HomeMy WebLinkAboutSS03 - Mixmaster Study - Newport Blvd & Balboa Blvd• February 22, 2000
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
ITEM NO. SS3
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Public Works Department
SUBJECT: CIRCULATION STUDY FOR MERGER OF NEWPORT BOULEVARD/
BALBOA BOULEVARD (MIXMASTER)
RECOMMENDATION:
Direct staff to proceed with the preparation of plans, specifications, and engineer's final
estimate for completion of traffic circulation, safety, and access improvements in the
Mixmaster area in general conformance with Alternative H (Modified Existing).
DISCUSSION:
On June 8, 1998, the City Council authorized preparation of a Circulation Study for the
merger of Newport Boulevard and Balboa Boulevard. This study was identified as one
of the highest priority projects of the Balboa Peninsula revitalization plan. A
•
Professional Services Agreement was executed with the Parsons Transportation Group
for the preparation of this study. A copy of the study summary is attached for your
review. Please refer to this report for the descriptions and drawings showing the
alternatives. This study includes a detailed engineering analysis of possible
alternatives for merger, realignment, and reconstruction. The existing merger,
sometimes referred to as the "Mixmaster ", is considered by some to be confusing,
especially for first -time visitors to the Newport Pier area. The goal of the study was to
identify alternatives which would improve traffic circulation, reduce driver confusion,
increase pedestrian safety, improve access to businesses in the McFadden Square
area, and improve the aesthetic appearance of the area, while maintaining smooth
traffic flow to the peninsula.
One of the first tasks in the study scope was to review previous reports prepared for the
Mixmaster area. The 1997 Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee (BPPAC)
Project 2000 report included a recommendation to redesign the Newport
Boulevard /Balboa Boulevard merger to create a 'roundabout" (traffic circle) near 26'h
Street, and to combine Newport Boulevard and Balboa Boulevard through the
McFadden Square area. This study analyzed the feasibility of the proposed traffic
roundabout. Another initial study task was the collection of holiday and summer peak
traffic counts, and preliminary evaluation of alternative plans. Initially, four alternative
plans were identified by staff to be evaluated by the consultant, including a "Do Nothing"
alternative (Alternative 1).
SUBJECT: Circulation Study for Merger of Newport Boulevard /Balboa Boulevard (Mixmaster)
February 22, 2000
Page 2
A key component of the study process was the development of a public outreach •
program so residents, business owners, and property owners would have opportunities
to provide input during the design process. The public and area visitors could also
provide input through public opinion surveys, which were distributed at meetings and at
local businesses. A total of five public workshops and meetings were held to solicit
input. The workshops were facilitated by the firm of Moore, lacofano, Goltsman, Inc.,
(MIG) who also facilitated workshops for the Balboa Peninsula Parking Management
Plan. The first workshop was held on August 12, 1998, where four preliminary concept
plans (Alternatives D, E, F and 1) were presented and discussed.
The initial public comments were in support of the "Do Nothing" plan (Alternative 1),
primarily because it would cause the least disruption and would not require further
funding. A member of the community presented a conceptual plan (Alternative C) at
this workshop, which was also discussed. As a result of comments received at the first
workshop, the consultant developed two new alternative plans (Alternatives A and B).
The new alternative plans were developed to improve circulation, access, and safety
and confine impact to the area bounded by 23rd Street and 21St Street. It is important to
note that each alternative plan was developed with the goal of keeping a realigned
merger within the existing public right -of -way.
Subsequent meetings were held with area business owners and homeowner
association leaders to discuss the seven alternative plans developed to date. The
consensus of the groups was a `T" intersection plan (Alternatives C, E, and F) would •
provide more disadvantages than advantages. Alternatives C, E, and F were
eliminated from further detailed study. At this time, another plan was presented by a
workshop participant (Alternative G). The consultant proceeded with further detailed
study of Alternatives A, B, D, G and I.
On April 20, 1999, a public workshop was held to discuss the preliminary engineering
plans for alternatives that warranted additional study. A preliminary evaluation matrix
was presented at this meeting to compare each alternative to the existing layout
(Alternative 1). Parking impacts, access, visitor comprehension, cost, and right -of -way
impacts were analyzed and compared. Public comments noted major congestion
occurs primarily during the 10 to 20 busiest visitor days of the year, and the costs and
impacts of the proposed alternatives outweighed the potential benefits. The favored
plan once again was the "Do Nothing" alternative. Suggestions were made by City
staff, the consultant, and the public for minor modifications to the existing alignment to
achieve improved access, safety, and circulation at the merger. These suggestions led
to the development of the Modified Existing Plan (Alternative H).
The final public workshop was held on October 7, 1999. At this workshop, the
expanded evaluation matrix (shown on Table 3 in the study) was presented. Alternative
H was also presented and discussed in detail. Each of the key study criteria was
reviewed in detail at this workshop. A review of Table 3 shows that traffic delay is
increased for each of the alternatives, compared to the existing merger, particularly in
Alternatives A and B (addition of one traffic signal) and Alternative G (addition of two •
traffic signals). As far as access improvements are concerned, the alternatives
presented mixed results. Some alternatives improve access to one area, while
SUBJECT: Circulation Study for Merger of Newport Boulevard /Balboa Boulevard (Mixmaster)
February 22, 2000
Page 3
. degrading access to another. An issue of great importance on the peninsula is parking,
particularly in this area. With three of the alternatives, there is a loss of parking. Forty
parking stalls are lost with the roundabout plan (Alternative D). Any parking impacts are
considered significant because of the need to replace lost parking. Finally, the
workshop participants felt the construction impacts and costs associated with
Alternatives A, B, D, and G would be too great relative to the potential benefits.
On January 14, 2000, the results of the project study were presented to the Promote
Revitalization of our Peninsula (PROP) Sub - Committee. The consultant presented a
review of the public outreach program for the project, and the decision making process
that led to Alternative H. Each aspect of Alternative H was presented and discussed in
detail. The challenge of this project is to balance the access needs of McFadden
Square, while maintaining traffic flow through the area; not impacting valuable parking,
and improving visitor comprehension and pedestrian safety. Ultimately, none of the
alternative plans for realignment of the merger proved to be an improvement over the
existing Mixmaster layout. The PROP Sub - Committee and the public in attendance at
this meeting supported Alternative H.
Alternative H, the Modified Existing alternative, is the recommended plan in this
study (see attached drawing of Alternative H). Alternative H improves access to
McFadden Square by converting 21St Street to a two -way street. McFadden Square
would have direct, logical access for vehicles traveling southbound on Newport
• Boulevard and northbound on Balboa Boulevard. The conversion of 21St Street is
proposed on a trial basis, due to concern that it might lead to excessive congestion on
Balboa Boulevard or in the pier parking lot. Should this proposal be implemented,
traffic on 21St Street will be monitored through the summer peak period. Improved
access to bayside businesses is achieved by providing a southbound left -turn lane on
Newport Boulevard between 23rd Street and 26�h Street. Improved traffic signage is
proposed to improve visitor comprehension. Pedestrian circulation and safety is
improved by providing overhead signing and lighting at the crosswalk on Newport
Boulevard at 23rd Street. A total of four parking stalls are lost with the conversion of
21St Street to a two -way street. The preliminary cost estimate for Alternative H is
$395,000.
Reffully sub ' ed,
ftg�
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Don Webb, Director
By: -� /
Antony Brine, P
Transportation Engineer
. Attachments: Exhibit: Alternative H
For City Council and Key Staff Only - Circulation Study Summary for Merger of Balboa Boulevard and Newport
Boulevard (Public review of this report available at the City Clerk's office)
F: \Users\PBW\Shared\ COUNCIL \Fy9g -00 \February-22 \Mixmaster Study- Annexabon.doc.doc
AP
z w
hill w
P
&MMO
40
I
: 11 ,_
AF&
���, tn•i�� � � �u'4JJN�
fiSAp C�0 3�daoa
ELI FORS
fier
A 4 of Afmpo fil al Ac
m
PARSONS
TRANSPORTATION
GROUP INC.
_ - ra aD ark mrvr
�Yy 11EAliC =01t ��
$T'_
"�, q•, 31ST ST 1ti,�as� �Ci r
•• ,�ti�i .ISM . 4 Y� q
u,
A4-
s
�w
ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS
NEWPORT BEACH
FEBRUARY, ZOOO
Table of Contents
Background.................................................................. ..............................1
Approach...................................................................... ..............................1
Evaluation....................................................................
3
...............................
Data Collection and Field Operations ................................... ..............................3
Preliminary Alternatives ......................................................... ..............................5
PublicOutreach ..................................................................... ............................... 5
PublicMeetings ................................................................................. ............................... 5
PublicOpinion Surveys .................................................................... ............................... 9
Analysis of Refined Alternatives .......................................... .............................10
Criteria................................................................................................ .............................10
Refined Alternatives Analysis ......................................................... .............................14
Comparison /Conclusion ............................................
.............................16
Table 3 — Alternatives Evaluation Matrix .................. .............................17
Appendix A - Plans of Alternatives ........................... .............................18
Appendix B — Public Opinion Surveys ..................... .............................27
A. Business Survey ...................................................................... ...............................
28
B. Resident Survey ....................................................................... ...............................
31
C. Vistor Survey ............................................................................ ...............................
33
Appendix C — Cost Estimates
36
.................................. ...............................
Table of Figures
Figure1: Location Map .................................................... ..............................2
Figure 2: Access Regions .............................................. .............................12
Table of Tables
Table 1: Study Alternatives .............................................. ............................... 4
Table 2: Level —of— Service Definitions ............................. ............................... 11
Table 3: Alternative Evaluations Matrix ............................ ............................... 17
Background
Newport Beach is comprised of several distinct districts, the oldest district being the
Balboa Peninsula. The Balboa Peninsula began to develop in 1906 with the extension of
the Pacific Electric Railway from Huntington Beach. Seasonal visitors became a fixture
and a driving force behind real estate development on the Peninsula. This area has
always had a very strong maritime theme and heritage, emphasizing itself as an
upscale, desirable destination for the yachtsman and beach -goer. Many of the land use
decisions and development preceded today's modern planning of communities and
districts. The circulation system is an outgrowth of these choices. Certainly the
automobile has figured in the development of the area, but the original development
patterns did not anticipate the tremendous daily and seasonal traffic flows, which are a
testament to the area's popularity.
During the last decade the City's leaders have recognized that area development,
circulation, and parking issues may be limiting the redevelopment potential and livability
of the area. Residents and business owners are concerned about the congestion and
lack of parking on the Balboa Peninsula. Visitors to the area have difficulty finding their
intended destination. The City Council has responded by commissioning several studies
in the recent past, most notably the Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee
(BPPAC) Project 2000 Report and the Balboa Peninsula Planning Study. Other efforts
have been made in the past by the American Institute of Architect's Regional /Urban
Design Assistance Team (R/UDAT) program (circa 1983) and by Austin -Foust
Associates in the late 1980's. The Balboa Peninsula Parking Management Plan is
currently being prepared to address parking issues on a comprehensive, peninsula -wide
basis.
As an adjunct to this parking management plan, the City Council has commissioned this
study to focus on the area in and around the Balboa Boulevard /Newport Boulevard
merge, known locally as the "Mix Master". Its purpose is to determine if alternatives exist
to enhance access, circulation, and safety through the merge for all modes of
transportation. Figure 1 shows the location of the Mix Master and the area surrounding
it.
This report provides a summary of the evaluations and findings to this date.
Approach
The purpose of this study is to assess circulation opportunities in the focused area
around the Balboa Boulevard /Newport Boulevard merge, known as the Mix Master. The
study conducted consisted of several elements:
1. Review of historical data and reports on potential alternatives for the Mix Master.
2. Traffic data collection and field surveys.
3. Development and assessment of different alternatives.
ul
LU
Ix
CO Lu
it ji C
O
eR�N�_
fall
W CU j
000
CL
W
Z m
JOW D IT �1
w9z RU
4. Public opinion surveys.
5. A series of public meetings with peninsula residents, business owners, and
potentially affected property owners.
This report documents the findings following the preliminary evaluation of alternatives;
the development of new or refined alternatives based on public input at four meetings;
and the comparison of these alternatives to existing conditions based on various factors
including:
• Traffic circulation and operations
• Accessibility for residents and businesses
• Parking impacts
• Pedestrian circulation
• Right -of -way impacts
• Visitor comprehension
• Construction impacts
• Landscaping and Aesthetics
• Cost
• Probability of public acceptance
Table 1 provides a description of each of the alternatives evaluated in this study. Plans
for each of the alternatives are shown in Appendix A.
Evaluation
Data Collection and Field Operations
Information provided by city staff was assembled by the consultant and included:
• As- builts
• Street improvement plans
• Right -of -way information
• Traffic counts for the week of 5 -17 -97
• Previous studies
• Aerial maps
In addition to this information existing traffic counts were collected on:
• The Fourth of July Weekend (July 3d - 51h• 1998)
• Labor Day Weekend ( September 5'h —7 th. 1998)
• A typical weekday (November 24'h. 1998)
To complement these traffic counts, a field observation was performed on July 4'h• 1998
Notes were taken on traffic behavior and pedestrian circulation. Videotape was used to
record and document these behaviors from the top of the Spaghetti Factory.
A field review of existing guide signs was also performed. The Existing - Do Nothing
alternative (Alternative 1), provided in Appendix A, shows the location of existing guide
signs.
U)
d
_i
R
C
W
a
A
7
N
I
d
r
u
u
am
S
m
a
a
Imo,
m�p?
mmc
zm�N
°a
mmm
rn0
d
E D
0 c
R0
a 0E
E
t
.'
m
C
E
g
O
�
oNa
Ernd
"N
a I I
dp
O
d
`
E
^
dN !o
0Ni
O
� R
O
a
U N
IDpE.
c `aOE
d
d
DJ a
dOI �'d
dy
L.T.
myc
@d
dnc
tT @d
as +eta
d..- 1111dd
-a Sr i
S.rO
�
> >
'nUd)d
D
ono'
6Ud1=
a -ymm
6JS 601
aQ ac
D
o
T
Dtn
S
aDy
m�of
ImNa
nU@
o0 clot
nN O1 d Imo
ccc
m'
ipOi '�
in^��
>aciv
^m
d v
^pE
>�dNa>
ima
�gy nnnnE I,dmyl
E
dam' @
O
❑o @
d N C
❑`o �._
d d d
d
❑mC7D E.0
o
g O
c a
O J (
0 NZt0
c o
` N ZI
d- I
O
❑mm
d d N J O
❑ E NN I¢ym
m
t
J
C m
.p d
m
N
D Y
c E!
I
noN
m
�°
m
0
on
IE
m�
~ d
d
m
Z
@
N N
I
H
U
!
�I m
^O N
F L
O
E
O
m
N=
t
I
V N I
N i
d@
>
O
C
L L
f
E
I
Ca
C
>>N
I
TO>
v o
CN
1
inv Jo
c
@
DnJO'
E Ow
N L
Ot
@ gm
m
c
d
I
y 10
Z
U N
C
O
N
_
N d
I
N
C a I
O
N
T
4?
i
t I
O
@.a-IL I
U
L'N
I >iE
h
U
U
N O
C
M p
{ N E
N
d O
L
O
N N
N
4
c C
` T 0
L
m
�S
V1
I-
@
LLd U
m
N@
i d
yO
d 5
`ti°
F E
@
I t
L �c
a my
om
t519
T
Ti
ayD o
N
s
T
Tm
3
0
N =n
m
Ij
m
x
x
`13-
4
°m
Em
cn
W'Z
v LO
n
N
NN
m
0c
Q
O12E
O j
.V O
m
9 E N
N
N N
m N
m N N
N
m
p
d @
212 d
[c ]
> m
W
EE
d d
d@
'4 y
U
u)
d N
D
o
m m d
OIOi
m
�d
N
0SN
N
N
°M
CmN
>
cNN
°
c N
E_
2<
O. m
d
nD
d d Z d
m
�' m>
a
x
u m
m
@ m m y m
M d
c
=.2
L
d o v
£
m
c
a
H
y N m
m u
E o N
t
u
En
r
or. c
o
`o
`ac
c N
E c d
E m
=
N m
c d
c
<
0 hy
L
L
m c
'R d
c
O u 9
Q .0
3^
O
O
F=
V E
C
C
0
d—
N
ufEEiw
'r0a
2
ivy
d
a
m�
@�
.x
~`v
>
m
i H
`oc cad
m SW
Nsm
o
m C D
0
O m
-
y U
t8�sU E
Os I
E o
Em
c
m
O
mm
o
r ' c
o
r
m
°
p3
mv
o m
o
mi
c
PL 8�oU m-- +
c
p
S
mE
O
L
O
Z
o O
m
m O
mm
m
m
L M
1-N
1- •
O
c
o d
�
c
a y
c
o d
y
a
ac
0
005
006
N�
rn5
_
d d n
d dfi
°i ,
0 c
J
°t `yin
=�
m5W
-
00 'R
G'°
-
if N O
LL N O
c N
—N
N
N
U
W
Z
c
c
Q
m
V
W
LL
(7
EL
m
Q
Preliminary Alternatives
The City of Newport Beach initially identified four alternatives for study in this effort.
These alternatives were:
• Alternative D - Modern roundabout at approximately 26`h Street
• Alternative E -'T" intersection at 26`h Street
• Alternative F - "T" intersection at 281h Street
• Alternative I - Existing (Do Nothing)
Alternatives D, E, and F each have the potential to improve traffic operations in the Mix
Master area. However, each also has unique opportunities and constraints in terms of
right -of -way, parking, local vehicular and pedestrian access, implementation, aesthetics
and cost impacts. Nevertheless, these alternatives were the catalyst for discussion of
the trade -offs that need to be considered in the decision making process for this project.
Preliminary layouts of alternatives D, E, and F were prepared on an aerial photograph to
identify areas of impact. These alternatives were then presented to the public at an initial
community workshop in August 1998, with refinements and modifications to the
alternatives made in response to public opinion, as described below. These alternatives
are shown in Appendix A.
Public Outreach
A series of public meetings with peninsula residents, business owners, and potentially
affected property owners were held to facilitate a public outreach program. In addition,
public opinion surveys were conducted with area residents and business owners. This
public outreach program was necessary to gauge the effectiveness and acceptance of
proposed solutions and to incorporate ideas and suggestions from the public based
upon their intimate experience with the area.
Public Meetings
Each of the public meetings followed a similar format. Participants were handed a
comment booklet as they entered the meeting to note their suggestions and
observations. An overview of the Newport Boulevard /Balboa Boulevard Merge
Circulation Study process, including the study's objectives and the preliminary concept
alternatives developed to date, was then presented.
Following each presentation, participants reviewed the preliminary concept alternatives
in a "gallery" walk environment. This allowed for one -on -one discussions with other
participants as well as staff and consultant team members. A group question and answer
and general comment period for each alternative followed. Comments during the group
discussion were recorded. Participants were also encouraged to document their
comments in the booklet handed out at the beginning of the workshop and submit these
to staff.
Each of the public meetings are summarized below
August 12. 1998
On August 12,1998, the City of Newport Beach held a meeting for the general
community to initialize community involvement in the Newport /Balboa Boulevard Merge
Circulation Study. Twenty -three participants attended the meeting.
The four preliminary concepts (Alternatives D, E, F and 1) mentioned above were
presented to the audience using aerial photos and overlays.
Based upon comments expressed during the group discussion and those collected in the
comment book, participants expressed favor for the Existing (Do Nothing) concept
(Alternative 1), because it would cause the least disruption to existing traffic operations,
residents, and businesses and would not require further funding. Participants felt that
some signage and aesthetic improvements could be made to the existing Mix Master.
Participants felt that they needed more detailed information about other preliminary
concepts before they could make an informed decision.
As a result of this feedback, and particularly because of the significant changes in the
configuration that these alternatives would entail, the consultant developed two new
alternatives (Alternatives A and B). They were developed to improve circulation, access,
and safety while confining secondary impacts to the more immediate area between 23 Id
Street and 21s' Street. In addition, a member of the community developed another
alternative (Alternative C) which diverts southbound Newport Boulevard traffic to Balboa
Boulevard creating a "T" intersection at 25th Street. These alternatives, as well as the
preliminary alternatives, were presented at the next public meeting.
October 13, 1998
On October 13, 1998, the City of Newport Beach held a meeting for business owner
representatives to continue discussions concerning the Newport /Balboa Boulevard
Merge Circulation Study. Eleven business owners attended the meeting.
Six preliminary concepts using aerial photos and overlays were presented to the
audience.
These included:
• Alternative A - Five Point Intersection Option A (called Balboa "Y" at meeting)
• Alternative B - Five Point Intersection Option B (called Balboa "Y" at meeting)
• Alternative C - "T' Intersection at 25th Street
• Alternative D - Modern Roundabout at 26th Street
• Alternative E - "T' Intersection at 26th Street
• Alternative F - "T" Intersection at 28th Street
• Alternative I - Existing (Do Nothing)
Based upon comments expressed during the group discussion and those collected in the
comment book, general public concern was that each of the "T" intersection alternatives
(Alternatives C, E, and F) would provide more disadvantages than advantages. These
alternatives lacked support among the group participants. All of the other alternatives
(Alternatives A, B, D, and 1) gained some support among the participants and they were
willing to move forward with further detailed development of these alternatives.
As a result of discussions at this meeting, another alternative (Alternative G) was
developed by a member of the audience and presented at the next meeting.
November 12. 1998
On November 12, 1998, the City of Newport Beach held a meeting for residents and
homeowner association leaders to continue discussions concerning the Newport /Balboa
Boulevard Merge Circulation Study. Twelve residents attended the meeting.
The same six preliminary concepts as were presented at the October 13`" meeting were
presented to this audience. In addition, Alternative G, which was developed by a
participant of the October 13`" meeting, was presented to the audience.
Comments expressed during the group discussion and those collected in the comment
book indicated similar themes to those of the October 13`" meeting. Each of the "T"
intersection alternatives (Alternatives C, E, and F) generally lacked support among the
participants. These alternatives were eliminated from further consideration. Participants
had a willingness to move forward and further develop alternatives A, B, D, and G for a
public review at the next public hearing. The Existing (Do Nothing) alternative
(Alternative 1) remained open as an option to implementing any improvements or
changes to the area.
April 20, 1999
On April 20,1999, the City of Newport Beach held a meeting for the general community
to continue discussions concerning the Newport /Balboa Boulevard Merge Circulation
Study. Forty -three participants attended the meeting.
The five preliminary alternative concepts (A, B, D, G and 1) that had warranted additional
study based upon participant comments in the two previous meetings, were developed
to a preliminary engineering level for this meeting and presented to the audience.
Detailed layouts of these alternatives are provided in Appendix A. A preliminary
alternatives evaluation matrix, based on analysis conducted to date, was presented.
The matrix provided a preliminary assessment of each alternative relative to the Existing
(Do Nothing) alternative (Alternative I ) configuration in terms of:
• Parking
• Access to Newport Boulevard, Balboa Boulevard and McFadden Square
• Visitor comprehension
• Cost
• Right -of -way impacts
7
While significant discussions were held on Alternatives A, B, and D, the participants
generally felt that any major changes to the Mix Master would be costly and disruptive.
Further, it was suggested that major congestion occurs primarily during the 10 to 20
busiest days of the year and that the cost of any of the proposed alternative
improvements far outweighed the potential benefits.
The favored concept was the Existing (Do Nothing) alternative (Alternative I ) with
additional signing. Some suggestions were made for minor modifications to the existing
Mix Master by both the public and city staff. These included:
• Providing a dynamic message sign and modification of directional signs to
encourage utilization of Balboa Boulevard during peak outbound travel.
• Modifying the median storage just south of 26'h Street to improve access to the
bayside businesses from Newport Avenue.
• Making 21 sr Street south of Balboa a two -way facility.
• Enhancing the visibility of the existing pedestrian crossing of Newport Boulevard at
23rd Street from the parking lot to bayside businesses by providing an overhead sign
and additional lighting.
The consultant used this information to develop the Modified Existing Alternative
(Alternative H), also shown in Appendix A.
October 7, 1999
On October 7, 1999, the City of Newport Beach held a meeting for the general
community to continue discussions concerning the Newport /Balboa Boulevard Merge
Circulation Study. 29 participants attended the meeting.
An expanded alternatives evaluation matrix, based on additional analysis conducted
following the previous meeting, was presented. The alternatives evaluation matrix is
shown on Table 3. The alternatives evaluation matrix provided the means to review
each of the previously presented alternatives (A, B, D, and G) and to introduce the
Modified Existing Alternative (Alternative H). The alternatives evaluation matrix
compared each of these alternatives relative to the Existing (Do Nothing) alternative
(Alternative 1) in terms of:
• Delay / Level -of- Service
• Access for beach residents, bayside businesses and McFadden Square
• Parking
• Pedestrian circulation and safety
• Right -of -way impacts
• Landscaping and aesthetics
• Visitor comprehension
• Construction impacts
• Construction costs
U
• Probability of public acceptance
Each element of the Modified Existing Alternative (Alternative H) was then discussed in
detail. The Modified Existing Alternative (Alternative H) received a generally favorable
response form the audience. However, some participants expressed support for specific
elements of this alternative.
January 14, 2000
On January 14, 2000 a PROP (Promote Revitalization of Peninsula) meeting held in the
Newport Beach City Council Chambers. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss
issues related to the Circulation Study for the Merge of Balboa Boulevard and Newport
Boulevard and its Preliminary Report Summary dated October 1999. Including city
council members, city staff, consultants and the general public, approximately 20 to 30
people attended this meeting.
Newport City Council Member Tod Ridgeway opened the meeting. Members of the city
staff and the consultants performing this study introduced themselves to the audience.
Tijana Hamilton, from the consulting firm, made a presentation reviewing the public's
decision making process included within this study. It was presented that the public
generally accepted the Modified Existing Alternative (Alternative H). The four elements
of this alternative as presented in the previous meeting were then re- introduced and
discussed in further detail. The following conclusions and recommendations for each
element are as follows :
• For the dynamic message sign it was recommend that this be remove from
consideration and be included within this alternative.
• For modifying Newport Boulevard from 26`h street to 23rtl to improve access to the
bayside businesses it was recommended that this be part of the alternative.
• For the modification of 21 sc Street south of Balboa into a two -way facility it was
recommended that this be installed on a trial basis.
• For the modification of existing signage it was recommend that this aspect would
require further study. The consultant was to further study this aspect of the
alternatives and develop possible solutions to the existing signage.
Public Opinion Surveys
In order to determine public opinion on the problems that drivers experience (both
inbound and outbound) through the project area, a public opinion survey was conducted.
The survey included questions pertaining to experiences encountered while using the
Mix Master intersection from a business, residential, or visitor perceptive. Surveys for the
businesses and residents were distributed at public meetings while surveys for visitors
were distributed at businesses within the study area. 17 business, 16 residential and 0
visitor questionnaires were completed and returned to the city. In general most
responses were varied; however, a correlation was found among respondents'
experience with delay between the Balboa Peninsula and Pacific Coast Highway. Delay
U
was experienced either rarely or occasionally and mostly on the weekend between the
hours of 12 P.M. to 7 P.M. Survey questions and their results are included in Appendix
B.
Analysis-of Refined Alternatives
The six alternatives presented at the community workshops have been analyzed in
greater detail. A set of criteria was developed as a method of analysis for each
alternative. An explanation of the criteria and a summary analysis of each alternative is
included.
Criteria
The following criteria was used to analyze each refined alternative:
Traffic Delay/ Level -of- Service
Using the traffic count data obtained for a typical weekday and for holiday weekends, the
effect each proposed alternative has on congestion has been qualitatively and
quantitatively analyzed. For alternatives A, B, D and I, a quantitative approach using a
computer simulation program was used, while a qualitative approach was used to
evaluate alternatives G and H.
The computer- modeling tool called SIDRA (Signalized and Unsignalized Intersection
Design and Research Aid) was used because it analyses complex intersections such as
roundabouts and the five -point intersections. SIDRA produces an output that includes
Level of Service (LOS) results based on the concept described in the 1997 Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM 97) and various other publications. SIDRA uses average control
delay (overall delay with geometric delay) as the LOS measure for signalized and
unsignalized intersections. Table 2 defines LOS as it is used in this report.
Accessibility
Each of the alternatives has been evaluated based on the accessibility to the three
regions within the study area from three directions as defined in Figure 2. Bayside
businesses are on the eastern half of the study area, while beach residential streets and
McFadden Square/ beach parking are on the western half of the study area. The three
courses of traffic are from two southbound (S /B) directions (S /B Balboa Boulevard and
S/B Newport Boulevard) and the single northbound (N /B) direction (N /B Balboa
Boulevard).
Parkin
The loss and /or gain of parking spaces resulting from each of the alternatives have been
quantified numerically.
10
TABLE 2
LEVEL -OF- SERVICE DEFINITIONS
Level of Service Interpretation Average Control Delay (sec)
A Uncongested operations <10
B Uncongested operations >10 and < 20
C Light congestion; occasional backups on >20 and < 35
critical approaches.
D Congestion on critical approaches. >35 and < 55
No long- standing lines formed.
E Severe congestion with some >55 and < 80
long- standing lines on critical approaches.
F Total breakdown with stop- and -go operations >80
11
LU
ui
O
o
rye,'/ \ \\',; / % �� • �1 °��
-cr
\ J/ ltv
LU
\' LU
1! 00 z
ui
w
Go
LU
uj
m
W H 'i
co
y -�— 1 O
y W I �C.. 1 co
1 ` J
O
CL
Q
w y
IL
�-� CD
12
Pedestrian Circulation and Safety
Ensuring safe and efficient pedestrian circulation, while facilitating overall traffic
operations within the project area, is a key issue. An existing concern is the pedestrian
path between McFadden Square and bayside businesses east of Newport Boulevard.
Field observations verify that many pedestrians cross at unmarked locations or at
uncontrolled pedestrian crossings. Alternatives have been qualitatively measured
against the existing conditions.
Right -of -Way Impacts
The existing right -of -way for Newport and Balboa Boulevards has been identified using
aerial mapping and as -built information. The preliminary alternative layout plans have
identified proposed right -of -way lines and their potential effect on existing properties and
buildings.
Visitor Comprehension
This criterion is introduced as a result of public meetings. Attendees mentioned that the
existing configuration was confusing to visitors and they were concerned that one or
more of the alternatives may continue to cause confusion to those unfamiliar with the
area. Visitor comprehension is measured qualitatively against existing conditions.
Construction Impacts
This analysis includes an evaluation of maintaining traffic during construction and
identifying traffic diversion and construction impacts. Two degrees of impact have been
identified and are described here:
A minimal impact would involve short-term use of temporary traffic control devices
(one week or more). Lane closures may be required but only temporarily and never
during peak hour operations. Delays to the driving public, if any, would be minimal.
The time of construction may last from 3 to 12 months.
A significant impact would involve traffic diversion during construction. Long -term use
of temporary traffic control devices (one month or more) would be required. Lane
closures may be required during peak hour operations. Delays may be significant.
The time of construction may last from 6 to 24 months.
Landscaping and Aesthetics
Potential landscaping and aesthetic opportunities are identified and qualitatively
measured against existing conditions.
Cost Estimates
A construction cost estimate has been developed for each of the proposed alternatives.
The estimate includes major items of work: roadwork, signage, utilities, etc., at a
preliminary engineering level of detail.
13
Refined Alternatives Analysis
A summary analysis is included for each of the refined alternatives:
MILWMCILIVtl5 h OI 0- III= FIV0 rUHIL IIIL010OMUVII0
Alternatives A and B are distinctive from the other alternatives because their geometries
are similR, haweverI they -diffA in �action of their traffic flows. Although analysis
for both alternatives is essentially the same there are some clear differences.
Both alternatives have similar analytical aspects as described here. They provide
enhanced pedestrian access and safety because a controlled pedestrian crossing is
introduced at the five -point intersection connecting McFadden Square and the bayside
businesses. Aesthetics for both alternatives can be enhanced because of the proposed
public area created between 22nd and 23rd Street. Replacement of the crossover merge
is intended to lessen driver confusion and enhance visitor comprehension. The main
drawback to these alternatives is that, because of the five -point intersection, delay for
the intersection is increased because extra green time is required to allow movement for
the additional intersection leg. Also, for traffic heading northbound on Balboa Boulevard
to Newport Boulevard there is an additional signal. This additional signal increases
overall system delay compared to existing conditions. Construction impacts for both
alternatives are anticipated to be significant.
Access is the main difference between the two alternatives. In Alternative A, access to
McFadden Square is made available at 23rd Street from Balboa Boulevard only.
Southbound Newport Boulevard traffic would use 20'" Street to access McFadden
Square as they do under current conditions. In Alternative B, access to McFadden
Square is from all directions because of the proposed entrance at 22 n Street.
Southbound Newport Boulevard motorists who cannot access McFadden Square directly
under current conditions can do so via 22 "d Street. Besides access, there is a slight
difference in the loss of parking stalls. In Alternative A, 14 parking stalls are lost while in
Alternative B, 10 parking stalls are lost.
Alternative D —The Roundabout
This modern roundabout alternative has the advantage of providing good levels of
service through the Mix Master. In general, roundabouts provide a good level of service
because vehicles only yield to traffic while entering the circle. By comparison, the
traditional intersection would require vehicles to stop during the red phase. Access to
McFadden Square is improved in this alternative. A cul -de -sac is proposed mainly to
provide bayside businesses with access while a frontage road between 23 rd and 26"'
Street provides access to residents in this area. Because of the roundabout, McFadden
Square is accessible from all directions, including southbound Newport Boulevard.
Pedestrian circulation and safety is improved because a shift in the alignment decreases
the distance between the proposed parking areas, bayside businesses, and the beach.
It is also improved because a signalized intersection is provided at 22 n Street.
Aesthetics are enhanced because landscaping can be installed in the center of the
roundabout. Overhead utilities could be placed underground, further improving
aesthetics with this significant project.
14
However, this alternative requires right -of -way acquisitions that would be costly. In
particular, the Hooters and Woody's Wharf parking areas are impacted by the provision
of a cul -de -sac that is necessary to provide access to bayside businesses. Vehicles
exiting from the beach residential area south of 26th Street and those exiting McFadden
Square at 23rd Street are required to take a circuitous route to leave the peninsula area.
Visitor comprehension may not be improved. Motorists unfamiliar with how a roundabout
operates become accustomed to it after regular usage. Regular visitors would be less
confused with each visit but non - regular visitors would not. Construction impacts would
be significant and costly relative to other alternatives. A loss of 31 public parking stalls
and 18 private parking stalls (Hooters and Woody's Wharf), for a total loss of 49 parking
stalls, is considered significant.
Alternative G — The Crisscross
In addition to providing an additional 29 parking stalls, this alternative improves
pedestrian circulation and safety by supplying more intersections with controlled
crosswalks across Newport Boulevard and Balboa Boulevard. Because the "crisscross"
is shifted northerly, access to McFadden Square from southbound Newport Boulevard is
possible at 22 "d Street. Northbound Balboa Boulevard gains access to McFadden
Square at 215' Street because 215' Street becomes a two -way road. Aesthetics may be
improved if overhead utilities are placed underground, and landscaping opportunities are
available. Visitor comprehension is considered neutral. It is expected that system delay
will be increased because of the addition of two traffic signals and progression of traffic
through the signals may be difficult. Construction impacts would be significant and costly
relative to other alternatives.
Alternative H — The Modified Existinq Alternative
This low -cost solution improves access to McFadden Square and to bayside businesses.
2151 Street is converted to a two -way road to provide direct access to McFadden Square
parking for vehicles traveling southbound on Newport Boulevard and northbound on
Balboa Boulevard. Improved access to bayside businesses is achieved by providing a
southbound left turn lane on Newport Boulevard between 23"d Street and 26th Street.
Improved signage is provided to enhance visitor comprehension. Construction impacts
are minimal and the public's acceptance of this alternative is good. Although the addition
of a northbound left turn at 215' Street is expected to cause a slight increase in overall
system delay, this increase is not expected to be significant and level of service is
expected to remain similar to existing conditions. A quantitative analysis of the existing
conditions shows a good level of service for both typical and holiday traffic — better than
any of the other alternatives. A couple of reasons explain why this is the case. Firstly, a
high amount of traffic travels from northbound Balboa Boulevard to northbound Newport
Boulevard. This heavy traffic movement flows past the signalized Mix Master
intersection and does not add any delay. Secondly, both the signalized Mix Master
intersection and the signalized intersection at 23rd Street and Balboa Boulevard
individually have good levels of service. The Mix Master intersection operates well
because there are only two opposing movements while the intersection at 23rd Street
and Balboa Boulevard requires only two signal phases to operate. Pedestrian circulation
and safety concerns are improved because of additional signing and lighting
enhancements to the existing pedestrian crossing on Newport Boulevard at 23rd Street.
In order to accommodate the left turn lane to bayside businesses, existing landscaping
adjacent to the parking island may require removal. Other landscaping opportunities are
15
minimal; however, nighttime aesthetics may be improved further by enhancing existing
street lighting. A total of 4 parking stalls are lost.
Table 3 shows the matrix that compares the refined alternatives described above. This
table was presented in the October 7, 1999 meeting.
Comparison /Conclusion
All of the refined alternatives have the potential to improve conditions in the area;
however, each also has its constraints and impacts. Based on public opinion and
analysis conducted to date, it appears that Alternative H (Modified Existing) has the
highest acceptance potential from the community. It also has the lowest cost and is least
disruptive to day -to -day activities in the Mix Master area, while providing specific
improvements for vehicular and pedestrian access.
16
}
�0
�J3
\}
\
E
{�
/)
|E
(�
{D
IL a
§|m
�§u
7||
.gyp
VZ
||
)� }))
)D
0
\�
\\
A2
}E
�/
ZZE
«
f!
JE
!!§@
2}
!
!e
§\
|]�0
Z
ZiD
!)!
\\
\
\E
}�
2
74|@
■�lII
!&E
§0
§)�)
\.
\
\\
.!\!
§E
/2)]
§
§i
k-
|
E
{�
/)
|E
(�
{D
IL a
§|m
�§u
7||
.gyp
VZ
||
Appendix A - Plans of Alternatives
18
m
_ \tt
Z
W
m
N
Ir
=�
Z
Cgd
Z O
_ \tt
a>
,1
_ \tt
_1
I
_
1 _
1
-
P
A
/A
r,
_
8
o; r
o Ll-
cm
U
N
I,
F
W
Z
a
F
0
zZ���,
IOL
I
i I
'
1
I
; a
—
i6 Ir
111 ° �
V
b I
I
I
U
N
I,
U
N
BF \Cq
r
L1
w
°5t }' CD
W
l
v cr
J
�
� w
a p per
I
1 v ce
�! U °o 15 m U ,t
LU t
f l2grd 5 �-1 iii 4 a z
aN
ce
w
w
5t r W Z
F I, i; i` ,/ p 0
is ��� oc
LU
nth
p J 17
< z 1 ( A 0
c?
Z I \
w LL
1� w
CA
z
m
0
19
z
OR
W
a
0
2
. ..... . . ...
it
• � �\`\I I 2nd 5 � �� , ;>
, p
L of
tv
23rd 5— "5I LU
Ix
LU
LLI
LLJ
i •' \ W ai
m w $
LU LO
a
zo
�—
l t' t, F L)
¢ o
l
w
LLI
U
5 0 ?
z
J
i
s
°m
� m
ttt. i J
roal
t jro�
m
z
Iii
Do
uj
LLI
c� (g)
1.
,41
W
Q
U
y
O
z
0
a
0
U
z�
w
w
J
L6
W
►I
H
W
W
F-
LL L
W co
QzZz
�s
LLI
F-- U
QLLI
LLI
H
z
�?
a
Oz
Lq z
Mt
a
N
24
j, 14
uj
W
J
U)
Z c
09 cc
Ov
_ all
�gLu.
Z w
W o Jill
A
fits
rJr,dr /i 1 ` .
a
�d s+
r U
L
big
,. Yy
€iI bl pr bb 44
\
,
. / /�/ �/ 1144 -' 11,1. \ ��! I ✓ �.-.�" �-a`
,
ySNOE
I,
I
p„i Ali
Vi 8
IX
I w
Ak
U3
co
Ij
Jill
II - - - - - -
Appendix B — Public Opinion Surveys
A. BUSINESS SURVEY (17 Business Surveys Returned)
1. How often do your customers mention traffic problems related to their trip to
your business?
Never 2
Once in a while 4
Fairly frequently 5
Often 6
2. What specific problems do your customers report?
Parking 10
Congestion/Traffic 6
Circulation 4
Crosswalk/Pedestrian Access 2
Left turn into McFadden Square 2
3. How significantly do these problems impact your business?
Highly significant 5
Somewhat significant 2
Neutral 4
Not significant 7
4. How significant are the following problems as you drive through the area?
traffic signal
Highly significant 4
Somewhat significant 8
Neutral 3
Not Significant 0
pedestrians
Highly significant 5
Somewhat significant 3
Neutral 4
Not Significant 2
congestion
Highly significant 3
Somewhat significant 1
Neutral 4
Not Significant 7
28
parking availability /proximity to your designation
Highly significant 2
Somewhat significant 1
Neutral 5
Not Significant 7
5. How frequently do you experience delays in driving between the Balboa
Peninsula and Coast Highway?
Never 2
Rarely (25% of trips) 2
Occasionally (25 -50% of trips) 8
Often (50 +% of trips) 3
Always (every trip) 0
6. When do you encounter the most delays?
29
Mon.
Tues.
Wed.
Thurs.
Fri.
Sat.
Sun.
9a.m-
12 .m.
0
0
0
0
0
6
6
12p.m.
-4 p.m
3
4
4
4
5
13
12
4p.m.-
7.m
3
3
3
3
6
11
8
29
7. Where do you encounter the most delays?
Newport Boulevard at 23rd Street
Newport Boulevard at Pacific Coast Highway
Newport Boulevard between 23rd Street and 1gth Street
Newport Boulevard between 25th Street and 32nd Street
Newport Boulevard between 23`d Street and 28th Street
Newport Boulevard between 20th Street and 23`d Street
8. Suggestions for improvements or comments:
Increase parking (3)
Increase pedestrian safety (2)
Numbers in parenthesis indicate number of times item was suggested
30
B. RESIDENT SURVEY (16 Resident Surveys Returned)
1. How significant are the following problems as you drive through the area?
traffic signals
Highly significant 7
Somewhat significant 3
Neutral 3
Not Significant 3
pedestrians
Highly significant 3
Somewhat significant 5
Neutral 5
Not Significant 3
congestion
Highly significant
4
Somewhat significant
3
Neutral
4
Not Significant
4
parking availability/ proximity to your designation
Highly significant
4
Somewhat significant
3
Neutral
5
Not Significant
3
2. How frequently do you experience delays in driving between the Balboa
Peninsula and Coast Highway?
Never 1
Rarely (25% of trips) 8
Occasionally (25 -50% of trips) 5
Often (50 +% of trips) 2
Always (every trip) 0
3. When do you encounter the most delays?
4. Where do you encounter the most delays?
Newport Boulevard between 17th Street and 23rd Street
Newport Boulevard between 17th Street and Via Lido
Newport Boulevard between 19th Street and 21st Street
Newport Boulevard between 19th Street and 23rd Street
Newport Boulevard between 20th Street and 28th Street
Newport Boulevard between 215' Street and 23rd Street
Newport Boulevard between 215' Street and Via Lido
Newport Boulevard between 25th Street and Via Lido
Newport Boulevard between 26th Street and Lido Village
Newport Boulevard between 30th Street and 32nd Street
Balboa Boulevard between 28th Street and 46'h Street
Balboa Boulevard between 29th Street and 34th Street
5. On average, how many trips per day do you take through the Newport
Blvd. /Balboa Blvd. merge "mixmaster "?
None 0
1 -2 7
3 -5 6
More than 5 1
6. Suggestions for improvements or comments:
Synchronize traffic signals
Improve signage
Improve crosswalks and pedestrian safety
Focus on infrastructure improvements
Improve landscaping
32
Mon.
Tues.
Wed.
Thurs.
Fri.
Sat.
Sun.
9a.m.-
12 .rr
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
12p.rr
-4 .m
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
4p.m -
7 .rr
2
2
1 2
1 2
1 3
1 11
12
4. Where do you encounter the most delays?
Newport Boulevard between 17th Street and 23rd Street
Newport Boulevard between 17th Street and Via Lido
Newport Boulevard between 19th Street and 21st Street
Newport Boulevard between 19th Street and 23rd Street
Newport Boulevard between 20th Street and 28th Street
Newport Boulevard between 215' Street and 23rd Street
Newport Boulevard between 215' Street and Via Lido
Newport Boulevard between 25th Street and Via Lido
Newport Boulevard between 26th Street and Lido Village
Newport Boulevard between 30th Street and 32nd Street
Balboa Boulevard between 28th Street and 46'h Street
Balboa Boulevard between 29th Street and 34th Street
5. On average, how many trips per day do you take through the Newport
Blvd. /Balboa Blvd. merge "mixmaster "?
None 0
1 -2 7
3 -5 6
More than 5 1
6. Suggestions for improvements or comments:
Synchronize traffic signals
Improve signage
Improve crosswalks and pedestrian safety
Focus on infrastructure improvements
Improve landscaping
32
C. VISITOR SURVEY (No Visitor Surveys Returned)
Regarding your trip to Newport Beach today:
1. Where are you visiting from?
Newport Beach
Another Orange County Community, outside Newport Beach
Southern California outside, Orange County
Other
2. What route did you take to get here?
PCH North
PCH South
55 West
3. What is the primary purpose of your visit?
Going to the beach
Going to a restaurant
Shopping
Personal Errand
Taking the Ferry
Business Trip
Visiting a local resident
Other
4. Is this your first time visiting Newport Beach?
Yes
No
ff this is not your first visit to Newport Beach
5. How frequently do you come to the Balboa Peninsula?
Every day
Every week
A couple of times a month
Occasionally
Rarely
6. Did you have any trouble finding your destination?
Yes
No
7. Did you have any trouble finding parking?
Yes
No
8. What is typically your primary purpose for visiting the area?
Going to the beach
Going to a restaurant
Shopping
Taking the Ferry
Visiting a local resident
Other
9. Compared to other places you drive, rate your experience on the Peninsula
with respect to:
♦ Directional signage
Easy
Fairly easy
Fairly difficult
Difficult
♦ Traffic flow
Easy
Fairly easy
Fairly difficult
Difficult
♦ Availability of parking
Easy
Fairly easy
Fairly difficult
Difficult
♦ Pedestrian conflict
Easy
Fairly easy
Fairly difficult
Difficult
♦ Bicycle conflicts
Easy
Fairly easy
Fairly difficult
Difficult
34
10. How much does traffic congestion /parking influence your decision of where to
go or personal trips, such as shopping, personal services, etc.?
100%
75%
50%
25%
Not at all
11. What are the most important features for you in choosing where you go for
shopping or personal business? Rank your top 3 by placing a 1,2,3 in the
appropriate space
quality of goods
selection of goods
cost of goods
quality of restaurants
customer service
shopping hours
attractiveness
cleanliness
promotional events
parking
traffic flow
personal safety
35
Appendix C — Cost Estimates
3E
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MERGE BALBOA BOULEVARD @ NEWPORT BOULEVARD MERGE
ALTERNATIVE A
PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP
4701 VON KARMAN AVENUE, SUITE 300
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
(949) 263 -9322
(949) 263 -7225 FAX
Item
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Total
1
Mobilization
1
LS
$10,000.00
$10,000.00
2
Remove Curb & Gutter
1,080
LF
$5.00
$5,400.00
3
Remove Median Curb
2,500
LF
$4.00
$10,000.00
4
Remove Median
15,850
SF
$2.00
$31,700.00
5
Remove Sidewalk
2,040
SF
$1.00
$2,040.00
6
Remove AC & Base
7,920
SF
$3.00
$23,760.00
7
Remove Tree
12
EA
$350.00
$4,200.00
7
PCC Curb & Gutter
1,400
LF
$15.00
$21,000.00
8
PCC Curb
0
LF
$12.00
$0.00
9
PCC Sidewalk
20,400
SF
$4.00
$81,600.00
10
PCC Driveway
0
SF
$6.00
$0.00
11
8.5'PCC over 11 "CMB Paving
0
SF
$10.00
$0.00
12
5.5"AC over 19 "CMB Paving
16,770
SF
$3.50
$58,695.00
13
Access Ramp
0
EA
$500.00
$0.00
14
Relocate Power Pole
2
EA
$10,000.00
$20,000.00
15
Relocate Drainage Inlet
2
EA
$2,000.00
$4,000.00
16
Relocate Utility Cabinet
2
EA
$2,000.00
$4,000.00
17
Relocate Light Pole
14
EA
$4,000.00
$56,000.00
18
Adjust Gas Valve to Grade
5
EA
$200.00
$1,000.00
19
Adjust Water Meter to Grade
5
EA
$200.00
$1,000.00
21
Traffic Signal Installation /Modification
1
EA
$120,000.00
$120,000.00
22
Signing & Striping
1
LS
$120,000.00
$120,000.00
23
Landscaping /Irrigation
1
LS
$20,000.00
$20,000.00
Construction Cost $594,395.00
25% Contingency $148,598.75
Total Construction Cost $742,993.75
10% Engineering $74,299.38
10% Construction Engineering $74,299.38
Total Cost without R/W & Off -Site Improvements $891,592.50
Cost Estimate2- 1- 00.xls 02/08/00
37
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MERGE BALBOA BOULEVARD @ NEWPORT BOULEVARD MERGE
ALTERNATIVE B
PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP
4701 VON KARMAN AVENUE, SUITE 300
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
(949) 263 -9322
(949) 263 -7225 FAX
Item Description Quantitv Unit Unit Cost Total
2
Remove Curb & Gutter
880
LF
$5.00
$4,400.00
3
Remove Median Curb
2,500
LF
$4.00
$10,000.00
4
Remove Median
15,850
SF
$2.00
$31,700.00
5
Remove Sidewalk
1,140
SF
$1.00
$1,140.00
6
Remove AC & Base
7,920
SF
$3.00
$23,760.00
7
Remove Tree
12
EA
$350.00
$4,200.00
7
PCC Curb & Gutter
1,000
LF
$15.00
$15,000.00
8
PCC Curb
0
LF
$12.00
$0.00
9
PCC Sidewalk
20,205
SF
$4.00
$80,820.00
10
PCC Driveway
0
SF
$6.00
$0.00
11
8.5PCC over 11 "CMB Paving
0
SF
$10.00
$0.00
12
5.5'AC over 19 "CMB Paving
15,970
SF
$3.50
$55,895.00
13
Access Ramp
0
EA
$500.00
$0.00
14
Relocate Power Pole
2
EA
$10,000.00
$20,000.00
15
Relocate Drainage Inlet
2
EA
$2,000.00
$4,000.00
16
Relocate Utility Cabinet
2
EA
$2,000.00
$4,000.00
17
Relocate Light Pole
14
EA
$4,000.00
$56,000.00
18
Adjust Gas Valve to Grade
5
EA
$200.00
$1,000.00
19
Adjust Water Meter to Grade
5
EA
$200.00
$1,000.00
21
Traffic Signal Installation /Modification
1
EA
$120,000.00
$120,000.00
22
Signing & Striping
1
LS
$120,000.00
$120,000.00
23
Landscaping /Irrigation
1
LS
$20,000.00
$20,000.00
Construction Cost $582,915.00
25% Contingency $145,728.75
Total Construction Cost $728,643.75
10% Engineering $72,864.38
10% Construction Engineering $72,864.38
Total Cost without R/W & Off -Site Improvements
Cost Estimate2- 1- 00.xls 02/08/00
38
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MERGE BALBOA BOULEVARD @ NEWPORT BOULEVARD MERGE
ALTERNATIVE D
PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP
4701 VON KARMAN AVENUE, SUITE 300
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
(949) 263 -9322
(949) 263 -7225 FAX
tem
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Total
1
Mobilization
1
LS
$10,000.00
$10,000.00
2
Remove Curb & Gutter
2,000
LF
$5.00
$10,000.00
3
Remove Median Curb
2,440
LF
$4.00
$9,760.00
4
Remove Median
17,080
SF
$2.00
$34,160.00
5
Remove Sidewalk
11,360
SF
$1.00
$11,360.00
6
Remove AC & Base
72,225
SF
$3.00
$216,675.00
7
Remove Tree
24
EA
$350.00
$8,400.00
7
PCC Curb & Gutter
4,000
LF
$15.00
$60,000.00
8
PCC Curb
0
LF
$12.00
$0.00
9
PCC Sidewalk
22,080
SF
$4.00
$88,320.00
10
PCC Driveway
0
SF
$6.00
$0.00
11
8.5PCC over 11TMB Paving
0
SF
$10.00
$0.00
12
5.5'AC over 19 "CMB Paving
95,450
SF
$3.50
$334,075.00
13
Access Ramp
0
EA
$500.00
$0.00
14
Relocate Power Pole
4
EA
$10,000.00
$40,000.00
15
Relocate Drainage Inlet
3
EA
$2,000.00
$6,000.00
16
Relocate Utility Cabinet
3
EA
$2,000.00
$6,000.00
17
Relocate Light Pole
30
EA
$4,000.00
$120,000.00
18
Adjust Gas Valve to Grade
5
EA
$200.00
$1,000.00
19
Adjust Water Meter to Grade
5
EA
$200.00
$1,000.00
21
Traffic Signal Installation /Modification
1
EA
$120,000.00
$120,000.00
22
Signing & Striping
1
LS
$120,000.00
$120,000.00
23
Landscaping /Irrigation
1
LS
$20,000.00
$20,000.00
Construction Cost $1,216,750.00
25% Contingency $304,187.50
Total Construction Cost $1,520,937.50
10% Engineering $152,093.75
10% Construction Engineering $152,093.75
Total Cost without R/W & Off -Site Improvements $1,825,125.00
Cost Estimate2- 1- 00.xls 02/08/00
3E
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MERGE BALBOA BOULEVARD @ NEWPORT BOULEVARD MERGE
ALTERNATIVE G
PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP
4701 VON KARMAN AVENUE, SUITE 300
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
(949) 263 -9322
(949) 263 -7225 FAX
Item
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Total
1
Mobilization
1
LS
$10,000.00
$10,000.00
2
Remove Curb & Gutter
2,000
LF
$5.00
$10,000.00
3
Remove Median Curb
2,440
LF
$4.00
$9,760.00
4
Remove Median
17,080
SF
$2.00
$34,160.00
5
Remove Sidewalk
9,280
SF
$1.00
$9,280.00
6
Remove AC & Base
71,620
SF
$3.00
$214,860.00
7
Remove Tree
24
EA
$350.00
$8,400.00
7
PCC Curb & Gutter
3,480
LF
$15.00
$52,200.00
8
PCC Curb
0
LF
$12.00
$0.00
9
PCC Sidewalk
7,360
SF
$4.00
$29,440.00
10
PCC Driveway
0
SF
$6.00
$0.00
11
8.5 "PCC over 11 "CMB Paving
0
SF
$10.00
$0.00
12
5.5 "AC over 19 "CMB Paving
90,000
SF
$3.50
$315,000.00
13
Access Ramp
0
EA
$500.00
$0.00
14
Relocate Power Pole
4
EA
$10,000.00
$40,000.00
15
Relocate Drainage Inlet
3
EA
$2,000.00
$6,000.00
16
Relocate Utility Cabinet
3
EA
$2,000.00
$6,000.00
17
Relocate Light Pole
30
EA
$4,000.00
$120,000.00
18
Adjust Gas Valve to Grade
5
EA
$200.00
$1,000.00
19
Adjust Water Meter to Grade
5
EA
$200.00
$1,000.00
21
Traffic Signal Installation /Modification
3
EA
$120,000.00
$360,000.00
22
Signing & Striping
1
LS
$120,000.00
$120,000.00
23
Landscaping /Irrigation
1
LS
$20,000.00
$20,000.00
Construction Cost $1,367,100.00
25% Contingency $341,775.00
Total Construction Cost $1,708,875.00
10% Engineering $170,887.50
10% Construction Engineering $170,887.50
Total Cost without R/W & Off -Site Improvements $2,050,650.00
Cost Estimate2- 1- 00.xis 02/08/00
40
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MERGE BALBOA BOULEVARD @ NEWPORT BOULEVARD MERGE
ALTERNATIVE H
PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP
4701 VON KARMAN AVENUE, SUITE 300
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
(949) 263 -9322
(949) 263 -7225 FAX
Item
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Total
1
Mobilization
1
LS
$10,000.00
$10,000.00
2
Remove Curb & Gutter
670
LF
$5.00
$3,350.00
3
Remove Median Curb
0
LF
$4.00
$0.00
4
Remove Median
0
SF
$2.00
$0.00
5
Remove Sidewalk
4,000
SF
$1.00
$4,000.00
6
Remove AC & Base
0
SF
$3.00
$0.00
7
Remove Tree
6
EA
$350.00
$2,100.00
7
PCC Curb & Gutter
670
LF
$15.00
$10,050.00
8
PCC Curb
0
LF
$12.00
$0.00
9
PCC Sidewalk
3,400
SF
$4.00
$13,600.00
10
PCC Driveway
0
SF
$6.00
$0.00
11
8.5PCC over 11 "CMB Paving
0
SF
$10.00
$0.00
12
5.5'AC over 19 "CMB Paving
4,100
SF
$3.50
$14,350.00
13
Access Ramp
1
EA
$500.00
$500.00
14
Relocate Power Pole
2
EA
$10,000.00
$20,000.00
15
Relocate Parking Meter
10
EA
$500.00
$5,000.00
16
Relocate Drainage Inlet
0
EA
$2,000.00
$0.00
17
Relocate Utility Cabinet
0
EA
$2,000.00
$0.00
18
Relocate Light Pole
6
EA
$4,000.00
$24,000.00
19
Adjust Gas Valve to Grade
0
EA
$200.00
$0.00
21
Adjust Water Meter to Grade
0
EA
$200.00
$0.00
22
Traffic Signal Modification
1
EA
$70,000.00
$70,000.00
23
Signing & Striping
1
LS
$35,000.00
$35,000.00
24
Landscaping /Irrigation
1
LS
$10,000.00
$10,000.00
25
Lighting Improvement
1
LS
$40,000.00
$40,000.00
Construction Cost $261,950.00
25% Contingency $65,487.50
Total Construction Cost $327,437.50
10% Engineering $32,743.75
10% Construction Engineering $32,743.75
Total Cost without R/W & Off -Site Improvements
Cost Estimate2- 1- 00.xls 02/08/00
41