HomeMy WebLinkAboutCIRCULATION ELEMENT_1988Circulation Element
of the
City of Newport Beach
Adopted by the City Council
Resolution No. 88-101
October24,1988
>
F >
[Reprinted January,1992,
i €
incorporating GPA 89-1(G) and
GPA 89-2(J)]
f
...............................................................................................................................................................................................
w ........... -
.. ....... .v v . , .....,. •.......
Table of Contents
Introduction
Purpose and Scope Page 1
Analysis Page 2
Existing Conditions ............................. Page 2
Future Conditions ..............................Page 3
Master Plan of Streets and Highways ................... Page 4
Objectives, Policies and Implementation Page 6
Policy No.1, Construction of Facilities' Improvements .........Page 6
Policy No. 2, Intersection Improvements .................Page 14
Policy No. 3, Measures to Reduce Peak Hour Traffic ..........Page 17
Policy No. 4, Fund Costs of Major Roadway Facility &
IntersectionImprovements .........................Page 18
Policy No. 5, Identify & Implement Measures ..............Page 20
Bikeways Page 24
Intent.....................................Page 24
LocalNeeds .................................Page 24
Regional Needs ...............................Page 24
Classification of Bikeways .........................Page 25
Objective, Policies and Programs .....................Page 25
Citizens' Advisory Committee on Bikeways ...............Page 27
Master Plan of Bikeways Map ...................... Page 28
Tables
Table I, Existing Land Use & Trip Generation Summary ....... Page 3
Table II, Projected Land Use & Trip Generation Summary ...... Page 4
Table III, Roadway Classifications & Criteria ..............Page 5
Table IV, 2010ICU Summary .......................Page 7
Table V, Roadway Costs & Funding ....................Page 22
Other
Map, Master Plan of Streets & Highways .................... Page 29
Introduction
The Circulation Element was first adopted in 1974. In subsequent
years the ability of the proposed circulation system to accom-
modate ever increasing levels of regional traffic was evaluated in
conjunction with major projects, but no comprehensive revisions
to the Circulation Element were undertaken.
In February 1987, the City embarked upon an ambitious program
to revise and update the City's General Plan, with specific em-
phasis on the Land Use and Circulation Elements. The focus of
this program was a desire to develop a circulation system that
could accommodate vehicular traffic generated by land use within
and without the City at acceptable levels of service.
The process of updating the Circulation Element began with the
acquisition of current data as to existing traffic volumes and ser-
vice levels. This information was evaluated in light of known
community goals and objectives thatwere developed duringyears
of discussion and debate.
The transportation planning firm of Austin -Foust Associates was
retained to develop forecasts of traffic volumes and systems sized
to accommodate the demand. In addition, this consultant was
asked to develop a traffic model, a computer program that would
allow constant review and reassessment of the adequacy of the
circulation system.
Public input into the process consisted of more than 25 "Outreach
Meetings," five public hearings before the Planning Commission
and three public hearings before the City Council, all as more
fully discussed in the Land Use Element. The result is a Circula-
tion Element that is closely correlated with the Land Use Ele-
ment and rep
size and traffi
The portion i
based on inp
visory Comm
Purpose and Scope
It is intended that this Element satisfy the State requirement that local General Plans con-
tain a Circulation Element.
Section 65302(b) of the Government Code states in part that local General Plans shall in-
clude:
"...a circulation element consisting of the general location and extent of exist-
ing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, and
other local public utilities and facilities, all correlated with the land use element
of the plan."
The term "correlation' has been construed by the courts to require the Circulation Ele-
ment, including its major thoroughfares, to be closely, systematically and reciprocally re-
lated to the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The correlation requirement is
designed to insure the Circulation Element will set forth standards and proposals for ad-
dressing the demands onroads and transportation facilities resultingfrom traffic generated
by the growth authorized, and anticipated in the Land Use Element.
The issues that are addressed in this Circulation Element are major roadways and transpor-
tation routes; roadway and intersection improvements; estimated costs and funding alloca-
tions; and bikeways.
-1-
Analysis
This section briefly discusses the source of the data and the method of analysis used in the
traffic study prepared by Austin -Foust and Associates (General Plan Traffic Study). The
General Plan Traffic Study (attached as an appendix) explains, in detail, the method of
analysis by which intersection service levels were forecast for the year 2010 (buildout).
Future traffic service levels are forecast in terms of intersection capacity utilization (ICU).
ICU analysis is the most widely accepted method of predicting the extent of traffic
congestion at any given intersection in the future. Intersections are a major constraint in
any circulation system and are thus the focus of analysis. The "ICU" of an intersection is
based on the number of vehicles using all legs of the intersection, the manner in which the
vehicles use the intersection (left turns, right turns, etc.) and the capacity of each lane of
the intersection.)
The General Plan Traffic Study has forecast ICU's for 8 groups of intersections. This
method of analysis is a more accurate method of forecasting ICU's and significantly reduces
the statistical error inherent in computer modeling. Research has determined that the
service level (ICU's) of intersections located•along a linear traffic corridor or on alternate
routes serving traffic moving in the same direction, tend to equalize. Drivers respond to
road congestion better than computers. The average "ICU's" in the General Plan Traffic
Study represent the most accurate method of forecasting future traffic service levels.
Existing Conditions
The land use inventory, and traffic volumes generated by development on the ground in
late 1987, serve as the basis for the following summary of existing conditions within the
City of Newport Beach, its sphere of influence, and portions of the Cities of Costa Mesa
and Irvine that contribute traffic to the City of Newport Beach circulation system.
In 1985, the City of Newport Beach commissioned a study of lane capacity. The study revealed that,
during a typical peak hour, approximately 1,850 vehicles per lane travelled through major intersections
for each hour of green time. The ICU's in the General Plan Traffic Study are based upon lane capacity
assumptions of 1,600 vehicles per lane per hour of green with no yellow time factor.
-2-
Table I
Existing Land Use and Trip Generation Summary (1987)
AM PK HR
PM PK HR
TOTAL
LAND USE
UNITS
TOTAL
TOTAL
ADT
Newport Beach
Residential
Res -Low (SFD)
16,997 du
15,297
18,697
186,967
Res-Med (SFA)
9,945 du
7,956
9,945
85,527
Apartment
5,396 du
3,238
3,777
35,074
Park Newport
1,306 du
522
653
6,269
Other Residential
1,064 du
618
715
6,184
Motel/Hotel
2,637 rm
2,331
2,088
27,604
Commercial
3,089,300 sf
2,115
7,889
121,418
Restaurant
692,200 sf
895
3,727
50,308
Office
10,897,800 sf
22,887
25,842
166,547
Industrial/R&D
2,554,900 sf
2,708
3,270
19,668
Other
-
1,529
2,802
31,975
SUBTOTAL
60,096
79,405
737,541
Other Areas
63,659
81,935
759,498
TOTAL
123,755
161,340
1,497,039
This inventory of land uses and vehicle trips provides the basis for the trip generation rates
used in the General Plan Traffic Study. For example, the inventory disclosed that com-
mercial land use, on average, generates approximately 40 trips per 1,000 square feet of
building area. These rates were used to determine traffic volumes generated by future
development.
Future Conditions - Year 2010
The Land Use Element of the General Plan describes in detail the types and amount of
growth anticipated upon buildout of the City in the year 2010. Trip generation rates
derived from the inventory described above were multiplied by the additional growth per-
mitted in each major land use category to determine the additional trips that could result
from the growth authorized in the Land Use Element. These additional trips were added
to existing volumes to determine ultimate traffic levels on buildout.
The following chart summarizes the major landuse categories, the total amount of develop-
ment anticipated at buildout in the year 2010, the AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes,
overall daily traffic volumes at buildout.
-3-
Table II
Projected Land Use & Trip Generation Summary (2010)
AM PK HR
PM PK HR
TOTAL
ADT
LAND USE
UNITS
TOTAL
TOTAL
ADT
INCREASE
Newport Beach
Residential
Res -Low (SFD)
15,535 du
13,982
17,089
170,885
(16,082)
Res-Med (SFA)
15,668 du
W34
15,668
134,745
49,218
Apartment
7,512 du
4,507
5,258
48,828
13,754
Park Newport
1,306 du
522
653
6,269
-0-
Other Residential 749 du
409
464
4,094
(2,090)
Motel/Hotel
3,472 rm
3,085
2,758
36,37
8,773
Commercial
5,709,300 sf
4,582
16,374
241,597
120,179
Restaurant
1,270,800 sf
2,120
7,072
97,014
46,706
Office
16,154,400 sf
33,197
38,828
263,547
97,000
Industrial/R&D
2,584,400 sf
2,790
3,458
22,156
2,488
Other
-
3,815
4,993
57,264
25,289
SUBTOTAL
81,544
112,616
1,082,776
345,235
Other Areas
109,913
139,872
1,267,245
507,747
TOTAL
191,457
252,488
2,350,021
852,982
In comparing the traffic generated in 1987 with that anticipated in the year 2010, it can be
seen that approximately 852,984 (345,235 from within the current City boundaries) new
vehicle trips will be added to the system daily. In order to accommodate these additional
trips revisions to the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways are necessary.
Master Plan of Streets and Highways
Incorporated within this Element is a map entitled "Newport Beach Circulation Element
- Master Plan of Streets and Highways" which satisfies the state requirement that the
Circulation Element contain a map or diagram of the existing and proposed circulation
system.
The City of Newport Beach participates in the Orange County Arterial Highway Financing
Program, in which the County assumes up to 50% of the cost of major roads shown on the
Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. To participate in this program, each
City must have a Master Plan of Highways that is mutually satisfactory and in conformance
with the plans of the County and all adjacent cities. The City of Newport Beach Master
Plan of Streets and Highways satisfies this requirement.
ME
The road classifications used by the City of Newport Beach are the same as used by the
County of Orange for its Master Plan of Arterial Highways. The following represents the
roadway categories and the criteria applicable to each:
Table III
Roadway Classifications and Criteria
Approx.
Road
R.o1W. Width Curb
# of
Median
Capacity
Classi£
- Feet - Curb Ft.
Lanes
Width -Ft,
ADT*
8 Lane
Divided
158 Variable
8
14 -18
60-68,000
Major
Augmented
Variable Variable
6-8
Variable
52-58,000
Major
M-134 106 -114
6
14 -18
45-51,000
Primary
Augmented
Variable Variable
4-6
Variable
35-40,000
Primary
104 -108 84
4
16 - 20
30-34,000
Secondary
84 64
4
0
20-23,000
Commuter
60-70 40-50
2
0
7-10,000
*(ADT) Ayerage Daily Traffic.
Couplets:
Secondary couplet
- 2lanes for each leg
Primary couplet
- 3 lanes for each leg
Major couplet
- 4lanes for each leg
When projected traffic volumes exceed 10,000 VPD, four lane roadways should be con-
sidered.
Augmented Major and Primary arterial classifications are intended to indicate roadways
which will carry traffic that is at the capacity level for the classification. The standard
section will need to be augmented with additional through and/or turning lanes in some
locations along the roadway. This may be accomplished by adding right-of-way or by
reducing the widths of sidewalk areas, medians, travel lanes and emergency shoulder lanes.
A Commuter Roadway is a two lane collector street that connects to an arterial highway
and/or provides a link between two arterials. At intersections a Commuter Roadway may
have additional width to provide for turning lanes.
At signalized street intersections, heavy turning movements may require the addition of
extra turning lanes in excess of classification widths shown.
"Routes that Require Further Coordination' are roadways on the Master Plan of Streets
and Highways where precise alignments, configuration and construction phasing are
subject to further study and additional discretionary action.
-5-
Objectives, Policies and Implementation
OBJECTIVE
The basic objective is the construction of public transportation facilities which, in conjunc-
tion with programs to reduce peak hour traffic, will accommodate vehicular traffic
generated by land use within the City of Newport Beach at acceptable levels of service; to
reduce, to the extent possible, the impact of summer visitor and tourist travel along Balboa
Peninsula, on Balboa Island, and West Newport, and provide a safe, convenient and
enjoyable system of bikeways that meet the needs of all cyclists.
POLICIES
The policies and implementation measures described below are intended to accomplish
the basic objective of this Element. These policies and measures are not to be considered
exclusive efforts the City will undertake to solve transportation problems as they arise, but
do constitute the basis for both further analysis, and new solutions.
Policy Number 1
Construction of facilities' improvements resulting in a roadway system that is sized and
located to accommodate all vehicular traffic generated by existing development and
anticipated growth, as well as some regional traf ftc, at service levels as close to Level of
Service D as possible.
DISCUSSION
The General Plan Traffic Study has identified numerous facilities' improvements
necessary to accommodate traffic generated by the additional growth authorized in the
Land Use Element, as well as some regional traffic. These improvements will, in the
vast majority of cases, result in intersections functioning at "Level of Service D" or
better. Those intersections which are forecast to exceed LOS-D in the year 2010 do
so, in large measure, because of regional traffic (See Table IV).
The intersections which are predicted to function above LOS-D, with few exceptions,
are all located in proximity to John Wayne Airport (JWA). The relatively high levels
of traffic in this area are a direct result of increased operations at JWA and develop-
ment outside of Newport Beach. The Master Plan of Streets and Highways described
in this Element represents a conscious decision to accept levels of service in the airport
area that have been forecast by and focus efforts to improve service levels on those
portions of our system less affected by regional traffic.
lM
Table IV - 2010 ICU Summary
Newport Beach
Other
Total
Intersection
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
1. Placentia & Superior
.53
.62
-0-
-0-
.53
.62
2. Superior & PCH
.81
.73
.08
.15
.89
.88
3. Newport & Hospital
.84
.95
.02
.01
.86
.96
4. SB Newport Ramp & Newport
.42
.72
-0-
-0-
.42
.72
5. Newport & Via Lido
.65
.77
-0-
-0-
.65
.77
6. Newport & 32nd
.52
.70
-0-
-0-
.52
.70
7. Riverside & PCH
.71
.68
.08
.11
.68
.79
8. Tustin & PCH
.68
.76
.08
.11
.76
.87
9. MacArthur & Campus
.34
.55
.32
.72
.66
1.27
10. MacArthur & Birch
.52
.49
.31
.28
.83
.77
11. Von Karman & Campus
.31
.51
.47
.42
.78
.93
12. MacArthur & Von Karman
.57
.78
.13
.17
.70
.95
13. Jamboree & Campus
.32
.63
.70
.60
1.02
1.23
14. Jamboree & Birch
.38
.46
.40
.33
.78
.79
15. Campus & Bristol
.51
.60
.35
.63
.86
1.23
16. Birch & Bristol N.
.43
.58
.24
.34
.67
.92
17. Campus & Bristol S.
.83
.42
.46
.47
1.29
.98
18. Birch & Bristol S.
.61
.38
.28
.32
.89
.70
19. Irvine & Mesa
.60
.54
.36
.42
.96
.96
20. Irvine & University
.77
.57
.39
.43
1.16
1.00
21. Irvine & Santiago/22nd
.55
.43
.06
.05
.61
.48
22. Irvine & Highland/20th
.40
.43
.05
.04
.45
.47
23.Irvine & Dover/19th
.58
.58
.05
.04
.62
.62
24. Irvine & WestcHM17th
.50
.62
.02
.05
.52
.67
25. Dover & Westfliff
.38
.38
.02
.03
.40
.41
26. Dover & 16th
.55
.44
.02
.03
.57
.47
27. DoverBayshore & PCH
.78
.59
.07
.12
.85
.71
28. Bayside & PCH
.81
.70
.07
.15
.88
.85
29. MacArthur & Jamboree
.67
.66
.43
.43
1.10
1.09
30. Jamboree & BristolN.
.37
.65
.08
.14
.45
.79
31. Bayview, & Bristol S.
.41
.63
.13
.12
.54
.75
32. Jamboree & Bristol S.
.58
.73
.15
.13
.73
.86
33. Jamboree & Bayview
.58
.68
.17
.10
.75
.78
34. Jamboree & University
.88
.85
.15
-0-
.93
.85
35. Jamboree & Bison
.72
.89
.04
.03
.76
.92
-7-
Table IV (Cont.)
Newport Beach
Other
Total
Jntersection
AM
FM
AM
FM
AM
PM
36. MacArthur & Bison
.68
.77
.12
.07
.80
.84
37. Jamboree & Ford
.87
.88
.04
.02
.91
.90
38. MacArthur & Ford
.71
.78
.14
.06
.85
.84
39. Jamboree & San Joaquin H.
.67
.72
.04
.04
.71
.76
40. Jamboree & Santa Barbara
.58
.68
.03
.03
.61
.71
41. Jamboree & PCH
.78
.74
.10
.11
.88
.85
42. Santa Cruz & San Joaquin H.
.21
31
-0-
-0-
.21
31
43. Santa Rosa & San Joaquin H.
.37
.76
-0-
-0-
37
.76
44. MacArthur & San Joaquin H.
.60
.77
.09
.04
.69
.81
45. MacArthur & San Miguel
.56
.86
.04
.06
.60
.92
46. Newport Center & PCH
.84
.38
.08
.16
.92
.54
47. Avocado & PCH
.38
.77
.09
.16
.47
.93
48. MacArthur & PCH
.38
.76
.10
.17
.48
.93
49. San Miguel & San Joaquin H.
.41
.81
.03
.08
.44
.89
50. Goldenrod & PCH
.69
.62
.20
.23
.89
.85
51. Marguerite & San Joaquin H.
.41
.63
.04
.05
.45
.68
52. Marguerite & PCH
.60
.49
.21
.14
.81
.63
53. Poppy & PCH
.51
.57
.22
.25
.73
.82
54.15th & PCH
.34
.46
.19
.11.
.53
.57
55. Bluff & PCH
.57
.68
.08
.14
.65
.82
56. SB Newport Ramp & PCH
.62
.70
.08
.11
.70
.81
IMI
IMPLEMENTATION
Construct the circulation system described on the map entitled "Newport Beach Cir-
culation Element -Master Plan of Streets and Highways" which is attached as Exhibit
1. The following is a detailed description of each circulation system improvement
necessary to complete the system described in the Master Plan, together with specific
information as to the location and alignment of the improvement if currently known.
Facility Improvements
1. Coast Highway from the Santa Ana River to Newport Boulevard. This project invol-
ves the widening to six lanes of this section of Coast Highway.
The future 24-foot widening to provide for the six lanes will occur on the southerly
side between the Santa Ana River and 59th Street; from 59th Street to Newport
Boulevard the widening will be on the northerly side. Additional widening beyond
the 24-foot minimum will be required at intersections to provide turning lanes.
2. Coast Highway from Newport Boulevard to Dover Drive. The section of Coast High-
way through Mariners Mile carries both local and through traffic and is currently
operating at capacity. Widening of this section of Coast Highway to six lanes and a
center median with augmented intersections at major cross streets such as Riverside
Avenue will accommodate both the local and regional traffic using this corridor.
There is also a considerable amount of bicycle traffic through the intersection of
Riverside Avenue and Coast Highway. The bicyclists are generally travelling from
Newport Heights to the beach; from Lido Isle and the western areas of the peninsula
to Newport Harbor High School or Ensign School; or recreational cyclists travelling
through the City either towards Laguna Beach or Huntington Beach. The safety of
these bicyclists must be addressed in the final project designs.
A minimum right-of-way width of 112 feet is necessary to provide for the six travel
lanes and a center median. The additional 12 feet of width will be provided on the
northerly side of Coast Highway. 118 feet of width is required in the vicinity of River-
side Avenue.
3. Coast Highway from Dover Drive to Jamboree Road This section of Coast Highway
serves as the only east -west route for the southern part of the City. To carry the
forecast traffic demands, this section should be widened to eight lanes from wester-
ly of Dover Drive through Jamboree Road. This will require either the widening of
the bridge sidewalk areas or building a separate bridge for the bike lanes.
4. Coast Highway at Jamboree Road In order to accommodate forecast traffic demand
at this intersection, a grade separation shall be considered for construction in the fu-
ture. The precise alignment, roadway width, and design of the project have not been
determined. Any grade separation should not increase the grade at the intersection.
SIR
5. Newport Boulevard from 30th Street to 32nd Street. This section of roadway shall be
widened to six lanes.
6. Newport Boulevard from 32nd Street to Coast Highway. The widening of Newport
Boulevard to five lanes is currently a committed project, with construction to com-
mence in 1989. The roadway should be widened to six lanes, with the construction of
the widened bridge across the Newport Channel. Most of the additional right-of-way
necessary for the roadway widening has been acquired.
7. Newport Boulevard at Coast Highway. This project involves the reconfiguration and
reconstruction of the existing ramps and bridge at the intersection of Newport
Boulevard and Coast Highway. No specific geometrics are suggested other than a
single structure for the interchange, including pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities.
8. Newport Boulevard from Coast Highway to Hospital Road It is proposed that this
section of Newport Boulevard be widened to provide six lanes.
9. Jamboree Road from San Joaquin Hills Road to the Newporter Resort. This project
involves widening this section of Jamboree Road to six lanes. Adequate right -of way
exists to accomplish this improvement.
10. Jamboree Road from Bristol Street to Ford Road This section of the roadway shall be
widened to eight lanes.
11. Bayview Way/from Jamboree Road to MacArthurBoulevard This section of roadway is
the extension of Bayview Way in the J.M. Peters project from Jamboree Road to
MacArthur Boulevard. This section should be constructed to a width of four lanes in
conjunction with the development of adjacent sites. This roadway, which has been
designated as University Drive North, shall be officially designated as Bayview Way.
12. MacArthur Boulevard from Coast Nghway to San Joaquin Hlls Road. The following
& shall pertain to MacArthur Boulevard from Coast Highway to San Joaquin Hills Road:
13.
A. MacArthur Boulevard between San Miguel Drive and Coast Highway shall be
improved to: lower the grade as much as 13 feet; align the road approximately
50 feet west of the existing centerline; install necessary sound walls to mitigate
noise; and a landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Council.
B. Two outside through lanes in each direction on MacArthur Boulevard shall be
constructed so that additional lanes constructed, when required by the City, will
occur towards the centerline of the roadway, between Harbor View Drive and
the prolongation of the centerline of Crown Drive.
-10-
C. That prior to the construction of through lanes in excess of four for MacArthur
Boulevard between Harbor View Drive and a prolongation of the centerline of
Crown Drive, the following criteria, at a minimum, shall be met:
1) Completion of Pelican Hill Road to Primary Arterial configuration
(four lanes, divided), from Coast Highway to the intersection of
MacArthur Boulevard.
2) An average weekdayvolume-to-capacityratio of 1.00 on MacArthur
Boulevard in the vicinity of Harbor View Drive. In adopting this
criteria relative to the widening of MacArthur Boulevard, a primary
purpose in considering this improvement is the reduction of diver-
sion traffic through residential streets in Corona del Mar. It is
anticipated that if the average weekday volume -to -capacity ratio on
MacArthur Boulevard reached 1.00, diversions to local Corona del
Mar streets such as Marguerite Avenue, Poppy Street, and Fifth
Avenue would occur.
3) Completion of San Joaquin Hills Road to Primary Arterial con-
figuration (four lanes, divided) easterly of Spyglass Hill Road, and
connection to Pelican Hill Road.
D. A public hearing shall be conducted by the Planning Commission and City
Council to verify satisfaction of the criteria and the desirability of the roadway
widening.
14. MacArthur Boulevard between San Joaquin Hills Road and Ford Road This section
of MacArthur Boulevard shall be widened to six lanes.
15. MacArthur Boulevard between Ford Road and SR-73. This section of MacArthur
Boulevard shall be widened to eight lanes.
16. Irvine Avenue between University Drive and Bristol Street. In order to accommodate
forecast demand, this section of Irvine Avenue shall be widened to six lanes. There
is 100 feet of existing right-of-way in this section.
17. Campus Drive between Bristol Street and MacArthur Boulevard. To conform to the
County Master Plan, this section needs to be upgraded to 6 lanes and is part of the
Airport Mitigation Plan.
18. Birch Street/Mesa Drive from Irvine Avenue to Jamboree Road A Secondary arterial
(4 lane, undivided) is designated from Mesa Drive at Irvine Avenue to Birch Street
at Jamboree Road.
-11-
19. Dover Drive between Cliff Drive and Westcliff Drive. This section of roadway shall be
widened to six lanes.
20. 15th Street between Coast Highway and Bluff Road. This is a section of roadway that
will be constructed in conjunction with the development of the Mobil -Armstrong
property in the West Newport area. This roadway will be constructed with four lanes.
21. 15th Street between Bluff Road andMonroviaAvenue. This is a section of roadway that
will be constructed in conjunction with the development of the Mobil -Armstrong
property in the West Newport area. This roadway will be constructed with four lanes.
22. 15th Street between MonroviaAvenue and SuperiorAvenue. This existing roadway shall
be widened to four lanes.
23. Bluff Road between Coast IBghway and 17th Street. This is a section of roadway that
will be constructed in conjunction with the development of the Mobil -Armstrong
property in the West Newport area. This roadway will be constructed with four lanes.
24. Bluff Road between 17th Street and 19th Street. This is a section of roadway that will be
constructed in conjunction with the development of the Mobil -Armstrong property in
the West Newport area. This roadway will be constructed with four lanes.
25. 16th Street between Dover Drive and Seagull Lane. This project involves the widening
of this section of the roadway to four lanes.
26. 17th Street from Bluff Road to the Easterly City Limit. This is a section of roadway that
will be constructed in conjunction with the development of the Mobil -Armstrong
property in the West Newport area. This roadway will be constructed with four lanes.
27. 19th Street from Bluff Road to the SantaAna River. Although this section of roadway is
mainly outside the City Limits, the Master Plan of Streets and Highways provides for
the construction of four travel lanes.
28. Placentia Avenue from Superior Avenue to Hospital Road. This project involves the
widening of this section of the roadway to four lanes.
29. SuperiorAvenue between Placentia Avenue and Industrial Way. This project involves
only the acquisition of the small sliver of land adjacent to the Mobil Home Park on
Superior Avenue to complete the roadway widening to provide shoulder and sidewalk
area. All four travel lanes have been completed.
-12-
30. Avocado Avenue from Coast Highway to San Miguel Drive. This project involves the
construction of Avocado Avenue north of Coast Highway to San Miguel at four lanes.
31. Dover Drive between Irvine Avenue and Westcliff Avenue. This project involves the
widening of this section of the roadway to four lanes, by covering the flood control
channel.
32. 22nd Street between IrvineAvenue and TustinAvenue. This project involves the widen-
ing of this section of the roadway to four lanes.
33. 32nd Street between Newport Boulevard and Lafayette Street. This project involves the
widening of this section of the roadway to four lanes. However, based upon the
potential reductions in future development on the Balboa Peninsula, this roadway
improvement may not be necessary in the future.
34. Bison Avenue between MacArthur Boulevard and the San Joaquin Hills Corridor. Al-
though this section of roadway is outside of the City limits, the Master Plan of Streets
and Highways provides for the construction of four travel lanes.
35. Ford Road between Mac Arthur Boulevard and the San foaquin Hills Transportation
Corridorr, The Master Plan of Streets and Highways provides for the construction of
this roadway as a Primary arterial.
a. Ford Road shall be realigned northerly of the current alignment.
b. An indirect connection(s) shall be made between realigned Ford Road and San
Miguel Drive.
c. The Master Plan of Streets and Highways shall show the designation of "Routes
That Require Further Coordination" for Ford Road and the San Miguel Drive
intersection(s) with realigned Ford Road.
36. San Joaquin Hills Road between Spyglass Hill Road and the San Joaquin Hills Corridor.
This section of roadway is outside of the City limits and the County Master Plan of
Arterial Highways provides for the construction of six travel lanes. Traffic projec-
tions indicate that a four lane divided roadway will adequately accommodate future
traffic, so the roadway has been designated as a Primary Augmented arterial on the
City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways.
a. San Joaquin Hills Road may be extended to connect to Pelican HillRoadwhen
Pelican Hill Road is fully operational between Coast Highway and Bonita'
Canyon Road/Mac Arthur Boulevard. Prior to that time, the connection may
be made to serve the Newport Beach Downcoast development provided that
Pelican Hill Road does not connect to Coast Highway before it connects to
Bonita Canyon/Mac Arthur Boulevard.
-13-
b. San Joaquin Hills Road easterly of Pelican Hill Road shall be shown on the
Master Plan of Streets and Highways as a 'Route That Requires Further
Coordination." Until fully noticed public hearings are held, the extension of
San Joaquin Hills Road east of Pelican Hill Road shall not occur as per City
Council Resolution Nos. 85-11(Item No. 6) and 88-89 (Item No. 5).
Any future action to change the designation of Ford Road or San Joaquin Hills Road
as described in 36 and 37 above shall be the subject of fully noticed public hearings
with all affected arterial intersections and links being reviewed as part of the hearings.
37. Pelican Hill Road between Coast Highway and the San Joaquin Hills Corridor. Al-
though this section of roadway is outside of the City limits but within our Sphere of
Influence, the Master Plan of Streets and Highways provides for the construction of
sidewalks, bikeways, and three travel lanes in each direction. An extra uphilllane will
be provided to accommodate truck and bus traffic.
38. Sand CanyonAvenue between Coast Highway and the San Joaquin Hills Corridor. This
road is to provide sidewalks, bikeways, and two travel lanes in each direction with an
uphill lane provided to accommodate truck and bus traffic.
Policy Number 2.
The construction of intersection improvements that are necessary to insure maximum
feasible efficiency of the roadwaysystem and service levels as close to LOS-D as possible.
DISCUSSION
Intersections are the major constraint to the efficient operation of the circulation
system. The following intersection configuration changes are suggested to augment
the major facility improvements to insure traffic service levels no greater than those
forecast in this Element and the General Plan Traffic Study.
The forecast traffic volumes are based upon estimates of the possible total develop-
ment within the City and adjacent areas over the next 22 years. The various intersec-
tion improvements listed below are based upon projected Intersection Capacity
Utilization analyses in the computerized traffic model, projected to the year 2010.
Therefore some of the intersection improvements listed may not be constructed
exactly as described herein, or a particular improvement may be shown to be
unnecessary over the course of the next 20 years.
It is important to note that the exact geometrics have not been prepared. During the
course of the next 22 years, as major development proposals are submitted, the
operation of these intersections will be analyzed to determine the need for specific
improvements. At the time it is deemed necessary, the intersection geometrics will
be prepared.
-14-
IMPLEMENTATION
Construct the following intersection improvements:
Intersection
39. Newport Blvd. & Hospital Rd.
40. Newport Blvd. & 32nd Street
41. Riverside Dr. & Coast Highway
42. MacArthur Blvd. & Campus Dr
43. MacArthur Blvd. & Von Karman Ave.
44. Campus Dr. & Bristol St. North
Improvement
Add one eastbound left turn
lane.
Add a separate southbound right
turn lane.
Add an optional southbound left
turn lane, aseparate southbound
right turn lane, and one east-
bound through lane and one
eastbound left turn lane
Add a southbound left turn lane,
a westbound left turn lane, a
northbound right turn lane, and
a separate east bound right turn
lane.
Add an eastbound through lane.
Add one west bound left turn
lane.
The intersection of Campus Drive and Bristol Street North has high traffic volumes
due to its direct access to SR-73 and the fact that Campus Drive and Birch Street serve
as the arterials between the Irvine Business Complex and the high intensity office
developments in the northern portion of the City of Newport Beach and SR-73.
Because of the particular geometries and traffic volumes and distribution at this
intersection, it will be difficult for conventional intersections to carry the forecast
traffic. Additional lanes could be provided, however the weave movements between
southbound right turn from Campus to SR-73 could make this operationally difficult
to achieve. Therefore, it is recommended that this,be defined as a special project area
with alternative solutions being sought that could range from major intersection
upgrading to possible grade -separation.
-15-
Intersection Improvement
45. Birch St. & Bristol St. North Add one southbound through
lane and one westbound left turn
lane. This may require widening
the freeway bridge.
46. Birch St. & Bristol St. South Add one northbound through
lane and one eastbound through
lane. This may require the
widening of the freeway bridge.
47. Irvine Ave. & Mesa Dr: Add a separate southbound right
turn lane, a northbound right
turn lane, a westbound left turn
lane, and an eastbound through
lane.
48. Irvine Ave. & University Dr. Add an eastbound through lane.
49. DoverBayshore at Coast Hwy. Add an eastbound through lane
and a westbound through lane
(done w/8 lanes).
50. Jamboree Rd. and Bristol St. N. Add a northbound ramp on to
SR-73.
51. Jamboree Rd. and Bristol St. S. Add an eastbound through lane
and a northbound ramp on to
SR-73.
52. Jamboree Rd. and Bayview Way Add a southbound left turn lane
and a westbound left turn lane.
53. Jamboree Rd. and Bison Ave. Add a westbound left turn lane
and a northbound through lane
(done w/8 lanes).
54. MacArthur Blvd. & Bison Ave. Add a southbound left turn lane,
a westbound left turn lane, and a
northbound left turn lane.
55. MacArthur Blvd. and San Joaquin Hills (No improvement necessary;
done w/6 lanes.)
-16-
Intersection
56. MacArthur Blvd. and San Miguel
57. San Miguel Dr. and San Joaquin Hills
Policy Number 3
Improvement
Add a westbound left turn lane.
Add a westbound left turn lane.
The City will adopt measures, such as transportation system management plans, which
will reduce peak hour traffic and result in levels of service below those forecast in this
Element.
DISCUSSION
With the exception of summer beach traffic, our roads are most heavily travelled
during the morning and evening commutes. Any reduction in peak hour traffic will
result in intersection service levels below those forecast in this Element and the
General Plan Traffic Study.2 In some jurisdictions, transportation system manage-
ment plans (TSM) have reduced peak hour traffic by 10-15%. This kind of reduction
in peak hour traffic can reduce ICU's by similar percentages.
TSM techniques include ridesharing programs, vanpooling, and flexible work hours.
Employers with large work forces can utilize all of these techniques, while smaller
companies are typically limited to ridesharing and flex -time programs. The problem
with any TSM is to give the property owner or employer an incentive to implement
the program so that it works to their economic advantage.
IMPLEMENTATION
1. Collect and study relevant literature and reports, specifically those which dis-
cuss the implementation of TSM's in cities with populations similar to that of
Newport Beach;
2. Study means and methods, including density bonuses, that would give proper-
ty owners and employers incentives to implement TSM's; and
The levels of service forecast by Austin -Foust are based upon the construction of all additional growth
authorized in the Land Use Element. These forecasts represent a "worst case" scenario, since it is
extremely unlikely that property owners will exercise their full rights with respect to each parcel in the
City.
-17-
3. On or before August 1,1989, submit a comprehensive report to the City Council
discussing TSM techniques, the extent to which those techniques may be useful
to employers in the City of Newport Beach, and the incentives that can be given
by the City of Newport Beach to encourage property owners and employers to
develop and implement TSM's.
Policy Number 4
Fund costs of major roadway facility and intersection improvements through gas tax
revenues, state, federal and county grants, City ordinances, and privately financed
improvements.
DISCUSSION
The total estimated cost to construct the roadway improvements necessary to com-
plete the circulation system is $81,980,000. The estimated cost of the intersection
improvements required to insure maximum efficiency of the system is $3,045,000.
(See Table V).
Financing Resources
The total estimated cost of all roadway and intersection improvements is $85,025,000,
based upon 1988 dollars. These cost estimates include design and engineering fees,
the cost of land for additional right-of-way, construction costs, and the cost of signals,
other traffic control devices, and environmental mitigation measures.
In the past, the City of Newport Beach has received funding from gasoline tax
apportionment, County, State, and Federal funds, developer contributions required
by the City's Fair Share Ordinance and the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, and the
General Fund. These sources of funding are expected to continue in the future,
although somewhat greater reliance may be placed on the City's Fair Share Or-
dinance than the Traffic Phasing Ordinance.
Of the total estimated cost of $85,025,000, approximately $15,250,000 will be funded
by other governmental agencies; $15,400,000 over 22 years from gas tax revenues;
$21,168,750 will be provided by adjacent development; and $33,106,250 will be
generated by the City's Fair Share Fee Program, the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, and
the General Fund. Given the constitutional restrictions on appropriations, it is
extremely unlikely that General Fund Revenues will be available in substantial
amounts to fund roadway improvements. In all probability, greater reliance will be
placed upon the Fair Share Ordinance.
The City's Fair Share Ordinance, which was adopted in 1984, establishes a contribu-
tion based upon the unfunded cost to implement the Master Plan of Streets and
Highways. In essence, this program provides for a fee to be paid in conjunction with
the issuance of a building permit. The fees are based upon the total cost of the neces-
m
sary improvements in the Circulation Element, less the funds anticipated from the
various traditional funding sources, divided by the total vehicle trips generated by fu-
ture allowable development in the City. A prorata share of the total cost is assigned
to each new development.
The City of Newport Beach was one of the first cities in the State to require circula-
tion system improvements not adjacent to a project, as a condition of development.
The City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance has been in effect since 1978 and has required
developer funding of intersection improvements in instances where a proposed
project has a direct negative impact on the level of service at a given intersection. Al-
though the Fair Share Ordinance provides the funding mechanism required to assure
the construction of the roadways included in Master Plan of Streets and Highways
ultimately, it is also desirable to phase development with the construction of these
facilities in order to maintain level of traffic service that is within the limits predicted
in this Element. The City should, by ordinance, control the phasing of circulation
system improvements with development, and to do so in a manner consistent with
predicted levels of service. However, the density and intensity limits imposed by the
Land Use Element, in concert with the Fair Share Ordinance, tend to insure that
transportation facilities will be constructed in phase with additional development.
Moreover, growth limits in the Land Use Element will reduce the extent to which a
development phasing ordinance acts as a funding mechanism, with greater reliance
placed on the Fair Share Ordinance.
Fair Share and Phasing Ordinances should be consistent with one another to insure
the City receives full fees and that property owners receive credit for any master plan
improvement required as a condition to project approval. Property owners should
be encouraged to jointly fund, and construct in advance, major circulation system im-
provements which may be required of more than one developer or required in sub-
sequent phases of the project. However, situations may arise where Phasing
Ordinance requirements exceed Fair Share Fees and, in such cases, the property
owner shall have the option of making the required improvements with no guaran-
tee of reimbursement.
Periodically, the City Council shall review the Fair Share Fee Ordinance, reassess
the unfunded cost of required improvements and increase or decrease required Fair
Share Fees as appropriate.
Another valuable tool that the City utilizes is to require the dedication of needed
right-of-way in conjunction with a subdivision map at the time a project is approved.
When appropriate, the developer is also required to pay for the actual roadway im-
provements adjacent to a site prior to the issuance of permits.
The City Council shall, during the annual budget review, determine the projects that
remain to be constructed to complete the Master Plan of Streets and Highways. The
projects to be funded in the next fiscal year shall be determined by analyzing current
or immediate needs in the circulation system, as well as available financing from the
-19-
county, state and federal governments, developer contributions to either the Fair
Share Program or dedications and improvements in conjunction with specific
developments, and the City's General Fund.
IMPLEMENTATION
1. The City shall continue to utilize gas tax revenues to fund circulation system
improvements necessary to complete the Master Plan of Streets and Highways;
2. The City shall continue to actively seek federal, state and county assistance in
funding circulation system improvements necessary to complete the Master
Plan of Streets and Highways;
3. The City shall maintain the Fair Share Traffic Contribution Ordinance and
amend the ordinance as necessary to insure the required fees will provide
substantially all the otherwise unfunded costs of completing the Master Plan.of
Streets and Highways;
4. Maintain and/or modify as necessary an ordinance which will help insure that
circulation system improvements are constructed in phase with the additional
growth authorized in the Land Use Element; and
S. The City Council shall, during annual budget review, establish a priority of
projects to be funded in each fiscal year based upon current need and available
funding.
Policy Number 5
Identify and implement measures to reduce the impact of high volume summer traffic
on persons living along and around the beach and bay.
DISCUSSION
For many years the City has experienced extremely high volumes of traffic during the
summer, especially on weekend days. At times, congestion resulting from these high
traffic volumes creates a "gridlock" on surface streets on, and leading to, the Balboa
Peninsula. The problem was first studied in 1968 and periodically evaluated since
that time. Public input during the process leading to the adoption of this Element
has focused on the need to again evaluate even partial solutions to this long standing
problem. Accordingly, the City commits to further study of the proposals outlined
in the Local Coastal Program, as well as continued implementation of certain
enforcement practices that provide some relief to residents during the most con-
gested times.
-20-
IMPLEMENTATION
1. The City shall continue to study, and implement if found feasible, the circula-
tion policies and practices described in the Land Use Plan of the Local Coas-
tal Program; and
2. The City shall continue the practice of providing additional through lanes on
major streets for residents and persons with business in the area, to the extent
permitted by law and consistent with the policy of not restricting the public's
access to coastal resources.
Table V - Roadway Costs and Funding
Pro]
Proposed
Total
Committed Adjacent
Public &
NQ,
}AG3t14Il
Improvement
cost �71
Other AgQncies I201'.
Fair Share
1
Coast Hwy (SA River to Newport)
widen to 6lanes
8,500,000
7,500,000
1,000,000
2
Coast Hwy (Newport to Dover)
widen to 6 lanes
12,250,000
2,000,000
10,250,000
3
Coast Hwy (Dover to Jamboree)
widen to 8 lanes
3,000,000
3,000,000
4
Coast Hwy (Bayside to Jamboree)
widen to 6lanes
8,085,000
6,500,000
1,585,000
5
Coast Hwy/Jamboree (intersection)
grade separation
4,000,000
4,000,000
6
Newport (30th to 32nd)
widen to 6 lanes
1,500,000
1,500,000
7
Newport (32nd to Coast Hwy)
widen to 6 lanes
%650,000
1,250,000
1,400,000
8
Newport/Coast Hwy (intersection)
new grade separation
5,000,000
5,000,000
9
Newport (Coast Hwy to hospital)
widen to 6lanes
500,000
500,000
10
Jamboree (SJH Rd to Newporter)
widen to 6 lanes
1,030,000
880,000
150,000
11
Jamboree (Bristol to Ford)
widen to 8 lanes
2,000,000
2,000,000
12
Bayview (Jamboree to MacArthur)
build 4lanes
825,000
425,000
400,000
13
MacArthur (Coast Hwy to San Miguel)
widen to 6lanes
2,500,000
1,250,000
1,250,000
14
MacArthur (San Miguel to SJH Road)
widen to 6lanes
1,800,000
1,500,000
300,000
15
MacArthur (SJH Road to Ford)
widen to 6lanes
51000,000
1,000,000
4,000,000
16
MacArthur (Ford to SR-73)
widen to 8 lane
City of Irvine
17
Irvine (University to Bristol) ill
widen to 6 lanes
650,000
650,000
18
Campus (Bristol to MacArthur)
widen to 6 lanes
Orange County
19
Birch/Mesa (Irvine to Bristol)12}
widen to 4lanes
1,200,000
600,000
600,000
20
Dover (Cliff to Westcliff)
widen to 6 lanes
1,700,000
850,000
850,000
21
15th (Coast Hwy to Bluff)
construct 4 lanes
990,000
990,000
22
15th (Bluff to Monrovia)
construct 4 lanes
990,000
490,000
500,000
23
15th (Monrovia to Superior)
widen to 4lanes
1,270,000
1,270,000
24
Bluff (Coast Hwy to 17th)
construct 4lanes
2,200,000
1,400,000
800,000
25
Bluff (17th to 19th)
construct 4lanes
1,375,000
1,000,000
375,000
26
16th (Dover to Seagull)
widen to 4lanes
200,000
200,000
27
17th (Bluff to E City limit)
construct 4lanes
245,000
183,750
61,250
28
19th (Bluff to SA River) 131
construct 41anes
8,000,000
7,700,000
300,000
29
Placentia (Superior to Hospital)
widen to 4lanes
450,000
450,000
30
Superior (Placentia to Industrial)
complete 4lanes
500,000
500,000
31
Avocado (Coast Hwy to San Miguel)
construct 4lanes
900,000
900,000
32
Dover (Irvine to Westclifi)
widen to 4lanes
1,650,000
1,650,000
33
22nd (Irvine to Tustin)
widen to 4lanes
855,000
855,000
34
32nd (Newport to Villa Way)
widen to 4lanes
65,000
65,000
35
Bison (MacArthur to SJH Corridor)
construct 4lanes
Irvine
36
Ford (San Miguel to E City boundary)
widen to 4lanes
Irvine
37
Ford (E City boundary to SJH Corr.)
construct 4lanes
Irvine
38
SJH Road (Spyglass to SJH Corr.)
construct 6 lanes
County
39
Pelican Hill (Coast Hwy to SJH Corr.)
construct 6 lanes
County
-22-
Table V - Roadway Costs and Funding - (Cont.)
Proj.
Proposed
Total Committed
Adjacent Public &
pjo,
Location
Improvement
Cost {71 Other A=cies
12m Fair Share
40
Sand Canyon (Coast Hwy to SJH Corr.) construct 4lanes
County
41
Newport & Hospital
add EBL
85,000
85,000
42
Newport & 32nd 141
add NBT
1665,0001
separate SBR
43
Riverside & PCH 141
add EBT
11,500,0001
add optional SBL
separate SBR
add EBL
44
Tustin & PCH
add EBT included w/Riverside
45
MacArthur & Campus
add SBL, WBL & NBR
385,000
385,000
separate EBR
46
MacArthur & Von Karman
add EBT
100,000
100,000
47
Campus & Bristol (N)
add WBL
50,000
50,000
48
Birch & Bristol (N)15}
add SBT & WBL
11100,000
1,100,000
49
Birch & Bristol (8)
add NBT & EBT included w/North
50
Irvine & Mesa
add SBT & NBT
390,000
390,000
separate SBR & NBR
add WBL & EBT
51
Irvine & University
add EBT
25,000
25,000
52
DoverBayshore & PCH
add EBT & WBT
305,000
305,000
53
Jamboree & Bristol (l) 16}
NB ramp to Route 73
14,000,0001
54
Jamboree & Bristol (S)
add EBT
part of North
NB ramp to Route 73
55
Jamboree & Bayview,
add SBL, WBL & WBT
200,000
200,000
56
Jamboree & Bison
add WBL & NBT
55,000
55,000
57
MacArthur & Bison
add SBL, WBL & NBL
255,000
255,000
58
MacArthur & SJH Road 14}
add SBT
1600,0001
59
MacArthur & San Miguel
add SBT & NBT
60,000
60,000
add WBL
60
San Miguel & SJH Road
add WBL
35,000
35,000
TOTAL (all improvements)
$94,925,000 $15,250,000
$21,168,750 $48,504250
Footnotes:
11} Does not include work in County.
121 County Redevelopment Agency will pay public share.
13} Includes bridge; County will pay public share .
14} Part of roadway link project.
151 Includes FWY bridge widening.
161 Orange County.
171 Numbers in (brackets} not included in total.
- 23 -
Bikeways
Intent
The City of Newport Beach favors the use of bicycles both for transportation, to mitigate
traffic levels, and for recreation to promote health and fitness.
Local Needs
The needs of bicyclists will vary with the function of the trip and the speed of the rider. In
addition, children riding bicycles for any purpose will have special needs in terms of safety.
Those residents who use bicycles daily as their primary means of transportation are
concerned with utilizing the most convenient and direct route available to reach their
destination. Consequently, there is a general aversion to any significant out -of -direction
travel. Inconveniently situated bikeways will not normally be used. Studies have shown
one to three blocks out of the direction of travel is about the limit, depending upon the
distance to be traveled. These bicyclists normally will select a route along a primary or a
major highway. In contrast, the recreational rider might chose a route for its scenic interest
such as a harbor view or for its open space character. Some recreational riders prefer to
ride on a bike trail separated from vehicular traffic. Thus, it is necessary to provide
bikeways for bicyclists along major transportation corridors as well as residential and scenic
areas.
Fast cyclists ride at 12-25 miles per hour. They are usually experienced riders, and mix
poorly with pedestrians, children, and recreational cyclists because of their speed. Slower
cyclists ride at average speeds of 8-12 miles per hour. They mix well with child cyclists;
only the slowest cyclists mix well with pedestrians, but poorly with motor vehicles. It is thus
necessary to provide bikeways which separate faster cyclists from pedestrian travel and
children, integrating bicycle travel more closely with vehicular traffic, and bikeways which
separate slower cyclists from motor vehicle traffic. Children would be expected to utilize
the latter routes.
Regional Needs
Several regional bikeways pass through the City of Newport Beach. These bikeways
provide alternate circulation routes and access to areas of interest on a regional basis.
Bikeways are an important component of the local recreation and transportation spectrum.
Some potential sites have been identified as those which are appropriate for bikeways or
have already been designated to be served by such a trail. The City can work closely with
regional and other local governments to coordinate regional bikeway connections to local
bikeways and to popular destinations for bicyclists which are located in the City.
-24-
Classification of Bikeways
Bikeway is the term to designate all facilities which provide for bicycle travel. The Master
Plan of Bikeways include various types of facilities to provide for both transportation and
recreation cyclists, faster and slower cyclists, and children. In order to serve varying needs,
the City of Newport Beach provides the following types of facilities:
1. Bicycle Lane. Alane in the street, normally the parking lane, or a separate lane,
designated for the exclusive or semi -exclusive use of bicycles. Through travel
by motor vehicles or pedestrians is not allowed, vehicle parking may or may not
be allowed. Crossfiow by motorists to gain access to driveways and parking
facilities is allowed. Separation from the motor vehicle travel way is normally
by a painted solid stripe. Bicycle lanes and bicycle routes together are also
known as Class 3 bicycle trails.
2. Bicycle Route. A shared right-of-way for bicycle operation, whether or not it is
specified by signs or markings. All main streets and highways by authority of
the California Vehicle Code include bicycle routes as defined herein. Bicycle
lanes and bicycle routes together are also known as Class 3 bicycle trails.
3. Bicycle Trail. A pathway designated for the use of bicycles which is physical-
ly separated from motor vehicle traffic. Pedestrian traffic my or may not be ex-
cluded. Bicycle trails are also known as Class 1 bicycle trails.
4. Backbone Bikeway. Backbone bikeways are major through bikeways, as shown
on the Master Plan of Bikeways. They are primarily on major roads. Backbone
bikeways may connect to regional trails, as shown in the Master Plan.
5. Secondary Bikeway. Secondary bikeways connect to backbone trails and serve
cyclists and children riding to and from school. Secondary bikeways may also
be a bicycle lane, route, or trail.
Objective, Policies, and Programs
To promote bicycling for transportation and recreation in and around Newport
Beach.
1. To provide a safe, convenient, and enjoyable system of bikeways that meets the
needs of all bicyclists, including children and adults, fast and slow bicyclists, and
functional and recreational cyclists.
-25-
2. The City shall insure implementation of a bikeway system to encourage cycling
as a alternative mode of transportation consistent with the Master Plan of
Bikeways.
3. Bikeways shall be developed in recognition of the rights and safety of
pedestrians.
1. The Master Plan of Bikeways (page 29 below) shall be implemented as follows:
a. Bicycle lanes shall be included on all streets and highways desig-
nated as backbone bikeways and considered on streets and highways
designated as secondary bikeways in conjunction with street and
highway improvements when feasible and consistent with the City's
ability to do so. At major intersections, consideration shall be given
to providing space and signal detection modifications for bicyclists
to negotiate through and turning movements.
b. Bikeways shown on the Master Plan of Bikeways shall be developed
consistent with the City's ability to do so.
C. Careful consideration shall be given to linkage of schools and
residences in the formulation of plans for individual bikeways.
d. Appropriate bikeway improvements may be required as a condition
of development approvals.
e. The City will work with appropriate agencies for development of
connecting bikeways.
f. Bikeways shall be developed as bike trails when the opportunity
exists and is feasible.
g. Bikeways shall be developed to link recreational areas where
feasible.
h. Bikeways shall be developed to take advantage of scenic views when
feasible.
2. The City intends to promote bicycle use by commuters, shoppers, beach -goers,
etc., to help minimize auto traffic, by providing bike lanes (see above) and by
providing and encouraging businesses and employers to provide:
-26-
a. Secure bike parking, including bike lockers;
b. Clothes lockers and showers for employees.
3. School and other safety programs by the Newport Beach Police Department
will be continued.
4. When construction or repairs necessitate lane closures, every effort will be
made to provide room for cyclists as well as for motor vehicles.
5. When possible, bikeways and walkways will be separated.
IMPLEMENTATION
Bikeway projects could be financed using the City's General Fund or SB 821 Funds.
SB 821 Funds are of state origin and are disbursed by the Orange County Transpor-
tation Commission (OCTC). They are allocated for bikeway projects, including but
not limited to signs, striping, staging areas, bridges, and bike lanes. Candidate
projects must be part of an adopted plan. The funds are disbursed annually. 509o, of
the County's funds are allocated on a population basis. The remaining 50% are dis-
cretionary funds granted after a prescribed nomination process and technical evalua-
tion.
Citizens' Advisory Committee on Bikeways
The Citizens' Advisory Committee on Bikeways should be directed to:
1. Review planned expansions or changes to the City's bikeway network for ad-
visory input to the Public Works Department and the City Council.
2. Research bikeway implementation, education, and safety techniques, maintain
a record of bicycle accidents, and collect available literature on bicycle safety.
3. Report to the City Council annually on findings and progress in expanding the
bikeway network.
4. Coordinate with bikeway committees in adjoining communities.
5. Develop public information materials as directed by the City Council.
-27-
I
M: ter Fla
of : i e ays
® MOOQE b@MAY ;
B IECbOYKI AY
�j ® IEOJ1NllR�ll
J
i0 -1 »WKBJIHt
CITY OF NEWP ORT BEACH
CIRCULATION ELEMENT
MASTER PLAN OF STREETS &
HIGHWAYS 1/
Adopted by City Council
October 24, 1988
cnsra
FOMMUE UN ROADWAY
Two U uxnlvinED
SECONDARY ROAD ( FOUR LANE UNDIVI.
PRIMARY ROAD ( FOUR LANE DIVIDED )
M PRIMARY AUGMENTED ROAD
MAJOR ROAD ( SIX LANE DIVIDED )
M MAJOR AUGMENTED ROAD
EIGHT LANE ROAD DIVIDED
MADOPTED FREEWAY ROUTES
9 SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR
INTERCHANGE 0 PROPOSED INTERCHANGE
... ROUTES THAT REQUIRE FURTHER COORDINATION
BRIDGE ----CITY BOUNDARY"
—CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
Prepared
Advance Plan]
Printed Oct
AMENDMENTS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL
N
Scale 1 14000