The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutGENERAL PLAN TRAFFIC ANAYLSISIlllhll IIII III III �IIIII IIIII ��II nll III IIII*NEW FILE* GENERAL PLAN TRAFFIC ANAYLSIS City of Newport Beach General Plan Traffic Analvsis Summary Report, July 1988 77 i 'rAUSTIN-ROUST ASSOC1ATNf, INC. NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN TRAFFIC ANALYSIS SUMMARY REPORT Prepared for: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Prepared by: Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 1450 North Tustin Avenue, Suite 108 Santa Ana, California 92701 July 28, 1988 I I I I# 11 II I II I SUMMARY This report summarizes the results of a traffic study carried out for the City of Newport Beach General Plan update. The purpose of the study was to forecast future traffic volumes on the city's arterial street system and identify roadway deficiencies and needed improvements in relation to buildout of the city's General Plan. BACKGROUND AND SCOPE The traffic data presented in this report,addresses future circulation needs in the City of Newport Beach. Land use projections corresponding to buildout of the General Plan were used to make long range traffic forecasts and analyze the impacts of that traffic on the planned circulation system. To prepare traffic volumes for future conditions, a special traffic forecasting model was developed. The Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model (NBTAM), as it is called, was derived from regional traffic forecasting data bases to give a sub -area model for this part of the county. As a sub -area model, it contains significant refinements over the countywide model, and in particular, provides peak hour forecast data in addition to average daily traffic (ADT) volumes. The study area used in this traffic analysis is shown in Figure 1, and is referred to in this report as the "analysis area." It includes all of the city of Newport Beach plus adjacent portions of Costa Mesa, Irvine and unincorporated Orange County. The NBTAM produces traffic forecasts for the complete circulation system depicted here. To perform this General Plan Traffic Analysis, land use projections for the year 2010 were made for the city and the remainder of the analysis area, and traffic volume forecasts prepared accordingly. These future volumes were then compared with the currently planned capacity of the circulation system to show where deficiencies could be anticipated. Potential improvements were then identified which could upgrade the roadway capacity in various locations, providing a circulation system that is adequate for buildout of the General Plan. This summary report presents the major findings of the traffic analysis. Detailed study results can be found in the two companion documents, the General Plan Traffic Analysis report, and the Traffic Model Description report. In addition, copies of a technical notebook containing detailed tabular data are available at the city engineering and planning departments. 1 0-W "a- " � so *W so 4M !"* " W& M ! Ot va UK "a 40 N NBTAM TRAFFIC ANALYSIS AREA Note: Base map shows future highway system as contained in the Orange County Master ® ®AUSTIN-FOUST ASSOCIATES. INC. plan of Arterial Highways. Figure 1 PTBTAM ANALYSIS AREA I# LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION Land use for the City of Newport Beach portion of the analysis area was prepared as part of a comprehensive inventory conducted by the city and completed in June, 1988. This 1987 base was used to calibrate the traffic model and to develop 2010 (buildout) projections. For the remainder of the analysis area, comparable data was obtained from Costa Mesa, Irvine, and the County of Orange. The 2010 land use plan used as the basis for the traffic analysis is labeled "modified trend -growth." It was derived by applying representative densities to General Plan zoning (results and assumptions are documented in a separate report prepared by the city planning department). For traffic forecasting purposes, the analysis area is subdivided into traffic zones. Trip generation for each traffic zone is derived by applying trip rates to the amount of each type of land use in each zone. Both ADT and peak hour trips are calculated in this process. Table 1 contains an overall summary of the 1987 and 2010 land use and trip generation for the analysis area. Existing ADT trip generation for the city is estimated at 738,000 vehicles per day and for buildout, the estimated trip generation is 1,083,000 vehicles trips per day, an increase of 47 percent. For the total analysis area, the corresponding ADT trip generation estimates are 1,497,000 for 1987 and 2,350,000 for buildout, an increase of 57 percent. TRAFFIC FORECASTS The 2010 buildout traffic forecasts are set in a regional context which includes planned improvements to the regional transportation system, such as construction of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC), construction of new arterials such as Pelican Hill Road, and extensions of Bison Road, Ford Road, and San Joaquin Hills Road to join with other completed links of the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). The "base case" network as used in this analysis, contains only two exceptions to the MPAH, these being the deletion of University Drive across Upper Newport Bay, and downgrading of San Joaquin Hills Road east of Marguerite to four lanes (from six in the MPAH). 3 TABLE 1 LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY 1987 -----AM PK HR----- -----PM PK HR----- LAND USE UNITS IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL ADT ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Residential Res - Low (SFD) 16,997 DU 3399 11898 15297 11898 6799 18697 186967 Res - Medium (SFA) 9,945 DU 1989 5967 7956 5967 3978 9945 85527 Apartment 5,396 DU 1079 2158 3238 2158 1619 3777 35074 Park Newport 1,306 DU 131 392 522 392 261 653 6269 Other Residential 1,064 DU 203 416 618 416 299 715 6184 Motel/Hotel 2,637 ROOMS 1540 791 2331 1034 1055 2088 27604 Commercial 3,089,300 SF 1209 905 2115 3666 4223 7889 121418 Restaurant 692,200 SF 618 277 895 2513 1214 3727 50308 Office 10,897,800 SF 19695 3192 22887 6694 19148 25842 166547 Industrial/R&D 2,554,900 SF 2350 358 2708 869 2401 3270 19666 Other -- 865 664 1529 1564 1238 2802 31975 SUBTOTAL 33078 27018 60096 37171 42235 79405 737541 REMAINDER OF ANALYSIS AREA* 35258 28401 63659 38908 43026 81935 759498 TOTAL 68336 55419 123755 76079 85261 161340 1497039 2010 -----AN PK HR----- -----PM PK HR----- LAND USE UNITS IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL ADT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Residential Res - Low (SFD) 15,535 DU 3107 10875 13982 10875 6214 17089 170885 Res - Medium (SFA) 15,668 DU 3134 9401 12534 9401 6267 15668 134745 Apartment 7,512 DU 1502 3005 4507 3005 2254 5258 48828 Park Newport 1,306 DU 131 392 522 392 261 653 6269 Other Residential 749 DU 130 280 409 280 185 464 4094 Motel/Hotel 3,472 ROOMS 2044 1042 3085 1369 1389 2758 36377 Commercial 5,709,300 SF 2572 2010 4582 7696 8678 16374 241597 Restaurant 1,270,800 SF 1369 750 2120 4719 2353 7072 97014 Office 16,154,400 SF 28518 4679 33197 10027 28801 38828 263547 Industrial/R&D 2,584,400 SF 2478 31P 2790 829 2630 3458 22155 Other -- 2491 1324 3815 2834 2158 4993 57264 SUBTOTAL 47477 34067 81544 51426 61189 112616 1082776 REMAINDER OF ANALYSIS AREA* 65740 44173 109913 62502 77372 139872 1267245 TOTAL 113217 78240 191457 113928 138561 252488 2350021 *Note: The traffic analysis area includes the city of Newport Beach and its sphere of influence (currently unincorporated County), plus a portion of the cities of Costa Mesa and Irvine (see analysis area diagram in Figure 1). 4 Figure 2 shows 1987 ADT volumes and the corresponding 2010 forecasts. The 2010 forecasts depict the overall distribution of traffic on the analysis area circulation system under the 2010 land use projections. Peak hour volumes corresponding to these 2010 forecasts were used in the analysis to identify capacity deficiencies on the base case circulation system, and are discussed below. CAPACITY ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY The evaluation of future capacity needs and deficiencies uses peak hour intersection volumes rather than ADT link data. This enables a more detailed assessment to be made of how various parts of the circulation system perform under the projected land uses. System performance measures are specified in terms of peak hour volumes and capacities, and are used for comparing the forecast volumes with the available capacity on the currently -planned circulation system. The capacity analysis methodology recognizes that traffic forecasts are subject to statistical variation (as are traffic counts), and takes this statistical variation into account when making findings with respect to potential capacity deficiencies (the NBTAM model description report contains a discussion on the statistical accuracy of traffic count and traffic model data). The basic approach involves grouping intersections together into sets which serve certain areas or functions with respect to the city's circulation system. Figure 3 shows the groups of intersections defined for this purpose. Peak hour Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) values are calculated for each intersection, and both individual intersection ICUs and group average ICUs are then considered in evaluating the results. CIRCULATION SYSTEM EVALUATION The peak hour ICUs for 1987 and for 2010 buildout are summarized in Table 2. Intersection lane configurations used for this base case circulation system were those that are currently committed by the city. Identified deficiencies are labeled as "potential" or "significant," depending on the individual ICU and the average ICU for the group. An ICU of .90 is considered the maximum desirable value, and a potential deficiency means that there is more than a 50 percent probability of the actual ICU exceeding .90. A significant deficiency means that there is more than an 85 percent probability of exceeding this maximum desirable .90 value. 5 a 1987 J 5 E1 V 9 0 JB N may. 1} �n(.IIM O m m 28 61 29 Pe I31� A } 9 6 + S +� P a J +M .b 1� V m m J= g ��RR'A A'IGIs S' rj +O 9 tac ftlW y 1 +g e? m P 1 15 asJe M1 d+.0 8 5 9 7 srw J .€+8 L_7P ryry Fi m pg Wp1 d 20 �+ 39 y x m +O $ 65 aM@ y �S v� PM 52-' y+ 1 27 y 2010 e ns m SR-55 ALIGNMENT ISOIAGRAMATIC ONLY201 C43 K 21r 189 35 15 } i i `5. 12 5 A 39 Vtd 17i SMIG 1 t u N IJ - � P rj 1 14 tj 8 16 f5 R4 w 27v''" 'o Y # 'M 3 m 20 m s dd J 57 11 a r1O $ 53 Is N IpwJr 33 M 4J d 15 YO 7 fJ' 0 55 11 eyn i 53 Figure 2 ADT TRAFFIC VOLUt1ES IN row AUSTIN•FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC. I y ;7 W i � .RMPI � 1:3 niacta T4 C "44 1 C# 22 sq> ap 52 ; 46 E Q 24 t \ 48 ; 49 0 0 25 3 rl / / t 47 � _)42 53 F 27k ' 7 -'�ryt, 65 56 Figure 3 INTERSECTION GROUPS ®WAUSTIN•FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC. 7 Table 2 ICU SUMMARY 1987 2010 BASE INTERSECTION AM PM ------------------ AM PM ----------------------------- ------------------ GROUP A (AIRPORT AREA) 9. MacArthur & Campus .63 .80 .79 1.46**' 10. MacArthur & Birch .40 .40 .81 .77* 11. Von Karman & Campus .50 .58 .77 .99** 12. MacArthur & Von Karman .36 .57 .72 1.13** 13. Jamboree & Campus .71 .64 1.02* 1.25** 14. Jamboree & Birch .39 .46 .78 .78* 29. MacArthur & Jamboree .63 .61 1.12** 1.37** AVERAGE ICU .52 .58 .86 1.11** GROUP B (BRISTOL COUPLET) 15. Campus & Bristol N .92 1.25** .86 1.43** 16. Birch & Bristol N .66 1.00* .68 1.16** 17. Campus & Bristol S 1.03* .87 1.30** .86* 18. Birch & Bristol S 1.09** .66 1.57** .94* 30. Jamboree & Bristol N .62 .82 .43 .75 31. Bayview & Bristol S -- -- .54 .65 32. Jamboree & Bristol S .97* .79 .84 1.06** AVERAGE ICU .88 .90 .89 .98** GROUP C (NORTH JAMBOREE/MACARTHUR) 33. Jamboree & Bayview -- -- 1.19** 1.20** 34. Jamboree & University .68 .55 .90* .78* 35. Jamboree &. Bison .62 .57 1.01** 1.27** 37. MacArthur & Bison .97 .88 1.13** 1.03** 38. Jamboree & Ford .69 .61 .91* .86* 39. MacArthur & Ford .83 .73 .80* .82* AVERAGE ICU .76 .67 .99** .99** GROUP D (NEWPORT CENTER) 41. Jamboree & Santa Barbara .54 .74 .58 .68 43. Santa Cruz & San Joaquin H. .37 .39 .21 .30 44. Santa Rosa & San Joaquin H. .33 .47 .37 .78 47. Newport Center & PCH .66 .56 .92 .53 AVERAGE ICU .48 .54 .52 .57 GROUP E (CORONA DEL MAR) 45. MacArthur & San Joaquin H. .93 .84 .66 .76 46. MacArthur & San Miguel .72 .87 .77 1.17** 49. MacArthur & PCH .54 .80 .48 .95* 50. San Miquel & San Joaquin H. .41 .35 .65 1.11** 51. Goldenrod & PCH 1.01 .88 .89 .83 52. Marguerite & San Joaquin H. .48 .59 .43 .67 53. Marguerite & PCH .81 1.01 .79 .63 54. Poppy & PCH .87 .90 .71 .81 AVERAGE ICU .72 .78 .67 .87 8 II Table 2 ICU SUMMARY (cont.) 1987 2010 BASE INTERSECTION AM PM AM PM ----------------------------- GROUP F (BAY BRIDGE) ------------------ ------------------ 27. Dover/Bayshore & PCH .72 .80 .96* .84 28. Bayside & PCH .85 .92 1.00* .93 42. Jamboree & PCH .95 .85 .87* .86 AVERAGE ICU .84 .86 .94* .88 GROUP G (IRVINE AVENUE) 19. Irvine & Mesa .92 1.17* 1.20* 1.51** 20. Irvine & University .91 .98 1.68** 1.50** 21. Irvine & Santiago/22nd .83 .92 .62 .50 22. Irvine & Highland/20th .71 .72 .47 .49 23. Irvine & Dover/19th .70 .71 .62 .66 24. Irvine & Westcliff/17th .76 .97 .51 .67 25. Dover & Westcliff .47 .45 .38 .44 26. Dover & 16th .50 .57 .52 .46 AVERAGE ICU .72 .81 .75 .78 GROUP H (MARINER'S MILE/WEST NEWPORT) 1. Placentia & Superior .69 .66 .53 .61 2. Superior & PCH 1.00 .86 .88 .89 3. Newport & Hospital .58 .71 1.01 1.14** 4. SB Newport Ramp & Newport -- -- .59 .91* 5. Newport & Via Lido .65 .72 .83 .93* 6. Newport & 32nd .59 .73 .67 .86 7. Riverside & PCH .94 .98 1.26** 1.21** 8. Tustin & PCH .80 .63 1.03 1.02* 55. 15th & PCH -- -- .53 .57 56. Bluff & PCH -- -- .68 .81 57. SB Newport Ramp & PCH -- -- .70 .80 AVERAGE ICU .75 .76 .79 .89 * Potential deficiency (greater than 50% probability of actual ICU exceeding .90) ** Significant deficiency (greater than 85% probability of actual ICU exceeding .90) I Figure 4 shows those locations which are identified as having deficiencies. As can be seen here, the northern part of the city adjacent to the airport and the Irvine Business Complex (IBC) shows significant deficiencies (group average ICU = 1.11). Similarly for intersections on the Bristol Street couplet which serves the same area. Coast Highway is another deficient facility, with inadequate capacity on the Bay Bridge group of intersections, (Dover, Bayside and Jamboree) and along Mariner's Mile. Other more localized problem areas include sections of Jamboree and MacArthur, and the northern part of Irvine Boulevard. A special analysis was made of the impacts of deleting the Ford Road interchange to the SJHTC and/or the San Joaquin Hills Road (SJHR) extension beyond Pelican Hill Road to the SJHTC. It was found that the former would negatively impact the critical intersections of Bison with MacArthur and Jamboree, while providing minimal benefit (e.g., traffic reduction) to the existing sections of Ford and San Miguel. Deletion of the SJHR extension would negatively impact Bison and Ford. It is recommended that both connections be retained in the circulation system. CIRCULATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS A set of potential circulation system improvements are presented here, which address the deficiencies noted above. They include improvements needed to implement the existing Master Plan of Arterial Highways, and additional improvements needed to serve the forecast traffic demands (refered to here as Modified Master Plan improvements). Figure 5 illustrates the locations of the improvements, and a full listing is given in Table 3. This table includes all improvements to the existing circulation system, those that are currently committed (i.e., assumed in the base case circulation system) and the two levels of additional improvements noted above (Master Plan and Modified Master Plan). Key features of the recommended improvement program are as follows: 1. Widening of Coast Highway along the section of Mariner's Mile to six lanes with augmented intersection treatments. 2. Widening of Coast Highway to eight lanes between Dover and Jamboree. 3. Widening of MacArthur and Jamboree to eight lanes north of Ford Road. 10 I It r U Potential Deficiency • Significant Deficiency F AUSTIN-FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC. O Figure 4 CIRCULATION SYSTEM DEFICIENCIES (Committed improvements only) WIDEN TO 6 LANES WIDEN T 4 LANES WIDEN TO 8 LANES WIDEN TO 6 LANES i IAUSTIN-FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC. SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT AREA WIDEN TO 8 LANES o/ — Ma]or (6 lanes) Primary (4 lanes) — Secondary (4 lanes) modifications to Master Plan are noted above. U Currently committed Currently cammitted with additional Master Plan improvements ■ Modified Master Plan improvements Figure 5 RECOMMENDED CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS 12 Table 3 CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS COMMITTED EXISTING MODIFIED LOCATION IMPROVEMENTS MASTER PLAN MASTER PLAN FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS Coast Hwy (SA River to Newport) Widen to six Lanes Coast Hwy (Newport to Dover) Widen to six Lanes Coast Hwy (Dover to Jamboree) Widen to eight lanes Coast Hwy (Bayside to Jamboree) Widen to six Lanes Coast Hwy/Jamboree (intersection) Grade separation (1) Newport (30th to 32nd) Widen to six Lanes Newport (32nd to Coast Hwy) Widen to five lanes Widen to six lanes Newport/Coast Hwy (intersection) New grade separation Newport (Coast Hwy to Hospital) Widen to six lanes Jamboree (SJHR to Newporter) Widen to six lanes Jamboree (Bristol to Ford) Widen to eight Lanes Sayview (Jamboree to MacArthur) Construct to four Lanes MacArthur (Ford to Coast Hwy) Widen to six lanes MacArthur (SR•73 to Ford) Widen to eight Lanes Irvine (University to Bristol) Widen to six Lanes Campus (Bristol to MacArthur) Widen to six Lanes Birch/Mesa (Irvine to Bristol) Widen to four Lanes Dover (Cliff to Westcliff) Widen to six lanes 15th (Coast Hwy to Monrovia) Construct four lanes 15th (Monrovia to Superior) Widen to four Lanes Bluff (Coast Hwy to 19th) _ Construct four Lanes Bluff (17th to 19th) Construct four lanes 16th (Dover to Seagu(l) Widen to four Langs 17th (Bluff to E. city limit) Construct four lanes Placentia (Superior to Hospital) Widen to four lanes Superior (Placentia to Industrial) Complete four Lanes Avocado (Coast Hwy to San Miguel) Construct four lanes Dover (Irvine to Westcliff) Widen to four lanes Marguerite (Coast Hwy to 5th Avenue) Widen to four Lanes 13 Table 3 (cont.) Page 2 COMMITTED EXISTING MODIFIED LOCATION IMPROVEMENTS MASTER PLAN MASTER PLAN 22nd (Irvine to Tustin) Widen to four lanes 32nd (Newport to Villa Way) Widen to four Lanes Bison (MacArthur to SJHTC) Construct four lanes Ford (San Miguel to E. city Limit) Widen to four lanes Ford (E. city limit to SJHTC) Construct four Lanes SJHR (Spyglass to SJHTC) Construct six lanes (2) Pelican Hill Road (Coast Hwy to SJHTC) Construct six lanes INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS 2. Balboa/Superior & PCH Add WBT & EST 3. Newport & Hospital Add EBL 4. SB Newport Ramp & Newport Add SOT & NOT (3) 5. Newport & Via Lido Add NBT Add SST 6. Newport & 32nd Add NBT Separate SBR 7. Riverside & PCH Add EBT Add optional SBL. Separate SBR Add EBL 8. Tustin & PCH Add EBT 9. MacArthur & Campus Add SBT, WBT, EBL & EBT Add SBL, WBL & NBR Separate ESR 12. MacArthur & Von Karmen Add EBT 13. Jamboree & Campus Add optional WBT/WBL 15. Campus & Bristol N. Add SOT & SBR Add WBL 16. Birch & Bristol N. Add SBT & WBL 17. Campus & Bristol S. Add SBT & (2) NBTS 18. Birch & Bristol S. Add NBT & EBT 19. Irvine & Mesa Add SBT & NBT Add WBL & EBT Separate SBR & NBR 20. Irvine & University Add EBT 27. Dover/8ayshore & PCH Add EBT & WBT 28. Bayside & PCH Add WBT & NBR Add EBT 30. Jamboree & Bristol N. Add NBL. NS ramp to Route 73 32. Jamboree & Bristol S. Add EBT NO ramp to Route 73 33. Jamboree & Bayview Add SBL, WBL & WBT 35. Jamboree & Bison Add WBL & NBT 37. MacArthur & Bison Add NBR Add SBL, WBL & NBL 41. Jamboree & Santa Barbara Add SBT Construct 4th leg to Newporter North 42. Jamboree & PCH Free SBR Grade separation Add (2) ESTs Add WBT & EBL 14 i ' Table 3 (cont.) Page 3 COMMITTED EXISTING MODIFIED LOCATION IMPROVEMENTS MASTER PLAN MASTER PLAN 45. MacArthur & SJBR Add SOT 46. MacArthur & San Miguel Add SOT & NOT Add NBL 50. San Miguel & SJNR Add HBL 1 i (1) Current improvement project shown to be adequate for 2010 traffic, but grade separation may be needed beyond that time period if increases in regional traffic occur. (2) Four lanes shown to be adequate east of Marguerite to serve 2010 traffic demand. Increase to six lanes may be needed beyond that time period if significant increases in regional traffic occur. (3) Part of Newport/PCN interchange upgrade. i 1 1 I I I 1 1 i 1 1 15 4. Major intersection improvement projects at Campus and Bristol and Birch and Bristol. 5. Irvine Avenue upgrade to a major arterial (six lanes) from Bristol to University. 6. Widening of Campus to six lanes from Bristol to MacArthur. 7. Widening of Birch/Mesa to four lanes from Irvine to Bristol. 8. Specific intersection treatments at selbcted locations. Comparative ICUs with and without the recommended improvement program can be seen in Table 4, and intersection configurations as existing at present and as recommended can be seen in Figures 6 through 9. Brief comments on individual components of the recommended improvement plan follow: Mariner's Mile The section of Coast Highway known as Mariner's Mile has inadequate capacity under today's traffic volumes, and increased traffic in the future will create significant deficiencies (a special analysis of this section of Coast Highway indicated significant diversion to Cliff Drive if future improvements are not made). This is a major commercial activity corridor for the city, that carries both local traffic and thru traffic. To preserve this dual role in the future, a full widening to six lanes is recommended, with augmented intersections at major cross streets such as Riverside. Coast Hlehway. Dover to Jamboree Because of the north -south barrier created by Upper Newport Bay, this section of Coast Highway is the only east -west route across the southern part of the city. To carry the forecast traffic demands, it is recommended that it be widened to eight lanes from Dover to Jamboree. This will require widening the bridge across Upper Newport Bay, or the addition of a separate bridge to carry bike lanes. With these improvements, the capacity is estimated to be adequate to carry the 2010 volumes projected here. Beyond that time period, it may be necessary to consider grade separation at Jamboree (and possibly Dover) if continued increases in regional traffic occur. MacArthur and Jamboree The sections of these two highways from Ford to SR-73 are shown to have inadequate capacity as six -lane major arterials, and it is recommended that both be expanded to eight lanes along these sections. FIN Table 4 ICU SUMMARY 1987 2010 2010 IMP. INTERSECTION AM PM AM PM ------------------- AM PM -------------------------------------------- GROUP A (AIRPORT AREA) ------------------ 9. MacArthur & Campus .63 .80 .79 1.46** .66 1.27** 10. MacArthur & Birch .40 .40 .81 .77* .83 .77* .11. Von Karman & Campus .50 .58 .77 .99** .78 .93* 12. MacArthur & Von Karman .36 .57 .72 1.13** .70 .95** 13. Jamboree & Campus .71 .64 1.02* 1.25** 1.02* 1.23** 14. Jamboree & Birch .39 .46 .78 .78* .78 .79* 29. MacArthur & Jamboree .63 .61 1.12** 1.37** 1.10* 1.09** AVERAGE ICU .52 .58 .86 1.11** .84 1.00** GROUP B (BRISTOL COUPLET) 15. Campus & Bristol N .92 1.25** .86 1.43** .86 1.23**(1) 16. Birch & Bristol N .66 1.00* .68 1.16** .67 .92 17. Campus & Bristol S 1.03* .87 1.30** .86* 1.29**(1) .88 18. Birch & Bristol S 1.09**. .66 1.57** .94* .89 .70 30. Jamboree & Bristol N .62 .82 .43 .75 .45 .79 31. Bayview & Bristol S' -- -- .54 .65 .54 .75 32. Jamboree & Bristol S .97* .79 .84 1.06** .73 .86 AVERAGE ICU .88 .90 .89 .98** .78 .88 GROUP C (NORTH JAMBOREE/MACARTHUR) 33. Jamboree & Bayview -- -- 1.19** 11.20** .75 .78 34. Jamboree & University .68 .55 .90* .78* .93 ..85 35. Jamboree & Bison .62 .57 1.01** 1.27** .76 .92 37. MacArthur & Bison .97 .88 1.13** 1.03** .80 .84 38. Jamboree & Ford .69 .61 .91* .86* .91 .90 39. MacArthur & Ford .83 .73 .80* .82* .85 .84 AVERAGE ICU .76 .67 .99** .99** .83 .86 GROUP D (NEWPORT CENTER) 1 41. 43. Jamboree & Santa Barbara Santa Cruz & San Joaquin H. .54 .37 .74 .39 .58 .21 .68 .30 .61 .21 .71 .31 44. Santa Rosa & San Joaquin H. .33 .47 .37 .78 .37 .76 47. Newport Center & PCH .66 .56 .92 .53 .92 .54 ' AVERAGE ICU .48 .54 .52 .57 .53 .58 GROUP E (CORONA DEL MAR) i 45. MacArthur & San Joaquin H. .93 .84 .66 .76 .69 .81 46. MacArthur & San Miguel .72 .87 .77 1.17** .60 .92 49. MacArthur & PCH .54 .80 .48 .95* .48 .93 50. San Miquel & San Joaquin H. .41 .35 .65 1.11** .44 .89 51. Goldenrod & PCH 1.01 .88 .89 .83 .89 .85 52. Marguerite & San Joaquin H. .48 .59 .43 .67 .45 .68 53. Marguerite & PCH .81 1.01 .79 .63 .81 .63 ' 54. Poppy & PCH .87 .90 .71 .81 .73 .82 AVERAGE ICU .72 .78 .67 .87 .64 .82 17 Table 4 ICU SUMMARY (cont.) 1987 2010 2010 IMP. INTERSECTION AM PM AM PM ------------------- AM PM -------------------------------------------- GROUP F (BAY BRIDGE) ------------------ 27. Dover/Bayshore & PCH .72 .80 .96* .84 .85 .71 28. Bayside & PCH .85 .92 1.00* .93 .88 .85 42. Jamboree & PCH .95 .85 .87* .86 .88 .85 AVERAGE ICU .84 .86 .94* .88 .87 .80 GROUP G (IRVINE AVENUE) 19. Irvine & Mesa .92 1.17* 1.20* 1.51** .96 .96 20. Irvine & University .91 .98 1.68** 1.50** 1.16 1.00 21. Irvine & Santiago/22nd .83 .92 .62 .50 .61 .48 22. Irvine & Highland/20th .71 .72 .47 .49 .45 .47 23. Irvine & Dover/19th .70 .71 .62 .66 .62 .62 24. Irvine & Westcliff/17th .76 .97 .51 .67 .52 .67 25. Dover & Westcliff .47 .45 .38 .44 .40 .41 26. Dover & 16th .50 .57 .52 .46 .57 .47 AVERAGE ICU .72 .81 .75 .78 .66 .63 GROUP H (MARINER'S'MILE/WEST NEWPORT) 1. Placentia & Superior .69 .66 .53 .61 .53 .62 2. Superior & PCH 1.00 .86 .88 .89 .89 .88 3. Newport & Hospital .58 .71 1.01 1.14** .86 .96 4. SB Newport Ramp & Newport -- -- .59 .91* .42 .72 5. Newport & Via Lido .65 .72 .83 .93* .65 .77 6. Newport & 32nd .59 .73 .67 .86 .52 .70 7. Riverside & PCH .94 .98 1.26** 1.21** .79 .79 8. Tustin & PCH .80 .63 1.03 1.02* .76 .87 55. 15th & PCH -- -- .53 .57 .53 .57 56. Bluff & PCH -- -- .68 .81 .65 .82 57. SB Newport Ramp & PCH -- -- .70 .80 .70 .81 AVERAGE ICU .75 .76 .79 .89 .66 .77 * Potential deficiency (greater than 50% probability of actual ICU exceeding .90) ** Significant deficiency (greater than 85% probability of actual ICU exceeding .90) Note: (1) Major intersection improvements are recommended here (actual configurations to be determined from feasibility studies) and ICUs.do not reflect the type of improvements that could be implemented. RU r ko DEL MAR 14FAUSTIN-FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC. 0 / -- BIRCH Jh N1 1 jr'`� F 'FIIIIF F / BRISTOL �} F C I FFFF� � WT III �Z. MESA / BONITA CYN BISON Figure 6 EXISTING LANE CONFIGURA7 (North Section) (1987) m m i!= m m= m m= m= am !' � m= r N O y�4 SP o n o y � FIn a 61H —s 1 �► � � �� eA.rya i f goo Z �h ON IF tygy�� NT F I Ora tUSTIN-FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC. HIGHWAY Figure 7 EXISTING LANE CONFIGURATIONS (1987) (South Section) m m m m= m m m i m= r i r= r i m m F. ®�AUSTIN•FOUST ASSOCIATES. INC. BIRCH BRISTOL Figure 8 2010 LANE CONFIGURATIONS WITH RECOMMENDED IMPROVEME (North Section) m = = = m = m = = = = m = m = i m my t` --z JM7 20TH 44 00 I®�AUSTIN-FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC. F7* Figure 9 2010 LANE CONFIGURATIONS WITH RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS (South Section) Campus and Bristol The intersections of Campus and Bristol are shown to have high traffic volumes which are related to their role in connecting the high -intensity office areas adjacent to the airport with SR-73. It is recommended that this be a special project area with alternative solutions being sought that could range from major intersection upgrading (including the intersections of Birch and Bristol) to possible grade -separation. Upgrading of Birch/Mesa south of Bristol to four lanes would divert some traffic from Campus, and is recommended as part of the improvement plan. Campus/Bristol/MacArthur This area adjacent to the airport is shown to have significant deficiencies. Some of the intersections are shared with the City of Irvine, and are being studied by the city as part of a comprehensive study of the Irvine Business Complex (IBC). It is recommended that this be a special circulation focus area with improvements developed in conjunction with the city's IBC improvement program. Transportation System Management strategies should also be implemented here as a means of reducing peak hour travel demands. CONCLUSIONS This traffic analysis has shown the projected traffic demand on the City of Newport Beach circulation system, and the types of improvements that will be needed to serve this future demand. Implementation of the modified Master Plan of Highways as outlined here will result in a circulation system that is in balance with the General Plan land use and can also accommodate its share of regional traffic. In addition to the capital improvement projects listed here, continued efforts should be made to optimize the use of the circulation system through transportation management strategies. These can range from traffic engineering techniques such as signal coordination, to peak demand strategies such as staggered work hours and transit and high occupancy vehicle usage. 'I 1 23