and 10 described on page 16 of the Summary Report include the rapid transit starter line mentioned above. Also, pages 30 and 31 discuss the recommendation on the starter line. The Santa Ana Transportation Corridor (SATC) Alternatives Analysis Study is in the middle of a three month public review and comment period which began November 10, 1980. Public agencies have been asked to review the report and make recommendations on what alternatives should be evaluated in Stage II of the study. The Transportation Commission would like to receive comments before the first of February. As indicated above, the aspect of the study of most direct interest to the City of Newport Beach is the possible extension into Newport Center of the proposed rapid transit "starter line". The Irvine Company, by letter dated October 3, 1980 (copy attached) has requested inclusion of the Newport Center extension in the study analysis. If a response from the City is desired by the Council, the staff should be directed to prepare recommendations for Council review and approval at the meeting of January �26, 1981. Benjamin B. Nolan Public Works Director BBN:jo Att: For Council Only SUMMARY REPORT Stage 1 Technical Evaluation Santa Ana Transportation Corridor Alternatives Analysis This report was prepared for presentation at the meeting of the Orange County Transportation Commission and the Orange County Transit District Board held on November 10, 1980. POLICY GROUPS ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS • Al Hollinden, Chairman Ralph B. Clark Zika Djokovich Hein* Heckeroth Thomas F. Riley Bill Vardoulis EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Thomas L. Jenkins ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS Ralph B. Clark, Chairman Philip L. Anthony William E. Farris Al Hollinden Donald A. Holt, Jr. GENERAL MANAGER James P. Reichert TABLE OF CONTENTS — The Study - Its Origin and Process- - - - - - - - - - 1 The Problem and Its Background- - - - - - - - - - - - 4 • The Options for Transportation Improvements - - - - - 11 The Alternatives - Performance, Costs and Comparisons- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 18 Findings and Recommendations- - - - - - - - - - - - - 27 The Next Steps - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- 33 • THE STUDY - ITS ORIGIN AND PROCESS Background The interest in improving transportation leervice in the Santa Ana Corridor is not ew. In the 1950's, the Santa Ana Free- way was constructed to serve a low density, mostly rural area and small towns as well as to provide an inter -regional connec- tion between San Diego, Orange County and Los Angeles. That improvement in accessibility in turn contributed signi- ficantly to the growth and development of the Santa Ana Corridor in Orange County, changing the character of the corridor from semi -rural to urban in a relatively short period of time. Travel demands and traffic volumes in the cor- ridor have increased accordingly. By the early 1970's, average peak hour travel speeds throughout the 35 mile length in Orange County had dropped to less than 20 miles per hour. Wese changes, both in area character and avel demand, have produced a long-stand- ng and growing concern for transportation improvements in the corridor. In response to those concerns, county, regional and state agencies have focused attention over the past decade on potential improve- ments in this corridor as evidenced by the following recommendations,. • 1971-Caltrans Santa Ana Freeway Study. A multi -jurisdictional study to develop and recommend near -term solutions to the critical peak hour congestion - 71 individual projects were recommended. • 1973-1975 Orange County Transit District (OCTD) Alternative Transit Corridors Study. An early OCTD study to examine systemwide, long-range transit options in Orange County led to the adoption by OCTD in 1974 of a Master Plan for Fixed Guideways in which the Santa Ana Corridor was identi- fied as the priority corridor. • Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Trans- 'ortation Plan. Since 1975, this PH has included specific recom- mendations for improvement in the corridor as the highest priority improve- ment in Orange County. 1-5 northbound during rush hour 1974-1976-Los Angeles/San Diego Corridor Study. Caltrans, SCAG and the Comprehensive Planning Organ- ization of San Diego recommended dif- ferent levels of improvement for Amtrak services. • 1978-Air Quality Management Plan A fixed guideway transit facility in the Santa Ana Corridor is included as one of the techniques for air quality management. • 1976-1978-Caltrans Freeway Transit Element. This multi -agency plan for Los Angeles County identified two high priority freeway corridors, the Harbor and the Santa Ana. Funding for preli- 1 minary engineering work on the Santa Ana Freeway between the Los Angeles CBD and Beach Boulevard in Orange County has been appropriated, but final deci- •sions regarding improvements south of the San Gabriel River Freeway (I-605) will depend on the outcome of this corridor study in Orange County. Orange County MultimodaI Trans ortation Study MMTS). The MMfS was conducted by the Orange County Transportation Commis- sion (OCTC) to evaluate alternative ways of meeting future transportation needs and to develop a specific transporta- tion plan for Orange County. The MMTS was the first transportation plan for Orange County which simultaneously addressed various modes of transporta- tion. The key issues addressed by the MMTS were: - Congestion - Should congestion be •alleviated by construction of new facilities, maximizing use of exist- ing facilities, expanding mass transit or by a combination of techniques? - Mobility - What are the travel needs of Orange County residents and how can these needs best be met? - Investment and Funding - How much money should be spent for different transportation modes and how should this money be generated? - Energy Conservation - What type of transportation system will offer the greatest energy efficiency? The key recommendations from the MMTS relating to the Santa Ana Corridor were to: 1.Increase capacity on all existing freeways in Orange County, with de- tailed improvements on I-5 to be determined by the Santa Ana Corridor •Alternatives Analysis. The highest highway system priorities were found to be capacity increases in the Santa Ana and Costa Mesa freeway corridors, along with development of the San Joaquin Hills and Orange Freeway Exten- sion corridors. Conduct corridor level analyses of fixed guideway rapid transit in the Santa Ana/Pacific Electric corridor, and in the north -south corridor. The Process • What is "Alternatives Analvsis"? Almost any decision which involves choices requires careful consideration of the ad- vantages and disadvantages of each avail- able option or alternative. This is certainly true where major investments of public funds in transportation faci- lities are concerned. "Alternatives Analysis" is simply a structured filter- ing process designed to insure that all options are considered and evaluated equally in an objective way. RAPID t TRANSIT EXF �Santa••'� " C•Ana •...�•• orridor SIYIAY 1: ON SUSWAYS SANTA ANA CORRIDOR - THE OPTIONS The filtering process ("alternatives analysis") is conducted in two phases, each with increasing detail. Phase I is designed to weed out all but the most promising alternatives on the basis of their overall performance, cost, and impacts, relative to the existing or "null" situation. Since the remaining group of alternatives will usually dis- play smaller differences, Phase II is conducted in more detail so that the more subtle differences can be identi- fied and a preferred alternative selected with confidence. This phase also includes preparation of a draft environmental impact statement structured to meet both California and Federal requirements. This logical process is required in order to obtain Federal assistance in financing any project involving major investment of public funds. However, completing the 2 alternatives analysis process does not guarantee Federal funding. The preferred project must still compete with other pro- grams around the country on its own merit. Nevertheless, the alternatives analysis — rocess makes the local agency eligible o receive funds and place a proposed project in the Federal and State deci- sion -making process for transportation funding. I t •,The Process in the Santa Ana Corridor The work to date as described in this report covers Phase I of Alternatives Analysis. Initially, fifty-five alterna- tives ranging from the existing or "do- nothing" option to capital intensive com- binations of transit and highway improve- ments were identified. The performance, costs, and impacts of these alternatives were described at the concept level. These findings were first reviewed in public workshops and by the Orange County Transportation Commission's Technical, olicy and Citizen Advisory committees. sed on that review, the OCTC, on May 12, 80, approved further study of nineteen alternatives for the remainder of Phase I. Since that decision, the nineteen alterna- tives have been subjected to more exhaus- tive testing for performance, costs and impacts. This testing has included de- velopment of patronage and performance estimates, capital and operating cost estimates, and a general assessment of socio/economic and environmental impacts. This report focuses on the analysis and evaluation of these nineteen alternatives, SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION COflRIOOq SELECT ALTERNATIVES' ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS — PHASEI ,FOREII DECISION PROCESS ANALYSIS =e w1 , R..p.1 FlnElp. y Nat. UX 1YM 14 Fa FunM. 61WV D.r.bO I,". nullw. I An.muh. Avom.w Srccrc, I 2 6II 11 Mry 1pM I W. , . . oelMUW I I W m 66TIN.W11.Ibn Albm.lh..— al ' C.I.cm.x. APPOond er M"19M I .v teM I � together with the results from selected additional studies which examined var- ious rapid transit vehicle technologies and the economic impact of a transit project. The technical analysis in Phase I has been conducted by staff from OCTD, OCTC, SCAG and CalTrans. Staff from these agencies as well as from the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission and the Southern California Rapid Transit District partici- pated in the Technical Task Force which guided the development of the technical work. eThe Conclusions and Recommendations The alternatives analysis process has resulted in a set of recommendations with respect to both the long-term al- ternatives to be further studied in the detailed Phase II work. This report summarizes those conclusions and gives recommendations for a general program of highway and transit improvements within the Santa Ana Corridor. It is important to stress that these recommendations are not specific with respect to a particular vehicle system, a precise route alignment or a detailed transit route plan. Rather, they are general in nature in keeping with the continuing filtering and refining pro- cess of alternatives analysis. In the ensuing preparation of the Draft Environ- mental Impact Statement, more specific information relating to alignments, tech- nology and costs will be developed in con- junction with the communities involved. The recommendations of this Phase.I study are presented in enough detail to permit comprehensive public review and debate in the ensuing months. This public review process is essential, not only to assist in selecting the best and most acceptable alternatives and course of action, but also to insure, that subsequent technical analysis and evaluation adequately address the issues perceived as important by the citizens of Orange County. This report and the mater- ial developed in the study to date will provide the starting point for that public review and debate. 3 THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND Population and Employment - Growth and Trends • Population Orange County was largely unurbanized and agricultural prior to the post -World War II housing boom, and was character- ized by enormous tracts of ranch land and orchards. In 1940 the county popula- tion was 131,000; in 1950 it was 216,000, and by 1976 had grown to 1.7 million re- sidents - an almost 13-fold increase in 35 years. By comparison, Los Angeles County's population increased by 2.5 times during that same period. logo Ing Imo I'm logs Ions POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT Current projections of population growth indicate that about 2.6 million people will reside in Orange County in 1995, an increase of over 600,000 from today's level. While this growth rate iwth not as dramatic as that experienced the past 35 years, this additional will place heavy demands on an already overloaded transportation system. • Employment Employment in the county is now growing faster than population, a distinct change from earlier trends when Orange County functioned as a "bedroom" for jobs located in Los Angeles and other locations. By 1976, employment had passed the half - million mark, with some 600,000 jobs, up from a 1950 total of 66,000. Major industries are relocating to the county, and major new employment centers such as the East Irvine Industrial Complex, and office complexes in Anaheim, Santa Ana, Costa Mesa and the Airport are being de- veloped. Population -employment ratios in- dicate that the county is no longer just a residential community for Los Angeles. While there is still a considerable amount of work -trip travel into Los Angeles County, especially via the Santa Ana and San Diego Freeways, there is also a con- siderable amount of reverse -commute. This trend of increasing employment growth is expected to continue. By 1995, employment in the county is expected to reach 1.25 million, an increase of 400,000 over 1980. Of particular importance is the projec- tion that by 1995 the number of available jobs will be greater than the resident labor force. In 1976, there were approxi- mately 0.8 jobs for every person in Orange County in the labor force. By 1995 this relationship is projected to increase to 1.07 jobs. This means that the number of people commuting into Orange County to work will continue to increase. Not only will there be more workers com- muting into the county, but there will be more work trips made entirely within the county by employed residents. In- creased transportation capacity, whether it be by transit or by -automobile, will be required, with an emphasis on shorter, intra-county trips. Development Patterns and Trends • The Past Prior to the 19701s, urbanization was almost entirely confined to the flatlands in the northern and central portions of the county. Planning principles at the ! . I time led to development of big block resi- dential areas (one mile square tracts), segregation of land uses into distinct commercial, industrial and residential �careas, low residential densities (four ouses per acre) and emphasis on strip- ommercial development along major arter- ial streets. Before 1970, Orange County functioned primarily as a "bedroom" suburban commu- nity for employment areas in central and southern Los Angeles County. This type of development led to highly dispersed trip patterns. Although there were a few focal points in older towns such as Santa Ana and in new major industrial parks, trip patterns were - and still are - "many -to -many". This early development pattern also led to an emphasis on commercial and indust- rial use adjacent to the freeways, espec- ially in the Santa Ana Corridor. At the same time, the freeways were built to Wrve a low density agrarian region and e mall towns, and were designed as re- gional routes to Los Angeles. Built in the 1950's to rural standards, they are now inadequate for urban transportation needs. • The Present The urbanized portion of Orange County today encompasses approximately 300 square miles out of the total county area of 786 square miles. From 1970 to 1975, the land area devoted to urbanized ORANGE COUNTY AIRPORT AREA - 1966 5 uses grew by 30 percent, and by the year 2000 is expected to increase significantly over the area in urban uses in 1975. Substantial changes in the development patterns are becoming evident. Orange County has no single center of economic activity (such as a single central busi- ness district) due to the manner in which the county developed. However, commercial activities, especially in the newer parts of the county, are becoming concentrated in a few multi -functional centers that act as sub -regional "downtowns". Freeway corridors are still the major focus of new commercial and industrial development and most of the activity centers shown in Figure are located in a corridor fol- lowing the alignment of the Newport, Santa Ana and San Diego Freeways. Industrial areas, while not as multi- functional as the commercial centers, also serve as major centers of economic activity. Major industrial focal points include the Irvine Industrial Complex and the northeast Anaheim, South Fullerton and Garden Grove industrial areas. With the exception of Newport Center, all of the commercial activity centers and major industrial centers are located in close proximity to a freeway, with the Santa Ana Freeway standing out as the major population and employment corridor in the county. Nearly half of the people living and working in the county do so within three miles of this facility. ORANGE COUNTY AIRPORT AREA -'1979 • The Future By 1995, Orange County is projected to contain 20 percent of the region's popu- tion and jobs, and will have become a jor employment center, in marked con- rast to its earlier role as Los Angeles' "bedroom'!. The activity centers shown on the next page, which initially developed primarily as commercial retail shopping centers, have expanded in recent years to include major office, cultural and service func- tions. This trend is expected to continue. Based on employment projections and on existing trends, Central Orange County will develop into the major office/com- .mercial focal point in the county. In addition, the combination of the proposed Irvine Center plus the adjacent East Irvine Industrial Complex will result in new employment and commercial center ated at the junction of the San Diego Santa Ana Freeways in South County. The largest increases in residential population are expected to be in Irvine and other areas of South County. However, increases in residential density in cities north of the Newport Freeway will lead to significant increases in the population of northern and central Orange County as well. The transportation implications of these changes in development pattern are: • The large increases in population pro- jected for South County will produce additional strain on the Santa Ana Corridor transportation system There will be an intensification of ravel in the established travel cor- idors, with more trips oriented to the major activity centers • The pattern to more centralized and concentrated land use development will reinforce transit use Socio-Economic Trends • Employment Characteristics Aside from continuing increases in popu- lation and employment, perhaps the most significant socio-economic trend in Orange County is the change in the types of employment. The earliest job base was agriculture,, but by 1976 agricultural employment had dropped to less than two percent of the County's tptal employment. Manufacturing now accounts for the greatest number of workers employed by any one sector of the economy. However, the greatest num- erical increase for any employment sector was for the combined wholesale/retail trade category, which has become second only to manufacturing. IPSO 108 PPS EMPLOYMENT BY TYPE ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYMENT BY TYPE The fastest growing employment sector has been wholesale trade, indicating the growing importance of.Orange County as a distribution center, not only for county markets but for the region as a whole. Other sectors which exhibited higher than average growth rates were services, government, finance and real estate, and retail trade. This distinct trend toward non -manufacturing activities -is reflected in the signifi- cant change, in employment density. By 0 1995 South Coast Plaza, downtown Santa Ana, Anaheim Stadium, Irvine Center the airport commercial office complex and other office complexes in the corridor Wwill employ over 140,000 people, repre- `enting nearly 12 percent of total county employment. • Housing Market Characteristics As elsewhere, the affordability of housing is a pressing concern in Orange County. Rapid growth coupled with increasing costs has caused the market to shift toward mul- tiple family unit construction. For in- stance, since 1970, 47 percent of'all new housing units being built in Orange County were townhouses, condominiums or apart- ments. By 1995 countywide projections in- dicate that this style of development will account for 37% of the housing stock, a distinct change from 30 years ago when almost all housing was single-family. 0n esidential densities in the Santa Ana rridor will continue to be higher than the rest of the county. By 1995, 60 percent of all multi -family housing will be located here, as will 51 percent of all single-family homes. This relative concentration of housing together with the activity centers will produce more concentrated travel patterns than exist today, further reinforcing transit as an attractive and necessary travel alterha- tive. Transportation in Orange County • Trip and Travel Patterns Current travel patterns reflect the underlying land use pattern of the county. Generally speaking, travel patterns in the northern urbanized area of Orange County are dispersed,, but with some focus at several major employment areas: downtown Santa Ana, North Anaheim Industrial, Irvine Indus- trial West and portions of Los Angeles County. Probably the most significant factor affecting these travel patterns is the large amount of employment found in this part of the county. 7 This focus of travel patterns will con- tinue in the future because all major employment opportunities for South County residents will be found northward in 0her the Santa Ana or San Diego Free - corridors. As new employment centers in South County such as Irvine Center and Irvine Industrial East grow, they will add to the already crowded condition of the Santa Ana Freeway since this is the primary travel facility leading to the activity centers. • Expressway and Freeway Systems Orange County is served by more than 160 miles of freeway systems and 1,250 miles of major arterials such as Beach Boulevard, First Street and the Pacific Coast Highway. The major freeways are shown below. Of the freeways serving the county, the Santa Ana Freeway clearly stands out as the one serving major population and employment centers most directly. This freeway provides access to more people and more jobs than any other in the county. Some 800,000 people (49 percent of the county's population) live within three miles of the freeway. By 1995, 46corridor population is anticipated grow to 1.2 million. Approximately ,000 jobs (5S percent of the county total) are also within three miles of the Santa Ana Freeway. By 1995 this figure is projected to increase to 560, 000 jobs. The Santa Ana Freeway is the major inter- regional route connecting the Los Angeles and San Diego metropolitan areas and is the major transportation facility serv- ing the Southern California megalopolis — which has developed along the coastline south of Los Angeles. It is also an important regional facility for both _ commuter and non -commuter traffic. In addition to its commuter transporta- tion function, I-5 is an important re- creational route, running near capacity on Saturdays and Sundays. In some loca- tions, weekend traffic is as much as 50 percent higher than weekday traffic. The I-5 freeway is also the major freight artery along the coastline. Vehicular counts show trucks accounting for between 7 and 13.5 percent (6,000 - 17,000 trucks) of the daily vehicle traffic along various sections of the freeway in,Orange County. In comparison, I-10, the major regional facility eastbound from Los Angeles, V carries from 6,000 to 12,000 trucks daily. * Transit Service OCTD provides public transit service within the county. Regional service is provided by the Southern California Rapid Transit District (RTD) which links Orange and Los Angeles counties -and by AMTRAK serving San Diego, Orange and Los Angeles' counties. The vast majority of all tran- sit trips.in Orange County is on OCTD buses. As of September, 1980, OCTD operated 53 local bus routes with service frequencies ranging from 10 to 60 minutes. These are — fixed route services operated on the major arterial grid street system. This portion of the service carries over 95 percent of all OCTD transit riders. In addition, OCTD operates 10 peak hour park/ride ex- press routes, generally on the freeway network and focused on central Santa Ana. Supplementing these express routes are 6 peak hour commuter routes which operate on arterial streets serving major employ- ment concentrations in north county. Dial - a -Ride and Dial -a -Lift services are also offered in a large segment of the county. ri 13 The Santa Ana Corridor is served by many of the local fixed routes in both north/ - south and east/west directions. Peak hour express service is provided by two routes 201 and 204), and on I-5 between a major ark/ride lot in Fullerton and central anta Ana. Five routes (201, 202, 209, 210 and 291) serve the Santa generally using the Santa An south county into the central area. Ana Ana Corridor, Freeway from Santa Ana • Usage and Level of Service of Transportation Facilities Usage of the regional freeway system in Orange County has been increasing steadily in keeping with employment and population growth. The dramatic changes in popula- tion and new jobs available in the county have resulted in a substantial growth in the number of daily person trips both by transit and by auto. Feincreased number of auto trips being e on the existing freeway system has used traffic congestion to be a regular part of the commuter's day. As shown on the next page, portions of every freeway in Orange County experience periods of congestion, with the Santa Ana Freeway operating at the lowest levels of ser- vice(severe congestion, stop -and -go move- ment) during peak hours, with 35 miles of the total 52 miles of the freeway currently operating at the theoretical design capacity. OCTD ridership has increased dramatically since its beginning in 1972. In its first year of operation, the system opera- ted only 25 buses and carried just under 984,000 passengers. By 1979 the system had grown to 640 buses and carried over 26 million passengers. Projections for his year, only nine years from start of rvice, indicate that ridership for the ear will reach 36 million passengers. During that same time, system productivity in terms of passengers per bus hour has increased from 15.7 to 25.6. These statistics clearly show that there is a market for good reliable transit service in Orange County. Most of the county's local and express bus ridership occurs within the Santa Ana Corridor. taco OCTD PERFORMANCE 0M B.S.0 ja.eM(I16 Buaoe) "M (2a Busae) 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I I I AMTRAK ridership has also exhibited sub- stantial growth, largely because of a doubling of service. Monthly ridership for 1979 averaged 120,000 - an increase of 200 percent over 1976. Depending upon AMTRAK's service and pricing poli- cies, ridership can be expected to in- crease. • The Problem The Santa Ana Corridor is considered to be the primary transportation corridor in the county for two reasons: 1) the large number of trips now served; and 2) the dramatic increase in population and employment projected for this cor- ridor by 1995. M Simply stated, the problem is that there are more people wanting to travel in and around the county than there is capacity to move them - and by 1995 or even sooner 0 e situation will be much more severe. e existing freeways do not have the pacity to serve future travel demand through the corridor, and capacity must be increased. In addition, intense de- mand throughout the corridor has resulted in poor levels of service, characterized by severe congestion and low travel speeds Further, current transit service levels and capacity are not high enough to signi- ficantly affect the number of auto trips or reduce freeway congestion levels. The best indication of the severity of traffic operational problems is evident from Caltrans data for 1977: - Operation of i8 miles (two-way) of the Santa Ana Freeway is in breakdown condi- tion (Level F - severe congestion, less *than 20 mph average speed) during peak hours. Recurrent congestion (20-35 mph) for more than 6 hours a day is evident along major sections of the freeway. - The extent and severity of these traffic problems is worse on the Santa Ana Freeway than on any other facility in Orange County. © Lcee mw.0 ve unsecvw¢ eoxoearux Q vo-oe uvx •coxwe�0x 1 i 1977 PM PEAK HODH DELAY All indications are that the growing severity of transportation problems in Orange County warrant an examination of major transportation investment alterna- tives. The question to be answered is how best to meet the increased demand. In the 501s, the answer would have been to build another - or several - freeways. But experience has shown that this solu- tion not only presents other problems - air pollution, energy consumption, neigh- borhood and business disruption - but also generates more trips and more congestion. Orange County has changed over time from a rural agricultural county to a highly urbanized area. Policy decisions regard- ing both land use and transportation must reflect this change. The issues involved in policy decisions are more complex than' they once were, involving a mix of trans- portation alternatives that meet the ob- jectives of the county regarding social equity, environmental quality, budgetary constraints, joint usage of land, growth of development, as well as transportation and land use compatibility. 10 - - THE OPTIONS FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS Introduction In developing the alternative transporta- Oion investments to be analyzed in Phase I t of the Alternatives Analysis, a broad range of concepts in serving present and future travel demand in the Santa Ana Transportation Corridor was considered. Some of the concepts attempt to serve projected travel demand primarily through improvements to either transit or highway systems. Other alternatives are based on providing a combination of transit and highway capacity increases. Major differ- ences in alignments, level of service provided, and extent of new construction are also exhibited by the alternatives. As indicated earlier in this report, some 55 alternative methods of serving future travel demands in this corridor were initially considered. After reviewing performance, costs and impacts, the OCTC rrowed the list of feasible alternatives the 19 which are analyzed in this re- port. • General Transportation Categories The 19 alternatives are composed of combi- nations of various transportation concepts designed primarily to expand capacity and improve the overall service levels in the Santa Ana Corridor in response to the pro- jected growth in travel demand in that corridor. The combinations recognize that no one transportation element, either highway or transit, can be expected to meet the combined increase in both person trips and goods movement projected within both the county and the region. The 19 alternatives represent six basic categories, each placing major emphasis on .e or more transportation components. The tegories are: 1. Baseline: Includes Alternatives 1 and 2 Busways: Includes Alternatives 3, 4, and 5. Rapid Rail: Includes Alternatives 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. 4. Commuter Rail: Represented by Alterna- tive 12. 5. Combined Highway and Transit Imorove- ments: Represented by Alternatives 13 (Highway and Commuter Rail), 14 and 15 (Highway and Bus Combinations), 16 and 17 (Highway and Rail transit). Transit Combinations: Represented by Alternative 18 (Rail transit and Bus - way combinations) and 19 (Busway, Commuter Rail and Highway Widening). At this point in the analysis, the alterna- tives are general in nature. They do not designate specific transit equipment since there are many vehicles which provide the service levels required in the general bus or rail transit categories. Similarly, they do not define specific routes or station locations. This approach is taken because in Phase I, the signifi- cant cost and performance differences - are between general system characteristics rather than between specific vehicles, routes or alignments. 11 Transportation Technologies A recent study completed for OCTD inven- toried transportation technologies that F ld be most appropriate for use in nge County. Rather than concentrating specific manufacturers or hardware, the inventory was based on classes or "generic" transportation systems, pri- marily because of the large number of potential equipment suppliers and the similarity of the vehicle concepts. • Buses One of the major attributes of a bus is its unique flexibility. Unlike the var- ious rail,or guideway systems, it is con- strained only by the street and freeway network, and is capable of being operated in mixed traffic or in various exclusive right-of-way designs. In urban conditions, buses in mixed traffic can carry 2,000 to 4,000 passengers per hour and would �obably operate at average speeds gener- y under 10 miles per hour. On busways exclusive right-of-way operation, it is not the vehicle system itself but rather the support facilities such as street capacity, number of bus stops or size of terminals required which limit the capacity of the system. Bus design can be either the standard de- sign usually seen on city streets, arti- culated or double -decked. The standard design usually seats 48 people, is 40 feet long and can be handicapped access- ible. The articulated bus, having two rigid sections with a flexible mid -joint seats 67, is 60 feet long, and can be handicapped accessible. Double -decked buses seat 78, are 40 feet long, and are not generally handicapped accessible. Light Rail Transit t Rail Transit (LRT) is a type of fixed guideway transit with the unique ability to function in either grade separa- ted, semi -exclusive or mixed traffic rights - of -way. Vehicles can operate as single units or can be coupled into trains. These factors plus the wide range of vehicle sizes avail- able today make LRT very flexible in terms of passenger capacity and performance.' LRT is manually operated but can incorporate a wide range of train control. This capa- bility also contributes to the ability to adapt the LRT system to specific area requirements. Most LRT vehicles are articulated in de- sign. Depending upon the manufacturer, vehicles can carry from 42 to 68 seated passengers (San Francisco's new Muni Metro vehicles carry 68), are from 131 to 180 feet in length and can be handicapped - accessible although at great expense and operational i.iterference. Boarding from platform or street level and the type of fare collection system (on -board or pre- paid) are features which must be selected during the design phase. • Automated Guideway Transit (AGT) AGT systems offer the widest possible range of vehicle size and system capacity. In configuration, they may be bottom sup ported or suspended from overhead struct-. ures and may roll on either rubber tires . or steel wheels. Regardless of size or capacity, all such systems require a fully grade separated and exclusive right-of-way because of the automated operation and the "third raid" method of power pick-up. • Technologies Considered for Orange County All of the various rail rapid transit and bus - way options considered in this analysis are based on the line haul application of any of the technologies described above. The desig- nation of a specific technology for implemen- tation will be considered. during Phase Hofthe Alternatives Analysis. w -� I 12 19-- 13 The Alternatives • Components Each of the nineteen alternatives is a 0mbination of transit and highway elements systems. Three different highway systems and twelve different transit elements are included in various combinations in the nineteen alternatives. All alternatives except the null alternative (No. 1)include a non -capital intensive highway and transit element. The primary differences between alternatives involve the addition of various single or combined highway and transit capital intensive facilities within the Santa Ana Corridor. The three highway systems that are being studied in the various alternatives are: 1. Null - includes all highway facilities which were in use as of June 1980. 2. Transportation Systems Management (TSM) - includes non -capital intensive improvements such as ramp metering on all urban freeways. 3. I-S widening - widen I-5 from 6 to 8 lanes between I-605 and I-405. The following transit features are included in the alternatives: 1. Null - routes and frequencies of service operated by OCTD as of June 1980. 2. TSM - peak period headways of 10-30 minutes on local transit routes; express bus routes from residential zones to all major employment zones in Orange County with preferential bus lanes at metered ramps. 3. Busways on combinations of the Pacific Electric right-of-way, I-5 and Beach Boulevard. •Rapid Rail Transit on combinations of the Pacific Electric right-of-way, I-5, Beach Boulevard and other alignments. S. Commuter Rail Service on AT&SF right-of- way. The transit and highway components comprising each alternative are described on the follow- ing pages. • Null Alternative ("Do -Nothing") No. 1 This alternative, included as a base- line against which to measure the changes implied in the remaining alternatives, con- sists of the highway facilities and transit routes in operation as of June 1980. Any additional demand in the year 1995 would have to be handled by the highway and tran- sit systems which are available today in Orange County. • Transportation System Management (TSM) No. 2 This alternative is designed to offer improved service and capacity by means of improvements to the existing highway and transit systems, with investment in tran- sit equipment, but with no major invests ments in costly facilities. Modest facil- ities such as ramp metering, High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) bypasses on freeway ramps and auxiliary lanes on I-5 were included. This alternative also includes improved transit frequencies and greatly expanded express service. These improvements are included 11 in all subsequent alternatives. Appro priate modifications have been made to the TSM measures when higher level faci- - lities(busway or rail guideways) have been included. • Busways with Ridesharing Emphasis No. 3 Ridesharing/Bus Emphasis I This alternative adds an exclusive busway for buses and carpools on,I-5 between I-605 and Ortega Highway. No. 4 Ridesharing/Bus Emphasis II This alternative includes an exclusive bus - way for buses and carpools in the P.E. right-of-way from the intersection of I-605 with the future Century Freeway (I-105), through downtown Santa Ana to I-5 and con- tinuing on I-5 to Ortega Highway. 14 ,i a TECHNICAL DLSCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES • COMMUTERBUSWAY RAPID RAIL TRaNSIT RAIL HIGHWAY P.E, to Anaheim P.E.•" I-5 to South Coast Plaza Convention (AMIRAK) g P,E. via through -Santa Ana Center to Improve 8 lanes ALT. TSM" I-5 I-5 Beach Blvd, g Irvine Irvine I-5 Service on I-5 OTHER 1 "NUL " Alternative; flighty y facilities g Transit Routes in servi a as of 6/ 980 2 5 new Commuter (tail Stations 3 0 miles) 28 Park/Ride Lots 4 0 (40 miles) 4 new Park/Ride Lots 5 0 0 (44 miles) _ 2 new Park/Ride Lots 6 40 (43 miles) 27 stations; 1.59 mile spacing 7 with Beach Blvd. connection to I-5 29 stations; (47 miles) I 1.62 mile spacing 8 I• via Katella to 34 stations; St. College to 1.56 mile spacing Rt. 22; along ' Rt. 22 to Ma in S . (53 miles total) 9 40 with Beach Blvd. 0 same as 8. above 36 stations; connection to 1.58 mile spacing, I-5 (55 milei total) 10 via Katella to.- 36 stations; Main St. 1.52 mile spacing 11 0 24 stations; . , (4 mile ) 1.75 mile spacing 12 5 new Commuter Rail Stations 13 (30 mi.) 5 new Commuter Rail Stations 14 0 (42 miles) (30 mi.) 28 Park/Ride Lots 15 0 (40 miles) (30 mi.)' 4 new Park/Ride Lots 16 0 (43 miles) (30 mi.) 27 stations; 1.59 mile spacing 17 0 0(30 mi.) 24 stations; (42 mile!) 1.75 mile spacing 18 9 0 terminates at Laguna (43 miles) 27 stations; Hills Mall 1.59 mile spacing (33 miles) 190 0 (42 miles) (30 mi.) Same new Amtrak stations as in Alt. 12 "Transportation Systems Management ""Pacific Electric Right -of -Way T "Transportation Systems Management ""Pacific Electric Right -of -Way T *Sae l,tarnardino Cnunty dal Rt,ernifie County "e w k V= ott • ;.{1". 1................ Ali- Pacific Ocean IDOR ROUTE AND SEGMENT MAP -"- Beach Ellec ��� AMTRo K R.O.W. R.O.W. AMTflAe R.O. nm.n.um. 1-6 (Beach Blvd, to downtown Santa Ana I .�.�. �. 1-6 (Downtown Santa Ana to 1-406) � 1-6 ( 1-405 to Ortega Rd. ) N00000406 Potential Guideway Alignments ow ALT. 1: NULL SYSTEM -SERVICE As of June 1980 Exclusive guideway for buses and carpools 41• •••• Freeway romp metering Area with TSM measures ALT. 2: TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT(TSM) dt• Exclusive guideway for buses and carpools ALT.4: RIDESHARING/BUS ALT.5: RIDESHARING/BUS EMPHASIS 11 EMPHASIS 11 (With Beach Blvd. Variation) Exclusive guideway for buses and carpools LT.3: RIDESHARING/BUS EMPHASIS I � Alignment still to be defined ALT. 6: RAIL TRANSIT EMPHASIS i .,r ALT.9: RAIL TRANSIT EMPHASIS II (With Beach Blvd. Variation) Track Improvement i ALT. 12: COMMUTER RAIL EMPHASIS .�wr. Rail line A .� Rail lines ff RAILTRANSIT ALT.8: RAIL TRANSIT EMPHASIS I EMPHASIS 11 (With Beach Blvd. Variation) Roil lines i MT In- RAILTRANSIT EMPHASIS III Track Improvement .... 1.5 widened to 8+ lanes between 1.60511.5 and 1.405 ALT. 13: COMMUTER RAIL/ HIGHWAY COMBINATION Rail line ..... 1-5 widened to 8+ lenos ALT. 15: RIDESHARING/BUS/ ALT. 16: RAILTRANSIT/HIGHWAY HIGHWAY COMBINATION I COMBINATION II Rail line • • • • Exclusive guideway for buses and carpools an 1.5 R O.W. •••• 1.6 widened to 8+ lanes Track Improvement Exclusive guldoway for buses and carpools on 1.5 R.O.W. ALT. IS: RAILTRANSIT/ ALT.19: RIDESHARING/BUS/ RIDESHARING/ HIGHWAY/ BUS COMBINATION COMMUTER RAIL Rail line A ALT.11: RAIL TRANSIT EMPHASIS IV Exclusive guideway for buses and carpools ••••• 1.5 widened to 8+ feral; ALT. 14: RIDESHARING/BUS/ HIGHWAY COMBINATION I •••• 1.5 widened to 8 lanes — Rail line on 1.5 R.O.W. ALT. 17: RAILTRANSIT/HIGHW COMBINATION II iF � AIIBnmont atilt to be dollnotl n No. 5 Ridesharing/Bus Emphasis III This alternative is the same as Alternative 4 except at the northwest end where the bus - would be located on I-5 from I-605 to h Boulevard, and on or near Beach evard from I-5 to the P.E. right-of-way. • Rail Transit Emphasis No. 6 Rail Transit Emphasis I This alternative would provide a rail transit line on the P.E. right-of-way from I-605/I-105 through downtown Santa Ana, south to South Coast Plaza, through Irvine and south on I-S to Ortega Highway. Twenty- six stations are assumed. eo eo MNOTRAxert CRM6ITT CAR RRRERI6TIC6 yg 6tlMa MtlroIroIlMn Tm.TwMllan Moan i ...� ............... ....... si nuso.RAIL ox aacwawe. URAOFEEVMITEOROW ...9 RAA "TRAIL vFowMUTERaLAAR W.U -- RR COMMUTER RAILmru MMIMN6R'.M. . AIRAfl. -rp RA RR ow o 10 RR b ,".1111vaEo—Mm No. 7 Rail Transit Emphasis,I-Beach Blvd. The rail line would be the same as described Alternative 6, except at the northwestern where the line would follow Beach Blvd. een the P.E. and I-5. This rail line would include 26 stations. No. 8 Rail Transit Emphasis II The rail line would be the same as described in Alternative 6, with the addition of north -south extensions to. the Anaheim Convention/Recreation activity center ii: and to the vicinity of University/Campus. These two rail lines include 33 stations. No. 9 Rail Transit Emphasis II -Beach Blvd. This alternative includes the two rail lines described in Alternative 8, except that at the northwest end the rail line would leave the P.E. right-of-way at Beach Blvd., proceed on Beach Blvd. to I-5, and continue northwest on I-5 to I-605/I-105. This alternative would have 33 stations. No. 10 Rail Transit Emphasis III Two rail transit lines are included. The first line would be on the P.E. right-of-way from I-605/I-105 to Santa Ana, continuing on I-5 from downtown Santa Ana to Ortega Highway. . The second line, running north -south, would extend from Disneyland south through Santa Ana to the vicinity of University/Campus. There would be 36 stations. No. 11 Rail Transit Emphasis IV A rapid rail transit line would be located on the I-5 right-of-way from I-605/I-105 to Ortega Highway, and includes 23 stations. • Commuter Rail Emphasis No. 12 Commuter Rail Service would be improved by the use of new diesel-electric engines, more frequent schedules and track improvements. New stations would be added at Anaheim Stad- ium, Irvine Center and Mission Viejo, and duplicative express bus service would be eliminated. • Combinations No. 13 Commuter Rail/Highway Combination This alternative is the same as No. 12 except that, in addition, I-5 would be widened to 8- plus lanes between I-605/I-105 and I-405, a length of 30 miles. No. 14 Ridesharing/Bus Highway Combination I As in Alternative I3, I-5 would be widened to 8-plus lanes between I-605/I-105 and I-405, and an exclusive busway as described in Alternative 3 would be provided on I-5 between I-605 and Ortega Highway. No. 15 Ridesharing/Bus/ Highway Combination II As in Alternative 13, I-5 would be widened. An exclusive busway as described in Alterna- tive 4 would be located on the P.E. between I-605/I-105 through downtown Santa Ana and on I-5 between 4th Street and Ortega Highway. No. 16 Rail Transit/Highway Combination I As in Alternative 13, I-5 would be widened. A rail transit line (as in Alternative 6) would be provided on the P.E. from I-605/ I-105 through downtown Santa Ana, south to South Coast Plaza, through Irvine and south on I-5 to Ortega Highway. No. 17 Rail Transit/Highway Combination II As in Alternative 13, I-5 would be widened. The rail portion is the same as that con- tained in Alternative 11, which includes a rail line on I-5 from I-605/I-105 to Ortega Highway. No. 18 Rail Transit/Ridesharing/Bus _ Combination •As in Alternative 6, a rail transit line would be provided on the P.E. from I-605/ I-105 through Santa Ana, South Coast Plaza and Irvine and south on I-5 to Ortega Highway. An exclusive guideway for buses and carpools would be located on,I-5 (as in Alternative 3). 17 No. 19 Ridesharing/Bus/Highway/Commuter Rail As in Alternative 13, 30 miles of I-5 would -be widened to 8 lanes. An exclusive guide- way for buses and carpools would be located on I-5 (as in Alternative 3) and the Amtrak commuter rail improvements as described in Alternative 12 would be included. THE ALTERNATIVES - PERFORMANCE, COSTS AND COMPARISONS Nineteen alternative combinations of tran- t tand highway improvements have been ana- ed in this study. Eighteen of them rep - sent quantum jumps, both in the level of transit service offered and in total cost. There are major differences in the type of transit service provided (express bus, rapid rail or commuter rail) and the extent of highway improvements proposed in each alternative. Within the transit guideway alternatives, comparable levels of transit service have been presumed in order to avoid biasing the analysis. Since service level, i.e., fre- quency and travel time relative to auto travel, are major factors in a decision to use transit, comparable systems should be expected to produce comparahle results. Similarly, major improvements in service levels for either transit or highway travel whuire large investments in both capital operating costs. In fifteen of the teen alternatives, a major capital investment in grade separated transit guide- ways was included to assure that the assumed transit speeds, frequencies, etc., could be attained. Two of the remaining three alter- natives included major upgrading of the commuter rail service. Recognizing these similarities, it is not particularly surprising that systemwide per- formance differences between the eighteen major improvement alternatives are relative- ly small. Therefore, impacts which can be attibuted to specific corridor elements must be separated and examined invididually as well as on a system -wide basis. This section presents the overall system analysis and then examines the various seg- ments as a basis for arriving at specific ommendations for future action. Table 1 Bents the basic analytical data for full corridor systems which will be used in the ensuing discussion. 18 System Performance At this level of analysis, ridership is the most direct measure of performance. By 1995 the existing transit system, or "null" alter- native, would be carrying an estimated 167,000 riders on an average weekday, an increase of more than 65% from today's vol- umes. In contrast, the eighteen alterna- tives providing major service level increas- es have been projected to carry between 290,000 and 315,000 daily transit trips in Orange County, or about three times current use. The similarity in level of service offered under any of these alternatives is illustrat- ed by the fact that only about 8 percent dif- ference in total patronage separates the lowest and highest alternatives at the sys- tem level. As a group, the busway alterna- tives were projected to have slightly more total system transit trips than the rail alternatives. Within the Santa Ana corri- dor, the rail alternatives would have almost twice the ridership that the express bus alternatives have. However, the number of total person trips (on buses and carpools) utilizing the corridor busways would be very similar to the passenger volumes on the rapid rail alternatives. As might be expected, when major improve- ments to I-S are included with either bus - way or rail alternatives, total transit usage generally shows a slight decline. In any case, the local bus portion of the sys- tem is essential regardless of the corridor express transit system used. In terms of highway performance, the free- way system will still be heavily congested under any of the alternatives. However, traffic volumes projected for I-5 and for the Newport Freeway are generally slightly lower in those alternatives employing rapid transit in the corridor. The implementation of any of the fixed guideway transit improvements would re - it in a very sharp increase in transit — age within the Corridor. For example, ansit would account for between 6 and 14 percent of daily corridor line -haul trips and 10 to 30 percent of peak hour trips. High occupancy vehicles on Bus - ways would account for between 7 to 20 percent of peak hour vehicles. As shown in the table below, the transit alternatives were projected to be much more effective in northern and central Orange County than in South County. The following estimates of transit's percen- tage of total trips were made for two lo- cations in the corridor, one near down- town Santa Ana and the other in Mission Viejo. • TSH Busways Rapid Rail Commuter Rail TSM Busways Rapid Rail Coavutar Rail Corridor Modal Split Daily Line Haul Peak Hour Line Peak Corridor Trips Haul Corridor Hour Trips on on Transit Trips on Transit HOV's SALTA ANA 5.5% 13.7% 3.8-6.3 10.4-16.2 19.4-20.8% 8-13.5 23.6-35.9 6.4 19.6 MISSION VIED 1.5 5.9 1.6-1.9 5.6-6.7 6.7 3-3.3 10.8-12.4 2.2 8.1 System Costs All costs have been estimated using 1980 cost levels. Total capital costs shown in Table include all vehicles, rights -of - way, guideways, stations, parking, highway improvements and other facilities as approp- riate to fully implement each of the alter- natives. The lowest cost alternative, which includes a major increase in express bus service and transportation system management measures (TSM) measures such as ramp metering, will cost over $SSO,000,000. These TSM costs are included in all of the remaining alterna- tives. Total system capital costs for the busway (including HOV to produce comparable usage levels) and rapid rail alternatives are about the same with costs in the range of $1.4 billion for the busways to $1.5 to $1.6 billion for the rapid rail alternatives. Combining the Santa Ana Freeway (I-5) widen- ing with either of these transit improve- ments produces total system capital costs ranging from $1.6 to $1.9 billion. When bott rail and bus transit guideways are included, total costs exceed $2.0 billion. Alternative 19, the most expensive of all the alterna- tives, includes a busway, commuter rail improvements and I-5 widening with total costs in excess of $2.3 billion. Operating and maintenance costs reflect the differences in transit type (bus, rapid rail or commuter rail), but these differ- ences are even smaller than they were for capital costs. The greatest portion of operating cost is related to the personnel required to operate and maintain the equip- ment. In addition, total equipment require- ments are similar for all guideway alterna- tives. One difference between bus and rail systems is related to the maintenance of the roadway or guideway. In most cases, the bus system uses streets and highways where main- tenance costs are not directly assignable to the transit system. In rail systems, on the other hand, these costs are fully borne by the transit system. Nevertheless, annual operating costs are comparable for all alter- natives except the "null". 19 • r] z TABLE I PERFORMANCE AND COST TRANSIT PATRONAGE DAILY 1/ CAPITAL (In Thousands) - (In Millions a > o w o 0 H 3 m C 0 0 3 N ++ A C 00 p. 3 O C N d H m H 3 w H H C m td d 0 •.I •� W •M 0 •'I O W td C H W a+ ni td •d O H -H •d h •H C 2/ O O- V .# rl 6 O 7 ..lm Y. r W O IC O W m .0 U} r NO td W U7. .0 FEN AL C9U N NG 1 164.5 3.2 - - - - 167.7 - - 2 239.4 62.1 - - - - 301.5 - 81.S 3 240.9 27.4 42:9 35.0 - - 311.3 642.5 43.4 3A3/ 240.9 27.4 42.9 - - - 311.3 334.0 43.4 4 235.3 44.8 32.2 34.9 - - 312.3 438.5 34.9 4A 235.3 44.8 32.2 - - - 312.3 210.1 34.9 5 230.6 47.4 33.5 34.9 - - 311.4 558.s 35.8 SA 230.6 47.4 33.5 - - - 311.4 259.6 3S.8 6 203.1 35.1 - - 64.1 - 302.3 344.9 120.0 7 205.0, 33.8 - - 68.6 - 307.4 526.9 146.6 8 193.7 29.1 - - 77.7 - 300.4 459.3 162.3 9 195.6 28.3 - - 80.2 - 304.0 641.3 187.4 10 196.1 27.3 - - 79.4 - 302.8 533.8 184.9 11 228.4 38.2 - - 48.1 - 314.7 S98.2 122.7 12 238.5 43.4 - - - 22.8 304.7 378.0 26.3 13 236.1 42.1 - - - 22.2 300.4 378.0 25.5 14 238.3 25.0 41.0 35.0 - - 304.3 642.5 43.4 14A 238.3 2S.0 41.0 - - - 304.3 527.5 43.4 15 232.8 41.7 30.6 35.0 - - 305.0 438.5 33.0 15A 232.8 41.7 30.6 - - - 305.0 244.0 33.0 16 201.0 33.7 - - 61.5 , - 296.3 344.9 110.7 17 226.6 37.9 - - 48.1 - 312.7 598.2 111.5 18 200.5 11.6 29.7 26.2 59.8 - 301.6 940.9 145.6 Rail - - - - 59.8 - - 344.9 114.5 Busway 18' - - 29.7 26.2 - - - S96.0 31.1 18A - - 29.7 - - - - 331.8 31.1 19 233.7 10.4 32.9 34.9 - 21.3 298.3 1,020.5 59.1 Rail - - - - - 21.3 - 378.0 24.2 Busway 19 - - 32.9 34.9 - - - 642.5 34.9 19A - - 32.9 - - - - 527.5 34.9 1 With Los Angeles trips included 2 Guideway costs are based on partial grade separation 3 "A" Alternatives do not include HOB. PEI 1� TABLE I ' PERFORMANCE AND COST •COSTS BY ELEMENT of 1980 dollars TOTAL COSTS Cost Per Trip • > H u N H u •k N N O. \ _ (Guideway Portion Only) C N H •.�•1 .a N •H 00 •H 0 C N C uT •H H P. F. Cd P. -+ O. N U N .-. C V C •H N .y V •-�/1 N N ... ld V •+ t0 F U 0 41 H C •H .0 •H U m N 'td ,C 00 !. •.� a+ Cd'd C id � r-1 c0 •H ♦+ 1•� F4 0 cd W a C N C U1 ttl F �+ P. N 0 •H � •.+ N P. C FL 0 .H Cd P ++ P CCq 0 k 6 >xw C 033 W U FIx FUU FNUF- &UF 6VUF FAU a. 43C l 78.5 - - - - 78.5 44.83/14.28 NA NA NA 2 196.4 112.1 65.1 100.3 - 555.4 94.16/17.04 NA NA NA r 3 47.1 - 27.1 253.2 426.4 1,439.7 106.23/17.04 1.19 5.37 6.56 3A3/ 47.1 - 33.6 147.5 426.4 1,032.0 95.43/17.04 1.19 5.77 6.96 4 37.1 - 23.7 177.0 484.7 1,195.9 100.97/17.04 1.22 4.38 5.60 4A 37.1 - 23.7 97.1 484.7 887.6 99.20/17.04 1.26 5.22 6.48 5 37.8 - 23.4 219.2 491.6 1,366.3 111.34/17.04 1.21 5.26 6.47 SA 37.8 - 23.4 114.6 491.6 962.8 100.55/17.04 1.23 5.87 7.10 6 55.2 - 70.9 194.5 482.3 1,267.8 115.82/17.04 1.43 4.39 5.82 7 55.2 - 78.2 270.2 480.7 1,557.8 118.65/17.04 1.51 5.73 7.24 8 73.6 - 88.7 255.6 470.6 1,S10.1 128.75/17.04 1.67 4.85 6.52 9 73.6 - 69.5 321.4 466.4 1,759.6 128.81/17.04 1.83 5.88 7.71 84.0 - 90.7 290.3 465.1 1,648.8 125.81/17.04 1.69 5.66 7.35 •10 11 43.2 71.7 284.4 501.8 1,622.0 115.36/17.04 1.87 8.31 10.18 12 63.7 - 30.1 1S2.1 S19.8 1,170.0 128.47/17.045/ 5.74 10.43 16.17 13 63.7 255.3 36.2 243.2 516.0 1,517.9 128.47/17.365/ 5.90 10.68 16.98 14 48.5 255.3 34.2 345.0 424.4 1,793.3 106.44/17.36 1.24 5.52 6.76 14A 48.5 255.3 34.2 304.8 424.4 1,638.1 95.63/17.36 1.29 9.55 10.84 15 37.1 255.3 29.2 267.6 481.7 1,542.4 109.99/17.36 1.25 4.46 S.71 15A 37.1 255.3 29.2 199.5 481.7 1,279.8 99.20/17.36 1.32 6.90 8.22 16 55.2 255.3 77.1 232.8 491.1 1,617.1 115.98/17.36 1.49 4.57 6.06 17 43.2 255.3 69.5 369.1 502.2 1,949.0 115.53/17.36 1.87 8.30 10.17 18 111.0 - 91.2 423.5 383.S 2,095.7 126.24/17.04 - - - Rail 55.2 } - 71.4 _ _ - _ 1.53 4.74 6.27 Busway 18 55.8 - 19.8 _ _ _ _ 1.65 6.93 8.58 18A 55.8 - 26.3 _ _ _ _ 2.06 7.56 9.62 19 120.0 58.8 492,1 377.4 2,384.3 133.52/17.36 - _ •Busway Rail 63.7 _ 29.1 _ - _ _ 6.15 11.08 17,23 19 57.0 - 23.2 - - _ _ 1.57 6.14 7.71 19A 57.0 - 29.7 _ _ _ - 1.97 10.85 12.82 4 Transit operating costs excluded. Amtrak service and highway operating costs are public costs on1y. Private annual highway operating costs would be approximately $S.6 billion. 5 Includes commuter rail operating costs for service to Los Angeles and San Diego. 21 Other Performance Factors Phase I analysis also included assessing the general impacts of the alternatives on �ollution, land development, community ption and noise levels. minary analysis indicates that there my slight differences between alter- n ves in most of these impact factors. For instance, the emission of carbon monox- ide, hydrocarbon and nitrous oxides varies by only one to two percentage points between the alternatives. All of the alternatives compared to the null alternative do show a reduction -in air pollutants. For carbon monoxide, the reduction (in 1995) ranges between 6 and 7.6 percent; for hydrocarbons between 6 and 8 percent; for nitrous oxides, between 1 and 3 percent; and for sulfur oxides between 0.3 and 1 percent. Considering land requirements as a component of community disruption, only slight varia- tions between alternatives are evident at this point, since all alignments were as- sumed to follow existing public rights -of - way. 0eriminary analysis indicates that the natives would require between 98 and 195 acres, primarily for parking or sta- tion facilities. Very little residential acreage would be taken, since most acre- age required for the systems is currently in commercial use. When considering transportation alterna- tives, noise levels generated by the sys- tems, are always a concern. Although increasingly sophisticated technology has decreased transit noise levels, there are still noise impacts associated with vehicle movement, either steel transit wheels on steel tracks or bus/auto wheels on pave- ment. Of the alternatives being analyzed, alternative 19 (widening I-5 to 8 lanes with an exclusive guideway for buses and carpools, along with commuter rail improve- ments) would expose the most sites (hous- ing, businesses, schools, parks, hospitals, etc.) to noise levels greater than 65 DBA. Alternative Five (an exclusive bus and carpool guideway on I-5, the P.E. and Beach Blvd.) would represent the least increase in sites affected (beyond the existing noise levels). The remaining alternatives are similar in the number of sites exposed to noise levels above the current levels. An Overall Evaluation of the Alternatives As indicated in the matrix of costs and performance and the accompanying discus- sion, no alternative considered in its entirety and in comparison with others performs significantly better in terms of costs or total patronage. All provide a major improvement in the transportation system in Orange County in terms of in- creased capacity and levels of service. However, based on this analysis, no single alternative can be justified or recommend- ed in its entirety. The analysis also revealed that selected segments within the alternatives produce much more cost-effective results than do the alternatives as a whole. Essentially, this indicates that combining those ele- ments to produce a "scaled -down" set of alternatives for more detailed examination in the Phase II analysis should produce more cost effective results. The following anal- ysis of each mode (highway, transit and commuter rail) on a segment by segment basis identifies the location and extent of approp- riate components from which to develop the alternatives for detailed analysis and comparison. J 22 1 • Highway Component As described in an earlier section of this report, Orange County has changed from a fural to "highly urganized area". Moreover, e next 15 year period is expected to see an additional 25 percent increase in popula- tion and a 50 percent increase in employment within Orange County. Translated to travel demand, that level of growth will increase already heavy demands placed on the Santa Ana corridor and the Santa Ana Freeway in particular during peak periods. If the, Santa Ana Freeway could accommodate all vehicles that would desire to utilize it, it would attract over one quarter of a million cars per day. At least 10 lanes would be needed to provide that capacity, and the level of service would still be inadequate. Clearly, expanding the Santa Ana to that extent is impractical if not impossible. f e development of a parallel freeway would cur enormous social and environmental sts. Hundreds of homes and businesses would have to be relocated to cut a new right-of-way through central Orange County. Even the 100-foot wide Pacific Electric right-of-way is not wide enough to permit new freeway construction, nor is it contin- uous throughout the length of the corridor. I-5 will remain a vital regional link between San Diego and Los Angeles through Orange County. In addition, it will continue to be an essential arterial for travel within the county by those for whom transit is an im- practical alternative. Therefore, improve- ments to this facility should be considered as an important element in the future•trans- portation system. Opportunities for improving capacity on the nta Ana Freeway are quite limited. North I-405, the Santa Ana Freeway varies bet - en 164 and 210 feet wide with homes and businesses already built bordering on the right-of-way along much of its length. The freeway cannot be easily widened beyond 8 lanes within the existing right-of-way. Even widening to 8 lanes will cost between $354 and $423 million depending on the pre- cise amount of right-of-way required. In terms of each person trip, private operat- ing costs of $1.79 and public costs for capital improvements of $1.61 are projected for the 67,250 daily person trips(50,000 vehicles) which could use the two added lanes. Since the Santa Ana Freeway has now out- lived its original service life by over five years, reconstruction and rehabilita- tion is going to be required in any event. An additional $54 million will be required for resurfacing and rehabilitating the en- tire facility, bringing the entire freeway improvement cost to at least $408 million, and perhaps as much as $477 million. How- ever, this program is recommended for in- clusion because: • It will bring the Santa Ana Freeway to Caltrans standards for urban free- ways and extend the usefulness of the freeway in another 25 years. l • It will increase peak -hour capacity by 25 percent. The freeway by 1995 will still be heavily congested during peak pehds and much ZY the new peak -period traffic from growing Orange County will have to be carried on regular arterials and on other modes. o An eight -lane configuration will reduce congestion during off-peak periods and on weekends. This point is important because the Santa Ana Freeway is a key facility for recreational, truck, inter- city and regional traffic. 23 • The 25 percent increase in peak -hour capacity achieved by widening the facility is important to offer some peak period commuter relief for trips •not destined for concentrated employ- ment served by transit. Even with this widening there is no possi- bility for the Santa Ana Freeway to shoulder the entire burden of the growth in Orange County. For this reason, as well as because of the iricreasing concern for air quality and energy conservation, transit improvements which are much more efficient in terms o? long term capacity to carry trips in the same space that a freeway lane would occupy, will still be necessary. • Transit Component Alternative transit improvements included various applications of buses, rapid rail and commuter rail. The alternatives eval- uated in this study included all of these o tions either singly or in combinations. ber of rapid transit improvements and nments were examined in this study. Not rprisingly, those alternatives which pro- vided direct service to key activity centers performed far better than all other potential alignments by almost every measure consider- ed, overall ridership, cost-effectiveness, mode -split, employment served, population served, etc. The southern most segments of the rapid rail alternatives from State Route 55 to Ortega Highway performed poorly with 1,000 or fewer daily passenger boardings per mile projected. The Santa Ana Freeway align- ment also tested poorly. The best segments, i.e. those that had the highest number of passenger boardings per mile or lowest cost per trip, were those from central Santa Ana south to South t Plaza, and from central Santa Ana toward Beach Blvd. The segments on t e P,E. right-of-way north to the Los Angeles County line also ranked high be- cause a direct connection to central Los Angeles was assumed. In order to test the performance of a rail rapid transit alternative which included the best segments of the full corridor alterna- tives, a truncated version of alternative 8 was defined. This alternative did not include a direct connection to Los Angeles County because the northern most station was located at Beach Blvd. and the P.E. right-of-way. The other extremities of this guideway were located near Disneyland in Anaheim and the Airport commercial area. tives but without direct connection to downtwon Los Angeles, a truncated version of alternative 8 was defined. In this alternative, the northern most station was located at Beach Blvd. and the P.E. right-of-way. The other extremities of this guideway were located near Disneyland in Anaheim and the Airport commercial area. Ridership from South County was, therefore, also greatly reduced. The estimated costs and performance for this rail rapid transit alternative could be as follows: Guideway Construction $248.6 M* Stations and Parking 49.9 M Vehicles and Maintenance 45.6 M Facilities Right -of -Way 21.9 M Engineering and Contingency 119.2 M System Construction Cost Estimated Daily Patronage in 1995 Operating Cost per Trip Annualized Capital Cost per Trip Total Annualized Cost per Trip 485.2 M** 45,000 $1.20 $3.91 $5.11 *In millions of 1980 dollars **Assumes reduced parking and added at -grade alignment. Total cost could be as high as $663 million, depending upon final design. 24 k • Busway Component - A number of Busway options were examined in alternatives 3, 4, 5, 14, 15, 18, and 19 grnder a variety of conditions --different ignments, fully grade -separated and at- ade in the median, and for exclusive bus use as well as including carpools and van - pools. The travel forecasts showed that overall transit ridership potential on bus routes using a busway facility was in the range of 30,000 to 40,000 trips per day --about half to two-thirds the number attracted to any of the'better rail rapid transit alterna- tives. The primary reason for this lower ridership potential of busways is attribut- able to the fact that the rail alternatives penetrate directly into employment concen- trations in Santa Ana and other major centers Busway alignments could not offer this direct penetration, and while buses themselves were routed directly into activity centers, the loss in speeds on city streets reduced rider- ip potential considerably. This analysis has shown that the busway costs per passenger approach those of rapid rail ly when carpools and vanpools are included the Busway. When high occupancy vehicles OV's) were included, total busway usage was nearly equal to the rail transit use. However, when these HOV's are included, construction of the busway at -grade anywhere except in an already grade separated facility such as a freeway becomes operationally in- feasible because of the high volume of vehi- cles. This stream of vehicles would ser- iously disrupt all crossing traffic on major arterials and to provide traffic 'signals at these intersections would negate the time advantage sought in building a busway. • Commuter Rail Component Commuter rail service is traditionally most suitable for long-distance commute trips to highly concentrated downtown areas from low - density outlying suburban areas. Usage of commuter rail service is oriented primarily to the work trip. Station spacing is usu- ally longer than for rapid transit or for busways (on the order of 5 miles) in order to maintain high train speeds and because the "market" of trips from any given area is small compared with other trip markets. Commuter rail is also cheaper and faster than bus service on the long-distance com- mute because it is unaffected by traffic and can maintain high average speeds. Under these conditions, commuter rail can be com- petitive with the automobile, even for high income households. The potential for commuter rail service was examined in alternatives 12, 13 and 19. Travel forecasts showed a potential rider- ship on the order of 20-25,000 passengers per day. Technical analysis of the com- muter rail alternatives indicated that des- pite the fact that Orange County stations are somewhat removed (1-2 miles away) from emerging activity centers in Anaheim, Santa Ana and Irvine Center, about 10,000 daily passengers would be carried just within Orange County. In addition, commuter rail patronage and investment compared well with busway and rapid transit alignments in south county. South county, with wealthier and lower den- sity residential neighborhoods may not gen- erate enough trips to support rapid transit guideway investments, but can generate enough trips to support the relatively lower invest- ment of improving commuter rail services on an established rail right-of-way. The 8,000 commuter rail trips projected from Orange County to downtown Los Angeles com- 25 0 pares favorably with sapid rail or busway modes, which attracted about the same rider- ship potential. Other modes, however, are dependent on extension of the system in Los eles County. Commuter rail trackage, on other hand, is already built and avail- e. Further, the projection of 8,000 trips daily between Los Angeles and Orange County may be understated, since commuter rail serv- ice will be faster and can be complemented by intercity service operated on the same tracks. At first glance, the capital cost per rider of $10.50 and average operating cost per rider of $5,80 depicted in Table 1 for the commuter rail alternatives do not seem to portray a highly cost effective investment. Under,scrutiny, however, commuter rail invest- ments do look to be as good of an invest- ment as the better of the busway and rapid transit alternatives. The $672 million capital cost for developing mmuter rail includes $180 million for grade rations and $50 million for new stations. of these improvements are likely to be pursued for intercity Amtrak service anyway and, consequently, may not be assignable just to a commuter rail program in Orange County. Without those costs, annualized capital cost per rider would be reduced to $7.80. In addition, commuter rail service as portrayed in Table 1 includes costs of service improve- ments all the way to Los Angeles but assigns the costs to Orange County users 'only. These improvements will benefit Los Angeles County as well, and it is quite likely that rider- ship potential in Los Angeles County is at least as great as in Orange County and the Santa Ana corridor. A full regional commit- ment to rail service including the state, the region, Los Angeles County and Orange County could potentially reduce capital cost per rider to the $4.00 to $5.00 range, with itdership potentially doubling along the at only marginally increased cost. would compare with the best of the rapid transit and busway alternatives. Similarly, the estimated operating cost per rider does not accurately portray regional service potential. The $5.80 figure under- writes the operation of trains all the way through Los Angeles County to downtown just , for Orange County trips. The schedules 26 developed as a basis for these operating cost estimates provide sufficient capacity to effectively double overall ridership with only marginal increases in operating costs. If on the order of 10,000 Los Angeles County users were encouraged to ride, average op- erating costs could drop to $3.00 to $5.00 _ per rider. Since commuter rail fares are normally higher than on -other modes of transit (for example, now $4.50 from Fuller- ton to downtown Los Angeles),'commuter rail service may very well require the least op- erating subsidy of all the transit modes analyzed. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction sed upon the analysis of the nineteen 1ternatives adopted by the OCTC in May of 980 and considering the findings and com- parisons presented in the previous sections of this report, a "package" of transit, highway and commuter rail improvements is proposed for further consideration. This package consists of those segments of the nineteen alternatives which rated highest in performance feasibility and cost effect- iveness in meeting the increasing transpor- tation demands in the Santa Ana Corridor over the next 15 years. The need for multi -modal improvements is great when considering that in 20 years Orange County has become the sixth most populous county in the United States and the second largest county in the State of California, while its transportation system �s not grown at anywhere near the same te. All indications of current economic growth and development, and forecasts of jobs and population reveal that the tremendous pres- sure for growth in Orange County will con- tinue. By 1995, the county population is projected to reach 2.6 million and employ- ment will grow to 1.25 million jobs. Continued economic vitality of the county requires that government agencies provide public services, facilities and infra- structure to support this continued growth demand. Access, mobility, capacity and level of service - all must be improved in order to maintain a transportation system that supports that vitality. Highway System • Findings 1. The Santa Ana Freeway, built 30 years ago, is inadequate not only in capacity but also in design and the soundness of its structural elements. Demand is such that it would not be possible to properly provide an adequate level of service for peak -hour traffic because of social, environmental and fiscal constraints. 2. The addition of an another travel lane in each direction on the Santa Ana Free- way would bring the freeway within con- temporary CalTrans design standards and would offer the capability of increasing the peak -hour capacity by about 25 percent. However, it should be recognized that the Santa Ana Freeway will be playing a smaller role for providing capacity for peak work trips. The freeway cannot be widened enough at any cost to provide adequate longterm capacity increases. 3. There are no longer any viable oppor- tunities for developing parallel freeway facilities in North Orange County. In South County, the analysis indicated tremendous overloading of the Santa Ana Freeway at low population densities be- cause it is the only major north -south facility in.the area, no supporting street system has been developed for shorter com- muter trips, and the I-405 and I-5 cor- ridors merge, feeding 14 lanes into 8. 9 Recommendations 1. The Santa Ana Freeway should be rehabili- tated and brought up to contemporary urban freeway standards. The Santa Ana Freeway should be widened to 8 lanes throughout Orange County. This widening should be extended throughout I-Sts length into Los Angeles County as well as throughout Orange County in order to maintain lane continuity and serve inter -regional automobile and truck traffic. A Parallel arterial street system in South 4. Transportation system management mea- sures including freeway ramp metering, signal coordination and other improve- ments on arterials should be initiated in North Count 27 Commuter Rail • Findings JM,Land use conditions and travel patterns Win the Santa Ana Corridor (especially n South County) and through to Los Angeles are such that commuter rail operations are particularly well suited to attract large volumes of trips. Past trends and future projections of rider- ship indicate that the Orange -Los Angeles County Corridor is quite competitive with other rail corridors being studied by CalTrans around the State as well as those currently in place and operating in other metropolitan areas around the country. With improvements in the com- muter rail service, as tested in Alter- natives 12, 13 and 19, daily ridership should be as high as 25,000. 2. The level of service assumed in this study was on the order of 15-minute service during peak periods in both rections and hourly service at other roes during the day. An operational analysis will have to be conducted during future studies to determine the most efficient means by which this level of service can be offered, The Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way from San Clemente through Orange County to Union Station Terminal in Los Angeles is wide enough throughout most of its length to accommodate a double track for exclusive use of passenger trains. However, there are several "bottleneck" sections where additional easements or parcel -takings would be required. 4. Interest in providing high speed grade - separated intercity service throughout Qe San Diego -Los Angeles Corridor and ncern about traffic safety may warrant e investment in additional grade separations. S. Existing and proposed stations are now located about every 4-5 miles throughout the length of the county. However, in some sections of the corridor, the spacing between stations is inadequate and insuf- ficient to make the system accessible and useful to the commuting public. Existing or proposed Orange County stations in Anaheim, Irvine and Santa Ana are or will be located 1-2 miles from the employment centers, too far for walking and not well served by existing bus schedules, poten- tially discouraging the use of rail commuting. • Recommendations 1, Count , regional, and State trans ortation sut or3.ties should immediately start work toward improving and increasing service between San Clemente and downtown Los Angeles, along the ATP,SF alignment on which Amtrak and Caltrak currently operate pas- senger train service. 2. Grade separations should be provided at major arterials where required to main- tain high speed service and reduce traffic and pedestrian safety problems. . 1 v , 28 • In addition to the development of com- muter rail stations in Mission Viejo, Irvine, and Anaheim, the feasibility of_ providi ding adtional rail stations in the vicinity of Buena Park and in Irvine should be explored. Improvements at existing and proposed stations could include additional platform area for potential expansion to three tracks and additional parking. Connecting bus service to stations should be improved, especially to those destina- tion stations in central Orange County where rail alignments are 1-2 miles from activity centers. 6. The efforts of the Tri-County Rail Committee and the coordination between Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego Counties to improve Amtrak and Caltrak's inter -regional service should continue. Fixed Guideway Transit • Findings •The rapid transit systems studied in Alternatives 6 and 8 consistently prove to be more successful and cost-effective transit corridor solutions than other transit alternatives considered, par- ticularly when compared with both busway and rail options on the Santa Ana Free- way itself. This is true because they serve more Orange County activity centers directly with high speed line -haul service. 2. The transit system's studies in Alterna- tives 6, 8 and 10 attracted more guideway ridership than any other alternative. Alternatives 6 and 8 attracted more rider- ship per mile and per dollar invested, primarily because they directly serve major areas of employment concentration. 3. The costs of building elevated structures for a busway on the Santa Ana Freeway result in very high costs per person trip. The inclusion of high -occupancy vehicles (HOV's)and the potential for construction of an at -grade busway located in the median of the freeway south of Myford Road in Irvine would tend to greatly reduce total costs per trip. 4. The construction of at -grade busways (for buses and carpools) on the Pacific Electric right-of-way would have limited opportunities for the expansion of capacity and would result in operational problems at major intersections if grade separations are not provided. The alignments tested in Alternative 6 and 8 can provide more capacity during peak hours at key activity areas where the need to serve large numbers of persons is the greatest. 29 6. A medium capacity rapid transit starter line is needed and is justifiable in its own right without connections to Los Angeles County, since analysis indi- •cates that such a system could have an overall ridership level of 45,000 daily riders by 1995. However, it is logical to provide a future connection to Los Angeles County to serve intra-county commute needs and provide an integrated regional rapid transit network. 7. The analysis did not conclusively indi- cate how the connection to Los Angeles County should be made (by the Pacific Electric Electric right-of-way to I-605 or by Beach Boulevard to the Santa Ana Freeway). 8. The South County portions of the rail transit alternatives were not projected to attract high enough ridership to make rail transit service cost-effective by 1995 based on land use and transporta- tion projections used in the analysis. commendations Based upon these findings, the following recommendations are made: 1. Detailed alternatives analysis, concept design and environmental analysis should be initiated immediately leading to the development of a medium capacity rapid transit guideway system in the north - south central corridor and the Pacific Electric corridor. The best potential for rapid transit guideway development is a general alignment which directly serves Orange County's major activity centers within the central corridor - Anaheim commercial/office/recreational complex, Anaheim stadium office/retail development, Santa Ana - North Main, Santa Ana CBD/Orange County Civic Center, outh Coast Plaza, Irvine Industrial/ ommercial Complex, and the Pacific Electric corridor serving Garden Grove and Stanton. A future rapid transit connection to Los Angeles is desirable, and Orange County agencies should work closely with those in Los Angeles County to assure the development of such a con- nection. These connections should be evaluated in the next stage of Alternatives Analysis. The.South County alignments should be retained for consideration as part of an extension from the core system. However,,these alignments should not be included in the analysis of the "starter line" corridor. 4. The local and express bus more serve as bus service will be vital to the success of rapid transit in the corridor because of the necessity to serve destinations beyond walking distance. 30 ,ew ✓+ M # 01 f J Ate, ar • �'„ C'irl' j.: ��7�• �.x tl. • 1, s'"' �. +/^ __���(\)\( A� fY �P inra ST? , I•�! ♦ \aY � 1 i,P�a_ ��� +y�F, `, t" ` 1 ``►w� ': +ate ,•. S / � �,"�" k �1Rr�/�; r.'�p 5ct ^jP�=9=� � 11 •yam, ` \; '9"•(�r `� �R••i.i _./ ei"'4g''' r'� n:n ` ; y �,} ..33F �r ?aTt�Y 1 • .1 �,5,. •,(': ri r \. �• 1,� pv; Vol CORRIDOR RECOMMENDATIONS HIGHWAY WIDENING COMMUTER RAIL IMPROVEMENTS uunnunuu RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDOR IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII • ALIGNMENT TO BE DEFINED ) RAPID TRANSIT ALIGNMENT ON PACIFIC ELECTRIC R.O.W. LOS ANGELES COUNTY T CONNECTION 31 Other Recommendations Many of the transit alternatives in this study have been oriented to activity cen- 4prs where increased peak -hour capacity is eded most and where transit can work best. this basis, the transit alternatives included in the Santa Ana Transportation Corridor improvement program can play a key role in shaping growth in the county and creating an opportunity for guiding the tre- mendous pressure for development to key points where high capacity access can be provided. To support the emphasis in util- izing transit as a major travel mode in the future, it is recommended that the cities and county consider the following actions: 1. Continue to Pursue a land use Plan which is integrated and complementary to the capabilities of the transportation im- provements included in the proposed transportation improvement package. Concentrations of employment should be encouraged in the vicinity of transit stations and discouraged elsewhere. In addition, planning for increased housing and population densities to accommodate the anticipated growth should be encouraged in rapid transit corridors and discouraged outside of rapid transit corridors. 2. Evaluate impacts on land use, general plans, redevelopment plans and zoning ordinances to take full advantage of the access and capacity offered by rapid transit to improve peak hour mobility. 3. Additional rapid transit guideway seg- ments should continue to be analyzed as potential candidates for system expansion, including connections with Los Angeles County. is Project Costs The major elements of the proposed Trans- portation Improvement package are the rapid transit starter line, commuter rail improve- ments and widening of I-5 throughout Santa Ana County. A summary of the approximate costs associated with these elements is given below. Transportation Capital Costs Costs (in 1980 Elements dollars) Rapid Transit Starter Line $485 million Commuter Rail 672 million Highway Widening 394 million/ Total Program 1,551 million l/ Costs do not include full provision for parking facilities as they may eventually be required. 2/ Cost includes $40 million for new arterials in South County. Implementation costs for TSM proposals would add $467 million and the OCTC five- year program of projects currently approved for this corridor would add another $39 million. In addition, resurfacing the existing six -lane Santa Ana freeway could cost $54 million. These are initial estimates based on general concepts and reflect the expected magnitude of proposed transportation improvement cost. 32 THE NEXT STEPS Stage I Completion/Community participation n November 10, 1980, the technical recom- mendations for improvements in the Santa Ana Transportation Corridor will be pre- sented at the first joint meeting of the Orange County Transportation Commission and the Orange County Transit District Board. The recommendations described to the Commission and the Board on November 10 will be as stated in this summary report, and are based on the technical analysis conducted by engineers and plan- ners on the inter -agency study team over the past year. The joint Commission and Board meeting will not result in any de- cisions relative to the recommended pro- gram, but rather will be the start of a rocess of full review and discussion of e findings and recommendations in various' ublic meetings and workshops. A Citizens Task Force has previously been formed to review the process and recommen- dations of Stage I. Their work will con- tinue to expand following the November 10 presentation. Four major community work- shops are scheduled in January, 1981 to present the findings of the study. A particular effort through the media and public announcements will be made to urge the general public to attend and partici- pate in these workshops. Public debate over issues identified in the study will be encouraged, and the staff of the Trans- portation Commission and the Transit District will be working over the next two enths with community, civic and business oups and elected officials to collect public opinion, input and responses. In the meantime, the technical analysis will be reviewed with federal, state, and regional transportation authorities. This review process will insure that the views of government agencies and the public will be presented to the Commission and the Board prior to their decisions in February, 1981. In February of 1981, the Transportation Commission and the Transit District Board will then make the initial decisions about the nature of the corridor improvement and will approve the draft final technical re- port. Once these initial decisions are made, the draft final technical report will be formally submitted to the appropriate federal agencies for their final review and comments prior to adopting the final Stage I technical report in April or May, 1981. Stage II *Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Impact Statement The recommendations contained in this re- port are based on a technical analysis of the potential performance of a wide vari- ety of highway, transit, commuter rail and TSM options for improving transportation in the Santa Ana corridor. They reflect the technical judgment of the engineers and planners as to which actions and pro- jects show the greatest potential for in- creasing the capacity and level of service in this corridor. A major element of the Stage II work, as required by both the Federal Highway Admin- istration (FHWA) and Urban Mass Transit Administration (UMTA) and described ear- lier in this report, is the analysis and evaluation of detailed corridor alterna- tives. The recommendations of Phase I are general in nature, identifying those alternatives or portions of alternatives from among the nineteen studied that demonstrate the greatest potential as part of an overall improvement program. 33 , Stage II will define these alternatives in detail, identifying specific routes and alignments, station locations, and neces- sary facilities to provide a complete idor system under each candidate rnative. This will allow an accurate estimate of system development costs and a detailed assessment of specific local neighborhood and community environmental impacts. The recommendations contained in this re- port do not reflect a detailed assessment of potential environmental impacts con- nected with any of the improvements in the program. Before final decisions can be made to implement the recommended improve- ments, potential environmental impacts will have to be considered. The Stage II work scheduled to begin soon after the fi- nal report is adopted in April or May will include the preparation of a Draft Environ- i1 Impact Statement (DEIS). The alternatives to be studied and assessed in Stage II include: Highway Widening: Physical requirements and environmental impacts connected with widening of the Santa Ana Freeway will be examined. Commuter Rail: Commuter rail service similar to Alternative 12 will require specific definition of facility improvements necessary for implementation. Busway and HOV Lanes: Alternate designs of the busway/HOV concept within North County as represented by Alternatives 3 and 4 will be evaluated. Guideway Transit: Similarly, several native designs in the rapid transit corridor will be examined from a detailed performance and environmental perspective. They will all reflect the North County versions of Alternatives 6 and 8. The alternative designs studied will include a variety of specific alignments, station locations, and vehicle technologies as 34 described in the concept design phase discussed below. _ TSM: Busway and rapid rail alternatives will be compared with non -capital inten- sive options included in the "Transporta- tion Systems Management" alternative. The alternative, including an "all -bus" transit improvement, will be studied both to assure the advantages of major capital improvement over TSM as well as to study low-cost im= provement projects for near -term implemen- tation. "Do -Nothing": In addition, the "null" or "do-nothing" approach will be included as a baseline comparison of the improvements in accessibility, capacity, and level of service offered by the alternatives. This alternative is required by both Federal and California environmental regulations. A detailed description of these alternatives, along with a work program and citizen action plan, will be developed for public review and public hearings before these studies are begun in the spring of 1981. pConcept Design The technical work conducted during the past year focused on general improvements which appeared to be the best among the many considered. The studies assessed general overall feasibility, and did not represent detailed proposals of alignments, station locations, vehicle systems, etc. In order to accurately portray actual anticipated service and system development costs associated with each alternative, concept design will be conducted for the selected Stage II alternatives. The outcome of this phase of work will be a detailed proposal for the design of a package of transportation improvements in the corridor based on the detailed analy- sis, the DEIS, and public involvement. Upon approval, these system elements will then be ready for preliminary final engi- neering and, ultimately, implementation. *Other Studies Other studies will also be conducted to resolve a variety of pending issues. The Isost important of these issues is the avelopment of alternative financing plans for funding the proposed improvements. Now that the ultimate need for improve- ments in the corridor is better under- stood, and assuming general agreement on the scope of the program, the financing alternatives can be considered and evalu- ated. Program Implementation Assuming that the public, the cities, the Transportation Commission, and the Transit District Board agree to implement selected highway, commuter rail and fixed guideline projects, it will be necessary to proceed through several years of preliminary engi- neering, final design, construction and equipment procurement. Although an overall schedule has not been completed for the entire package of recommended improvements, a preliminary schedule for the design and construction of the fixed guideline pro- ject is shown below as being illustrative of the general process. The schedule shown assumes the use of federal funds and indicates that a rapid transit system could be operational by late 1988. MASTER PROJECT SCHEDULE • Phase I Rapid Transit Project 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1988 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1� u STAGEI: —Al i ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS lIIIIYBINIWN STAGE II: ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS GUIDEWAY CONCEPTLWL �Y PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING FINAL EIS FINAL DESIGN & PREPARE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS CONSTRUCTION & CAR PROCUREMENT �Ill��:w.:�illl SYSTEM & OPERATIONAL TESTING & TRAINING I�N�I 35 Fact Sheet SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS STUDY • The Problem o The Santa Ana Freeway, the primary transportation corridor in Orange County is breaking down under severe congestion on 18 miles of its 52-mile length within the County, with average speeds of less than 20 mph. 0 800,000 residents, or almost half the County's population, live and work within three miles of the Santa Ana Freeway and are dependent upon it. o It is the major artery between Los Angeles and San Diego with trucks accounting for up to 13.5 percent of all daily traffic. 0 Completed more than 25 years ago, the freeway now is inadequate in its capacity, design and structural soundness. 0 12 lanes, not six, are needed to handle the projected demand, but relocating homes and businesses to permit widening to this extent may not be socially, environmentally or fiscally acceptable. • Recommendations o Rapid Transit: - Begin concept design and environmental analysis work on a 24-mile rapid transit "starter line" from Anaheim through Santa Ana to Irvine with a branch through Garden Grove to Beach Boulevard. - The four rapid transit technologies best suited for Orange County's environment and population densities are: automated guideway transit, light -rail (modern trolleys), 'busways and monorail. - Some portions would operate at ground level while other portions would be elevated above street traffic. o Highway Improvements: - Resurface and widen Santa Ana Freeway from six to eight lanes throughout Orange County. - Build parallel corridors in south county to reduce reliance on • freeway. o Amtrak Commuter Rail Improvements - Increase rush tour frequencies to every 15 minutes. - Double tracks throughout County to avoid conflicts with freight traffic. Build over- and underpasses at all major (arterial) streets. Add new stations at Mission Viejo, Irvine, Anaheim and Buena Park. . o Transportation System Management Improvements - In north county, widen major (arterial) streets, coordinate traffic signals, install ramp meters to freeway, build park -and -ride lots. - Expand OCTD's local and express bus system from 497 buses to 800-1,000 buses. o Other Recommendations: - Encourage complimentary land -uses, concentrating employment around transit stations and discourage high densities elsewhere. - Study additional extensions of the rapid transit system, including connections with Los Angeles County. Costs o Rapid Transit Starter Line $485 million •o Highway Widening & New Corridors 394 million o Amtrak Commuter Rail & Stations 672 million o Transportation Systems Management _ 467 million TOTAL PROGRAM COSTS $2.018 billion 0 0 THE IRVINE CWPAW 550 Newport Center Drive, P.O. Box I Newport Beach, California 92663 (714) 644-3011 . October 3, 1950 Brian Pearson, Staff Director -Service Development Orange County Transit District 11222 Acacia Parkway Garden Grove, CA 92642 Subject: Santa Ana Transportation Corridor - Phase 1 Dear Mr. Pearson: As a follow-up to our September 29th meeting, I would like to formally request that Newport Center be included in any analysis by the District regarding the extent of the Phase 1 advanced transit system for the County. We understand that this analysis may be initiated after the November 10 joint O.C.T.D./O.C.T.C, meeting. We believe that inclusion of Newport Center in the Phase 1 improvements has merits • for the following reasons: 1) Newport Center provides a unique opportunity for transit service due to its dense employment base (11,000 existing/17,000 future) primarily located around a loop road which could be utilized for a shuttle system between the transit station and the office buildings. 2) In addition to its employment base, the Fashion Island shopping center provides another major destination point for transit riders which would result in utilization of the system throughout the day. 3) If properly designed, the transit terminal could be combined with a park-n- ride lot for Newport Beach residents and thus function as both a major origin and destination for transit trips. 4) The existing O.C.T.C. bus stop in Fashion Island also functions as a major transfer station. Therefore, a Newport Center terminal could directly inter- face with this transfer station and provide improved transit service to coastal employment and recreational uses as well as improving ridership to the central County destinations. IF5) While it is acknowledged that any transit service must be justified by home -to -work weekday patronage, any terminal which can supplement ridership during low ridership periods (i.e., weekends) has some additional merit. As such, the Newport Center terminal could function as a staging area for weekend recreational trips and help increase the overall partronage of the system. Brian Pearson Staff Director -Service Development Orange County Transit District October 3, 1980 • age Two r 6) The cost per mile for implementation from the Airport to Newport Center , would appear to be significantly lower than the rest of the system (i.e., Santa Ana to Costa Mesa) due to available R/W such as along MacArthur Blvd. which was previously reserved for extension of the Corona del Mar Freeway. In summary, we b, significantly ei project. We app, forward to workii Very truly yours ul' irectora W. Stiles of Engii DWS/nb *cc: Tom Nielsen Bob 'Shelton Ron Hendricl John Boslet 10 Transportation Corridor Alternatives Analysis �o�a0 ppo�c�c�f�oo�� Released for Public Review by the Orange County Transportation Commission June, 1980 1• I• is 10 �0 P" u SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT 2 ZONAL PROJECTIONS The preparation of this report was funded in part through a grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation -Urban s Mass Transportation Administration, under the Urban Mass Transportation Administration Act of 1964, as amended. U I• 10 1• El 13 10 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER/SECTION I. Introduction II. Procedure for Aggregating and Disaggregating MMTS Zones A. Identification of Data Resources B. Data Analysis C. Disaggregating and Aggregating Procedures III. Socio-Economic Data Within the New SATCAA Zone System IV. Inventory of General Plan Data APPENDIX 1. SATCAA Study Area Zones Outside Orange County 2. SATCAA Zonal Projections Outside Orange County PAGE 1 1 3 3 4 5 108 125 131 i* F-3 U3 10 10 10 1 !' i0 LIST OF FIGURES TITLE PAGE 1. Multimodal Transportation Study Zone System 2 2. Santa Ana Transportation Corridor Alternatives Analysis 8 LIST OF TABLES TITLE PAGE 1. Santa Ana Transportation Corridor Alternatives Analysis Zonal Projections, Sec. I. 47 (for following variables: single-family dwelling units, multiple family dwelling units, total population, lower income population, retail employment, total employment) 2. Santa Ana Transportation Corridor Alternatives Analysis Zonal Projections, Sec. II. 78 (for remaining variables: group quarter population, acres, workers by residence, median income ($1976), low income dwelling units, a-crage parking cost) LIST OF MAPS TITLE PAGE 1. Santa Ana Transportation Corridor Alternatives Analysis Zone Boundary Maps. 9 0 I it. 14P I! li I* ID if �f Introduction This technical report contains a description of the zone system that has been developed for use in the Santa Ana Transportation Corridor Alternatives Analysis (SATCAA). The report also contains the zonal projections of socio-economic and land use data which will be used in preparing travel forecasts for the corridor. The next chapter of this report includes a description of how the traffic analysis zone system of the Multi -Modal Transport- ation Study (MMTS) was modified to develop a more refined zone system for the Santa Ana corridor. The third chapter of the report contains an inventory of general plan data for cities located within the corridor. This numerical interpreta- tion of land use policies provided detailed land use and density information used in the aggregation and disaggregation process. II. Procedure for Aggregating and Disaggregating MMTS Zones This section contains a description of the procedures that were used to disaggregate and aggregate the MMTS traffic analysis zonal system for the Santa Ana Transportation Corridor Alternatives Analysis. The resultant zonal system is more refined within the corridor and will facilitate the development of more detailed travel forecasts for the Santa Ana Corridor. Since the MMTS traffic analysis zone system was tailored for usage in determining county -wide travel, its overall configura- tion is not particularly well suited for single corridor analysis (See Figure 1). Therefore, a procedure for revising the size and uniformity of the MMTS zone system was needed to make it more useful for this Alternatives Analysis. Therefore, most zone modifications centered on disaggregating MMTS zones within the corridor to facilitate more detailed analysis. On the other hand, MMTS zones outside of the corridor boundary were aggregated because analysis would be more generalized on the periphery and, also, the total number of SATCAA zones needed to be held relatively close to the MMTS total. Of the 270 MMTS zones in Orange County, 144 zones fall within the corridor while 121 zones are outside of the corridor. In addition, there are also 126 MMTS zones located in Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. To maintain an appro- priate balance between the total number of the SATCAA zones and the number originally used for MMTS, the total number of SATCAA zones was held to 320 zones. The following steps were utilized in the aggregation-disaggregation process. -1- I n figure 1 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTAT20N STODT ZONE SYSTEM Is 4 0 ♦ 0 11 � F* 14 Ic li 10 W A. Identification of Data Resources As a prerequisite to conducting zonal aggregation and disaggregation, an investigation of land use and socio- economic data resources was conducted. In addition to the WITS projections and data, existing and proposed local land use plans and transportation system character- istics such as potential park -and -ride stations, were identified. Existing and projected land uses (commercial, residential, industrial and vacant), general plan recommendations, generalized zoning, and specific development plans were mapped for use in identifying homogenous areas and potential zonal boundaries. Special generators, such as colleges, were also located for later use in disaggregating zones. B. Data Analysis After all major data sources were identified and mapped, project staff conducted an analysis of the land use, population, and employment information. In general, the analysis showed that levels of urban density and patterns of activity vary widely from the northwestern part of the county to the newly developing areas of southern Orange County. The following significant land use characteristics and trends were identified within the corridor area. Higher population densities, and subsequently higher percentages of multiple family dwelling units and low income households were more readily found in the developed northern and northwestern portions of the county. By comparison, the urban portions of southern and central county have lower residential densities and higher percentages of high income households. There is no predominant central business district located in Orange County. Most of the commercial developments and shopping centers are located along major arterial roads and near freeway interchanges, often in close proximity to residential areas. Industrial areas are generally concentrated in large tracts such as Anaheim Industrial, East Irvine Industrial, Buena Park Industrial, etc. Since these are sizable tracts, they can be easily separated from nearby commercial and residential areas. _3- C. Disaggregatiog and Aggregating Procedures In order to develop sufficiently detailed travel forecasts for the Santa Ana Transportation Corridor, the original MMTS zones within the corridor area were disaggregated into smaller SATCAA zones and zones outside the corridor area were aggregated into larger SATCAA zones. During the disaggregation process, consideration was given to the following criteria: 1. For the validation of travel forecasts of the new zone system, the smaller SATCAA zone was defined to be as homogenous as possible. Efforts were made to limit zones to only one type of land use or demo- graphic characteristic. Therefore, the industrial zones within the corridor were separated from commercial or residential zones, while, at the same time, medium or high density residential zones were separated from lower density residential zones. 2. Major arterial roads, freeways, railroad ways, or other physical barriers were utilized as much as possible for zonal boundaries. 3. Attempts were made to limit smaller zones to only one shopping center, potential transit station or park -and -ride lot. 4. Areas requiring more detailed and specialized studies, such as downtown Santa Ana and South Coast Plaza, were disaggregated into the smallest zones possible. 5. Land identified as currently vacant was disaggre- gated on the basis of its proposed use. The aggregating procedure was carried out with methodologies that were similar to those applied in disaggregation. The following criteria were used in this process: 1. Each larger zone was kept as homogenous as possible. 2. Each larger zone would have its boundaries on major arterial roads, freeways, or major physical con- straints such as ridges or streams. 3. Each larger zone would be connected by at least one major access route to the rest of the system. S 0- -4- i* Ir 1* it 14 1! Or li rl As a result of the disaggregation and aggregation procedures, a total of 320 SATCAA zones were designated for the new zone system in Orange County (Figure 2). The original 143 MMTS zones within the corridor area were disaggregated into 248 SATCAA zones (Nos. 501-748), and 137 MMTS zones outside the corridor area were aggregated into 72 SATCC zones (No. 801- 872). For the study area outside of Orange County, the original MMTS zones remained intact, i.e. 131 zones (no. 31-161). III. Socio-Economic Data within the New SATCAA Zone System New SATCAA socio-economic data, based on the MMTS data was developed for both base and target years. This section contains a description of the assumptions and methodologies that were used to disaggaegate and aggregate the original MMTS data for this alternatives analysis. Population The population of each SATCAA zone was determined to be the number of residents living within its boundaries. Staff assumed that the average number of persons living in both multiple -family dwelling units and single-family dwelling units remained constant as projected at the Community Analysis Area level. The total population in each disaggregated SATCAA zone was calculated based on the average number of persons per household multiplied by the number of both multiple -family and single-family dwelling units within the zone. Percentages for each of these two types of dwelling units were estimated by comparing the amount of residential land in an SATCAA zone to that in the original MMTS zone. Since the number of single- and multiple -family dwelling units can be estimated through comparison of land uses, therefore, X = (persons/SDU) x (no. of SDU) x (% of SDU in SATCAA) Y = (persons/MDU) x (no. of MDU) x (% of MDU in SATCAA) and the total population of the disaggregated zone = X + Y. Lower -Income Population The fundamental assumption used in estimating lower income population was that the lower income population is closely related to the level of urban density and total population. For instance, if a SATCAA zone has a large population and a high percentage of multiple - family dwelling units, then, the size of lower income population would be expected to be quite large. Based on the location of the lowest of the three original MMTS income groups, the SATCAA lower income population was calculated by means of comparing the population in SATCAA zones to that found in the original MMTS zones as follows: •5- STION AREA 70NES Figure 2 r _ A p t • s p i M. w t .•" .• , ta Opp sob .�,^i - � • as s + , '+, 'p ps SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS r i •++ 0 r 0 li I .t 10 16 �-0 p Lower SATCAA Original MMTS Lower SATCAA Populations Income Population ( Income Population) x ( MMTS Populations ) C. Employment Industrial and commercial land use information was used as a major source for readjusting the SATCAA employment data. The number of jobs in industrial and commercial areas were estimated separately based on levels of land use. Staff concluded that higher percentages of retail employment would be found in commercial areas and the majority of the non -retail employment jobs would be found in industrial areas. The first step in determining the allocation of employment to each SATCAA zone was to analyze whether there were industrial, or commercial uses located within each SATCAA zone. Next, staff identified amounts for different land use categories. At this point, the percentages of commercial land and industrial land in each SATCAA zone were estimated by utilizing the original MMTS zonal information. For instance, if the SATCAA zone included both commercial and industrial lands, then the total employment would be the sum of the retail and non -retail industrial employment jobs within the zone. That is: SATCAA Retail Employment = (total MMTS retail employment in zone) x (percentage of commercial land use in SATCAA zone/percent- age of commercial land use in the MMTS zone) SATCAA Non -Retail Employment = (total MMTS non -retail employment in zone) x (percentage of non -retail land use in SATCAA zone/percent- age of non -retail land use in the MMTS zone). Therefore, the total employment in one SATCAA zone would be the sum of the retail and non -retail employment jobs. In addition, special generators, such as shopping centers, hospitals, civic centers or airports were taken into consideration in estimating the percentage of both retail and, non -retail employment. As a result of this analysis process, 1995 projections were developed for the SATCAA at the new zonal level, for the following variables: r .7- t 1. Single-family dwelling units 2. Multiple -family dwelling units 3. Total population 4. Lower income population 5. Retail employment 6. Total employment 7. Group quarter population S. Acres 9. Workers by residence 10. Median income ($1976) 11. Low income dwelling units 12. Median income dwelling units 13. High income dwelling units 14. Average parking cost. This information has been included on the following 60 tables and 37 maps for both aggregated and disaggregated SATCAA zones. As a final check, local city staff will review the socio-economic information to ensure its accuracy and compatibility with local plans and character- istics. iI *I M ,0 R 4 ION SAITA ANA TRINSPORTATCORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS INDEX TO ZONE BOUNDARY MAPS NAME OF AREA/JURISDICTION MAP NUMBER NAME OF AREA/JURISDICTION MAP NUMBER ANAHEIM 2, 3,4, 8, 9 LOS ALAMITOS 5 BREA 1, 6 MISSION VIEJO 25,29,30931,32 BUENA PARK 2, 3 NEWPORT BEACH 16, 22 CAPISTRANO BEACH 369 37 ORANGE 8, 9, 13 COSTA MESA 10, 11, 14, 15, 16 ORTEGA 34, 35 CYPRESS 4 PLACENTIA 6, 8 DANA POINT 27, 33 SADDLEBACK 269 32 EL TORO 25, 31 SAN CLEMENTE 36, 37 FOUNTAIN VALLEY 10, 11, 12 SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO 32, 339 36 FULLERTON 1, 2, 39 69 8 SANTA ANA 9, 10, 13, 149 15 GARDEN GROVE 3, 4, 9, 109 11 SEAL BEACH 5 HUNTINGTON BEACH 5, 12, 16 SILVERADO - MODJESKA 23 IRVINE 13914,15916,20,21,26 SOUTH COUNTY CANYON 28, 29930934,35 IRVINE SUBDIVISION 13917,18,20924,25,31 STANTON 4 LAGUNA BEACH 22, 27 SUNSET BEACH 12 LAGUNA HILLS 229 26, 27 TUSTIN 13 LA HABRA 1 VILLA PARK 19 LAKE FOREST 25 WESTMINSTER 11 LA PALMA 3 4 IL 0 • 503mme • q 502 • •a • County L WTS-162.163 SATCAA-801 rM i CbT �n 1 w MMITS-164,16S SATCAA-802 Imperial Wy. =71P TRwrwrr oaRTw�cr 501 A.) il MMTS-166,167,168 � w 3t d SATCAA-803 mperial Hwy 1 ! Rolling SpjCM"0* 1 View LEGEND Corridor Boundary ■ 1 ■ 11 ■ 1 Disaggregated Zones � = m m m Aggregrated Zones t t i 0 12 1 mile A\ for adjacent 2 areas, see maps SATE 773 • _ ' 526 ZONE SYSTEM MAP 1 FULLERTON, LA HABRA, BREA 1 SAnM-go? ; SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS fb yr 0 iv .S 1'* 0 10 0 r F.4-,ex , 1 "J� 4 rl vo5.112+113 st1,cwao 7 Corridor Boundary • Disaggregated Zones Aggregrated Zones 0 — --3 mile \ 1 8 for adjacent, 3 areas, see maps 5100 �i0,�•��lo ,l00a1Jec ada Ma1ae 9yAy h�u 50 y!?. 0� � �'►�a1e �QF1 w 7' �� �tl� � _A i� pV� ZONE SYSTEM MAP 2 SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR �wwr o�sTw�T BUENA PARK, FULLERTON, ANAHEIM ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS N N I FA a U <5x-ti 140 PACIFIC RaGTA �wn�xr a-,r-4 wr 0- you �� ♦r vas _ �'� _� tG o 35 Qa1�♦♦♦ IC,R.0:w. 10 1 LEGEND - Corridor Boundary �,�q ♦♦♦ I • N ■ 111 Disaggregated Zones ,'♦♦ �5 Aggregrated Zones c�61 D 1 mile :+ �s for adjacent Y 4 areas, see snaps ♦ 55°� I►1'?y A5�10;�A all 6 �a ' 31 1 ► ; 'q65 s I92l', LuNt JTJItm MAP 3 BUENA PARK, FULLERTON, LA PALMA, ANAHEIM, GARDEN GROVE SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 0 0 4 W /it 4% PACIFIC ELEC w 4" o c.� ..i LEGEND _ Corridor Boundary • Disaggregated Zones Aggregrated.Zones 0 1 mile A 5=9 for adjacent areas, see wraps ���' �� S•S81 gad S�,'$9 $c�U � I ORANGE COUNTY =CTU ZONE SYSTEM MAP4 SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION LA PALMA, CYPRESS, ANAHEIM, STANTON, CORRIDOR T o��Twor GARDEN GROVE ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS N A f 41. 1-1 O.Jr.10 Twwp-mrr n -I, Im LEGEND Corridor Boundary 16 • ■ • ■ • 0isaggregated Zones Aggregrated Zones Rti1 Z Sly 0 11 1 mile ff , !q 12 for adjacent Oka areas, see in ZONE SYSTEM M A P 5 SEAL BEACH, HUNTINGTON BEACH, LOS ALAMITOS too to SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS fo w LEGEND Corridor Boundary Disaggregated Zones . Aggregrated Zones t i l 0 County Line (L.A.) v if County Line (L,A .) z 1 mile 1 co5-162.163 rE MMTS-166.167,168 TUA-801 i q 1 7 for adjacent IL � a IL 2 areas, see maps SPT Co.1 1 :. Lambed s W S-164.165 A SATCAA-802 c �' 0 d � Imperial they Imperial Hwy. 1 F)p ` rial NTS-182.183 1 Rolling Hills �� 501 1 SATCAA-807 1 C ANODE COOUNTr � ZONE SYSTEM MAP 6 SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION FULLERTON, BREA, PLACENTIA �wCORRIDOR APMrrn-TR1Ur ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS LEGEND Corridor Boundary Disaggregated Zones County Line (S,B,) Aggregrated Zones l � i 0 1 mile + '1 a 6 17 for adjacent tom' B areas, see maps 0 a fir 1� !� •181 o a• 91 ANOE COUNTY ZONE SYSTEM M A P 7 SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION =lnm YORBA LINDA CORRIDOR twwNa�To,�Tw�cr ALTERNA`fIVES ANALYSIS & (a t/ ,0 • r r r • V i <iu 4iA ( =12 ' ToCr ♦♦ NO +NBS ♦ 'es' gpB �SP�pPP" ZONE SYSTEM MAP 8 FULLERTON, PLACENTIA,•ANAHEIM, ORANGE LEGEND Corridor Boundary ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ N Disaggregated Zones m =m = . Aggregrated Zones 0 11 1mile + 2 13 for adjacent g 1 areas. see maps SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ♦♦` ��c• °�' a �011 LEGEND Corridor Boundary Qt �;,♦♦ e asp N �� • • • 8 ■ ■ • Disaggregated Zones ,�� ♦ ��0'e�'j h�� 0 5u ENI ♦ �. Aggregrated Zones �1 Ir ♦� v�r� hOv` �oF Ja �� 0 3� —1 mile !♦ SACRA c �v� , ♦ 253 8 13 for adjacent '' MN ,�♦�'.ti° �, 10 areas, see snaps 03 IV AO tz v ♦ �o ANOE COUNTY CTA ZONE SYSTEM MAP 9 SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION o• CORRIDOR +T ANAHEIM, GARDEN GROVE, ORANGE, SANTA ANA ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS r r r ♦ C R. '�P 9'0;1 =."I ttu►Nerr o�sTwKsr 141 PACIFI S. ECTRIC 00 d j6d! 6h W SP�c pro es S St•�o' C Qa ►♦'''°? 0 6 cFaa 6u6 .; 6 ZONE SYSTEM MAP 10 GARDEN GROVE, COSTA MESA, SANTA ANA, FOUNTAIN VALLEY LEGEND Corridor Boundary ■I Disaggregated Zones a• a■ a■ a Aggregrated Zones 0 —� mile '+ a 9 for adjacent la 11 areas, see maps 6wu \Ll!�' 6u�J / oN 6w", Out l lk *i 6 O 5�,. Adr v, fp� SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS i 0& S-0 e 4yo 0 1o1 i • mi LEGEND Corridor Boundary 1 / ■ ■ B ■ ■ Di saggregated Zones m m m Aggregrated Zones 0 mile �+ 4 10 14 for adjacent 12 areas, see v ZONE SYSTEM M A P 11 SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION Msl � GARDEN GROVE, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CORRIDOR uTwwr COSTA MESA, WESTMINSTER ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ar 0 0 0 0 • 0 i M n • 11 f,s fv c�• PACIFIC OCEAN 10-UX �ww T ourrw 1wr ZONE SYSTEM FA SUNSET BEACH, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, HUNTINGTON BEACH LEGEND Corridor Boundary Disaggregated Zones Aggregrated Zones a I. l 0 1 mile for adjacent areas, see maps Coast Hry, SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS I N N LEGEND �� ; �,e.�9 ♦; _Corridor Boundary ; F Disaggregated Zones Ctb h ♦ c°,1 P1MTS-324 Aggregrated Zones ye 6Q`l. ar SATCAA-824 c,°�♦♦ J� 0 0 mile g 19 20 for adjacent as dA �jr��ve " a�,7,��,' WTS-32 14 areas. see maps 9� 9�A Fa QQ� g;;♦♦ Skyline SATCAA-82F .a `� aye ♦♦ WTS-258 f ♦ �'� ire ♦♦♦ QQ� La CoT ina SATCAA_ 612 826 WTS-25! Irvine SATfAq_f ■�/I/N■ ne 613 . L 4 9 lip" ♦651 �♦60� �� �1 ■Riiii L 652 0 653 ♦ 6 614 °° . 6 6�1 Q`L`L ♦ 91 11�.1_ r s�� bti� �; r� ♦ h`�� .o _ �c�Is 661 , _... S ANDE COUNTY ZONE SYSTEM MAP 13 SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION OCTA CORRIDOR ORANGE, TUSTIN, IRVINE, SANTA ANA, * amT =T IRVINE SUBDIVISION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS W 0 i As M ♦♦ ",�wr v- C Lro spy♦ �rL� a�°� y���� Walnut LEGEND �o,�♦j♦ A♦♦ Leo' y `�„A�o �o`L �h`L 663. _Corridor Boundary ■ •, ■ 5 N 1 Disaggregated Zones od Lr ��� �� �a'�,� • Aggregrated Zones of 'S ♦ �* ♦ .-m ti ••6'� 1:'''�� Go�~a G�:j♦♦ ~O' �°�� t o =m 6 0 � ,rile �. . 0 . W u s� O ♦ tie 7O 13 ��� �� v� ♦♦ ��1 �� ^ Bcrr 10611 2i for adjacent m areas. see maps r ' as ��"�♦ rn w 6ya ;:;���F ��a o et ,.a�o�� rA1 ♦ �q'� Alton an ,,Ulf `�� ♦ A m y 672 �u0 et ♦j € > ,r y v�a`� ♦� �� 668 R ot�oo too vp 3A�` fo���= ���` mY�, vd�ol 6o`L♦ � L- 687 e P ♦ ev ♦ b =i an ��ete ♦♦a�yv v� 1° ♦ zm 695. a� 686 c�� ♦��A �J�k cud ,GO _ 0 6$4 O� rim v ORANGE couNTY 'ZONE SYSTEM MAP 14 SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION oCTal SANTA ANA, IRVINE, COSTA MESA CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS e 0 PIN wormomm a i to1n6E r �m\ tEs-€. ea Y0 •=aW G6d7 F N p r� 3 -pm • E95 0 68q cpp Tj s- a. �� ci. a _ OFt _ LEGEND - Corridor Boundary • Disaggregated Zones �� • m . Aggregrated Zones 0 1 Nile �+ 14 for adjacent 0311 21 16 areas, see s W. y- -� ♦ MMTS-298 P,��PQ ♦ 1 SATCAA-86 S_29 864 ,� 1 SpTCM- 1 MMTS-297 SATCAA463 1 ANOE COUNTY ZONE SYSTEM MAP 15 SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION SANTA ANA, COSTA MESA, IRVINE CORRIDOR L To*f*K-`r ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS i • M • i • i • • • .20 WTS-298 a its •00606w• ew *pop' v4fj/ i LEGEND - Corridor Boundary ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Disaggregated Zones a Aggregrated Zones L 1 1 0 � 1 mile .+� 15 12 for adjacent 22 areass seen PACIFIC OCEAM - ZONE SYSTEM M A P 16 SANTA AN A TRANSPORTATION S COSTA MESA, HUNTPNGTON BEACH CORRIDOR TRANum oinTplar NEWPORT BEACH, IRVINE ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 1 BERNARDINO COUNTY County Line (S.B.) WTS-191 SA-fCAA-815 qA �fr O.JS-�.g11 Spy T" v 1510 P MKTS - 198, 200 SATCAA - 816 ZONE SYSTEM IRVINE SUB -DIVISION LEGEND - Corridor Boundary ■ N • N ■ ■ ■ Di saggregated Zones �. Aggregrated Zones 0 1 mile 3 18 for adjacent 19 areas, see m WTS-19B,20O SATCAA-816 M A P 17 SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS t 10 10 0 0 10 !, 0 • r • i i i i i N v MMTS - 198, 200 SATCAA - 816 Co�cr/ TwwNltlr o�sTwICT MMTS - 201, 219 SATCAA - 830 ZONE SYSTEM IRVINE SUB —DIVISION LEGEND — Corridor Boundary Disaggregated Zones Aggregrated Zones 1 i l 0 i 1 mile 17 23 for adjacent 19 areas, see m M A P 18 SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS c c u 99 2 MMTS - 108,200 SATCAA- 816 M c _ gti% 4� LJ MATS-324 '•`a•��� SATCAA-824 ,SPA Coa ZONE SYSTEM VILLA PARK tww�rr ohKw�cT LEGEND - Corridor Boundary Disaggregated Zones Aggregrated Zones 1 t 1 0 3� 1 mile 7 17 P4 for adjacent 20 areas, see m �on ago MdTS - 258 SATCAA - 826 MfiTS -259 i SATCAA 827 c M A P 19 SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS t 0 19 to 0 • • • 4b S-325 CMMTS-259AA-825 MMTS-258 -' olina SATCAA-826 SATCAA-827 om m v� 0 651 w: 652 n Xm m m w b� 664. 669=� 670 - - Pkwy A . WTS-260 SATCAA-828 i 653 654 ; 655 b i w� M4 } �= c FRF�✓AY = 673 &S.F. wR.R, 674 LEGEND Corridor Boundary ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Disaggregated Zones Aggregrated Zones 0 mile :+ 19 1for adjacent 21 3 25 areas. see maps ■o■■iiiiii■ii■ q Feu 675 678 T M FR i n r ■ ■ Irvine Center ■ ■■■ 676 682 Barranc ;° 680 �WEEWAY 679 • SpN Dt�GO ZONE SYSTEM M ii P 20 659 660 SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION IRVINE,o IRVINE SUBDIVISION CORRIDOR (MARINE CORPS AIR STATION EL TORO) ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS r 00 0 672 679 b. N � 677 01E� J 690 691 LEGEND _ Corridor Boundary • Disaggregated Zones Aggregrated Zones 0 1 mile A 20 15 26 for adjacent 2 areas, see maps Wi5_225,228 7-794 ,2.96 T r cesCMP 4 - ?` -- ANOE COIJNTy MA P 21 SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION oCT� ZONE SYSTEM CORRIDOR twA�r onaTw�cr IRVINE, INCORPORATED AREA ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS i LEGEND S 301.3138��� �, _Corridor Boundary CM_g66����� Disaggregated Zones �. Aggregrated Zones d¢ 22 1 i + S_222%61 p �' mite + SNIC w 16 2627 for adjacent i areasp see maps LS-290v?91,?91,?93 a WI gS-226 knM.865 v�Cl A_870 St CkA- ANDS COUNTY ZONE SYSTEM MAP 22 SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION 455CORRIDOR NEWPORT BEACH, LAGUNA HILLS �' T�'�T' ar LAGUNA BEACH ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS • 0 10 • 0 LEGEND NMTS - 201, 219 Corridor Boundary y SATCAA - 830 8 ■ 1 ■ ■ I N Disaggregated Zones Santiago Canyon . Aggregrated Zones 0 z 1 mile Sant a 20 23 30 for adjacent WTS - 260 „ 90 Canyon 25 areas, see maps 0 SATCAA - 828 Kc GM e w o N U v won�. �r o�srw«rT J 04 0 II U .o o o A F U � - c MILTS-202 "d .0 u e SATCM-829 WTS-201,217,219 SATCAA-830 reek ZONE SYSTEM M A P 24 SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR IRVINE SUB -DIVISION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS I to .A 656 R.R soon 658 j asoft Cb 70CT 659 •r 694 w v WTS-202 LEGEND SATCAA-829 _ Corridor Boundary MMTS-201,21 8 1 Disaggregated Zones SATCAA-830 Aggregrated Zones C t 1 l 695 F Irab�O 0 1 mile • h• • 24 for adjacent 20 30 h • 26 1 areas, see m o• 698 • • • • • 696 1 700 S-F• .R.R ZONE SYSTEM MAP25 MISSION VIEJO, EL TORO, IRVINE SUBDIVISION LAKE FOREST 702 703 704 SATCAA SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS • IV • E� J ity gg6qJ��'�y 693 697 WTS-227,231 SATCAA-869 a go +A"W96" JM0S-227 ,231 SptCAA'g69 714 701 DIEGO F ��.... 716"1 715T� a� 717 71� ♦ A MMTS-236 SATCAA-871 17-1� x d LEGEND Corridor Boundary 111 ■ ■ ■ @ Disaggregated Zones Aggregrated Zones 0 mile �+ [21 31 25 for adjacent 27 areas, see maps 0 Iton Parkway/�i Iwo • 722 � 724 sell** A 723 �0 QZONE SYSTEM MAP 26 11 SATTA ANA TRANSPORTATION , =CT NJ P CORRIDOR r a�TMCT IRVINE, LACUNA HILLS, SADDLEBACK VALLEY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 11 ♦ `fi5-236 LEGEND _ Corridor Boundary •i` Sp%AA-871 723 Disaggregated Zones 4! > yo-4 b . Aggregrated Zones ♦ s�Aft y` � S-243.248 � 0 I mile .+ SATCAA-872 o5-225.2�8 �i, 26 22 33 for adjacent SptCpA"g68 areas, see In ! 72 0 • 728 � + 1MTS-226 7rao 0 • � -' SATCAA-870 • 727 st pkig d9e L ne as 0.0* • r�1tw '�y 729 PACIFIC OCEAN ZONE SYSTEM MAP 27 SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION =Wrw CORRIDOR �Tww�rasTwCT LAGUNA HILLS, LAGUNA BEACH,DANA POINT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 0 9 0 to 0 6 0 0 0 0 • w V 1 0 0 4 i i i • • ANOE ccKiNTr MAP 2 9 SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION =C-Vxb ZONE SYSTEM CORRIDOR twwN�r asTwcT UNINCORPORATED AREA ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 0 • 0 0 0 • • • • ! • i 4 • • • • • w It MMTS-20192179219 SATCAA-830 MMTS - 216 u SATCAA - 831 e WOOD* T o�srwiar 0; MMTS-218.220 SATCAA-832 ZONE SYSTEM UNINCORPORATED AREA WTS-218.220 S4TCM-832 MAP30 LEGEND Corridor Boundary ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Disaggregated Zones �. Aggregrated Zones 0 mile :+ 25 E2]8 for adjacent 3areas, see maps 40* 440 MMTS - 221 SATCAA - 834 SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS J. I Creek ITS CO at • h • Q• ♦ 695 698 699 W ♦ • • 700 S � F' .R . R 701 =C-V)M T o�Tw ar 702 703 \� 704 1 705 707 MMTS-216 SATCAA-831 ZONE SYSTEM MAP 31 EL TORO, MISSION VIEJO, IRVINE SUBDIVISION LEGEND Corridor Boundary 8 111 Disaggregated Zones Aggregrated Zones 0 mile �+ 30 25526 34 for adjacent 32 1 areas, seen SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS • • • • • • • • • • • 120 n a� os° 721 722 723 MMTS-243,248 SATCAA-872 TwCr 726 9 46 a 728 MMTS-215 SATCAA-833 (rs'q 1� ZONE SYSTEM MAP 3 2 SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, SADDLEBACK VALLEY MISSION VIEJO, LAGUNA HILLS LEGEND Corridor Boundary Disaggregated Zones Aggregrated Zones 0 mile :+ F27 31 35 for adjacent 33 areas. see maps n Ea So •o 35 • 739 .Ion, .`" Z 136 y SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 4. N s 729 727 729 739 Est ocrA iwwNerr oisTw�eT i 735 to ,r 1316 733 731 A.T.6!i.t. etc. 740 I LEGEND 'La: ;a _ Corridor Boundary 1 Maggregated Zones Aggregrated Zones 0 1 mile �+ 0 F 32636 27 35 for adjacent I areas, see wraps 5AR UILGo FREEWAY ■NNNIN2589562 WL._. 744 El Camino Rea PACIFIC OCEAN ZONE SYSTEM M A P33 DANA POINT HARBOR, SAN JUAN CAPI,STRANO' 746 -qqq% A, T':s•F SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS J 0 0 0 0 0 G 0 0 0 • n 0 0 • • • • n • a .P MMTS - 215 SATCAA - 833 a O, =c7ft TwCr q#. MMTS-22I SATCAA-834 -r 8m" 742 Plw -2 ZONE SYSTEM MA P35 UNINCORPORATED AREA LEGEND - Corridor Boundary Disaggregated Zones . Aggregrated Zones 0 12 1 mile :+ 34 34 for adjacent 131932 36 1 areas, seen SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS J • 0 • • 0 0 L • n n eso Qooer 739 � II •;Q Il�ta • •o it map 739 MN ISd 683 rr ♦ �yo 740 0 m q ■■■■■■ A.T.&%.F. kR.R 741 ="C-Th TRAMMY c"*TvwCT ti win 743 1. 1� 1� 1� 1, �10 0 00 747 n � w a o� ♦ d 745 �p, O .0 a SAN DIEGO FREEWAY ■■■■■■■■■■t■■ 0 744 746 AST' is. F f El Camino Rea ZONE SYSTEM M A P36 SAN CLEMENTE, SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO CAPISTRANO BEACH LEGEND _ Corridor Boundary ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Disaggregated Zones Aggregrated Zones 0 1 mile 35 33 34 37 for adjacent areas. see SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS FJ 738 Q� i 1 o 747 0 � � Z a 7 •��O G N 743rn a o o a •� y '� 745 �o Sm OIUM M-VAr 1` ov /////744 // 746 A.T.SS F- R. s748 El Camino Real 1 PACIFIC 0CEA1 ORANGE COUNTY M A P37 oC.rlo ZONE SYSTEM Twcr SAN CLEMENTE, CAPISTRANO BEACH LEGEND Corridor Boundary ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Disaggregated Zones � m m = a Aggregrated Zones 0 mile 36 for adjacent 33 areas, see maps SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 0 0 9 0 0 0 SANT•ANA TRANSPOTATION CORORDOR ALTERNWIVES ANALYAS INDEX TO 1995 ZONAL PROJECTIONS, SEC.I* • • • I, 4q V *For following variables: single family dwelling units, multiple family dwelling units, total population, lower income population, retail employment and total emDlovment. NAME OF AREA/JURISDICTION PAGE NUMBER NAME OF AREA/JURISDICTION PAGE NUMBER ANAHEIM 51, 52, 53, 54.71,72 LOS ALAMITOS 74 BREA 48, 71 MISsInN VIEJO 66,67.68 BUENA PARK 40 NFWPORT BEACH 64.76 CAPISTRANO BEACH ORANGE 56, 57, 72 -s COSTA MESA 61, 64, 76 PLACENTIA 71 CYPRESS 48, 49 SADDLEBACK 77 DANA POINT 68, 69 SAN CLEMENTE 70 FOUNTAIN VALLEY 75 SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO 68, 69 FULLERTON 48,49, 59, 71 SNATA ANA 56, 56, 58, 59,60, 61 GARDEN GROVE 54, 55, 56, 74 SEAL BEACH 74 HUNTINGTON BEACH 64. 75. 76 SOUTH COUNTY CANYON 73, 74 IRVINE 61, 62, 63, 64, 65.76 STANTON 53 IRVINE SUBDIVISION 65, 66, 73 SUNSET BEACH 75 LAGUNA BEACH 77 TUSTIN • 57, 58, 62, 63 LAGUNA HILLS 65, 67, 68, 77 VILLA PARK 73 LA HABRA 71 WESTMINSTER 74, 75 LAKE FOREST/EL TORO 62, 65, 66 YORBA LINDA 72 LA PALMA 48 SINGLE- MULTI- LOWER SATCAA NAME OF AREA ZONE FAMILY FAMILY TOTAL INCOME RETAIL TOTAL ZONE JURISDICTION. BOUNDARY DWELLINO DWELLING POPULATION POPULATION EMPLOYMENT EMPLOYMENT UNITS UNITS 501 Fullerton County line, Bastanchury 1749 5320 20506 1230 750 19780 b Euclid.Malvern, Magnolia 502 Buena Park Rosecrans, Magnolia, 1124 342 3564 641 246 1410 Malvern, Dale 503 Buena Park County Line, Dale, 282 1027 3178 2447 105 311 Malvern 504 Buena Park La Mirada, Beach, Santa Ana Freeway, county line 363 1443 4389 2633 686 4344 505 Buena Park La Mirada, Dale, Santa 1454 1443 7038 4222 1030 2598 Ana Freeway, Beach ' 06. Buena Park Amtrak, Gilbert, 417 483 2450 1519 178 2566 Valencia, Dale 507 Buena Park Valencia, Gilbert Riverside Freeway, Dale 1250 1449 7350 4557 178 775 SOB Buena Park Artesia, Knott, Orangethorpe, Valley View 0 0 0 0 345 9936 5W Buena Park Santa Ana Freeway, 883 1816 6558 3738 3109 5507 Orangethorpe, Knott I 51Q La Palma Walker, P.E. ROW, 3399 639 13083 0093 1076 4245 County line 511 Cypress P.E. ROW, Walker, Ball 4077 1525 17214 4131 409 2761 County Line • 40 0 +� • li • • • • • • • • • • • • • • SINGLE. MULTI- LOWER SATCAA NAME OF AREA / ZONE FAMILY FAMILY TOTAL INCOME RETAIL TOTAL ZONE JURISDICTION. BOUNDARY OWELLINO DWELLING POPULATION POPULATION EMPLOYMENT EMPLOYMENT UNITS UNITS Orangethoope, Holder 512 Cypress La Plama, Walker 1588 544 6312 2516 73 462 La Plama, Holder 513 Cypress Crescent, Walker 1588 544 6312 2516 73 462 514 Cypress Crescent , Lincoln, Holder, Ball, Walker 2339 1530 11839 4108 828 2986 515 Cypress Orangethorpe, Western _[_ - - La Palma, Holder 1508 447 5790 1621 529 3511 516 Cypress La Palma, Western 1508 448 5790 1592 132 417 Crescent, Holder 517 Cypress Crescent, Western 1925 1412 9879 2137 652 1673 Lincoln & Orange, Vallpv View 518 Cypress Ball & Orange, Knott 1575 1156 8082 1936 217 767 Cerritos, Valley View 519 Cypress Orangethorpe, Beach, 885 470 3999 1544 2527 7238 Lincoln, Western 520 Cypress Orangethorpe, Dale Crescent, Beach 1328 471 5337 2274 I 3791 4969 521 Fullerton Valley View, Highland Commonwealth, Bastanchury 3075 836 10653 4442 621 1309 522 Fullerton Malvern & Commonwealth Gilbert 9 Valencia, 0 92 253 106 621 6813 SINGLE. MULTI- LOWER SATCAA NAME OF AREA/ ZONE FAMILY FAMILY TOTAL INCOME RETAIL TOTAL ZONE JURISDICTION. BOUNDARY DWELLING DWELLING POPULATION POPULATION EMPLOYMENT EMPLOYMENT UNITS UNITS Fullerton Junior Brea, Berkeley, 523 College, Fullerton Commonwealth, Highland 356 826 3311 1253 1309 1958 Richman 524 Fullerton Skyline, Acacia 2845 0 6270 3019 654 1303 Commonwealth, Berkeley 525 Fullerton Commonwealth, Acacia Valencia, Highland 356 1533 4495 2004 218 11899 California State Yorba Linda, Orange 1357 1806 7526 3635 1880 3192 526 University -Fullerton Freeway, Commonwealth, Fullerton Acacia Commonwealth, Orange 339 1805 5157 2465 470 12280 527 Fullerton Freeway, Valencia, Acacia 528 Fullerton Valencia, Placentia Riverside Freeway, 0 0 0 0 0 19374 Raymond 529 Fullerton Valencia, Raymond 1390 2841 10112 6281 409 6242 Riverside Freeway, Richman Fullerton Valencia, Richman 530 Riverside Freeway, 1076 469 4290 1228 513 656 Euclid 531 Fullerton Valencia, Euclid 1076 312 3746 1104 I 220 282 Riverside Freeway, ,532 Fullerton Valencia, Basque 1335 231 4289 1160 873 5191 Riverside Freeway, Brookhurst 533 Fullerton Valencia, Brookhurst 1335 231 4289 1071 1310 7787 Riverside Freeway, Gilbert Li 0 10 ( to i SINGLE. MULTI. LOWER SATCAA NAME OF AREA ZONE FAMILY FAMILY TOTAL INCOME RETAIL TOTAL ZONE JURISDICTION. BOUNDARY DWELLING DWELLING POPULATION POPULATION EMPLOYMENT EMPLOYMENT UNITS UNITS 534 Anaheim Riverside Freeway, Euclid 1520 587 5078 2047 309 1672 La Palma, Santa Ana Free- way 535 Anaheim La Plama, Euclid, Santa 652 2348 7229 2913 1 77 418 Ana Freeway 536 Anaheim Riverside Freeway, Harbor La Palma, Eucid 559 2022 6243 3090 367 9308 Anaheim La Palma, Harbor 2237 1348 8622 4223 1471 7418 537 Lincoln, Santa Ana Freeway, Euclid 538 Anaheim Riverside Freeway, 0 262 695 460 271 2220 Raymond, La Palma, Harbor 539 Anaheim La Palma, Raymond 1660 1056 6482 5142 F406 406 Sycamore, Harbor Anaheim Riverside Freeway, 540 State College, La Palma 1888 848 5772 1922 355 1643 Raymond Anaheim La Plama, State College 2307 1036 7054 2349 355 1642 541 Lincoln, Raymond 542 Anaheim Riverside Freeway, Santa 2465 4016 13674 4855 806 1841 in ojnertta?etColleneQ ist I 543 Anaheim Lincoln, State College Vermont, East, AT & SF RR 1737 635 5004 1577 258 1927 Sycamore, East, South 544 Anaheim Santa Ana Freeway & 1772 1914 8883 1452 12846 Harbor SINGLE. MULTI- LOWER SATCAA NAME OF AREA/ ZONE FAMILY FAMILY TOTAL INCOME RETAIL TOTAL ZONE JURISDICTION. BOUNDARY DWELLING DWELLING POPULATION POPULATION EMPLOYMEN7 EMPLOYMENT UNITS UNITS 545 Anaheim South, A.T.& S.F. RR Anaheim Blvd, Santa Ana 1458 2047 8447 4977 613 6588 Freeway 546 Anaheim Vermont, State College 115 1415 3727 888 3406 7011 Cerritos, Anaheim Blvd Cerritos, State College 58 94 320 88 973 10886 547 Anaheim Santa Ana Freeway' I Ball, Santa Ana River 548 Anaheim A.T. & S.F., State College 980 377 2365 486 486 4M Anaheim South, Orange Freeway 1163 1410 5427 1254 248 427 549 Ball, State Colleqe 550 Anaheim South, Santa Ana River Ball, Orange Freeway 775 352 2379 550 64 233 551 Anaheim Santa Ana Freeway La Palma, Ball 133 122 665 260 238 4864 552 Anaheim La Palma, Brookhurst Crescent, Dale 1333 292 4242 1655 238 657 553 Anaheim Crescent, Gilbert Lincoln, Beach 1200 2020 8405 3278 1 715 1057 554 Anaheim Lincoln, Western, Ball Knott 840 1773 6834 3973 497 1314 555 Anaheim Lincoln, Beach, 687 1182 4864 2363 745 1563 Ball, Western r 0 0 40 li 0 i Ab i r i Mi i i i i SINGLE- MULTI- LOWER SATCAA NAME OF AREA/ ZONE FAMILY FAMILY TOTAL INCOME RETAIL TOTAL ZONE JURISDICTION. BOUNDARY DWELLING DWELLING POPULATION POPULATION EMPLOYMENT EMPLOYMENT UNITS UNITS 556 Anaheim Lincoln, Dale, 826 1793 6810 2234 129 461 Ball, Beach Lincoln, Magnolia 557 Anaheim Ball, Dale 826 448 3325 1653 129 461 Anaheim Lincoln, Gilbert, 558 Ball, Magnolia 930 936 4777 1589 642 1017 Anaheim 559 Crescent, Brookhurst Orange, Gilbert 464 936 3661 1193 1156 1889 560 Anaheim Orange, Nutwood 930 1248 5526 1855 771 1271 Ball, Gilbert 561 Anaheim Santa Ana Freeway, Lincoln, Brookhurst 372 1296 4004 1706 1904 8076 562 Anaheim 1860 486 5631 2399 1332 2361 pLincoln,Euclid 61'OOKg1(FIt& Ball, 563 Anaheim Santa Ana Freeway,Ball 1488 1458 7072 3013 571 3657 Euclid 564 Stanton Ball, Beach, Katella, 2493 1181 10140 4289 258 1384 Knott I j 565 Stanton Ball, Gilbert 2076 2982 13960 7134 904 3851 Katella, Beach Ball, Brookhurst Anaheim E Katella, Gilbert 1392 96 3870 989 226 254 SINGLE- MULTI- LOWER SATCAA NAME OF AREA/ ZONE FAMILY FAMILY TOTAL INCOME RETAIL TOTAL ZONE JURISDICTION, BOUNDARY DWELLING DWELLING POPULATION POPULATION EMPLOYMENT EMPLOYMENT UNITS UNITS 567 Anaheim Ball, Nutwood Katella, Brookhurst 928 859 4590 1188 527 569 568 -Anaheim Ball, 9th 899 592 3460 1208 164 959 Cerritos, Nutwood 569 Anaheim Cerritos, 9th - 1225 1776 7322 2556 384 1577 Orangewood, Nutwood 570 Anaheim Ball, West 1502 1734 8727 4535 440 3473 Orangewood, 9th 571 Anaheim Ball, Harbor 125 578 1961 1159 1762 10861 Orangewood, West 572 Anaheim Santa Ana Freeway, Harbor, Tiller 876 3468 9165 5417 734 8822 573 Orange Santa Ana Freeway, Santa 557 1105 3567 1567 2190 12157 Ana.River, Garden Grove, eW75 574 Garden Grove Orangewood, Lewis Chapman, West 1585 1242 7849 4213 710 1888 575 Garden Grove Chapman, Lewis,Garden 1586 1864 9622 5139 I 580 2020 Grove E Lampson, West 576 Garden Grove Orangewood, West 2596 458 8520 2386 137 954 Lampson, Nutwood 6 Garden Grove Katella, Euclid F577] Chapman, Brookhurst 2295 672 8189 2541 65• 421 0 0 i 0 0 • 0 0 i 0 • • • A r! • • SINGLE. MULTI. LOWER SATCAA NAME OF AREA/ ZONE FAMILY FAMILY TOTAL INCOME RETAIL TOTAL ZONE JURISDICTION, BOUNDARY DWELLING DWELLING POPULATION POPULATION EMPLOYMEN7 EMPLOYMENT UNITS UNITS 578 Garden Grove Katella, Brookhurst Chapman, Gilbert 856 190 2886 950 497 686 Katella, Gilbert 579 'Garden Grove Chapman, Dale 1996 762 7612 2504 213 479 Katella, SPT Co. 1490 591 5681 2918 516 1810 580 Garden Grove Chapman, Dale Katella, Knott, Garden 684 134 2257 612 323 11763 581 Garden Grove Grove Blvd., SPT Co Chapman, Gilbert 582 Garden Grove Garden Grove, SPT Co. 4157 1262 14906 6820 440 2794 Garden Grove, Gilbert 734 2945 10152 4629 818 171 583 Garden Grove Trask, Westminster, Beach 584 Garden Grove Chapman, Nutwood Trask, Gilbert 2343 2515 13374 7750 1936 3731 585 Garden Grove Campson, Euclid Trask, Nutwood 598 1260 5128 3092 384 2727 586 Garden Grove Lampson, 9th & Newhope Trask, Euclid 898 539 3968 2393 164 2507 Lampson, Haster 587 Garden Grove Garden Grove, 9th 1436 774 6164 3805 568 1620 588 Garden Grove Garden Grove, Santa Ana River Trask,Newhope 2154 945 8647 3935 852 2806 SINGLE. MULTI. LOWER SATCAA NAME OF AREA/ ZONE FAMILY FAMILY TOTAL INCOME RETAIL TOTAL ZONE JURISDICTION, BOUNDARY DWELLING DWELLING POPULATION POPULATION EMPLOYMENT EMPLOYMENT UNITS UNITS 588 Garden Grove Garden Grove, Santa Ana 2154 945 8647 3935 852 2806 River, Trask, Newhope 589 Garden Grove Trask, Santa Ana River Westminster, Euclid 1693 617 6444 2638 1000 4720 590 Westminster, Santa Ana Santa Ana River, 1st, Euclid 4423 2151 20116 10883 978 3198 591 Garden Grove Garden Grove Freeway, Euclid, 1st, Brookhurst 2773 546 9162 2969 503 2048 Garden Grove Freeway 592 Garden Grove Brookhurst, Hazard, 1188 546 4748 1552 336 1365 Magnolia Santa Ana 1st, Santa Ana River 4606 2316 21181 90615—j 704 2798 593 Edinger, Ward 594 Orange Fletcher Ave, Orange - Olive Rd, Taft, Santa Ana River 0 0 0 0 25 675 595 Orange Taft, Glassell Ave Katella, Santa Ana River 197 403 1267 964 332 L 5807 596 Orange Katella, Glassell 197 403 1267 - 964 I 332 3982 AT & SF RR, Santa Ana 597 Orange AT & SF, State College Santa Ana Freeway, Santa 674 620 2729 1179 428 6355 River 598 Orange AT & SF, Santa Ana Riv1:16874 Chapman, BataviaF930 5414 2382 428 8049 • 6 0 • i • • `J C! rl • n • • • SINGLE- MULTI- LOWER SATCAA NAMEOF AREA/ ZONE FAMILY FAMILY TOTAL INCOME RETAIL TOTAL ZONE JURISDICTION. BOUNDARY DWELLING DWELLING POPULATION POPULATION EMPLOYMENT EMPLOYM UNITS UNITS 599 Orange Chapman, Santa Ana River 1010 1549 5339 2333 1997 5385 AT & SF, Riviera Drive, Santa Ana Freeway 600 -Orange Walnut, Cambridge Fairheaven, AT & SF 2083 3133 13106 608 743 5490 601 Orange Walnut, Newport Freeway Fairheaven, Cambridge 2224 l7nl 9891 4016 1173 4040 Collins, Prospect 602 Orange Chapman, Newport Freeway 1262 1572 7492 1364 933 1016 Chapman, Newport Freeway 603 Orange Fairheaven, Prospect 2945 847 9954 1825 933 1057 Fairheaven, Tustin 604 Tustin Santa Clara, Foothill 1316 662 4614 848 352 1171 605 Tustin Santa Clara, Tustin 17th St & Warren, 2444 1229 85d9 1575 352 1171 Foothil 606 Tustin Fairheaven, Tustin 17th, Grand 1093 908 4042 1508 664 2450 607 Santa Ana Riviera Or, Grand 1640 1361 6563 2405 I 664 2450 17th Santa Ana Freeway 17th, Mabury 608 Santa Ana Santa Ana Freeway 579 890 3155 1004 938 2469 17th, Tustin 579 890 3155 1004 938 2469 609 Santa Ana Mabury SINGLE- MULTI- LOWER SATCAA NAME OF AREA/ ZONE FAMILY FAMILY TOTAL INCOME RETAIL TOTAL ZONE JURISDICTION, BOUNDARY DWELLING DWELLING POPULATION POPULATION EMPLOYMENT EMPLOYMENT UNITS UNITS 17th, Newport Avenue 610 Tustin Irvine Blvd, Newport Fwy 1500 1190 6266 2463 500 2908 Irvine Blvd, Newport 611 .Tustin Avenue, Santa Ana 642 1785 5656 2223 750 3159 Freeway, Newport Freeway Skyline, Browning Avenue 612 Tustin Irvine, Newport Avenue 1231 368 3727 1100 23 821 Irvine, Browning 613 Tustin Bryan, Newport Avenue 1095 399 3480 1027 23 821 Bryan, Browning 614 Tustin Santa Ana Freeway, 411 2301 6317 1864 31 1095 Newport Avenue 615 Santa Ana Santa Ana Freeway Rivera Drive, Santa Ana 826 470 2785 889 322 2254 River Riviera, Bristol 616 Santa Ana Westminster (S), 17th 826 470 2785 889 451 4314 Santa Ana River 617 Santa Ana Riviera, Santa Ana Freeway, 17th,Bristol 1102 626 3714 1185 516 4379 618 Santa Ana 17th, Colleqe 1025 560 4343 2392 156 1440 Santa Ana River I 17th, Bristol 619 Santa Ana College 683 373 2895 1955 156 1440 620 Broadway, Civic Santa Ana Center Drive, Bristol 1719• 1025 8204 6072 428 3782 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 I, w W W W s W SATCAA ZONE NAME OF AREA/ JURISDICTION, ZONE BOUNDARY SINGLE. FAMILY DWELLING UNITS MULTI. FAMILY DWELLING UNITS TOTAL POPULATION LOWER INCOME POPULATION RETAIL EMPLOYMENT TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 621 Santa Ana Civic Center Drive, Bristol, Santa Ana Blvd, Broadway 159 375 1325 ` 983 285 20359 622 Santa Ana 17th, Broadway, Civic Center Drive, Garfield 159 1975 5446 4026 713 4059 623 Santa Ana Civic Center Drive, Broadway, Chestnut, Standard 159 375 1329 7839 1427 8136 624 Santa Ana AT & SF, Garfield & Standard, Chestnut 802 509 3592 2803 489 2600 625 Santa Ana Santa Ana Freeway Main, A.T. & S.F. 89 1189 3502 2731 489 8933 626 Santa Ana Main, Newport Freeway McFadden, Standard 782 4211 11681 6658 1900 5285 627 Santa Ana McFadden, Newport Freeway Edinger, Standard 260 526 1840 F1049 633 9249 628 Santa Ana Edinger, Standard Warner, Newport Freeway 260 526 1846 1652 633 11892 Santa na Chestnut, Main, Edinger & McFadden, Standard 265 2400 7237 5641 I 303 1088 630 Santa Ana Chestnut & McFadden Flower, Edinger, Main 2387 424 7577 6262 303 1088 631 Santa Ana Edinger & McFadden, Main,Warner, Standard 1651 1046 7389 3984 508 752 SATCAA NAME OF AREA/ ZONE SINGLE. FAMILY MULTI. FAMILY TOTAL LOWER INCOME RETAIL TOTAL ZONE JURISDICTION. BOUNDARY DWELLING DWELLING POPULATION POPULATION EMPLOYMENT EMPLOYM UNITS UNITS Edinger, Flower 632 Santa Ana Warner, Main 1350 116 4020" 2132 508 752 633 Santa Ana, Raitt Santa Ana 1st, Flower 127 90 694 469 117 863 1st St, Raitt 634 Santa Ana Monte Vista & McFadden Flower 2412 1701 10626 7856 273 356 635 Santa Ana Santa Ana, Santa Ana River, Bishop, Raitt 376 F971 3691 2429 410 1737 636 Santa Ana Bishop, Santa Ana River o Edinger, McFadden, 3385 1457 13236 8729 176 1502 Bristol 637 Santa Ana McFadden, Fairview Edinger, Flower 2055 1-038 8476 4414 469 1813 Edinger, Santa Ana 638 Santa Ana River, Warner Fairview 0 0 0 0 74 4551 639 Santa Ana Edinger, Fairview Warner, Raitt 1417 576 4663 2527 299 796 640 Santa Ana Edinger, Raitt Warner, Flower 2373 363 6407 2057 665 2438 641 Santa Ana Warner, Main Sunflower, Newport 421 436 2005 698 176 15248 Freeway 642 Santa Ana Warner, Flower Sunflower, Main 985 1745 6385 2222 410 6535 SATCAA ZONE NAME OF AREA/ JURISDICTION. ZONE BOUNDARY SINGLE. FAMILY DWELLING UNITS MULTI. FAMILY DWELLING UNITS TOTAL POPULATION LOWER INCOME POPULATION RETAIL EMPLOYMENT TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 643 Santa Ana arner, Bristol Sunflower, Flower 1894 1812 8688 3041 606 1174 644 Santa Ana Warner, Greenville Alton, Bristol 1894 1811 8688 3041 606 1175 Warner & Alton, Fairfiew• 645 Santa Ana Sunflower, Bristol 974 3728 10952 5120 1212 1212 646 Santa Ana Fairview, Santa Ana River MacArthur, Sunflower, Fairview 0 0 0 0 0 12522 647 Costa Mesa MacArthur, Santa Ana River, San Diego Freeway Bear 313 1752 5500 517 1040 1400 648 Costa Mesa 8323 15400 Sunflower, Bear San Diego Freeway,Bristol 0 0 0 0 649 Costa Mesa Sunflower, Bristol Diego Freeway, San40 Newport Freeway 313 1753 5500 517r- 11200 650 Costa Mesa San Diego Freeway, Del Mar Freeway, Newport Freeway 787 1498 5346 2074 1743 2138 651 Irvine Irvine Blvd., Browning Santa Ana Freeway, 1155 1240 5581 558 I 40 346 652 Irvine Irvine Blvd, Myford Santa Ana Freeway, Culver 1733 1860 8839 884 60 519 653 Irvine Irvine, Culver Santa Ana Freeway, Vale 2295 629 7193 0 104 468 SINGLE- MULTI. LOWER SATCAA NAME OF AREA ZONE FAMILY FAMILY TOTAL INCOME RETAIL TOTAL ZONE JURISDICTION, BOUNDARY DWELLING DWELLING POPULATION POPULATION EMPLOYMENT EMPLOYMENT UNITS UNITS 654 Irvine Irvine, Yale Santa Ana Freeway Jeffrey 1624 250 4610 0 175 1047 Irvine, Jeffrey 655 Irvine Santa Ana Freeway, Sand Canyon 2436 375 7097 0 175 1047 Rancho Canada De Los 656 Alisos, Trabuco; Irvine 142 392 4267 2000 0 100 Irvine Irvine, Sand Canyon 657 Irvine AT & SF, Perimeter 0 0 0 0 0 3800 658 A.T & S.F. Perimeter Irvine Santa Ana Freeway 162 392 4267 20M 0 100 659 Irvine Trabuco, Perimeter AT & SF, Bake Parkway 0 0 0 0 0 6000 660 Cake Forest A.T. & S.F. Perimeter San Diego Freeway, Bake Parkway 0 0 0 0 370 13000 rT�� -• Santa Ana Freeway, Newport Freeway,McFadden & Walnut, Browning 1394 29M 10024 4391 399 819 662 Tustin Walnut, Newport Freeway Edinger, 349 29M 7587 3323 I 266 546 Red Hill 663 Tustin Santa Ana Freeway, Browning, Walnut & 998 0 2326 161 T 2 959 Redhill, Mauston Pkway L664 Tustin Santa Ana Freeway, A.T. & S.F. Moulton Pkway, 538 0 1252 86 13 29M U 0 a a a SINGLE. MULTI- LOWER SATCAA ZONE NAME OF AREA/ ZONE FAMILY FAMILY TOTAL INCOME RETAIL TOTAL JURISDICTION. BOUNDARY DWELLING DWELLING POPULATION POPULATION EMPLOYMENT EMPLOYMENT UNITS UNITS 665 Tustin Moulton, Red Hill Alton, Newport Freeway 0 0 0 0 397 6000 666 Tustin Moulton, Red Hill Barranca, Harvard 135 0 1428 714 44 2831. 667 Irvine Barranca, Alton - -- Newport Freeway, San Diege Freeway, Von 0 0 0 0 1200 28560 668. Irvine Karman Barranca, Von Kaman San Diego,;Murphy 0 0 0 0 1200 19440 Santa Ana Freeway, Myford 669 Irvine A.T. & S.F. Harvard 106 80 458 0 928 3028 Santa Ana Freeway 670 Irvine Harvard, A.T. & S. F., 2020 320 5758 0 232 757 Culver 671 Irvine, Murphy Irvine Barranca, Culver 1521 2045 8772 F439 160 1772 672 Irvine Barranca, Murphy San Diego Freeway, Culver 1892 2707 11216 566 380 3146 673 Irvine Santa Ana Freeway, Culver AT & SF, Yale 1402 120 3942 378 I 339 391 674 Irvine A.T. & S.F., Culver Irvine Center Dr., Yale 935 80 2299 232 226 261 Santa Ana Freeway, Yale 675 Irvine Irvine Center Drive, 2695 0 6629 663 558 635 Jeffrey SATCAA ZONE NAME OF AREA/ JURISDICTION. ZONE BOUNDARY SINGLE. FAMILY DWELLING UNITS MULTI. FAMILY DWELLING UNITS TOTAL POPULATION LOWER INCOME POPULATION RETAIL EMPLOYMENT TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 676 Irvine Irvine Center Drive, Culver, Barranca, Jeffrey 3053 1299 10706 540 0 400 677 Irvine Barranca, Culver San Diego Freeway, Jeffrey 2912 1623 11156 558 896 1031 678 Irvine Santa Ana Freeway, Jeffre -F . Irvine Center Drive, Laguna Freeway 34 0 84 17 261 490 679 Irvine Irvine Center Drive, Jeffrey, San Diego Fwy Sand Canyon 238 2552 6863 1373 4711 6541 680 Irvine Irvine Center Drive, Sand Canyon, San Diego Freeway, Laguna Freeway 68 638 1736 347 261 490 681 Irvine Santa Ana Freeway, Laguna Freeway, Irvine Center Dr. San Diego Freeway 0 0 0 0 300 7200 682 Irvine Irvine Center Dr, Laguna Freeway, San Diego Freeway 0 0 0 0 200 4800 683 Costa Mesa San Diego Freeway Newport Freeway, bet Mar Freeway, Airport Way 0 0 0 0 442 8165 684 Costa Mesa San Diego Freeway, Airport Way, Del Mar Freeway, MacArthur 0 0 0 0 553 13937 685 Newport & Irvine San Diego Freeway, MacArthur, Del Mar Freeway, Jamboree 0 0 0 0 711 72608 686 Irvine San Diego Freeway, Jamboree, Del Mar Freeway, Harvard 0 0 0 0 316 4777 • iJ • 0 ►r • • • i i SATCAA NAME OF AREA/ ZONE SINGLE- FAMILY MULTI. FAMILY TOTAL LOWER INCOME RETAIL TOTAL ZONE JURISDICTION. BOUNDARY DWELLING DWELLING POPULATION POPULATION EMPLOYMENT EMPLOYM EW UNITS UNITS 687 Irvine San Diego Freeway, Harvard, University Drive 2441 2078 11254 558 284 631 688 University Drive, Harvard Irvine Bonita Canyon Drive, 0 4509 11137 10580 995 9684 Culver 689 Irvine University, Culver, R%eIinenyon Dr. 3700 0 9139 183 180 434 690 Irvine San Diego Freeway, University , Ridgeline Sand Canyon 1400 935 5767 294 190 396 691 Irvine San Diego Freeway, Sand Canyon, Bonita Canyon, ;;I Laguna Canyon 1400 0 2352 0 150 432 692 Irvine San Diego Freeway, Laguna Canyon, Bonita Canyon, 0 0 0 0 400 3059 Lake Forest '693 Laguna Hills Lake Forest, Santa Maria Corridor Boundary, 2567 0 4313 2161 750 2500 Moulton 694 Irvine Sub Division Same as (MMTS)203 1691 0 4819 482 800 1200 695 Irvine Sub Division MMTS 204 3009 0 8550 855 I 800 1200 696 Lake Forest/El Toro Trabuco, Bake Parkway At & S.F., E1 Toro 3299 268 9298 1860 800 1200 697 Lake Forest/El Toro AT & SF, Bake Pkway San Diego Fwy, El Toro 2716 288 7840 1568 3000 4200 SATCAA NAME OF AREA / ZONE SINGLE. FAMILY MULTI. FAMILY TOTAL LOWER INCOME RETAIL TOTAL ZONE JURISDICTION. BOUNDARY OWELLINO DWELLING POPULATION POPULATION EMPLOYMENT EMPLOYM ENT UNITS UNITS Irvine Sub Division Antonio Road, El Toro, 698 Trabuco, Los Alisos 3281 0 9608 961 600 1000 699 Irvine Sub Division Antonio Road, Los Alisos Trabuco Road, Alicia Parkway 4922 0 14413 1441 600 1000 700 Irvine Sub Division Trabuco Road, E1 Toro, A.T.. & S.F., Alicia 2672 1055 10883 2177 2000 3000 Parkwa 701 Lake Forest/El Toro A.T. & S.F., El Toro San Diego Freeway 2630 225 8337 1667 2000 2800 702 Alicia Parkway, Marguerite Mission Viejo A.T. & S.F., La Paz Road 3471 0 10135 517 800 1200 703 Alicia Parkway, Marguerite Mission Viejo Trabuco, Jeronimo 3077 267 9765 977 720 1080 704 Jeronimo, La Paz, Mission Viejo Marguerite 2518 219 7990 799 480 720 705 Mission Viejo La Paz, Marguerite Oso Parkway, San Diego 1388 500 5513 557 1750 2390 Freeway 706 Oso Parkway, Marguerite Mission Viejo Crown Valley Parkway, 1388 500 5513 557 I 1750 2710 San Diego Freeway 707 Mission Viejo La Paz, Marguerite Oso Parkway 240 0 700 70 80 120 708 Mission Viejo Marguerite, La Paz S Zone 212) 2160 0 6307 631 720 1080 Oso Parkway a 0 0 • 0 r • 0 40 0 • • • • • • • • SINGLE. MULTI. LOWER SATCAA NAME OF AREA ZONE FAMILY FAMILY TOTAL INCOME RETAIL TOTAL ZONE JURISDICTION. BOUNDARY DWELLING DWELLING POPULATION POPULATION EMPLOYMENT EMPLOYMENT UNITS UNITS 709 Mission Viejo Crown Valley, Marguerite San Diego Freeway 635 216 2483 497 3200 4225 710 Mission Viejo Marguerite, Crown Valley MMTS 214, San Diego Fwy 1480 864 6845 1369 800 1825 711 Lake Forest, San Diego ' Laguna Hills Freeway, Ridge Route, 118 1388 2447 1268 850 1900 Moulton 712 Ridge Route, San Diego Laguna Hills Freeway, E1 Toro, Moulton 118 1388 2447 1268 850 3300 713 Laguna Hills San Diego Freeway, Los Alisos, Paseo de Valencia 131 375 850 425 4000 6000 E1 Toro 714 Laguna Hills E1 Toro, Paseo De Valenci Parkway, Los Alisos, Moulton 35 4718 7966 4541 1000 1600 San Diego Freeway, Los 715 Laguna Hills Alisos, Alicia, Paseo De Valencia 606 100 1187 178 560 800 716 San Diego Freeway, Alicia Laguna Hills Paseo De Valencia 1125 186 2204 331 240 400 717 Los Alisos, Paseo De Laguna Hills Valencia, Alicia Moulton 585 870 2444 489 500 800 718 Laguna Hills Paseo De Valencia, La Paz Moulton, Alicia 1953 0 3281 0 280 455 719 Paseo De Valencia, La Paz Laguna Hills Moulton, Oso Parkway 837 0 1406 0 120 195 SATCAA ZONE NAMEOf AREA / JURISDICTION. SINGLE. MULTI. ZONE FAMILY FAMILY TOTAL BOUNDARY DWELLING DWELLING POPULATION UNITS UNITS LOWER INCOME RETAIL TOTAL POPULATION EMPLOYMENT EMPLOYM EM 720 Mission Vie Viejo J Moul-ton, La Paz, Alicia Parkway 1373 1550 7587 259 6000 18350 721 Mission Viejo A.T.& S.F., Crown Valley Moulton, Oso Parkway 1214 0 3217 0 1000 3000 722 Mission Viejo Valley, La Paz Oso Parkway, Moulton 3974 1092 13504 7350 800 1200 723 Laguna Niguel La Paz, Crown Valley, Alicia Parkway 1876 0 4971 0 800 1200 724 Laguna Niguel La Pazi San Diego Frwy, Crown Valley, A.T.& S.F. 2449 52 5850 0 280 840 725 Laguna Niguel La Paz, Trabuco Creek Niguel, Crown Valley 1318 28 3152 0 p 120 360 726 Laguna Niguel Niguel, Trabuco Creek, Crown Valley583 34Q 2160 400 71 65Q 727 San Juan Capistrano La Paz, Del Trabuco Creekvion 1900 0 4415 0 105 325 728 San Juan Capistrano Trabuco Creek, Golden Lantern, Selva & Chula Vista, Stonehill I910 0 4500 0 I 105 325 729 Dana Point Del Avian, Golden Lantern Selva & Chula Vista, Stonehill 3719 Stonehill, Chula Vistz,' Pacific Coast Hwy 3905 409 198 8255 9557 Q 0 280 550 2100 3000 730 Dana Point b • • 0 • • • w w w w w SATCAA ZONE NAME OF AREA/ JURISDICTION. SINGLE. MULTI. LOWER ZONE FAMILY FAMILY TOTAL INCOME RETAIL TOTAL BOUNDARY DWELLING DWELLING POPULATION POPULATION EMPLOYMENT EMPLOYMENT UNITS UNITS 731 Dana Point Selva, Pacific Coast Hwy, Chula Vista 710 2836 6356 2542 2600 4000' 732 San Juan Capistrano A.T. & S.F., Del Obispo Stonehill, Golden Lantern 1050 150 2868 281 210 325 733 San Juan Capistrano Del Avion, Del Obispo, Stonehill, Golden Lantern 1050 150 2868 287 210 325 734 San Juan Capistrano Ortega Highway, San Juan Creek, San Diego Freeway 600 360 2294 O 1800 2600 735 San Juan Capistrano p Ortega Highway San Juan Creek, San Diego Freeway 1400 840 5353 O 2dO 400 736 San Juan Capistrano San Juan Creek Del Obispo A.T. & SF 1296 865 5165 5596 517 260 500 737 Capistrano Beach San Diego Freeway Pacific Coast Highway San Juan Creek 1400 1387 565 1700 2600 •738 San Juan Capistrano Proposed La Novia Camino Estrella 702 210 2175 218 75 97 739 San Juan Capistrano Proposed Camino Las 740 San Juan Capistrano Ramblas. Proposed La Novi San Diego Freeway_ Proposed La Novia, Proposed Camino Estrella 702 210 2175 218 75 97 741 San Juan Capistrano San Diego Freeway, Propos sr San Diego Freeway Camino Estrella Pacific Coast Highway d 1637 490 5076 508 337 556 1637 490 5079 508 _262 44$ [SATCAA 0NE NAME OF AREA / JURISDICTION. ZONE BOUNDARY SINGLE. FAMILY DWELLING UNITS MULTI. FAMILY DWELLING UNITS TOTAL POPULATION LOWER INCOMERETAIL POPULATION EMPLOYMENTEMPLOYMENT TOTAL 742 San Clemente Edison Power Line Estrella La Novia, Camino Estrella 0 0 0 0 0 0 743 San Clemente La Novia, Avenida Pico, San Dieqo Frwy Camino Estrella 3106 525 7152 715 400 600 744 San Clemente San Diego Frwy, Avenida Pico, Pacific Coast Hwy, Camino Estrella Avenida San Pablo, San Diego Frwy, Avenida Pico 1331 7098 6756 676 400 600 745 San Clemente 1966 1529 6885 689 400 600 I 746 San Clemente San Diego Frwy, Avenida San Pablo, Pacific Coast Avenida Pico County Line (S.D.). San Diego Frwy, Avenida San Pablo San Diego Frwy, County Line(S.D.), Pacific Coast Hwy, Avenida San Pablo 490 3190 9281 1856 1530 2080 747 San Clemente 1967 655 5165 51.7 400 600 748 San Clemente 1960 1947 5795 1185 170 520 Ll -::-71 1 0 0 40 • jp 0 0 0 0 0 0 SATCAA ZONE NAME OF AREA/ ZONE SINGLE. FAMILY MULTI. FAMILY TOTAL LOWER INCOME RETAIL TOTAL JURISDICTION. BOUNDARY DWELLING DWELLING POPULATION POPULATION EMPLOYMENT EMPLOYMENT UNITS UNITS 801 La Habra County line (L.Aj , Harbo Blvd, SPT, County Line 4690 2740 20,209 8474 2,223 7,083 (L.A.) 802 Fullerton County Line (L.A.), Palm & Puente, Imperial Hwy, 4264 4072 22,749 13,427 8,134 15,446 County Line (L.A.) 803 Brea County Line (L.A.) Orange Fwy, Elm & Brea, Palm 6983 1765 24,868 6,184 1,531 14,464 Imperial Hwy, Puente & 804 Fullerton Brea Blvd, Valley View, Bastanchury & Euclid 4212 1607 16,81.6 2,186 1,106 10,856 Elm & ItWperial Hwy, Pla- i 805 Fullerton centia, Yorba Linda & Skyline, Brea Blvd. 4581 3102 22,203 5,326 294 3,067 County Line (L.A.), County 806 Orange County Line (.S.B.) Telegraph Canyon Rd & Imperial, Brea 3314 2000 13,393 670 592 1,900 807 Brea Imperial Hwy, Ross, Yorba Linda & Palm, Placentia 4894 201 12,788 927 Avenue 655 4,090 Palm, Rose Drive, Chapman 808 Placentia & Orangethorpe, Placentia 3689 4064 19,427 6,406 29411 99350 809 Anaheim Chapman & Orangethorpe, Tustin, Riverside Fwy, Placentia 2064 1838 10,263 5,610 I 1,163 360229 Orangethorpe, Imperial Fwy 810 Anaheim Santa Ana River, Jefferson 725 65 2 078 374 453 13,523 & Tustin 811 Placentia Buena Vistas Imperial Hwy Oranqethorpe, Rose Drive 2779 904 9,722 972 404 13,438 SATCAA ZONE NAME OF AREA / ZONE SINGLE. FAMILY MULTI. FAMILY TOTAL LOWER INCOME RETAIL TOTAL JURISDICTION. BOUNDARY DWELLING DWELLING POPULATION POPULATION EMPLOYMENT EMPLOYMENT UNITS UNITS Imperial Hwy & Yorba 812 Yorba Linda Linda, Ohio, Buena 3728 807 12,934 1,256 948 3,070 Vista, Rose Dr. TeTigrap anyon ., an Dominguez, Yorba Linda 813 Yorba Linda & Bastanchury, Valley 2797 3 18 9,034 732 420 650 Yorba Linda, Santa Ana 814 Yorba Linda River, Imperial Hwy, 6818 671 21,718 2,192 815 11950 Kellog Or & Ohio Telegraph Canyon Rd. 815 Yorba Linda County Line (S.B.) Santa 3229 760 11,529 0• 200 300 Ana River, Yorba Linda Cit Santa Ana River, 816 Irvine Sub -Division County Line(Riverside) Black Star Cyn,Santiago 9158 400 26,419 0 700 1,050 Rri Santa Ana River, Nohl Ranc 817 Anaheim Hills Rd. Imperial Hwy, Canyon 4678 368 1:1'El 1,337 900 1,450 Rim, Weir Canyon 818 Anaheim Hills Santa na ver, mperia & Nohl Ranch Rd., Nohl 5146 246 149342 1,434 341 600 Ranch Rd, Newport Freeway Santa Ana River, Tustin 819 Orange Ave. Taft, Orange, Olive 4005 1769 15,186 3,139 59996 71,378 Rd. Heim 820 Orange Taft & Me—afs—Nei-e-Ur—ange City Line, Collins & 5067 3208 21,289 79246 ( 2,208 5,439_' Walnut, Grand -Rd; f 821 Orange Nohl Ranch Park City Line, Santiago Creek 4889 543 17,059 19373 508 i,468 Collins, Tustin Avenue 822 Orange Park Acres Canyon Rim Rd, Santiago Canyon Rd. Villa Park Cit 7639F809 22,440 29468 400 600 Line a� 0 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • • a • • • • • in SATCAA ZONE NAME OF AREA/ JURISDICTION. ZONE BOUNDARY SINGLE. FAMILY DWELLING UNITS MULTI. FAMILY DWELLING UNITS TOTAL POPULATION LOWER INCOME POPULATION RETAIL EMPLOYMENT TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 823 Villa Park Villa Park City Line, Santiago Creek, Collins Tustin Avenue 6717 739 190610 3,424 262 1456 824 Cowan Heights Chapman & Santiago Cyn Rd. Peters Canyon Rd, Foothill Blvd. 2875 0 9,566 96 39 596 825 Lemon Heights Foothill Blvd, Peter yn. Rd., Irvine Blvd & Skyline Newport Ave. 1790 1 5,964 120 100 294 826 Irvine Sub -Division ntiagol B1vd,PCanyon eterCanyon Rd.vin 7093 800 19;939 0 1,660 927 827 Irvine Sub -Division Santiago Canyon Rd,Jeffre) Dr, Irvine Blvd'Culver Rd 5115 1000 15,440 0 320 871 828 Irvine Sub -Division Santiago Cyn Rd.,Rancho Lomas Dr.Santiago, Irvine Blvd, Jeffrey 1000 0 2,525 .0 0 275 829 Irvine Sub -Division Rancho Canada De Los Alisos,Santiago Cyn Rd 1150 0 3,277 164 300 700 830 Silverado Canyon & Trabuco Oaks County Line,(Riverside) National Forest, Trabuco Cyn Rd,Antonio Rd,Aliso C 4550 7 14,789 1211 1,650 3,100 831 Trabuco Oaks Trabuco Cyn Rd. Plano Trabuco, Oso Pkwy,Trabuco Creek 1680 0 60815 340 I 470 1vim '832 Unincorporated Area County Line, (Riverside) Ortega Hwy, Star -Viejo Ranch,Boundary,Plano Trabu 1000 o 0• 4,050 121 740 11300 833 Unincorporated Area Oso Pkwy, Ortega Hwy Trabuco Parkway 1488 0 6,026 301 460 11000 SINGLE. MULTI. LOWER SATCAA NAME OF AREA/ ZONE FAMILY FAMILY TOTAL INCOME RETAIL TOTAL ZONE JURISDICTION. BOUNDARY DWELLING DWELLING POPULATION POPULATION EMPLOYMENT EMPLOYMENT UNITS UNITS 834 Unincorporated Area Ortega HwyCunty Line 8 (Riverside) RMission 2280 0 Viejo, Edison Power ROW 59053 252 600 1,000 Ball, Valley View, Cerrito 835 Cypress Bloomfield 2965 70 9,287 1,393 103 467 836 Cypress Cerritos, Knott, _ Katella, Bloomfield 710 47 29313 231 331 4,108 837 Los Alamitos Katella, Los Alamitos City Line, County Line (LA) 2554 4386 17,286 4,494 669 6,268 838 Rossmoor Katella, Los Alamitos City Line, Bolsa Chica Rd, San 5389 1105 17,971 2,936 852 1,602 Die o Fwy,County Line LA San Diego Fwy, Bolsa Chica 839 Seal Beach Rd, Edinqer, Pacific Coast Hwy, County Line (L.A.) 2976 10399 20,326 11,791 3,715 7,032 Katella, Knott, Garden 840 Garden Grove Grove Fwy 7526 424 25,560 2,829 1,064 2,671 Garden Grove Fwy, Hoover, 841 Westminster Fadden, Bolsa & Westminster Bolsa Chica 6703 2812 25,939 7,871 694'S4 1Q.429 842 Huntington Beach Westminster, Edwards, Bolsa Ave & Edinger, Bolsa 3745 550 110932 2,028 I 621 16,232 Chica Bolsa Avenue, Golden West 843 Huntington Beach Hoover, Edinger, Springdal 2608 691 99138 1,279 11,331 2,000 844 Huntington Beach Edinger, o en es Edwards,Varsity Or & 6022 2614 23,956 4,573 1,646 2,266 Warner, Bolsa Chica A 9 6 0 • • 0 0 a V Cn f SATCAA ZONE NAME OF AREA/ JURISDICTION. ZONE BOUNDARY SINGLE. FAMILY DWELLING UNITS MULTI. FAMILY DWELLING UNITS TOTAL POPULATION LOWER INCOME POPULATION RETAIL EMPLOYMENT TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 845 Sunset Beach Edinger & Warner, Spring- dale, Huntington Seacliff Country Club, Pacific Cst Hwy 9038 5070 23,431 3,279 795 1,807 846 Sunset Beach :..Coast Garfield, Beach, Pacific 5804 7225 25,989 10,663 1,097 12,095 847 Sunset Beach Warner & Talbert, Beach Garfield, Edwards- 2797 2685 10,964 1,973 1,331 6,541 848 Huntington Beach Warner, Newland, Talbert, Golden West 1936 2011 10,933 4,919 499 7,585 849 Fountain Valley Edinger, Magnolia, Warner Golden West 2794 4690 20,767 7,060 4,115 7,398 850 Westminster Midway City Garden Grove Blvd. Trask & Westminster, Magnolia, Edinger, Hoover 7130 1820 24,344 T10,237 3,755 8,620 851 Midway City Westminster & Johannah Ave Ward, Edinger, Magnolia 5922 1780 20,950 69000 1,150 3,478 852 Fountain Valley Edinger, Santa Ana River, Warner, Magnolia 4718 636 16,115 2,052 1,331 2,485 853 Fountain Valley Warner, Santa Ana River, Garfield, Bushard 356M 3739 21,954 4,473 I 3,998 13,468 854 Fountain Valley Warner & Talbert, Bushard & Brookhurst, Garfield, Newland -- 5814 --- 157 17,972 1,983 1,907 6,054 855 Huntington Beach Garfield, Santa Ana River, Atlanta, Bushard & Magnoli 7911 528 23,545 4,746 1,829 3,989 SATCAA NAME OF AREA/ ZONE SINGLE- FAMILY MULTI. FAMILY TOTAL LOWER INCOME RETAIL TOTAL ZONE JURISDICTION. BOUNDARY DWELLING DWELLING POPULATION POPULATION EMPLOYMENT EMPLOYMENT UNITS UNITS Talbert, Garfield & Adams 856 Huntington Beach Newland, Magnolia & Bushard, Atlanta, Beach 7456 1210 24,178 2,552 1,298 6,910 Atlanta, Brookhurst & 857 Huntington Beach Santa Ana River, Pacific 1 4944 3453 23,436 3,514 531 3,111 Coast Hwy, Beach 19th, Newport Fwy, 15th & 858 Newport Beach 16th, Dover Dr, Main 7093 14177 46,463 19,993 10,595 24,656 Channel, Pacific Coast San Diego Fwy, Harbor, 859 Huntington Beach Fair & Newport Fwy, Banning, Santa Ana River 5205 5503 28,643 10,259 3,419 6,252 San Diego Fwy, Corona Del 860 Costa Mesa Mar Fwy, Newport Fwy, 2645 6835 33,204 10,430 66180 69647 Fair, Harbor Wilson & Fair, Irvine Ave 861 Costa Mesa Costa Mesa City Line 7700 10264 389550 17,445 4,566 7,977 862 Newport Beach Mesa Dr. Jamboree, Upper Newport Bay, Costa 3314 1632 11,800 1,534 643 1,389 Mesa City line Upper Newport Bay, 863 Newport Beach Jamboree, Joaquin Hills 1850 1875 8,903 1,758 5,640 19,308 Dr, MacArthur, PCH 864 Newport Beach Bonita Canyon Dr, San Joaquin Hills Dr, 5931 161 14,560 0 I 559 4,821 Jamboree 865 Newport Beach Pacific Coast Hwy, Mac- Arthur & San Joaquin Hill Dr. Pacific Coast 12263 8129 46,455 4,034 4,380 7,048 866 Irvine Bonita Canyon Dr, National Boundary 2800 10 6,916 0. 456 862 i ine +t 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 i 0 0 dh - - - W W qW mr W SATCAA ZONE NAME OF AREA / JURISDICTION. ZONE BOUNDARY SINGLE. FAMILY DWELLING UNITS MULTI. FAMILY DWELLING UNITS TOTAL POPULATION LOWER INCOME POPULATION RETAIL EMPLOYMENT TOTAL EMPLOYM EM 867 Unincorporated Area National Boundary (Ridge Line), Dublin, Pacific Coast Hwy, Trancas Canyon 1850 1897 6,820 252 1,240 1,900 868 Laguna Beach Irvine City Line, Santa Maria Ave, Moulton Pkwy E1 Toro, Laguna Cyn Pkwy 4064 4527 15,010 6,753 3,500 5,350 869 Saddleback Valley & Laguna Hills E1 Toro Rd, Moulton Pkway' Woods Canyon, Laguna Canyon 3138 332 6,017 716 580 850 870 South Laguna Hills Laguna Beach City Line, Aliso Cyn Rd, Noyes P1, Pacific Coast, Laguna Cyn Fd. 4100 1500 10,234 2,558 2,000 3,000 Acacia Parkway, P.C. Aliso 871 Saddleback Valley National Boundary 3351 1000 11,530 576 1,500 5,000 872 Laguna Hills Crown Valley Pkwy, Pacific Coast, National Boundary Ridgeline, Aliso Canyon 4111 1256 12,126 846 2,600 4,000 SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS INDEX TO 1995 ZONAL PROJECTIONS, SEC.1I* *For remaining variables: Group Quarters population, acres, workers by residence, median income ($ 1976),low income dwellinq units, medium income dwelling units, hiqh income dwellinq units, average parkinq cost NAME OF AREA/JURISDICTION PAGE NUMBER NAME OF AREA/JURISDICTION PAGE NUMBER ANAHEIM 82, 33, 84,85, 102, 102 LOS ALAMITOS 105 BREA 102 MISSION VIEJO 97, 98, 99 BUENA PARK 79 NEWPORT BEACH 107 CAPISTRANO BEACH 100 ORANGE 857 87, 88, 103 COSTA MESA 92, 95, 107 PLACENTIA 102 CYPRESS 79, 80, 81, 105 SADDLEBACK DANA POINT 99 SAN CLEMENTE 100, 101 FOUNTAIN VALLEY 106 SAC! JUAN CAPISTPANO 99, 100 FULLERTON 70, 80, 81, 102 SANTA ANA 87,88,89,90,91,92 GARDEN GROVE 85, 86, 87, 105 SEAL BEACH 105, HUNTINGTON BEACH 105, 106, 107 SOUTH COUNTY CANYON 104. 105 IRVINE 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 107 STANTON 84 IRVINE SUBDIVISION 96, 97, 103, 104 SUNSET BEACH 106 LAGUNA BEACH 1.03 TUSTIN 88, 89, 93, 94 LAGUNA HILLS 016, 98, 99 VILLA PARK 104 LA HABRA 96, 102 WESTMINSTER 105, 106 LAKE FOREST/EL TORO 93, 96, 97 YORBA LINDA 103 LA PAL14A 79 tr 0 • • No 0 • • 0 • a SATCAA ZONE GROUP QUARTERS POPULATION ACRES WORKERS BY RESIDENCE MEDIAN INCOME IS 1076 ► LOW INCOME DWELLING UNITS MEDIUM INCOME DWELLING UNITS HIGH INCOME DWELLING UNITS AVERAGE PARKING COST 501 0 3231 8818 39904 420 2324 4324 0 502 9 349 1741 35072 120 475 858 0 503 9 427 1550 35072 369 722 214 0 504 0 536 2033 15167 1412 334 60 0 505 200 536 3318 15167 1411 1236 250 0 506 5 352 1142 11798 560 208 132 0 507 5 353 3393 11798 1682 825 190 0 508 0 474 0 0 0 0 0 0 509 25 579 3005 16686 1533 1052 109 0 510 0 1002 5494 30822 645 2257 1135 0 511 7 1430 7402 27964 1320 2831 L 1451 0 I m 0 SATCAA ZONE GROUP QUARTERS POPULATION ACRES WORKERS BY RESIDENCE MEDIAN INCOME IS 1976) LOW INCOME DWELLING UNITS MEDIUM INCOME DWELLING UNITS HIGH INCOME DWELLING UNITS AVERAGE PARKING COST 512 5 417 2903 26710 427 1465 241 0 513 6 341 2904 26710 427 1464 241 0 0 800 5209 P3144 1373 1823 671 0 515 4 472 2489 23883 538 1124 294 0 516 4 387 2480 23883 538 1124 293 0 517 355 616 4346 • 22800 1020 1953 364 0 518 10 504 3556 22800 835 1597 297 0 519 9 570 1806 20779 608 585 160 0 520 10 467 2395 29779 608 945 246 0 521 18 557 4780 20469 1640 1576 694 0 522 0 557 129 20469 28 65 0 0 • * 0 • + • 0 6 i • • SATCAA ZONE GROUP QUARTERS POPULATION ACRES WORKERS BY RESIDENCE MEDIAN INCOME (S 19761- LOW INCOME DWELLING UNITS MEDIUM INCOME DWELLING UNITS HIGH INCOME DWELLING UNITS AVERAGE PARKING COST 523 1000 564 1394 21473 815 192 165 0 524 0 564 2667 21473 307 1600 938 0 525 0 282 2002 21473 1513 228 155 0 526 700 707 3805 18466 1361 1128 674 0 527 0 302 2537 18466 1200 744 200 0 528 0 954 0 0 0 0 0 0 529 400 780 5056 14596 2602 1331 297 0 530 4 297 1916 22970 540 798 205 0 531 4 297 1700 22970 428 760 200 0 532 6 305 1845 23113 444 859 261 0 533 5 306 1844 F23113 445 859 262 0 SATCAA ZONE GROUP QUARTERS POPULATION ACRES WORKERS BY RESIDENCE MEDIAN INCOME IS 1976► LOW INCOME DWELLING UNITS MEDIUM INCOME DWELLING UNITS HIGH INCOME DWELLING UNITS AVERAGE PARKING_ COST 534 15 481 2366 21013 420 1317 370 0 535 28 320 3550 21013 1637 1164 700 0 536 200 333 3336 16863 2055 476 140 0 537 150 778 3205 16863 1500 1391 605 0 538 0 289 328 13714 182 60 20 0 539 41 288 2830 13714 1786 660 269 0 540 13 437 2597 20904 909 1106 720 0 541 14 437 3175 20904 lill 1353 880 0 542 16 1178 7253 24575 2296 3001 1178 0 543 10 426 2202 23874 746 1253 369 0 544 400 06 3905 9856 2755 700 230 0.50 0 ♦ 0 • • ! E • • w C 0 • • SATCAA ZONE GROUP QUARTERS POPULATION ACRES WORKERS BY RESIDENCE MEDIAN INCOME (S 1976 ) LOW INCOME DWELLING UNITS MEDIUM INCOME DWELLING UNITS HIGH INCOME DWELLING UNITS AVERAGE PARKING COST 545 139 572 3801 15003 2357 892 255 0 546 0 621 1970 24083 625 855 50 0 547 0 497 168 24083 40 86 26 0 548 0 435 1257 24083 218 744 432 0 a, w t 549 4 437 2568 37031 640 1333 600 0 550 0 358 1101 37031 212 467 436 0 551 0 516 326 21581 100 132 23 0 552 46 386 2083 21581 743 712 170 0 553 100 387 4114 21581 1144 1892 185 0 554 10 320 3120 17717 1490 883 240 0 555 10 320 2261 17717 1004 708 157 0 I SATCAA ZONE GROUP QUARTERS POPULATION ACRES WORKERS BY RESIDENCE MEDIAN INCOME (S 1976 ) LOW INCOME DWELLING UNITS MEDIUM INCOME DWELLING UNITS HIGH INCOME DWELLING UNITS AVERAGE PARKING COST 556 0 320 3472 19204 1535 910 174 0 557 0 320 1710 19204 400 700 174 0 558 10 288 2563 23599 566 1060 240 0 559 10 336 1969 23599 567 868 147 0 560 17 336 3015 235 800 1138 240 0 561 12 575 772 20242 1000 572 96 0 562 20 431 3859 20242 562 1300 484 0 563 250 432 3087 20242 1400 1158 388 0 564 36 640 4714 21052 1551 1676 447 0 565 57 960 6210 18636 2585 1903 570 0 566 8 320 1731 25092 107 1139 240 0 U 01 r 0 aw G - 0_ - --0 - - 0 • 0 P • e • 0 • 0 SATCAA ZONE GROUP QUARTERS POPULATION ACRES WORKERS BY RESIDENCE MEDIAN INCOME (S 1976 ► LOW INCOME DWELLING UNITS MEDIUM INCOME DWELLING UNITS HIGH INCOME DWELLING UNITS AVERAGE PARKING COST 567 9 320 2115 25092 800 765 222 0 568 70 320 1526 25671 400 731 360 0 569 133 480 3563 25671 1166 1229 607 0 570 10 448 4209 23158 1700 994 480 0 571 0 446 935 23158 235 423 45 0 572 11 599 4210 23158 2960 1034 370 0 573 564 533 1683 23281 573 757 326 0.50 574 40 463 3853 18319 1508 1123 192 0 575 42 566 4710 18319 1844 1372 235 0 576 11 800 3920 25663 885 1794 404 0 577 24 624 3685 24519 909 1704 351 0 SATCAA ZONE GROUP OUARTERS POPULATION ACRE$ WORKERS BY RESIDENCE MEDIAN INCOME IS 1976 ) LOW INCOME DWELLING UNITS MEDIUM INCOME DWELLING UNITS HIGH INCOME DWELLING UNITS AVERAGE PARKING COST 578 579 5 20 288 672 1382 3553 24738 24738 350 900 458 1409 166 428 0 0 580 32 530 2261 18187 1057 766 257 0 581 2 855 1061 25074 221 425 172 0 582 58 1029 7372 21886 1200 3304 896 0 583 23 686 4914 17645 2941 538 200 0 84 81 975 6286 17922 2515 1655 689- 0 585 150 338 2156 25663 I143 618 97 0 843 1483 168 0 587 210 510 2548 20226 966 588 29 624 3821 20226 1450 990 252 0 589 218 727 2642 19742 940 966 400 0 4 f to rw 0 a a f. a w SATCAA ZONE GROUP QUARTERS POPULATION ACRES WORKERS BY RESIDENCE MEDIAN INCOME IS 1976 ) LOW INCOME DWELLING UNITS MEDIUM INCOME DWELLING UNITS HIGH INCOME DWELUNG UNITS AVERAGE PARKING COST 1748 1267 0 591 350 768 3709 23886 817 1955 440 0 592 150 512 1997 21886 817 892 189 0 593 150 1254 8701 19574 2963 2969 986 0 594 0 592 0 0 0 0 0 0 464 11146 457 87 55 0 596 21 650 465 11146 457 87 56 0 597 250 355 1390 18223 558 475 261 0 8 17 711 2780 18223 1117 978 517 0 599 350 711 2779 18223 1117 924 518 0 600 400 812 6553 16088 3154 1602 460 0 r: SATCAA ZONE GROUP QUARTERS POPULATION ACRES BY WORKERSFIS RESIDENCE LOW INCOME DWELLING UNITS MEDIUM INCOME DWELLING UNITS NIGH INCOME DWELLING UNITS AVERAGE PARKING COST 601 80 775 4550 20442 1592 1626 705 0 602 85 584 3302 28890 543 1437 854 0 603 10 876 4378 28890 719 1903 1133 0 604 7 482 1937 35561 322 866 789 0 605 15 1124 3599 35561 599 1608 1466 0 606 80 632 2192 24788 598 984 419 0 607 120 421 3288 24788 898 1475 628 0 608 100 332 1735 24044 466 708 292 0 609 100 405 1735 24044 466 708 292 0 610 0 636 2864 22873 800 956 934 0 611 0 272 2643 22873 1201 824 400 0 0 6 i 11 � SATCAA ZONE �; A r ♦ ly � t1 � ! � MEDIUM HIGH AVERAGE INCOME INCOME PARKING DWELLING DWELLING COST UNITS UNITS GROUP OUARTERS 1 POPULATION ACRES I I WORKERS BY RESIDENCE MEDIAN INCOME IS 1976) LOW INCOME DWELLING UNITS 612 5 427 1782 26675 214 833 550 0 613 5 320 T 1592 26675 214 730 1 550 0 614 2 320 2992 26675 1282 1140 290 0 615 50 594 1253 24946 412 571 312 0 616 150 238 1254 24946 412 571 312 0 617 50 356 1672 24946 550 762 416 0 618 20 243 1738 15889 1069 419 94 0 619 280 296 1158 15889 712 280 62 0 620 300 371 3260 15179 1520 716 408 1.00 621 1200 186 652 10179 440 70 24 1.00 622 200 92 1957 10179 2000 110 24 1.00 SATCAA ZONE GROUP OUARTERS POPULATION ACRES WORKERS BY RESIDENCE MEDIAN INCOME IS 1976) LOW INCOME DWELLING UNITS MEDIUM INCOME DWELLING UNITS NIGH INCOME DWELLING UNITS AVERAGE PARKING COST 623 300 278 652 10179 440 70 24 1.00 624 32 345 1550 12147 1201 89 15 0 625 30 282 1500 16088 818 360 100 0 626 36 498 6316 17284 2994 1578 417 0.50 627 7 373 997 17284 374 292 120 0.50 628 7 374 997 17284 374 292 120 0.50 629 60 472 2910 10553 2273 308 84 0 630 68 202 2929 12553 1800 811 200 0 631 44 423 3115 16575 1383 1075 240 0 632 30 346 1335 16575 1200 235 31 0 633 1 280 30 10865 170 35 12 0 0 W 10 41 SATCAA ZONE GROUP I GUARTERS POPULATION I ACRES I i WORKERS BY RESIDENCE MEDIAN INCOME IS 1976 ) LOW INCOME DWELLING 'UNITS MEDIUM INCOME DWELLING UNITS HIGH INCOME DWELLING UNITS AVERAGE PARKING COST 634 60 341 4370 10865 3247 655 220 0 635 13 377 1218 15321 868 442 37 0 636 50 567 4876 15321 3200 1288 350 0 637 23 482 3220 16800 1888 1007 194 0 638 0 326 0 0 0 0 0 0 639 27 399 1639 17854 1080 731 178 0 640 33 503 2508 21092 887 1318 530 0 641 6 435 1031 21783 248• 459 150 1.00 642 26 290 3100 21783 998 1306 424 1.00 643 350 475 4170 21783 1296 1632 776 0 644 150 581 4171 21783 1295 1632 775 0 SATCAA ZONE GROUP OUARTERS POPULATION ACRES WORKERS BY RESIDENCE MEDIAN INCOME 1$1978) LOW INCOME DWELLING UNITS MEDIUM INCOME DWELLING UNITS HIGH INCOME DWELLING UNITS AVERAGE PARKING COST 645 0 700 5946 18857 2216 1557 928 0 646 0 572 0 0 0 0 0 0 647 0 500 2476 36168 192 966 771 1.00 648 0 376 0 0 0 0 0 1.00 649 0 376 2475 36168 192 966 770 1.00 650 8 396 3600 22979 1100 997 188 0 651 0 508 2904 32632 240 599 1557 0 652 0 761 4355 32632 359 898 2336 0 653 0 476 2879 47443 0 731 2193 0 654 0 702 2271 47315 0 188 1687 0 655 0 1640 3407 47315 0 281 2530 0 U 40 0 it A r i SATCAA ZONE GROUP QUARTERS POPULATION ACRES WORKERS BY RESIDENCE MEDIAN INCOME ($1976) LOW INCOME DWELLING UNITS MEDIUM INCOME DWELLING UNITS HIGH INCOME DWELLING UNITS AVERAGE PARKING COST 656 8 1126 1024 14378 277 277 0 0 657 3800 2703 0 0 0 0 0 0 658 8 676 1024 14378 277 277 0 0 659 0 620 0 0 0 0 0 0 660 0 978 0 0 0 0 0 0 661 47 413 4447 20372 1654 1926 720 0 662 30 275 3495 20372 1655 1326 266 0 663 0 295 966 36867 30 603 365 0 664 0 296 543 36867 75 203 260 0 665 0 667 0 0 0 0 0 0 666 0 1557 257 19468 68 68 0 0 I .0 F 1 SATCAA ZONE GROUP QUARTERS POPULATION ACRES WORKERS By RESIDENCE MEDIAN INCOME IS 1976) LOW INCOME DWELLING UNITS MEDIUM INCOME DWELLING UNITS HIGH INCOME DWELLING UNITS AVERAGE PARKING COST 667 0 1283 0 0 0 0 0 1.00 668 0 855 0 0 0 0 0 1.00 669 0 397 209 34841 0 44 133 0 671 0 478 4211 40789 178 892 2496 0 672 0 789 5384 34857 230 1150 3219_ 0 673 0 434 1722 35054 152 457 913 0 674 0 289 1148 35054 304 675 0 545 2785 34808 269 808 1617 0_ 676 0 847 5139 44052 218 1088 3046 0 677 1 0 1 941 5355 42420 227 1134 3175 0 A 0 0 a it 10 Al A A r • t t A SATCAA ZONE GROUP QUARTERS POPULATION ACRES WORKERS BY RESIDENCE MEDIAN INCOME ($1976 ) LOW INCOME DWELLING UNITS MEDIUM INCOME DWELLING UNITS HIGH INCOME DWELLING UNITS AVERAGE PARKING COST 678 0 835 40 45683 45 10 0 0 679 0 731 3292 45683 560 1130 1100 0 680 0 521 834 45683 121 272 312 0 681 0 342 0 0 0 0 0 0 682 0 228 0 0 0 0 0 0 683 0 574 0 0 0 0 0 0 684 0 475 0 .0 0 0 0 0 685 0 1188 0 0 0 0 0 0 686 0 712 0 0 0 0 0 0 687 0 1027 5514 37581 226 678 3615 0 688 1570 1976 5569 10217 4284 225 0 0 �1 SATCAA ZONE GROUP QUARTERS POPULATION ACRES WORKERS BY RESIDENCE MEDIAN INCOME ($1976) LOW INCOME DWELLING UNITS MEDIUM INCOME DWELLING UNITS HIGH INCOME DWELLING UNITS AVERAGE PARKING COST 689 0 1773 4387 56464 74 111 3515 0 690 0 785 2768 47315 117 350 1868 0 691 0 1969 1660 47315 0 140 1260 0 692 0 1766 0 0 0 0 0 0 693 0 725 1337 29369 1284 1027 257 0 694 0 1731 2120 42420 169 507 1015 0 695 0 1434 3762 42420 301 903 1805 0 696 0 1304 3998 31846 713 1784 1070 0 697 0 866 3136 28275 601 1502 901 0 698 0 782 4324 37525 328 820 2133 0 1823 6486 37525 492 1231 3199 0 A 0 4` a 0 ,* M 6 0 r i SATCAA ZONE GROUP QUARTERS POPULATION ACRES WORKERS BY RESIDENCE MEDIAN INCOME ($1976) LOW INCOME DWELLING UNITS MEDIUM INCOME DWELLING UNITS HIGH INCOME DWELLING UNITS AVERAGE PARKING COST 700 0 908 5006 37525 745 1491 1491 0 701 101 1078 3335 31046 571 1428 856 0 702 0 1029 4054 35356 174 1388 1909 0 703 0 932 4004 45683 334 836 2174 0 704 0 1396 3276 45683 274 684 1779 0 705 1 682 2040 43138 189 472 1227 0 706 1 558 2040 43138 189 472 1227 0 707 0 1021 315 45683 24 60 156 0 40 1404 0 32632 120 223 498 0 710 0 335 3132 32632 519 735 1100 0 SATCAA ZONE GROUP QUARTERS POPULATION ACRES WORKERS BY RESIDENCE MEDIAN INCOME IS1976) LOW INCOME DWELLING UNITS MEDIUM INCOME DWELLING UNITS HIGH INCOME DWELLING UNITS AVERAGE PARKING COST 711 0 368 98 19873 778 583 145 0 712 0 369 98 19873 777 582 146 0 713 167 197 340 18550 253 202 51 1.50 714 0 523 159 18549 2709 1901 143 0 715 1 229 511 43542 106 283 318 0 716 1 535 948 43542 197 525 491 0 717 0 324 1051 37525 29I 291 873 0 718 0 608 2225 47315 0 195 1758 0 719 0 608 954 47315 0 84 753 0 720 0 793 3490 45683 286 716 1861 0 1287 53841 0 121 1093 0 Li 4 r i r (t SATCAA ZONE GROUP QUARTERS POPULATION ACRES WORKERS BY RESIDENCE MEDIAN INCOME ($1976) LOW INCOME DWELLING UNITS MEDIUM INCOME DWELLING UNITS HIGH INCOME DWELLING UNITS AVERAGE PARKING COST 722 0 1218 6482 30673 507 1267 3293 0 723 0 1056 1988 45683 0 188 1688 0 724 0 1660 2340 45683 0 250 2250 0 725 0 1106 1261 45683 0 135 1212 0 726 0 803 907 30731 0 231 692 0 727 0 691 1784 47315 0 0 1900 0 728 0 461 1784 47315 0 0 1910 0 729 0 806 3715 45683 0 1058 2470 0 739 4492 45683 0 821 3282 0 731 0 752 3559 21974 1418 1418 709 0 732 0 820 1233 1 24167 1 120 1 480 600 0 0 CD SATCAA ZONE GROUP QUARTERS POPULATION ACRES WORKERS By RESIDENCE MEDIAN INCOME (S/976 ) LOW INCOME DWELLING UNITS MEDIUM INCOME DWELLING UNITS HIGH INCOME DWELLING UNITS AVERAGE PARKING COST 733 0 351 1233 24167 120 480 600 0 734 5 598 1101 21629 0 288 672 0 735 10 490 2570 21629 0 672 1568 0 736 2 692 2221 23088 216 864 1081 0 737 100 1061 2182 18584 279 836 1672 0 738 0 713 870 29697 91 182 638 0 739 0 2378 870 29697 91 182 638 0 740 _ 110 1189 2031 29697 213 425 1489 0 741 0 476 2031 29697 213 425 1489 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35653 494 988 3459 0 is 4 Li 0 v SATCAA ZONE GROUP QUARTERS POPULATION ACRES WORKERS BY RESIDENCE MEDIAN INCOME ($1976) LOW INCOME DWELLING UNITS MEDIUM INCOME DWELLING UNITS HIGH INCOME DWELLING UNITS AVERAGE PARKING COST ' 744 30 826 1794 35653 212 424 1483 0 745 5 2418 3108 29252 368 1292 1835 0 746 24 749 3799 16924 1170 1910 600 0 747 6 2418 2073 29252 244 543 1835 0 748 16 612 2533 16924 367 1065 2475 0 17 I SATCAA ZONE GROUP QUARTERS POPULATION ACRES WORKERS By RESIDENCE MEDIAN INCOME iS 1076 ) LOW INCOME DWELLING UNITS MEDIUM INCOME DWELLING UNITS HIGH INCOME DWELLING UNITS AVERAGE PARKING COST 801 110 1837 9297 22942 3125 3207 1098 0 802 53 2141 10565 21494 3829 3556 949 0 803 590 3979 10602 27229 2182 3913 2653 0 804 175 2509 7231 44013 744 1671 3403 0 805 30 2510 10793 23699 1340 3417 2425 0 806 0 11054 5357 32632 266 1329 3720 0 807 12 1451 5102 34819 366 2699 2029 0 808 20 1640 9459 23685 2558 3299 1889 0 809 0 2272 4276 15209 2006 1204 586 0 810 10 1111 914 13710 146 160 482 0 811 0 1717 4083 29301 363 2075 1238 0 0 C3 w w i S i 0 0 It A 140 SATCAA ZONE GROUP QUARTERS POPULATION ACRES WORKERS BY RESIDENCE MEDIAN INCOME ($ 1976 ) LOW INCOME DWELLING UNITS MEDIUM INCOME DWELLING UNITS HIGH INCOME DWELLING UNITS AVERAGE PARKING COST 812 4 1826 5508 30110 777 2214 1542 0 813 0 2612 3885 33109 0 623 2492 0 814 5 2914 9339 40645 722 2767 4005 0 815 0 6105 4957 48946 0 0 3489 0 816 0 24071 11947 54104 0 388 9170 0 817 8 3619 5884 38787 505 1009 3532 0 818 0 2256 6024 38784 539 1078 3774 0 819 11 1716 6831 28882 1202 3251 1320 0 820 501 1567 9793 24249 2791 3656 1825 0 821 29 2148 6716 45291 523 1118 3789 0 822 0 4386 10322 38833 845 845 6758 0 SATCAA ZONE GROUP QUARTERS POPULATION ACRES WORKERS BY RESIDENCE MEDIAN INCOME (S 1076 ) LOW INCOME DWELLING UNITS MEDIUM INCOME DWELLING UNITS HIGH INCOME DWELLING UNITS AVERAGE PARKING COST 823 0 2961 7844 34296 920 2862 3673 0 824 0 2944 4496 59171 50 678 2147 0 825 1 1315 2863 57715 50 445 1306 0 826 0 5354 9172 43542 0 789 7104 0 827 0 3712 7102 47315 0 612 5504 0 828 0 11313 1161 47315 0 100 900 0 829 0 4358 1442 48947 58 173 920 0 830 7 37679 7314 43947 481 704 3372 0 831 0 5712 3135 47315 84 168 1428 0 832 198 43534 1863 43947 30 20 950 0 833 0 13440 2772 47315 74 372 1042 • '' 0 i 0 to • A �t • r 0 t SATCAA ZONE GROUP QUARTERS POPULATION ACRES WORKERS BY RESIDENCE MEDIAN INCOME (S 1876 ) LOW INCOME DWELLING UNITS MEDIUM INCOME DWELLING UNITS HIGH INCOME DWELLING UNITS AVERAGE PARKING COST 834 0 19804 2122 28657 114 570 1596 0 835 0 507 3808 28115 465 2045 525 0 836 0 978 925 27903 76 491 188 0 837 370 2423 7260 29342 1563 2355 2119 0 838 2 1977 8103 35726 1055 2938 2499 0 839 1292 6241 6373 19246 8163 3624 1580 0 840 115 1883 10614 30851 897 5116 1937 0 841 7 2439 11100 23125 3342 4599 1174 0 842 31 1567 5489 28159 721 2146 1427 0 843 17 793 3929 29090 451 2112 732 0 844 60 1586 10998 29081 1669 5428 3148 0 i SATCAA ZONE GROUP OUARTERS POPULATION ACRES WORKERS BY RESIDENCE MEDIAN INCOME (S 1976 ) LOW INCOME DWELLING UNITS MEDIUM INCOME DWELLING UNITS NIGH INCOME DWELLING UNITS AVERAGE PARKING COST 845 54 3945 11136 34615 2038 5226 6838 0 846 350 2529 13380 19532 5317 4167 3536 0 847 32 1220 5263 28119 992 2522 1968 0 848 15 955 7216 18884 1763 1519 664 0 849 26 1275 9968 23560 2530 3619 1323 0 850 278 2370 9709 19871 3767 3603 1580 0 851 11 1600 8992 25645 2218 4033 1451 0 852 0 2040 6616 31527 685• 3177 1491 0 853 125 2036 10367 28945 1596 3733 2169 0 854 0 1600 7070 42264 689 3190 2092 0 855 41 1690 9889 28477 1703 4358 2378 0 SATCAA GROUP ACRES WORKERS MEDIAN LOW MEDIUM ZONE QUARTERS BY INCOME INCOME INCOME POPULATION RESIDENCE IS 1978) DWELLING DWELLING UNITS UNITS HIGH AVERAGE INCOME PARKING DWELLING COST UNITS 856 25 1920 10396 29428 909 4057 3699 0 857 36 1721 10187 33248 1240 4267 2878 0 858 887 4077 24656 20258 9505 6291 3321 0 859 2222 2939 13078 22638 3832 4788 _ 2077 0 860 64 2119 12107 22979 3571 4594 1306 0 861 967 2470 19802 • 15320 11476 4510 1968 0 862 0 1435 5782 32228 659 1858 2429 0.50 863 5 1939 8903 37805 744 1185 1796 0 864 0 2988 6989 62143 0 1054 5038 0 865 6 4400 22464 42473 1859 5380 12041 0 866 0 3896 3320 48947 0 140 2660 0 SATCAA ZONE GROUP QUARTERS POPULATION ACRES WORKERS BY RESIDENCE MEDIAN INCOME IS 1076 ) LOW INCOME DWELLING UNITS MEDIUM INCOME DWELLING UNITS HIGH INCOME DWELLING UNITS AVERAGE PARKING COST 867 0 5397 2932 65143 0 290 3457 0 868 61 3980 15010 55419 3882 3437 1371 0 869 0 2841 2480 41683 426 560 2584 0.50 870 57 3474 5526 35653 1400 1400 2800 0 871 0 2704 5304 42420 218 1088 3046 0 872 0 3848 4935 33649 593 1268 4478 0 IV. Inventory of General Plan Data This section contains a description of the sources of informa- tion which were used to disaggregate and aggregate land use data for the Santa Ana Transportation Corridor Alternatives Analysis. This data was used as a basis for the development of the new corridor zone system, as well as to identify available data resources and obtain detailed land use and S density information within the corridor that will be used to develop detailed transit and highway networks. The inventory of general plan data was completed through in- dividual contacts with each local planning agency within the corridor. A standardized form was developed for recording the local land use planning efforts for each jurisdiction. The categories included on the form are: 1. The identification of the planning agency which is directly responsible for the general plan and has zoning responsibilities, or is involved in planned development or redevelopment. 2. The name of local technical reports and documents that contain information on existing land use, zoning, general plan, and future land use proposals including redevelopment plans and areas of special interest. Reports that assess the compatibility between transportation facilities and local land uses are also included. 3. Maps that are directly related to local land use planning activities, such as the general comprehensive land use element, zoning, redevelopment and future land management programs. 4. Important dates such as those that indicate when the general plan or zoning plan was first adopted by the planning commission, along with the date of the latest update or revision. 5. Base year and future years which identify when the land use plan data had been analyzed and had been scheduled for build out. It should be noted that base and future years were not always identified in the general plans. 6. Land use patterns are broken into different categories, such as residential land (low, medium, and high density), commercial land, which includes business and professional office buildings, and industrial areas. Other land use information is included such as vacant land, educational, recreational and public facilities, and special study corridors. -109- C: 7. The level of detail at which the data is available is soown at the end of the inventory. Data could be avail- Is, able at various levels, including: acreage, parcel, block, census track, or analysis zonal levels. The available general plan data has been inventoried within these seven categories and is listed on the following 14 tables for each individual local jurisdiction within the a: corridor. sI V 11 !1 *I tl C.] R4051580SHC [7 I* is UA 10 If IC: �0 CITY: Costa Mesa AGENCY: Planning Department PLAN ADOPTED BASE YEAR FUTURE YEAR NAME OF DOCUMENTS AND REPORTS: October 1979 General Plan Review TYPE OF MAPS: 1. General Plan Land Use Element (Feb. 1979) 2. Official Land Use Map (3-19-79) 3. Master Plan of Highways 4. Traffic Volume Map LANE USE CATEGORIES: ® Residential-- ® Low Density ® Med. Density L= High Density [ Commercial Q Professional Buildings t= Industrial - Light, heavy r--1 Open Space r---1 Recreational = Schools and Public Facilities r-'-1 Multi -Use Corridor CQ Specific Development Q Special Study Corridor Q Military Bases x Golf Course 1979 Long Range DATA LEVEL SHOWN: Acreage Q Parcel Level [y� Block Level Q Census Tract Level Analysis Zones n 121379SHF all.. •, CITY: Santa Ana AGENCY: Planning Department PLAN ADOPTED Jan. 1979 (revised) BASE YEAR FUTURE YEAR Long Range NAME OF DOCUMENTS AND REPORTS: 1. Downtown Santa Ana (1976) 2. Amendment to Redevelopment Plan, City of Santa Ana Redevelopment Project (1975) 0 TYPE OF MAPS: 1. Santa Ana General Plan Maps (1-79) 2. Santa Ana Planning Areas (11 neighborhood communities) 3. Santa Ana Land Use Maps (2-17-76) LANE USE CATEGORIES: Q Residential-- Low Density ® Med. Density i-A-1 High Density [� Commercial Q Professional Buildings r-in Industrial t�7 Open Space CE7 Recreational r= Schools and Public Facilities r- 1 Multi -Use Corridor = Specific Development ® Special Study Corridor [Q Military Bases DATA LEVEL SHOWN: C� Acreage Parcel Level ® Block Level L= Census Tract Level = Analysis Zones & *1 !I *I *I 121379SHF 412. W It is Is 10 I* is Is �• �• I! CITY: La Palma AGENCY: Planning Division NAME OF DOCUMENTS AND REPORTS: TYPE OF MAPS: 1. General Plan Map LANE USE CATEGORIES: Q Residential— Cgj Low Density CS] Med. Density r-Tn High Density Mq Commercial ® Professional Buildings d Industrial [Q Open Space CM Recreational ® Schools and Public Facilities [Q Multi -Use Corridor O Specific Development C--1 Special Study Corridor Q Military Bases PLAN ADOPTED 12-74 (revised) BASE YEAR FUTURE YEAR Long range DATA LEVEL SHOWN: Q Acreage Q Parcel Level Block Level Q Census Tract Level Analysis Zones j0 121379SHF -113- n CITY: Irvine AGENCY: Planning Department PLAN ADOPTED Sept. 1977 BASE YEAR FUTURE YEAR 2010 NAME OF DOCUMENTS AND REPORTS: 1. City of Irvine Traffic Analysis Program Land Use and Circulation Element Evaluation (Sept. 1979) TYPE OF MAPS: 1. City of Irvine General Plan (Sept. 1977) 2. Majbr undeveloped areas within the city or proposed for annexation 3. City of Irvine, Planning Data Base (11-9-78) LANE USE CATEGORIES: �] Residential— Low Density ® Med. Density t= High Density Op Commercial Q Professional Buildings Industrial L= Open Space C31 Recreational CT1 Schools and Public Facilities Multi -Use Corridor O Specific Development G-1 Special Study Corridor Q Military Bases DATA LEVEL SHOWN: C� Acreage Parcel Level [� Block Level © Census Tract Level Analysis Zones ® General *I 13 11 &I 11 AI 01 121379SHF -114- 461 I* 1• E] I• is is �, �9 a CITY: Tustin AGENCY: Planning Commission PLAN ADOPTED April, 1973 BASE YEAR 8-1-79 (revised) FUTURE YEAR Long Range NAME OF DOCUMENTS AND REPORTS: 1. Housing - Population Unit Data (1-31-79) TYPE OF MAPS: 1. General Plan Land Use Map (revised 8-1-79) 2. 1978 Average Daily Traffic Volume (3-1-97) 3. Tustin E1 Camino Real Design Study LANE USE CATEGORIES: ® Residential-- V Low Density -T Med. Density © High Density Commercial ® Professional Buildings t'A-1 Industrial [---] Open Space C —n Recreational CJ-' Schools and Public Facilities CQ Multi -Use Corridor d Specific Development C-7 Special Study Corridor Q Military Bases DATA LEVEL SHOWN: Q Acreage j� Parcel Level Block Level Q Census Tract Level Analysis Zones 121379SHF i � 115- A CITY: Cypress AGENCY: Planning Department ZONE PLAN ADOPTED Nov. 1972 May 3, 1978 (revised) BASE YEAR FUTURE YEAR Long range NAME OF DOCUMENTS AND REPORTS: 1. Dwelling Unit/Population Capacity of General Plan (1979) 2. Residential Land Use Acreage (1979) 3. Land Use Acreage (1979) TYPE OF MAPS: 1. Zoning Map (May 3, 1978) LANE USE CATEGORIES: CM Residential-- t= Low Density = Med. Density High Density V Commercial Q Professional Buildings t= Industrial t1 Open Space b Recreational t= Schools and Public Facilities [--1 Multi -Use Corridor L- D Specific Development C—_] Special Study Corridor [= Military Bases r. DATA LEVEL SHOWN: [� Acreage C� Parcel Level [� Block Level © Census Tract Level Analysis Zones S L J a 0I L 121379SHF -116- 0I I• 10 Is 1♦ Is Is 1s 1! I• f] CITY: Garden Grove AGENCY: Department of Community Development PLAN ADOPTED August 1979 BASE YEAR FUTURE YEAR Long range NAME OF DOCUMENTS AND REPORTS: 1. Land for Growth and Development, City of Garden Grove (April 1979) TYPE OF MAPS: 1. General Plan Map (1979) 2. City Zone Map (Feb. 1979) 3. Traffic Count Map LANE USE CATEGORIES: ® Residential-- Low Density C7 Med. Density C� High Density C:3q Commercial ® Professional Buildings tom] Industrial ® Open Space C� Recreational t= Schools and Public Facilities t= Multi -Use Corridor E =] Specific Development t= Special Study Corridor [--1 Military Bases u7:iVIM4A 3WillK!)4 Q Acreage Q Parcel Level (� Block Level .Census Tract Level Analysis Zones I• 121379SHF -117- •' CITY: San Clemente AGENCY: Planning Department NAME OF DOCUMENTS AND REPORTS: PLAN ADOPTED 5-17-78 BASE YEAR (corrected 4-30-79) FUTURE YEAR 1986 (Future - existing dev.) long range (general plan) 1. City of San Clemente Multi -Modal Transportation Proposal TYPE OF MAPS: 1. San Clemente Land Use Element - General Plan (4-30-79) 2. Precise Zoning Map (7-5-78) 3. San Clemente Future - Existing Development (April, 1978) LANE USE CATEGORIES: Residential-- Low Density r'i'l Med. Density r-'-1 High Density Commercial Q Professional Buildings Industrial 1_k`] Open Space r'Xn Recreational r= Schools and Public Facilities = Multi -Use Corridor O Specific Development C'] Special Study Corridor Q Military Bases DATA LEVEL SHOWN: [=j Acreage Q Parcel Level Q Block Level Q Census Tract Level Analysis Zones GT1 General •I tl it L7 •I 01 61 •1 W 121379SHF -118- •I IA 19 Is 1• 10 I• I• 10 I* 10 CITY: San Juan Capistrano AGENCY: Planning Department NAME OF DOCUMENTS AND REPORTS: PLAN ADOPTED Dec. 18, 1974 BASE YEAR FUTURE YEAR king range 1. General Plan (Dec. 1974) 2. Dwelling Unit and Population Projections (1979) TYPE OF MAPS: 1. Official Zoning Map (6-6-79) LANE USE CATEGORIES: DATA LEVEL SHOWN: ® Residential— �j Low Density [J Med. Density �-X) High Density Commercial Professional Buildings r--X-1 Industrial r-X'l Open Space = Recreational ['XJ Schools and Public Facilities r1 Multi -Use Corridor C-0 Specific Development [1 Special Study Corridor = Military Bases [� Acreage Parcel Level [� Block Level 0 Census Tract Level Analysis Zones ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS [X--) Floodway ® Floodway Fringe 121379SHF -119- 4 CITY: Orange AGENCY: City of Orange Department of Development and Community Services PLAN ADOPTED 1974 BASE YEAR FUTURE YEAR 1985 NAME OF DOCUMENTS AND REPORTS: 1. Land Use Element, The General Plan (1973) 2. Circulation Element, The General Plan (4-25-78) 3. Land Use and Socio-economic Rate Summary (July, 1979) 4. Traffic Flower (1978) TYPE OF MAPS: 1. Land Use Area Maps 6, 7, 8, 13, 14 and 15 (revised 4-66) 2. General Plan Map - Land Use Element (revised 2-78) 3. Use Districting Map, City of Orange (March 1979) LANE USE CATEGORIES: Residential— �7 Low Density ® Med. Density = High Density (q Commercial - local, major, highrise ® Professional Buildings �) Industrial t =1 Open Space C= Recreational t= Schools and Public Facilities [_J Multi -Use Corridor G7 Specific Development C.] Special Study Corridor Q Military Bases DATA LEVEL SHOWN: [� Acreage (� Parcel Level -" Block Level Cj Census Tract Level Analysis Zones r s, 91 E 121379SHF -120" 0I I• 1• lie I• 19 I• 1! 1s 1* 10 CITY: Fullerton AGENCY: Fullerton Development Services Department PLAN ADOPTED September, 1972 BASE YEAR 1971 (Economic Survey and Analysis) FUTURE YEAR 1985 NAME OF DOCUMENTS AND REPORTS: 1. Fullerton General Plan 2. Land Use Element Policy Document (1979) 3. Land Use Technical Document, Draft (1977) 4. Fullerton Redevelopment Program (Central & East. Oct. 1973) 5. Technical Document of the Circulation/Transportation Element TYPE OF MAPS: 1. Land Use Element (1972) 2. Zoning Maps (June, 1979) 3. Orangefair Redevelopment Area 4. Central Fullerton Redevelopment Area 5. East Fullerton Redevelopment Area p Residential-- © Low Density ® Med. Density 1� High Density [y� Commercial =x j Professional Buildings t7 Industrial ® Open Space [$7 Recreational [-3n Schools and Public Facilities C-1 Multi -Use Corridor i1 Specific Development [� Special Study Corridor Q Military Bases DATA LEVEL SHOWN: [� Acreage Parcel Level Block Level (� Census Tract Level G� Analysis Zones I• 121379SHF "121.. • CITY: Stanton AGENCY: Planning Division PLAN ADOPTED BASE YEAR FUTURE YEAR NAME OF DOCUMENTS AND REPORTS: 1. Land Use Distribution Summary in Acres 2. Traffic and Circulation TYPE OF MAPS: 1. Official Zoning Map LANE USE CATEGORIES: Q Residential— C� Low Density t= Med. Density t-71 High Density [� Commercial Q Professional Buildings C� Industrial r= Open Space r=n Recreational C1 Schools and Public Facilities [Q Multi -Use Corridor L7 Specific Development C=.7 Special Study Corridor Q Military Bases 0 January, 1979 Long Range 3 DATA LEVEL SHOWN: Cj Acreage Q Parcel Level Block Level Q Census Tract Level Analysis Zones • • • is a 7 0- 121379SHF "122w • CITY: Buena Park AGENCY: City Planning Department ZONING PLAN ADOPTED 1979 BASE YEAR FUTURE YEAR Long Range NAME OF DOCUMENTS AND REPORTS: 1. Present Zoning and Land Use Statistics (1978) 2. Census data (1973) 3. Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Central Business District Redevelopment Project (1979) 4. EIR Downtown Redevelopment Plan (Sept. 1979) TYPE OF MAPS: • 1. Zoning Map (8-13-79) LANE USE CATEGORIES: ® Residential— Cyr] Low Density [� Med. Density C� High Density Commercial Q Professional Buildings Industrial Open Space Cx�] Recreational r= Schools and Public Facilities r'] Multi -Use Corridor C= Specific Development (Q Special Study Corridor Q Military Bases a DATA LEVEL SHOWN: C� Acreage Q Parcel Level [bj Block Level © Census Tract Level Q] Analysis Zones • 121379SHF -123� 0 CITY: Anaheim AGENCY: Anaheim City Planning Department PLAN ADOPTED BASE YEAR FUTURE YEAR NAME OF DOCUMENTS AND REPORTS: 1. Zoning Acreage (1979) 2. Dwelling Unit - Population Estimates (1979) 3. Land Use Survey Acreage Data (1979) TYPE OF MAPS: 1. Anaheim General Plan (July, 1979) 2. Commercial Recreation Area (July, 1979) 3. Anaheim Stadium Industrial Area (July, 1979) 4. Map of City of Anaheim (Nov. 1966) 5. Arterial Streets & Highways (Feb. 1979) LANE USE CATEGORIES: ® Residential-- ® Low Density I= Med. Density = High Density [ x Commercial [ x Professional Buildings r'" Industrial ® Open Space CM Recreational [-'-1 Schools and Public Facilities [= Multi -Use Corridor C-3 Specific Development C=i Special Study Corridor Q Military Bases July, 1979 Loag Range DATA LEVEL SHOWN: [.=j Acreage Q,=, Parcel Level M Block Level © Census Tract Level f = Analysis Zones •1 A *I W •1 7 :1 •I *l 121379SHF -124- *I C C APPENDIX I* STUDY AREA AND 1995 ZONAL PROJECTIONS OUTSIDE ORANGE COUNTY 10 19 le I0 b` r + % aa° f? `�'^•rm uwn � i -. �,� - -0n II lW=� L/ �y ^•Ira.^• o` 70 vil aPIM1 �` `�i ♦ , S \`♦ a � � 'tea t LAI{x�. STITY AREA ME nilTSIDE nRAFE CnuNTY ,L'O � IL .,nm•�n � �tv y5 V5 p� yavm t L sI t1 ���P`r, 0 SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS �• •,C t3 / �'t c r 0 4y ev'y Y + � ,y �, ♦5 \t�YN •l .Jit♦ b � 5q Yq� \ N" t O+ Tf1CT AREAS/JURISDICTION MAP NUMBER i. Artesia 1 2. Bell 1 3. Bellflower 1, 2 4. Cerritos 1, 2 5. Chino 39 4 6. City of Industry 3 7. Commerce 1 8. Corona 4 9. Downey 1, 2 10. Hawaiian Gardens 2 11. La Habra 1, 3 12. Lakewood 1, 2 13. La Mirada 1, 3 14. Long Beach 1, 2 15. Los Angeles County 1, 3 16. Montebello 1 17. Norwalk 1, 2 18. Paramount 1, 2 19. Pico -Rivera 1 20. Pomona 3 21. Riverside County 39 4 22. San Bernardino County 3, 4 23. Santa Fe Springs 1 24. Signal Hill 2 25. Walnut 3 26. West Covina 3 27. Whittier 19 3 STUDY AREA ZONES OUTSIDE (IRANGE COUNTY SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 • • • • • • • • • • • J MarrlA 0 CITY LIMITS wyF� 0.`Vi8 13E LEGEND s>� J i26 OPRR � 119 M EYER PICO IYERIA /25 124 CITY LIMITS R f 1l8 12$; IN 131 139 Mile 4,J 117 116 //5 130 122 € w� '� � �'" % 2&3 1 m RCE 4 l4 CITY LIMP PERK 95 < 133 for adjacent areas, see maps 88 J Ito c 87 � f 89 r(�E 109 �107 1: v Q�/$b 90 E 10$ 134 85 93 LOS 4W;F.LES CO, / 135 OPrry,F. C^, 8Y 83 91 12 94 106 105 SfF04 ` ti IMPERIAL CI 4 71 72 3 82 81 T 97 2103 3Ec 8o q5 : 98 a 1002 loz 70 a g 78 �RA"s Iol f(j n a 73 a A g 79 99 x PARR 69 68 Ty { PT 65 77 76`p. 6T 62 +�'{ moo• 66 64 63 PALM OR^NGE COUNTY MAP38 SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION SOUTH EAST LOS ANGELES CORRIDOR TwwNerTM -T IlCr ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS e r N co L • L • • • • • • • • • • • J d" a0N pF 9ERNpft� NO FWY LEGEND Ea ' ptmiT 147 0 11, 3 eN IN , �% tiviIT I 1. vrRF iYLIMITS NFST CnYI9p CM ^ Mile f] !�, IYi cR' o-po- O'pp R 139 tft P�tpN �9p�' r, Iip A IY4 � � 2b6 151 138 1 731 141 � t ` ` 'm LEY 145 for adjacent areas. see snaps s �CLIFORTnM IY2�p 1Y3 COE M4 133 onwLA T aTOY r,yr 150 Q 1 4 LINE �•" IY6 Wl' 4 ��1�^� CAR 6N�SNYOF f+ 136 137 c 1 e 134 Lnq V11FLES rn, 155 !D4 135 9PA'rr r.n, EFF i 1: � 103 !oo loz !, p IDI 99 ° ''1. _UE —COUNTY _SNTAAA_T_A_SPORMAP40 TATION AREA CORRIDOR iwwNerro�sTwar ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS .. W 0 • • • • • • • • SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 1995 ZONAL PROJECTIONS OUTSIDE ORANGE COUNTY • ZONE nCC 511N nCL: MUU nuoTIIL-___bnwc__...�,,.�uFy--__GEI_.._____TUT Ort PqP kth 4345 43ytl_ 1 FMP -7.16--- .._ EMP ucl.----LOB -.131005aQO INC 1.305---1-212 1410---.--'- INC PAGE INC 768 3 I PCOST 0 6� 125 1716 1040 0 6hH5 3ny5 66 lh6 312 1331 1331 13100 1212 1212 337 0.0 12b dn42 2?1? 52 13444 hldd 100 77b 2570 14800 1906 249R 850 0.0 1`a Inl-2ldbl----bb91-_.-�a09643 ...__ 24b6 7600A.---_1w3--�bd2 y355__-0.0--_.___ 128 )4GR 4or I 7195 1479 4h6 215 791 13600 855 Boo 205 0.0 129 2925 494 1f 12190 4',03 1144 470 7737 15b00 1059 1916 444 0.0 U_ 22115 96u 11 tl067---3882---Wh. -4---416---4.9300- A13 15'9 911.----0.0--- 131 374 3 104 14oh 523 roll 0 701 26700 •. U 151 204 0.67 I32 2A93 3464 159 12412 66811 175R 2481 13290 13300 2924 2225 12OR 0.67 3 Srn 1564 loll 21D11---7-U 13a-..-1194_ 2016__. _..9518 _.-1B50U.--2638-_- '4518-2638-_._.0.0- 134 2755 AH9 i 9645 4UH R54 3513 14U3 21000 411 1U24 849 0.0 135 29A8 HO! 31 IO444 47514 Ain 20,n9 5735 27500 2b5 1911 1555 0.0 . h 137 -i731 1043 71" 1M 1.1 I7 1412h--164 ';81.7-V800 3160 14hd 24A6 0 0 31200 1/8 64 iiiI 304 a127--0 713 0- 0.0 138 3134 73h 0 Ilh3h 4Sd3 1651 59h 4467 IA300 512 1888 910 0.0 39 'An?,; 74 11079----4341 1�4B.__..79tl1526.-_1,-•64---0.0------------ 140 46h 103 214 11+91 681 1749 996 116b] 15100 210 246 63 0.0 141 4177 6oI 2d 16999 646 615A 1043 341J3 19?00 709 2932 1087 0.0 142 1416 711 n 4Hn9 P01ti 1179 n 52.3 -4294.0 14 476 951 0-0 ------��, ' 144 A79 6 17295 4467 1043 11147 2U5 0.0 ' ' 144 b(142 b042 A7/ Al 3IdH5 1818 11H1tl 7';l9 149 1147 17300 1730U 2130 5595, SS94 1154 1154 0.0 145 ISPA Rlw 59 _BbtlZ--12b2.-2634 149____.1U3tl0-__18640 SL;7 -1489 '461.---0.0--- 146 4194 I155 2b 194H4 7446 6190 149 158b I970U 534 3745 10/0 0.0 147 3 11 1133 1235 0 993 U 3309 MOO 3 0 0 0.0 4N 2755 44,1 4y 10692 431d SAnR 14Y_1588A 24A00 141 1i71 1535 0 0 149 1676 241 32 743R 2841 24?1 0 206 22700 76 912 863 0.0 ISO 4074 231p 0 16393 hlO3 81;11 149 2dh 73100 215 2238 Iasi 0.0 51 3695 491 lu_I4791, 5821 698Il_-14-9 717___ 241OD a09 onto -- ILL n„4 !!!1 ly C11770 ntHl 6`,U 111pV JIVU 170UV L70C J1'/7 lueu 1.90 153 16.7 94 9 6'132 2441 Inn 300 3400 21000 294 969 460 0.0 154 179 11h 7R74 4hh6 12a 5 IS 650 19800 AMC ,n 0 0 9 155 3470 20? 16tl 11410 4737 475 701) 8000 1A1U0 1101 2020 S51 0.0 156 n 0 11 0 0 n In0 250 0 0 0 0 0.0 151 1671 6YU 11 .71 Bb__298S...-__4nn 650_._.12500._ -1B600 46A 1391 198 hOA5 11 / 15 1 V M4 7AI5 75 1'10 800 MOO 312 3907 1923 0.0 159 1I40 2070 It) 1064h 4R,37 625 1300 1600 14600 1537 1937 716 0.0 16n tn99 Alin n bbS1 d501 - i7-0n '41.00 7200 1..1y{l0 ...1369 gas 119 1 OA 161 4A7n 1310 160 7olh9 8110 )no Inn 8U0 20000 1226 3246 1655 0.0 AL_._15.4384_ZDB549_-2.51B.Z_.1h07y12..._6S7147.._ 18053S-.117443.__ b39644 _ _._- -_160223__...P as?&_I am&_ - SANTA AM TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 1995 ZONAL PROJECTIONS OUTSIDE ORANGE COUNTY P4r.E t 1.0 MQHM . ACRE .l dET TUT ..MGU.. ..- Low Ini,t SITU 1'11J 4N V9M Pt y F4v f 14W 1 1f INC IN' P 0 •. Ia. •1L 14'il I119L 5^� 14412__-146n1-. _.145-.--Lnvl-�.�215- -••-1360U--6S16-__. S6L4 2331L_l 14-� 33 1001 ln541 141 111-s1 IUMb2 44n 1-,IH till-1 ovUu ►N15 3150 TOU 1.17 34 ?479 b314 94 i5^nr1 M451 NN 944 b417 9100 91.110 7129 704 1.11 �5 711. 214-.--130).i--6104...--.--...40..-_._-7bb ___..4211- ._bILU-- _r3v 7.-.-. lis3b 32B.--l.IT 3b 455 44.1� 2I2 911"1 5011 174 1210 ball: 92011 31:100 1132 377 1.17 31 410 119h3 ?Sb 11197 10919 711 01431 244h7 9b00 9219 2076 718 1.17 ]li n h 12nn 120�, O_- -.-gum 553-.- 44238 3v 747 S731 3100 9v4S 57b4 a41 153M 93.3 M400 4733 1492 259 1.17 4U E-4L_k!',7 2111 4117 43 16134 63b1 6n4 I?1n 3704 17600 304? 2599 697 0.0 __b8y1, '_ 265d 7h9-_...•. b715. -101OU 1712_- H03 - 160._0.0_ a2 t?l3 591, )IV 7464 31v1 ••01 440 13U3 13100 1067 1405 337 0.0 43 1104 4)3a 1119 71v1, 344n 67., 111. 1100 I73UU ISOI 1315 313 0.0 4 2194 1n9h '17h 12uc .3bd! 'SIN ab9___-6115__.15b0U.-1110 'S4T 62S 0 4y • 1502 2340 347 1:154h 45bl 444 AM 571? ?21U0 629 Ibll 1691 0.0 46 i94S 17?1 0 9tin9 575b N7M 1.1?2 5111 17y0U 1463 1042 1417 0.0 47_-1bZ5 1012p, h6�91y 1.400--_ 491 _1b51--.. o1011----10140-2b43_--4356 i7S-0. 4b 1063 1673 17U Sltib 2H71) 1479 7h9 6?19 144VU 1121 1259 356 0.0 49 0 4 0 11 U 2114 440 763b6 0 0 0 0 0.0 T_SU 1303 777h 479 9ST1 4711 7713 SS'7 1504 1SNna 11911 1116n 660 6-0 4. 51 1863 2390 482 8100 4?32 71T 994 37U7 11100 2211 1574 468 1.17 0'a St N 3473 7259 32 19375 11419 1143 994 2400 1550U 3863 4SUe 2361 0.67 53 19'111 5341 n 149vi MIA 1.19 7h9 10117 2p7an llhi _ 1tiwS x 54 957 260e 132d InFMO 4?39 937 0 SOUH 23100 534 1139 1886 0.0 SS 2078 not) 14 6374 3353 616 Rol 2504 20700 604 1353 921 0.0 56 i400 )i0 14 14521 1656 180.i 1972 0.4 51 44R0 U )9 14521 6035 6035 496 149h .656 1800 24700 24700 313 313 � 1972 219S 2195 0.0 Sd 1874 491 627 8►TO 3174 1314 0 403 29800 69 Pilo 1436 0.0 59 9791 a 4-4 12,974 Sn7y 1140, i4a 1603 211Dnn 1S1 911117 15,rS n-0 6U 6376 I6 23 1825b blt4 1499 543 2007 27360 70 34b3 1726 0.0 61 5213 11 31 155v3 67U4 111? 440 1200 21500 521 3336 1356 0.0 hl 44R? i4i 4n 141n1 hill WIN In07�19 63 4075 1196 72 12647 6119 1776 33n2 711Q 17500 1305 2715 1201 0.0 64 I 5736 1?Lt 16 17634 8034 1673 147y 3311 21200 1161 3679 1614 0.0 65 4 597n 170 In I.H "II 7AR S,iiVIA -3011 2"0 0.0 66 2831 2141 d 1 L74S 57yy 444 994 301I 171ou 1710u 493 lava 2440 045 1045 0.0 67 6235 7411 3Su 31302 .Ibnbo 1441 IR76 6219 1,4900 54SR 6551 1638 0.0 8 LAI;& P77n ;111 ,lhn&n RH�I I73s0 I172 74 69 3164 2130 30 11731 5846 1?711 553 260 14500 1568 2912 794 0.0 70 4032 1590 213 13521 63b7 1790 1412 8hb3 15300 1967 2bb7 788 0.0 71 06R 1777 44 In661 i85b l.nlh Sll- �.992_13900_ aC4273h sigh 0-0 72 3Mn9 1675 bt 13624 614y 046 511 40b7 14400 1920 2854 714 0.0 73 3962 3143 IOv 14535 77?3 115R Witt b145 15000 2466 3411 1208 C.0 4 4n%'i a44-. JS1 Ih42n 1124U I?4O 1515 '37.9--i 75 63P3 3669 141 33039 12431 1771 1023 3284 16800 2613 5730 1709 6.0 76 10970 1697 25 417t7 17199 3404 380 4728 25200 SO S447 6712 '0.0 r- u • • • n • 7 n n • • • SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 1995 ZONAL PROJECTIONS OUTSIDE ORANGE COUNTY 1---_ Mr. nrr ZONt SOU MDD U14 POP HGS ...4r.RES - - . RET . .. TUT FMP EMP PAGE 2 -_MEU_____111Y_- 0410 uILH___._ __ ' -'-'- INC INC INC PCOST n PI7h JA4H Ai 13d64__6524-._405 644__ ._. 1972.-163n0 1AA7 7075 1012 -0 79 37n4 A65 19 14447 5944 H97 7h7 2237 197U0 913 2697 959 0.p -1 HO 25�P Phn T1 10034 4231 A09 14?4 4067 17100 717 2085 61h 0.0 BL 7771 A?11 I3--116U2-___4589 ._3U __._-_..754__..._.�Hd _-_ 17UH -19000--_�Ol---_�266. .0_._______- J H'2 3693 2005 S. 16140 7n59 1106 900 2359 188OU 1137 3242 1309 0.0 A3 PPA znh7 b h3i/ 3,139 A43 119h ?4293 15300 1020 1661 234 0.0 4 i6•in 17.14 I1h 17613 62U5. uh7 767 1db7-_.1760U Ii+A 2H 2 -1.22A 0-0_ PS 8b 1644 IAHO 4H5 35y3 1430 II 77S4 I0hS7 30h5 5460 HSS Aug 1i3 Iv?4 5b43 1?H73 19700 16100 525 1915 1367 2573 737 985 0.0 0.67� 97 3g6H '1715. I 2-_13BSb.___ 6A4 6..__1173____ 1668._. 4434 _21800 __ 195_._2899_---19.89 8B 3HP7, 14i1 33 13526 bh39 12n1 1073 41y9 27900 533 ?177 202P 0.0 89 1974 571 53 7061) 3?Jl F70 3H8 1443 ?4500 127 1199 1225 0.0 91 2070 Phl 106 46i1 3869 7P7 761 1576 20500 43Q 1759 733 0.0 92 JIM 411 ?3 76u? JOCO 479 133 396 19200 3b6 1512 413 0.0 8114 _.._191UA_-3b2_._...1476_ 94 193n ll 1310 7h IO 2431 h0? 7h7 3548 16600 312 1307 332 0.0 95 2?96 14911, Hh 9h19 4374 7h5 644 47?P 14600 1328 2049 4114 0.0 91 2270 P15 371 101140 39b4 741 7-55 ( 98 12h9 134 I 4940 1h9t> LhSH 2'15 10U ?SA2 421 P64 111612 39/b 7?14 47(1 101 20A9 6UU 25 9499 3704 643 11147 02 ?343 71B 7n4 ln8yn 4266 1171 Jill 37H4 1P500 740 11351 494 0.0 5318 18800 197 901 310 0.0 7972 _24700-__ 93- 1127_3428._-C.0._. 1535 23400 120 1532 1351 0.0 3213 2?300 161 1505 1022 0.0 103 IIn4 ?979 tnt13 2513 456 2562__315t__111U 11 15475 664d 17 44il 31498 _3933_ 1171 644 ------ H3Z._-.593. U 470 .. 2H4 1403 1820 24900 71000 _.19800. 147 2368 415 1841 5U4 172s ?417 713 Mc; 0.0 0.0 0.0--_. 1n6 107 [63n 241,3 ?l.5 31.4 90 I Inn 15 1710 J751 3431 740 h9? ?45 ?251 1677 5877 163U0 18500 942 641 1599 N33 314 613 0.0 0.0 111Q6 2921 42i 78 106d2- 4431 1"? 158____3355 - 49500 944 7110 In9 110 1631 k756 614 977 U 67b 8517 lU?hl 3130 437? 1751 471 .39,P 7nb 75b5 974? 18800 17100 336 1104 1504 1990 405 SB9 0.0 0.0 1 111__-3385 556.- U--LUB05__._._._4H43__LfU.6..__-__S91__- 12b0 _19000_-._906^-2286 11? 113 1470 4512 h61 101)13 26 111 71-,h 193-`7 PHI 7453 547 1756 3SH 919 3498 3640 MOO 19000 447 1169 1322 3454 362 947 0.0 0.0 4- Jill 44 i 1 A 7 3Hdc--149J 9 oc - 358-__.10636.----1-71110 106 67 11S 4059 1297 165 1A7147 71 P2 1h46 N29 Pbb4 1AB00 1124 3321 911 0.0 Ilb 1157 41?1 a 4906 1985 1764 SS4 ?1019 15800 554 BOB 222 0.0 9y L.__.. _.10H9 ......_. 4/4.__.___SiH2_�_..443_ .._ 4624 -15800- -_1J8__203 •SS.__._-0.II __.___-_. IIH 1199 151 I 454E 16h7 P?l HO 41UP 13100 623 b.5 108 0.0 119 1231 11114 3u 6342 2483 ;,An 736 2?91 10400 1344 763 134 0.0 D_ u764 141h i1 IhSS46SbH 121 274 0 U 875 3416 link 449 122 992 P45 92 491h 2n Ab 701 37? 123 _ _ _ _2539__16uJ. _-..-- -3u.__. 1.1419 . _ .5144 ..__1.146___._ 665 24776 1S000 tl5 117 22 0.0 5657 1S600 607 $151 279 0.0