HomeMy WebLinkAboutSS4 - PCH Corridor Study - PowerPoint`r
r
Pacific Coast Highway
Corridor Study
May 24, 2016
Item No. SS4
• Average daily traffic = 17,000 - 64,000 SEAL MACH
• Volumes highest at northern end of
corridor
• Serves various travel markets
• Diverse land -use patterns
• Unique peak -hour characteristics
• Heavy bike, pedestrian, and vehicle use
• Safety is a key concern
• Interest in complete streets concepts
• Institutional barriers exist
2;;;°
3eqckclround
• 2012 - Coastal cities request Pacific Coast Highway Corridor
Study (PCH Corridor Study)
• 2013 - OCTA, corridor cities, and Caltrans develop scope of work
• 2014 - OCTA and Caltrans receive federal planning grant
• 2014 - 2015 - PCH Corridor Study conducted
• 2016 - City Council presentations and wrap up
OCTA — Orange County Transportation Authority
Caltrans — California Department of Transportation
Dbiective
• Identify broad range of multi -modal transportation strategies
• Enhance regional mobility
• Recognize the unique nature and specific needs of corridor cities
5.
cc
1. Safety conflicts between
vehicles, bicycles, and
pedestrians
4. High volumes of visitors and
recreational users - leads to
unique travel patterns and
peaking characteristics
ROW - night -of -way
Need
2. High travel time and delay
due to traffic congestion
and heavy vooumes of
pedestrians crossing the
highway
5. Inconsistent aesthetic
treatment of improvements
compared to the scenic
character of the corridor
3. Constrained ROW- limited
improvement opportunities
A
A
A
A
i
6. Frequent interruption and
closures due to events and
incidents - limited parallel
options
Purpose
• Improve safety and mobility for all users
• Strengthen continuity of traffic flow
• Increase effectiveness of public transit
• Accommodate and encourage aesthetic
enhancements as part of the improvements
• Maintain operations during closures
• Encourage use of parallel routes
• Greater use of intelligent transportation systems
11172
Ah
do
Purpose and Need
h
or:
�y2
low
Initial Screening
Initial Alternatives
An
.1.111,111Am
_
Recommended Alternatives
TSM/TDM
J 1 j
Future Project Development
TSM/TDM —Transportation System Management/Transportation Development Management
do
Need:
MCaroTreTre1VmTho7".n@90noi'ti
Corridor -Wide Improvements
Traffic congestion and heavy
pedestrian volumes add to
delay for corridor users
Alternative (Recommendations):
• TSM/TDM
(Traffic management program)
• Low Capital
(Signal synchronization)
• High Capital
(Transit hubs and signal priority)
40.
Need:
M rAW1T*TrO1T.1MT17".n@ gone ire
Newport to Dover:
pedestrians face
conflicts between
and moving cars.
Subarea - Newport Beach
Alternative (Recommendations):
• TSM/TDM
(Enhance signing, striping, and lighting
Bikes and to better alert motorists to pedestrians)
potential
parked Low Capital
(Striping modifications to add bike
lanes through the SR -55 Interchange)
• High Capital
(Remove parking and widen/restripe
for additional travel lane and bike
lane)
///////////0/8;;;°
• City council briefings
• Finalize PCH Corridor Study
• Lead agencies start project
development
eaetrafts
Seae $eacA
Newport
$eacA
Dana Poing
1414m6mot oN $eacA
Lagtina
$eacA
San CG)emente