Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
GPA 85-1(B) VOL 4_TRAFFIC STUDY
11111111 lill 111111111111111111111111111111111 *NEW FILE* GPA 85-1(B) VOL 4 ' sanchez talarico associates r .s� % r, m Ef�'�AS�L-) 0( nd LIF�i FflRNzk 'IT," QIPZA �bTY_J� ED (�,POUT� DRAFT EIR: APRIL 7, 1986 CERTIFIED FINAL EIR: JULY 14, 1986 CERTIFIED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85-1(B) NEWPORT CENTER AND PERIPHERAL SITES STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER 85061211 VOLUME 4 TRAFFIC STUDY PREPARED FOR: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92663 PREPARED BY: BASMACIYAN DARNELL INCORPORATED 3190 C-1 AIRPORT LOOP DRIVE COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 JULY 14, 1986 TRAFFIC STUDY FOR NEWPORT CENTER AND PERIPHERAL SITES General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) Prepared for: The City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Prepared by: , Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc. 3190 C-1 Airport Loop Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (714) 557-5780 March 3, 1986 Revised March 26, 1986 i t r L] 1 TRAFFIC STUDY FOR NEWPORT CENTER AND PERIPHERAL SITES GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85-1(B) TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Project Description ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . Roadway Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . Existing Traffic Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . Existing Roadway Capacity . . . . . . . . . . Existing Intersection Capacity . . . . . . . . . Public Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ORIGIN AND DESTINATION SURVEY . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vehicle Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vehicle Occupancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trip Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Residence Location of Respondents . . . . . . . . Origin and Destination Information . . . . . . . - Potential Diversion to San Joaquin 'Hills Transportation Corridor and Pelican Hill Road - Through Traffic Coast Highway . . . . . . . . . Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 3: FUTURE. CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . Future Roadway System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECAST METHODOLOGY . TREND GROWTH DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Forecast Traffic Volume to Roadway Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ESTIMATED TRAFFIC FOR THE PROPOSED GPA . . . . . . Trip Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trip Distribution' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TREND GROWTH TRAFFIC FORECAST INCLUDING PROPOSED GPA PAGE NO. 1-1 1-1 2-1 2-1 2-2 2-4 2-7 2-7 2-1 0 2-1 0 2-1 6 2-1 6 2-1 6 2-1 6 2-21 2-23 2-23 2-25 3-1 3-1 3-3 3-7 3-7 13 1 NEWPORT CENTER TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) INCREASED TREND GROWTH TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS INCLLJDI14G PROPOSED GPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . SUMMARY OF FUTURE CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . Coast Highway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MacArthur Boulevard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jamboree Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other Arterials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IMPLICATIONS OF THE SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IMPLICATIONS OF PELICAN HILL ROAD (WITHOUT THE SJHTC) Travel Time Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . - From Coast Highway at Pelican Hill Raod to MacArthur Boulevard at Bonita Canyon Road - From Coast Highway at Pelican Hill Road to MacArthur Boulevard at San Joaquin Hills Road - Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Canyon Crest Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 4: TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE CONSIDERATIONS . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPROVED PROJECTS . . . . . . . . . . ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . 1989 INTERSECTION ANALYSES . . . . . . . Committed Circulation System Improvements Effect of Committed Improvements Improvements in Addition to the Committed . . . . ' - Coast Jiighway/Balboa Ave/Superior Ave . - Coast Highway/Riverside Avenue . . . . . . . . - Coast Highway/Dover Drive/Bayshore Drive - Coast Highway/Goldenrod Avenue - Coast Highway/Poppy Avenue . . . . . . . . . . - Jamboree Road/Campus Drive ' - Jamboree Road/Bison Avenue - Jamboree Road/Santa Barbara Drive . - MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road. . . ' - MacArthur Boulevard/San Miguel Drive . . . . . Summary of 1989 Improvements . . . . . . . . . . 3-19 3-20 3-26 3-27 3-27 3-28 3-28 3-38 3-42 3-42 3-44 3-45 3-45 4-1 4-1 4-1 4-3 4-3 4-6 4-1 2 4-1 5 4-1 6 4-1 6 4-1 6 4-1 8 4-1 8 4-1 8 4-1 9 4-1 9 4-1 9 4-23 4-23 I q I NEWPORT CENTER TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 1993 INTERSECTION ANALYSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-24 Intersections to be Congested in 1993 . . . . . . 4-24 - Coast Highway/Balboa Ave/Superior Ave . . . . . 4-28 - Coast Highway/Riverside Avenue . . . . . . . . 4-28 - Coast Highway/Tustin Avenue . . . . . . . . . . 4-29 - Coast Highway/Dover Drive/Bayshore Drive . . . 4-29 - Coast Highway/Bayside Drive . . . . . . . . . . 4-29 - Coast Highway/Jamboree Road . . . . . . . . . . 4-33 - Coast Highway/Goldenrod Avenue . ... . . . . . 4-34 - Jamboree Road/Campus Drive . . . . 4-34 - Jamboree Road/Eastbluff Drive North . . . . 4-37 - Jamboree-Road/Ford Road/Eastbluff Drive . . . . 4-37 - MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road . . 4-37 - MacArthur Boulevard/San Miguel Drive . . . . . 4-37 Summary of 1993 Improvements . . . . . . . . . . 4-37 CHAPTER 5: THE AVOCADO AVENUE/MACARTHUR BLVD COUPLET 5-1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1 EXISTING CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1 THE ONE-WAY COUPLET CONCEPT . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) ANALYSES . . 5-4 LONG-RANGE CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-15 PROPERTY ACCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-15 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-16 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ALONG SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD . . 5-16 Long -Term Considerations . . . 5-17 The Intersection of San Joaquin Hills Road/ Avocado Avenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-17 SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-20 CHAPTER 6: INTERNAL CIRCULATION AND SITE ACCESS . . . 6-1 INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1 THE CIRCULATION SYSTEM WITHIN NEWPORT CENTER . . . . 6-1 I 1 NEWPORT CENTER TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) PROPOSED PROJECT SITES WITHIN NEWPORT CENTER . . . . 6-2 Fashion Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2 Block 600 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-6 Civic Plaza Expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-7 Block 800 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-7 PCH/Jamboree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-9 Corporate Plaza West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-10 Newport Village . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-10 Avocado/MacArthur . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 6-12 PROPOSED PROJECT SITES PERIPHERAL TO NEWPORT CENTER 6-12 Big Canyon/MacArthur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-12 Bayview Landing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-13 Newporter North . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-14 INCREASED DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE . . . . . . . . . 6-15 Block 600 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-15 Fashion Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-18 Newporter North . . . . . . . . . . . 6-19 Cumulative Impacts of the Increased Development Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-19 THE INTERSECTION OF MACARTHUR BOULEVARD AND HARBOR VIEW DRIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-20 Access to Newport Center 6-21 Traffic Signal at MacArthur Blvd/Harbor View Drive 6-21 Implications of Avocado/MacArthur Couplet . . . . 6-22 TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . 6-23 CHAPTER 7: STAGING CONSIDERATIONS IN CIRCULATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1 COAST HIGHWAY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1 Coast Highway East of MacArthur Boulevard . . . . 7-1 Coast Highway Between MacArthur Boulevard and Bayside Drive . . . . . . . . 7-2 Coast Highway West of Bayside Drive . . . . . . . 7-2 PELICAN HILL ROAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-3 1 NEWPORT CENTER TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) MACARTHUR BOULEVARD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-3 MacArthur Boulevard Between Coast Highway and Ford Road . . . . . . . . 7-3 MacArthur Boulevard Between Ford Road and Route 73/SJHTC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-4 JAMBOREE ROAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-5 BISON AVENUE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-5 FORDROAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-6 chm .-rnnnnTN HTT,T,s ROAD EXTENSION . . . . . . . . . . 7-6 FIGURE 1-1 FIGURE 1-2 NEWPORT CENTER LIST OF FIGURES - REGIONAL LOCATION MAP . . PAGE NO. . . . . . 1-2 - PROJECT SITE LOCATIONS . . . . . . . . . . FIGURE 2-1 - EXISTING DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES . . . . . . FIGURE 2-2 - OCTD BUS ROUTES SERVING NEWPORT CENTER . FIGURE 2-3 - NEWPORT CENTER ORIGIN AND DESTINATION SURVEY DISTRIBUTION STATIONS . . . . . . FIGURE 3-1 - NEWPORT BEACH CIRCULATION ELEMENT MASTER PLAN OF STREETS AND HIGHWAYS . . . . . . FIGURE 3-2 - TREND GROWTH VOLUMES . . . . . . . . . . . FIGURE 3-3 - TREND GROWTH PLUS GPA 85-1(B) . . . . . . FIGURE 3-4 - INCREASED TREND GROWTH PLUS GPA 85-1(B). . 1-3 2-3 2-14 2-1 5 3-2 3-8 3-16 3-21 FIGURE 3-5 - CORRIDOR ALIGNMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-29 FIGURE 3-6 - COMPARISON OF DAILY TRAFFIC WITH AND.WITHOUT SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR 3-31 FIGURE 3-7 - COMPARISON OF DAILY TRAFFIC WITH AND WITHOUT FORD ROAD INTERCHANGE AND SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD EXTENSION . . . . . . . . . . 3-35 FIGURE 3-8 - COMPARISON OF DAILY TRAFFIC WITH AND WITHOUT PELICAN HILL ROAD AND SAND CANYON ROAD 3-39 FIGURE 4-1 - COMMITTED IMPROVEMENTS TO COAST HIGHWAY AND MACARTHUR BOULEVARD . . . . . . . . 4-8 FIGURE 4-2 - COMMITTED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS TO COAST HIGHWAY AND JAMBOREE ROAD . . . . 4-9 FIGURE 4-3 - COMMITTED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS TO COAST HIGHWAY AT BAYSIDE DRIVE . . . . . 4-10 FIGURE 4-4 - COMMITTED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS TO JAMBOREE ROAD AT SAN JOAQUIN HILLS -ROAD 4-11 FIGURE 4-5 - RECOMMENDED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS TO COAST HIGHWAY AT RIVERSIDE DRIVE FOR 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-17 FIGURE 4-6 - RECOMMENDED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS TO JAMBOREE ROAD AND CAMPUS DRIVE FOR 1989 . 4-20 ' NEWPORT CENTER LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) FIGURE 4-7 - RECOMMENDED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS TO JAMBOREE ROAD AND BISON AVENUE FOR 1989 . 4-21 FIGURE 4-8 - RECOMMENDED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS TO JAMBOREE ROAD AND SANTA BARBARA DRIVE FOR 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-22 ' FIGURE 4-9 - RECOMMENDED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS TO COAST HIGHWAY AT RIVERSIDE DRIVE FOR 1993 4-30 FIGURE 4-10 - RECOMMENDED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS TO COAST HIGHWAY AT TUSTIN AVE FOR 1993 . . 4-31 FIGURE 4-11 - RECOMMENDED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS TO COAST HIGHWAY AT BAYSIDE DRIVE FOR 1993 4-32 FIGURE 4-12 - COAST HIGHWAY/JAMBOREE ROAD GRADE SEPARATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-35 FIGURE 4-13 - RECOMMENDED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS TO JAMBOREE ROAD AND CAMPUS DRIVE FOR 1993 4-36 FIGURE 4-14 - RECOMMENDED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS'TO JAMBOREE ROAD AT EASTBLUFF DRIVE NORTH FOR 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-38 FIGURE 4-15 - RECOMMENDED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS TO JAMBOREE ROAD AT FORD ROAD/EASTBLUFF DRIVE FOR 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-39 FIGURE 4-16 - RECOMMENDED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS TO MACARTHUR BOULEVARD AT SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD FOR 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-40 FIGURE 4-17 - RECOMMENDED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS TO MACARTHUR BOULEVARD AT SAN MIGUEL DRIVE . FIGURE 5-1 - EXISTING LANES AT INTERSECTIONS . . . . . FIGURE 5-2 - ANTICIPATED FUTURE LANES AT INTERSECTIONS (Two -Way Configuration) . . . . . . . . FIGURE 5-3 - ANTICIPATED FUTURE LANES AT INTERSECTIONS (One -Way Couplet) . . . . . . . . . . . FIGURE 5-4 - ESTIMATED EXISTING PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME TURNING MOVEMENTS WITH AVOCADO/ MACARTHUR COUPLET . . . . . . . . . . 4-41 5-2 5-3 5-5 .30 NEWPORT CENTER LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) FIGURE 5-5 - ESTIMATED 1989 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME TURNING MOVEMENTS AND ICU WITHOUT AVOCADO/MACARTHUR COUPLET . . . . . . . 5-9 FIGURE 5-6 - 1989 TURNING MOVEMENTS WITH AVOCADO/ MACARTHUR COUPLET . . . . . . . . . . . 5-10 FIGURE 5-7 - ESTIMATED 1993 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME TURNING MOVEMENTS WITHOUT AVOCADO/ MACARTHUR COUPLET . . . . . . . . . . . 5-12 FIGURE 5-8 - ESTIMATED 1993 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME TURNING MOVEMENTS WITH AVOCADO/ MACARTHUR COUPLET . . . . . . . . . . . 5-13 FIGURE 6-1 - PROPOSED CIRCULATION SYSTEM WITHIN FASHION ISLAND . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-3 14, I I I I NEWPORT CENTER LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1-1 - NEWPORT CENTER GPA 85-1(B) DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4 TABLE 2-1 - COMPARISON OF EXISTING DAILY TRAFFIC TO ESTIMATED ROADWAY CAPACITY . . . . . . . 2-5 TABLE 2-2 - SUMMARY OF EXISTING 1985 PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) 2-8 TABLE 2-3 - OPERATING SCHEDULE FOR NEWPORT CENTER TRANSIT ROUTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11 TABLE 2-4 - NEWPORT CENTER WEEKDAY PASSENGER ACTIVITY BY'ROUTE AND TIME PERIOD . . . . . . . . 2-12 TABLE 2-5 - NEWPORT CENTER WEEKEND PASSENGER ACTIVITY 2-13 TABLE 2-6 - SUMMARY OF TRIP PURPOSE . . . . . . . . 2-17 TABLE 2-7 - RESIDENCE LOCATION OF•RESPONDENTS 2-18 (Stations Surveyed in Morning Peak Period) TABLE 2-8 - NEWPORT ORIGIN AND DESTINATION SURVEY RESIDENCE LOCATION OF RESPONDENTS 2-20 (Stations Surveyed in Afternoon,Peak Period) TABLE 2-9 - TRIP ORIGINS AND DESTINATIONS OF,SURVEY RESPONDENTS (Stations Surveyed in Morning Peak Period) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-22 TABLE 2-10 - TRIP ORIGINS AND DESTINATIONS OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS (Stations Surveyed in Afternoon Peak Period) . . . . . . . . . 2-24 TABLE 3-1 - SUMMARY OF ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS . . . . 3-4 TABLE 3-2 - COMPARISON OF TREND GROWTH TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS TO FUTURE ROADWAY CAPACITY 3-9 TABLE 3-3 - TRIP GENERATION RATES . . . . . . . . . . . 3-12 TABLE 3-4 - ESTIMATE OF TRIP GENERATION FOR NEWPORT CENTER AND THE PERIPHERAL SITES . . . . 3-13 TABLE 3-5 - COMPARISON OF DAILY TRIPMAKING FOR NEWPORT CENTER AND PERIPHERAL SITES 3-14 TABLE 3-6 - COMPARISON OF TREND GROWTH PLUS GPA 85-1(B) TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS TO FUTURE ROADWAY CAPACITY . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-17 11 J 11 I I f NEWPORT CENTER LIST OF TABLES (Continued) TABLE 3-7 - COMPARISON OF INCREASED TREND GROWTH TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS INCLUDING GPA 85-1(B) TO FUTURE ROADWAY CAPACITY . . . . . . . 3-22 TABLE 3-8 - COMPARISON OF TREND GROWTH VOLUMES, TREND GROWTH AND INCREASED TREND INCLUDING GPA 85-1 (B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-24 TABLE 3=9 - COMPARISON OF DAILY TRAFFIC WITH AND WITHOUT SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION HILLS CORRIDOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-32 TABLE 3-10 - COMPARISON OF DAILY TRAFFIC WITH AND WITHOUT PELICAN HILL ROAD AND SAND CANYON•ROAD 3-40 TABLE 4-1 - CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TPO APPROVED PROJECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2 TABLE 4-2 - SUMMARY OF -1,989 PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSES (With Existing Intersection Configuration) 4-4 TABLE 4-3 - EFFECT OF COMMITTED IMPROVEMENTS - 1989 PM ' PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSES 4-13 TABLE 4-4 - SUMMARY OF 1989 PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSES WHERE ADDI- TIONAL IMPROVEMENT IS NEEDED FOR 1989 4-25 TABLE 4-5 - SUMMARY OF 1993 PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSES (Intersection Configuration with Committed Improvements and 1989 Mitigations Included) . . . . . 4-26 TABLE 4-6 - SUMMARY OF 1993 PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSES WHERE ADDI- TIONAL IMPROVEMENT IN NEEDED FOR 1993 4-43 TABLE 5-1 - SUMMARY OF PM PEAK HOUR ICU ANALYSIS - ' EXISTING CONDITIONS WITH AND WITHOUT AVOCADO AVENUE/MACARTHUR BOULEVARD COUPLET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7 TABLE 5-2 - SUMMARY OF PM PEAK HOUR ICU ANALYSIS - 1989 CONDITIONS WITH AND WITHOUT AVOCADO ' AVENUE/MACARTHUR BOULEVARD COUPLET . . . 5-11 ' 'r NEWPORT CENTER LIST OF TABLES (Continued) TABLE 5-3 - SUMMARY OF PM PEAK HOUR ICU ANALYSIS - 1993 CONDITIONS WITH AND WITHOUT AVOCADO AVENUE/MACARTHUR BOULEVARD COUPLET . . . 5-14 TABLE 6-1 - COMPARISON OF PROPOSED GPA 85-4(B) DEVELOP- MENT AND THE INCREASED DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1 6 TABLE 6-2 - COMPARISON OF DAILY TRIPMAKING FOR NEWPORT CENTER AND PERIPHERAL SITES . . . . . 6-17 APPENDICES APPENDIX A - OCTD BUS ROUTES APPENDIX B - ICU WORKSHEETS APPENDIX C - TRIP DISTRIBUTION CHARACTERISTICS FOR EACH SITE INCLUDED IN GPA 85-1(B) I I I[I I I 1 I I CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION This report will address the traffic -related impacts of a pro- posed General Plan Amendment (GPA 85-1B) initiated by the City of Newport Beach at the request of the Irvine Company for Newport Center and undeveloped peripheral sites. Existing traffic condi- tions and forecasted future conditions throughout much of the City of Newport•Beach have been evaluated. The anticipated impacts of the proposed levels of development on the surrounding circulation system have been analyzed in both a short-range and long-range context. The analysis is intended to provide informa- tion on the ultimate balance of the land use and circulation elements of the General Plan. The report is designed to •be incorporated into the Environmental Impact Report for the proposed project. Traffic information needed to satisfy the requirements of the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO), prior to its December 1985 amendment has also been provided. Additional Traffic Phasing Ordinance analysis, consistent with the provisions of the revised Ordinance, will be necessary if a Traffic Phasing approval is to be granted concurrent with approval of the GPA. PROJECT DESCRIPTION At the request of the Irvine Company, the City of Newport Beach has initiated a General Plan Amendment affecting eight sites within Newport Center, three sites on the periphery of Newport Center, and a component of the Circulation Element Master Plan of Streets and Highways. Within Newport Center, the sites include: Fashion Island Block 600 Civic Plaza Expansion Block 800 PCH/Jamboree Corporate Plaza West Newport Village Avocado/MacArthur The peripheral sites are: Big Canyon/MacArthur Bayview Landing Newporter North The proposed change to the Circulation Element would be the deletion of the Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard One -Way Couplet and the establishment of MacArthur Boulevard as a Major Arterial Roadway (six lanes, divided). 1-1 r i i C+�q Project Site rsoir�a oaia� N FIGURE; 1-1 REGIONAL LOCATION MAP BASMACIYAN•DARNELL, INC. 1. FASHION OLAND 2. BLOCK 000 3. CIVIC PLAZA EXPANSION 4. BLOCK 800 •8. PC,H/JAMS009E 8. 6ORPORATE PLAZA WEST 7. NEWPORT YRLAGE S. AYOCADO 'MACART.NUR a. BIG CANYOW.J. yAOARTHUR 10. BAYVIEIN LANDING 11. NEWPORTER.NORTH •3 0 �� t 1 sa9�a � • m 4 a V 0 • 7 •10 b C� Coast Hf9hwav 8 ". B% BASMACIYAN•DARNELL, INC. 8 FIGURE 1-2 PROJECT SITE LOCATIONS 1-3 Site ------------ RESIDENTIAL: PCH/Jamboree Big Canyon/ MacArthur Newporter North OFFICE: Block 800 Block 600 Avocado/ MacArthur Corporate Plaza West Civic Plaza Expansion TABLE 1-1 NEWPORT CENTER GPA 85-1(B) DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY Existing General Plan Permitted Proposed Acres Development Development Total if GPA 85-1(B) is Approved 9 0 sq.ft. 130 DU's 130 DU's Office Apartments Apartments (Office Designation 10 Open Space 80 DU's 80 DU's Apartments Apartments 80 212 DU's 490 DU's 490 DU's Apartments Apartments (Convert 212 DU single-family to Apartments) 9 245 DU's, 440,000 sq.ft. 983,900 sq.ft. 543,900 sq.ft. Gen. Office Gen. Office, Gen.Office, (Delete 245 8,000 sq.ft. 8,000 sq.ft. DU's) Commercial Commercial 6 800,000 sq.-ft. 300,000 sq.ft. 1,100,000 sq.ft. Gen. Office, Gen. Office Gen. Office 325 room Hotel 325 room Hotel 6 0 sq.ft. 44,000 sq.ft. 44,000 sq.ft. Retail Gen. Office Gen. Office 9 8,400 sq.ft. 100,000 sq.ft. 108,400 sq.ft. Office Office Office 5 8,000 sq.ft. 50,000 sq.ft. 284,000 sq.ft. Restaurant;1,350 Gen. Office/ Gen. Office/ Theater Seats; Institutional Art Museum; 234,706 sq.ft. (Art Museum) 48,000 sq.ft. Gen.Office; (Delete 8,000 Institutional 48,000 sq.ft. sq.ft. Restau- Institutional rant, 1,350 Theater Seats) 1-4 TABLE 1 (Continued) Existing General Plan Total if Permitted Proposed GPA 85-1(B) Site Acres Development Development is Approved ------------ Retail: ----- ----------- ----------- ----------- Newport 33 360 DU's, 345,000 sq.ft. 345,000 sq.ft. Village 58,750 sq.ft. Gen. Office Gen. Office Retail 1,250 sq. ft. 45,000 sq. ft. Retail (Delete Gen. Retail 360 DU's) 15,000 sq. ft. Restaurant Bayview 17 Open Space 60,000 sq. ft. 60,000 sq. ft. Landing Restaurant Restaurant Fashion 75 1,175,250 sq.ft. 151,200 sq.ft. 1,369,650 sq.ft. Island Retail General Retail Retail 43,200 sq.ft. Restaurant (Based on gross sq. ft) DU's = Dwelling Units sq.ft. = square feet Gen. Office = General Office 1-5 ' The location of Newport Center in a regional context is depicted in Figure 1-1. Figure 1-2 depicts the location of the specific sites which are the subject of the General Plan Amendment 85- 1(B). Table 1-1 summarizes the proposed land use changes within each site. The projects included in the proposed GPA 85-1(B) would permit the development of approximately 478 dwelling units, 1,279,000 square feet of office space and 255,650 square feet of general retail and restaurant development. Compared to the approved level of development, the proposed land use changes would result in a net deletion of 117 dwelling units and 1,350 ' theatre seats, and a net addition of 1,279,000 square feet of office space, 152,450 square feet of retail space, and 95,200 square feet of restaurant space. Development of the projects would be phased over several years. Generally, development and occupancy would be expected to occur between 1987 and 1992. 1� 1 I i 1 I I i J i J J 1-6 CHAPTER 2 ' EXISTING CONDITIONS Roadway Characteristics Regional access to/from Newport Center and the peripheral sites is provided via the I-405 Freeway, Route 73 (Corona del Mar) ' Freeway and Pacific Coast Highway. Major and Primary Arterials surrounding and serving traffic to/from the Newport Center area include Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard, San Joaquin Bills Road, Ford Road, San Miguel Drive, and Bison Avenue. Marguerite Avenue, also in the area, is a Secondary Road. Within Newport Center, Newport Center Drive provides the backbone for internal circulation, connecting to the surrounding arterial network via Newport Center, Santa Cruz Drive, Santa Barbara Drive, Santa Rosa Drive, San Miguel Drive and Avocado Avenue. Following is a brief description of characteristics of each of the roadways serving Newport Center and the peripheral sites. ' Coast Highway (State Route 1) parallels the coastline .throughout the City of Newport Beach. It connects Newport Beach with the coastal cities of Huntington Beach, Seal Beach and Long Beach to the north and Laguna Beach, South Laguna and Dana Point to the south. It serves as an alternative travel route to the I-405 Freeway between the south County and the Irvine/Newport Beach/ John Wayne Airport areas during congested peak hours. Within Newport Beach, it is one of two routes (the other being the Bristol Couplet) around Newport Bay. Because of this, it serves a significant amount of "around the Bay" travel between the eastern and western sections of the City. Generally, Coast Highway is constructed as a four -lane facility. Easterly of MacArthur Boulevard, parking is allowed on both sides of the 1, roadway throughout the community of Corona del Mar. Westerly of MacArthur Boulevard, Coast Highway varies in width from four to five lanes. Peak hour congestion presently occurs along various sections of Coast Highway. Jamboree Road, one of three major north/south links in Newport Beach between Coast Highway and the San Diego (I-405) Freeway, provides regional access to/from the City of Newport Beach. (The other two thoroughfares are Newport Boulevard and MacArthur Boulevard). Northerly of Coast Highway, Jamboree Road varies ' from a four -lane divided road to a six -lane divided road at various locations within the City. South of Coast Highway, the roadway is improved to provide two travel lanes in each direc- tion, with a painted median and turn pockets. As presently constructed, MacArthur Boulevard (State Route 73) is a partially improved four -lane divided roadway between Jamboree I Road and Coast Highway, with added lanes at some locations. The southern terminus of MacArthur Boulevard forms a "T" intersection with Coast highway. North of Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard is generally a six -lane facility with added lanes at some 2-1 locations. MacArthur Boulevard was the adopted alignment for the State Route 73 Freeway, which would have extended between the I-405 Freeway and the formerly proposed Coastal Freeway. The concept of a Coastal Freeway has been abandoned, and the freeway designation for Route 73 has been changed to consist of the Existing Route 73 segment between I-405 and MacArthur Boulevard and the proposed San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC). Thus, MacArthur Boulevard has been serving regional ' travel patterns, and is expected to continue to do so until the SJHTC is placed in service. San Joaquin Hills Road forms the northern boundary to Newport Center between Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard. Presently, San Joaquin Hills Road is constructed as a six -lane divided facility between Jamboree Road and Marguerite Avenue. East of Marguerite Avenue it provides access to a residential area, and is not constructed to its full width. Ford Road, with its present configuration, conforms to the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways for a four -lane divided highway. Between Jamboree Road and San Miguel Drive, Ford Road ' consists of two travel lanes in each direction separated by a raised median. West of Jamboree Road, Ford Road becomes Eastbluff Drive, and is constructed as a secondary arterial with two lanes in each direction. Bison Avenue east of Jamboree Road to MacArthur Boulevard is constructed as a six -lane divided roadway. West of Jamboree Road, Bison Avenue is a two-lane residential street. Marguerite Avenue between San Joaquin Hills Road and Fifth Avenue is constructed as a secondary arterial providing two travel lanes and a bike lane in each direction. From Fifth Avenue to just north of Coast Highway, Marguerite Avenue has one lane in each direction with parking permitted along both sides. At its intersection with Coast Highway, parking is restricted to permit left turn pockets at the approach legs. San Miguel Drive is constructed as a four -lane facility with a raised median between Ford Road and Avocado Avenue. Within Newport Center, San Miguel Drive constitutes a major access route, and is a four -lane roadway with a painted median and turn pockets at intersections. Existing Traffic Volumes The existing winter weekday average daily traffic volumes for the streets in the vicinity of the project are presented on Figure 2-1. The source of these traffic volumes is the City of Newport Beach traffic volume count data. I 2-2 r m� m m m= m m m m m m ow = m an m m N\ MSYAUVWDARNM INC. FIGURE: 2-1 EXISTING' DAILY -TAAFFIG VOLUMES' n Existing Roadway Capacity one very general method for assessing traffic flow conditions in an area is to compare average daily traffic volumes along selected roadway segments to the estimated daily capacity for those segments. This comparison method results in a volume -to - capacity (V/C) ratio value that helps identify potential areas of 1 congestion. Table 2-1 is a comparison of estimated existing roadway capacity and average daily traffic, based on traffic count data collected by the City during the period of winter 1984 to spring 1985. Review of Table 2-1 shows that Coast Highway throughout much of the study area is approaching or has exceeded its estimated' existing daily capacity. Presently, during peak traffic periods, traffic volume along Coast Highway at the east end of the City approaches this roadway's capacity, and delays occur. As a result, traffic begins to divert to other parallel, less congested roadways. Several residential roadways within the Corona del Mar area serve as bypass routes during peak, periods. In particular, Poppy Avenue, Fifth Avenue and, to a lesser degree, Marguerite Avenue carry some bypass traffic during peak hours. As part of this study, a survey of the origins and desti- nations of motorists along possible "bypass" routes in the Corona del Mar area was conducted in order to identify the extent of this occurence and possible ways to mitigate it. The origin - destination survey, and its findings and conclusions are discussed in greater detail later in this report. From north of San Joaquin Hills Road to Bison Avenue, MacArthur Boulevard presently carries traffic volumes in excess of its ' estimated daily capacity. The segment of MacArthur from Coast Highway to north of San Miguel Drive operates at much more satisfactory levels. MacArthur Boulevard from north of Jamboree ' Road to Campus Drive operates well within its carrying capacity. Jamboree Road from Coast Highway to Bison Avenue currently experiences traffic volumes that exceed estimated existing daily carrying capacity, indicating the potential for congestion along this roadway segment. The segment of Jamboree Road located just south of Bristol Street also experiences high levels of average daily traffic volumes, approaching its estimated capacity. Traffic volume along Jamboree Road between Santa Barbara Avenue and Ford Road does not exceed estimated capacity. North of Bristol Street to Campus Drive, Jamboree Road operates well below capacity. n All segments of San Joaquin Hills Road and San Miguel Drive in the study area experience relatively low volumes of traffic that are easily accommodated within the roadway's carrying capacities. Marguerite Avenue on both sides of Fifth Avenue operates within its estimated daily capacity. 2-4 I I I I I I I LJ I I I I I TABLE 2-1 COMPARISON OF EXISTING DAILY TRAFFIC TO ESTIMATED ROADWAY CAPACITY EXISTING VOLUME/ EXISTING EXISTING CAPACITY ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY VOLUME RATIO --------------- --------- --------- ---------- COAST HIGHWAY: East City Limits 36,000 30,100 0.84 e/o Poppy Avenue 36,000 381700 1.08 e/o Marguerite Avenue 36,000 37,800 1.05 e/o MacArthur Boulevard 36,000 N/A N/A e/o Newport Center Dr. 36,000 35,000 0.97 e/o Jamboree Road 36,000 40,500 1.13 e/o Dover Drive 63,000 64,500 1.02 w/o Dover Drive 36,000 51,300 1.43 e/o Newport Boulevard 45,000 59,800 1.33 West City Limits 36,000 31,600 0.88 MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD: n/o Coast Highway 36,000 25,600 0.71 n/o Harbor View Drive 36,000 N/A N/A n/o San Miguel Drive 36,000 25,100 0.70 n/o San Joaquin Hills Rd. 36,000 39,600 1.10 n/o Ford Road 450000 49,900 1.11 n/o Bison Avenue 36,000 51,400 1.43 n/o Jamboree Road 54,000 27,500 0.51 s/o Birch Street 63,000 45,900 0.73 JAMBOREE ROAD: n/o Bayside Drive 24,000 13,700 0.57 n/o Coast Highway 36,000 39,700 1.10 n/o Santa Barbara Avenue 45,000 32,400 0.72 n/o San Joaquin Hills Rd. 54,000 45,700 0.85 n/o Ford Road 54,000 39,800 0.74 n/o Bison Avenue 45,000 40,800 0.91 5/0 Bristol Street 54,000 50,000 0.93 e/o MacArthur Boulevard 54,000 23,100 0.43 s/o Birch Street 54,000 24,200 0.45 SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD: e/o Jamboree Road 54,000 20,500 0.38 w/o MacArthur Boulevard 54,000 19,000 0.35 e/o MacArthur Blvd. 54,000 N/A e/o San Miguel Drive 54,000 N/A e/o Marguerite Avenue 100000 N/A 2-5 SAN MIGUEL DRIVE: w/o MacArthur Boulevard e/o MacArthur Boulevard n/o San Joaquin Hills Rd. s/o Ford Road FORD ROAD: e/o Jamboree Road e/o MacArthur Boulevard e/o San Miguel Drive BISON AVENUE: e/o Jamboree Road e/o MacArthur Boulevard MARGUERITE AVENUE: s/o Fifth Avenue n/o Fifth Avenue BRISTOL STREET N: w/o Birch Street w/o Spruce Street BRISTOL STREET: w/o Birch Street e/o Birch Street SAN DIEGO (I-405) FREEWAY: n/o Culver Drive n/o Jamboree Road n/o MacArthur Boulevard SJHTC/ROUTE 73 e/o Sand Canyon Rd. e/o Pelican Hill Rd. e/o Bison Avenue w/o Jamboree Road PELICAN HILL ROAD: n/o Coast Highway s/o San Joaquin Hills Rd. n/o SJHTC SAND CANYON ROAD n/o Coast Highway s/o SJHTC 36,000 12,900 0.36 36,000 N/A N/A 36,000 N/A N/A 36,000 N/A N/A 36,000 N/A N/A 36,000 N/A N/A 36,000 N/A N/A 54,000 1,400 0.03 N/A N/A N/A 10,000 6,200 0.31 24,000 6,800 0.14 36,000 36,600 1.02 36,000 33,200 0.92 36,000 38,300 1.06 36,000 N/A 0.00 145,000 128,000 0.88 145,000 147,000 1.01 145,000 147,000 1.01 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A SO I ' Bristol Street and Bristol Street North (the Bristol Street couplet) carried traffic volumes approaching or exceeding estimated daily roadway capacity prior to the extension of Route I I J I I I f Ire LJ I n 'I 73 from Campus Drive to MacArthur Boulevard. The Route 73 exten- sion, opened to traffic early in February 1986, is expected to reduce traffic volumes along the Bristol Couplet. The San Diego Freeway operates within its capacity north of University Drive and north of Culver Drive,. but slightly exceeds that capacity north of Jamboree Road and north of MacArthur Boulevard. However, due to heavy peak demand, congestion presently occurs in the northbound direction during the morning peak hour and in the southbound direction in the evening. Existing Intersection Capacity An analysis of peak hourly traffic volumes at major intersections provides another indication of traffic operating conditions. In fact, the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) of the City of Newport Beach, as it existed prior to December 1985, was based on after- noon peak hourly traffic volumes at key intersections. As would be required by the TPO, the City Traffic Engineer has identified thirty-seven (37) critical intersections that could be affected by the proposed project. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analyses for each of the 37 intersections have been performed to reflect 1985 conditions. The results of these analyses are summarized in Table 2-2, and copies of the ICU worksheets are contained in the Appendix to this report. ICU values are computed to three or more significant digits after the decimal and are rounded to two significant digits after the decimal for presentation. The ICU values confirm the findings based on daily traffic volumes that congestion occurs along Coast Highway throughout the City. With few exceptions, operating conditions at other locations are generally considered satisfactory. Public Transportation Newport Center is served by 4 transit routes (1, 57, 61, 65), which are operated by the Orange County Transit District. The passenger waiting facilities adjacent to Fashion Island are the focal point for these services. The following is a description of these•routes: Route 1: Lona Beach - San Clemente via Pacific Coast Hiahwa This is OCTD's Coast Highway route along the Orange County coast. It features 35-minute headways in each direction during peak periods, and all buses make a diversion into the Newport Center. Areas served by Route 1 include: Long Beach, Seal Beach, Huntington Beach, Laguna Beach, Dana Point, and San Clemente. Route 1 is handicapped accessible. 2-7 I I I I I P 1 I I I [1 I I I I 1 SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION CRITICAL INTERSECTION Coast Highway at: Orange Street Prospect Street Balboa Blvd./Superior Riverside Avenue Tustin Avenue Dover Drive/Bayshore Bayside Drive Jamboree Road Newport Center Drive Avocado Avenue MacArthur Boulevard Goldenrod Avenue Marguerite Avenue Poppy Avenue TABLE 2-2 EXISTING 1985 PM PEAK HOUR CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) Avenue Drive Jamboree Road at: Campus Drive Birch Street MacArthur Boulevard Bristol Street North Bristol Street Eastbluff Drive North Bison Avenue Ford Road/Eastbluff DriN San Joaquin Hills Road Santa Barbara Drive MacArthur Boulevard at: Campus Drive Birch Street Bison Avenue Ford Road San Joaquin Hills Road San Miguel Drive Campus Drive at: Bristol Street North Bristol Street Birch Street at: Bristol Street North Bristol Street EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR ICU 0.95* 0.97* 0.88 0.88 0.72 0.83 1.00* 1.08* 0.73 0.78 0.85 1.13* 1.02* 0.92* I r I I I 11 I I 1 I TABLE 2-2 - continued EXISTING PM CRITICAL INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR ICU San Joaquin Hills Road at: Santa Cruz 0.50 Santa Rosa 0.68 Newport Boulevard at: Hospital Road 0.81 * Indicates that existing operating conditions are less than satisfactory, defined as a Level of Service E or worse with an ICU in excess of 0.90. (a) Reflected in the traffic counts at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard/Jamboree Road is the detour traffic, diverted to this intersection when University Drive North, between MacArthur Boulevard and Bristol Street was closed to westbound traffic during the construction of the Route 73 extension. 2-9 I I �1 Route 57: Laguna Hills - Santa Ana This route operates between downtown Santa Ana and Laguna Hills via Newport Center. Peak period frequencies on the Santa Ana to Newport Center segment are 11 minutes, and on the Newport Center to Laguna Hills segment are 24 minutes. Because of the different frequencies on the two sections, around 50 percent of the buses lay over at the Newport Center. Route 57 is handicapped accessible. F - Santa Ana This route operates bet Santa Ana. Included in Airport and the Irvine MacArthur Boulevard and frequencies are 30 minutes een Newport Center and, downtown the route are the Orange County Industrial Complex area along Red Hill Avenue. Peak period in each direction. Route 65: Tustin - Balboa This route provides service between Tustin and the Balboa peninsula via the Newport Center, and serves the University of California at Irvine. Peak period frequencies are 30 minutes in each direction. . Table 2-3 summarizes the days of operation and weekday operating frequencies for the above routes. Tables 2-4 and 2-5 summarize the boarding and alighting information for weekdays and weekends. Approximately 2,000 passengers arrive at or depart from the Newport Center on an OCTD bus on a weekday, and 674 passengers arrive or depart on an OCTD bus on a weekend. Figure 2-2 depicts the operating routes for the four OCTD lines which service Newport Center. Detailed route maps for each route are included in Appendix A. ORIGIN AND DESTINATION SURVEY Introduction In order to examine the origin and destination patterns of traffic through Corona Del Mar, an origin and destination survey was conducted as part of this study. The survey was conducted at three locations from 6:30 AM to 9:30 AM on Wednesday, June 26, 1985, and at six locations between 3:00 PM and 7:00 PM the same day. One additional location was surveyed between 6:30 and 9:30 AM on June 27. ' The survey technique consisted of handing out postage -prepaid questionnaire cards to motorists traveling in the peak direction during the survey period. Figure 2-3 shows the location of the four morning and six afternoon distribution points for the questionnaire. A total of 9,400 survey questionnaires were distributed with 4,255 (45%) returned. The response rate, considered very good for this type of survey, varied by station between 31% and 55%, yielding the overall rate of 45%. 1 2-10 TABLE 2-3 OPERATING SCHEDULE FOR NEWPORT CENTER TRANSIT ROUTES Days & Hours of Service Mon -Sun - 5:30 am to 11:00 pm Mon -Fri - 6:30 am to 6:30 pm Mon -Sun - 6:30 am to 9:00 pm Mon -Sun - 6:30 am to 9:00 pm Headway in Minutes Peak Off -Peak 10 10 30 30 30 30 35 35 � M M i M M M M M = = = M M M M M M M TABLE 2-4 NEWPORT CENTER WEEKDAY PASSENGER ACTIVITY BY ROUTE AND TIME PERIOD AM Midday PM Evening Total ------- ------- ------- ------- -------- Route Route ----- Direction --------- On Off On Off On Off On Off On Off Total 1 NB -- 10 --- 33 -- 18 --- 43 -- --- 29 28 -- 5 --- 6 -- 60 --- 112 ----- SB 19 34 41 27 45 14 7 7 112 82 366 57 NB 17 49 139 84 153 15 21 3 330 151 SB 17 220 96 199 71 66 13 0 197 494 1,172 61 NB 16 0 34 0 12 0 7 0 69 0 N SB 0 25 0 22 0 18 0 5 0 70 139 1 N 65 NB 42 3 40 6 26 5 11 1 119 15 SB 0 27 8 63 2 35 5 6 15 131 280 TOTAL 902 1,055 1,957 Note: Time periods are as follows: AM Start of service - 9:00 AM Midday 9:00 AM - 3:00 PM PM ' 3:00 PM - 6:00 PM Evening 6:00 PM - End of service TABLE 2-5 NEWPORT CENTER WEEKEND PASSENGER ACTIVITY Saturday Saturday Sunday ---------- Route Route Direction Ons Offs Totals Ons Offs 1 NB 45 38 41 34 SB 30 35 148 20 30 57 NB 163 100 102 117 SB 83 178 524 69 132 i' 61 ---------_ No Weekend Service w 65 NB 60 20 59 19 SB 30 65 175 10 41 TOTAL 411 436 847 301 373 Sunday Route Totals 125 420 129 674 'WLn ;ROUTE' 1 N min Ro1JTE' rI �= nova so N***�B%X BASMACIYAN•DARNELL, INC. FIGURE'2-2 a, QCTD" BUS` ROUTES SE RVJNG 'REWP4Ri 'CENTER 2-14 \�\ BASMACIYAN-DARNGLL, INC 31W0 lX=d Lo Dm. C MM..Wrw 929M STATION LOCATION A.M. wy. -at Marguerite Ave. NO Ave. at Eth Ave. flew Dr. at Mac ArthLw Blvd. Nth Ave. at Coast Hwy. W at Coast Hwy. id Ave. at Coast Hwy. hur Blvd. at Coast Hwy. may. at Mae Artlwr BW. Dr. at Mwgawke Ave. FIGURE 2-3 NEWPORT CENTER ORIGIN AND DESTINATION SURVEY DISTRIBUTION STATIONS The survey was designed to elicit the following information from respondents: ' 1) Vehicle type 2) Vehicle occupancy ' 3) Trip purpose 4) Residence location 5) Origin and destination information ' 6) General comments The findings in each of these areas are summarized in the following paragraphs. Vehicle Type ' The responses to the vehicle type inquiry indicated that 90.9% of respondents were driving automobiles, 0.6% were driving trucks, and 8.2% were driving another type of vehicle. About 0.3% of the ' respondents did not indicate their vehicle type. Vehicle Occupancy At the ten survey stations combined, the average number of persons per vehicle was 1.21, in accordance with the responses received. Vehicle occupancy varied by station between 1.10 and ' 1.36 persons per vehicle. Generally, vehicle occupancy was higher at the stations surveyed in the afternoon. The reason is that in the afternoon peak period,�vehicles are used for shopping and social -recreational trips to a much greater extent than in the morning peak period. In the morning, the vast majority of trips are for home -to -work purposes. In accordance with the responses, vehicle occupancy for vehicles ' destined to or originating from Newport Center was lower than that for all vehicles. Overall, vehicle occupancy for Newport ' Center traffic all traffic. was 1.10 persons per vehicle, compared to 1.21 for Trip Purpose The responses to the trip purpose question, summarized in Table 2-6, indicate that in the morning peak period, the home -to -work trip constitutes the predominant trip type. Generally, in the afternoon peak period, the work -related trips constitute a smaller percentage of all trips than in the morning. Residence Location of Respondents The residence location of those who responded to the questionnaires distributed at the stations surveyed in the morning peak period is summarized in Table 2-7. 1 1 2-16 TABLE 2-6 SUMMARY OF TRIP PURPOSE Stations Surveyed in the Mornin SurveyStationsTo Work ----- ---------- To Work Not Other and No. Location From Home From Home --------- No Response ----------- Total ----- --- 1 ------------------------- W/B Coast Hwy @ Goldenrod --------- - Number 1,220 38 238 1,496 - Percent of Total 81.6% 2.5% 15.9% 100.0% 2 W/B 5th @ Marguerite - Number 257 6 69 332 - Percent of Total 77.4% 1.8% 20.8% 100.0% 3 N/B Marguerite @ 5th - Number 184 23 85 292 - Percent of Total 63.0% 7.9% 29.1% 100.0% 4 W/B Harbor View @ MacArthur - Number 171 10 83 264 - Percent of Total 64.8% 3.8% 31.4% 100.0% Stations Surveyed in -the Afternoon Survey Stations From Work ---------------------------- -- To Home To Other Other and No. Location From Work Than Home No Response ----------- Total ----- --- 5 ------------------------- S/B Marguerite @ Coast Hwy --------- --------- - Number 53 6 110 169 - Percent of Total 31.4% 3.5% 65.1% 100.0% 6 S/B Poppy @ Coast Hwy - Number 145 14 63 222 - Percent of Total 65.3% 6.3% 28.4% 100.0% 7 S/B Goldenrod @ Coast Hwy - Number 27 8 43 78 - Percent of Total 34.6% 10.3% 55.1% 100.0% 8 S/B MacArthur @ Coast Hwy - Number 540 109 303 952 - Percent of Total 56.7% 11.5% 31.8% 100.0% 9 E/B Coast Hwy @ MacArthur - Number 107 24 134 265 - Percent of Total 40.4% 9.0% 50.6% 100.0% 10 E/B Bayside @ Marguerite - Number 54 16 115 185 - Percent of Total 29.2% , 8.6% 62.2% 100.0% 2-17 Residence Corona Del Mar/ Harbor View Other Newport Beach Laguna Beach So. Laguna/ Laguna Niguel/ Dana Point Other No.Response TOTAL TABLE 2-7 RESIDENCE LOCATION OF RESPONDENTS (Stations Surveyed in Morning Peak Period) Westbound Coast Highway at Goldenrod --------------- No. % of Total (a) (a) 396(a) 26.5% 449 30.0% Westbound 5th at Marguerite --------------- No. % of Total 147 44.3% 3 0.9% 97 29.2% Northbound Marguerite at 5th --------------- No. % of Total 217 14.3% 16 5.5% 27 9.3% Westbound Harbor View at MacArthur --------------- No. % of Total 236 89.4% 4 1.5% 8 3.0% 381 25.5% 54 16.3% 8 2.7% 6 2.3% 256 17.1% 29 8.7% 24 8.2% 10 3.8% 14 ----- 0.9% 2 0.6% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1,496 ------ 100.0% ---- 332 ------ 100.0% ---- 292 ------ 100.0% ---- 264 ------ 100.0% (a) For this station, breakdown of residence location within Newport Beach isnot available. At the Coast Highway station, about 55 percent of the respondents ' have residences in Laguna, South Laguna, Laguna Niguel, and Dana Point areas. In addition, it is speculated that residences in the "other" category include residences in the southern portion ' of Orange County, not specifically named. Thus, about 60 to 70 percent of the respondents reside in areas south and east of the city limits of Newport Beach. ' The distribution of residence location of respondents at the other three stations surveyed in the morning is markedly different from that on Coast Highway. At the Harbor View station ' at MacArthur, about five percent of the respondents have a residence in Corona del Mar/harbor View. At the 5th Avenue station at Marguerite, about half of the respondents have a residence in areas south and east of the city limits of Newport Beach. At the Marguerite Avenue station at 5th Avenue, about 15 percent of the respondents have a residence south and east of the city limits of Newport Beach; about three quarters have a residence in Corona del Mar/Harbor View. The residence location of those who responded to the questionnaires distributed at the stations surveyed in the afternoon peak period is summarized in Table 2-8 The residence location pattern for those responding at the afternoon survey locations is similar to that of the morning. At the two stations on major arterials (MacArthur Boulevard and ' Coast Highway), about one half of the respondents have a residence east and south of the city limits of Newport Beach, and about 40 percent in Corona del Mar/Harbor View. At the Poppy Avenue station at Coast Highway, about one half of the ' respondents have a residence south and east of the city limits of Newport Beach. At the other three stations (Marguerite at Coast Highway, Goldenrod at Coast Highway, and Bayside at Marguerite) about two thirds of the respondents have a residence in Corona del Mar, Harbor View, or other Newport Beach location. In summary, the survey indicates that the residence of the majority of respondents at the stations on major arterials (Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard) is outside Newport Beach, speci- fically outside Corona del Mar/Harbor View and in Laguna Beach and elsewhere in the southeastern portion of Orange County. Conversely, the vast majority of respondents at the Goldenrod, Marguerite, Harbor View and Bayside stations have a residence in ' Corona del Mar/Harbor View. At the Poppy Avenue and 5th Avenue stations, the residence distribution of respondents is between. that of the stations on the major arterials and the other local street stations in Corona del Mar. The conclusion is that the ' Poppy Avenue/5th Avenue/Marguerite Avenue and secondly, the Poppy Avenue/5th Avenue/Harbor View Drive routes indeed constitute bypasses to the Coast Highway/MacArthur Boulevard route during ' peak periods of traffic. 2-19 i m m = = = = = = m = = = = = = = = m TABLE 2-8 NEWPORT ORIGIN AND DESTINATION SURVEY RFSIDEWE LOCATION OF RESPONDENTS (Stations Surveyed in Afternoon Peak Period) Southbound Southbound Soutbbound Southbound Southbound Eastbound Marguerite Poppy Goldenrod MacArthur Coast Highway Bayside at Coast Hghwy at Coast Hghwy at Coast Hghwy at Coast Hghwy at MacArthur at Marguerite Residence No. 8 of Total - No. --- 8 of Total ------- No. --- 8 of Total No. 8 of Total No. 8 of Total No. 8 of Total Corona Del Mar/ 97 57.4% 67 30.2% 40 ------ 51.3% --- (a) ------ (a) --- (a) ----- ---- (a) --- 130 ---------- 70.3% Harbor View Other Newport Beach 14 8.3% 8 3.6% 7 9.0% 348 36.6% 97 36.7% 13 7.0% N tv Laguna Beach 22 13.0% 64 28.8% 12 15.4% 234 24.6% 38 14.3% 11 5.9% Co So. Laguna/ Laguna Niguel/ Dana Point 13 7.7% 50 22.5% 6 7.7% 141 14.8% 51 19.2% 10 5.5% Other 21 12.4% 32 14.4% 13 16.6% 221 23.2% 78 29.4% 21 11.3% No Response 2 1.2% 1 0.5% --- 0 --- 0.0% ----- 8 0.8% 1 0.4% 0 0.0% 169 100.0% 222 100.0% 78 100.0% --- 952 ----- 100.0% ---- 265 -- 100.0% ---- 185 ----- 100.0% (a) For this station, breakdown of residence location within Newport Beach is not available. ' Origin and Destination Information The issues that are of primary concern with regard to origin and ' destination data are: 1. What is the current level of through traffic from areas outside of Corona Del Mar, that is diverting through the ' neighborhoods in Corona Del Mar, in order to avoid congestion on Coast Highway? 2. What percent of through traffic originating from areas outside of Corona Del Mar is destined for Newport Center? 3. What percent of traffic could be diverted if the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor were open to traffic? 4. What percent of traffic could be diverted if Pelican Hill ' Road were open, but the San Joaquin, Bills Transportation Corridor were not? ' 5. What percentage of traffic on Coast Highway travels through Newport Beach without having an origin or a destination in Newport Beach? (An example of this would be a trip from Laguna Beach to Huntington Beach.) The findings from the origin and destination survey pertaining to these matters are presented in this section. Table 2-9 is a summary of the trip origins and destinations of respondents surveyed at the stations operated in the morning peak ' hour -- when the peak flow is generally westbound through Corona del Mar to employment destinations at Newport Center, elsewhere in Newport Beach, and other locations to the west and north. At the westbound Coast Highway station at Goldenrod Avenue, 77.9 percent of the respondents had origins south and east of the city limits of Newport Beach. This is consistent with the findings ' on the location of the residences of respondents. Of all respondents, 25.1 percent were on their way to Newport Center. Traffic with an origin in the Corona del Mar and Harbor View area ' constituted 22.1 percent of all traffic. The majority of the traffic with a local origin was destined for areas to the west and north of Newport Center. At the westbound 5th Avenue station (at Marguerite Avenue) 61.8 percent of the traffic had an origin south and east of the city limits of Newport Beach, confirming the conclusion stated earlier that 5th Avenue does carry traffic which bypasses Coast Highway. At the northbound Marguerite Avenue (at 5th Avenue) and the ' westbound Harbor View the majority of the Drive (at MacArthur Boulevard) traffic had a local origin, again stations, consistent with the findings on residence locations. 1 2-21 m= m m m" M M M r M M M M M am M M TABLE 2-9 TRIP ORIGINS AND DESTINATIONS OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS (Stations Surveyed in Morning Peak Period) Trips From Local. Origins Trips From External Origins All Trips Survey Station 8 to 8 to --__------ ------------------------- $ to --------- ---- Newport 8 to Local 6 to Other Newport 8 to Local B to Other wport ewpOrt Ne & to Local 8 to Other No. Location Center Destinations Destinations Total Center Destinations Destinations Total Center Destinations Destinations Total 1 W/B Coast Hwy at Goldenrod 2.78 2.6% 16.7% 22.1% 22.4% 3.8% 51.78 77.9% 25.1% 6.4% 68.5% 100.0% 2 W/B 5th Ave --- --_ at Marguerite 3.2% 5.7% 29.3% 38.2% 9.2% 12.7% 39.8% 61.8% 12.4% 18.5% 69.1% 100.0% 3 N/B Marguerite at Sth Ave 7.5% 14.2% 52.3% -74.1% 2.5% 6.7% 16.7% 25.9% 10.0% 20.9% 69.0% 100.0% 4 W/B Harbor View Dr at MacArthur 14.2% 5.88 62.5% 82.5% 5.0% 1.3% 11.2% 17.5% 19.2% 7.1% 73.8% 100.08 Note: "Local" means Corona del Mar, Harbor View and Irvine Terrace area; excludes Newport Center "External" means areas south and east of the Newport Beach city limits "Other Destinations" are those north and crest of the Corona del Mar, Harbor View, Irvine Terrace and Newport Center areas. I I I n I I I I Ll I I Table 2-10 is a summary of the trip origins and destinations of respondents surveyed at the stations operated in the afternoon peak hour -- when the peak flow is generally eastbound through Corona del Mar. In the afternoon peak period, a large percentage of the respondents at all stations had other than local origins and destinations. At the eastbound Coast Highway (at MacArthur) the southbound MacArthur Boulevard (at Coast Highway) and the southbound Poppy Avenue (at Coast Highway) stations, about half of all respondents had both a non -local origin and a non -local destination (51.6 percent on Coast Highway, 47.7 percent on MacArthur Boulevard, and 46.8 percent on Poppy Avenue). At the other three afternoon survey stations, respondents with both a non -local origin and a non -local destination constituted 20.3 percent to 27.5 percent of all respondents. ial Diversion to San Joaquin Hills Transportation If the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC) were to be placed in service now, along with the interchanges and connecting arterials as planned, it would be expected that a substantial portion of motorists would use the SJHTC instead of the Coast Highway route. Based on the results of the origin and destination surveys, and only on the basis of the location of origins and destinations, it is estimated that about 44 percent of the respondents at the westbound Coast Highway station could potentially use SJHTC. Whether motorists would indeed choose to change routes cannot be ascertained at this time. If the Pelican Hill Road were to be built, but not the SJHTC, there would still be diversion of traffic away from Coast Highway, but not to the extent of the diversion with the SJHTC. Again, based on the survey results and on the basis of the location of origins and destinations, about 22 percent of the respondents at the westbound Coast Highway station could potentially use Pelican Hill Road instead of going through Corona del Mar. (The fact that the Pelican Hill Road diversion is exactly one half of the SJHTC diversion is purely coincidental. The estimates are made independently based on the survey results and the location of origins and destinations potentially divertable under the two roadway configuration assumptions.) Through Traffic on Coast Highway One of the items of interest to Newport Beach is the amount of traffic on Coast Highway that traverses the City from the east city limits to the west city limits (or in the reverse direction) ' without having an origin or destination in the City. Based on the survey results, it is estimated that during peak periods, a small percentage of the respondents travel through the City along Coast Highway without an origin or destination in the City. At ' the morning westbound Coast'Highway station at Goldenrod, 2.9 I 2-23 ME" M M A W M M MEN M M M Mon r r TABLE 2-10 TRIP ORIGINS AND DESTINATIONS OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS (Stations Surveyed in Afternoon Peak Period) Trips from Newport Center Trips from Local Origins Trips from Other Origins All Trips SurveyStation ----------- ------- ------- --- ------- --- ---------- ------------------- ------------- --------- --------- ----------- 8 to Local % to External 8 to Local 8 to External 8 to Local $ to External 8 to Local 8 to External No. Location Destinations Destinations Total Destinations Destinations Total Destinations Destinations Total Destinations Destinations Total 5 S/B Marguerite at Coast Hwy 2.5% 5.9% 8.5% 28.0% 14.4% 42.4% 28.8% 20.3% 49.1% 59.3% 40.7% 100.08 6 S/B Poppy ----- ---- at Coast Hwy 0.6% 18.1% 18.7% 6.4% 19.3% 25.7% 8.8% 46.8% 55.6% 15.8% 84.2% 1DO.08 7 S/B Goldenrod at Coast Hwy 4.1% 4.1% 8.2% 30.6% 26.5% 57.1% 12.2% 22.5% 34.7% 46.9% 53.1% 100.0% 8 S/B MacArthur N ,p at Coast Hwy 3.2% 8.1% 11.3% 7.1% 7.1% 14.2% 26.8% 47.7% 74.5% 37.1% 62.9% 100.0% 9 E/B Coast Hwy --_ -- --_- at MacArthur 3.2% 12.9% 16.1% 3.8% 4.8% 8.6% 23.7% 51.6% 75.3% 30.6% 69.4% 100.0% 10 E/B Bayside ---- ----- at Marguerite 1.4% - - 1.4% 18.8% 2.9% 21.7% 49.3% 27.5% 76.8% 69.6% 30.4% 100.0% Note: "Local" means Corona del Mar, Harbor View and Irvine Terrace area; excludes Newport Center "External" means areas south and east of the Newport Beach city limits "Other Origins" are those north and vest of the Corona del Mar, Harbor View, Irvine Terrace and Newport Center areas. percent of respondents were making through trips. For the afternoon eastbound Coast Highway station at MacArthur Boulevard, such through trips constituted 5.9 percent of the total. Comments Approximately 24% of the respondents had comments. These ranged from requests for improved signal timing, to requests for imple- mentation of specific capital improvement projects for allevia- tion of congestion, to general comments about the worsening congestion along Pacific Coast Highway. I I L__I I I I I I I {_I i 1 2-25 CHAPTER 3 FUTURE CONDITIONS In this chapter, the areawide long-term traffic volume projections are presented within the context of regional growth and development. Future roadway characteristics are discussed, and the areawide impacts of the proposed GPA are presented. Future Roadway System The City of Newport Beach Circulation Element/Master Plan of Streets and Highways generally defines the future circulation System within the City. It includes all arterials and their functional classifications, existing freeways and adopted freeway alignments, and future regional facilities for which precise alignments are still being coordinated. Figure 3-1 shows the City's Circulation Element/Master Plan of Streets and Highways. The most significant improvement to the transportation system expected in the future in the vicinity of Newport Center, is the construction of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (Route 73) from MacArthur Boulevard to the I-5 (San Diego) Free- way in San Juan Capistrano along with interchanges and connecting arterials, including Pelican Hill Road and Sand Canyon Road. At the present time, Route 73 extends between I-405 and MacArthur Boulevard. The segment between Campus Drive and MacArthur Boulevard opened to traffic early in February, 1986. The comple- tion of the San Joaquin Hills Transporation Corridor from MacArthur Boulevard to the San Diego Freeway is expected to relieve congestion along Coast Highway and the I-405 and I-5 Freeways. V With the exception of MacArthur Boulevard, Jamboree Road and Coast Highway, the arterials in the vicinity of the Newport Center are constructed to Master Plan configuration. There are firm plans to widen Coast Highway between MacArthur Boulevard and Bayside Drive to make this segment a six -lane divided roadway, with turning ' lanes added as necessary at intersections. Coast Highway is also to be widened between Newport Boulevard and the west City limits and beyond. Aside from spot improvements at intersections, there are no firm plans to widen MacArthur Boulevard or Jamboree Road in the vicinity of Newport Center. Other arterials in the vicinity of Newport Center (San Joaquin Hills Road between Jamboree Road and Marguerite Avenue, Jamboree Road north of San Joaquin Hills Road, San Miguel Drive, Ford Road, Bison Avenue between Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard, and Marguerite Avenue between 5th Avenue and San Joaquin Hills Road) are built to Master Plan confi- guration. MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road are both desig- nated as Major Arterial facilities in Newport Beach between Coast ' Highway and Campus Drive. Some portions of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road have been constructed to Master Plan configura- tion; in fact some segments along these facilities have more than ' six lanes, which is the number of lanes for a Major Arterial. 1 3-1 CIRCULATION ELEMENT MASTER PLAN OF STREETS & HIGHWAYS A BASMACIYAN DARNLLL. INC. •9 C G• FIGURE 3-1 NEWPORT BEACH CIRCULATION ELEMENT MASTER PLAN Of STREETS AND. HIGHWAYS MARCH 11, 1974 F LI Several existing roadways are planned to be extended in accor- dance with the City's Master Plan of Street and Highways and the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). Ford Road would be extended from its present terminus near San Miguel Drive, eastward to Bonita Canyon Road. San Joaquin Hills Road would be extended east of its present terminus at Spy Glass Hill Road to intersect Pelican Hill Road and Sand Canyon Road with an inter- change at the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. Alternative interchange connections for the west end of the SJHTC have been studied by the Orange County EMA. It is anticipated that the construction of Pelican Hill Road (part of the Master Plan) would reduce traffic volume along MacArthur Boulevard and along Coast Highway between Pelican Hill Road and MacArthur Boulevard, thereby helping to relieve congestion in the southeastern portion of Newport Beach/Corona del Mar. Even before the completion of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC), the construction of Pelican Hill Road between Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard via Bonita Canyon Road could serve development planned in the "down Coast" area east of the Newport Beach City limits, and would help to divert traffic away from Coast Highway through Corona del Mar. A summary of roadway characteristics is presented in Table 3-1. FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECAST METHODOLOGY Future traffic volume forecasts were prepared using the City of Newport Beach Traffic Circulation Model. The City's model was originally developed in 1979 as a transportation planning tool to be processed on an IBM mainframe computer. Within the course of this study, the original model has been subjected to an intensive process of revision and update, including conversion to processing on an IBM PC. The basic elements of the process are discussed in summary manner in this report. The general methodology for the development of The City of Newport Beach Traffic Circulation Model consists of a subarea analysis. In the subarea analysis technique, the area of interest, called the "Study Area," is extracted from a regional travel model and becomes the subject of intensive analysis. The OCTAM model, developed by the Orange County Environmental Manage- ment Agency, provided the regional base from which the study area has been extracted. The Study Area has been defined as the area bounded by the Pacific Ocean, Beach Boulevard, Edinger Avenue and the I-5 Freeway. The Study Area consists of a "Primary Study Area" and a "Secon- dary Study Area." The "Primary Study Area" is the area of im- mediate interest, and is analyzed in great detail. The "Secon- dary Study Area" acts as a "buffer zone," and is analyzed in less detail. The Primary Area in the Newport Beach Traffic Circulation Model is bounded generally by the Pacific Ocean, the Santa Ana River, Warner Avenue, the I-405 Freeway and Laguna Canyon Road. 3-3 I i__I It i I TABLE 3-1 SUMMARY OF ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS Location Existing Condition (a) Master Plan Configuration --------------- ------------------ ------------------------- COAST IIIGHWAY BETWEEN: East City Limits and 4 lanes with painted/ Primary Road aE MacArthur Blvd. raised median MacArthur Blvd. and Bayside Drive Bayside Drive and Dover Drive 4 lanes with painted median 3 EB and 4 WB lanes with painted median Dover Drive and 4 lanes with two-way east of Tustin Ave. left -turn lane MACARTHUR BOULEVARD BETWEEN: Coast Hwy and north 4 lanes with painted of San Joaquin median Hills Road North of San Joaquin 4 lanes with painted Hills Rd and Ford Rd median Ford Rd and Bison Ave. 3 SB and 2 NB lanes with painted median Bison Avenue and Bonita Canyon Road Bonita Canyon Rd and University Dr. North JAMBOREE ROAD BETWEEN: Bayside Drive and Coast Highway Coast Highway and Back Bay Drive 4 lanes with painted median 4 lanes with raised median 4 lanes with painted median 4 lanes with raised median Back Bay Dr. and San 3 NB and 2 SB with Joaquin Hills Road raised median San Joaquin Hills 6 lanes with raised Road and Bison Ave. median Bison Ave. and North 3 NB and 2 SB with of Eastbluff Dr. N. raised median North of Eastbluff Dr. 6 lanes with raised N. and Bristol St. median Major Road Major Road ##* Major Road *• Northbound roadway of Avocado Ave./MacArthur Blvd. 1-way couplet ae Major Road * Major Road *• Major Road * Major Road * Secondary Road ** Major Road * Major Road * Major Road ** Major Road * Major Road *•* 1 3-4 TABLE 3-1 (Continued) ' Location Existing Condition (a) Master Plan Designation ------------ ----------------- SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD BETWEEN: Jamboree Rd and 6 lanes with raised ----------------------- Major Road #dE Marguerite Ave median Marguerite Ave and 2 lanes Major Road # Spyglass Hill Rd Spyglass Hill Rd and Does not exist Major Road (b) # Sand Canyon Rd SAN MIGUEL DRIVE BETWEEN: Avocado Avenue and 4 lanes with raised Primary Road ## Ford Road median FORD ROAD BETWEEN: Jamboree Rd. and 4 lanes with raised Primary Road #9E San Miguel Drive median San Miguel Drive and Does not exist Primary Road (b) # Bonita Cnyn Rd/SJHTC 1 BISON AVENUE BETWEEN: Jamboree Road and 6 lanes with raised Primary Road ### MacArthur Blvd. median MacArthur Blvd. and Does Not Exist Primary Road (b) # Bonita Cnyn Rd/SJHTC EASTBLUFF DRIVE/UNIVERSITY DRIVE: West of Jamboree Rd 4 lane undivided Secondary Road ## Between Jamboree Rd Under Construction Secondary Road dE# and MacArthur Blvd. (a) General description; spot widening, turn lanes, and lanes added for short distances are not described (b) Based on the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways ### Means existing roadway constructed to more than Master Plan configuration �# Means existing roadway constructed (or under construction) in accordance with Master Plan configuration. # Means existing roadway constructed to less than Master Plan configuration, or road does not exist. Note: Unless number of lanes is stated separately for each direction, the number shown is the total number of lanes for both directions combined Note: Major Road would have 6 lanes with raised median; Primary Road would have 4 lanes with raised median; Secondary Road would have 4 lanes with painted median 3-5 Within the Primary Area, current land use information for 1985 and 2010 has been obtained from the Cities of Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, Irvine and Santa Ana, and from the County of Orange. The land use projections provided by the City of Newport Beach are based on the "Trend Growth" scenario of future development within the City. Trend Growth in the City of Newport Beach is developed from a combination of actual development built -out in residential areas, maximum development in other residential areas, and pro- jections of maximum feasible commercial/industrial development allowed, consistent with General Plan limits and zoning constraints, such as height limits and parking/site coverage requirements. The circulation system data base has also been updated to reflect current roadway characteristics and future assumptions. The future conditions network within the City of Newport Beach is based on the City's Circulation Element, except for assumptions regarding University Drive North, which was assumed not to extend beyond its existing terminus east of Irvine Avenue. The roadway network and tripmaking assumptions for the Secondary Study area are based on those contained in the OCTAM model. To validate the ability of the modelling process to generate reasonable future traffic volume projections, a base year condi- tions model was developed first. The procedural framework for model development was established in the base conditions model. The adequacy and accuracy of the process was verified by comparing modelling results with actual 1985 traffic conditions. Once the process and the assumptions were validated, the same procedures were used to forecast future conditions. In addition to the Newport Beach traffic model used in this study, there are several computer models which provide traffic projections for areas including Newport Beach and the "'down Coast". These models, including the City of Irvine ITAP, County of Orange SOCCS and OCTAM models, and the City of Huntington Beach model, are important tools in the planning process, because they provide additional information about what traffic volumes might be expected in the long-range future. Variations in traffic volume forecasts between models are inevitable, because of differences in input data assumptions and modelling metho- dology. Differences among model results can also be attributed to the area of focus addressed in the planning process (regional compared to subarea). Generally, a model is considered to be most reliable for the area of its primary focus. In summary, the model results (from the Newport Beach, as well as the other models) should be considered to be an indication of likely future conditions and changes, to be used as a planning tool, rather than an absolute forecast of the exact number of vehicles on a specific roadway segment twenty years from now. 1 3-6 I TREND GROWTH DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO The traffic volume forecasts for Year 2010, assuming the "Trend Growth" development scenario, which does not include the proposed GPA within the City of Newport Beach, are depicted on Figure 3-2. Comparison of Forecast Traffic Volume to Roadway Capacity Trend Growth average daily traffic volume forecasts have been compared to estimated daily capacities for selected roadway segments. Table 3-2 summarizes the results of this comparison. In Year 2010, assuming Trend Growth levels of development within the City of volumes along Newport Beach and Coast Highway are the forecast surrounding areas, traffic to exceed the estimated capacity of a four -lane roadway from east of Marguerite Avenue to MacArthur Boulevard. Traffic demand east of Newport Boulevard is also forecast to be greater than the capacity of a four -lane roadway. The Coast Highway bridge at Dover Drive is also fore- cast to carry traffic volumes in excess of its estimated carrying capacity. MacArthur Boulevard from Ford Road to Bison Avenue is estimated to carry daily traffic of a six -lane roadway. in excess of the estimated daily capacity Express capacity would be available on Jamboree Road, which serves generally the same traffic flow corridor. To the extent that motorists would avoid congestion on MacArthur Boulevard, some traffic would be redistributed to Jamboree Road. Traffic volume forecasts along the San Diego Freeway from Univer- sity Drive to north of MacArthur Boulevard are well in excess of the estimated capacity for an eight -lane freeway. A project to widen the I-405 Freeway to add one lane in each direction is included in the State Transportation Improvement Program. It is uncertain, however, if the added lane will be for general purpose traffic, or for High Occupancy Vehicles (HOV) only. With either option, widening of the I-405 Freeway will bring travel demand and capacity into better balance. The San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC) west of Bison Avenue to west of Campus Drive is estimated to carry traffic volumes greater than the estimated capacity of an eight -lane freeway. Since the SJHTC is being planned to include an HOV lane in each direction, the volume -to -capacity ratio should be better (lower) than indicated in this report. In summary, with the Trend Growth development scenario, which does not include the proposed GPA, traffic volume along portions of Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard would be expected to exceed future roadway capacity. Generally, the remaining arterials would be expected to operate satisfactorily. 3-7 BASMACIVAN DARNELL. INC. FIGURE 3-2 TREND GROWTH VOLUMES .e ' TABLE 3-2 ' COMPARISON OF TREND GROWTH TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS TO FUTURE ROADWAY CAPACITY DAILY TRAFFIC: VOLUME/ FUTURE DAILY TREND CAPACITY ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY GROWTH RATIO --------------- --------- --------- COAST HIGHWAY: East City Limits 36,000 33,000 0.92 e/o Poppy Avenue 36,000 35,800 0.99 e/o Marguerite Avenue 36,000 45,500 1.26 e/o MacArthur Boulevard 36,000• 484,400 1.34 e/o Newport Center Dr. 54,000 45,600 0.84 e/o Jamboree Road" 54,000 45,500 0.84 e/o w/o Dover Drive Dover Drive 630,000 54,000 77,000 45,800 1.22 0.85 e/o Newport Boulevard 54,000 68,200 1.26 West City Limits 54,000 31,500 0.58 AVOCADO/MAC ARTHUR BLVD. COUPLET n/o Coast Highway 54,000 (a) 46,200 (a) 0.86 n/o Harbor View Drive 54,000 (a) 46,700 (a) 0.86 n/o San Miguel Drive 54,000 (a) 30,300 (a) 0.56 n/o San Joaquin Hills Rd. 54,000 (a) 56,300 (a) 1.04 MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD: n/o Ford Road 54,000 64,200 1.19 n/o Bison Avenue 54,000 69,800 1.29 n/o Jamboree Road 54,000 44,700 0.83 s/o Birch Street 63,000 27,800 0.44 JAMBOREE ROAD: n/o Bayside Drive 36,000 28,200 0.78 n/o Coast Highway 54,000 33,600 0.62 n/o Santa Barbara Avenue 54,000 34,800 0.64 n/o San Joaquin Hills Rd. 54,000 44,900 0.83 n/o Ford Road 54,000 38,500 0.71 n/o Bison Avenue 54,000 38,500 0.71 s/o Bristol Street- 54,000 44,000 0.81 e/o MacArthur Boulevard 54,000 65,700 1.22 s/o Birch Street 54,000 52,300 0.97 SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD: e/o Jamboree Road 54,000 22,600 0.42 w/o MacArthur Boulevard 54,000 38,100 0.71 e/o MacArthur Blvd. 54,000 250,000 0.46 e/o San Miguel Drive 54,000 32,000 0.59 e/o Marguerite Avenue 54,000 25,800 0.48 3-9 Tanie 3-2 (Continued) SAN MIGUEL DRIVE: w/o MacArthur Boulevard 36,000 20,300 0.56 e/o MacArthur Boulevard 36,000 23,400 0.65 n/o San Joaquin Hills Rd. 36,000 17,400 0.48 s/o Ford Road 36,000 14,100 0.39 FORD ROAD: e/o Jamboree Road 36,000 14,300 0.40 e/o MacArthur Boulevard 36,000 20,700 0.58 e/o San Miguel Drive 36,000 29,800 0.83 BISON AVENUE: e/o Jamboree Road 54,000 7,300 0.14 e/o,MacArthur Boulevard 54,000 16,600 0.31 MARGUERITE AVENUE: s/o Fifth Avenue 10,000 (b) 10,100 1.01 n/o Fifth Avenue 24,000 16,400 0.68 BRISTOL STREET N: w/o Birch Street 36,000 36,800 1.02 w/o Spruce Street 36,000 30,700 0.85 BRISTOL STREET: w/o Birch street 36-1000 39,500 1.10 e/o Birch Street 36,000 31,600 0.88 SAN DIEGO (I-405) FREEWAY: n/o Culver Drive 145,000 210,000 1.45 n/o Jamboree Road 145,000 210,000 1.45 n/o MacArthur Boulevard 145,000 227,500 1.57 SJHTC/ROUTE 73: e/o sand Canyon Rd. 145,000 154,800 1.07 e/o Pelican Hill Rd. 145,000 122,600 0.85 e/o Bison Avenue 145,000 150,600 1.04 w/o Jamboree Road 145,000 222,200 1.53 PELICAN HILL ROAD: n/o Coast Highway 54,000 12,500 0.23 s/o San Joaquin Hills Rd. 54,000 21,000 0.39 n/o SJHT-C 36,000 13,300 0.37 SAND CANYON ROAD: n/o Coast Highway 36,000 181100 0-.50 s/o SJHTC 36,000 22,800 0.63 (a) Total of Avocado Avenue plus MacArthur Blvd. (b) Existing two-lane capacity is used rather than Master Plan Secondary_ Arterial capacity 3-10 ESTIMATED TRAFFIC FOR THE PROPOSED GPA Trip Generation The Trend Growth traffic volume forecast assumes development within and surrounding Newport Center which is consistent with the existing General Plan. To assess the impacts of the develop- ment proposals contained in GPA 85-1(B) on the City's circulation system, tripmaking to/from the projects proposed within Newport Center and at peripheral locations has been estimated. Table 3- 3 shows the trip generation rates approved by the City of Newport Beach for estimating project tripmaking. These rates have been applied to the land uses summarized in Table 1-1 (pre- viously referenced) and the resulting estimate of tripmaking for the proposed projects is summarized in Table 3-4. Table 3-5 provides a comparison of tripmaking by block for Newport Center and for each peripheral site under the existing conditions (deve- lopment presently on ground) adopted General Plan and with GPA 85-1(B). Tripmaking for development presently existing in Newport Center has,been estimated by applying the trip generation rates from Table 3-3 to existing square footage. Compared to estimates of existing tripmaking in Newport Center, the proposed GPA 85-1(B) would result in an additional 43,200 estimated average daily trips to/from development within Newport Center. The three peripheral sites are presently undeveloped. Therefore, the projects included in GPA 85-1(B) for these sites are expected to generate approximately 15,630 average daily tripends. Compared to the level of development permissible under the existing General Plan, the proposed GPA 85-1(B) projects would increase tripmaking to/from Newport Center by approximately 19,260 trip ends per day. Tripmaking to/from the peripheral sites would be approximately 6,030 trip ends per day more with the development of GPA 85-1(B) projects. Overall, GPA 85-1(B) would be expected to increase the tripmaking potential of Newport Center and the peripheral sites by approximately 25,300 daily trip ends compared to the existing General Plan levels of development. Trip Distribution In the computer modelling process, a "gravity model" equation of trip distribution was applied to the estimates of tripmaking for the modelling area. To analyze the impacts of GPA 85-1(B) projects on the critical intersections throughout the City, it was also necessary to distribute estimates of project traffic for each site to the roadway system. To do this, trip distribution characteristics have been estimated for each project site contained in GPA 85-1(B). The trip distributuion characteristics for each site are based on the trip distribution patterns from the traffic model, and distribution assumptions containedin previous traffic studies of sites within and surrounding Newport Center. For reference, they have been included in the Appendix to this report. I 3-11 M M M M MI= am M i M M M M M M M M r r TABLE 3-3 TRIP GENERATION RATES Land Use Type ------------- Apartments per D.U. General Office per 1000 s.f. General Retail per 1000 s.f. Restaurant per 1000 s.f. w Art Museum per 1000 s.f. N Fashion Island per 1000 s.f. Trip Generation Rates ------------------------------- PM Peak 22 Hours PM Peak Hour Daily In Out In Out 6.5 0.80 0:40 0.40 0.20 13.0 1.00 2.80 0.50 1.40 40.0 2.80 3.40 1.40 1.70 75.0 10.00 5.00 5.00 2.50 32.0 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 30.0 2.00 2.40 1.00 1.20 D.U. = Dwelling Unit s.f. = Square Feet Note: These are the trip generation rates used by Newport Beach in TPO traffic studies. no== r man r M� M� M IMM f M rr r TABLE 3-4 ESTIMATE OF TRIP GENERATION FOR NEWPORT CENTER AND THE PERIPHERAL SITES Estimated Trip Ends PM Peak 2g hours PM Peak Hour Site Quantity/Type of Land Use Daily In Out In Out NEWPORT CENTER: Block 600 300,000 s.f. Office 3,900 300 840 150 420 Civic Plaza Expansion 14,000 s.f. Office 182 14 40 7 20 36,000 s.f. Art Museum 1,152 72 72 36 36 Block 800 440,000 s.f. Office 5,720 440 1232 220 616 PCH/Jamboree 130 Apartments 845 104 52 52 26 Corporate Plaza West 100,000 s.f. Office 1,300 i0O 280 50 140 w F, Newport Village 172,000 s.f. Office 2,236 172 482 86 241 w 173,000 s.f. Office 2,249 174 484 87 242 45,000 s.f. Retail 1,800 126 154 63 77 15,000 s.f. Restaurant 1,125 150 76 75 38 Avocado/MacArthur 44,000 s.f. Office 572 44 124 22 62 Fashion Island 151,200 s.f. Retail 4,536 302 362 151 181 43,200 s.f. Restaurant 3,240 432 216 216 108 PERIPHERAL SITES: Big Canyon East 80 Apartments 520 64 32 32 16 Bayview Landing 60,000 s.f. Restaurant 4,500 600 300 300 150 Newporter North 490 Apartments 3,185 392 196 196 98 TOTAL ------ 37,062 ----- 3,486 ----- 4,942 ----- 1,743 ----- 2,471 Note: The amount of traffic indicated would be added to existing traffic plus traffic that would be attributable to other approved (but not presently occupied) developments at Newport Center. TABLE 3-5 COMPARISON OF DAILY TRIPMAKING FOR NEWPORT CENTER AND PERIPHERAL SITES Difference with Proposed GPA 85-1(B) Compared to: Existing Total With Total With ------------------------ Development Adopted Proposed Existing Adopted Location (a) General Plan ------------ GPA 85-1(B) ----------- (b) -------- General Plan ------------ ----------------------- NEWPORT CENTER: Block 0 - Corp. Plaza 3,430 4,750 4,750 1,320 0 Block 100 - Gateway Plaza 2,150 2,150 2,150 0 0 Block 200 - Design Plaza 1,950 1,950 1,950 0 0 Block 300 3,670 4,640 4,640 970 0 Block 400 - Medical Plaza 11,050 15,200 15,200 4,150 0 Block 500 3,900 4,210 4,210 310 0 Block 600 10,400 15,200 19,150 8,750 3,950 Block 700 - Civic Plaza 7,480 9,940 8,560 1,080 (1,380) Block 800 - Pacific Mut. 6,930 9,740 13,270 6,340 3,530 Block 900 7,330 9,380 9,380 2,050 0 Newport Village/ 0 4,730 8,020 8,020 3,290. Avocado MacArthur Corporate Plaza West .0 300 1,600 1,600 1,300 PCH-Jamboree 0 1,310 2,150 2,150 840 Fashion Island 35,260 35,260 43,030 7,770 ------ 7,770 ------- Subtotal: ------ 93,550 ------- 118,760 ------- 138,060 44,510 19,300 PERIPHERAL SITES: Newporter North 0 2,330 3,180 3,180 850 Big Canyon East 0 0 680 680 680 Bayview Landing 0 7,270 11,770 11,770 4,500 Subtotal: 0 9,600 15,630 15,630 6,030 TOTAL: 93,550 128,360 153,690 60,140 25,330 (a) Estimated on the basis of the application of daily trip generation rates; not on the basis of actual counts. (b) Does not include committed but not yet constructed and occupied development, such as Four Seasons, Marriott Expansion, Villa Point, etc. 3-14 TREND GROWTH TRAFFIC FORECAST INCLUDING PROPOSED GPA The estimates of tripmaking for Newport Center and the peripheral sites including the proposed projects have been inserted into the modelling process to generate a second traffic volume forecast based on "Trend Growth" development assumptions including the proposed GPA 85-1(B) development. The proposed GPA 85-1(B) also includes modification to the Circulation Element serving Newport Center. Specifically, the circulation system surrounding Newport Center, as proposed in GPA 85-1(B), would not include the Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard couplet. Avocado Avenue would extend between San Joaquin Hills Road and Coast Highway as a two-way facility. Likewise, MacArthur Boulevard would be a two-way arterial. Figure 3-3 presents the resulting traffic volume forecast for the Trend Growth development scenario modified to include GPA 85-1(B). Table 3-6 is a comparison of Trend Growth plus GPA 85-1(B) traffic volume forecasts to daily capacities for selected roadway 1 segments. GPA 85-1(B) traffic would be expected to have only minor impacts on most of the arterials within Newport Beach. Project traffic is estimated to represent approximately 1 to 6 percent of the total traffic along the roadway segments presented in Table 3-6, with the exception of those roadway segments immediately adjacent to Newport Center. At the present time, when the arterial street system becomes congested, particularly during peak hours, some traffic travelling along the arterials to/from Newport Center selects M alternative travel routes along local residential streets. Planned improvements to the arterial system, in particular, the widening of MacArthur Boulevard adjacent to Newport Center and the construction of Pelican Hill Road and the SJHTC, are expected to improve areawide traffic flow conditions on arterials. Therefore, there will be less reason for motorists to divert to local streets. On the other hand, even with the completion of the arterial system, it would be impossible to predict with cetainty that no motorists travelling to and from Newport Center would choose to use local streets. The addition of traffic to/from GPA 85-1(B) projects would somewhat worsen the capacity deficiencies identified along Coast Highway in the Trend Growth scenario, with volume -to -capacity, ratio increases in the range of .03 to .06. The traffic forecast along the segment of Coast Highway east of Poppy Avenue, at capacity in the Trend Growth scenario, would exceed capacity slightly with the proposed GPA. MacArthur Boulevard is assumed to be a two-way arterial with three lanes in each direction from Coast Highway to San Joaquin Hills Road. Traffic volume forecasts between Coast Highway and San Miguel Drive would exceed the carrying capacity of a four - lane roadway. North of San Joaquin Hills Road, MacArthur Boulevard was assumed to be a six -lane roadway. Traffic volume 1 3-15 Lo r rn RASMACIYAN UARNLLL. INC. FIGURE 3-3 TREND GROWTH + GPA 85-1 , TABLE 3-6 COMPARISON OF TREND GROWTH PLUS GPA 85-1B TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS TO FUTURE ROADWAY CAPACITY DAILY TRAFFIC: TREND VOLUME/ FUTURE DAILY ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY GROWTH + CAPACITY --------- --------- -----GPA- -RATIO--- COAST HIGHWAY: East City Limits 36,000 33,800 0.94 e/o e/o Poppy Avenue Marguerite Avenue 360,060 36,000 361,900 46,700 1.03 1.30 e/o MacArthur Boulevard 36,000 53,800 1.49 e/o Newport Center Dr. 54,000 46,900 0.87 e/o Jamboree Road 54,000 43,600 0.81 e/o Dover Drive 63,000 79,500 1.26 w/o Dover Drive 54,000 48,000 0.89 e/o Newport Boulevard 54,000 70,400 1.30 West City Limits 54,000 32,500 0.60 MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD: n/o Coast Highway 54,000 46,800 0.87 n/o Harbor View Drive 54,000 49,100 0.91 n/o San Miguel Drive 54,000 31,000 0.57 n/o San Joaquin Hills Rd. 54,000 61,600 1.14 n/o Ford Road 54,000 66,800 1.24 n/o Bison Avenue 54,000 71,500 1.32 n/o Jamboree Road 54,000 45,200 0.84 s/o Birch Street 63,000 27,400 0.43 JAMBOREE ROAD: n/o Bayside •Drive 36,000 30,700 0.85 n/o Coast Highway 54,000 39,600 0.73 n/o Santa Barbara Avenue 54,000 36,100 0.67 n/o San Joaquin Hills Rd. 54,000 47,800 0.89 n/o Ford Road 54,000 41,900 0.78 n/o Bison Avenue 54,000 42,300 0.78 s/o Bristol Street 54,000 47,100 0.87 e/o s/o MacArthur Boulevard Birch Street 54,000 54,000 63,500 50,100 1.18 0.93 SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD: Jamboree e/o Road 54,000 230,700 0.44 w/o MacArthur Boulevard 54,000 430300 0.80 e/o MacArthur Blvd. 54,000 26,800 0.50 e/o San Miguel Drive 54,000 33,200 0.61 e/o Marguerite Avenue 54,000 27,700 0.51 r `I 1 3-17 fable 3-6 (Continued) SAN MIGUEL DRIVE: w/o MacArthur Boulevard 36,000 18,300 0.51 e/o MacArthur Boulevard 36,000 23,800 0.66 n/o San Joaquin Hills Rd. 36,000 18,000 0.50 s/o Ford Road 36,000 14,400 0.40 FORD ROAD: e/o Jamboree Road 36,000 14,000 0.39 e/o MacArthur Boulevard 36,000 21,000 0.58 e/o San Miguel Drive 36,000 30,,900 0.86 BISON AVENUE: e/o Jamboree Road 54,000 7,000 0.13 e/o MacArthur Boulevard 54,000 16,700 0.31 MARGUERITE AVENUE: s/o Fifth Avenue 10,000 (a) 9,800 0.98 n/o Fifth Avenue 24,000 15,700 0.65 BRISTOL STREET N: w/o Birch Street 36,000 38,100 1.06 w/o Spruce Street 36,000 32,100 0.89 BRISTOL STREET: w/o Birch Street 360000 40,700 1.13 e/o Birch Street 36,000 32,800 0.91 SAN DIEGO (I-405) FREEWAY: n/o Culver Drive 145,000 209,300 1.44 n/o Jamboree Road 145,000 209,300 1.44 n/o MacArthur Boulevard 145,000 228,400 1.58 SJHTC/ROUTE 73: e/o Sand Canyon Rd. 145,000 154,800 1.07 e/o Pelican Hill Rd. 145,000 123,700 0.85 e/o Bison Avenue 145,000 153,600 1.06 w/o Jamboree Road 145,000 223,600 1.54 PELICAN HILL ROAD: n/o Coast Highway 54,000 18,000 0.33 s/o San Joaquin Hills Rd. 54,000 21,400 0.40 n/o SJHTC 36,000 13,900 0.39 SAND CANYON ROAD: n/o Coast Highway 364,000 18,200 0.51 s/o SJHTC 36,000 23,000 0.64 (a) Existing two-lane capacity is used rather than Master Plan Secondary Arterial capacity 3-18 I I I r I I I I LJ 11 I I F I 1 II �1 I forecasts exceed daily capacity from San Joaquin Hills Road to north of Bison Avenue. Traffic forecasts on Jamboree Road south of Bristol Street, including the proposed project, are within that roadway's daily capacity. The project increases the volume - to -capacity ratios for Jamboree Road segments south of Bristol Street by .06 to .09. As explained earlier, there may be some redistribution of traffic from MacArthur Boulevard to Jamboree Road. As in the Trend Growth scenario, the traffic volume forecasts along the San Diego Freeway would be expected to considerably exceed the estimated capacity of an eight -lane freeway. The addition of traffic to/from the proposed GPA 85-1(B) projects would not significantly impact traffic flow along the San Diego Freeway. The proposed GPA would add an estimated 1,400 vehicles to the SJHTC west of Jamboree Road and approximately 3,000 vehicles per day to the SJHTC west of Bison Avenue. This represents a 1 to 3 percent increase in traffic along the Corridor, and would not significantly impact traffic flow conditions along the SJHTC. Traffic volume forecasts along San Joaquin Hills Road west of MacArthur Boulevard would increase significantly with the develo- pment of the proposed GPA projects. This is because access to/ from GPA 85-1(B) is provided at several locations along San Joaquin Hills Road. However, forecast volumes would not exceed estimated roadway capacity. INCREASED TREND GROWTH TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS INCLUDING PROPOSED GPA In order to present comprehensive analysis of future development scenarios to the decision -maker and the public, the model was used to develop an additional traffic forecast. This forecast, called Increased Trend Growth, has included projects both within and outside the City of Newport Beach, which, if approved, would result in levels of development greater than assumed in the Trend Growth scenario. Specifically, within Noll Center Newport, a request to develop approximately 1.4 million square feet of additional office space is expected. Revitalization and infill development in downtown Corona del Mar will result in a greater intensity of office and commercial land uses in this area. An increase of approximately 10.6 million square feet of office space, and 4.3 million square feet of industrial/research and development uses in the maximum allowable development within the Irvine Business Complex (IBC), in the City of Irvine, is also under consideration. The potential intensification of land use in Noll Center Newport, Corona del Mar and the Irvine Business Complex has been input into the modelling process. The resulting traffic volume forecast assumes Trend Growth level development throughout the City, except for the intensification of Noll Center Newport, I 92M Corona del Mar, and the IBC, and includes the proposed Newport Center projects. Figure 3-4 presents the Increased Trend Growth traffic volume forecasts. Table 3-7 presents a comparison of Increased Trend Growth traffic volume forecasts to roadway segment capacities. With the Increased Trend Growth levels of development, forecast traffic volumes along Coast Highway can be expected to exceed capacity from the east City limits to MacArthur Boulevard, at the Coast Highway/Dover Drive bridge and east of Newport Boulevard. The most significant impacts of the Increased Trend Growth scenario occur along Coast Highway east of MacArthur Boulevard. Traffic volume estimates along this section increase 8 to 11 percent, compared to Trend Growth (the proposed GPA 85-1(B) traffic is included in each case). West of MacArthur Boulevard, the increase is 3 to 5 percent compared to Trend Growth. MacArthur Boulevard would be forecast to carry traffic volumes significantly in excess of roadway capacity in the Increased Trend Growth scenario. Compared to Trend Growth including GPA 85-1(B), the volume -to -capacity ratios along MacArthur between Coast Highway and Jamboree Road would increase 15 to 26 percent. Forecast traffic volume along Jamboree Road east of MacArthur Boulevard to Birch Street would exceed the estimated capacity of a six -lane roadway. Traffic volume estimates along the San Diego Freeway would increase by approximately 13 percent in the Increased Trend Growth scenario. The San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor traffic volume estimates would increase by approximately 1 to 6 percent. SUMMARY OF FUTURE CONDITIONS In summary, the additional traffic which the GPA 85-1(B) projects would be expected to add to the roadways within Newport Beach represents a small percentage of total traffic volume forecasted with Trend Growth levels of development. Compared to projected traffic volumes based on the intensified development assumed in the Increased Trend Growth scenario, the additional traffic estimated to occur with GPA 85-1(B) development represents an even smaller portion of the projected total traffic along each roadway. Table 3-8 is a comparison of traffic volumes along roadways assuming Trend Growth, Trend Growth plus GPA 85-1(B) and Increased Trend Growth plus GPA 85-1(B) development scenarios. In view of the traffic volume forecasts which have been presented in this chapter, several of the arterials in the vicinity of Newport Center would be expected not to have enough capacity to meet future traffic demand. Accordingly, the capacity of these arterials would need to be enhanced beyond their respective Master Plan designations, with or without the additional develop- ment proposed in GPA 85-1(B). The following provides a brief 1 3-20 m m m m rr m m m i+ r m m M s i m m m NN� YAWAJUYAN DARNLI.I. INC FIGURE 3-4 INCREASED TREND GROWTH A GPA 85-1 B 1.8 '� TABLE 3-7 COMPARISON OF INCREASED TREND GROWTH TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS ' INCLUDING GPA 85-1B TO FUTURE ROADWAY CAPACITY DAILY TRAFFIC: INCREASED VOLUME/ FUTURE DAILY TREND + CAPACITY ' ROADWAY SEGMENT --------------- CAPACITY --------- GPA --------- RATIO --------- COAST HIGHWAY: East City Limits 36,000 36,800 1.02 e/o Poppy Avenue 36,000 40,100 1.11 e/o Marguerite Avenue 36,000 53,700 1.49 e/o MacArthur Boulevard 36,000 62,900 1.75 e/o Newport Center Dr.. 54,000 49,600 0.92 ' e/o Jamboree Road 54,000 50,700 0.94 e/o Dover Drive 63,000 81,900 1.30 w/o Dover Drive 54,000 49,400 0.91 e/o Newport Boulevard 54,000 74,100 1.37 West City Limits 54,000 34,800 0.64 MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD: n/o Coast Highway 54,000 55,600 1.03 n/o Harbor View Drive 54,000 57,800 1.07 n/o San Miguel Drive 54,000 38,800 0.72 n/o San Joaquin Hills Rd. 54,000 69,900 1.29 n/o Ford Road 54,000 76,600 1.42 ' n/o Bison Avenue 54,000 77,500 1.44 n/o Jamboree Road 54,000 50,400 0.93 s/o Birch Street 63,000 33,700 0.53 ' JAMBOREE ROAD: n/o Bayside Drive 36,000 32,400 0.90 n/o Coast Highway 54,000 40,100 0.74 n/o Santa Barbara Avenue 54,000 37,500 0.69 n/o San Joaquin Hills Rd. 54,000 52,900 0.98 ' n/o Ford Road 54,000 46,100 0.85 n/o Bison Avenue 54,000 48,400 0.90 s/o Bristol Street 54,000 48,700 0.90 e/o MacArthur Boulevard 54,000 79,300 1.47 s/o Birch Street 54,000 62,300 1.15 SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD: e/o Jamboree Road 544,000 26,100 0.48 w/o MacArthur Boulevard 54,000 45,100 0.84 ' e/o MacArthur Blvd. 54,000 28,100 0.52 e/o San Miguel Drive 54,000 37,100 0.69 e/o Marguerite Avenue 54,000 30,400 0.56 3-22 II=wie is tconrinueaj BAN MIGUEL DRIVE: w/o MacArthur Boulevard 36,000 18,000 0.50 e/o MacArthur Boulevard 36,000 26,900 0.75 n/o San Joaquin Hills Rd. 36,000 19,300 0.54 s/o Ford Road 36,000 14,600 0.41 FORD ROAD: e/o Jamboree Road 36,000 17,500 0.49 e/o MacArthur Boulevard 36,000 21,900 0.61 e/o San Miguel Drive 36,000 30,300 0.84 BISON AVENUE: e/o Jamboree Road 54,000 5,500 0.10 e/o MacArthur Boulevard 54,000 22,200 0.41 yt "telliM;4*0M +0RiJOF s/o Fifth Avenue 10,000 (a) 12,600 1.26 n/o Fifth Avenue 24,000 19,800 0.83 BRISTOL STREET N: w/o Birch Street 36,000 38,100 1.06 w/o Spruce Street 36,000 33,800 0.94 BRISTOL STREET: w/o Birch Street 36,000 46,000 1.28 e/o Birch Street 36,000 35,500 0.99 SAN DIEGO (I-405) FREEWAY: n/o Culver Drive 145,000 229,600 1.58 n/o Jamboree Road 145,000 229,600 1.58 n/o MacArthur Boulevard 145,000 246,900 1.70 SJHTC: e/o Sand Canyon Rd. 145,000 153,700 1.06 e/o Pelican Hill Rd. 145,000 122,000 0.84 e/o Bison Avenue 145,000 155,600 1.07 w/o Jamboree Road 145,000 232,000 1.60 PELICAN HILL ROAD: n/o Coast Highway 54,000 18,700 0.35 s/o San Joaquin Hills Rd. 54,000 22,400 0.41 n/o SJHTC 36,000 18,700 0.52 SAND CANYON ROAD: n/o Coast Highway 36,000 18,300 0.51 s/o SJHTC 36,000 24,200 0.67 (a) Existing two-lane capacity is used rather than Master Plan Secondary Arterial capacity 3-23 TABLE 3-8 ' COMPARISON OF TREND GROWTH VOLUMES, TREND GROWTH AND INCREASED TREND INCLUDING GPA 85-1B ' DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME -------- 7 ---------------- TREND INCREASED - --TREND- GROWTH -TREND+ ROADWAY SEGMENT GROWTH GPAPA GPA ---------- ICOAST HIGHWAY: East City Limits 33,000 33,800 36,800 e/o Poppy Avenue 35,800 36,900 40,100 e/o Marguerite Avenue 45,500 46,700 53,700' e/o MacArthur Boulevard 48,400 53,800 62,900 e/o e/o Newport Center Dr. Jamboree Road 45,600 45,500 46,900 48,600 49,600 50,700 e/o Dover Drive 77,000 79,500 81,900 w/o Dover Drive 45,800 48,000 49,400 e/o Newport Boulevard 68,200 70,400 74,100 West City Limits 31,500 32,500 34,800 MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD: n/o Coast Highway 46,200 (a) 46,800 55,600 n/o Harbor View Drive 46,700 49,100 57,800 n/o San Miguel Drive 30,300 (a) 31,000 38,800 n/o San Joaquin Hills Rd. 56,300 (a) 61,800 69,900 n/o Ford Road 64,200 66,800 76,600 n/o Bison Avenue 69,800 71,500 77,500 n/o Jamboree Road 44,700 45,200 50,400 s/o Birch Street 27,800 27,400 33,700 JAMBOREE ROAD: n/o Bayside Drive 28,200 30,700 32,400 ' n/o Coast Highway 33,600 39,600 40,100 n/o Santa Barbara Avenue 34,800 36,100 37,500 n/o San Joaquin Hills Rd. 44,900 470800 52,900 n/o Ford Road 38,500 41,900 46,100 n/o Bison Avenue 38,500 42,300 48,400 s/o Bristol Street 44,000 47,100 48,700 e/o s/o MacArthur Boulevard Birch Street 65,700 52,300 63,500 50,100 79,300 62,300 ' SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD: e/o Jamboree Road 22,600 23,700 26,100 w/o MacArthur Boulevard 38,100 43,300 45,100 e/o MacArthur Blvd. 25,000 26,800 28,100 t e/o San Miguel Drive 32,000 33,200 37,100 e/o Marguerite Avenue 25,800 27,700 30,400 F L., 1 3-24 Table 3-8 (Continued) SAN MIGUEL DRIVE: w/o MacArthur Boulevard' 20,300 18,300 18,000 e/o MacArthur Boulevard 23,400 23,800 26,900 n/o San Joaquin Hills Rd. 17,400 18,000 19,300 s/o Ford Road 14,100 14,400 14,600 FORD ROAD: e/o Jamboree Road 14,300 14,000 17,500 e/o MacArthur Boulevard 20,700 21,000 21,900 e/o San Miguel Drive 29,800 30,900 30,300 BISON AVENUE: e/o Jamboree Road 7,300 7,000 5,500 e/o MacArthur Boulevard 16,600 16,700 22,200 MARGUERITE AVENUE: s/o Fifth Avenue 10,100 9,800 12,600 n/o Fifth Avenue 16,400 15,700 19,800 BRISTOL STREET N: w/o Birch Street 36,800 38,100 38,100 w/o Spruce Street 30,700 32,100 33,800 BRISTOL STREET: w/o Birch Street 39,500 40,700 46,000 e/o Birch Street 31,600 32,800 35,500 SAN DIEGO (I-405) FREEWAY:] n/o Culver Drive 210,000 209,300 229,600 n/o Jamboree Road 210,000 209,300 229,600 n/o MacArthur Boulevard 227,500 228,400 246,900 SJHTC/ROUTE 73: e/o Sand Canyon Rd. 154,800 154,800 153,700 e/o Pelican Hill Rd. 122,600 123,700 122,000 e/o Bison Avenue 150,600 153,600 155,600 w/o Jamboree Road 222,200 223,600 232,000 PELICAN HILL ROAD: n/o Coast Highway 12,500 18,000 18,700 s/o San Joaquin Hills Rd. 21,000 21,400 22,400 n/o SJHTC 13,300 13,900 18,700 SAND CANYON ROAD: n/o Coast Highway 18,100 18,200 18,300 s/o SJHTC 22,800 23,000 24,200 (a) Total of Avocado Avenue plus MacArthur Blvd. 3-25 ' description of the improvements needed to meet projected future traffic demand and maintain acceptable traffic flow within the City. ' Coast Highway Coast highway between the East City limits and MacArthur ' Boulevard is presently constructed to its Master Plan configura- tion. It presently carries traffic volume which approaches or exceeds its estimated average daily capacity. Traffic volume along this roadway is expected to increase in the future as a result of development in the area and in the region as a whole. It is anticipated that the construction of Pelican Hill Road (to be completed by 1988) would reduce traffic along Coast Highway ' between the east City limits and MacArthur Boulevard to below existing levels. After a stepwise reduction in traffic volume when Pelican Hill Road is opened, as growth in the City of Newport Beach and the surrounding area continues, traffic volume along Coast Highway would be expected to increase gradually over time. When the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor is completed from MacArthur Boulevard to the I-5 Freeway in south Orange County there will again be a major reduction in traffic volumes on Coast Highway through Corona del Mar. Subsequent to that, as growth and deve- ' lopment continue, traffic on Coast Highway would rise gradually. In the following chapter on TPO Considerations, intersection improvements (at MacArthur Boulevard and at Marguerite Avenue) to improve traffic flow conditions in the eastern portion of Coast Highway are discussed. This would be a short-term mitigation measure. Other items the City has considered include the reversible lane concept along Coast Highway. In this situation, the existing median and left turn lanes along Coast Highway would be converted to a through travel lane. During the morning peak period, the ' lane would be used to provide one additional westbound through traffic lane (the direction with the heaviest demand in the morning). During the afternoon, the permissible direction would be reversed, and the lane would provide one additional eastbound through lane to accommodate the heavy demand in that direction. Although this alternative was evaluated by the City, it was rejected because it was considered to be too costly and to have ' significant adverse impacts on circulation in the areas on each side of Coast Highway, Several measures related to intersection operations have also been considered by the City to improve the capacity of Coast Highway east of MacArthur Boulevard. The prohibition of left turns at intersections along Coast Highway during peak hours would reduce conflicts and -increase capacity along Coast Highway. The prohibition of parking during peak hours, in conjunction with a reduction of the width of the median or sidewalks, might allow ' the provision of an additional lane. These measures provide an 3-26 alternative to a widening project to improve traffic flow along Coast Highway, but would have potential disadvantages from the standpoints of property access, loss of parking, and impact on businesses. Public acceptance of these concepts is also ' uncertain. West of MacArthur Boulevard, traffic volumes along Coast Highway ' would be within the capacity of a six -lane roadway except east of Dover Drive and east of Newport Boulevard. At the present time, improvement projects have been approved and funded which would widen Coast Highway to six lanes between MacArthur Boulevard and ' Bayside Drive, and between Newport Boulevard and the west City limits. Additional improvements at some intersections may be necessary to maintain acceptable traffic flow along the roadway. MacArthur Boulevard Traffic volume projections along MacArthur Boulevard between Coast Highway and Ford Road, with or without the proposed GPA 85- 1(B) projects, exceed its estimated existing capacity of 36,000 vehicles per day. MacArthur Boulevard between Coast Highway and Ford Road would need to have six lanes, three in each direction. Six lanes could be provided solely on MacArthur Boulevard or, through the development of the Avocado/MacArthur Couplet, in which case, three northbound through lanes would be along MacArthur Boulevard and three southbound through lanes would be along Avocado Avenue. The configuration and possible implica- tions of the Avocado/MacArthur Couplet are discussed in detail in Chapter 5 of this report. From Ford Road to the Route 73 interchange, MacArthur Boulevard, ' with or without GPA 85-1(B), is projected to carry volumes which would exceed the 54,000 vehicle per day capacity of a six -lane roadway. Based on estimated traffic demand, this segment of MacArthur Boulevard would need to be an eight -lane facility. Where the distance between intersections would permit, spot widening at intersections to provide four through lanes may be sufficient in lieu of widening along the entire length of the ' arterial. Jamboree Road Traffic volume forecasts along Jamboree Road are within the capacity of a six -lane Major Road, except between MacArthur Boulevard and Birch Street. With improvements to widen those segments of Jamboree Road which are not presently six lanes, and improvements at intersections which are discussed in the following chapter, Jamboree Road would accommodate future traffic in its Master Plan configuration. In the segment immediately north (or east) of MacArthur Boulevard, direct property access to Jamboree Road is assumed in the modelling process. With ' alternative site access provisions, traffic volumes on Jamboree Road would be less than the levels indicated. ' 3-27 Other Arterials in conjunction with long-term growth and development, other ' arterial segments would need to be constructed in accordance with, or upgraded to, Master Plan designations with or without the proposed GPA. These segments are: - In accordance with the City's and County's Master Plans, Bison Avenue between MacArthur Boulevard and Bonita Canyon Road as a Primary Road would need to be constructed. 1 I i I [1 E I I L I - In accordance with the City's and County's Master Plans, Ford Road between San Miguel Drive and Bonita Canyon Road would need to be constructed as a Primary Road. - Marguerite Avenue between Coast Highway and Fifth Avenue is presently a two-lane roadway. It is not anticipated that this segment would be widened in the future. (Projected traffic volume is just slightly in excess of estimated capacity.) - Based on the Master Plans of both the City and the County, San Joaquin Hills Road is to extend from Jamboree Road to Sand Canyon Road as a Major roadway. The segment between Jamboree Road and Marguerite Avenue is presently construc- ted to the Master Planned width of six lanes. Between Marguerite Avenue and Spyglass Hill Road, San Joaquin Hills Road is presently a two-lane roadway, although it has been graded for a six -lane width. A project to widen and stripe this segment of San Joaquin Hills Road to provide four lanes is presently under design. The segment between Spyglass Hill Road and Sand Canyon Road is not yet constructed. Traffic volume projections for the year 2010 indicate the need for a four -lane facility between Marguerite Avenue and Sand Canyon Road. This comes out as a four -lane roadway. - Pelican Hill Road is not presently constructed. It is expected to be in place by 1988 as a Primary Road. IMPLICATIONS OF THE SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR The San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC), as included in the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways, is to extend from the recently -completed Route 73 interchange at MacArthur Boulevard to the I-5 Freeway in San Juan Capistrano. In the vicinity of Newport Center, the SJHTC is to have arterial interchanges at MacArthur Boulevard, Bison Avenue, Ford Road and San Joaquin Bills Road. Figure 3-5 shows the anticipated alignment of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor and the planned interchanges. At the present time, the I-5/I-405 Freeways and Pacific Coast Highway are the only two highway facilities connecting the resi- dential communities in South Orange County and the employment L R , WA 5 Y.: '( Y �q 4, I / / / / 4 .pia 1f' 9\ •) ! •tip:/ \ N I .: ..41 FIGURE 3-5 SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ALIGNMENT ' centers in the South Coast Metro/John Wayne Airport area. When completed, the SJHTC is intended to provide an attractive alter- native to Coast Highway or the I-405 Freeway for trips travelling between the South Coast Metro/John Wayne Airport area and south Orange County. As such, it would represent a significant improvement to the circulation system in the vicinity of Newport Center. To develop a comparison of future traffic conditions with and without the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, the Trend ' Growth travel forecast model, including the proposed Newport Center projects, has been run with the Corridor deleted from the circulation network. To provide a "worst case" comparison, Pelican Hill Road and Sand Canyon Road were assumed to provide access only to Down Coast development, but not to provide "through" access from Coast Highway to areas to the north. Figure 3-6 shows future traffic volume forecasts Trend Growth plus GPA 85-1B levels of development for two circulation system alternatives: 1. With the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, Pelican Hill Road and Sand Canyon Road. 2. Without the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, Pelican Hill Road or Sand Canyon Road Table 3-9 is a comparison of traffic along selected roadway seg- ments, with and without the construction of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. ' Review of Table 3-9 shows that the construction of the Corridor would be expected to reduce traffic volume along Coast Highway east of MacArthur Boulevard by approximately 18,000 to 21,000 trips per day. Immediately west of MacArthur Boulevard, traffic volume along Coast Highway would be expected to reduce by approx- imately 1,000 vehicles per day. The effects of the SJHTC in ' reducing traffic along Coast Highway diminish quickly west of MacArthur Boulevard; only nominal reductions in traffic volume would be expected at Coast Highway and Dover Drive. This is because traffic presently using Coast Highway that would be expected to use the SJIiTC in the future is travelling between south Orange County and Newport Center area/South Coast Metro/ John Wayne Airport area via MacArthur Boulevard. Traffic volume along MacArthur Boulevard south of the SJHTC is also expected to reduce significantly with the completion of the SJHTC. Traffic forecasts along the I-405 Freeway between Route 73 and the southerly interchange with the Corridor would also reduce significantly with the construction of the Corridor. In proximity to Newport Center, the I-405 Freeway between Route 55 and University Drive would be expected to carry 30,000 to 50,000 fewer vehicles per day. This represents more than a 12 to 18 percent reduction in traffic along the I-405 Freeway if the ' Corridor were constructed. 3-30 m = = m W W FIGURE' 3-6 \�\ COMPARISON 'OF DAILY TRAFFIC WITH AND WITHOUT 6ASNACIYAN DARNELL. INC. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR (BASED 'ON TREND GROWTH & GPA -85-1) TABLE 3-9 COMPARISON OF TREND GROWTH PLUS GPA 85-1B TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS WITH AND WITHOUT SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME: ----------------------- WITH WITHOUT ROADWAY SEGMENT SJHTC SJHTC DIFFERENCE --------------- ---------------------------------------- COAST HIGHWAY: East City Limits 33,800 54,800 (21,000) e/o Poppy Avenue 36,900 58,500 (21,600) ' e/o Marguerite Avenue 46,700 65,100 (18,400) e/o MacArthur Boulevard 53,800 62,400 (8,600) ' e/o e/o Newport Center Dr. Jamboree Road 46,900 48,600 46,800 47,,700 100 900 e/o Dover Drive 79,500 80,100 (600) w/o Dover Drive 48,000 50,200 (21200) ' e/o Newport Boulevard 70,400 730900 (31500) West City Limits 32,500 34,300 (11800) ' MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD: n/o Coast Highway 46,800 51,700 (41900) ' n/o n/o Harbor View Drive San Miguel Drive 49,100 31,000 54,200 48,100 (5,100) (17,100) n/o San Joaquin Hills Rd. 61,800 77,400 (15,600) n/o Ford Road 66,800 89,200 (22,400) ' n/o Bison Avenue 71,500 92,800 (21,300) n/o Jamboree Road 451,200 35,500 9,700 s/o Birch Street 27,400 20,100 7,300 ' JAMBOREE ROAD: n/o n/o Bayside Drive Coast Highway 30,700 39,600 30,000 34,800 700 41800 n/o Santa Barbara Avenue 36,100 37,500 (11400) n/o San Joaquin Hills Rd. 47,800 59,300 (11,500) ' n/o Ford Road 41,900 55,800 (13,900) n/o Bison Avenue 42,300 50,800 (8,500) s/o Bristol Street 47,100 45,000 2,100 e/o MacArthur Boulevard 63,500 67,900 (4,400) ' s/o Birch Street 501,100 56,1600 (6,500) SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD e/o Jamboree Road 23,700 29,500 (50,800) w/o MacArthur Boulevard 434,300 40,400 20,900 e/o MacArthur Boulevard 26,800 27,900 (1,100) e/o San Miguel Drive 33,200 28,600 41600 e/o Marguerite Avenue 27,700 71300 20,400 1 3-32 TABLE 3-9 (Continued) SAN MIGUEL w/o MacArthur Boulevard 18,300 17,900 400 e/o MacArthur Boulevard 23,800 20,800 3,000 n/o San Joaquin Hills Rd. 18,000 26,900 (8,900) s/o Ford Road 140400 22,400 (8',000) FORD ROAD e/o Jamboree Road 14,000 18,600 (4,600) e/o MacArthur Boulevard 21,000 27,700 (6,700) e/o San Miguel Drive 30,900 39,300 (.81400) BISON AVENUE e/o Jamboree Road 71000 11,900 (4,900) e/o MacArthur Boulevard 16,700 23,000 (6,300) MARGUERITE AVENUE s/o Fifth Avenue 15,700 20,200 (41500) n/o Fifth Avenue 11,900 25,900 (14,000) BRISTOL STREET N W/o Birch Street 38,100 52,500 (14,400) w/o Spruce Street 32,100 44,100 (12,000) BRISTOL STREET W/o Birch Street 40,700 56,500 (15,800) e/o Birch Street 32,800 46,000 (13,200) SAN DIEGO (I-405) FREEWAY n/o University Drive 209,300 246,500 (37,200) n/o Jamboree Road 20-9,300 258,200 (48,900) n/o MacArthur Boulevard 228,400 257,000 (28,600) SJHTC/ROUTE 73 e/o Sand Canyon Rd. 154,800 - 154,800 e/o Pelican'Hill Rd. 123,700 - 123170.0 e/o Bison Avenue 153,600 - 153,600 w/o Jamboree Road 223,600 - 223,606 PELICAN HILL ROAD n/o Coast Highway 18,000 - 18,000 s/o San Joaquin Hills Rd. 21,400 - 21,400 n/o SJHTC 13,900 - 13,900 SAND CANYON ROAD n/o Coast Highway 18,200 - 18,200 s/o SJHTC 23,000 - 23,000 3-33 I i I I�I P I I i I I Likewise, traffic volumes along MacArthur Boulevard would decrease with the construction of the Corridor. Adjacent to Newport Center, the estimated reduction would be approximately 5,000 vehicles per day. Between San Joaquin Bills Road and the Corridor, traffic volumes reductions would be expected to range from approximately 16,000 to 22,000 vehicles per day. Conversely, traffic volumes along San Joaquin Hills Road, which is to have an interchange with the Corridor, would be expected to increase. Estimated increases along San Joaquin Hills Road range from 5,000 vehicles per day between San Miguel Drive and Marguerite Avenue to 20,000 east of Marguerite Avenue, with the completion of the Corridor. In summary, the construction of the San Joaquin Hills Transporta- tion Corridor, from MacArthur Boulevard to the I-5 Freeway in south Orange County, is anticipated to provide an attractive alternate route between the residential development in the south County and the employment and commercial opportunities in Newport Center and vicinity, and in the South Coast Metro/John Wayne Airport area. In conjunction with arterial access from Coast Highway via Sand Canyon Road and Pelican Hill Road, the Corridor would be expected to reduce traffic volumes along Coast Highway, MacArthur Boulevard and the I-405 Freeway. Coast Highway would be expected to experience a 30 to 40 percent reduction in traffic volume if the Corridor were constructed as depicted in the County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. This would include the extension of Pelican Hill Road and Sand Canyon Road from Coast Highway to an interchange with the Corridor. The completion of the Corridor would also be expected to reduce traffic volumes along MacArthur Boulevard by 10 to 12 percent adjacent to Newport Center and 25 to 30 percent between San Joaquin Hills Road and the Corridor. If San Joaquin Hills Road is extended east to an interchange with the Corridor, traffic volumes along this roadway would be expected to increase significantly. However, they would not be expected to exceed the capacity of a four -lane divided roadway. The City of Newport Beach has suggested that the access provisions for the San Joaquin Bills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC) be revised to delete the interchange of Ford Road (extended) and to delete the portion of San Joaquin Hills Road between Pelican Hill Road and the Corridor (the segment between Pelican Hill Road and Sand Canyon Road). The implications of the proposed modifications were analyzed for the traffic volume level represented by Tren&lGrowth Plus GPA 85-1(B). A comparison of the daily traffic volumes with and without the Ford Road interchange and the San Joaquin Hills Road extension is presented in Figure 3-7. The nature of the impacts would be comparable for any other traffic loading condition, but the magnitudes would differ somewhat. 3-34 � m � � = m m w r m m m" w� m� � m W W Ln (XX.X)-WITHOUT FORD ROAD & SJH ROAD \s„\ FIGURE 3=7 COMPARISON OF DAILY TRAFFIC WITH AND WITHOUT FORD ROAD INTERCHANGE YASMACIYAN UANN"`.INC .AND SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD EXTENSION (BASED ON TREND GROWTH & GPA 85-1) On the San Joaquin Transportation Corridor, the traffic volumes south of Sand Canyon Road would be approximately equal, with or without the proposed access modifications. Similarly, traffic volumes on the Corridor west of MacArthur Boulevard would be approximately equal for either of the two conditions. In the portion of the Corridor between Pelican Hill Road and Sand Canyon, the traffic volume would be approximately 20,000 vehicles �. per day (vpd) higher because of the deletion of the San Joaquin Hills Road extension east of Pelican Hill Road. Also, on the segment of the SJHTC between Pelican Hill Road, and Bison Avenue, the traffic volume would be approximately 20,000 vpd higher, due to the combined effects of the deletion of the Ford Road interchange and the deletion of the San Joaquin Hills Road extension. On San Joaquin Hills Road west of Pelican Hill Road in the segment between San Miguel Drive and Pelican Hill Road, traffic volumes would be approximately 10,000 to 15,000 vpd less if the extension of San Joaquin Hills Road east of Pelican Hill Road were to be deleted. Traffic volumes on San Joaquin Hills Road ' between Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard would remain virtually unchanged. On Ford Road between San Miguel Drive and the SJHTC, the traffic volume with -or without the interchange would be approximately the same, although the composition of the traffic and the origin/ destination patterns of the traffic would be different. If the interchange were to be provided at Ford Road, the traffic volume on the portion of Ford Road between San Miguel Drive and the San Joaquin Transportation Corridor would consist primarily of ' traffic from the Harbor View area of Newport Beach accessing the SJHTC with a secondary movement of traffic between the. northern portion of Newport Beach and the Turtle Rock and UCI areas of Irvine. With the deletion of the interchange at Ford Road and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor,. the traffic on Ford Road would consist primarily of traffic to and from Irvine, which would access the•Corridor via a route including Ford Road, MacArthur Boulevard and Bison Avenue. Since the existing Bonita Canyon Road would not be in place, and since Bonita Canyon Road (extended) in Irvine would not have access to the Corridor, that ' traffic would have no other reasonable choice but to use the path described as Ford Road, MacArthur Boulevard and Bison Avenue to the SJHTC. An alternative route for that traffic would be Bonita Canyon_ Road to Coyote Canyon to California to University to Bison, but that represents a more circuitous and less convenient routing since it would be through the UCI campus. 1 On Ford Road between San Miguel Drive and Macarthur Boulevard, traffic volumes would be about 8,000 vpd higher and between Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard about 5,000 vpd higher without the Ford Road interchange at the SJHTC. While this would appear to be contrary to expectation, it is explained by the added traffic to and from Irvine as outlined above. 3-36 There would be impacts on MacArthur Boulevard, San Miguel Drive and Jamboree Road also associated primarily with the different SJHTC access provisions for the Harbor View, East Bluff, Big Canyon, and North Ford areas of Newport Beach, and the UCl/ Turtle Rock areas of Irvine. R In summary, the major impacts of the modifications suggested by Newport Beach for access to and from the SJHTC would be a reduction of traffic on San Joaquin Hills Road between Pelican Iiill and MacArthur Boulevard, an increase in traffic on MacArthur Boulevard between San Joaquin Hills Road and Bison Avenue, some increase on Jamboree Road, and increases on Ford Road between MacArthur Boulevard and San Miguel Drive. Also, the absence of an interchange at Ford Road would tend to result in increased vehicle miles travelled. This is because motorists who wuld use the Ford Road interchange, if it were available, would be forced to use alternative interchanges. This in turn would imply out - of -direction travel, or longer or more circuitous travel routes. Another modification of SJHTC access has been suggested by the City of Irvine, namely that the portion of Pelican Hill Road between the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor and Bonita Canyon Road not be constructed. The reasoning of the City of Irvine is that the segment of Pelican Hill Road would encourage bypass traffic from the Coastal area, specifically from Coast Highway, up through Irvine into the Turtle Rock and UCI areas. In this study, the regional traffic analysis has been on the assumption that that portion of Pelican Hill Road would be in place as part of the overall evaluation of Trend Growth Plus GPA ' 85-1(B) traffic loading conditions. The anticipated daily traffic for that segment of Pelican Hill Road would be approxi- mately 14,000 vehicles. That traffic consists primarily of trips to and from the southerly portion of Irvine, specifically the UCl/Turtle Rock areas. The traffic between the coast and the inland areas would have other paths available, and would not be using that portion of Pelican Hill. If the segment of Pelican Hill Road between the SJHTC and Bonita Canyon Road were to be deleted, the 14,000. vehicles per day would divert to Bonita Canyon Road (extended to Ford Road) and to Sand Canyon with other minor diversions of traffic. The overall regional circulation would not be affected significantly, since the traffic on that portion of Pelican Hill Road would consist primarily of local traffic. The proposed GPA 85-1(B) would have virtually no impact on the portion of Pelican Hill Road between the SJHTC and Bonita Canyon ' Road, since that segment does not lie on a direct path between the SJHTC and Bonita Canyon Road, linking the Newport Center area with major origin/destination points. 1 3-37 IMPLICATIONS OF PELICAN HILL ROAD (WITHOUT THE SJHTC) Pelican Hill Road is to extend inland from Coast Highway approxi- mately 2 miles east of MacArthur Boulevard. It is planned as part of.the inland development of the "down Coast" area. When the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor is constructed, Pelican Hill Road would have an interchange with the Corridor. If the roadway were to be constructed prior to the development of the Corridor, it would connect with existing Bonita Canyon Road. Figure 3-5, presented previously, depicts the anticipated align- ment of Pelican Hill Road. It is expected that, with the development of Pelican Hill Road, traffic currently travelling along Coast Highway to MacArthur Boulevard with destinations north of Newport Center would divert to Pelican Hill Road to avoid delays through the Corona del Mar business district. The result would be a reduction in traffic along Coast Highway, and MacArthur Boulevard in the vicinity of Newport Center. To determine the amount of diversion which might be expected if Pelican Hill Road were constructed, the Trend Growth plus GPA 85-1(B) travel forecast model was rerun. The circulation system was modified to include Pelican Hill Road from Coast Highway to MacArthur Boulevard (via the existing Bonita Canyon Road alignment) and Sand Canyon Road, but not the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. Figure 3-8 presents daily traffic volume forecasts assuming Trend Growth development including GPA 85-1(B) projects, on two circulation systems: 1. Without the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, Pelican Hill Road or Sand Canyon Road 2. Without the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, but with Pelican Hill Road and Sand Canyon Road Table 3-10 summarizes the estimated impacts of Pelican Hill Road along selected roadway segments. Review of Table 3-10 shows that in 2010 if the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor were not yet constructed, approximately 13,000 to 16,OOO,vehicles per day would divert to Pelican Hill Road. This represents approximately L23 percent of the traffic forecast along Coast Highway. The total volume of traffic using either MacArthur Boulevard or Marguerite Avenue would also be expected to reduce by approxi- mately 22 percent with the construction of Pelican Hill Road. This is consistent with the findings of the origin/destination study, presently previously, which indicated that approximately 22 percent of the traffic presently travelling along Coast High- way would use Pelican Hill Road when it was constructed. The implications of Pelican Hill Road for operating conditions at intersections along Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard will be discussed in a later section. 3-38 m m m m m m" m m m i m M r so m so ii m ` do 9 r DEL MAR jf11.9 ^1y Mrs O a r� a �o ev 22nd ST Raq 00 �69 „ i�x y SOT� ? 232) �8fi a. to _ :t40,a) 9 0 m 18 1 rye. $ 19th ST JU m S.8 �, ` �6,9 213 zd) `po Ory 'a w 17th 3T M 099j ��to O 18th47.7 t48.8) gc fg N6 o A g COAST HW V VNp PACIFIO _ . NMI\ FIGURE-3-8 RASNACJYM-DARNLLL. INC. COMPARISON OF DAILY TRAFFIC WITH AND WITHOUT PELICAN HILL ROAD -AND SAND 'OANYOI4 ROAD (BASED ON TREND ''GROWTH AND GPA 851-1) TABLE 3-10 COMPARISON OF DAILY TRAFFIC WITH AND WITHOUT PELICAN HILL ROAD AND SAND CANYON ROAD (BASED ON TREND GROWTH + CPA 85-1B) --DAILY-TRAFFIC ------- VOLUME: WITH ------- WITHOUT PELICAN HILL PELICAN HILL ROADWAY SEGMENT --------------- ROAD (a) -------- -------------------------------- ROAD (a) DIFFERENCE COAST HIGHWAY: East City Limits 40,400 54,800 (14,400) e/o Poppy Avenue 42,900 58,500 (15,600) e/o Marguerite Avenue 52,400 65,100 (12,700) e/o MacArthur Boulevard 62,000 62,400 (400) e/o Newport Center Dr. 48,500 46,800 1,700 e/o Jamboree Road 49,400 47,700 1,700 e/o Dover Drive 78,900 80,100 (11200) w/o Dover Drive 49,900 50,200 (300) e/o Newport Boulevard 73,900 73,800 100 West City Limits 33,000 34,300 (11300) MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD: n/o Coast Highway 50,'500 51,700 (11200) n/o Harbor View Drive 52,900 54,200 (11300) n/o San Miguel Drive 404,400 48,100 (7,700) n/o San Joaquin Hills Rd. 75,700 77,400 (11700) n/o Ford Road 87,800 89,200 (1,400) n/o Bison Avenue 92,700 92,800 (100) n/o Jamboree Road 36,500 35,500 1,000 s/o Birch Street 30,400 20,100 10,300 ' JAMBOREE ROAD: n/o n/o Bayside Drive Coast Highway 29,800 39,800 30,000 34,800 (200) 51000 n/o Santa Barbara Avenue 37,500 37,500 0 n/o San Joaquin Hills Rd. 50,500 59,300 (81800) n/o Ford Road 420600 55,800 (13,200) n/o Bison Avenue 41,200 504,800 (9,600) s/o Bristol Street 420,900 45,000 (2,100) e/o MacArthur Boulevard 65,900 67,900 (21000) s/o Birch Street 54,500 56,600 (2,100) SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD e/o Jamboree Road 23,200 29,500 (64,300`) w/o MacArthur Boulevard 41,800 40,400 1,400 e/o MacArthur Boulevard 23,500 27,900 (4 400) e/o San Miguel Drive 21,300 28,600 (7,300) e/o Marguerite Avenue 15,900 7,300 8,600 3-40 ' TABLE 3-10 (Continued) SAN MIGUEL w/o MacArthur Boulevard 17,800 17,900 (100) e/o MacArthur Boulevard 19,200 20,800 (lr600) n/o San Joaquin Hills Rd. 21,700 26,900 (5,200) s/o Ford Road 17,900 22,400 (41500) FORD ROAD e/o Jamboree Road 15,800 18,600 (21800) e/o MacArthur Boulevard 30,500 27,700 21800 e/o San Miguel Drive 39,300 34,400 41900 BISON AVENUE e/o Jamboree Road 8,000 11,900 (3,900) e/o MacArthur Boulevard 17,300 23,000 (51700) MARGUERITE AVENUE s/o Fifth Avenue 7,800 20,200 (12,400) n/o Fifth Avenue 13,100 25,900 (12,800) BRISTOL STREET N w/o Birch Street 53,300 52,500 800 w/o Spruce Street 47,800 44,100 3,700 BRISTOL STREET w/o Birch Street 57,200 56,500 700 e/o Birch Street 47,500 46,000 11500 SAN DIEGO (I-405) FREEWAY n/o University Drive 244,800 246,500 (lr700) n/o Jamboree Road 255,200 258,200 (3,000) n/o MacArthur Boulevard 256,900 257,000 (100) SJHTC/ROUTE 73 e/o Sand Canyon Rd. _ _ 0 e/o Pelican Hill Rd. 0 e/o Bison Avenue - - 0 w/o Jamboree Road - - 0 PELICAN HILL ROAD n/o Coast Highway 19,400 _ 19,400 s/o San Joaquin Hills Rd. 22,500 220500 n/o SJHTC 13,900 - 13,900 SAND CANYON ROAD n/o Coast Highway 9,200 _ 9,200 s/o SJHTC 13,900 13,900 (a) Assumes no San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor 3-41 Travel Time Comparisons Comparisons have been made of the estimated distance and travel times for routings via Pelican Hill Road and via Coast Highway through Corona del Mar. The southeasterly terminus for the travel time comparison is taken as the intersection of Coast Highway at Pelican Hill Road, since this would be the point of a routing decision for a motorist approaching Newport Beach. Two northerly termini are considered in the travel time comparisons. The first is the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Bonita Canyon Road, which would be the common point along the routing options for motorists traveling to the northern portion of Newport Beach and points further north. The second is the inter- section of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road, which would be the common point along the routing options for motorists traveling to the vicinity of Newport Center. The following describes the two paths analyzed for travel between each origin/ destination pair: A. Travel distance and time comparison between the future intersection of Coast Highway at Pelican Hill Road and the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard at Bonita Canyon Road (representing locations in northern Newport Beach and further- north): Path 1 - via Pelican Hill Road, to Bonita Canyon Road, to MacArthur Boulevard Path 2 - via Coast Highway, to MacArthur Boulevard, to Bonita Canyon Road B. Travel distance and time comparison between the future intersection of Coast Highway at Pelican Hill Road and the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard at San Joaquin Hills Road (representing locations in Newport Center and vicinity): Path 1 - via Pelican Hill Road, to San Joaquin Hills Road, to MacArthur Boulevard Path 2 - via Coast Highway, to MacArthur Boulevard to San Joaquin Hills Road. For ease of reference, Path 1 described for travel distance and time comparison "A" will be referred to as Path Al; Path 2 for comparison "A" will be Path A2. Similarly, Path 1 for travel distance and time comparison "B" will be referred to as Path B1; Path 2 for comparison "B" will be Path B2. From Coast Highway at Pelican Hill Road to MacArthur_ From Coast Highway at Pelican Hill Road to MacArthur Boulevard at Bonita Canyon Road, via Path Al would be a travel distance of ' approximately 5.9 miles. The distance between the same two points via Path A2 would be approximately 5.1 miles. 1 3-42 Average travel speeds have been estimated for each path for off- peak conditions and for peak conditions. Estimated delays due to traffic signals and traffic conditions have been included in the computation of average travel speeds. During off-peak condi- tions, vehicles would be expected to travel at approximately 50 miles per hour along Path Al. Estimated off-peak travel speeds along Path A2 vary. Along Coast Highway between Pelican Hill Road and Cameo Shores, a vehicle would travel at approximately 50 miles per hour (m.p.h.) during I off-peak hours. On Coast Highway between Cameo Shores and MacArthur Boulevard (through Corona del Mar) average travel speed would be approximately 25 m.p.h. Along MacArthur Boulevard between Coast Highway and San Joaquin Hills Road, estimated travel speed is approximately 45 m.p.h. Between San Joaquin Hills Road and Bonita Canyon Road, the estimated travel speed would be approximately 50 m.p.h. Based on the travel speed assumptions described,above, it would take approximately 7 minutes to drive between Coast Highway at Pelican Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard at Bonita Canyon Road via Path Al, and approximately 8 minutes via Path A2. During off-peak hours, the difference in travel time between Path Al and Path A2 would be minimal. During peak traffic hours, the average travel speed along Path Al is estimated to be approximately 45 m.p.h. For Path A2, the estimated peak hour travel speed along the segment of Coast Highway between Pelican Hill Road and Cameo Shores would be approximately 45 m.p.h. Peak hour congestion significantly reduces travel speed on Coast Highway through Corona del Mar. An average speed of 15 m.p.h. was assumed along the segment between Cameo Shores and MacArthur Boulevard. On MacArthur Boulevard between Coast Highway and San Joaquin Hills Road, vehicles are estimated to travel at an average speed of 40 m.p.h. during peak hours. From San Joaquin Hills'Road to Bonita Canyon Road, the average speed during peak hours was assumed to be 35 m.p.h. Based on estimated peak hour speed assumptions, travel time along Path Al would be approximately 8 minutes; travel time along Path A2 would be approximately 11 minutes. In summary, the total distance from Coast Highway at Pelican Hill Road to MacArthur Boulevard at Bonita Canyon Road is 5.9 miles via Pelican Hill Road to Bonita Canyon Road (Path Al), and 5.1 via Coast Highway to MacArthur Boulevard (Path A2). During off- peak hours, the difference in estimated travel time between the two paths is nominal (approximately 1 minute). However, during peak hours, congestion along Coast Highway and along MacArthur Boulevard cause traffic delays and reductions in average travel speeds. The difference in estimated travel time between Path Al and Path A2 is approximately 3 minutes during peak hours. 3-43 During off-peak hours, the two paths are comparable in terms of distance and travel time. Some motorists would choose to use each path, based on factors of personal choice and preference other than distance and travel time. During peak hours, however, it would be expected that a significant number of motorists would choose to travel along Pelican Hill Road (Path Al) to avoid congestion and potential delays along Coast Highway through Corona del Mar. From Coast Highway at Pelican Hill Road to MacArthur 1 Boulevard at San Joaquin Hills Road The travel distance from Coast Highway at Pelican Hill Road to MacArthur Boulevard at San Joaquin Hills Road, via Path B1 (Pelican Hill Road), would be approximately 5.4 miles. The distance between the same twb points via Path B2 (Coast Highway through Corona del Mar) would be approximately 3.0 miles. Travel speed assumptions along the roadways included in each path have been discussed previously, with the exception of speed assumptions for San Joaquin Hills Road. During off-peak hours, vehicles would be expected to travel approximately 50 m.p.h. along San Joaquin Hills Road. During peak hours, this average speed would be estimated to reduce, somewhat, to approximately 45 m.p.h. During off-peak conditions, it is estimated that it would take approximately 6.5 minutes for a motorist to travel from Coast Highway at Pelican Hill Road to MacArthur Boulevard at San Joaquin Hills Road, via Path B1. The same trip, via Path B2, would take approximately 5.3 minutes. During off-peak hours, it would be shorter and faster to travel from Coast Highway at Pelican Hills Road to MacArthur Boulevard at San Joaquin Hills Road by way of Coast Highway through Corona del Mar to MacArthur Boulevard. During peak conditions, the travel time via Path B1 would take approximately 0.8 minute longer than during off-peak hours, or approximately 7.3 minutes. The travel time via Path B2 would increase from 5.3 minutes during off-peak hours to approximately 7.9 minutes during peak traffic hours. During peak hours, Path B2 would no longer be the fastest route. The difference in travel time between Path B1 and Path B2 would be approximately 0.6 minute, with Path B1 being the faster. In summary, Path B2 (Coast Highway to MacArthur Boulevard) would provide the shortest distance between the intersections of Coast Highway at Pelican Hill Road and MacArthur Boulevard at San Joaquin Hills Road. During off-peak hours, it would also be the fastest route. It would therefore be expected that, during off- peak hours, most motorists travelling between Coast Highway at Pelican Hill Road and the Newport Center area would choose Path B2. 3-44 During peak traffic hours, traffic delays due to congestion along Coast Highway through Corona del Mar would be expected to increase the travel time along Path B2 by approximately 2.6 minutes. Although Path B2 travel along Path B2 is is considerably estimated to shorter than Path B1, take approximately 0.6 minute longer than along Path B1 during peak hours. Therefore, during peak hours, some motorists may select Path B1 (Pelican Hill Road), preferring to drive a little further to save a small amount of travel time. J Summary The construction of Pelican Hill Road would offer an alternative to routings via Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard, albeit the travel distance via Pelican Hill Road would be longer. During peak periods of travel, time of travel via Pelican Bill Road would be less than via Coast Highway for motorists travelling to and from the northern portion of Newport Beach and points further north. For motorists travelling to and from Newport Center and vicinity, the travel time in peak periods via Pelican Hill Road and via Coast Highway would be approximately the same. During off-peak periods, travel time via Coast Highway would be less than via Pelican Hill. Canyon Crest Road Prior to the formulation of the current County of Orange Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) to include the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, Pelican Hill Road, and Sand Canyon Road in the area immediately east of Newport Beach, an arterial facility immediately adjacent to the east city limits of Newport Beach (east of Cameo Highlands) was included in both the County MPAH and the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways. This arterial facility, recognized generally as Canyon Crest Road, would have constituted the extension of Spyglass Hill Road southerly of San Joaquin Hills,Road, to Coast Highway. A very small portion of Canyon Crest Road would have been in Newport Beach; the rest would have been in a County unincorporated area. The County MPAH was revised in the mid to late 70's to delete Canyon Crest Road. As part of the adoption of GPA 79-2 by the City of Newport Beach in December 1980, Canyon Crest Road was deleted from the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways. The reasons for the deletion were that Pelican Hill would serve areawide traffic circulation needs better than Canyon Crest Road, and that the construction of Canyon Crest Road would have necessitated the crossing of a sizeable gulley with a long bridge span. 3-45 CHAPTER 4 TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE CONSIDERATIONS INTRODUCTION To provide decision -makers complete information about the traffic ' implications of proposed GPA 85-1(B), a Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) analysis has been conducted. The procedures and methodology used are consistent with the ordinance prior to recent amendments, except that ICU values have been presented to 1 two decimal places. At'such time as a TPO approval is processed, additional traffic analysis consistent with the new ordinance provisions will be performed. The development of the projects included in GPA 85-1(B) is to be phased between the years 1987 through 1992. The expected traffic to/from these projects will be added to the roadway system long before the 2010 timeframe of the long-range analysis. Therefore, short-range future analyses have also been performed for the years 1989 and 1993, based on information from and following the procedures of the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Under the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance, project traffic impacts are estimated and evaluated for afternoon peak hour conditions at critical signalized intersections within the City, as identified by the City Traffic Engineer. The timeframe for evaluation is one year after expected project completion. If estimated project traffic for the evening peak period (22 hours) at an intersection is greater than 1 percent of the existing condition traffic volume,. plus regional growth, plus estimated traffic for projects which have been approved but not yet constructed, an Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis is performed-. Should the ICU value yield an unsatisfac- tory level of service (cause or make worse an ICU value greater than 0.90), further analysis is required to develop specific mitigation measures. The City Traffic Engineer has identified 37 critical intersec- tions within the City which might be impacted by the proposed projects. Project impacts at each of these intersections have been estimated and evaluated for 1989 conditions and 1993 condi- tions. APPROVED PROJECTS To develop estimates'of traffic for 1989 and for 1993, the City provides estimates of traffic to/from projects which have been approved for future construction within the desired timeframe. This additional traffic is added to existing traffic volumes and regional growth to obtain an estimate of cumulative traffic for a desired timeframe. Table 4-1 is a list of projects which have been approved by the City of Newport Beach for construction but which are not yet completed, occupied and generating traffic. 1 4-1 TABLE 4-1 THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TPO APPROVED PROJECTS (a) Hoag Hospital St. Andrews Church Pacesetter Homes Aeronutronic Ford Civic Plaza Corporate Plaza MacArthur Court National Education Office North Ford Newport Place Shokrian Sea Island Harbor Point Homes Martha's Vineyard Valdez Coast Business Center Koll Center NPT No. 1 TPP Ross Mollard Banning/Newport Ranch Park Lido YMCA Allred Condos Four Seasons Hotel Block 400 Medical Sheraton Expansion Amend No. 1 MacArthur Court National Education (Rvsd.) Amendment No•. 2 Ford Aero Carver Granville Office Corona Del Mar Homes Big Canyon Villa Apts. 1400 Dove Street 1100 Quail Street Heltzer Medical Office Koll Center TPP Amend. 4A Villa Point Rosan's Development Block 500 Npt. Ctr. Project Heritage Bank Newport Aquatics Center Flagship Hospital 2600 E. Coast Highway Big Canyon 10 Jasmine Park Fun Zone MacArthur Associates Marriott Hotel Amendment No. 1 Ford Aero Amendment No. 1 North Ford (a) Approved, under construction, constructed and unoccupied, or otherwise not generating traffic at the time "existing" traffic counts were made. 4-2 I I I I 1J L I I I I I LJ I [1 I ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS The estimated peak 212 hour traffic volume to/from the proposed GPA 85-1(B) projects has been compared to the base volume (existing traffic plus approved project traffic plus regional growth) for 1989 and for 1993. At each of the thirty-seven intersections, the estimated 21 hour project volume was greater than 1 percent of the base volume in 1989 and in 1993. There- fore, ICU analyses have been performed for 1989 and 1993 conditions at each intersection. 1989 INTERSECTION ANALYSES Table 4-2 is a summary of the ICU values estimated for 1989 conditions for each of the critical intersections in the study area. As discussed previously in the Existing Conditions Chapter (Chapter 2) of this report, several intersections within the study area currently (prior to opening of the Route 73 extension to MacArthur Boulevard) operate with ICU values greater than 0.90 (See Table 2-2). These intersections are: Coast Highway at: Orange Street Prospect Street Bayside Drive Jamboree Road Goldenrod Avenue Marguerite Avenue .Poppy Avenue Jamboree Road at: MacArthur Boulevard (a) Bristol Street (a) MacArthur Blvd at: Bison Avenue Ford Road Campus Drive at: Bristol Street North (a) Bristol Street (a) Birch Street at: Bristol Street North (a) (a) Operating conditions expected to improve with Route 73 extension to MacArthur Boulevard. If no intersection improvements were to be implemented, operating conditions at the intersections listed above would be expected to deteriorate further by 1989. This is due to the addition of traffic attributable to approved projects in the area and to regional traffic growth. Because of traffic growth, additional I 4-3 I 1 TABLE 4-2 SUMMARY OF 1989 PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSES (With Existing Intersection Configuration) 1989 1989 Background Intersection Existing Background(a) Plus Project(b) ------------ COAST HIGHWAY AT: -------- ---------------------- Orange Street 0.95* 1.10* 1.14* Prospect Avenue Balboa Blvd/Superior Ave 0.97* 0.88 1.12* 0.99** 1.16* 1.01** Riverside Avenue 0.88 1.01** 1.06** Tustin Avenue 0.72 0:83 0.90 Dover Dr/Bayshore Dr 0.83 0.95** 1.04** Bayside Drive 1.00* 1.16* 1.25* Jamboree Road 1.08* 1.24* 1.36* Newport Center Drive 0.73 0.84 0.90 Avocado Avenue 0.78 0.92** 0.98** MacArthur Boulevard 0.85 0.99" 1.04** Goldenrod Avenue 1.13* 1.25* 1.31* Marguerite Avenue 1.02* 1.16* 1.21* Poppy Avenue 0.92* 1.05* 1.10* JAMBOREE ROAD AT: Campus Drive 0.90 0.97** 1.00** Birch Street 0.62 0.70 0.74 MacArthur Boulevard (c) 0.91* Rt.73 Rt.73 Bristol Street N. (c) 0.85 Rt.73 Rt.73 Bristol Street (c) 1.06* Rt.73 Rt.73 Eastbluff Drive North 0.60 0.80 0.88 Bison Avenue 0.66 0.85 0.95*** Ford Road/Eastbluff Dr 0.73 0.83 0.89 San Joaquin Hills Road 0.69 0.82 0.93*** Santa Barbara Drive (d) 0.73 0.83 1.02*** MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD AT: Campus Drive 0.84 0.96** 0.97** Birch Street 0.63 0.66 0.68 Bison Avenue 0.94* 1.14* 1.19* Ford Road 0.91* 1.05* 1.13* ' San Joaquin Hills Road 0.83 0.99** 1.08** San Miguel Drive 0.8-2 0.93** 1.01** CAMPUS DRIVE AT: Bristol Street North (c) 1.15* Rt.73 Rt.73 Bristol Street (c) 1.10* Rt.73 Rt.73 I 1 4-4 TABLE 4-2,(Continued) 1989 1989 Background Intersection Existing Background(a) Plus-Project(b) BIRCH STREET AT: Bristol Street North (c) 0.95* Rt.73 Rt.73 Bristol Street (c) 0.73 Rt.73 Rt.73 SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD AT: Santa Cruz Drive 0.50 0.58 0.74 ' Santa Rosa Drive 0.68 0.75 0.84 NEWPORT BOULEVARD AT: Hospital Road 0.81 0.90 0.91*** (a) Consists of existing traffic, plus regional growth, plus committed projects. (b) Consists of existing traffic, plus regional growth, plus committed projects, plus Phase I of proposed GPA, representing development through 1988. (c) Based on conditions prior to Route 73 extension to MacArthur Boulevard. (d) For 1989, assuming Newporter North access with fourth leg of intersection added. * Intersection congested under existing conditions; congestion will increase in 1989 with or without proposed GPA ** Intersection not congested under existing conditions; intersection would be congested in 1989 with or without proposed GPA *** Intersection not congested under existing conditions or in 1989 without proposed GPA; intersection congested in 1989 with proposed GPA. Note: All ICU values, including 1989, are based on conditions prior to the opening of Route 73 Freeway extension to MacArthur Boulevard. The Route 73 Freeway extension will improve operating conditions significantly at intersections along Bristol Street and Bristol Street North, as well as the intersection of Jamboree Road/MacArthur Boulevard. No 1989 ICU values have been computed for these intersections, noted as Rt. 73. Note: Existing conditions are based on Winter/Spring 1985 counts. 1 4-5 I I I [1 I I r I I LJ I f1 r intersections would be expected to exceed capacity in 1989. These additional intersections are: Coast Highway at: Balboa Blvd./Superior Avenue Riverside Avenue Dover Drive Avocado Avenue MacArthur Boulevard Jamboree Road at: Campus Drive MacArthur Blvd at: Campus Drive San Joaquin Hills Road San Miguel Drive In accordance with the data in Table 4-2, when estimated traffic to/from the first phase of the proposed GPA 85-1(B) projects is added to the background 1989 traffic estimates, the ICU values at the intersections listed above would increase still further beyond acceptable levels. Beyond that, the inclusion of the proposed GPA traffic would increase the ICU values at several additional intersections to greater than 0.90 in 1989. These intersections are: Jamboree Road at: Bison Avenue San Joaquin Hills Road Santa Barbara Drive Newport Blvd at: In addition, ICU val tions of Coast Highway Newport Center Drive, likely to be congested to be made. Hospital Road u es of 0.90 are estimated at the intersec- at Tustin Avenue, and Coast Highway at indicating that these intersections are shortly after 1989 if no improvements were The analysis of operating conditions at the 37 critical intersec- tions within the City has shown several intersections to be operating at unacceptable levels of service at the present time. With anticipated development and regional growth, 18 of the 37 critical intersections would be expected to have ICU values greater than 0.90 by 1989 if no improvements were implemented. The addition of estimated GPA 85-1('B) traffic would result in four more intersections operating at unacceptable levels in 1989. Improvements to alleviate the anticipated congestion problems are discussed in the following paragraphs. Committed Circulation System Improvements At the present time, several improvements to the circulation system within the City are considered "committed". A committed improvement is one which is either presently under construction, or funding for the improvement is clearly identified, or which is a condition of development of an approved project. The most obvious and significant committed improvement is the extension of M the Route 73 (Corona del Mar) Freeway from Campus Drive to MacArthur Boulevard. While in "committed" status during the technical analyses for this study, this extension was opened to traffic on February 10 (February 11 for the eastbound direction), and is expected to alleviate congestion along the Bristol Street Couplet. Other committed circulation system improvements include: o Widening of Coast Highway between MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road, funded for construction in the 1986-1987 ' Fiscal Year. The intersections of Coast Highway at MacArthur Boulevard and at Jamboree Road would be improved in conjunction with this project, as illustrated in Figures 4-1 and 4-21 respectively. o Widening of Coast Highway between Jamboree Road and Bayside Drive, scheduled for the 1988 Fiscal Year. The intersection of Coast Highway/Bayside Drive would be improved, as illustrated in Figure 4-3, in conjunction with this project. o Addition of a third westbound lane on Coast Highway between Newport Boulevard and the west City limits and beyond, funded for construction in the 1989.Fiscal Year. o Addition of a third eastbound through lane on Coast Highway at Marguerite Avenue by reducing the width of the median area. lane MacArthur o Addition of a third northbound through on Boulevard at San Joaquin Hills Road. o Addition of a third southbound through lane on MacArthur Boulevard at Ford Road. o Addition of a third northbound through lane and a fourth southbound through lane on MacArthur Boulevard at Bison Avenue. o Addition of a second eastbound left turn lane on Campus Drive at MacArthur Boulevard. o Addition of westbound left turn lane on Hospital Road at its approach to Newport Boulevard. o The conversion of the existing southbound exclusive right - turn lane on Jamboree Road at San Joaquin Hills Road to an optional through or right -turn lane, as illustrated in Figure 4-4. (This will make a third lane available for the southbound through traffic.) o Extension of Back Bay Drive east of Jamboree Road to intersect Coast Highway. This improvement is a committed project; it can be replaced by the proposed reconfiguration ' of the intersection of Coast Highway/Jamboree Road, as illustrated in Figure 4-2. 1 4-7 {1' '� N II ! r ram - Coast' y�ghwa y . EXISTING - - -- COMMITTED ' BD\ FIGURE 4-1 \ COMM IT-TED IMPROVEMENTS, TO BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. COAST HIGHWAY AND M'ACART1 UR BOULEVARD r 4-8 „ r r EXIST 1 ( w lr lr 4 R _ _ — r Coast Highway CgmMITTE • i .FIGURE 4-2 BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. -COMMITTED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS TO -COAST HIGHWAY AND JAMBOREE ROAD ME, FIGURE 4-3 77 �" MMITTED,-.' SECTION IMPROVEMENTS TO BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC, ;OAST HKaM WAY AT SAYSIDE DRIVE 4-lU EXISTING ------- COMMITTED \D\ BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. R fm San Joaquin Hills FIGURE -4-4 COMMITTED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS TO JAMBOREE ROAD AT SAN JOAQUIN ,HILLS ' o The extension of University Drive from .MacArthur Boulevard to Jamboree Road. 1 L J 1 �I ILl n J Il 7 Effect of Committed Improvements When the committed improvements are implemented, traffic conditions in general will improve significantly. The 1989 ICU value at many intersections will be at an acceptable level, whereas congestion would have been anticipated if the committed improvement at the intersection were not implemented. The extension of the Route 73 Freeway to MacArthur Boulevard, is expected to alleviate congestion at the intersections along Bristol Street and Bristol Street North. No further analysis is performed at these intersections, since changes in traffic pat- terns will take place over time. Significant reductions in ICU values would be expected, since through traffic on Bristol Street and Bristol Street North wouldbe virtually eliminated, relega- ting these streets to their intended role as frontage roads. Reflected in the "Existing" counts at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard/Jamboree Road is the detour traffic diverted to this intersection when University Drive North, between MacArthur Boulevard and Bristol Street was closed to westbound traffic during the construction of the Route 73 extension. When the detour traffic is removed from the intersection, the northbound approach on MacArthur Boulevard can be restored to its pre -detour configuration. Reduced traffic and the restoration of the original intersection configuration are expected to result in satisfactory operation at this intersection. ICU values for 1989 conditions (including existing conditions, plus regional growth, plus committed projects, plus the proposed GPA) after the committed improvements are implemented are presented in Table 4-3. After the implembntation of the committed improvements, further improvements would be needed at the following intersections to satisfy the stipulations of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance: Coast Highway at: Balboa Boulevard/Superior Ave Riverside Avenue Dover Drive/Bayshore Drive Goldenrod Avenue Poppy Avenue Jamboree Road at: Campus Drive Bison Avenue Santa Barbara Drive MacArthur Blvd at: San Joaquin Hills Road San Miguel Drive 4-12 t Intersection TABLE 4-3 EFFECT OF COMMITTED IMPROVEMENTS 1989 PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSES Existing Traffic And Existing Configuration 1989 Background Existing Configuration (a) 1989 Background Plus Project, Existing Configuration (b) 1989 Background Plus Project With Committed Improvements COAST HIGHWAY AT: Orange Street 0.95 1.10 1.14 0.81 Prospect Avenue 0.97 1.12 1.16 0.83 Balboa Blvd/Superior Ave 0.88 0.99 1.01 1.01 FI ' Riverside Avenue 0.88 1.01 1.06 1.06 FI Tustin Avenue 0.72 0.83 0.90 0.90 Dover Dr/Bayshore Dr 0.83 0.95 1.04 NCI,FI ' Bayside Drive 1.00 1.16 1.25 1.05 Jamboree Road 1.08 1.24 1.36 1.09 Newport Center Drive 0.73 - 0.84 0.90 0.69 Avocado Avenue 0.78 0.92 0.98 0.76 ' MacArthur Boulevard 0.85 0.99 1.04 0.84 Goldenrod Avenue 1.13 1.25 1.31 NCI,FI Marguerite Avenue 1.02 1.16 1.21 0.93 ' Poppy Avenue 0.92 1.05 1.10 NCI,FI JAMBOREE ROAD AT: Campus Drive 0.90 0.97 1.00 NCI,FI Birch Street 0.62 0.70 0.74 OK MacArthur Boulevard (c) 0.91 Rt.73 Rt.73 Rt.73 Bristol Street N. (c) 0.85 Rt.73 Rt.73 Rt.73 ' Bristol Street (c) 1.06 Rt.73 Rt.73 Rt.73 Eastbluff Drive North 0.60 0.80 0.88 OK Bison Avenue 0.66 0.85 0.95 NCI,FI ' Ford Road/Eastbluff Dr 0.73 0.81 0.89 OK San Joaquin Hills Road 0.69 0.82 0.93 0.80 Santa Barbara Drive (d) 0.73 0.83 1.02 NCI,FI MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD AT: Campus Drive 0.84 0.96 0.97 0.89 Birch Street 0.63 0.66 0.68 OK ' Bison Avenue 0.94 1.14 1.19 0.99 Ford Road 0.91 1.05 1.13 0.92 San Joaquin Hills Road 0.83 0.99 1.08 1.05 FI ' San Miguel Drive 0.82 0.93 1.01 NCI,FI CAMPUS DRIVE AT: ' Bristol Street North (c) 1.15 Rt.73 Rt.73 Rt.73 Bristol Street (c) 1.10 Rt.73 Rt.73 Rt.73 I 1 4-13 F L Intersection TABLE 4-3 (Continued) Existing Traffic And Existing Configuration 1989 Background Existing Configuration (a) 1989 Background Plus Project, Existing Configuration (b) 1989 Background Plus Projedt With Committed Improvements BIRCH STREET AT: Bristol Street North (c) 0.95 Rt.73 Rt.73 Rt.73 Bristol Street (c) 0.73 Rt.73 Rt.73 Rt.73 SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD AT: Santa Cruz Drive 0.50 0.58 0.74 OK Santa Rosa Drive 0.68 0.75 0.84 OK ' NEWPORT BOULEVARD AT: Hospital Road 0.81 0.90 0.91 0.88 (a) Consists of existing traffic, plus regional growth, plus committed projects. ' (b) Consists of existing traffic, plus regional growth, plus committed projects, plus Phase I of proposed GPA, representing development through 1988. ' (c) Based on conditions prior to Route 73 extension to MacArthur Boulevard. (d) For 1989, assuming Newporter North access with fourth leg of intersection added. ' Note: All ICU values, including 1989, are based on conditions prior to the opening of Route 73 Freeway extension to MacArthur Boulevard. The Route 73 Freeway extension will improve operating conditions significantly at intersections along Bristol Street and Bristol Street North, as well as the intersection of Jamboree Road/MacArthur Boulevard. No 1989 ICU values have been computed for these intersections, noted as Rt. 73. ' Note: Existing conditions are based on Winter/Spring 1985 counts. OK means no improvements needed for 1989. FI means Further Improvement needed NCI means No Committed Improvement Rt.73 means that the Rt.73 Freeway Extension to MacArthur Boulevard will improve ' operating conditions at the intersection. 1 4-14 Improvements in Addition to the Committed The possibilities for and the implications of further improvements at these intersections are discussed in the following paragraphs. Each improvement discussed would be applicable to a single specific intersection, with the exception of the construction of Pelican Hill Road. The construction of Pelican Hill Road would have a substantial impact on travel, patterns. Specifically, it is expected that some traffic through Corona del Mar that now uses Coast Highway and MacArthur Bou-levard, would divert to Pelican Hill Road. Based on the results of the origin and destination survey (see Chapter 2) and the results of the areawide long-range travel modelling process, estimates of the magnitude of this diversion have- been made. It is estimated that about 20 percent of the traffic that would otherwise use the Coast Highway/MacArthur Boulevard route through Corona del Mar would be diverted to Pelican Hill Road. ' While this diversion could affect travel patterns to some extent at a multitude of intersections, the most significant impacts are expected to be at the following intersections: I J I [1 Coast Highway at: MacArthur- Blvd at: MacArthur Boulevard Goldenrod Avenue Marguerite Avenue Poppy Avenue Bison Avenue Ford Road San Joaquin Hills Road San Miguel Drive Since the construction of Pelican Hill Road is considered to be a mitigation measure, the impacts that it would have on the traffic volumes and the ICU at these intersections has been estimated and is presented, as appropriate, in the ensuing discussion for 1989, and subsequently for 1993 conditions. It is expected that -the construction of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC); along with Pelican Hill .Road, would divert a greater amount of traffic away from Corona del Mar, than if Pelican Hill Road were constructed without the SJHTC. The impacts of the SJHTC within the context of the areawide long-term travel patterns is discussed in Chapter 3. No specific estimates of ICU have been made to reflect the impacts of the SJHTC. The reason is that in accordance with current schedules, the earliest the SJHTC could be opened to traffic would be 1992. Thus, the SJHTC would not have an effect on 1989 ICU computations. For 1993, the SJHTC could have a beneficial impact on the ICU values at the eight intersections (along Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard) listed above, if it were indeed opened to traffic in 1992. By basing the 1993 conditions on the 4-15 1 L r I 11 U L.l assumption that the SJHTC would not be open to traffic, a margin of safety is provided. If the SJHTC were opened to traffic, 1993 conditions would be better than those depicted in the discussion of 1993 ICU values. Unless otherwise stated, for the ICU computations involving improvements beyond the committed, 70 percent of the -added capacity is used, in accordance with TPO procedures. In the following discussion, all references to ICU are for 1989 traffic conditions, including existing traffic plus regional growth, plus committed projects, plus the first phase of the proposed GPA. Coast Highway/Balboa Avenue/Superior Avenue At this intersection, opportunities for improvement are limited. Superior Avenue was recently constructed to what is considered to be its ultimate configuration. On Balboa Avenue, lanes cannot be added without taking of property, which is considered to be impractical because of recently -approved redevelopment. The eastbound approach on Coast Highway could be widened to provide a third eastbound through lane. But this improvement will not improve the afternoon peak hour ICU, because the eastbound through traffic is not a critical move in the ICU computation. Thus, the only available option to improve the afternoon peak hour ICU is the addition of a westbound right -turn lane on Coast Highway. Potentially, this could present some construction problems associated with the bluff on the north side of Coast Highway, and it may be necessary to provide retaining walls. With the provision of a westbound right -turn lane, the ICU would be reduced to 0.97, satisfying TPO requirements. Coast Highway/Riverside Avenue The addition intersection w satisfy TPO considered wit in this area addition of a will help in hour, but wo traffic in ,t The addition the amount c stopped, thus configuration of a second eastbound left -turn lane at this ould reduce the ICU from 1.06 to 1.01, which would stipulations. This improvement would need to be hin the context of a project to widen Coast Highway In a comprehensive improvement project, the third -eastbound through lane at this intersection prove operating conditions during the morning peak uld not help in the afternoon peak hour, because he westbound direction is heavy in the afternoon. of the second eastbound left -turn lane will reduce f timeopposingwestbound traffic would need to be improving operating conditions. The intersection with the improvements is illustrated in Figure 4-5. Coast Highway/Dover Drive/Bayshore Drive Further improvements at this intersection would be very difficult, if not impossible to make because the intersection has been built to what might be considered its ultimate configura- tion. The improvement most effective in reducing ICU would be the addition of a fourth westbound through lane (ICU would be reduced from 1.04 to 0.98), but this would not be sufficient to LJ 4-16 --► EXIST --- i> COMN NNN%B4, % BASMACIYAN•DARNELL, INC. FIGURE 4-5. RECOMMENDED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS TO COAST HIGHWAY AT' RIVERSIDE DRIVE FOR 1989 4-17 ' satisfy TPO stipulations. This improvement would necessitate restriping of lanes on the Coast Highway Bridge over the Bay and the widening of Coast Highway on the north side west of Dover Drive. While the restriping on the bridge can be accomplished by ' reducing the width of lanes and eliminating bike lanes, the widening west of the intersection would necessitate considerable taking of property and would impact a number of businesses along ' Coast Highway. No other improvements have been identified that would be operationally feasible and effective in reducing ICU. ' Coast Highway/Goldenrod Avenue Two types of improvements have been identified for this intersection to alleviate the expected congestion. The first would be increasing the capacity on Coast Highway by adding a third lane in each direction. The second would be the construction of Pelican Hill Road to reduce the traffic on Coast Highway at this intersection, in fact throughout Corona del Mar. If a third lane is added in each direction (only the eastbound ' lane is needed for the afternoon peak), the ICU would be reduced from 1.31 to 1.04. While this would meet the TPO stipulations, the intersection would remain congested. Adding a lane on Coast Highway would necessitate widening of the paved width, which ' would have concomitant impacts, including reduced width of sidewalks and medians, or potentially property take. ' The construction of Pelican Hill Road would divert substantial traffic away from Coast Highway through Corona del Mar. The traffic on Coast Highway would be reduced and the ICU would be reduced from 1.31 to 1.14 with no improvements at the intersec- tion, (Note that the existing ICU at this intersection is 1.13.) Considering that the widening of Coast Highway would present implementation problems, and considering that the construction of ' Pelican Hill Road would reduce traffic from levels that would otherwise be expected, the Pelican Hill Road alternative is considered to be the preferable option•. ' Coast Highway/Poppy Avenue ' The situation at Coast Highway/Poppy Avenue is similar to that at Coast Highway/Goldenrod Avenue. The addition of a third eastbound through lane on Coast Highway would reduce the ICU from 1.10 to 0.88. The construction of Pelican Hill Road would reduce ' the ICU to 0.84, without any improvements at this intersection. For the same reasons as those cited for the intersection of Coast ' Highway/Goldenrod Avenue, the Pelican Hill Road option is considered to be the preferable course of action. Jamboree Road/Campus Drive The additional improvement recommended at this intersection would be in the westbound approach, consisting of the conversion of one ' westbound •th'rough lane to an optional right-turn/through lane. 1 4-18 The recommended modification is illustrated in Figure 4-6. With ' this improvement, the ICU would be reduced from 1.00 to 0.97, and would satisfy TPO requirements. ' Jamboree Road/Bison Avenue The improvements at this intersection would be in the westbound and northbound directions. In the westbound direction, the ' existing lane configuration (one left -turn lane, one through lane, and two right -turn lanes) would, be revised, as illustrated ' in Figure 4-7, to provide;: - One left -turn lane ' - One optional through/left-turn lane - Two right -turn lanes The signal would be modified to provide split phasing in the east -west direction. In addition, a northbound right -turn lane would be added. This can be accomplished by restriping, and ' would not necessitate widening of the existing pavement. With these revisions, the ICU would be reduced from 0.95 to 0.87. Jamboree Road at Santa Barbara Drive While Jamboree Road at Santa Barbara Drive is presently a "T" ' intersection, the Newporter North project, when constructed, will take access on the west side of the intersection. The access road to/from Newporter North will constitute the west leg of the intersection. The west leg should have two exit lanes (one lane for left turns, and one lane for through movements and right turns) and two inbound lanes. A third southbound lane on Jamboree Road should be added through the intersection. In fact, ' the third southbound lane would be added along the segment of Jamboree Road between San Joaquin Hills Road and a point south of Santa Barbara Drive. With the proposed configuration of the ' intersection as illustrated in Figure 4-8, the ICU would be 0.86. MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road ' At this intersection, the committed improvement of adding a third northbound through lane will reduce the ICU from 1.08 to 1.05, but this amount of reduction will not satisfy the requirements of the TPO. (The reason for the seemingly small reduction in ICU is that with the provision of the third northbound through lane, traffic in the southbound direction would become critical. Thus, ' the full benefit of a lane addition would not be realized.) Accordingly, further improvements would be needed. ' The addition of a third southbound through lane, in addition to the third northbound through -lane, would,yield an ICU value of 0.94, indicating compliance with TPO provisions. 1 4-19 -► EXISTING COMMMED BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. *N B% FIGURE 4-6 RECOMMENDED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS TO JAMBOREE ROAD ,AND CAMPUS DRIVE FOR 1989 4-20 BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. "N B% FIGURE 4-7 RECOMMENDED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS TO OAMBOREE ROAD AND BISON AVENUE FOR 1989 I I I 1 LI I I 11 I Santa Barbara �TC:f C61CL]G LFCCJ CCfCT� ------____ ww``I WM' I I WI of 41 I I EX18TNrfi, I-► --�>. COMMITTED BASMACIYAN•DARNELL, INC. , RECOMMENDED-'iI+JTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS TO :DAIIi1BOREE ROAD ANDSAWA BARBARA DRIVE FOR 1989 4-22 The construction of Pelican Hill Road will have a beneficial impact at this intersection, as well. If the committed improve- ment were made (add third northbound through lane) but the third southbound through lane were not added, and if Pelican Hill Road were constructed, the ICU would be 0.91, indicating compliance with the TPO. ' Accordingly, the construction of Pelican Hill Road is considered a highly desirable improvement for this intersection, as well as for the intersections in Corona del Mar and elsewhere along MacArthur Boulevard. MacArthur Boulevard/San Miguel Drive ' There are no committed improvements at this intersection. If no improvements were made and Pelican Hill Road were constructed, the ICU would be reduced to 0.87. Alternatively, if at the ' intersection of MacArthur Boulevard/San Miguel Drive a third southbound through lane were added, the ICU would be reduced from 1.01 to 0.86. With both improvements, the ICU would be further reduced to 0.74. Since Pelican Hill Road is recommended as a mitigation measure for a number of other intersections, the construction of a third southbound lane at the intersection would not be necessary in 1989. Summary of 1989 Improvements In addition to the committed improvements previously listed, the following improvements will be required by 1989 to fulfill the stipulations of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance: ' o At the intersection of Coast Highway/Balboa Boulevard/Superior Avenue the addition of a westbound right -turn lane. o The addition of a second eastbound left -turn lane at the intersection of Coast Highway/Riverside Avenue. o The construction of Pelican Hill Road to provide a connection between Coast Highway and Bonita Canyon Road, which will reduce traffic through Corona del Mar. o At the intersection of Jamboree Road/Campus Drive, the conversion of one of two westbound through lanes to optional through/right-turn lanes. o At the intersection of Jamboree Road/Bison Avenue, the conversion of the westbound through -lane to an optional through/left-turn lane and the modification of the traffic signal to provide split phase operation in the east -west direction. Also, the addition of a northbound right -turn lane. 1 4-23 I 1 I� I I I I I I I I I I o The addition of a third southbound through lane on Jamboree Road at Santa Barbara Drive. The construction of the west leg of the intersection would be needed .to provide access to and from the proposed Newporter North development. The addition of the third southbound lane on Jamboree Road would be needed with or without the Newporter North development. o The addition of a fourth westbound through lane on Coast Highway at Dover Drive would be desirable. However, this improvement does not appear to be feasible within the bounds of reasonableness, as a short-term improvement. Table 4-4 is a summary of the ICU values after full mitigation at the intersections where improvements beyond the committed would be required. 1993 INTERSECTION ANALYSES Table 4-5 is a summary of the ICU analyses for 1993 conditions for each of the 37 intersection. For 1993, two traffic conditions are evaluated: 1. Existing traffic in 1985, plus regional growth between 1985 and 1993, plus committed projects through 1993, plus Phase 1 of the proposed GPA encompassing developments through 1989. This traffic condition is referenced as 1993 Background Traffic. 2. The 1993 Background Traffic, as defined above, plus Phase 2 of the proposed GPA encompassing developments during the period 1989 through 1992. ICU values for both traffic conditions have been estimated on the premise that the committed transportation system improvements and the, additional needed improvements for 1989 conditions would have been implemented and would be in service in 1993. Intersections to be Congested in 1993 In accordance with the information in Table 4-5, the following are the intersections that would be expected to be congested in 1993, under 1993 Background Traffic conditions, after the com- mitted improvements and the 1989 mitigation measures, including specific intersection improvements and the construction of Pelican Hill.Road are implemented: Coast Highway at: Balboa Blvd./Superior Avenue Riverside Avenue Tustin Avenue Dover Drive/Bayshore Drive Bayside Drive Jamboree Road Goldenrod Avenue (List continues on page 4-28) U 4-24 im M W y an M"""` M M M M"�"ON M TABLE 4-4 SUDS4,RY OF 1989 PM PEAK HOUR INIERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSES WHERE ADDITIONAL IMPROVFbffTNP IS N®ID FOR 1989 After Committed and Without Mitigation Additional Improvements 1989 1969 Background 1969 Background Intersection Endsting Background(a) Plus Project(b) Plus Project Additional Improvements Required (c) COAST HIGHWAY AT: n=' =-= Blvd/Superior Ave 0.88 0.99 1.01 0.97 - Add westbound right -turn lane ' Riverside Avenue 0.88 1.01 1.06 1.01 - Add 2nd eastbound left -turn lane Dover Dr/Bayshore Dr 0.83 0.95 1.04 0.98 - Add 4th westbound through lane (Reaago a evaluation of feasibility) - Goldenrod Avenue 1.13 1.25 1.31 1.14 - Construction of Pelican Hill Road Poppy Avenue 0.92 1.05 1.10 0.84 - Construction of Pelican Hill Road � JA14BCH2EE ROAD AT: Ln Campus Drive 0.90 0.97 1.00 0.97 - Convert one of two westbound through lanes to optional through/right-turn lane Bison Avenue 0.66 0.85 0.95 0.87 - Convert westbound through lane to optional left -turn/ through; Operate split -phase in east/west direction; Add northbound right -turn lane Santa Barbara Drive (d) 0.73 0.83 1.02 0.86 - Add third southbound through lane, construct west leg of intersection for Newporter North access MC ARTHUR BOULEVARD AT: San Joaquin Hills Road 0.83 0.99 1.08 0.9i - Construction of Pelican Hill Road San Miguel Drive 0.82 0.93 1.01 0.87 - Construction of Pelican Hill Road (a) Consists of existing traffic, plus regional growth, plus committed projects. (b) Consists of existing traffic, Plus regional growth, plus committed projects, plus Phase I of proposed GPA, representing development through 1988. (c) In addition to committed i pmverrents (d) For 1989, assuming Neaporter North access with fourth leg of intersection added. Note: All ICU values, including 1989, are based on conditions prior to the opening of Route 73 Freeway extension to MacArthur Boulevard. The Route 73 Freeway extension will improve operating conditions significantly at intersections along Bristol Street and Bristol Street North, as well as the intersection of Jamboree Road/MacArthur Boulevard. Note: Existing conditions are based on Winter/Spring 1985 counts. ITABLE 4-5 SUMMARY OF 1993 PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSES (Intersection,Configuration with'Committed Improvements and 1989 Mitigations Included) 1993 1993 Background Intersection Background(a) Plus Project(b) COAST HIGHWAY AT: Orange Street 0.82 0.82 OR Prospect Avenue 0.85 0.85 0.98 OR * Balboa Blvd/Superior Ave 0.97* Riverside Avenue 1.01* 1.02 FI* Tustin Avenue 0.91* 0.93 FI* Dover Dr/Bayshore Dr (e) 1.05* 1.09 FI* Bayside Drive 1.05* 1.10 FI* Jamboree Road 1.10* 1.15 FI* Newport Center Drive 0.70 0.73.OK Avocado Avenue 0.77 0.82 OR MacArthur Boulevard 0.77 (c) 0.79 (c) OR Goldenrod Avenue 1.16 (c')* 1.18 (c) FI* Marguerite Avenue 0.85 (c) 0.86 (c) OR Poppy Avenue 0.88 (c) 0.89 (c) OR JAMBOREE ROAD AT: Campus Drive 1.00* 1..01 FI* Birch Street MacArthur Boulevard 0.74 Rt.73 0.75 Rt.73 OR Bristol Street N. Rt.73 Rt.73 Bristol Street Rt.73 Rt.73 Eastbluff Drive North 0.91* 0.99 FI* Bison Avenue 0.87 0.90' OR Ford Road/Eastbluff Dr 0.90 0:96 FI** San Joaquin Hills Road 0.80 0.87 OR Santa Barbara Drive (d) 0.81 0.86 OR MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD AT: Campus Drive 0.89 0.89 OR Birch Street 0.69 0.71 OR Bison Avenue 0.87 (c) 0.86 (c) OR Ford Road 0.83 (c) 0.90 (c) OR San Joaquin Hills Road 0.92 (c)* 0.99 (c) FI* San Miguel Drive 0.83 (c) 0.94 (c) FI** CAMPUS DRIVE AT: Bristol Street North Rt.73 Rt.73 Bristol Street Rt.73 Rt.73 I 1 4-26 H I I I I I TABLE 4-5 (Continued) Intersection ------------ BIRCH STREET AT: Bristol Street North Bristol Street SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD AT: Santa Cruz Drive Santa Rosa Drive NEWPORT BOULEVARD AT: Hospital Road 1993 1993 Background Background(a) Plus Project(b) Rt.73 Rt.73 Rt.73 Rt.73 0.67 0.77 OK 0.84 0.89 OK (a) Consists of existing traffic, plus regional growth, plus committed projects, plus the first phase of the proposed GPA, representing developments through 1988. (b) Consists of existing traffic, plus regional growth, plus committed projects, plus the entire proposed GPA (c) Assuming Pelican Hill Road is constructed (d) Assuming Newporter North access with fourth leg of inter- section added (e) Assuming existing configuration Note: All ICU values are based on conditions prior to the opening of Route 73 Freeway extension to MacArthur Boulevard. The Route 73 Freeway extension will improve operating conditions significantly at intersections along Bristol Street and Bristol Street North, as well as the ' intersection of Jamboree Road/MacArthur Boulevard. No 1989 ICU values have been computed for these intersections, noted as Rt. 73. OK means no improvements needed for 1993. ' FI means Further Improvement needed * Means intersection would be congested in 1993 with both 1993 Background Traffic and 1993 Background Plus Project Traffic. ** Means intersection would not be congested in 1993 with 1993 Background Traffic, but would be congested with 1993 ` Background Plus Project Traffic. Rt.73 means that the Rt.73 Freeway Extension to MacArthur ' Boulevard will improve operating conditions at the intersection. 4-27 �J J Jamboree Road at: Campus Drive Eastbluff Drive North MacArthur Blvd at: San Joaquin Hills Road In 1993, with the superimposition of Phase 2 of the proposed GPA, ' the following additional intersections would be congested: Jamboree Road at: Ford Road/Eastbluff Drive MacArthur Blvd at: San Miguel Drive Improvements to alleviate the expected congestion problems at these intersections are discussed in the following paragraphs. As explained earlier, the effects of the construction of the SJHTC are not reflected in the ICU computations. Unless otherwise stated, only 70 percent of the added capacity is reflected in the ICU computations, and all references to ICU are for 1993 traffic conditions, including existing traffic, plus regional growth, plus committed projects plus the proposed GPA. fCoast Highway/Balboa Blvd./Superior Avenue The limited opportunities for improvement at this intersection were discussed for the 1989 conditions. For 19.89, the addition of a westbound right -turn lane was proposed. That improvement would meet TPO requirements. conditions, further improvement To accommodate would be necessary: 1993 traffic The proposed improvement for 1993 is the conversion of the westbound right - turn lane (recommended for 1989) to a fourth through lane. This would necessitate further widening along Coast Highway west of the intersection to accommodate the fourth through lane. (In the 1989 improvement, widening would be along Coast Highway on the east side of the intersection.) With the proposed improvement, the ICU would be reduced from 0.98 to 0.95, which would satisfy TPO requirements. Beyond the requirements of the TPO, the addition of a third eastbound through lane along Coast Highway" would be a desirable improvement at this intersection. Accordingly, as the improve- ments along Coast Highway are in the westbound direction are in the planning stage, options for improvement in the eastbound direction should be kept open. Coast Highway/Riverside Avenue In addition to the second eastbound left -turn lane recommended for 1989 at this intersection, two alternative improvements were considered for 1993. The first improvement opportunity would be the addition of a third eastbound through lane. With this improvement,. the ICU would be reduced to 0.97, and TPO require- ments would be satisfied. The second improvement opportunity would be on the north leg of the intersection. Specifically, on the southbound approach (north leg) two right -turn lanes and two left -turn lanes would be provided. It would not be possible to 4-28 accomplish this improvement and to retain the bike lanes solely by restriping, so some widening would be required on the north leg of the intersection. With the proposed improvement, the ICU would be reduced to 0.98, and TPO requirements would be satisfied ,. with this improvement, also. The addition of a third eastbound through lane would be in keeping with the development of Coast Highway as a six -lane facility between the west city limits of Newport Beach and MacArthur Boulevard. On the other hand, it may be possible to implement the improvements on the north leg of the intersection within a shorter time period. The two alternative improvements are illustrated in Figure 4-9. Coast Highway/Tustin Avenue No need for improvements was indicated at this intersection for 1989. In 1993, on the other hand, the ICU would be 0.91 and 0.93 for the Background and Background plus GPA traffic conditions, respectively. Accordingly, improvements will be needed to satis- fy TPO requirements. The addition of a third eastbound through lane would reduce the ICU very slightly (rounded to two digits after the decimal, the ICU would stay at 0.93), but not enough to meet TPO requirements. Three eastbound through lanes would be required in any event, if three eastbound through lanes are provided at Coast Highway/Riverside Avenue. Because of the close proximity of the two intersections, a third eastbound lane at the Riverside Avenue intersection would be entirely ineffective with- out a third eastbound lane at the Tustin Avenue intersection. A reduction in the ICU value for Coast Highway/Tustin Avenue would be possible by the provision of two southbound lanes. This improvement may necessitate a reduction of the sidewalk width or additional right-of-way. With the improvement illustrated in Figure 4-10, the ICU would be reduced to 0.91, whether or not the third eastbound through lane is added. ICoast Highway/Dover Drive/Bayshore Drive The difficulty of developing appropriate improvements at this ' intersection for 1989 conditions was discussed previously. The provision of a fourth westbound through lane was identified as the only possibility, and the undesirable (possibly infeasible) features of this improvement were set forth. For 1993, if the fourth westbound lane were implemented, the ICU would be reduced to 1.02, compared to 1.09 without the improvement. Coast Highway/Bayside Drive In addition to the committed improvement of adding a fourth westbound through lane discussed for the 1989 conditions, the construction of a third northbound left -turn lane is proposed for 1993. With this improvement, illustrated in Figure 4-11, ICU would be reduced to 1.04, and TPO requirements would be satisfied. 1 4-29 d ,y RECOMMENDED -► EXISTING HI"AY r _ _ r — — r " WAY r FIGURE 4-9 RECOMMENDED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS TO BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. COAST HIGHWAY AT RIVERSIDE DRIVE FOR 199a Y — - V I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I -. EXISTING ----RECOMMENDED "*N�Nx BASMACIYAN•DARNELL, INC. FIGURE 4-10 RECOMMENDED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS TO COAST HIGHWAY AT TUSTIN AVENUE FOR 1993 Coast — EXISTING ----- RECOMMENDED Nss,--N�x BASMACIYAN-DARNELL,INC. FIGURE 4-11 RECOMMENDED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS TO COAST HIGHWAY AT BAYSIDE DRIVE FOR 1993 4--1c I I I F1 I I LJ I I I 1 I I Coast Highway/Jamboree Road Existing traffic volumes at Coast Highway and Jamboree Road significantly exceed the intersection capacity, resulting in an existing ICU value greater than 1.00. Traffic at this intersection is expected to increase considerably in the future. Unlike other intersections along Coast Highway, the situation at Coast Highway and Jamboree Road is complicated by an extremely heavy eastbound left -turn demand from Coast Highway onto Jamboree Road, which conflicts with the heavy westbound through movement. Some of the heavy eastbound left -turn demand is attributable to the fact that Coast Highway and Route 73 (Bristol Street and Bristol Street North) are the only 'facilities available for travel between the western and eastern portions of Newport Beach. Thus, a considerable amount of "around -the -Bay" traffic is included in this movement. There is also a substantial southbound right -turn movement (1,570 vehicles presently during the evening peak hour), which also includes considerable "around - the -Bay" traffic. As part of the committed widening of Coast Highway, improvements would be made at this intersection (adding through and turn lanes) as illustrated in Figure 4-2, referenced previously. These improvements would meet TPO requirements for 1989, but would leave the ICU value at a high level (1.08). After the implementation of the 1989 improvements (illustrated in Figure 4-2), it would be virtually impossible to provide additional lanes at the intersection of Coast Highway/Jamboree Road. Accordingly, for 1993, in lieu of adding lanes at the intersection, two alternatives were considered: The extension of Back Bay Drive to a signalized intersection with Coast Highway, to accommodate some of the vehicles making eastbound -to -northbound left turns. This option has been evaluated in detail in prior studies, and in fact is considered to be a "committed" project. However,, as discussed previously, the improvements included in the 1989 conditions were considered to be preferable, and that set of intersection improvements were used as the "committed" conditions for 1989. The extension of Back Bay Drive could still be considered an option for 1993, however. 2. The construction of a grade separation at the intersection of Coast Highway/Jamboree Road to carry the through traffic on Coast Highway over and across Jamboree Road without having to stop at a signal. For the extension of Back Bay Drive to satisfy TPO requirements, the ICU at Coast Highway/Jamboree Road would need to be reduced from 1.15 to 1.10. This could be achieved if about 21 percent of the vehicles turning left from eastbound Coast Highway to north- bound Jamboree Road could be diverted to make a left turn at Coast Highway/Back Bay Drive Extension. To reduce the ICU at Coast Highway/Jamboree Road to 0.90, about 90 percent of the left 1 4-33 ' turns would need to be diverted. This is considered impractical, since it would necessitate the provision of three eastbound left - turn lanes at Coast Highway/ Back Bay Drive Extension and would create congested operating conditions there. Thus, the option of the Back Bay Drive Extension can at best be considered to be a measure that could bring about some improvements in operating conditions at Coast Highway/Jamboree Road, but cannot be considered a long-term solution. The construction of a grade separation at the intersection of Coast Highway/Jamboree Road is considered to be a long-term solution, and one that would achieve satisfactory operating conditions. The concept, illustrated in Figure 4-12, would consist of a grade separation structure to carry Coast Highway through traffic uninterrupted over Jamboree Road.. Thus, much of the conflicting traffic would be eliminated, and turns would be made opposing much lesser levels of traffic. From an intersec- tion capacity standpoint, ICU values can be reduced to levels below 0.90, depending on the number of lanes provided for turning movements. The lane configuration depicted in Figure 4-12 is the minimum to achieve an ICU value less than 0.90. (The ICU value for the configuration illustrated is, in fact, 0.88. This ICU value is computed on the basis of traffic signal operation like the ramp terminals of a diamond interchange.) More lanes can be provided to allow for growth and a margin of safety. Coast Highway/Goldenrod Avenue Beyond the construction of Pelican Hill Road, recommended for 1989, the only opportunity for improvement would be the construc- tion of a third eastbound through lane, which would reduce the 1993 ICU to 0.95. In view of the impracticality of this improve- ment, as discussed for 1989 conditions, it may not be possible to reduce the ICU at this intersection to an acceptable level. ' Jamboree Road/Campus Drive In addition to the improvement on the westbound approach (east leg) of the intersection recommended for 1989, an improvement on the eastbound approach (west leg) of the intersection is proposed for 1993. As illustrated in Figure 4-13, the proposed improvement is the conversion of the existing exclusive eastbound right -turn lane to a through lane, with right turns permitted, plus the conversion of the existing optional through or left -turn lane to an exclusive left -turn lane. Thus, on the eastbound approach, there would be two left -turn lanes and two through lanes; right turns would be made from the curbside through lane. With the proposed improvement, the ICU would be reduced to 0.88, representing a satisfactory operating conditions. I 4-34 0 MODEL OF Q GRADE -SEPARATION m SHOWS 3 LANES IN W EACH DIRECTION- 2 UJ WOULD PROBABLY m BE ADEQUATE Q m Q "f **"N�Nx BASMACIYAN•DARNELL, INC. COAST HIGHWAY c THRU LANES - - - - - ON_STRUCTURE FIGURE 4-12 COAST HIGHWAY/JAMBOREE ROAD GRADE SEPARATION 3-35 -►. EXISTING RECOMMENDED ""' N BASMACIYA"ARNELL, INC. FIGURE 4-13 RECOMMENDED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS TO JAMBOREE ROAD AND CAMPUS DRIVE FOR 1993 3 Jamboree Road/Eastbluff Drive North This intersection would be operating satisfactorily in 1989, but would be expected to be congested in 199.3. The improvement proposed for 1993 would be the addition of a fourth northbound through lane. With this improvement, illustrated in Figure 4-14, the ICU value would be 0.85, representing satisfactory operating conditions. Jamboree Road/Ford Road/Eastbluff Drive This intersection would be operating satisfactorily in 1989, but would be expected to be congested in 1993. The improvement proposed for 1993 would be the addition of a fourth northbound through lane, which will require additional right-of-way. With this improvement, illustrated in Figure 4-15, the ICU value would be 0.86, representing satisfactory operating conditions. MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road While the construction of Pelican Hill Road will make improve- ments at this intersection unnecessary for 1989, intersection improvements will be required for 1993. The proposed improvement is the provision of a third southbound through lane. This improvement, illustrated in Figure 4-16 would reduce the ICU value to 0.90, representing satisfactory operating conditions. MacArthur Boulevard/San Miguel Drive With the construction of Pelican Hill Road, no improvements will be necessary at this intersection for 1989, but for 1993 inter- section improvements will be required. The proposed improvement is the provision of a third southbound through lane. This improvement, illustrated in Figure 4717, would reduce the ICU value to 0.81, representing satisfactory operating conditions. Summary of 1993 Improvements In addition to the committed improvements and the 19819 improvements discussed previously, the following improvements will be required by 1993 to fulfill the stipulations of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance: o At the intersection of Coast Highway/Balboa Boulevard/ Superior Avenue, the conversion of the westbound right -turn lane (not existing, but proposed for 1989) to a fourth westbound through lane. o At the intersection of Coast Highway/Riverside Avenue, the modification of the southbound approach (north leg) to provide two right -turn lanes and two left -turn lanes. o At the intersection of Coast Highway/Tustin Avenue, the modification of the southbound approach (south leg) to provide a right -turn and a left -turn lane. 1 4-37 a N**N <BjN RECOMMENDED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS TO BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. JAM13OREE ROAD kt"EASTBLUFF DRIVE -NORTH FOR 1993 4-38 I I I 1 i 1 i 1 I 1 r Cl 1 1 1 FIGURE 4-15 RECOMMENDED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS TO JAMBOREE ROAD AT. FORD ROAD/EAST BLUFF DRIVE FOR 1,993 -39 II .I I' I I R ? t�n �I EXISTING COMMITTED ---- j RECOMMENDED \FIGURE 4-16 . RECOMM9NDED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS BASMACIYAN•DARNELL, INC. TO MACARTHUR BOULEVARD AT SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD FOR 1993 4-40 II 1- XB%s�� BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. I FIGUM 4-17 MACARTKM ®OMFVARD AT SAN WAIEL DRIVE 4-41 I ' o At the intersection of Coast Highway/Bayside Drive, the provision of a third northbound left -turn lane. ' o At the intersection of Coast Highway/Jamboree •Road, the construction of a grade separation. o At the intersection of Jamboree Road/Campus Drive, the ' modification of the eastbound approach (west leg) to provide two left -turn lanes and two through lanes, eliminating the existing exclusive eastbound right -turn lane. o At the intersection of Jamboree Road/Eastbluff Drive North, the provision of a fourth northbound through lane. ' o At the intersection of Jamboree Road/Ford Road/Eastbluff Drive, the provision of a fourth northbound through lane. ' o At the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road, the provision of a third southbound through lane. o At the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard/San Miguel Drive, the provision of a third southbound through lane. Table 4-6 is a summary of the ICU values after the proposed 1993 improvements for these intersections where improvements in addition to those in 1989 are necessary. I 1 I I I 4-42 ! m m i m m m i m m m m m m m m m m� TABLE 4-6 SUMMARY OF 1993 PM PEAK FOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTMIZATION ANALYSES WHERE ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENT IS NEEDED FOR 1993 Without Mitigation 1993 1993 Background After 1993 Intersection Background(a) Plus GPA (b) Improve<nents(c) Additional Improvements Required (f) COAST HIGHWAY AT: ' Balboa Bvd/Superior Ave 0.97 0.98 0.95 - Conversion of westbound right -turn lane (not existing, but proposed for 1989) to fourth westbound through lane Riverside Avenue 1.01 1.02 0.98 - Provision of two southbound right and two southbound left -turn lanes ' (lane added on southbound approach) Tustin Avenue 0.91 0.93 0.91 - Provision of two lanes on southbound approach, one for right turns, one for left Dover Dr/Bayshore Dr 1 1.05 (d) 1.09 (d) 1.09 (d) - No improvement identified .A w Bayside Drive 1.05 1.10 1.04 - Add third northbound left -turn lane Jamboree Road 1.10 1.15 0.88 (e) - Construct grade separation Goldenrod Avenue 1.16 1.18 1.18 - No improvement identified ' JAMBOREE ROAD AT: Cwpus Drive 1.00 1.01 0.88 - Provision of two left -turn and two through lanes on eastbound approach by converting exclusive right -turn lane to a through lane Eastbluff Drive North 0.91 0.99 0.85 - Addition of fourth northbound through lane Ford Road/Eastbluff Dr 0.90 0.96 0.86 - Addition of fourth northbound through lane MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD AT: San Joaquin Hills Rd 0.92 0.99 0.90 - Addition of third southbound through lane San Miguel Drive 0.83 0.94 0.81 - Addition of third southbound through lane i M i M M M M M M M M M s M M M M M TABLE 4-6 (Continued) Footnotes: (a) Includes 1985 existing traffic, plus regional growth, plus approved projects, plus the first phase of the proposed GPA (b) Includes 1993 Background Traffic plus remainder of proposed GPA (c) Traffic conditions consist of 1993 Background Traffic Plus GPA; improvements include connitted projects, plus additional improvements recowended for 1989, plus additional improvements recmmeuded for 1993. (d) Because the recommended 1989 improvement may not be possible to implement, 1993 ICU values are computed on the basis of existing lane configuration. No further improvements have been identified. (e) Based on minimum � turning lanes to achieve an ICU value less than 0.90. �P i+ (fl Improvements in addition to crnmittel and recammeuded for 1989. ' CHAPTER 5 THE AVOCADO AVENUE/MACARTHUR BOULEVARD COUPLET ' INTRODUCTION ' The deletion of the Avocado.Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard one-way couplet from the Master Plan of Streets and Highways of the Circulation Element of the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach is one element of proposed General Plan Amendment 85-1(B). If the proposed GPA were approved, and the one-way couplet were deleted, MacArthur Boulevard would be designated a Major Road between Coast Highway and the northern terminus of the one-way ' couplet approximately 1,600 feet north of San Joaquin Hills Road. With the proposed GPA, Avocado Avenue would be a two-way street, but would have no arterial road designation in the Master Plan. ' In this chapter, the traffic circulation and capacity implica- tions of this aspect of the proposed GPA are discussed. ' EXISTING CONDITIONS At the present time, MacArthur Boulevard, adjacent to Newport ' Center, is a partially improved four -lane roadway which inter- sects Coast Highway -at a "T" intersection. Avocado Avenue extends between San Joaquin Hills Road and Farallon Drive, parallel and to the west of MacArthur Boulevard. At Coast Highway, Avocado Avenue extends north only a short distance to provide access into and out'of an existing office development at Newport Center. South of Coast Highway, Avocado Avenue provides access to one office building and a residential area. Figure 5-1 depicts the existing configurations of Avocado Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard. The configuration with MacArthur Boulevard as a six -lane Major Road is illustrated in Figure 5-2. THE ONE-WAY COUPLET CONCEPT The Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard one-way couplet concept ' has been a part of the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways since 1974. When originally designated, the northern terminus of the couplet was at San Joaquin Hills Road, and Avocado Avenue did not extend north of San Joaquin Hills Road. After the ' incorporation of the one-way couplet into the Master Plan, preliminary investigations by City staff indicated that traffic operational problems might make it impossible to implement a one- way couplet without extending Avocado Avenue northerly of San Joaquin Hills Road. By Resolution No. 9933, dated December 8, 1980, the City Council ' approved amendments to the Circulation Element of the General Plan (GPA 79-2) which included the extension of Avocado Avenue northerly of San Joaquin Hills Road. With the approval of GPA t79-2, the Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard one-way couplet was ' 5-1 n II n n 'N BjN DASMACIYAN-DAItNELL,INC. FIGURE r1 ANMpAM FUTUM LANES AT INTERSECTIONS. (,.T*O---Way Configuration) 5-3 [I ' designated the couplet necessary. 1 I 1 1 a "Primary Couplet," meaning that each direction of would have three through lanes, plus turning lanes as Thus, as presently constituted, City of Newport Beach Master Plan of Streets and Highways provides for the extension of Avocado Avenue from its present terminus at Farallon Drive to intersect Coast Highway. It would also extend north of San Joaquin Hills Road and curve to the east to an intersection with MacArthur Boulevard, approximately 1,600 feet north of San Joaquin Hills Road. From its intersection with MacArthur Boulevard to Coast Highway, Avocado Avenue would be a one-way roadway in the south - bound direction. MacArthur Boulevard would also be converted to a one-way roadway, in the northbound direction from Coast Highway to Avocado Avenue. Figure 5-3 shows the Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard Couplet concept, including anticipated lane configurations at the critical intersections along the couplet. In this illustration, Coast Highway has been assumed to be widened to provide three through lanes in each direction, in accordance with the committed widening project described in Chapter 4. INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) ANALYSES The ICU analyses presented in Chapter 4 are based on the assump- tion of not"having the one-way couplet. Since the proposed GPA would designate MacArthur Boulevard as a two-way street, it is appropriate to base ICU computations for Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) Analysis, on the proposed configuration. To evaluate the implications of Avocado Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard as a one-way couplet, estimates have been made of traffic volumes which could be expected along each roadway within the limits of the couplet for existing traffic, and for traffic in 1989 and for 1993. This corresponds with the time periods for ICU analyses for the TPO, assuming each roadway as a two-way facility. Therefore, comparison of ICU values with and without the one-way couplet are possible. Sir, intersections are included in this comparison: MacArthur Boulevard at: Avocado Avenue at: San Joaquin Hills Road San Miguel Drive Coast Highway San Joaquin Hills Road San Miguel Drive Coast Highway Figure 5-4 shows estimated evening peak hour turning movements at each intersection and the corresponding ICU value, assuming the Couplet were developed today to serve existing levels of traffic only. Table 5-1 summarizes the results of ICU analyses, assuming existing evening peak hour traffic volume for the "two- way" and the "one-way couplet" alternatives. 1 5-4 I I F 'N B% BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. .FIGURE S-3 ANTWATED EU'11sIRE LANES AT INTERSECTIONS ,(Prw- Way Couplet) 5-5 X) L: FIGURE 5-4 \ ESTIMATED EXISTING PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC BASMACIYAN•DARNELL, INC. VOLUME TURNING MOVEMENTS VATH. AVOCA / 'MAC 'ARTHUR COUPLET a TABLE 5-1 SUMMARY OF PM PEAK HOUR ICU ANALYSIS EXISTING CONDITIONS WITH AND WITHOUT AVOCADO AVENUE/MACARTHUR BOULEVARD COUPLET Intersection ---------------------- MacArthur Boulevard at: San Joaquin Hills Rd. San Miguel Drive Coast Highway Avocado Avenue at: San Joaquin Hills Rd. San Miguel Drive Coast Highway Existing Conditions ICU --------------------------------- Without Couplet With Couplet ---------------------------- 0.83 0.57 0.82 0.47 0.85 0.40 N.A. 0.60 N.A. 0.70 0.78 0.72 ICU Based on• o Existing Traffic o Lanes per Figure 5-1 (Existing ) for "Without "Couplet" and per Figure 5-3 for "With Couplet" 5-7 ' A similar process has been used to compare ICU with and without the couplet in 1989 and in 1993. Figure 5-5 presents estimated evening peak hour traffic volumes and ICU values in 1989 for the ' two-way condition. Figure 5-6 depicts 1989 traffic volume estimates and ICU values with the couplet. Estimates of proposed GPA 85-1(B) traffic have been included in each case. Table 5-2 ' lists the 1989 ICU values for each critical intersection with and without the couplet. ' Figures 5-7 and 5-8 show 1993 traffic volume estimates, inclu- ding estimated GPA 85-1(B) traffic, and the corresponding ICU values without the couplet and with the couplet. Table 5-3 is a comparison of the ICU values for 1993 conditions with and without ' the couplet. The development of the Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard Couplet would bring about better traffic flow conditions, assuming existing levels of traffic, at each of the critical intersections along the couplet, except Coast Highway at Avocado Avenue where I conditions would worsen considerably, due to the introduction of a heavy southbound-to-eastbound left turn at the intersection. In 1989, the Couplet would significantly improve expected traffic 1 flow conditions at the critical intersections along MacArthur Boulevard, compared to conditions with Avocado and MacArthur as two-way roadways. However, the intersection of Coast Highway at Avocado Avenue, in 1989, would be expected to be more congested with the development of the Couplet. The Couplet would lower ICU values at the intersections along 1 MacArthur Boulevard to acceptable levels in 1993. However, at the intersection of Avocado Avenue and Coast Highway, ICU's would be higher with the Couplet. Therefore, the Couplet alone would not constitute sufficient mitigation in 1993, and Pelican Hill Road and/or other intersection improvements would be required. If MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado Avenue are maintained as two- way roadways, the mitigation measures presented in Chapter 4 (combination of the construction of Pelican "Hill Road plus ' intersection improvements) would improve traffic flow conditions to provide acceptable levels of service at each of the six inter- sections analyzed through 1993. I If the one-way couplet were implemented, with the construction of Pelican Hill Road, the deficiency indicated at Coast Highway/Avocado Avenue would be alleviated, since some traffic would be diverted away from the intersection. Thus, it is concluded that from the standpoint of ICU values through 1993, the two-way alternative and the one-way couplet would be about equivalent. I M xx Q FiGURt 5r8 ';OS IMA'TEE3 ' 989'Pr;AK'HOUR TRAFFIC YASMACIYAN•OARNELL, INC. V4DL ANOM JVIOVO (TS A1IEQ E iYIAC .AFi'H4JR COUPLET 5-10 ITABLE 5-2 SUMMARY OF PM PEAK HOUR ICU ANALYSIS 1989 CONDITIONS WITH AND WITHOUT' ' AVOCADO AVENUE/MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD COUPLET ------- -- -Conditions-ICU------- Intersection Without Couplet With ------------ Couplet ---------------------- --------------- MacArthur Boulevard at: San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.44. 0.76 ' San Miguel Drive 0..8.2 0.58 Coast Highway 0.84 0.54 IAvocado Avenue at: San Joaquin Hills Rd. N.A. 0.78 San Miguel Drive N.A. 0.83 Coast Highway 0.76 6.89 ICU Based on: . ' 0 1989 Traffic (Existing Traffic, Plus Regional Growth, Plus Approved Projects, Plus Phase 1 of Proposed GPA) o Lanes per Figure 5-2 for "Without Couplet" and per Figure 5-3 for "With Couplet" Note: For this comparison, Pelican Hill Road is assumed not to be constructed; in the. "Without..Couplet":'conditon.,,_MacApthur Boulevard is assumed to be a six -lane road. 1 I 1 xx C YASMACIYAN•DARNELL, INC. FIGURE 5-7 ESTIMATED 1993 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME TURNING MOVEMENTS WITHOUT'AVOCADO / MAC ARTHUR COUPLET 5-12 �A ' TABLE 5-3 SUMMARY OF PM PEAK HOUR ICU ANALYSIS 1993 CONDITIONS WITIi AND WITHOUT AVOCADO AVENUE/MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD COUPLET ' 1993 Conditions ICU ' -----------------=-------------- intersection---------- Without Couplet With Couplet --------------------------- ------------ MacArthur Boulevard at: San Joaquin Hills Rd. 1.01' 0.85 San Miguel Drive 0.84 0.61 Coast Highway 0.89 0.77 Avocado Avenue at: San Joaquin Hills Rd. N.A. 0.84 San Miguel Drive N.A. 0.85 Coast Highway 0.82 0.94 ICU Based on: 1 o 1993 Traffic (.Existing Traffic, Plus Regional Growth, Plus Approved Projects, Plus Proposed GPA) I o Lanes Per Figure 5-2 for "Without Couplet" and per Figure 5-3 for "With Couplet" Note: For this comparison, Pelican Hill Road is assumed not to be constructed; in the•"�Without.Couplet"--condition., MacArthur_ Boulevard is assumed to be a six -lane road. L_1 I 1 5-14 I I 1 F 1 I I L I I I I LONG-RANGE CONSIDERATIONS From the standpoint of accommodating long-term traffic volumes, the one-way couplet and the two-way MacArthur Boulevard alternative appear to be equivalent. Both options would provide about the same capacity, equivalent to the capacity of a Major Road, since in each case, three lanes of traffic in each direction would be accommodated. In terms of capacity, a further consideration is that, as a six - lane Major Road, MacArthur Boulevard would serve through traffic and would provide very little if any direct property access to Newport Center. On the other hand, with the one-way couplet, Avocado Avenue would serve a dual function of carrying through traffic and providing direct property access. Generally, it is considered good practice not to combine these two functions to avoid conflicts between through traffic and turning/merging vehicles. PROPERTY ACCESS The site access considerations for individual development proposals contained in the proposed GPA are discussed in detail in Chapter 6. Specifically, pertinent to the discussion of the one-way couplet is the access for sites located between Avocado Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard. Access to the undeveloped parcels of land located between Avocado Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard would be restricted with the one- way couplet. To provide safe ingress and egress to these parcels would necessitate that acceleration/deceleration lanes be provided at each access point. Special design features would need to be incorporated at these access points to reduce potential conflicts with through traffic and to prevent potential back-up on the couplet roadways. These problems are compounded because these access movements take place in the vicinity of major intersections. Vehicles would have to enter and leave the high-speed traffic from the left-hand lanes. The traditional.use of one-way couplets is in high density areas with short distances between intersections, and lower travel speeds. To maintain the high caliber capacity and operating characteristics for the couplet will most likely dictate that access to the undeveloped property located north of San Joaquin Hills Road not be permitted. The one-way couplet would also necessitate out -of -direction and circuitous travel for motorists travelling to and from the area between Avocado Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard. Also, residents of the Harbor View Hills area would incur out -of -direction travel, as discussed in Chapter 6. 5-15 ' OTHER CONSIDERATIONS From a land -use and site planning standpoint, the two-way alternative provides greater flexibility. Also, because of opportunities to realign Avocado Avenue (as a two-way street providing property access only) and the smaller size of Avocado ' Avenue, the total developable area would be larger. The design of the OCTD Transportation Center to be located between Avocado Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard north of San Nicolas Avenue would be contingent on whether the two -Way or one- way couplet option is implemented. The OCTD has developed satisfactory design for each alternative, such that the Center could be placed on the site with either the one-way couplet or the two-way configuration. One-way streets present special design problems associated with the prevention of wrong -way movements by drivers. These would need to be fully addressed as site accesses are designed. Some concern has been expressed by residents south of Coast Highway about the one-way couplet, and their perception that motorists would be enticed to try and reach the beach by continuing south on Avocado Avenue across Coast Highway. This is a potential problem that would be diminished if the couplet were not implemented. TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ALONG SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD ' In conjunction with the adoption of GPA 79-2 in 1980, a detailed traffic study was conducted to assess traffic operations along San Joaquin Hills Road from west of Avocado Avenue to east of MacArthur Boulevard. Five alternatives were evaluated, including a two-way MacArthur Boulevard configuration, one at -grade one-way couplet concept, and three one-way couplet concepts with grade separations. It was concluded that all four one-way couplet concepts would be feasible from a traffic operations standpoint and that appropriate traffic control could be provided, including traffic signal coordination, adequate left -turn pocket storage, and other matters. The details of that traffic study will not be repeated here. The overall key finding that the one-way couplet is feasible from the standpoint of traffic operations is considered to be applicable to GPA 85-1(B) conditions. If the one-way couplet were not Boulevard and Avocado Avenue were to matters need to be considered, as paragraphs. implemented, and MacArthur be two-way streets, several discussed in the following I 5-16 Long -'Term Considerations At the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road, improvements have been identified for 1989 and 1993, as discussed in Chapter 4 in conjunction with TPO considerations. Also, the role of Pelican Hill Road in reducing traffic has been discussed. Beyond that, the implementation of the San Joaquin ' Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC) would be expected to divert more traffic away from this intersection, allowing it to operate at a satisfactory level over a period of time. 1 As a long-term intersection improvement measure, the construction of a grade separation at this intersection has been discussed in the past. A grade separation would increase traffic carrying capacity. There would be some beneficial air quality impacts associated with uninterrupted traffic flow on MacArthur Boulevard and reduction in the time vehicles would be stopped at the traffic signal. There may also be negative impacts in the areas of aesthetics, property access, and potentially others. ' In summary, opportunities to accommodate long-term traffic growth would be available with the two-way alternative, but careful review of environmental impacts and engineering feasibility would be necessary. The same considerations would be applicable if the ' one-way couplet were to be expanded beyond its capacity of three lanes in each direction. The Intersection of San Joaquin Hills Road/Avocado Avenue With the two-way alternative, the question arises as to the type of intersection that can be developed at San Joaquin Hills Road/ Avocado Avenue. The options would be: 1. Full access (necessitates a median break and signalization) 2. Left -turns -in only or left -turns -out -only 3. Right -turns -in and right -turns -out -only 4. Right -turns -in only (no median break, no signalization) 5. Alternate access provided to Block 500 on San Joaquin Hills Road west of Avocado Avenue 6. No intersection The implications of these options are discussed in the following paragraphs. To provide full access at the intersection of San Joaquin Hills Road/Avocado Avenue, it would be necessary to provide a break in the median, and a traffic signal. Because of the proximity of 1 the Avocado Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard intersections along San Joaquin Hills Road, the median break would be within the area of the eastbound left -turn storage pocket on the San Joaquin Hills Road approach to MacArthur Boulevard. This would necessitate that the eastbound left -turn pocket be "staggered," meaning that it would extend beyond the intersection, to the west of Avocado Avenue. This would necessitate a special traffic signal operations program which would coordinate the traffic 1 S-17 ' signals at Avocado Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard to ensure the eastbound through and left -turn vehicles would not block the Avocado intersection. The signal operations would necessitate that the signal operation be such that the Avocado signal phase immediately follow the eastbound through and left -turn phase at MacArthur. Also, it would be necessary to provide a left -turn pocket on San Joaquin Hills Road on the westbound approach to Avocado Avenue. This will require additional widening of San Joaquin Hills Road. Based on a preliminary analysis of this type operation, it was concluded that from a coordination standpoint, a traffic signal could be installed. This opportunity, however, identified specific safety problems that would be undesirable. Specifically identified is the weaving conflict for southbound traffic on MacArthur Boulevard that would turn right at San Joaquin Hills Road and attempt to cross the three through lanes on San Joaquin Hills Road to enter.the left -turn lane for Avocado Avenue. Although this movement is small, the 300 feet ± of distance to make this movement is insufficient. Another problem that might ' be encountered would be that the vehicle attempting to make this move would stop in the free right -turn lane and wait for the opportunity to cross the through lanes. This manuever would be unexpected and could result in rear -end collisions. The final analysis of this option evaluated the expected vehicle queuing for eastbound San Joaquin Hills Road left turn storage requirements. Utilizing a 95% probability and the 1993 PM peak hour demands, it was found that the eastbound left -turn movement at MacArthur Boulevard would require storage for a total of 44 ' vehicles with 22 vehicles per lane. This vehicle queue demand would be expected at the start of each signal phase and would require two lanes extending 550 feet west of MacArthur Boulevard. To permit service to Avocado Avenue, the signal operation would have to be designed to have the left turn movements lagging at MacArthur Boulevard and provide a clearance interval between Avocado Avenue and MacArthur to permit Avocado Avenue traffic sufficient space to enter San Joaquin Hills Road and enter the eastbound left -turn lane for northbound MacArthur.Boulevard. In general, it can be concluded that a traffic signal at San Joaquin Hills Road and Avocado Avenue could be provided, however, the installation of a traffic signal should only be considered after more detailed analysis of its impacts on roadway width and solu- tions to the problems identified are adequately addressed. Therefore, definitive conclusion on this matter would be contin- gent on a detailed traffic operational study not within the scope of a GPA-level analysis. ' Left -turns -in -only or left -turns -out -only are not considered to be viable options, because a median break with a staggered left - turn pocket could not be provided without signalization. 5-18 '�1 I The next option of right -turns -in and right -turns -out -only would present operational problems associated with vehicles turning right from Avocado Avenue onto San Joaquin Hills Road destined to northbound MacArthur Boulevard. These motorists would need to weave across three lanes of eastbound traffic on San Joaquin Hills Road to reach the left -turn pocket. This would have to be accomplished within a very short distance. During peak periods ' of eastbound traffic, this would be a very difficult, often impossible, and extremely hazardous maneuver. Accordingly, right -turns -out could not be provided without a traffic signal at Avocado Avenue, coordinated with the traffic signal at MacArthur Boulevard to ensure that left -turn storage on eastbound San Joaquin Hills Road would be available for the vehicles making the right turn from Avocado Avenue and.then desiring to turn left onto MacArthur Boulevard. If a signal were to be provided and were to be coordinated with the signal at MacArthur Boulevard, the operation would have to be designed to stop eastbound left ' and through traffic on San Joaquin Hills Road to provide the clearance between intersections to permit Avocado Avenue traffic to have sufficient room to cross the through lanes and enter the eastbound left -turn lanes. This design option is better than the full access option, however, has the negative impact of requiring eastbound San Joaquin Hills Road through traffic to be stopped at the same time the eastbound left -turn to 'northbound MacArthur Boulevard traffic is stopped. This is necessary to prevent eastbound left turn traffic from staying in the through lanes and maneuvering into the left -turn lanes after they passed Avocado Avenue (bypassing the left -turn lanes). This later movement would be expected to result in the eastbound left -turn lanes at MacArthur Boulevard to fill, resulting in no room for Avocado traffic to enter the left -turn lanes. The right -turn -in only option is a continuation of the existing Avocado Avenue operation. This alternative can be continued as it does not present any specific operational and/or safety concerns. The alternate access to Block 500 option has been identified for the purpose of maintaining the existing right -in -only access at Avocado Avenue and to provide improved access to/from Block 500 development. Presently, a right -in -out access is provided. The proposed alternative was analyzed from the standpoint of a full access with a traffic signal and for left -in and right -in -out without a traffic signal. Each design alternative was found to be feasible, however, would necessitate that improvements to the existing access be constructed to ensure safety and satisfactory intersection geometries. Specifically, the access redesign would require that the existing access be widened by removing the landscaped median and/or widening on each side of the access. If the full access option and signal is selected, two lanes exiting and one lane in would be required. Should the left -in access and no signal option be selected, one lane exiting and two lanes entering would be needed. 11 5-19 1 With the "no intersection" option, the existing right -turn -in - only access would be discontinued. While there would be no operational problems associated with this option, there would be no reason to do so since it has already been stated that the right turns from San Joaquin Hills Road onto Avocado Avenue do not present a problem. ' In summary, the options actually available appear to be right -in and right -out access with signalization, right -turn -in -only similar to what is provided now, and the alternate access to ' Block 500 from San Joaquin Hills Road. The operational and safety aspects of the full access alternative tend to permit the conclusion that it should not be considered further. Each of the additional options are considered acceptable and will -necessitate more detailed operational analysis and coordination with Caltrans to determine acceptability of any solution. If right -turn -in - only access were to be provided, the northbound travel lane on Avocado Avenue immediately south of San Joaquin Hills Road would be for property access only. An appropriate design, which would not jeopardize safety, would need to be developed to ensure that ' northbound motorists cannot access San Joaquin Hills Road. SUMMARY The one-way couplet and the two-way configuration option each has advantages and disadvantages compared to the other. The decision to select one over the other would involve a number of trade-offs and a great deal of discussion. 11 Ll I it would appear that, all, things considered, the two-way configuration would offer more advantages compared to the one-way couplet. I 5-20 I ' CHAPTER 6 INTERNAL CIRCULATION AND SITE ACCESS ' INTRODUCTION The preceding chapters of this report have addressed the existing traffic conditions and the forecasted future traffic conditions on the roadways surrounding the proposed sites included in GPA ' 85-1(B). Estimates have been made of average daily traffic and evening peak hour traffic to/from each of the eleven project sites (see Chapter 3). The estimated traffic has been distributed and assigned to the surrounding roadways. The estimated trip distribution characteristics for each site are included for reference in the Appendix to this report. Finally, ' project impacts on the surrounding roadways have been assessed on an average daily and evening peak hour basis. Where necessary, improvements to the circulation system within the City have been identified. ' The purpose of this chapter is to identify the anticipated impacts of the individual projects which comprise GPA 85-1(B), on the roadways and access locations within Newport Center, and on the streets immediately adjacent to the sites. Opportunities and deficiencies of circulation and access within Newport Center have been discussed in conjunction with each proposed project. Improvements to the circulation system have been identified and a timeframe for the needed improvements has been identified. THu CIRCULATION SYSTEM WITHIN NEWPORT CENTER As described previously in this report, Newport Center Drive (East and West) provides the backbone for circulation within Newport Center. It connects to the surrounding arterial system via Santa Cruz Drive, Santa Rosa Drive, San Miguel Avenue, Avo- cado Avenue, Newport Center Drive, and Santa Barbara Avenue. Traffic signals are located at the intersection of each of these connections with the arterial system. In its existing configuration, Newport Center Drive has three lanes in each direction with a raised (and landscaped) median. Internally, traffic signals control the following intersections along Newport Center Drive (East and West): Santa Rosa Drive Newport Center Drive Santa Barbara Drive Granville Drive/Farallon Drive Coast Highway The intersections of Newport Center Drive East with San Miguel Avenue and Newport Center Drive West with Santa Cruz Avenue are controlled by four-way stop signs. However, construction to install a traffic signal at Newport Center Drive and Santa Cruz is underway and is expected to be completed soon. 1 6-1 r Several other roadways are significant to circulation within Newport Center. At the present time, Avocado Avenue extends between San Joaquin Hills Road and Farallon Drive, parallel to and west of MacArthur Boulevard. Between San Joaquin Hills Road and San Nicolas Drive, Avocado is a one-way roadway in the southbound direction. South of San Nicolas Drive to Farallon, Avocado is a two-way roadway with one lane in each direction. The intersection of Avocado Avenue at San Miguel Drive is controlled by stop signs on Avocado Avenue. In accordance with the adopted City of Newport Beach Circulation Element, Avocado Avenue would be extended to connect with the segment north of Coast Highway and would operate, in conjunction ith MacArthur Boulevard, as a one-way couplet. The implications df the Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard Couplet have been iscussed previously. Farallon Drive is in an approximate east -west orientation and connects Newport Center Drive and Avocado Avenue. It presently provides access to Gateway Plaza and Design Plaza. Its intersec- tion with Newport Center Drive (across from Granville Drive) is controlled by a traffic signal. Anacapa Drive extends between Newport Center Drive East and Farallon Drive and provides access to Design Plaza, Gateway Plaza and Block 100. San Clemente Drive lies between Santa Barbara Drive and Santa Cruz Drive. Its intersection with Santa Barbara Drive is controlled by a traffic signal. San Nicolas Drive connects Newport Center Drive East and Avocado Avenue between Blocks 400 and 500. It also extends west of Newport Center Drive as a driveway, to provide access to/from Fashion Island. PROPOSED PROJECT SITES WITHIN NEWPORT CENTER Following is a discussion of the anticipated vehicular access and circulation for each of the eleven projects which comprise GPA 85-1(B). The impacts of each project on the roadways within Newport Center are discussed, and where necessary, improvements ' to mitigate project impacts are recommended. The discussion is based on a General Plan level of analysis. It is anticipated that, as the planning process proceeds and detailed site plans become available for each project, additional site -specific analysis would be necessary. Fashion Island The proposed project for Fashion Island would add approximately 43,200 square 151,200 square feet of general retail space and feet of restaurant space, based on estimates of gross square footage. When completed, the project would be expected to add 1 6-2 approximately 7,800 average daily trip ends. Approximately 660 ' trips would be expected to occur during the evening peak hour (367 inbound and 289 outbound). In conjunction with the proposed development, modifications to the access to/from Fashion Island ' are also proposed. At the present time, vehicular access to/from Fashion Island is ' provided at eleven locations along Newport Center Drive. At nine of these locations, full access (left and right turns)- is provided. Three of these locations (Santa Rosa Avenue, Santa Barbara Avenue and Newport Center Drive) are controlled by ' traffic signals. The access location along Newport Center Drive at Santa Cruz ' Drive permits full access to/from Fashion Island and is controlled by four-way stop signs. However, construction to signalize this intersection is underway and will be completed in the near future. Full access is also provided along Newport Center Drive at San Miguel Avenue, also controlled by four-way stop signs. At the present time, the OCTD bus passenger waiting facility is located along the San Miguel access leg into Fashion Island. Breaks in the median along Newport Center Drive permit full access to/from Fashion Island at Center Drive, Anacapa Drive, San Nicolas Drive and east of the Newport Turtle. The 1 minor streets at each of these locations are controlled by stop signs. ' Right -turns -only out of Fashion Island onto Newport Center Drive are possible west of Santa Cruz Drive. Right -turn -only in and out of Fashion Island is permitted onto Newport Center Drive east of Santa Cruz Drive. Figure 6-1 shows the proposed circulation system within Fashion Island. The proposed modifications to the access and circulation for Fashion Island would eliminate the right -turn in/out drive onto Newport Center Drive east of Santa Cruz Drive and would close the full access locations to Fashion island along Newport Center Drive at Center Drive and at San Nicolas Drive. At Center Drive and at San Nicolas Drive, the Fashion Island vehicular access roads would be converted to provide enhanced pedestrian access to the center. At Center Drive a twelve foot wide walkway from Newport Center Drive to the mall entrance near Neiman Marcus would be developed. At San Nicolas Drive, a ten foot wide walk- way would extend from Newport Center Drive to the mall, near Atrium Court. Traffic signals to accommodate pedestrian crossings at Center Drive and at San Nicolas might be needed, depending on the amount of pedestrian movements. Pedestrian circulation between Fashion Island and Block 800 is discussed subsequently in conjunction with Block 800. The estimated additional tripmaking and the modifications to the circulation system within Fashion Island would be expected to impact traffic flow throughout Fashion Island, to some degree. However, the most significant increases in traffic are expected to occur at the access points at Santa Rosa Drive, San Miguel 1 6-3 : I I I I I (S%f/nN/1/idil.7/fHH1%%//,:41 r•-•.• '$i:.iHh?f//iib/HN/NNHHlrlA — "I, B% BASMACIYAN•DARNELL, INC. Ir{ + iff i FIGURE 61-1 PROPOSED CIRCULATION SYSTEM •WITHIN FASHION ISLAND 6-4 i r r r r r r i r r r 11 i r Drive and Santa Cruz Drive. These three roadways, along with Santa Barbara Drive and Newport Center Drive, provide primary access to/from Fashion Island and this would be expected to continue in the future. With the proposed closure of the San Nicolas Drive access, it is anticipated that a significant amount of the traffic presently using this access would divert to San Miguel Drive, and a lesser amount would use Santa Rosa Drive. The elimination of the limited access between Santa Cruz Drive and Santa Rosa Drive would be expected to increase traffic pri- marily at Santa Cruz Drive and at Santa Rosa Drive, and to a minor degree at Santa Barbara Drive. The Santa Rosa Drive and Santa Barbara Drive accesses to Fashion Island, in their existing configura-tions, would adequately accom- modate the estimated increase in traffic resulting from the proposed project. Each roadway provides two lanes in each direc- tion and a signalized intersection with Newport Center Drive. With the additional development within Fashion Island, and accom- panying development elsewhere in Newport Center and in particular in Block 600 and Block 800, traffic at the intersection of Santa Cruz Drive at Newport Center Drive.would be expected to increase substantially with the signalization under construction, and the provision of two lanes in each direction on the Fashion Island access leg is expected to adequately accommodate increased traffic demand to/from the center. Likewise, the intersection of Newport Center Drive at San Miguel would be expected to require signalization to accommodate increased traffic resulting from the proposed additional development in Fashion Island and from the closure of the access at San Nicolas Drive. Within Fashion Island, the San Miguel access road should provide two lanes in each direction to accommodate expected travel demand within the center as well as bus traffic at the passenger waiting facility located on the access road. It is expected that even after the construction of the OCTD transit terminal at Newport Center, buses would still use this access route and the existing bus stop for the convenience of the passengers. Significant numbers of passengers get on and off OCTD busses at this stop, as discussed in Chapter 2. The south access to Fashion Island, from Newport Center Drive, would be adequate to accommodate future traffic. The access points at Anacapa Drive and east of the Newport Turtle are expected to experience only minor increases in traffic as a result of the proposed project and would continue to function adequately as secondary access points. 6-5 I 11 I I I 1 1 Block 600 Block 600 is bounded by San Joaquin Hills Road on the north, Newport Center Drive on the south, Santa Cruz Drive on the west and Santa Rosa Drive on the east.• Full access to/from Block 600 is currently provided on Santa Cruz Drive opposite San Clemente Drive, on Santa Rosa Drive directly across from the access to Block 500, and on San Joaquin Hills Road between Santa Cruz Drive and Santa Rosa Drive. Full access is also provided on Newport Center Drive between Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa Drives. Existing development within Block 600 consists of approximately 800,000 square feet of office space. A 325-room hotel (the Four Seasons) is presently under construction and due for completion in Summer 1986. Included in GPA 85-1(B) is a proposal to develop approximately 300,000 additional square feet of office space within Block 600. The proposed project is estimated to generate approximately 3,900 average daily trip ends, of which approximately 570 would occur during the evening peak hour. Estimated completion of the project is 1988. The proposed additional development in Block 600 would be expected to have the most signifcant effects on traffic condi- tions at the intersections of Santa Cruz Drive at San Clemente Drive, Santa Cruz Drive at San Joaquin Hills Road and at San Joaquin Hills Road and the Block 600 access location. The intersection of San Joaquin Hills Road and Santa Cruz Drive is presently a signalized intersection. It has been identified by the City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineer as a critical intersection which might be impacted by the proposed GPA 85-1(B) projects. As discussed previously in the section of Traffic Phasing Ordinance Considerations, Intersection Capacity Utiliza- tion analyses have been performed for the intersection of San Joaquin Hills Road and Santa Cruz Drive for estimated 1989 conditions and 1993 conditions. Based on these analyses, it is expected that this intersection, in its existing configuration, will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service in 1989, with the additional development proposed for Block 600. The intersection of Santa Cruz Drive at San Clemente Drive is not presently controlled by a traffic signal. With the completion of the Four Seasons Hotel it would be expected that traffic volume at this intersection would increase significantly. The additional development proposed in GPA 85-1(B) for Block 600 will further increase traffic at this intersection. However, even with the completion of development, as proposed, in Block 600, traffic volumes at this intersection are not anticipated to be sufficient to warrant the installation of a traffic signal by 1989. M. I I I 1 i I Traffic' on the Block 600 access to San Joaquin Hills Road would be expected to increase as a result of the proposed development. In Spring 1984, this access served approximately 3,400 vehicles per day. As traffic volumes along San Joaquin Hills Road, Santa Rosa Drive and Santa Cruz increase, and as development within Newport Center continues, this access road could become an impor- tant alternative to Santa Rosa Drive or Santa Cruz Drive for traffic into and out of Block 600. Traffic volume forecasts at this location, including the additional development in Block 600, do not indicate the need for a traffic signal at this location. However, traffic volumes at this location should be monitored on an ongoing basis and a detailed analysis performed to determine the feasibility of signal coordination along San Joaquin Hills Road should a traffic signal be warranted at this location. The Block 600 access onto Santa Rosa Drive and onto Newport Center Drive are expected to experience minor increases in traf- fic as a result of the proposed additional development. The limited distance along Santa Rosa Drive between San Joaquin Hills Road and the Block 600 access, and the Block 600 access and Newport Center Drive would make signalization of the Block 600 access on Santa Rosa Drive difficult, if not impossible. Efforts should be made through site circulation design to encourage the use of alternative access locations, such as Santa Cruz Drive, for future development within Block 600. Likewise, Center Drive would be expected to experience only minor increases in traffic as a result of the proposed development. The Fashion Island access opposite Center Drive is to be closed to vehicular traffic and enhanced pedestrian access to/from Fashion Island is to be provided in its stead. Within Block 600, Center Drive would continue to provide left and right turns onto and off of Newport Center Drive. Civic Plaza Expansion The proposed expansion of Civic Plaza would add approximately 50,000 square feet of office/art museum space in the area between Jamboree Road, San Joaquin Hills Road, Santa Cruz Drive, Newport Center Drive and Santa Barbara Drive. It is estimated to gen- erate approximately 11300 trip ends per day. It is expected to have only' a minor impact on evening peak hour traffic conditions in the area with an estimated 43 vehicles outbound and 56 vehicles inbound. The traffic to/from the proposed Civic Plaza expansion is expected to travel along Santa Barbara Drive or Santa Cruz Drive to San Clemente Drive. Except for on -site circulation provisions, no additional improvements to the circu- lation system would be expected to accommodate traffic to/from the Civic Plaza expansion. Block 800 Block 800 is the area located within San Clemente Drive, Newport Center Drive, Santa Barbara Drive and Santa Cruz Drive. The proposal included in GPA 85-1(B) would permit the development of 6-7 I I approximately 440,000 square feet of additional office space within this area. Primary access to Block 800 is provided via San Clemente Drive. Access is also provided off Newport Center Drive, between Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz Drives. The proposed project within Block 800 is estimated to generate approximately 5,720 average daily trip ends, of which approxi- mately 840 would be expected to occur during the evening peak hour. The additional traffic to/from Block 800 is expected to have a significant impact on the intersections of Santa Barbara Drive at San Clemente Drive and at Jamboree Road .and on the intersections of Santa Cruz Drive at San Clemente Drive and at San Joaquin Hills Road. The impacts of estimated traffic to/from Newport Center and its peripheral sites on critical intersections throughout the City have been addressed in previous sections of this report. It has been noted that the intersection of Jamboree Road at Santa Barbara Drive will operate at unacceptable levels with the esti- mated additional traffic from proposed GPA 85-1(B) projects, and mitigation measures have been recommended. The intersection of San Joaquin Hills Road at Santa Cruz Drive has sufficient capacity to accommodate expected increases in traffic as a result of the proposed GPA 85-1(B). projects. The intersection of Santa Barbara Drive at San Clemente Drive is presently a signalized intersection. Traffic volume increases ' resulting from the additional development in B1ock,800 are not expected to exceed the capacity of this intersection. The intersection of Santa Cruz Drive at San Clemente Drive is an unsignalized intersection. As discussed previously, this intersection would be expected to operate satisfactorily in 1989 without the installation of a traffic signal. However, in 1993, it is anticipated that traffic volumes at this intersection would 'increase to levels which might warrant the installation of a traffic signal. ' Within Block 800, a road extends between San Clemente Drive and Newport Center Drive. Referred to as Santa Maria Drive, this •roadway provides Block 800 full access to/from Newport Center Drive. Because of its proximity to San Clemente Drive, (primary access is proposed via San Clemente Drive), traffic to/from the proposed additional Block 800 development would be expected to ' have only minor impacts on the Santa Maria Drive access along Newport Center Drive. However, site design techniques should encourage the use of Santa Maria Drive by future traffic to/from Block 800. ' 6-8 1 I I I 1 I I At the present time, there is a significant traffic between Block 800 and Fashion Island. the pedestrians cross Newport Center Drive at intersection at Santa Maria Drive. amount of pedestrian For the most part, the non -signalized The proposed modifications to the Fashion Island access and circulation system to provide pedestrian walkways between Newport Center Drive and the mall would encourage the already -significant pedestrian activity between Blocks 500 and 600, and Fashion Island. Similar facilities should be developed in the vicinity of Block 800. Pedestrian activity between Block 800 and Fashion Island should be encouraged as a means of reducing vehicular traffic impacts of the proposed developments within Newport Center. However, pedestrians should be encouraged to cross Newport Center Drive at the signalized (or soon to be signalized) intersections at Santa Barbara Drive and Santa Cruz Drive, instead of the non -signalized intersection at Santa Maria. The provision of adequately wide and attractive sidewalks along the Santa Cruz Drive and Santa Barbara Drive access roads, similar to the proposed walkways at Center Drive and San Nicolas Drive should be considered as a means of encouraging pedestrian traffic. PCH/Jamboree The parcel of land located in the northeast quadrant of the Coast Highway/Jamboree Road intersection is the proposed site for 130 residential apartment units. The proposed development is esti- mated to generate approximately 850 average daily trip ends. Approximately 80 trips would occur during the evening. peak hour. Access to/from the residential development is to be via an internal roadway parallel to Coast Highway which would intersect Jamboree Road at Back Bay Drive to the west, and Clubhouse Drive just north of Coast Highway to the east. It is anticipated that the internal roadway would jointly serve the proposed residential development, as well as the approved Villa Point residential development located immediately north of the proposed site. The intersection of Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive would provide primary access to the residential development east of Jamboree Road, and also to the proposed commercial development on the west side of Jamboree Road, discussed subsequently. It is anticipated that this intersection would be signalized in conjunction with the development of the Villa Point Apartments. Traffic volume along Jamboree Road north of Coast Highway is presently approaching 40,000 vehicles per day. The posted speed limit of 50 miles per hour along Jamboree Road provides the opportunity for moderately high speed travel, traffic conditions permitting. With the estimated additional traffic to/from proposed developments on Back Bay Drive at Jamboree Road, the signalization of the intersection of Jamboree Road at Back Bay Drive would facilitate safe and efficient traffic operations at this location. r-, J ' The site would have secondary access via an internal roadway, through Villa Point, to Clubhouse Drive. A further consideration would be an extension of Clubhouse Drive to intersect with Granville Drive, thus achieving access to Newport Center Drive. Such secondary access is considered desirable, but not absolutely necessary for this project. ' Corporate Plaza West The Corporate Plaza West site is located west of Newport Center ' .Drive, north of Coast Highway. Approximately 8,400 square feet of office development is presently approved within Corporate Plaza West. The proposed project is the development of an ' additional 100,000 square feet of office space. The proposed additional development would generate approximately 1,300 average daily trip ends, with approximately 190 expected to occur during the evening peak hour. ' Primary access to/from Corporate Plaza West would be along Newport Center Drive at Granville Drive/Farallon Drive. As part ' of the Coast Highway widening project, it might be possible to develop secondary access along Coast Highway to provide for right turns only into and out of the project. Also, the extension of Clubhouse Drive to Newport Center Drive (discussed previously) might offer additional opportunities for secondary access for this site. ' It is expected that, with minor modifications, the intersection of Newport Center Drive at Granville Drive would accommodate the estimated additional traffic to/from the proposed Corporate Plaza ' West project. The west leg of the intersection should be as nearly perpendicular to Newport Center Drive as possible. The Corporate Plaza West access roadway should be designed to facili- tate this configuration. It may be necessary to modify the existing alignment of Granville Drive to intersect the access road, thereby eliminating any possiblity of a five -legged inter- section at Newport Center Drive. The possible extension of ' Clubhouse Drive would also be a consideration in how internal circulation is designed. ' Newport Village The GPA 85-1(B) project proposes the addition of approximately 345,000 square feet of office space and 1,250 square feet of retail space within the area known as Newport Village. The resulting development potential within Newport Village, if the proposed additional development is approved would be 345,000 ' square feet of office space, 45,000 square feet of general retail space and 15,000 square feet of restaurant space. The Newport Village site is located between MacArthur Boulevard 'and the future extension of Avocado Avenue, between San Miguel Road and Coast Highway. Because of its location, issues related to the Avocado Avenue/ MacArthur Boulevard Couplet are ' particularly pertinent to this project. As discussed in the 1 6-10 ' previous section, GPA 85-1(B) proposes to delete the Couplet from the City's Circulation Element, maintaining each facility as a two-way roadway instead. If Avocado Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard were to be two-way facilities, primary access to/from Newport Village would be via Avocado Avenue. To accommodate expected traffic to/from the ' proposed project and to provide adequate access to the proposed commercial uses, it would be necessary to construct the segment of Avocado Avenue between Farallon Drive and Coast Highway. A main entrance could be provided along Avocado Avenue at Farallon Drive. Additional full access locations could be developed along Avocado Avenue south of Farallon. C 11 FI Access to/from Newport Village along MacArthur Boulevard, if any, should be restricted to right -turn in and out only. Although the precise location of such secondary access locations would be the subject of detailed analyses at the time of site design, oppor- tunities may exist south of Harbor View Drive and south of San Miguel Drive. Also, the provision of adequate taper areas for deceleration and acceleration would be an important consideration in the design of MacArthur Boulevard. The conversion of Avocado Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard to one- way roadways (Avocado Avenue in the southbound direction', MacArthur Boulevard in the northbound direction) would significantly impact access and circulation for the proposed Newport Village and Avocado/MacArthur (discussed 'subsequently). projects. The traditional use of one-way couplets has been in high density areas with short distances between intersections and low travel speeds. In the vicinity of the proposed Newport Village and Avocado/MacArthur projects, vehicles would be travelling at high rates of speed. To provide safe ingress and egress to these parcels, it would be necessary to provide accel- eration/deceleration lanes at each access location. Access points would need to be located and designed to minimize conflict with the major intersections along Avocado and MacArthur at Coast Highway, San Miguel Drive and San Joaquin Hills Road. With the development of the proposed Newport Village and Avocado/MacArthur projects, the intersection of Avocado Avenue and San Miguel Drive would most likely require signalization. This would be anticipated whether Avocado Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard were one-way roadways or two-way. Depending upon the configuration of Avocado Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard, the intersection of Avocado Avenue and Farallon Drive may also warrant signalization. As development within Newport Center continues, and Avocado Avenue is extended to connect with the segment at Coast Highway, the intersection of Avocado Avenue/Farallon Drive should be monitored by the City to ascertain traffic control needs. As the southbound leg of a one-way couplet, the missing segment of Avocado Avenue has been envisioned to be generally parallel to MacArthur Boulevard and to be located along virtually a straight L 6-11 ' line connecting the existing segments of Avocado Avenue. If Avocado Avenue were to be a two-way street (along with MacArthur Boulevard) with the primary function of serving abutting ' property, a virtual straight-line alignment would not be neces- sary. The alignment could be curved westward in accordance with internal land planning needs and still connect the two existing segments of Avocado Avenue. As planning for the sites and the ' internal circulation system progresses, this matter should be addressed. Avocado/MacArthur The area bounded by Avocado Avenue on the west, MacArthur ' Boulevard on the east, San Joaquin Hills Road on the north and San Miguel Drive on the south in presently undeveloped. The northerly portion of this area, between San Joaquin Hills Road and San Nicolas Drive, is the proposed site of the OCTD Transportation Center. The remaining area south of San Nicolas Drive to San Miguel Drive is included in GPA 85-1(B) with proposed development to consist of 44,000 square feet of office ' space. This development would be expected to generate approximately 572 average daily trip ends (approximately 84 to occur during the evening peak hour). ' The impacts of traffic to/from the proposed development on the surrounding roadways would be minor. Access to/from the proposed development would be via Avocado Avenue. Assuming that Avocado ' Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard were to operate as two-way roadways, it is not expected that the proposed project would have direct access to MacArthur Boulevard. If Avocado Avenue and ' MacArthur Boulevard were to operate as a one-way couplet, the site itself and access to/from the proposed Avocado/MacArthur project would be severely impacted. . The actual design of the couplet would determine the amount of useable land that would remain and how that portion can be served. ' PROPOSED PROJECT SITES PERIPHERAL TO NEWPORT CENTER Big Canyon/MacArthur ' The proposed Big Canyon/MacArthur project consists of 80 residential apartment units to be developed on the northwest corner of the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin ' Hills Road. The project is estimated to generate 520 average daily trip ends. Approximately 50 trips would be expected to occur during the evening peak hour. ' Access to the Big Canyon/ MacArthur site is constrained by exis- ting development and topography. The difference in elevation ' between the project site and MacArthur Boulevard adjacent to the project would preclude the development of access locations along MacArthur Boulevard. 'Along the southern project boundary, San Joaquin Hills Road is constructed as a six -lane roadway with a ' raised median and two eastbound left turn lanes that extend 1 6-12 almost the length of the project frontage. The provision of more than right -turn -only in/out access along San Joaquin Hills Road is virtually impossible, because there would be significant adverse impacts on traffic flow conditions at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road. Access with right -turns -in and out only could be provided along San Joaquin Hills Road at the extreme southwest corner of the project site, ' depending on the ultimate configuration of the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road. ' It might be possible to provide access to Big Canyon/MacArthur via Big Canyon Drive to Pine Valley Lane, through the existing residential development. This option should be explored in detail. ' Bayview Landing C' 1 u 1 Bayview Landing is proposed to be a 60,000 square foot retail/restaurant development located at the northwest corner of Coast Highway and Jamboree Road. Estimated tripmaking to/from Bayview Land would-be approximately 4,500 trips per day, of which approximately 450 trips would occur during the evening peak hour. Although the project site has frontage along Jamboree Road and along Coast Highway, topography and traffic considerations limit opportunities for access along these roadways. Full access to the proposed Bayview Landing project would be provided via Back Bay Drive. As discussed in conjunction with the proposed PCH/ Jamboree development, the intersection of Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive will be signalized. At the time PCH/Jamboree and Bayview Landing develop, the traffic signal will provide safe and efficient traffic flow at this intersection. Modifications to the lane configuration at Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive would also be necessary to accommodate projected travel demand at this intersection. Specifically, left -turn lanes eastbound and west- bound on Back Bay Drive should be provided, as well as a south - bound left -turn lane from Jamboree Road onto Back Bay Drive. (A left -turn lane presently exists on the northbound approach.) The access into and out of the Bayview Landing site should be located a sufficient distance west of Jamboree Road to permit adequate vehicle storage along Back Bay Drive at its intersection with Jamboree Road. There may also be opportunities to provide limited secondary access to Bayview Landing along Coast Highway in the vicinity of Promontory Drive. However, the design of such an access should take into consideration two important factors. The first is the difference in elevation between Coast Highway and the project site, with the project site located considerably lower than Coast Highway, near its westerly end along Coast Highway. The second factor concerns improvements to the intersection of Coast Highway at Jamboree Road presently under consideration by the City. These improvements could range from the widening of Coast Highway and/or Jamboree Road adjacent to Bayview Landing, to the construction of a grade separated intersection. While these 6-13 I IJI �I 1 �I 1 factors need not preclude the development of a right -turns -only access along Coast Highway, they must be taken into consideration in the design of the site. Newporter North Newporter North is a proposed residential development included in GPA 85-1(B). It is to consist of 490 apartment units located along Jamboree Road south of San Joaquin Bills Road. The proposed project is estimated to generate approximately 3,185 average daily trip ends. An estimated 394 trips would occur during the evening peak hour. The primary entrance and exit for Newporter North is proposed along Jamboree Road, aligned with Santa Barbara Drive. Jamboree Road/Santa Barbara Drive is presently a three-legged intersection controlled by a traffic signal. Modifications to this intersection would be necessary to accommodate the fourth -leg access to Newporter North. In its existing configuration, Jamboree Road at Santa -Barbara Drive has three through lanes and a right -turn lane in the northbound direction and two through lanes and two left -turn lanes in the southbound direction. As discussed previously in the chapter on Traffic Phasing Ordinance Considerations, the addition of a third southbound through lane would be needed in 1989 to accommodate expected traffic demand including traffic to/from the GPA 85-1(B) projects. It would also be necessary to add a northbound left turn lane to permit entrance to Newporter North from northbound Jamboree Road without disrupting traffic flow. While not needed for capacity purposes, a southbound right -turn lane may be needed as a deceleration lane. On Santa Barbara Drive at Jamboree Road, the westbound leg currently provides one left -turn lane, one optional left- or right -turn lane, and two right -turn lanes. To accommodate travel between Newporter North and Newport Center, it would be necessary .to restripe the westbound leg to provide two left turn lanes one optional right-turn/through lane and one right -turn -only lane. The new eastbound leg, entering and leaving Newporter North should be designed to provide two lanes inbound to the proposed project, and a left turn lane and optional right-turn/through lane outbound from the project. Figure 4-8, in Chapter 4 on TPO Considerations shows the existing and proposed configurations for the intersection of Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara Drive. Secondary access to/from the proposed Newporter North project would be along San Joaquin Hills Road. It should be located a sufficient distance west of the intersection of San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road that it would not interfere with the operation of that intersection. A limited access (right -turn - only in/out) could be provided along Jamboree Road south of San Joaquin Hills Road. 6-14 ' INCREASED DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE For three of the proposed sites included in GPA 85-1(B), develop- ment alternatives of greater intensity than the proposed projects have been evaluated. The three sites are Block 600, Fashion Island and Newporter North. Table 6-1 presents the development analyzed for each site in the increased development alternative ' compared to the proposed project. Tripmaking to/from each site included in the increased development alternative has been estimated and compared to the tripmaking for each site as ' proposed in GPA 85-1(B). Table 6-2 summarizes the results of this comparison. ' Following is a brief discussion of the estimated impacts of the additional tripmaking which would be expected with increased development on each site, as well as the cumulative effects of increased development on all three of the sites. ' Block 600 The increased development alternative for Block 600 would generate an estimated 5,850 average daily trip ends in addition to existing development at Block. 600. Approximately 225 trips ' would be expected to travel to the Block 600 project during the evening peak hour, and approximately 630 trips would exit the project during the evening peak hour for a total of 855 peak hourly trips. I n F Compared to the estimated tripmaking for the proposed project in Block 600, the increased development alternative is estimated to generate approximately 1,950 more trips on an average daily basis. The increased levels of development would generate approximately 285 more evening peak hour trips than the proposed project. The additional tripmaking estimated to occur with the increased development alternative in Block 600 would be expected to have minor impact throughout the area. However, more significant impacts would be expected at the intersections in the immediate vicinity of Block 600. In particular, the intersections of San Joaquin Hills Road at Jamboree Road, Santa Cruz Drive, Santa Rosa Drive and MacArthur Boulevard would be expected to be effected by increased development in Block 600. At the intersections of San Joaquin Hills Road at Jamboree Road, and Santa Cruz Drive at MacArthur Boulevard, although the additional traffic expected with increased development in Block 600 would increase the ICU ratios, it would not be expected to change the estimated levels of service. At the intersection of San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road, improvements recommen- ded to accommodate estimated traffic with GPA 85-1(B) project development, would provide adequate capacity to accommodate the increased development alternative in Block 600. San Joaquin Hills Road at Santa Cruz Drive operates well within capacity at the present time, and is expected to continue to do so, even with C 6-15 TABLE 6-1 COMPARISON OF PROPOSED GPA 85-1(B) DEVELOPMENT AND THE INCREASED DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO Site Block 600 Newporter North Fashion Island Proposed GPA 85-1(B) Development 300,000 sq. ft. Office 490 apartments 151,260 sq. ft Retail 43,200 sq. ft. Res- taurant sq. ft. = square feet 6-16 Increased Development Alternative 450,000 sq. ft. Office 635 apartments 251,000 sq. ft. Retail 43,200 sq. ft. Res- taurant TABLE 6-2 COMPARISON OF DAILY TRIPMAKING FOR NEWPORT CENTER AND PERIPHERAL SITES Total With Existing Total With Total With Increased Development Adopted Proposed Development Location (a) General Plan GPA'85-1(B) ----------------------- Alternative ----------- a ------------------------- NEWPORT CENTER: Block 0 - Corp. Plaza 3,430 4,750 4,750 4,750 Block 100 - Gateway Plaza 2,150 2,150 2,150 2,150 Block 200 - Design Plaza 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950 Block 300 3,670 4,640 4,640 4,640 Block 400 - Medical Plaza 11,050 15,200 15,200 15,200 Block 500 3,900 4,210 4,210 4,210 Block 600 10,400 15,200 19,150 21,100 Block 700 - Civic Plaza 7,480 9,940 8,560 8,560 Block 800 - Pacific Mut. 6,930 9,740 13,270 13,270 Block 900 7,330 9,380 9,380 9,380 Newport Village/ 0 4,730 8,020 8,020 Avocado -MacArthur Corporate Plaza West 0 300 1,600 1,600 PCH-Jamboree 0 1,310 2,150 2,150 Fashion Island 35,260 35,260 43,030 56,030 ------ Subtotal: ------ 93,550 ------- 118,760 ------- 138,060 143,010 PERIPHERAL SITES: Newporter North 0 2,330 3,180 4,123 Big Canyon East 0 0 680 680 Bayview Landing 0 7,270 11,770 ------ 11,770 ------ Subtotal: ----- 0 ----- 9,600 15,630 16,573 TOTAL: 93,550 128,360 153,690 154,583 (a) Estimated on the basis of the application of daily trip generation rates; not on the basis of actual counts. 6-17 the levels of development assumed in the increased development alternative. San Joaquin Hills Road at MacArthur Boulevard is expected to exceed capacity in 1989 without the additional deve- lopment proposed in GPA 85-1(B). Improvements to this inter- section, beyond the committed improvements identified previously in this report, will be necessary to accommodate expected traffic with the GPA 85-1(B) projects or with the increased development ' alternative. The intersection of San Joaquin Hills Road at Santa Rosa Drive is estimated to be approaching capacity with the completion of the GPA 85-1(B) projects in 1993 (ICU = 0.89). The additional development included in the increased development alternative could necessitate improvements at this intersection to maintain acceptable levels of operation. Similarly, the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard at Ford Road ' is expected to approach capacity by 1993 (ICU = 0.90) with the completion of GPA 85-1(B) projects. If development of greater intensity were to occur in Block 600, it would be anticipated that improvements to the intersection would be necessary to ' maintain acceptable levels of service. Fashion Island In Fashion Island, the increased development alternative would permit 251,200 square feet of retail space and 43,200 square feet of restaurant space to be added to the existing center. This additional development is estimated to generate approximately 10,776 average daily trip ends, with approximately 467 trips inbound to the center in the evening peak hour and 409 outbound for a total of 876 peak hourly trips. Compared to the proposed project, the increased development would generate approximately 3,000 more average daily trip ends, and approximately 220 more trip ends during the evening peak hour. ' Based on the trip distribution assumptions for Fashion Island (included in the Appendix to this report), the impacts of the increased development alternative on the surrounding roadways would be expected to be minor. Access to/from Fashion Island is provided at five locations along four arterials. Therefore, the additional tripmaking estimated to occur with the increased deve- lopment alternative would be widely diffused, and the impact on any one intersection would be minor. Although the ICU values at intersections immediately adjacent to Fashion Island might be expected to increase somewhat, the level of service at most intersections would not be expected to change. As discussed above in conjunction with Block 600, one possible exception might be MacArthur Boulevard at Ford Road in 1993. When estimated traffic to/from GPA 85-1(B) is included, and committed ' intersection improvements are assumed, the estimated ICU value at this intersection is 0.90. The additional traffic which would be expected with the increased development alternative would most ' likely necessitate improvements at this intersection. 6-18 I I I I I I I I I I rI Newporter North The increased development alternative for Newporter North assumes the development of 635 residential.apartments with an estimated tripmaking potential of 4,128 average daily trip ends (254 inbound trips in the evening peak hour and 127 outbound trips, for a total of 399 peak hourly trips). This represents an increase of approximately 145 residential units compared to the proposed project. In terms of estimated tripmaking, the increased development alternative would be expected to generate approximately 940 trip ends more than the proposed project on an average daily basis. During the evening peak hour, approximately 87 more trip ends would be expected to occur, assuming the increased development alternative. The increased development alternative would not be expected to impact the surrounding roadway system significantly. The poten- tial effects of the additional traffic would be greatest at the intersection of Jamboree Road at San Joaquin Hills Road and at Santa Barbara Drive. The two intersections provide primary access to the Newporter North site. Committed intersection improvements have been identified previously for Jamboree Road at San Joaquin Hills Road. These improvements would provide sufficient capacity to accommodate estimated 1993 traffic condi- tions including GPA 85-1(B) projects and the increased develop- ment alternative for Newporter North. In 1989 with estimated traffic to/from GPA 85-1(B) (assuming 490 dwelling units in Newporter North), the intersection of Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara Drive would require improvement to main- tain acceptable operating conditions. The improvements identi- fied previously in the chapter on TPO Considerations would provide adequate capacity to accommodate projected traffic volume at this intersection through 1993, even with the increased development alternative of 635 dwelling units in Newporter North. Cumulative Impacts of the Increased Development Alternative If Block 600, Fashion Island, and Newporter North were all to develop in accordance with the increased development alternative, the cumulative traffic impacts of the additional development would be greater than the effects of each individual site. Assuming the increased development alternative for the three sites discussed, and the levels of development proposed in GPA 85-1(B) for the remaining sites, tripmaking to/from Newport Center and the peripheral sites would increase approximately 64,720 trips per day compared to estimated existing levels of tripmaking. Compared to the proposed GPA 85-1(B) projects, the increased development alternative projects would be expected to generate approximately 5,900 more trip ends on an average daily basis. A total of approximately 590 more trips would be expected to occur during the evening peak hour. 6-19 I 1 I I I I I I 1 In general, the estimated increase in tripmaking associated with the increased development alternative compared to existing levels of development would be expected to impact the circulation system Citywide. Compared to the impacts anticipated with the proposed GPA 85-1(B) levels of development, the additional impacts attributable to the increased development alternative would be minor. In most cases, the improvements recommended to accommodate the levels of development proposed in GPA 85-1(B) would also accommodate anticipated additional traffic resulting from the increased development alternative. Assuming development would occur in the same timeframes as the proposed GPA 85-1(B) projects for each site, the following intersections would require improvements if acceptable levels of service are to be maintained assuming the increased development alternative land use quantities: o In 1989, Coast Highway at Tustin Avenue would most likely require improvements to accommodate the levels of traffic expected under the increased development alternative. o In 1989, assuming committed intersection improvements are completed, the intersections of MacArthur Boulevard at Campus Drive and at San Joaquin Hills Road could be expected to require additional improvements to maintain acceptable levels of service, assuming the increased development alternative. o In 1993, assuming Pelican Hill Road is completed, and Newport Center and the peripheral sites are developed in accordance with the increased development alternative, the intersection of Coast Highway and Poppy Avenue would be expected to require additional improvements to maintain acceptable levels of service. o Assuming the completion of committed roadway improvements and the estimated additional traffic associated with the increased development alternative, the intersection of Jamboree Road at San Joaquin Hills Road might be expected to require additional improvements. o The increased development alternative would be expected to have a significant impact on the intersection of San Joaquin Hills and Santa Rosa Drive. In 1993, with the increased development alternative, this intersection would most likely require improvements to maintain an ICU value less than 0.90. THE INTERSECTION OF MACARTHUR BOULEVARD AND HARBOR VIEW DRIVE The intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Harbor View Drive constitutes one of the three major access points for the area generally referred to as the Harbor View Hills neighborhood. The other major access points are Crown Drive to the north, and Goldenrod Avenue to the south. Residents of the neighborhood have expressed concern about traffic travelling through the neighborhood (via Goldenrod Avenue and Harbor View Drive, also via Poppy Avenue, Fifth Avenue, Goldenrod Avenue, and Harbor View 6-20 Drive) to bypass congestion along Coast Highway during peak periods. The residents have also expressed concern about traffic from the residential areas to the east of Marguerite Avenue and from Jasmine Creek using Harbor View Drive through Harbor View ' Hills to access MacArthur Boulevard. The origin/destination survey, conducted in June 1985 (described in Chapter 2), indicated that some motorists indeed use Harbor View Drive to bypass Coast Highway during peak periods. The survey also indicated that very few residents from areas to the east of harbor View Hills actually use Harbor View Drive. Because of the concern expressed by residents and the findings of the origin/destination survey, the matter of the access at MacArthur Boulevard and Harbor View Drive is discussed in detail in the following paragraphs. Access to Newport Center In view of the fact that Harbor View Drive is used to some extent as a bypass to Coast Highway, the provision of access to Newport ' Center at that location would encourage a larger number of moto- rists to use Harbor View Drive. Such opportunity for larger amounts of through traffic would be totally contradictory to the 1 expressed desires and needs of the residents. Therefore, it is recommended that no access be provided to Newport Center Drive at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard/Harbor View Drive. As discussed previously in this chapter, access to the Newport Center parcels immediately west of MacArthur Boulevard can be provided at locations other than at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Harbor View Drive. Traffic Signal at MacArthur Boulevard/Harbor View Drive The installation of a traffic signal at the. intersection of MacArthur Boulevard/Harbor View Drive has been discussed in the past by the City and the residents of Harbor View Hills. In view of advantages and disadvantages associated with signalization at this intersection, no decision has been made in this matter. Under present conditions, left turns into, and especially out of, Harbor View Hills can be difficult, especially during peak periods. The installation of a traffic signal would tend to make it easier for residents of Harbor View Hills to make turns to and from MacArthur Boulevard. At the same time, this would tend to encourage through traffic because motorists will find the Harbor View route easier to use if a signal were installed. A complete and detailed analysis of the need for a traffic signal at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard/Harbor View Drive has not been made as part of this study. While existing traffic ' volumes tend to indicate that a signal might be desirable, a detailed technical traffic engineering analysis, incorporating all appropriate considerations, is needed to conclude whether or ' not a signal should be installed. I 1 L I 1 �i I u I 1 As traffic volumes along MacArthur Boulevard increase, it will become more and more difficult to make turns to and from MacArthur Boulevard• at Harbor View Drive. This will be especially true if MacArthur Boulevard were to be widened to six lanes. The matter of a traffic signal at this intersection should be the subject of continuing review and evaluation. With the full development of the areawide arterial street system, the likelihood of motorists using Harbor View Drive as a bypass to Coast Highway should diminish. Accordingly, the installation of the signal could be considered as a benefit to the residents of the neighborhood, without the potential of encouraging undesired through traffic. If MacArthur, Boulevard were to be converted to a one-way northbound roadway, there would be no need for a signal at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Harbor View Drive because left turns at the intersection would not be possible. With appropriate design of right -turn taper areas, turns to and from MacArthur Boulevard can be made safely. The conversion of MacArthur Boulevard, to a one-way northbound roadway has traffic circulation implications for the neighborhood, as discussed in the following paragraphs. Implications of Avocado/MacArthur Couplet As discussed previously in this report, the development of Avocado Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard as a one-way couplet between Coast Highway and a point north of San Joaquin Hills Road is a part of the Master Plan of Streets and Highways of the City of Newport Beach. The proposed General Plan Amendment would delete the one-way couplet concept. Instead, MacArthur Boulevard would be designated a Major Road (six lanes) and Avocado Avenue would be a two-way street, with the primary function of serving abutting development within Newport Center. If, as part of the one-way couplet, MacArthur Boulevard were to be converted to a one-way northbound street, access to and from Harbor View Hills would be impacted. For certain origin/ destination pairs, travel routes would become circuitous involving out -of -direction travel. One example would be a trip between Harbor View Hills and Mariners' Mile, or any other points along Coast Highway west of Jamboree Road. With today's street system, the most likely route for such a trip would be via Harbor View Drive, MacArthur Boulevard and Coast Highway. If the one- way couplet were implemented, the trip from Harbor View Hills to Mariners' Mile would have to be made via Harbor View Drive, north on MacArthur Boulevard to San Miguel Drive, west on San Miguel Drive to Avocado Avenue, then south on Avocado Avenue to Coast Highway. This routing would entail substantial out -of -direction travel, and could be considered an inconvenience by some residents. (An alternative route might be via Goldenrod Avenue, but the intersection of Goldenrod Avenue/Coast Highway is already congested.) The routing in the reverse direction (from Mariners' Mile to Harbor View Hills would not be affected. b-22 In the discussion of the relative advantages and disadvantages of the one-way couplet for the residents of Harbor View Hills, the major issues would be: ' a. The amount of traffic on MacArthur Boulevard (with the one- way couplet traffic on MacArthur Boulevard would be approxi- mately one half of the traffic if MacArthur Boulevard is two-way; the other half would be on Avocado Avenue). b. The inconvenience of out -of -direction travel if the one-way ' couplet were to be implemented. c. The need for the installation of a traffic signal at MacArthur Boulevard and Harbor View Drive (very likely, a traffic signal would be needed with MacArthur Boulevard as a two-way facility; a traffic signal would not be needed with ' the one-way couplet) and the attendant matter of the ease and safety of left turns -at the intersection. d. The fact that the one-way couplet would eliminate the possibility of using Harbor View Drive as a bypass in the southbound-to-eastbound direction; the opportunity for using Harbor View Drive as a bypass in the westbound -to -northbound direction would still remain. The possibility of prohibiting southbound-to-eastbound left turns at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Harbor View Drive ' (for a two-way MacArthur Boulevard) has been suggested by some residents as a way of prohibiting motorists from using Harbor View Drive as a bypass in the southbound-to-eastbound direction. The implications of such a left -turn prohibition are similar to the traffic circulation impacts of the one-way couplet, in that residents would incur out -of -direction and circuitous travel for some origin/destination pairs. TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS Transportation System Management (TSM) techniques, designed to reduce single occupant and/or private automobile usage, have been long recognized as effective means of reducing traffic volumes in ' and around major activity centers such as Newport Center. Transportation System Management strategies that can be effective in reducing traffic volumes include: Car and van pooling Bus pooling or subscription bus service - Staggered or flexible work hours Improved transit service and facilities Integrated pedestrian/vehicular circulation facilities - Parking management programs to favor car and van pools ' The potential role of TSM at Newport Center has been discussed in detail in a March, 1981 report entitled "Transportation Manage- ment Program for Newport Center." In that report, a number of options for TSM measures were presented along with costs of 1 6-23 implementation. As part of the technical work conducted for the 1981 study, surveys were conducted of office employees and employers to determine employee residence locations, commuting ' travel times, mode of travel to work, willingness to participate in a ridesharing program, and the willingness of employers to support and subsidize ridesharing programs. One of the key I I I F u 17 findings of the survey was that about 20 percent of Newport Center's office employees use transit or share rides to get to and from work. Also, 30 out of 32 employers interviewed as part of the survey indicated that there will be a need for a ride - sharing program. In the 1981 report, it was estimated that the recommended Transportation Management Program could reduce peak hourly trips by 17 percent initially, and by 35 percent after five years. These levels of anticipated decrease in traffic point to the value of TSM measures in reducing potential congestion on arterial streets, as well as internally. Alternative modes of travel, other than the single occupant auto- mobile, are presently in use in Newport Center. In fact, level of transit use is higher at Fashion Island than in other Centers in Orange County. This should be further encouraged through programs designed to facilitate the use of alternative modes. Contact should be maintained with OCTD to ensure continued convenient bus service to/from Newport Center; the OCTD transpor- tation center, to be constructed within Newport Center, should help ensure continued good transit service and to enhance rider- ship. Improvements to circulation within Newport Center, which would provide improved pedestrian access between the office developments and Fashion Island, should be pursued to reduce internal auto tripmaking. Programs which facilitate car and van pooling and provide incentives for participation should be promoted. The Irvine Company is active in TSM programs, and has a Transportation Coordinator. The role of the Transportation Coordinator could be expected to encompass other major employers at Newport Center. 6-24 LJ I L L.� i I I I I 1 CHAPTER 7 STAGING CONSIDERATIONS IN CIRCULATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT INTRODUCTION In this chapter, the staging or time phasing of the improvements to the circulation system serving Newport Center are discussed. The relationship between short-term improvements and long-term arterial street system needs is discussed. The focus is on the following arterial facilities: o Coast Highway (MacArthur Boulevard to Dover Drive) o Pelican Hill Road o MacArthur Boulevard (Coast Highway to Campus Drive) o Jamboree Road (Coast Highway to Campus Drive) o Bison Avenue (MacArthur Boulevard to Bonita Canyon Road or San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor) o Ford Road (Extension to Bonita Canyon Road or San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor) o San Joaquin Hills Road (Extension to Pelican Hill Road and to San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor) Each of these facilities is discussed 'in the following paragraphs. The implications of the San Joaquin Hills Transpor- tation Corridor are presented, as appropriate. In the following discussion, the terms "committed project" or "committed improve- ments" refer to a transportation system improvement project, which is a condition of development for a specific developer, or is a project for which funding is assured from a defined source •.i (s) . COAST HIGHWAY Coast Highway constitutes a very important link in the City's arterial street network and will continue to do so in the future. Coast Highway provides access to and'from a multitude of origins and destinations in Newport Beach. Also, as indicated in the origin and destination survey (see Chapter 2), it serves a small amount of traffic that travels the entire length of Coast Highway in Newport Beach, without an origin or a destination in the City. Coast Highway East of MacArthur Boulevard As growth and development take place in the southeastern portion of Orange County (to the south and east of Newport Beach), travel demand in a direction generally parallel to the Coast is expected to increase. On the other hand, along with growth, the arterial system will develop and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC) will be constructed. As discussed in Chapter 3, the SJHTC will have a major impact on traffic volumes on Coast Highway. 7-1 r With the SJHTC, Year 2010 traffic volumes on Coast Highway in Corona del Mar are expected to be at a level generally comparable to today's. Without the SJHTC, traffic volumes would be substantially higher. When the SJHTC is constructed, access ' routes and interchanges would also be developed, including Pelican Hill Road and Sand Canyon Road. These facilities, along with Laguna Canyon Road and other arterials, will provide connections between Coast Highway and the SJHTC, giving traffic multiple routing opportunities between origin and destination points. With the SJHTC, Coast Highway through Corona del Mar could be retained as a four -lane facility with spot improvements (such as the addition of the third eastbound lane at Marguerite Avenue) and traffic operational improvements that may be identified. Some congestion would likely remain with conditions generally comparable to today's. The composition of the traffic would be expected to be different from today's with a smaller proportion of through traffic and more local traffic. ' As indicated in Chapter 3 for long-term areawide growth conditions, and in Chapter 4 for 1989 and 1993 conditions, the ' proposed GPA would have a relatively small impact on Coast Highway through Corona del Mar. Coast Highway Between MacArthur Boulevard and Bayside Drive On this portion of Coast Highway (presently a four -lane facility with added lanes at some locations), the committed projects of widening Coast Highway to six lanes along with the specific intersection improvements identified in Chapter 4 should be pursued as expeditiously as possible. These improvements will help alleviate existing congestion, accommodate overall traffic ' growth, and serve traffic attributable to the proposed GPA. To accommodate overall traffic growth and to serve traffic attributable to the proposed GPA, a grade -separated intersection at Coast Highway/Jamboree Road will be needed by 1993. As the committed widening project is implemented, right-of-way for the grade separation should be reserved. Coast Highway West of Bayside Drive The 1989 and 1993 ICU analyses indicate that there would be congestion at the intersection of Coast Highway/Dover Drive in 1989, with or without the proposed GPA. The addition of a,fourth westbound lane through this intersection would help reduce congestion, but would have significant impacts on businesses along the north side of Coast Highway west of Dover Drive. Also, ' the addition of capacity at the intersection, without improve- ments along the entire segment between Dover Drive and Newport Boulevard, would not be productive since this would tend to shift the congestion problem from one location to another further ' downstream. For this segment of Coast Highway, specific inter- section improvements have been identified for 1989 and 1993. 7-2 C I I i I I I 1 A Very likely, in the long term, the Coast Highway (with additional spot and the west City limits of Newport or without the proposed GPA. PELICAN HILL ROAD provision of six lanes along widening) between Dover Drive Beach will be required with It is expected that Pelican Hill Road would be opened to traffic late in 1988. At that time, a reduction in traffic on Coast Highway through Corona del Mar would be expected. This would alleviate some of the existing congestion problems along Coast Highway. The construction of the SJHTC, and its interchange with Pelican Hill Road, will enhance the effectiveness of Pelican Hill Road in diverting traffic away from Coast Highway. The construction of Pelican Hill Road is considered to be extremely important in helping to alleviate existing congestion problems and to accommodate short-term traffic growth on Coast Highway east of MacArthur Boulevard and on MacArthur Boulevard. MACARTHUR BOULEVARD Along MacArthur Boulevard, intersection improvements are to be made as committed projects. These committed intersection improvements, at Coast Highway, at San Joaquin Hills Road, at Ford Road, at Bison Avenue, and at Campus Drive, will have short- term beneficial impacts on traffic flow along MacArthur Boulevard. In conjunction with the TPO analysis presented in Chapter 4, additiona.l intersection improvements along MacArthur Boulevard for 1989 and 1993 have been identified. These would be at San Miguel Drive (1989) and at San Joaquin Hills Road (1993). The. construction. of Pelican Hill Road will tend to reduce traffic on MacArthur Boulevard. The key long-term consideration for MacArthur Boulevard would be whether or not the Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard one-way couplet is to be implemented. As discussed in Chapter 5, the option of not implementing the one-way couplet and designating MacArthur Boulevard as a Major Road would appear to be the preferable option. Accordingly, this discussion is on the basis of a two-way configuration. In the long term, with or without the proposed GPA, six lanes (three in each direction) would be required along MacArthur Boulevard between Coast Highway and Ford Road. Eight lanes would be required between Ford Road and Route 73. North of Route 73, no improvements along MacArthur Boulevard are indicated. MacArthur Boulevard Between Coast Highway and Ford Road This segment of MacArthur Boulevard now has two lanes in each direction, except for a third northbound lane added through the intersection at Ford Road. Committed improvements consist of the addition of a third southbound lane through the intersection at I 7-3 r I I I I I I I I Ford Road, the addition of a third northbound lane through the intersection of San Joaquin Hills Road and the improvements at Coast Highway. Other improvements to meet TPO requirements are the addition of a third southbound lane through the intersection at San Joaquin Hills Road and a third southbound lane through the intersection at San Miguel Drive. All of the committed improvements and the improvement at San Miguel Drive would be needed by 1989. The improvement at San Joaquin Hills Road would be needed by 1993. The development of a complete six -lane cross-section along the entire length of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road would probably be required shortly after 1995. Existing traffic volume on the segment between San Joaquin Hills Road and Ford Road is in excess of estimated capacity. Accordingly, improve- ments on that segment would be needed earlier. The construction of Pelican Hill Road will reduce traffic on this segment, helping alleviate the existing congestion. Nevertheless, widening to six lanes would very likely be required during the period 1990 to 1995. In the long term, a fourth lane in both the northbound and southbound directions may be required through the Ford Road intersection. MacArthur Boulevard Between Ford Road and Route 73/SJHTC Presently on this segment of MacArthur Boulevard, there are two northbound travel lanes, except that a third lane is added immediately south of Route 73. In the southbound direction, there are three lanes between Route 73 and University Drive, two lanes between University Drive and a point -just south of Bison Avenue, and three lanes between Bison Avenue and Ford Road. 'Existing traffic volumes exceed capacity. The addition of a third southbound lane through the Ford Road intersection andthe addition of a fourth southbound and a third northbound lane through the Bison Avenue intersection are committed improvements. With these committed improvements, there will be six lanes along this segment except between a point just south of Bison Avenue and the Route 73 entrance in the northbound direction, and University Drive and a point just south of Bison Avenue in the southbound direction. The development of a complete six -lane facility as expeditiously as possible would be needed, with or without the proposed GPA. The development of an eight -lane facility' would likely be required about the Year 2000. The SJHTC would have a major impact on this segment of MacArthur Boulevard. Therefore, the timeframe of improvements would be contingent on the implementa- tion schedule of the SJHTC and how travel patterns shift when the SJHTC is opened. I 7-4 I I I I 11 I I I I I r JAMBOREE ROAD Jamboree Road, with very few exceptions, is now constructed with three lanes in each direction between Coast Highway and Campus Drive. The exceptions are the two-lane southbound segment between San Joaquin Hills Road and Coast Highway, the two-lane northbound segment between Coast Highway and Back Bay Drive, and the northbound segment between Bison Avenue and Eastblu£f Drive North. Construction for the addition of.a third northbound lane is about to begin. Also, the committed project to widen Coast Highway and to improve the intersection of Coast Highway/ Jamboree Road would add a third eastbound left -turn lane on Coast Highway. This will necessitate that northbound Jamboree Road be widened north of Coast.Highway to accommodate the three left -turn lanes. There is also a committed project to add a third south - bound lane on Jamboree Road through the intersection of San Joaquin Hills Road. Beyond these committed projects, six lanes on Jamboree Road between Coast Highway and San Joaquin Hills Road should be constructed in accordance with a time schedule coordinated with proposed developments at Newport Center and peripheral sites. Generally, it would appear that the six -lane facility would be needed in about the Year 1990, or when the first phase of the proposed GPA is scheduled for completion. The TPO analysis (Chapter 4) indicated the need in 1993 to add a fourth northbound through lane on.Jamboree Road at Ford Road, at Bison Avenue, and at Eastbluff Drive North. While the need for these improvements is clearly indicated on the basis of the TPO analysis, it should be recognized that the TPO methodology does not take into consideration potential long-term changes in travel routes. It is recommended that traffic volumes at these intersections be monitored carefully, and the need for the improvements be re-evaluated prior to implementation. BISON AVENUE The extension of Bison Avenue between MacArthur Boulevard and the SJHTC would be constructed in conjunction with the SJHTC, with or without the proposed GPA. If feasible, the extension of Bison Avenue to Bonita Canyon Road, as an interim improvement prior to the construction of the SJHTC, would be desirable from an area - wide traffic circulation standpoint, especially when Pelican Hill Road is constructed. Issues of feasibility for this interim improvement would be whether an intersection at Bison Avenue/ Bonita Canyon Road can be physically accommodated without a great deal of work on Bonita Canyon Road, and also whether Bonita Canyon Road and the intersection with Bison Avenue can be kept open to traffic during the period of construction of the SJHTC. I 7-5 7 I I L n L.J 1 LJ I L J L FORD ROAD The extension of Ford Road between its present terminus just east of San Miguel Drive and the SJHTC would be constructed in conjunction with the SJHTC, with or without the proposed GPA. if feasible, the extension of Ford Road to Bonita Canyon Road as an interim improvement prior to the construction of the SJHTC would be desirable from an areawide traffic circulation standpoint, especially when Pelican Hill Road is opened to traffic. Feasibility issues are the same as those discussed in the same context for Bison Avenue. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD EXTENSION The extension of San Joaquin Hills Road to the SJHTC would be constructed in conjunction with the SJHTC and development in the "down Coast" area, with or without the proposed development. There would be very little, if any areawide traffic circulation benefits in extending San Joaquin Hills Road to Pelican Hill Road prior to the opening of the SJHTC to traffic. SUMMARY Following is a summary of the time phasing of transportation system improvements. A. Implement all committed improvements listed in Chapter 4 as expeditiously as possible. B. Implement all intersection improvements as listed in Table 4-4, identifed as mitigation measures for 1989 in conjunction with Phase 1 of proposed General Plan Amendment 85-1(B). C. Construct Pelican Hill Road in conjunction with Phase I of the proposed GPA (by late 1988, as planned). D. Implement all intersection improvements, as listed in Table 4-6, identified as mitigation measures for 1993 (except possibly Jamboree Road intersections at Ford Road, Bison Avenue, and Eastbluff Drive North) in conjunction with Phase 2 of the proposed GPA. E. Monitor traffic volumes and re-evaluate need at the Jamboree Road intersections at Ford Road, Bison, and Eastbluff Drive North. If needed, implement these improvements in conjunc- tion with Phase 2 of the proposed GPA. F. Develop arterial street segments as follows: 1. Six lanes on MacArthur Boulevard between Coast Highway and San Joaquin Hills Road: Shortly after 1995. I 7-6 I 1 P 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2. Six lanes on MacArthur Boulevard between San Joaquin Hills Road and Ford Road: 1990 to 1995. 3. Six lanes on MacArthur Boulevard between Ford Road and Route 73/SJHTC: As expeditiously as possible. Eight lanes on this segment after 2000. 4. Six lanes on Jamboree Road between Coast Highway and San Joaquin Hills Road: In conjunction with Phase 1 of the proposed GPA. 5. Bison Avenue and Ford Road extensions to Bonita Canyon Road/SJHTC: In conjunction with construction of SJHTC. If feasible, prior to SJHTC as interim improvements connecting to Bonita Canyon Road. 6. San Joaquin Hills Road extension to Pelican Hill Road and SJHTC: In conjunction with construction of SJHTC. Improvements listed under items A and F.1 through F.6 would be needed with or without proposed General Plan Amendment 85-1(B). The time phasing for these items is not contingent on the proposed GPA, either. Improvements listed under Items B, C, D, and E pertain specifically to the proposed GPA. 1 7-7 r r r r 1 rAPPENDIX A - OCTD Bus Routes r r F, L.1 r U . LONG BEACH . NEWPORT BEACH CORONA n..m .na ww.nr rxm t11..M1w MYR 1[.un.pllgM W wtONM .N :w�u.Ru ward � v,IrY.01 Rut IIII nnmwTOLO PR1 DIX BASMACIYAN•DARNELL, INC. SERVICE TO: Long Beach Lore Beach Civic Center (Peak Hours Only) Grcle Business Center (Weekday OH Peak Only) VA Hospital Cal Stale Long Beach Seal Beech Sunsat'Beach Huntington Beach Newport Beach Balboa Island Newport Center! Fashion Island Corona Del ►tar Emerald Bay Laguna Beach Monarch Bey Dana Point, Capistrano Beach .SANJUAN CAPISTRANO CANA KNNT.\�Y CAPISTMHO BEACH. SAN CLEMENTE.\i /, `\ 1 EXHISIT A-0 pCTD ROUTE 1 a t = a •SANTAANA SERVICETO: Santa Ma Santa Ana Translt Terminal e SANTA �1 ,TN Costa Mesa r1Aar SAI —South Coast Plaza MCr.ONk » - ......................."": Orange Coast College YQ SAW1 MSN IIAIANAL A1tl • e,.a. I'.Is TM. ».»A. ; Orange County Fairgrounds tnronu ro .m. a, a1.»,»».ro n, T, �;N.».u.$7.ATB.Ao ••'•••••••••••••••........... tal WANNER 1: ' NewpoFairvirt •Newport Beech h Balboa Island 8 SEOERSTROM 1,1 _ Newport CenterlFashion Island N A.C.ATXLW.1»„ S,"e Corona Del Mar SJNILOWER 4 11 11A TA tl.b ,r.°.• 6A "`T.$ Laguna Beach j;S' ., Laguna Beach Bus Station •.45 ASA. St. 59l 11A.}«........._.—� ANloall WEEKDAY CIAm Laguna g !' Leisure Wododd = x = �_ , Saddleback Community Hospital ................... \,&4N01l0pIAlEMATLaguna Hills Mail eAAER � BASMACIYAN•DARNELL, INC. • COSTA MESA W LACUNA HILLS NEWPORT BEACH* .............. i Iy O( GxlWIONLAND < i INIOMIIIANO . SAN MWO[L S /OT1N[ CMPt MYIt 71, CCENTIRVA STlMa WnN wMAt"s InNCAR TMNMft MMfa SALON I NO A ..1T.. WEEKJMD a1g11T TVIIN O` OIy� CORONA DEL O MAR• :LACVXIAEACN.......... LACUNA BEACH* EXHIBIT A-2' ,OCTD. ROUTE 57` A,-2 SERVICE TO: Santa Ana Santa Ana CIVIC Center Santa Ana Transit Terminal Tustin Marine Corps Air Station Irvine Irvine Industrial Complex 4ohn Wayne Airport Newport Beach Newport Center/Fashion Island 4' IRA, lR11 tOXRt NN�B%X BASMACIYAN•DARNELL, INC. IYf. : SANTA ANA♦ SIN mroo r1 EWAY .IRVINE . NEWPORT BEACH *TUSTIN EXHIBIT A-4 OCTO ROUTE 61 SERVICE TO: ' Santa Ana Santa Ana Transit Terminal N* Santa Ana CIVIC Center ,. Tustin •TUSTIN Tustin Civic Center Larwin Square tvtt� elm tErE"a /lvD F Irvine University High School Campus Valley Center ` University of Celifomia-Irvine .......+••••••. wµ"a-, Newport Beach 22t Newport Center,•Fashion Wand 11. N {S, N, .s.. r.Balboa Balboa Island Balboa Pier e A' / t SANTA ANA • '+ . r+r ! .unn•u.• t. yNd'� D"T�P t SAMA AMA IAAMSM IEAM,MA ARIA i M•"f N!•'S • a'. 11,.9k U SSA, M. MA j ........................ / ' Rts� IRVINE• O •..•...uou• "' • ..........i4CI MMF •...i ......- �kID O T.vox alAM •, Mrwro{raEMrrE• • `• SAM -GM NEWPORT BEACH• 9 COSTA MESA* � ♦ BALBOA , ' (7Tw/ ERE" r s = c 0 STREETS WITM MDYStMS MMMDATE ::.li�l fit EfA M • ..........moo. ' ]EXHIBIT. A-4r IQCT© R©WTE' 65`, BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. A-4 1 ul J 1 I 1 I 1 APPENDIX B ICU Worksheets (to be Included Under Separate Cover,) L I 1 I I I 1 t APPRENDIX C - Trip Distribution Characteristics for Each site Included in GPA 85-1(B) i 1 I i tBASMACIYAN•DARNELL, INC. EXHIBIT C-1 FASHION ISLAND INBOUND TRIP DISTRIBUTION CHARACTERISTICS C-1 I s / of ' ""' N BASMACIYAN•DARNELL, INC. 39rx W. 10% 8% 2% EXHIBIT C-2 FASHION ISLAND OUTBOUND'-' TRIP bISRIBUTION .CIiARACTERISTICS u 1 1 1 N, N �Nx ' BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. EXHIBIT C-3 BLOCK 600 TRIP DISTRIBUTION CHARACTERISTICS r 12% 1 7 Ns,-NN BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. 5% A M %% 1 BLOCK 800 AND CIVIC PLAZA EXPANSION TRiP.DISTRIOUTION CHARACTERISTICS I 1 1 �I L 11 0 R Y 0 a u `*N�B%X BASMACIYAN•DARNELL, INC. 48% EXHIBIT 0-6 CORPORATE PLAZA WEST TRIP DISTRIBUTION CHARACTERISTICS C-6 I 1 I I I I EXHIBIT C-7 \ NEWPORT VILLAGE ' BASMACIYAN•OARNELL, INC. TRIP DISTRIBUTION CHARACTERISTICS ayarol S/rBel a♦ �O� O Jn�ve� 10No 9 �c e IeOn Avenue o o Drive F'o R °ed v a m 3 ' seA m 40% ' sao N h/IIa a� Road am aA G� •m �O Q° a N gent Ot`ve a S� qro ° 0 46% 1 0 > � a m y 15% of Highway 45%1 3% • m 28ai � 17% 20% EXHIBIT C"m8 AVOCADO/MACARTHUR BASMACIYAN•DARNELL, INC. 'TRH' DISTRIBUTION CHARACTERISTICS C-8 I I r I I 1 I I n I t I I ' 9XHI�IT C-9 N BIG CANYON✓MACARTHUR BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. TRIP DISTROUTION CHARACTERISTICS C C-9 I r I I t II i BASMACIYAN•DARNELL, INC. FEXHIBIT - C-10 QAYVIEW LANDING TRIP DISTRIBUTION CHARACTERISTICS C-10 BASMACIYAN•DARNELL, INC. ..NEWPQRTER NORTH '-YnlP 018,`' AlOUTION CHARACTERISTICS