HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 O.C.T.A. INV STUDY 02-18-97DATE:
FEBRUARY 18, 1997
NO. 1
2-18-97
I nter-Com
....
TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
SUBJEC~ CORRIDOR.MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY PRESENTATION BY ORANGE COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) has initiated a
public outreach/involvement effort and has requested to be
agendized to make a presentation to the City' Council on the
Corridor Major Investment Study (MIS). Ms. Nancy Michali and Mr.
Bill Hodge of OCTA will be making the presentation.
Backqround
On April 11, 1994 the OCTA Board established a 28-mile section of
corridor which runs from the Fullerton Transportation Center to the
Irvine Transportation Center that would be studied for multi-modal
transportation system alternatives.
In June 1995 during the start-up phase of the Study the OCTA staff
made a presentation to the Tustin City Council and solicited their
input. At that time the Council expressed their concerns and
opposition to including a Rail Alternative Alignment that impacted
Jamboree Road on the east side of MCAS, Tustin.
The Technical results of a 2~ year study, the Draft Evaluation
Report, is now available and Phase Three of the Major Investment
Study, a comprehensive Public Outreach/Involvement Program, is
underway. This outreach program is designed to ensure the
continued involvement of a broad cross section of Orange County and
to seek public review and comment on the Draft Evaluation Report.
This input will provide the basis for identification of the final
MIS Locally Preferred Strategy (LPS) recommendation and preparation
of the Final Evaluation Report.
The Phase Three Public Involvement Program will inc'lude: a direct
mail piece with a survey response; a WebPage; a telephone hotline;
open houses throughout Orange County; informational displays; and,
scheduled presentations to businesses, residential, ethnic and
senior citizens groups. In addition, the outreach team will
solicit input from City Council members and City Managers from
cities within the corridor section.
City Council Report
Corridor Major Investment Study
Presentation by OCTA
February 18, 1997
Page 2
The City Council will not be asked to state a position on the seven
alternatives at tonight's meeting. OCTA staff has asked to be
agendized for a Council meeting in March to ascertain the Council's
position.
The City Council should be aware that Alternative 6 - Rail System,
still identifies a rail alignment on the east side of MCAS, Tustin
along Jamboree Road despite the Council's and staff's previous
opposition and concerns.
RW: kbm\cmisp, mem
Attachments:
The Corridor Major Investment Study: Technical
Results Update
Draft Evaluation Report Executive Summary
e Corridor
T H E P A T H TO M O B I L I T Y
Corridor Project:
Major Investment Study
Orange County, California
Draft Evaluation Report
Executive Summary
December 1996
s
L
•
OVERVIEW
IIExecutive Summary
On April 11 1994, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Board of
Directors adopted a 28 -mile priority corridor from the Fullerton Transportation
Center to the Irvine Transportation Center (Figure I -1), better known as "The
Corridor to be studied further through the federal planning process. The
planning process, followed by both the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is called a Major Investment Study
(MIS). An MIS is a locally- focused transportation planning process based on
extensive public involvement and a multi -modal approach. Completion of an
MIS provides the opportunity to leverage Measure M transit funds for a federal
match.
1.1 FUTURE GROWTH PROJECTED FOR ORANGE COUNTY
The Corridor was selected by the OCTA Board as the priority transportation
corridor in the County based on the demonstrated need to provide future
transportation improvements beyond those already committed by Measure M.
As the economic, social and recreational heart of Orange County the Corridor
contains many of the county's significant activity and employment centers
including Disneyland, the Santa Ana Downtown and Civic Center area, South
Coast Plaza /Metro, John Wayne Airport, and the Irvine Spectrum (Figure 1 -2).
Currently the Corridor is home to 34 percent of the County's residents and 57
percent of the jobs. More than 60 percent of all Orange County trips occur to
from and within the Corridor
In the study year of 2015 the Corridor is projected to have an employment
increase of more than 44 percent and a population increase of 23 percent. An
effective multi -modal transportation network within the Corridor is necessary to
meet the future mobility needs of businesses and all residents in Orange County
I -1
Existing Activity Centers
Within the Corridor
I 'Corridor
•
OC Executive Summary
The comprehensive set of conceptual transportation alternatives identified by
the public was then screened through a three -step process to identify a Final Set
of Alternatives. Adopted by the OCTA Board on July 24, 1995 the following
alternatives were identified as the best candidates to meet the goals and
objectives for transportation improvements in the Corridor
• No Build— Year 2015 scenario, representing transportation projects already
funded or programmed and providing a baseline for comparison of the other
alternatives.
• Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative— A low capital cost
option providing increased community and commuter bus service with some
local street improvements.
• Enhanced Bus Alternative -- Bus -based option providing an optimal level of
community and commuter bus service.
• Freeway /Roadway High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Alternative— An option
which provides freeway and roadway improvements for carpools, vanpools
and buses.
• Rail System Alternative 1/3— A rail system option from the Fullerton
Transportation Center down Harbor Boulevard to Main Street in Santa Ana,
to Sunflower Avenue in Costa Mesa, and along the San Diego Creek in Irvine
to the Irvine Transportation Center
• Rail System Alternative 5— A rail system option from the Fullerton
Transportation Center to the Anaheim Stadium area along the Metrolink right
of way to Bristol Street in Santa Ana, to Sunflower Avenue in Costa Mesa, on
to Jamboree Road in Tustin to the future Tustin Metrolink station, and along
the Metrolink right of way to the Irvine Transportation Center
A seventh alternative, the Freeway /Roadway Mixed Flow Alternative, was
reintroduced for study by the OCTA Board on August 12, 1996. This alternative
evaluated the same set of freeway and arterial improvements as the Freeway/
I -3
•
OCSS Executive Summary
• The cost effectiveness of the Rail System alternatives compares favorably on
a national level with successful projects in other cities.
• The transit options have fewer community and environmental impacts.
• All of the alternatives provide some air quality improvement.
1.3 NEXT STEPS
A comprehensive Public Involvement Program has been developed to seek
public comment on the results of the Corridor MIS Detailed Technical Analysis
efforts. This input will provide the basis for development of a recommended
transportation strategy which best meets the Corridor's future mobility
challenges. In the summer the OCTA Board of Directors will make a decision
on a locally preferred strategy to address the future mobility needs of the
Corridor At that time, the OCTA Board may choose not to proceed with any
project, or to implement one alternative, several alternatives, or a combination/
phasing of several options.
1 -5
Table 1.1
SUMMARY EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
Evaluation Criteria
Measure
Baseline/
No Build
TSB
Enhanced
But
Freeway/
Roadway
HOV
Flyway/
Roadway
Mixed Flow
And
Guideway
113
Flied
Guideway
5
1. Mobility Impacts
Trenspwtetwn Benefits
Cords Torel Annual Treveaare Savegs (Compered to No Build) (Millions of 14s)
(Percent Change)
Annual Career Transit Person Trips (Millions)(Yew 1990 265)
Annual Cando Carpool Person Tips (Millions)( Year 1990 1980)
Percent Condor Freeway Lane Miles Uncogested (1950 43%)
Percent Condor Arterial Lane Miles Uncagested (1990 =84 %)
N/A
361
3418
27%
78%
8 8
(18 %)
522
337.6
27%
79%
13 5
(27 %)
626
3360
28%
80%
1 2
(02 %)
35.9
3422
29%
79%
8 6
(17 %)
359
341.7
32%
80%
12 7
(2.6 %)
61.0
3371
28%
80%
10 B
(2.2 %)
59.6
3371
28%
80%
2. Coat Effectiveness
RBwahipunw
Cost
Cwt- ENacMan...
Annual New Corder Transit 6 HOW Tress Served (Compered to No Build)(Millins)
Total Capital Costs (1996 Millions)
Incremental Annual O&M Costs (Compered to No Build)(1956 Millions)
Totallncremenml Arrualeed Costs (Compared to No Maki) (1996Mmrons)
Total MetIncremental Annualized Cash' (Compered to No Budd) (1996 MlllIns)
Incremental Cost per New Transit a HOV Try ( Compered ro No Burk)
Net Incremental Cwt per New Thin 4HOV Trip (Compared ta No Bald)
Incremental Cost per Hour of Travel Time Sawed (Convened ro No Bold)
ma Incremental Cost per Hour of Travel Time Saved (Compered to No Build)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
11.9
$1435
$439
$606
$418
$509
$351
$688
$474
208
$3224
$954
$132.8
$973
$639
$468
$9.86
$723
03
$1,5914
$12
$1474
$45.9
$54593
$17000
$12123
$37.75
-0 3
$1.4150
$1.2
$1298
$28.3
N/A
N/A
$1508
$329
203
$1.6901
$704
$212.9
$1867
$1051
$922
$1678
$14.71
188
31.7132
$718
$2146
$1914
$11.40
$1017
$1985
$17.70
3. Environmental Considerations
Water Bseoumw Impacts
Air Ouelltylmpacts
Energy impacts
Displacement.
Part a RacrMbn Impacts
Hitene/Cuttunl Impacts
vlawvAMAstic Impacts
Relative Aggregate Water Resource Impacts
Percent Change elCrreor CO Al Pollutant Emesyns(Cotpred to No Build)
Relative Crlsamplxw d Oeect Energy
Total Number of Employees and Residents Displaced
Robeble end Potential Section eff)Propeny Effects
Total Probable and Potential National Register end Local Landnwks Affected
Incompatible Project Elements
None
N/A
Moderate
0
None
0
None
Low
-18%
Low
0
None
5
Low
Low
-27%
Low
35
None
43
Low
High
-0.1%
High
4.618
Moderate
35
High
High
-1.6%
High
4,618
Moderate
13
High
Moderate
-24%
Moderate
B59 -860
Moderate
55
Moderate
Moderate
-21%
Moderate
2.226
None
43
Moderate
4. Polley Support
Local and Rego'al Plan Consistency
Consistent
Consistent
Consistent
Potentially
Inconsistent
Potentially
Inconsistent
Consistent
Potentially
Inconsistent
Net incremental costs are net of transit larebox revenues and the infrastructure cost of the SR -57 tollway which is assumed to be financed by toll revenues and not the public sector
•
•
•
O�IIIS Executive Summary
Table 1.2
COMPARING ALTERNATIVES IN THE YEAR 2015
ALTERNATIVE
1 No Build
Build Only What's
Already Funded
Completely funded through existing, committed resources. Implements voter supported Measure M Program,
enabling County to "catch up with growth of 1970s and 80s. Completes 1 -5, the County s largest transportation
construction project. Launches Metrolink service.
Even with this in place, congestion on freeways is comparable to 1990 pre Measure M levels. Very low transit
ridership. Loner waits for transit service because of on.oing lack of fundin• in spite of increasin• demand.
Transportation
Systems
Management
Fully Use the
Present Network
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
Achieves 40% increase in transit service at less cost
than other alternatives. Flexible, can respond to
travel pattern, funding or demographic changes.
Likely to have less impact on neighborhoods and
aesthetics than Alternatives 3-6. Results in more
transit use than Alternatives 1 and 4, but less than 3,
5 and 6.
Less likely to reduce congestion on freeways /streets.
Priority street improvements require coordinated or joint
actions by numerous local governments, making
implementation difficult.
Enhanced Bus
An Innovative
Bus System
Maximizes funds already invested in transitways and
carpool lanes. Highest transit ridership. Blends
flexibility of automobile travel with increased capacity
of transit service, at lower cost than rail systems.
Highest annual operating costs. Puts the most buses on
arterial streets. Priority street improvements require
coordinated or joint actions by numerous local
governments, making implementation difficult.
Freeway/Roadway
HOV
Add Carpool Lanes/
SR 57 To //way
Relies on today's preferred travel mode, the
automobile. Achieves greatest percentage of
congestion relief on freeways since it is one of two
alternatives that adds freeway lanes. Encourages
carpooling and HOVs for more efficient use of
roadway space by adding capacity.
Requires purchase of highest number of privately owned
land parcels Probable visual and environmental impacts
on Santa Ana River Channel and nearby properties.
Achieves lowest transit ridership of all alternatives, along
with Alternative 7 Doesn't improve transit service for
travelers who don't have access to automobiles.
5 Fixed Guideway 1/3
Rail System
Harbor/Main/San Diego
Creek
Directly serves highest transit demand area (Harbor
Blvd.) and Santa Ana Civic Center and Main Street
as well as Anaheim Stadium area, South Coast Metro
and the Irvine Business Complex. Provides more
direct service to tourist areas than Alternative 6.
Consistent with all city general plans. Introduces
another type of travel choice. Likely to focus land
use development in specific areas
This impacts historical sites more than Altemative 6.
Many travelers would require a transfer from bus to use
rail Rail transit is unproven in Orange County. Route
cannot be changed once constructed.
6 Fixed Guideway 5
Rail System
Metrolink/Bristol/Metrolink
Uses existing railroad right -of -way in many areas
Uses Bristol Street through Santa Ana which results
in closest access to South Coast Metro/Plaza.
Intrbduces another type of travel choice. Likely to
focus land use development in specific areas
Does not serve area of greatest present transit demand
(Harbor Blvd. and Santa Ana downtown). Inconsistent
with Irvine General Plan. Rail transit unproved in Orange
County Route cannot be changed once constructed.
Most expensive alternative to build
Freeway/Roadway
Mixed Flow
Add Mixed Row Lanes/SR
57 Tol /way
Relies on today's preferred travel mode, the
automobile. Achieves second greatest percentage
of congestion relief on freeways, since it is one of two
alternatives that adds freeway lanes.
Requires purchase of highest number of privately owned
land parcels. Probable visual and environmental impacts
on Santa Ana River Channel and nearby properties.
Achieves lowest transit ridership of all alternatives, along
with Altemative 7 Doesn't improve transit service for
travelers who don't have access to automobiles.
•
• MIS Executive Summary
IL PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) has undertaken a Major Investment
Study for the 28 -mile corridor from the Fullerton Transportation Center to the Irvine
Transportation better known as 'The Corridor A Major Investment Study (MIS) is a federal
planning process followed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal
Transit Administration (FTA). The MIS is a locally- focused transportation planning process
based on extensive public involvement and a multi -modal approach.
The Expenditure Plan for Measure M, Orange County's half -cent transportation sales tax,
allocates $340 million toward the development of a high - technology advanced urban rail
system. Completion of the MIS provides OCTA with the potential opportunity to leverage
Measure M transit funds for a federal match of up to 80 percent.
The focus of the MIS process is to identify and evaluate a complete set of transportation
improvement alternatives which provide solutions for the future mobility challenges of the
Corridor Based on extensive public involvement, a full set of potential Corridor transportation
improvement alternatives was developed and analyzed. Alternatives evaluated include various
highway and transit alternatives, such as improving bus transit services, constructing additional
freeway and roadway lanes, or building a new rail transit line. Descriptions of the full set of
alternatives considered by the Corridor MIS are described in detail in Section IV Alternatives
Considered.
The purpose of this MIS is to provide local decision makers with relevant technical information
to select the best transportation improvements for the Corridor This document provides a
summary of the Draft Evaluation Report which presents detailed technical information on the
set of alternatives under consideration. This document will be circulated for extensive public
review and comment by the public, elected officials, MIS advisory groups, other interest groups
and public agencies. A Final Evaluation Report will be prepared incorporating public input
and providing the basis for a recommended transportation improvement strategy A
public hearing will take place in the spring to seek further comments on the study
results and the proposed recommendation before adoption of a Locally Preferred Investment
Strategy by the OCTA Board of Directors.
II 1
1
ri
-D
-4
0
0
r-
riraragittEi ,4.'22:4114.74.041..
•
•A MIS Executive Summary
Population And Employment
In 1990, the Corridor was home to 34 percent of the County's residents and 57 percent of the
jobs. Corridor density was also higher with 125 percent residents per square mile and 311
percent workers per square mile more than the rest of the County By the year 2015, it is
projected the Corridor will continue to contain approximately 30 percent of the County's total
population and more than 50 percent of the total employment. As shown on Figure 11.3
Corridor population is projected to increase from the 1990 level of 826,000 persons to
1 017,000 persons by the year 2015, representing an overall increase of 23 percent. Similarly
as shown on Figure 11.4 employment is expected to grow from the 1990 level of 737 000 jobs
to 1,059,000 by the year 2015, representing an overall increase of 44 percent.
Changing demographics, including a projected increase in senior residents from nine percent
to 15 percent of the County population by the year 2015, are anticipated to create additional
demands for transportation services. Most of the increase in population and employment is
expected to occur within the Corridor's existing and planned key employment, activity and
residential centers.
Travel Characteristics
Currently approximately 20 percent of the trips in the County are for commute purposes, with
the remaining 80 percent representing travel for shopping, school, recreational and other
activities. Of the current commute trips, a high proportion (approximately 79 percent) are
made by people in single occupancy automobiles. This results in a relatively low automobile
occupancy of approximately 1 1 persons per vehicle within the County When all trips are
considered, the proportion of trips made by single occupancy vehicles drops to 40 percent and
auto occupancy increases to 1 4 persons per vehicle. The occupancy increase is primarily the
result of family and friends traveling together for shopping and recreational trips.
There are approximately 4 7 million trips made daily to, from, and within the Corridor
representing almost 60 percent of the total eight million trips made daily in the County Intra-
Corridor trips, where both the trip origin and destination are located within the Corridor
represent 2.2 million trips or 27 percent of the County's travel. Travel between the Corridor
11 -3
Projected Population Growth
In Orange County
I
1990
■
pnnir P. s¢ MIS
McCarron Tnn
IN >e
®.
11C0 TOD
o
u. ,.m
Total 2,411,000
Permed M. S. M.
Per C... Trod
1.1 Mon140})
a.
Q t- r®
C UPS 303
M union 'Noma CM M,..
10500
9000
7500
6000
4500
3000
1500
0
POPULATION DENSITY
(persons per square mile)
Rat of County la Connor
1990
Rest of County at Conwor
2015
Source: 1992 Orange County Projections
The Corridor
GROWTH
TRENDS
HE PATH TO MOBILITY FIGURE 11.3
s
_.•
Projected Employment Growth
In Orange County
1990
Total 1,301,000
o;�'. •
o,K0.
C
Total 2,006,000
lieu
10500
9000
7500
6000
4500
3000
1500
0
EMPLOYMENT DENSITY
(workers per square mik)
ant of cowry The Corridor
1990
Ret of County The Candor
2015
Source: 1992 Orange County Projections
he s
Corridor
TIRE PATH TO MOBILITY
GROWTH
TRENDS
Figure 11.4
•
•A MIS Executive Summary
and Santa Ana and the northern area due to its proximity to the Los Angeles County
metropolitan area. During the late 1950s and 1960s, the County's economy shifted from
primarily agricultural to one increasingly characterized by manufacturing. In the 1970s and
1980s, the County experienced a shift to high technology jobs and integration into the
international economy It is anticipated the County's economy will become increasingly focused
on information oriented and service based occupations as indicated by existing trends. Orange
County and the Corridor will also continue to evolve toward becoming a more urbanized
community
Figures 11.3 and 11.4 show the 1990 and projected year 2015 population and employment
densities for the County and the Corridor The current and projected population densities in
Santa Ana (currently more than 14 000 persons per square mile) and the employment
densities in Irvine and Anaheim (currently 14 000 employees per square mile) are comparable
to other urban areas in California which support a balanced multi -modal transportation system
of freeways and high - capacity transit services.
Air Quality Issues
The Corridor is located within the South Coast Air Basin - the area with the worst air quality in
the nation. Mobile sources, including cars and trucks, are the single largest contributor to air
pollution in the Basin. Any improvements or increases in the Corridor's transportation system
capacity must be implemented without increasing or worsening mobile source emissions.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rates the South Coast Air Basin as an 'extreme'
non - attainment area for ozone- the only area so designated in the nation. Ozone problems in
the Basin are an order -of- magnitude worse than anywhere else in the country According to
EPA's most recent evaluation, the Basin exceeds the national ozone standard approximately
130 days each year By comparison, the next -worst areas (Houston and New York) exceed
the standard only 12 to 17 days annually
The South Coast Air Basin is the only area in non - attainment of the nitrogen dioxide air quality
standard. In 1992, the Basin recorded the greatest number of exceedances of the carbon
11 -5
•
•A MIS Executive Summary
• Limited travel options— With a congested freeway and street system and financially
constrained bus and Metrolink service.
Freeway and Arterial Congestion
Currently the Orange County freeway system is highly congested resulting in travel time
delays for a significant portion of each day Using Caltrans' definition of congestion as travel
speeds less than 30 m.p.h. for durations of 15 minutes or longer all of the Corridor freeways
currently experience congestion for at least four hours a day and, more typically eight to 10
hours per day Due to the widely dispersed origins and destinations of County residents, traffic
flows on County freeways tend to be balanced with equal congestion in both directions of
travel. In addition to the expected heavy weekday traffic, freeway congestion also occurs on
weekends.
A future mobility problem or gap is projected for the Corridor in 2015. A mobility 'gap
expressed in terms of freeway and arterial congestion, is the percentage of facilities estimated
to be operating below a desired Level of Service (LOS). In 1990, prior to passage of Measure
M, approximately 58 percent of the Corridor freeway system operated below the Caltrans
standard of LOS FO (15 minutes to 1 hour congestion duration) during the worst (evening)
peak period.
By 2015 it is anticipated that most Corridor freeway and arterial infrastructure improvements
will be completed providing their maximum system capacity During the same period, Corridor
population is anticipated to increase by 23 percent and employment opportunities by 44
percent. With approximately two million more daily Corridor trips, it is projected that peak hour
congestion will continue to occur Approximately 73 percent of the Corridor's freeway system is
forecast to be operating below LOS FO during the evening (Figure 11.5), and possibly the
morning, peak periods.
On the arterial street network, approximately four percent of the major intersections in the
Corridor currently operated below the Congestion Management Program standard of LOS E
(40 to 60 seconds average of intersection delay per vehicle or waiting more than one light
cycle) in 1990. Year 2015 projections show the number of major intersections with delay will
11 -7
•
Estimated Freeway
Level of Service (P.M. 2015)
ESTIMATED CONGESTION
DURATION
FO (15 min. 1 hr.)
F1 (1 hr 2 hrs.) t
F2 (2 hrs. 3 hrs.)
F3 (Greater than 3hrs.)
Source: Caltrans
The Corridor
111L
Mumillrafaillea"
mama:3aq
„nag
•
�. e0..
1:11
n,
541111111W
rumw
;0 STA
Arterial Level of Service
Post 2015 P.M.
Level of Service
Q LOS 'A' OR 'B'
® LOS 'C' OR 'D'
• LOS 'E' OR 'P'
Thee Corridor
•
laMIS Executive Summary
• Increasing arterial congestion -- Major intersections with delay will grow from four percent to
27 percent.
• Constrained transit options -- With bus and Metrolink service held constant at Fall 1995
levels through 2010 the resulting transit capacity will be severely constrained in
accommodating the projected 35 percent increase in transit demand.
• Limited travel options -- Congested freeway and street system, and financially constrained
bus and Metrolink service.
In defining the purpose and need for this Major Investment Study it is important to identify
study objectives against which potential transportation improvements will be evaluated. The
study objectives must reflect a full range of public input, be sensitive to environmental and
neighborhood impacts, address public policy guidance and meet community and regional
goals and objectives. In summary viable MIS transportation alternatives must:
• Increase transportation system capacity without increasing mobile source emissions;
• Result in minimal neighborhood and environmental impacts;
• Have public support; and
• Support public policy direction.
The set of multi -modal alternatives under consideration as described in Section IV meet the
criteria listed above.
11 -9
•
OC IS Executive Summary
lit PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM
The Public Involvement Program (PIP) for the Corridor MIS provides for the selection of
transportation improvement alternatives for analysis which attract public support. The
PIP also assures these alternatives will be evaluated according to criteria the general
public views as important. It also ensures public opinion will be factored into all
technical and policy discussion and decision points.
111.1 BACKGROUND
OCTA developed and is implementing a comprehensive multi - phased Public
Involvement Program (PIP) built on the understanding that each phase of the Corridor
MIS Study should use slightly different outreach tactics. This section chronicles the
results of the PIP conducted during Project Initiation and Initial Screening, which
resulted in the identification of the Final Set of Six Alternatives.
During Project Initiation, the following objectives were established for the entire PIP to
ensure public participation in the study process:
1 Present the analytical methods, evaluation criteria, and technical findings to the
community in ways that can be clearly understood by the general public.
2. Maximize distribution of information about the proposed alternatives to
interested residents and businesses.
3 Use customized communications tactics that target varying audiences so people
can relate relevant information to their own lives or circumstances.
4 Proactively reach out to community leaders and interest groups with particular
interests in the project.
5 Provide opportunities for diverse viewpoints and opinions about the alternatives
to be incorporated in the process, including input of the transit reliant.
•
OC•S Executive Summary
Houses also offer all participants a chance to have their comments weighed equally
(through surveys), thereby minimizing the likelihood that more vocal interests will
dominate or overshadow others. Targeted audience presentations allow key groups an
opportunity to engage in a discussion focused on their particular concerns.
Five Advisory Committees, each fulfilling slightly different objectives, were established
early in the Project Initiation Phase. These committees, which include the Corridor
Working Group (CWG), Corridor Elected Officials Group (CEO), Corridor Technical
Advisory Committee (CTG), an Expert Review Panel and a Resource Agency Group
are an important source of ongoing public input. While reaching the general population
continued to be an important goal for the PIP the advisory committees offer the
advantage of input from the same individuals throughout the study and a base of
continuous knowledge about the study that helps to provide an important perspective.
The committees were structured to ensure organizations representing Countywide
interests were involved and that local governments had several ways to participate. The
Advisory Committees are:
1 Corridor Elected Officials Group (CEO) -- A committee of 27 elected official
members representing cities throughout the County chaired by an OCTA Board
member
2. Corridor Working Group (CWG)— A committee of 29 members representing
community groups with countywide constituencies, the business community and
major property owners such as Disneyland, the Irvine Company and the Orange
County Business Council, chaired by an OCTA Board member
3. Corridor Technical Group (CTG)— A committee of 20 members representing
county transportation professionals and local government staff Most, but not all
members, represent cities within the Corridor
To bring additional expertise to the process, OCTA also formed a Resource Agency
Group comprised of staff from regional, state and federal agencies, and an Expert Peer
Review Panel of national transportation experts drawn from similar urban areas
throughout the United States.
111 -3
•
OC iwiS Executive Summary
111.3 PROJECT INITIATION PHASE
Tactics and Objectives
The PIP for the Project Initiation Phase was designed to help define the scope and
focus of the subsequent phases of the Corridor MIS. This phase of outreach was not
meant to encourage participants to 'vote' on a particular mode or project alternatives,
but instead to "take the public's pulse' about their overall perception of transportation
issues and what the public viewed as important considerations. It included:
Three Community Open Houses, using a video presentation, 21 exhibit
boards displayed at four informational stations and extensive surveys on key
topics;
A Speakers Bureau utilizing the same materials and surveys used at the Open
Houses;
Eight Roundtables and Leadership Briefings with business, environmental and
legislative representatives;
Extensive media efforts through.65 media outlets;
A bilingual mailing to publicize the Open Houses and Corridor MIS sent to
approximately 25,000 addresses, approximately 10,000 of which were 1.5 miles
or less from the center of the Corridor and the remainder drawn from OCTA lists
of community leaders and organizations;
Spanish language written materials on The Corridor MIS Study
A special mailing of Open House materials and direct mail opinion surveys to 87
ethnic and community leaders;
III -5
•
OC1 IS Executive Summary
3. Alignments and routes were developed to reflect public comment, for example,
Harbor Boulevard, was selected most frequently by the public as the preferred
north /south alignment above Katella Avenue and this was incorporated into
several alternatives. Further use of the Metrolink right of way for a rail
alignment was a suggestion first proposed by the Corridor Working Group.
4 The evaluation criteria cited by the public as high priorities were considered
when developing the alternatives, and the alternatives have been measured
against these criteria.
111.4 INITIAL SCREENING PHASE
Tactics and Objectives
The PIP for the Initial Screening Phase was designed to involve the public in the
process of reducing the number of alternatives from an initial set of 10 to a Final Set of
Six Alternatives. To achieve this, 10 alternatives with supporting technical information
were presented and participants were asked to select the alternatives they supported
for further study They were also asked to identify any potential fatal flaws and propose
any alternatives which they believed had been overlooked.
Two types of audiences were involved in this refinement effort: (1) those who had
indicated an interest in the study and (2) representatives of organizations potentially
impacted by one or more alternatives. The focus was primarily on publics within the
Corridor Advisory committees with countywide representation became a stronger
influence at this stage of refinement.
This phase of the study provided the first opportunity to surface issues related to
specific alignment choices. It was important to do so in a manner that tested
alternatives without generating controversy in the community about one or more
alternatives which may not be considered further The tactics used to achieve this
balance were.
III -7
•
OCl7lIEIIS Executive Summary
Approximately 400 Orange County leaders and groups participated in the PIP during
this Initial Screening stage. Their input was a key element in the creation of the final six
alternatives. All advisory committee members and the majority of participants contacted
in the other venues supported the inclusion of TSM, Enhanced Bus and one or more of
the Rail System Alternatives. Support for a Freeway /Roadway Alternative was less
widespread, and the Advisory Groups only supported this option as an HOV
application.
At the conclusion of the Initial Screening Phase in November a brochure showing the
six alternatives was distributed to approximately 1,500 individuals who had previously
indicated an interest in the Corridor Study A mail -back survey was also included in this
brochure. The returned surveys showed:
1 Over 80 percent supported the six alternatives for further study
2. Strong support for the enhanced /innovative bus network alternative;
3. The Rail System alternatives elicited strong opinions, both positive and
negative; and
4 When asked to identify the greatest strength of Orange County's present local
transportation network, a large majority listed the freeway system.
111.5 PUBLIC OUTREACH FOR DRAFT EVALUATION REPORT
The technical information and comparative data on the Final Set of Seven Alternatives
contained in this Draft Evaluation Report will be widely disseminated to the public
between January and March 1997 Project information and a survey will be sent to
approximately 38,000 households. This mailing universe will be heavily concentrated in
and near the Corridor but will also be sent randomly throughout the County and to
numerous countywide organizations and individuals on existing countywide OCTA
distribution lists. Similar information will be placed on the World Wide Web
(http: / /www.octa.co orange.ca.us) and in a computerized kiosk at major retail centers
•
•A MIS Executive Summary
IV ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
This section outlines the development of the Final Set of Major Investment Strategies
considered in the Corridor Major Investment Study (MIS). Conceptual transportation ideas
identified with the public were screened through a three -step process to identify a Final Set of
Alternatives. This Final Set of Alternatives, adopted by the OCTA Board on July 24 1995 was
identified as the best candidates to meet the goals and objectives for transportation
improvements in the Corridor A subsequent alternative was reintroduced for study by the
OCTA Board on August 12, 1996.
IV 1 SCREENING AND SELECTION PROCESS
The overall objective of the Corridor MIS is to develop and assess a full range of transportation
alternatives and identify a preferred strategy which addresses capacity requirements and
mobility needs in the year 2015 and beyond while being sensitive to environmental and
neighborhood concerns. The MIS provides a systematic analytical process to develop and
assess a full range of transportation improvements so as to identify viable future solutions for
the Corridor To be considered a viable alternative, a transportation improvement should
satisfy the following conditions:
• Address the Corridor mobility problem and purpose and need for the project;
• Represent an appropriate technology capacity match with the projected Corridor
demand;
• Have minimal or no major operational flaws or environmental impacts; and
• Balance costs with expected benefits and within funding availability
During Project Initiation, a wide range of possible transportation ideas for the Corridor was
identified by the public, elected officials, advisory groups and city staffs. In order to select
alternatives which best met the needs of the Corridor a three -step screening process was
identified with and approved in consultation with staff from the Federal Transit Administration
(FTA) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). This three -step process provided a
IV -1
Task Tam
Development /Screening of
Major Investment Strategies
• No -build
TSM
Road (SOVMOV)
• Enhanced Bus
• Light Rail Transit
Automated Guideway Transit
People movers
Heavy Rail Transit
• Regional Rail
AI,L POSSIBLE. CONCEPTS
;•E vervthinq'suggestedd'tiy the
public, cities, OCTA staff
and consultants
Technologies/Modesfa
• Alignments: 44iSegments
• Cross Sections:11
'
• No -build
TSM
Road (SOV /HOV)
Enhanced Bus
Fixed Guideway Transit
ALL REASONABLE CONCEPTS.
• Technoiogies/Ivlodes & Profiles: 5'
(some screened out;.some
combined)
• Aligrxnents: :25 segments
• divide Corridor into 3 sub-
areas
• identify all alignment
segments by area
• binary "meets - fails" analysis
for technologies and
alignment segments
identify compatible
alignment/technology
combinations for viable
segments and technologies
No-build
TSM
Road (SOV /HOV)
Enhanced Bus
Fixed Guideway Transit -
elevated and/or at- grade;
4 alignments
INITIAL SET
• No -Build
• TSM
• 612 combinations of
• technology/mode
• alignment
-• cross section
he Corridor
• for each of 3 sub - areas, score
potential alignments against
criteria
• apply screening thresholds to
identify most viable alignments
FINAL SET
• No -Build
•• ISM
• 2-4 combinations of
• technology /mode
-• alignment
• cross section
network -based demand
forecasting
unit cost -based conceptual
costing
preliminary environmental
review based on published
data
Figure IV 1
•
•A MIS Executive Summary
• Potential technologies or modes including freeway and street expansions, bus service
expansion, rail transit (such as light rail transit, automated guideway transit, people -
mover heavy rail transit and regional rail), and other transportation options;
• Potential alignments or alignment segments including along city streets, existing rail
rights of way or freeways; and
Potential cross - sections including elevated, street level and underground options.
A wide variety of potential transportation improvements was identified and entered into the
screening process. The initial candidate pool included nine technologies /modes, 44 alignments
and three cross - sections.
Level 1 Screening. During Level 1 Screening, a fatal flaw analysis of the large pool of
transportation concepts was performed. The initial viability check screened out technologies/
modes, alignment segments, or cross - sections with insurmountable engineering,
environmental or financial flaws. This level of screening also deleted transportation ideas that
did not address the Corridor Mobility Problem as defined in MIS Task 2.1 Mobility Problem &
Purpose and Need Statement. For example, an underground transportation system was
dropped at this step. This alternative was identified as providing an unnecessarily high system
capacity along with unacceptable financial and neighborhood impacts.
Level 1 screening was performed on a "meets /does not meet level, and any concept which
received a 'does not meet' finding for any of the criteria was deleted. Table IV 1 displays the
criteria used in the Level 1 Screening. Transportation options passing this initial evaluation
level went on to the second level of screening.
Level 2 Screening. The second level of evaluation provided a more quantitative analysis to
further screen the transportation alternatives for viability While the same evaluation
categories and criteria as Level 1 screening were used, Level 2 allowed for a more detailed
analysis and a scoring system to rank potential alternatives. The screening criteria, the
indicators and the methods used to perform Level 2 screening is shown in Table IV.2.
IV -3
•
OCT• Executive Summary
Table IV 1
LEVEL 1 SCREENING CRITERIA
CATEGORY /CRITERIA/IN DICATOR
1 Cost - Effectiveness
• Cost
Typical construction cost per mile
• Usage/Ridership
Not assessed at this sta•e
2. Mobility Impacts
• Transportation Benefits
Percentage of existing and future Corridor activity centers within 1/2 mile of
alignment
• Access to Other Modes
Not assessed at this level
3. Operating Efficiencies
• Ease of Construction and Operation
Fatal Flaws
Proven Technolo• /Mode
4 Environmental Benefits
• Environmental Impacts
Fatal Flaws e.g regional air quality parkland preservation [Sec 4(f)], historic
•reservation Sec 106 and wetland •reservation Secs 404, 1600 .
5. Policy
• Policy Support
Not assessed at this level
Notes:
1. Categories I through 4 from "Revised Measures for Assessing Major Investment Strategies: A Discussion Draft,
FTA Policy Paper September 1994
2. Category 5 from the set of evaluation criteria used in the OCTA Project Definition Study.
3 The seven critena (e.g. cost, usage /ridership) are from the nine evaluation critena used in the OCTA Project
Definition Study Two criteria (Land Use and Funding) are not assessed at this level.
4 All indicators (e g. typical construction cost per mile) reflect the OCTA Project Definition Study.
•
OCT• Executive Summary
Table IV.2
LEVEL 2 SCREENING
CATEGORIES AND CRITERIA FOR ALL MIS ALTERNATIVES
CATEGORY/CRITERIA/INDICATOR
1 Cost-Effectiveness
• Cost
• Potential for Usage/Ridership
2. Mobility Impacts
• Transportation Benefits
• Access to Other Modes
• Accessibility for Mobility- Deficient Groups
3. Operating Efficiencies
• Ease of Construction and Operation
4. Environmental Benefits
• Environmental Impacts
5. Policy
• Policy Support
Notes:
1 Categories 1 through 4 from 'Revised Measures for Assessing Major Investment Strategies: A Discussion Draft,
FTA Policy Paper September 1994
2. Category 5 from the set of evaluation criteria used in the OCTA Project Definition Study.
3 The seven criteria (e.g. cost, usage /ridership) are from the nine evaluation criteria used in the OCTA Project
Definition Study. Two criteria (Land Use and Funding) are not assessed at this level.
4. All indicators (e.g. typical construction cost per mile) reflect the OCTA Project Definition Study
•
•A MIS Executive Summary
(SR -57) to Interstate 405 (1 -405), widens State Route 73 (SR -73) between the 1 -405
and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor increases the capacity of four major
arterial streets and adds direct freeway connectors at three locations.
6. Rail System Alternative 1/3: Incorporates a rail system, either at street - level, elevated,
or some combination, running down Harbor Boulevard in Fullerton to Main Street in
Santa Ana, to Sunflower Avenue in Costa Mesa and along the San Diego Creek in
Irvine to the Irvine Transportation Center
7 Rail System Alternative 2. Incorporates a rail system, either at street - level, elevated, or
some combination, running down Harbor Boulevard in Fullerton to Bristol Street in
Santa Ana, to Sunflower Avenue in Costa Mesa and along the San Diego Creek in
Irvine to the Irvine Transportation Center
8. Rail System Alternative 4 Incorporates a rail system, either at street - level, elevated, or
some combination, running down Harbor Boulevard in Fullerton to Main to MacArthur
Boulevard and University Drive past the University of California into the Irvine
Transportation Center
This set of eight alternatives was taken through a series of outreach efforts, including the
Corridor advisory groups described in Section III, to refine details of the options and to ensure
that all transportation options were identified. Two additional alternatives were identified for
inclusion in the Initial Set of Alternatives:
9 Rail System Alternative 5. Identified by the Corridor Working Group, this rail
alternative, either at street - level, elevated, or some combination, runs from the
Fullerton Transportation Center to the Anaheim Stadium area via the Metrolink right -of-
way to Bristol Street in Santa Ana, to Sunflower Avenue in Costa Mesa and on to
Jamboree Road to the future Tustin Metrolink station, and along the Metrolink right -of-
way to the Irvine Transportation Center
10 Rail System Alternative 6. Identified by the City of Santa Ana with the support of
the City of Garden Grove, this rail alternative, either at street - level, elevated or some
combination, runs along Harbor Boulevard to Sunflower Avenue in Costa Mesa, to
IV -5
•
OCT•Executive Summary
Table IV.3
LEVEL 3 SCREENING CRITERIA
CATEGORY/CRITERIA/INDICATOR
1
Cost - Effectiveness
• Cost
Capital cost
Annual operating & maintenance cost
• Ridership /Usage
Modal shift
Screenline WC ratios
• Cost Effectiveness
Annualized capital cost
Annualized travel time savings ($)
Total annualized cost
Incremental annualized cost Per new trig served
2.
Mobility Impacts
• Transportation Benefits
Travel Time Savings (Hours)
• Access to Other Modes
Number of Metrolink stations with direct service
Number of activity centers with regional park- and -ride potential
Availability of direct service to John Wayne Airport
Private Vehicle: number of new Interchanges provided
• Accessibility for Mobility Deficient
Transit number of households within 1/2 mile with zero to one cars
Private Vehicle: HOV travel times for sam.le zero to one car households
3.
Environmental Benefits
• Sensitive Uses
Number of adjacent residential blocks
Number of adjacent schools, churches, libraries, medical facilities
Potential right -of -way required
• Biological Considerations
Number of significant resources encountered
Potential effects on significant resources
• Cultural Resources & 4(f) Properties
Number of adjacent historic resources
Number of adjacent parks & recreational areas
• Visual and Aesthetic Considerations
Percentage of all. nment 'ud. ed visual) compatible with ad acent land uses
4
Policy
• Policy Support
Regional plans /public agency policy compatibility
Local Plan coin 'alibi!'
•
MIS Executive Summary
•A
IV.2 DEFINITION OF MIS ALTERNATIVES
Based on the technical analysis contained in this report and the public outreach results, the
OCTA Board adopted the following Set of Final Alternatives for further detailed technical study
1 No Build or Do Nothing Alternative: This option provides a baseline for comparison of
the other alternatives.
2. Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternative: This alternative provides a
low capital cost option, increases the range of local community and express commuter
bus services, provides bus transit priorities on major streets, increases utilization of the
Transitway system, incorporates a range of Smart Corridor improvements and all
funded Intelligent Technology System (ITS) elements.
3 Enhanced Bus Alternative: Expands the frequency of both local community and
express commuter bus services, provides bus transit priorities on major bus service
streets and makes optimal use of the Transitway system.
4 Freeway /Roadway HOV Alternative: With a set of freeway and street improvements
primarily for High- Occupancy Vehicles including carpools, vanpools and buses.
5 Rail System Alternative 1/3: Incorporates a rail system running down Harbor Boulevard
in Fullerton to Main Street in Santa Ana, to Sunflower Avenue in Costa Mesa and the
San Diego Creek through Irvine to the Irvine Transportation Center
6. Rail System Alternative 5 Incorporates a rail system running from the Fullerton
Transportation Center to the Anaheim Stadium area along the Metrolink right -of -way to
Bristol Street in Santa Ana, to Sunflower Avenue in Costa Mesa and on to Jamboree
Road to the future Tustin Metrolink station, and along the Metrolink right -of -way to the
Irvine Transportation Center
The six alternatives contained in the Final Set of Major Investment Strategies constitute a
comprehensive set of modes, approaches and alignments for addressing the purpose and
IV -7
w tnvmap -o12
No Build Alternative
(Year 2015)
HOV Lanes
Programmed Arterial
Improvements
Metrolink
Toll Road
HOV Connectors
Transitway Ramps
Metrolink Station
Park and Ride Lot
Existing Transit Center
THE PATH TO MOBILITY
•
IRMIS Executive Summary
the No -Build alternative are focused on activity centers in the Comdor with two express routes
to the Los Angeles Central Business Distnct
The coverage and frequency of Metrolink service in the Corridor is assumed to remain
constant with five daily trains between Oceanside and Los Angeles and four daily trains
between San Bernardino- Riverside and Irvine
The supply of Park and Ride lots is anticipated to be increased by 5,500 spaces throughout
Orange County to support the transit system and other higher occupancy modes This
increase in capacity is equivalent to more than doubling the existing number of Park and Ride
parking spaces
TSM Alternative
The Transportation Systems Management (TSM) alternative implements various lower cost
capital improvements to address mobility problems in the Corridor This option involves the
implementation of additional and /or unprogrammed Smart Streets selective signal
improvements road widenings, intersection improvements to improve traffic flow transit priority
measures (e g bus prionty signal phasing, artenal reserved bus /HOV lanes) and
implementation of existing TSM policies Combined these measures represent a set of
initiatives that can realize transportation benefits with relatively low investment separating the
benefits from those which can only be realized through major capital intensive improvements
The proposed TSM measures for this MIS are shown in Figure IV 3 The TSM option includes
the implementation of Smart Street improvements along Harbor Boulevard and bus transit
priorities along the roadways with the most intensive transit services including Harbor, Bristol
Main La Palma 17th, Edinger and Von Karman Local bus service levels in the TSM
alternative are increased over the Baseline service to keep pace with projected growth in
Corridor employment, with the equivalent of 49 percent more weekday service hours compared
to the No Build alternative A higher level of express bus service is provided through 17
express routes making use of the soon to be completed Transitway network Express bus
service is designed to serve activity centers in the Corridor, with specific focus on the Anaheim
Stadium area Santa Ana Civic Center South Coast Metro, Irvine Business Center and the
IV 9
OCTA - Envmap -011 7/96
H
1
v
2
H
0
O
Co
a.
a.
Co
C
N
C
6
t
t
t
Z
0
0)
3 v ;I-
5-* (0 N
m <
Z m 3 m
3 3 3
0° m m m
C 7 C1 ••
a H d
yy a5.
a72, 2
N C
. .
A
m 7 m 0) 0 a m
a =
t
t
i
D D
a
Xi I _1
"C c.
m 3
N 0
co C
CD
3
fD
..
N
010
00
•
OVA MIS Executive Summary
through improvements which represent capacity enhancements over the year 2015 No Build
roadway system. The transit level of service in the Freeway /Roadway HOV Alternative is held
constant at the No Build level. The roadway components of this alternative are shown in
Figure IV.5 and include the following:
• SR 57 Extension: Santa Ana River Channel— Extend SR 57 by constructing four
lanes (two each way) from I -5 to 1 -405, with interchanges at Garden Grove
Boulevard, First Street, Harbor Boulevard, 1 -405 and SR -73. This roadway is
currently proposed as a privately developed toll road. Toll levels would vary by the
time of day Carpools with 3 or more occupants are proposed to be allowed to use
the toll road for free, as is the current policy on the SR 91 express lanes.
• SR 73: Addition of two mixed flow lanes and two HOV lanes (two each way) on SR
73 between 1 -405 and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor The HOV
lanes terminate at Bear Street while the mixed flow lanes continue to Euclid Street.
The improvements along 1 -405 mainly consist of the addition of auxiliary lanes and
confluence improvements. Both mixed -flow and HOV connectors are also included
at SR -55 and SR -73
• State College /Bristol /MacArthur Two HOV lanes (one in each direction) are added
from Imperial to the San Joaquin Hills Corridor The right -of -way consists of a
maximum eight mixed flow lane configuration (four in each direction) with
intersection improvements (left and right turn lanes), bus turnouts, signal
coordination, and removal of on- street parking.
• Harbor Boulevard: Implementation of Smart Street improvements and the addition
of two HOV lanes (one each way) on Harbor Boulevard from SR -91 to SR 55 up to
a maximum eight lane configuration.
• Jamboree Road: Addition of one HOV lane in each direction from 1 -5 to SR -73.
Intersection improvements (left and right turn lanes) are also provided, along with
signal coordination.
IV -11
•
OCT• Executive Summary
Table IV.4
COMPARISON OF FREEWAY/ROADWAY ALTERNATIVES
Freeway
Elements
NOV Alternative
Mixed Flow Alternative
SR -57 Extension
SR -73 Widening
Birch /I-405
Connectors
Privately developed toll road
• 4 mixed flow lanes (2 each way)
• 3+ carpools free (similar to SR -91)
• Provide (1 lane) ramp connectors to 1-405
Publicly developed project
• Provide 2 mixed flow lanes (1 each way)
• Provide 2 Hay lanes (1 each way)
• Provide auxiliary lanes /confluence
improvements to 1-405
(Total: 6 mixed flow lanes with 2 HOV lanes)
Provide direct HOV /Bus connectors at:
• SR- 55/I -5 (Southbound direction)
• SR- 22/SR -55
• SR- 73/SR -55 (NB SR -73 to SB SR -55/
connector B
Same
• Provide 2 additional mixed flow lanes
(Total: 8 mixed flow lanes)
Delete -not mixed flow elements
Arterial
Elements
HOV Alternative
Mixed Flow Alternative
State College Blvd.
Bristol Street
MacArthur Blvd:
Harbor Blvd.
amboree Road
Edinger Avenue
Bristol Street to
Main Street
• Provide 2 HOV lanes (1 each way from
Imperial to San Joaquin Corridor) to
current configuration of mixed flow lanes
• Implement Smart Street improvements
mixed flow lanes
• Provide 2 HOV lanes (1 each way)
• Provide HOV lanes (1 each way from 1 -5 to
SR -73)
• Implement Smart Street improvements
(restriping, signal and access
im•rovements
• Provide 2 additional mixed flow lanes
Same
• • Provide 2 additional mixed flow lanes
• Provide 2 additional mixed flow lanes
Same
OCTA- Envmap-013 10/96
96/LI O6O-dewnu3-Vj30
•
•A MIS Executive Summary
• SR -73: Addition of four Mixed Flow Lanes on SR 73 between Euclid Street and the
San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor The improvements along 1-405 mainly
consist of the addition of auxiliary lanes and confluence improvements.
• State College /Bristol /MacArthur Two mixed flow lanes (one in each direction) are
added from Imperial to the San Joaquin Hills Corridor The right -of -way consists of
a maximum eight Mixed Flow Lane Configuration (four in each direction) with
intersection improvements (left and right turn lanes), bus turnouts, signal
coordination, and removal of on- street parking.
• Harbor Boulevard: Implementation of Smart Street improvements and the addition
of two mixed flow lanes (one each way) on Harbor Boulevard from SR -91 to SR -55
up to a maximum eight lane configuration.
Rail System Alternative 1/3
This rail system alternative involves the construction of a rail system facility connecting the
Fullerton Transportation Center to the Irvine Transportation Center in a combination of at-
grade and elevated segments. The two rail technologies under consideration are Light Rail
Transit (LRT) and Automated Guideway Transit (AGT). For the purposes of the detailed
technical analyses, LRT technology was assumed. If a rail alternative is selected, the
technology decision will be made during preliminary design, the next planning phase.
This rail alternative includes all programmed and funded transportation facility improvements
as described in the No Build alternative. This alternative also consists of an expanded support
fleet of buses which would act as "feeders' to the rail stations. The proposed bus fleet is
slightly larger in size than that proposed in the TSM alternative.
Rail System Alternative 1/3 is a combination of alignment alternatives from option one, option
three, and portions of option two from the Initial Set of Major Investment Alternatives. These
alternatives were combined together into one option because the alignments differed only in
the North County area. Rail System Alternative 1 was proposed to follow a Harbor Boulevard
alignment while Alternative 3 ran along Anaheim Boulevard and Lemon Street. These
IV -13
0A MIS Executive Summary
leaves the Metrolink right -of -way to reach Main Street in the area north of SR -22 A Main
Street alignment is followed for a short section to 17th Street in Santa Ana where it extends
westward to Bnstol Street through the Santa Ana Civic Center area The alignment continues
south along Bnstol Street to the South Coast Metro area In the southern section of the
Corridor a Main Street alignment connects the South Coast Metro area to Jamboree Road,
which is then followed northward to the proposed Tustin Metrolink Station/Transportation
Center At this point, the alignment returns to the Metrolink right of -way on separate tracks to
the Irvine Transportation Center at the south end of the Comdor
This rail alternative includes all programmed and funded transportation facility improvements
as descnbed in the No Build Alternative This alternative also consists of an expanded support
fleet of buses which would act as feeders" to the rail stations The proposed bus fleet is
slightly larger in size than that proposed in the TSM Alternative
IV 15
2 ■
I
Fixed Guideway 1/3 Alternative
Harbor Blvd. - Main St. - San Diego Creek : `
:
_,EERY: Tr
• lir SIN�� --
;11 14 1
Alignment Segments
MR. IIII ..„0/1001/4
Note: Map does not show other elements I r
such as feeder bus lines and 1
E t l TSM improvements. 3`
°" Note: This alternative includes all programmed i' .
Y and funded improvements as described
„,TE«„V ,► in the No Build Altemative. I 1 :t..
aiguil
,ss, _r. E.]
V P k8 P
..�. 1
WIDEN GAO , 57
w 11/_1111 E
risme inn inlikw—rar
n5t
MLf/LOEN IV
CI '7' A �S {.Y
....
...
r q ._
• IV 111 TUSTIN - ,
MARINE BASE
ecurt�w °� . �� mow,.
WINIMEMi i. r ft, bEllingt....W.A,Sr# ilk/
Wall ■ ' 4 0 I Prt‘
; &At*
9 4
- c :' on: 4.1t „-.7
;P° NE i � t. c.
Ilir
,
W.
E The Corridor
Figure IV 7 NY
8
co C \}
no \ \\
|«k ] > CD
-w }(\
ti %I Cli )to
§ \( acz
}jH j\\
Z
z
Z
swan
Alignment Segments
N c
N N N N N
L 41 N d
o c t E c
3 d a c E O Q >
L N nit E ° ° v
c
to
d > m -0 m E d c z p y 09 O E w
r
a U co U
2 N H I-- N C
m
4)
O
O
Z
woh-,
ratans
nit Wi- c�■ lam. a� r
z
N
96/tt CZo40ww3'V13O
•
O MIS Executive Summary
V COMPARATIVE BENEFITS AND COSTS
The evaluation of the Corridor MIS alternatives was based on an analytical framework that
weighs the benefits accruing from the various alternatives against their costs and negative
impacts. This framework includes an assessment of effectiveness (goals achievement),
environmental considerations, efficiency (cost- effectiveness), and financial feasibility The
framework uses the four major evaluation categories that have been used throughout this
study mobility impacts, cost effectiveness, environmental considerations and policy
support. Specific measures for use in assessing how each alternative achieves these
goals in the study area were formulated. Both quantifiable measures of attainment and
qualitative assessments were used in the evaluation. Accordingly these measures, both
transportation - related and others deemed important to the selection of a preferred
alternative, were established and used in the screening and evaluation process described
in Section IV Alternatives Considered.
This, combined with the results of the trade -off analysis, presented later in this section, in
which all relevant quantifiable and non - quantifiable criteria are considered, presents
information for decision - makers and the public on the relative performance of each of the
alternatives. The results of this evaluation are summarized in Table V 1 and briefly
discussed in the following paragraphs.
V 1 EFFECTIVENESS IN ATTAINING MOBILITY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The Corridor MIS is intended to investigate alternatives to improve future mobility in this
growing corridor The first section of Table V 1 provides information on the performance of
each alternative in terms of measures of mobility enhancement and transportation benefits
that each would provide. Several of these measures were presented in a previous section
of this document. The measures summarized in Table V 1 illustrate the effect of the
alternative investments on transit and carpool usage, as well as forecast aggregate
measures of corridor freeway and arterial congestion.
V -1
•
•
tones o!Ignd e411ou pus! Senn AOl 1101 Aq peoueup eq of pawns B s! gO14m Aem11 1 LSHs 041 to Iso0 o,nlonesBJiw B41 pus sequoia! xoga,el +suwl to tau 0,8 51500161UOwegO1 ION,
IUBISISUOOUI
A9epusiod
IUBI515000
IUBISISU031.1I
A9elwslod
IUBISIS0030I
Allepuolod
111.101515UO3
IUBISISUO3
IUBISIS003
LOUBJSS 8UJ B00
900 wldl bay PUal l
yoddrlg AOIPd'0
ale,BpOW
E/
BOON
9339
BIS,BpOW
%L Z-
ete,epOW
Blwepool
SS
ele,epoW
098-698
eIBJepoW
%5 Z-
eIBJBPOW
46 +1
El
elwepOW
8191,
461H
%9 l'
401H
OSA
SE
elBOPOW
8L9'Y
461H
%L'0-
461H
tool
E/
BOON
5E
mot
%L Z-
mOl
mOl
5
BOON
0
tool
%8 l-
tool
BOON
0
BOON
0
elBJe poW
V/N
euoN
Sueuw1310e0Jd Ll0led,oOu1
PBIOBMVSIPWprel 10001 Pao Ja,568H110:1MIIBIIUBpd PUB efgmelwd 15m1
SDOM3 AOdwd W. WM.'S Bnunnod pug elgepoJd
Paoelde09001Y8/4 PUB Saa401dw3JJBPURN mot
A6Jeu31x50 p uW d,OS000 eweyy
(OBIS ON w PB.eWpo)suassw3 luWNpd !WOO OpJO0 ul 80,040 waood
9oedul 00nosa/ oleM eJa6a166y, aAaalad
elaedu4 olWWVAmgA
Nnl'w laut1013,iI01•IN
noodul uofeelm$N 9eyed
EUSW aldel6
010ed10e A6Jws3
gaadul Awn09V
0130100 mammy s 1M
$UORUOplou03 I W u oluuOJIAU3 t
0L'LL$
9861$
LI 01$
0011$
Y 161$
9 PLZ$
8 LL$
72111$
881.
ILIl$
8L91$
336$
LSOL$
L 98L$
6 a
OOL$
1069'L$
E 03
6Z E$
80 SL$
V/N
V/N
993$
8621$
Z1$
0915'1$
E0'
SL LEY
EZ L3I$
00011$
E6'SPS$
6SOS
ILILS
3'1$
0'169'1$
E0
EZ L$
986$
89'9$
6E9$
E L6$
8ZE1$
596$
O ZZE$
8 O
Oen
889$
IS ES
605$
BIOS
909$
6EIS
S E51$
fill
V/N
V/N
V/N
V/N
V/N
V/N
V/N
V/N
V/N
09019 ON p PeRltHa/ Pale$Owl)a+a/N implied lSmOlplJauJaoul ION
(pwgoN01 Pamdum0)Pm?S awlla+vl Naafi ad,5oo,euaweoUl
(PIM9 ON 0/ Potoduo0) 0)1 AOH 905ue1 m8N lad15001BiueweJOul VON
(p+n9 ON 0/PewduoOldl AOH 9 Pala) maN od,m01B1aOwenw
(suawW S661)(PIOe ON p Pa,8-1,00) .9w0 P021,8nLtgeJUoUOOUI JON 10/01
(sugmpy96611006 ON ot PewdJOO) 9500 PeWamwy larvautnas Hpl
(9w/PW9661)(Ppng0N0/ POSO,oQ) Sm3 my lenuuyl ?JUewaOU/
(SUee91W 9660 950a me,1de01e,ot
(staniw)(PPne ON 0/ Pemd,o0/ PaOeS sdl et 9 usual »pu03 maN lanuuy
enue00•113-NO0
po0
e6n11IdpW.N9
$$euoAR0ou3 loco -e
%09
%92
1 LEE
96S
(%2 2)
9 OI
%09
%83
1 LEE
019
( %9 Z)
L 21
%08
%ZE
L'I>E
6SE
( 11'0
9 8
%6L
%63
230E
6SE
( %Z 0)
Z l
%08
%8Z
092E
939
( %L Z)
9 El
%6L
%LZ
9'LEE
7 3
( %9 I)
89
%SL
112
810E
l 9
V/N
(11/9 066 /)Ppse&uoaJO *Will eUBl IW4PVJOWJJOO luevad
( %E/= 06611P0,Sed,000O sappy wet Aamee,d JmpJOO luao»ad
( 0961- L661 AMA) (SwmW) sd11JnsJ0d IPmdm0 OPJO0 /OnwJw
(597 0 661M e)11 (Swpy /)sdl uwJOd Avail °pulplaaap
(edJey °,unwed)
(sq{p sugljW) (PPn9 ON 01 PeiedJO3) 56ua9$ a,u /enag lenuuy 10401 op)O3
5110009 1130e2Ods8011
goodwl ANIIgoW'1
S
AaMapins
Post!
C/$
Aoeopins
paild
MOW RoaIW
A9Mpoow
/AOMO.JJ
AOH
Aaapoou
/AsMOOJJ
one
pommy]
nisi
ming ON
Pullooee
0J0e0OW
91p0I113 UCIIBOIeA3
S3AIIVNtl311V AO NOIIVfI1VA3 AUVWWfS
L'A 91901
•
0 O MIS Executive Summary
Corridor Total Annual Travel Time Savings
The Corridor Total Annual Travel Time Savings is a measure of aggregate mobility
improvement to the users of the Corridor's transportation system. This measurement
accounts for both travel time savings to travelers in privately operated vehicles as well as
those using transit. The Enhanced Bus Alternative is forecast to produce the largest
amount of annual travel time savings, a combination of savings to both transit riders as well
as auto drivers and passengers. Travel times would improve for auto users as travelers
shifting to improved transit services free up some roadway capacity The two Rail System
alternatives are forecast to produce somewhat less travel time savings than the Enhanced
Bus Alternative, with the TSM Alternative forecast to generate the next lowest amount of
travel time savings, given the relatively modest nature of transportation improvements in
that alternative. The Freeway /Roadway Mixed Flow Alternative would produce slightly less
annual Corridor travel time savings than the TSM Alternative based upon its relatively
modest increase in total Corridor roadway capacity The Freeway /Roadway HOV
Alternative is forecast to produce the smallest annual travel time savings as its roadway
capacity improvements primarily benefit HOV users, a growing, but still smaller fraction of
the total daily travel market than the single occupant vehicle (SOV).
Annual Corridor Transit Person Trips
The Enhanced Bus Alternative is forecast to attract the highest number of annual transit
person trips in the Comdor 62.6 million, an increase of 26.5 million over the No Build
Alternative The two Rail System alternatives are forecast to attract the next highest transit
use at 61 0 and 59 6 million annual trips, respectively followed by the TSM Alternative at
52 2 million annual transit person trips in the Corridor The two Freeway /Roadway
alternatives are forecast to carry slightly fewer transit trips than the No Build Alternative as
those alternatives are assumed to have the same level of bus service as the No Build, but
improve the future roadway system enough to attract some travelers away from transit and
into carpools or lower occupancy vehicles.
V -3
•
IIMIS Executive Summary
capacity of the freeway segment. Under the future No Build Alternative, 27 percent of the
freeway lane miles in the Corridor are forecast to be uncongested during the daily peak
travel periods, compared with an estimated 43 percent in 1990 The forecast increase in
freeway congestion levels (decrease in uncongested levels) is a result of forecast growth in
Corridor trips eventually overwhelming the additional freeway capacity being provided in
the Corridor by Measure M projects. The alternatives providing the most transit service,
Enhanced Bus, Rail System alternatives 1/3 and 5, are estimated to slightly reduce (one
percent) future congestion on the Corridor's freeway system when compared to the No
Build Alternative. The two Freeway /Roadway alternatives are forecast to have the largest
improvement in freeway congestion levels, primarily because of the substantial new
freeway capacity added to the Corridor in those alternatives (e.g. SR 57 tollway extension
and SR 73 widening). The mixed flow version of the Freeway /Roadway alternative is
forecast to have greater congestion relief (five percent) than the HOV oriented alternative
(two percent), due to the increase of arterial capacity through the center of the Corridor
which attracts some traffic off of the freeways in the Corridor
Percent Corridor Arterial Lane Miles Uncongested
Similarly the percent of Corridor arterial lane miles estimated to be uncongested in the
peak period is another measure of transportation system mobility in the Corridor On this
mobility measure, the Enhanced Bus, two Rail System, and Freeway /Roadway mixed flow
alternatives are forecast to offer the most, albeit small, improvement.
V.2 COST - EFFECTIVENESS
Cost - effectiveness was calculated for the six alternatives, excluding the No Build, which
serves as a basis for comparison with the other alternatives. This cost - effectiveness
analysis was based on Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) procedures and guidelines. Cost - effectiveness, as applied to major
transportation projects, is the extent to which an alternative returns benefits in relation to its
costs. Given this definition, this criterion might also be termed 'efficiency
V -5
•
SMIS Executive Summary
Incremental Annual Operating and Maintenance (O &M) Costs
Transit operating and maintenance (O &M) costs were estimated using productivity based
unit costs and the output of transit ridership forecasting and operations planning activities
The bus and rail transit cost estimating models developed for this study are based on a
resource build -up approach recommended by the FTA and documented in the O &M
Estimating Methodology report Bus operating costs are based upon OCTA's current cost
structure for local services and assumed contract operations and maintenance cost
structure for express bus services Rail system O &M costs are based upon recent average
cost structures from LRT operations at similar agencies including Sacramento, San Diego
and Portland
Costs were also estimated for maintaining HOV facilities highway expansion and park -and
ride lots O &M costs for HOV and highway expansion were estimated on a per lane mile
basis, based on Caltrans and the local cities' actual histoncal highway maintenance
program costs The total incremental annual O &M costs for each alternative over and
above the O &M costs of the No Build Alternative are summarized in Table V 1
Some of these increased costs would be offset by additional farebox revenues from the
increased ndership on the transit system and by toll revenues collected from users of the
SR -57 tollway extension The resulting net incremental costs are discussed below
Total Incremental Annualized Costs
Total incremental annualized costs represent the sum of the annual operating and
maintenance (O &M) costs to implement an alternative and the annualized capital costs of
the alternative over and above the costs of implementing the No Build Alternative
Annualization of capital costs is based upon the expected usable life of the various capital
infrastructure components of each alternative (e g right of way, structures pavement etc )
and an assumed discount rate of monetized values The discount rate used in this study,
as required by the federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is 7 percent More
detail on the annualization of capital costs can be found in the Capital Cost Estimating
V7
•
OS MIS Executive Summary
V.2.2 Cost - Effectiveness
A simple index is used to represent the cost - effectiveness of a major investment
alternative. This index is the ratio between the incremental costs of building and operating
an alternative, and the user benefits accruing from that alternative:
Cost - Effectiveness Index = A$CAP + a$O &M
AUSER BENEFITS
where:
A = changes in cost/benefits compared to the No Build or TSM Alternative
$CAP = total capital costs, annualized over the life of the project
$O &M = annual Operating and Maintenance costs
USER BENEFITS = annual benefits to both 'existing' users and new
transportation system users by mode of travel, represented in annual hours of travel time
saved and /or annual 'hours' of 'user benefit' accruing to these users
Changes in cost and benefits may thus be applied to the overall cost- effectiveness of
transit, highway or multimodal projects by including the capital and O &M costs of both
transit and highway improvements and the benefits (travel time savings or user benefits)
accruing to both transit (new and existing riders) and highway users. The resulting index is
an annualized cost per hour of travel time or user benefit saved. These incremental
benefits and costs can be compared to either the No Build Alternative or the TSM
Alternative Companson to the No Build Alternative provides measures of effectiveness to
the conditions that would exist if no major investment in transportation improvements are
made Companson to the TSM Alternative provides a measure of effectiveness compared
to the lowest cost investment and is a required measure by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
FTA Cost - Effectiveness Index. The cost - effectiveness index defined below is used in
standard FTA practice to assess proposed major transit investments competing for federal
Section 3 discretionary grant funds:
Index = A$CAP + 4$O &M + A$TT
ARIDERS
V -9
•
O�MIS Executive Summary
that it is the most cost effective high occupancy alternative. It is followed in ascending cost
per new trip served by the Enhanced Bus Alternative, then Rail System Alternative 1/3
then Rail System Alternative 5 and finally the Freeway /Roadway HOV alternative, at the
more costly end of the scale of cost effectiveness. This poor cost effectiveness measure
for the Freeway /Roadway HOV Alternative is due to the high capital costs required to
implement the alternative which offers very little attractiveness to additional new high
occupancy person trips in the Corridor This forecast outcome is a consequence of the
modest additional attractiveness of the additional HOV facilities, particularly the arterial
improvements, in this alternative over and above the extensive HOV priority network that
will already be in place in the Corridor with the No Build Alternative.
Net Incremental Cost per New Transit and HOV Trip (Compared to No Build)
This measure is similar to the one described above, but utilizes the net incremental
annualized costs of each alternative, accounting for transit fares and the private
construction of the SR 57 extension. This measure ranks the alternatives in the same
order as the measure above, but lowers the value of cost per hour travel time saved for all
alternatives, most noticeably the Freeway /Roadway HOV alternative, which has the
significant cost of the SR -57 tollway removed in this measure.
Incremental Cost per Hour of Travel Time Saved
This multi -modal measure of cost effectiveness was described above. The TSM
Alternative is again the most cost effective using this measure, at an estimated cost of
$6 88 per hour of travel time saved. Next most cost - effective is the Enhanced Bus
Alternative at $9 86 per hour The Freeway /Roadway Mixed Flow Alternative is the next
most cost - effective, slightly below the values of the two Rail System alternatives. Finally
the Freeway /Roadway HOV Alternative is significantly less cost effective than the other
alternatives. As described above, this appears to be because the additional HOV
investments in this alternative provide little additional travel time savings over and above
the extensive HOV priority facilities that will be in place in the No Build Alternative.
V -11
•
o MIS Executive Summary
higher capital investment to be implemented which is only partly offset by their lower
annual operating costs.
Incremental Cost per Hour of User Benefit
This measure of cost - effectiveness is more comprehensive than the prior one because it
includes a broader measure of benefits to users than just unweighted travel time savings.
Rather than attempt to measure all the benefits of a transportation investment, a proxy
measure that represents as broad a range of impacts as possible can be applied. For
simplicity this measure can be termed 'user benefits. User benefits are measured for
both transit and highway users. User benefits are simply the aggregate difference,
summed over all existing and new travelers (transit riders, drivers and carpool passengers)
between the 'user price' of transit, carpool and drive alone modes in the No Build or TSM
Alternative and the 'user price' of these modes in the higher capital cost roadway or
transit alternatives. User price is the weighted combination of components of travel time
(e.g. time spent riding in a vehicle, time spent waiting for a bus, time spent walking to a
parked car) and travel costs (e.g. transit fares, parking costs). The weights used are based
upon the locally calibrated travel demand forecasting models which are calibrated to
observed travel choice behavior
Table V.3 displays the performance of each alternative with respect to this measure.
Indeed, the ranking of the alternatives in this measure are somewhat different than in the
Incremental Cost per Hour of Travel Time Saved measure above. The TSM Alternative is
still the most cost - effective on this measure, followed closely by the Enhanced Bus
Alternative. The two Rail System alternatives are next in ranking of cost effectiveness
followed by the two Freeway /Roadway alternatives.
V -13
•
OillMIS Executive Summary
have the least amount of construction, while the Freeway /Roadway have the greatest
amount of construction.
V.3.2 Air Quality Impacts
Percent Change in Corridor Carbon Monoxide (CO) Air Pollutant Emissions
Carbon monoxide is listed as a pollutant of public concern due to its potentially detrimental
effect on human health. The primary sources of CO emissions are motorized vehicles. To
identify the changes to localized CO levels that would result from the proposed project
alternatives, a project level air quality analysis was conducted. Based on the air quality
analysis, the Enhanced Bus Alternative is predicted to produce the largest decrease in
emission burdens, followed by the Rail System Alternative 1/3, Rail System Alternative 5
TSM, Freeway /Roadway Mixed Flow and Freeway /Roadway HOV alternatives. The
emission burden reductions under the Enhanced Bus, TSM, and both the Rail System
alternatives are the result of reductions (induced from auto to transit mode shift) in the
Corridor -wide vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and increases in the average travel speeds.
The emission burden reductions under both of the Freeway /Roadway alternatives,
however are a result of increases in VMT and the average travel speed. The increase in
VMT under these alternatives is the result of higher attractiveness of these alternatives to
auto users mainly due to the availability of additional freeway mainline, HOV and arterial
capacity The additional capacity provided under these alternatives would accommodate
the increased level of traffic, while maintaining travel speeds similar to those of the other
alternatives The Mixed Flow alternative results in higher CO emission rate reductions than
the HOV alternative because there would be some traffic shifts from the freeways to the
parallel arterials that would have additional mixed flow capacity The reduced freeway
VMT would enable the Freeway /Roadway Mixed Flow alternative to operate at a slightly
higher speed which would reduce emissions produced per vehicle mile traveled.
V -15
•
•
O 0 MIS Executive Summary
recreation land, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites. The TSM and Enhanced
Bus alternatives, as currently defined, are not expected to adversely affect recreational
resources near the alignment. The Freeway /Roadway alternatives would affect one
Section 4(f) resource; it would require property acquisition at Gisler Park. Of the build
alternatives under consideration, Rail System Alternative 1/3 would result in potential
impacts on the greatest number of Section 4(f) recreational resources. Placement of
special structures under this alternative could affect three resources (Grand Park, La
Palma Park and Alton Athletic Park). Under current design, Rail System Alternative 5 is
not expected to result in impacts on recreational resources due to special structures or
column placement. None of the project alternatives is expected to result in a Section 4(f)
use on a wildlife or waterfowl refuge.
V.3.6 Historic /Cultural Resources Impacts
Total Probable and Potential National Register and Local Landmarks Affected
Regulations that address potential effects on historic and archaeological resources include
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1996 as amended through 1992
(16 U.S.0 Section 470), Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49
U S.0 Section 303), and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Section 106
requires that federal agencies take into account the affect of carrying out federally funded,
assisted, or licensed projects on resources identified as included in, or determined eligible
for the National Register The TSM Alternative would potentially affect three National
Register resources and five local landmarks. The Enhanced Bus Alternative would
potentially affect 43 National Register resources, and 43 local landmarks. The Freeway/
Roadway HOV alternative is located near three National Register resources and 35 local
landmarks and would potentially result in potential visual and /or noise effects on all but
three of these resources. The Freeway /Roadway Mixed Flow Alternative is located near
three National Register resources and 13 local landmarks. Rail System Alternative 1/3
would affect 50 National Register resources and 53 local properties, the highest number
among all alternatives. Rail System Alternative 5 would affect a total of 17 National
Register properties and 43 local landmarks.
V -17
4
0 O MIS Executive Summary
V.4.1 Service Equity
The key factor in assessing the service equity of the alternatives under study is the extent
to which each alternative offers new or improved public transit service to low- income areas.
In general the lower income and more transit - dependent areas are in specific
neighborhoods in Santa Ana and Anaheim.
The No Build Alternative, by its definition, maintains transit service at its current level in the
Corridor This service is concentrated more in the Corridor than elsewhere in the County
and therefore does provide somewhat better service to transit dependent communities.
However in the forecast year of 2015, the service is forecast to be used by 35 percent
more riders, which will increase overcrowding on routes that are well patronized today The
same transit service level is assumed in both the Freeway /Roadway HOV and Mixed Flow
alternatives as well. Those alternatives improve freeway and roadway facilities in the
Corridor either primarily for high occupancy vehicles or for all types of vehicles, however
this offers little mobility improvement to those households without a car available to travel.
The TSM Alternative increases both local and express bus service countywide. However
improvements in service frequency on existing bus routes is focused on the Corridor with
many of these service improvements benefiting lower income, transit dependent
neighborhoods. Express services are designed primarily to connect suburban communities
outside the Corridor with activity and employment centers in the Corridor Table V 4
displays the proposed changes in annual vehicle hours of bus service by alternative for
each city within the Corridor Anaheim would receive a 55 percent increase in bus vehicle
service hours in the TSM Alternative, while Santa Ana would receive a 37 percent increase
in bus hours of service. Irvine would receive the largest percentage increase in service,
due to commuter bus routes connecting residential neighborhoods in Irvine with
employment centers throughout the Corridor
V -19
•
O MIS Executive Summary
also added which connect activity centers within the Corridor Irvine would receive a 232
percent in service hours in this alternative.
Each of the two Rail System alternatives provide a rail transit line through the Corridor
supplemented with increased local bus service in the Corridor providing access and
egress to rail transit stations. Lower income communities would be directly served by both
rail transit lines with Rail System Alternative 1/3 proposed to provide three stations in
Anaheim and six in Santa Ana (along Main Street), while Rail System Alternative 5 is also
proposed to provide three stations in Anaheim and eight in Santa Ana (along Bristol
Street). Additional local bus routes would feed these stations and service frequency on
corridor routes not in direct competition with the rail lines would have improved service
frequency which would also benefit transit reliant riders. In addition, the rail lines would
serve higher income travelers by providing higher travel speeds from stations in the south
and north ends of the Corridor to activity and employment centers within the Corridor Park
and ride access would be provided at stations convenient to freeways at major activity
centers
V 4.2 Environmental Equity
Environmental equity relates to the positive or negative environmental impacts from the
project and the socioeconomic groups that experience those impacts. For example, if an
alternative results in negative impacts to communities, do those impacts occur primarily in
low - income or disadvantaged neighborhoods, higher income neighborhoods, or are the
impacts and benefits evenly distributed among communities of various socioeconomic
charactenstics''
The TSM and Enhanced Bus alternatives would not result in disproportionately high and
adverse effects on minority or low- income populations as their impacts are low relative to
the other three more capital- facility intensive alternatives. In addition, the TSM and
Enhanced Bus alternatives provide significant transit service improvements to the
communities with high levels of transit reliant residents.
V -21
•
O MIS Executive Summary
existing services much less expanded bus service, or new rail transit operations. Table V.5
summarizes the operating and capital funding shortfalls for each of the build alternatives.
There is not sufficient capacity in the current Measure M fund balance and in projected
Measure M revenues to fund the entire construction costs of the Rail System alternatives.
In the case of the Rail System alternatives, a Minimum Operable Segment consisting of 44
to 46 percent of the entire project could be completed by 2011 the sunset year of Measure
M, assuming a 50 percent match of capital funding from the federal government and the
use of the State Proposition 116 rail funds that are earmarked for the City of Irvine. OCTA
will need to secure additional funding to complete the construction of and operate either of
the two Rail System alternatives. Further OCTA will need to identify a funding source for
rail transit operations.
The application of Measure M funds to a specific program of projects was delineated in the
referendum approved by the voters in 1990. Measure M funds designated for transit
projects cannot be applied to the construction of the two Freeway /Roadway alternatives.
OCTA will need to secure other sources of funding to support the construction program for
these alternatives. If Caltrans' franchisee using toll financing for the SR -57 portion of the
Freeway /Roadway alternatives, ultimately develops this project, the magnitude of
additional dedicated funding needed for the two Freeway /Roadway alternatives would be
significantly reduced.
Financing transportation improvements in The Corridor will require OCTA to look beyond
the current 2011 sunset of Measure M.
V.6 TRADE -OFFS AMONG ALTERNATIVES
The trade -off analysis is an evaluation of alternatives in which all relevant criteria are
considered together including both quantifiable and non - quantifiable considerations.
Trade -offs address the fact that any alternative may have both positive and negative
aspects and that selecting a recommended alternative requires balancing these trade -offs.
From this analysis, the list of viable alternatives will be narrowed until a recommended
V -23
•
0 O MIS Executive Summary
public officials, and interested residents, business owners and employees. An extensive
public and community outreach effort will be undertaken to present the preliminary findings
of this major investment study and solicit public input on the selection of a locally preferred
transportation improvement strategy for the Corridor
The recommendation of a locally preferred alternative, also referred to as a locally
preferred investment strategy will be made by the OCTA Board of Directors in the summer
after several months of public and community outreach and a formal public hearing is held
and additional comments are received. If the preferred investment strategy selected by the
OCTA Board includes major transportation facility and /or service improvement
components, and will utilize federal funding, its detailed impacts and costs will be
addressed in a subsequent federal Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
and state required Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
V -25
r
•
O•MIS Executive Summary
Table V.6
COMPARING ALTERNATIVES IN THE YEAR 2015
ALTERNATIVE
Completely funded through existing committed resources Implements voter supported Measure M Program
enabling County to "catch up with growth of 1970s and 60s Completes 1 -5, the County's largest transportation
construction protect Launches Metrolink service
Even with this in place, congestion on freeways is comparable to 1990 pre Measure M levels Very low transit
ridership Loner waits for transit service because of on•oin• lack of funding in spite of increasing demand
1 No Build
Build Only What's
Already Funded
• Transportation
Systems
Management
Fully Use the
Present Network
ADVANTAGES
DISADVANTAGES
Achieves 40% increase in transit service at less cost
than other alternatives Flexible can respond to
travel pattern funding or demographic changes
Likely to have less impact on neighborhoods and
aesthetics than Alternatives 3-6 Results in more
transit use than Alternatives 1 and 4 but less than 3
5 and 6
Less likely to reduce congestion on freeways /streets
Priority street improvements require coordinated or joint
actions by numerous local governments making
implementation difficult
• Enhanced Bus
An Innovative
Bus System
Maximizes funds already invested in transitways and
carpool lanes Highest transit ridership Blends
flexibility of automobile travel with increased capacity
of transit service at lower cost than rail systems
Highest annual operating costs Puts the most buses on
artenat streets Priority street improvements require
coordinated or Point actions by numerous local
governments makint implementation difficult
Freeway/Roadway
HOT
Add Carpool Lanes/
SR 57 Tollway
Relies on today's preferred travel mode the
automobile Achieves greatest percentage of
congestion relief on freeways since it is one of two
alternatives that adds freeway lanes Encourages
carpooling and HOVs for more efficient use of
roadway space by adding capacity
Requires purchase of highest number of privately owned
land parcels Probable visual and environmental impacts
on Santa Ana River Channel and nearby properties
Achieves lowest transit ridership of all alternatives along
with Alternative 7 Doesn't improve transit service for
travelers who don't have access to automobiles
Fixed Guideway 1/3
Rail System
Harbor/Main/San Diego
Creek
Directly serves highest transit demand area (Harbor
Blvd I and Santa Ana Civic Center and Main Street
as wet as Anaheim Stadium area South Coast Metro
and the Irvine Business Complex Provides more
direct service to tourist areas than Alternative 6
Consisten• with all city general plans Introduces
anotne type of travel choice Likely to locus land
use oere'cpment in specific areas
This impacts historical sites more than Alternative 6
Many travelers would require a transfer from bus to use
rail Rail transit is unproven in Orange County Route
cannot be changed once constructed
6 Fixed Guideway 5
Rail System
Metrobnk/Bristoi/Merrokn.
Uses e•attng railroad right -of -way in many areas
use, B istoi Street through Santa Ana which results
in close, access to South Coast Metro/Plaza
introduces another type of travel choice Likely to
locus land use development in specific areas
Does not serve area of greatest present transit demand
(Harbor Blvd and Santa Ana downtown) Inconsistent
with Irvine General Plan Rail transit unproved in Orange
County Route cannot be changed once constructed
Most expensive alternative to build
Freeway/Roadway
Mixed Flow
Add Mixed Flow LanesSR
57 Toliway
Re es on today's preferred travel mode the
automobile Achieves second greatest percentage
of congestion relief on freeways since it is one of two
aite•nanves that adds freeway lanes
Requires purchase of highest number of privately owned
land parcels Probable visual and environmental impacts
on Santa Ana River Channel and nearby properties
Achieves lowest transit ridership of all alternatives along
with Alternative 7 Doesn't improve transit service for
travelers who don't have access to automobiles
AO) spool union
*was IaaaP un�dO Ipl�ua }od '
apaawal o'� J4. a °d
W aansaaW g
sn3ol 1a o1 •
ssa2oad ioniAtou° pautnaa •
tpooaddo 1 °Pow -mnW .
pu
awamonur ,grind amsua}x3 .
u`�p,�.uorslsap pau�aolul • r
;�ynoaq� 6 saol saplwoad
• �sos
s -x!s slgl 'uOIIIIus ceS
°Wl
d paapal asa;; is sp au n;aul aoi0W
ssasoad 6ul" 1 tat upgaq P
�N► pap i�66 t sn6ntl
11•
Q
s4)Ddwl puo s;lfauaq pootpog46lau /ln4uawuoa!nu3 •
ssauanl4)a}J9 450) •
suo.paload a6osn pun digsaaplb •
a4Daado pun punq 04 5450) •
• :pa9 9uapl 6upeaul6u3 lawal-IanIdasuo,
•
ADMlloj Lc- bs /sauDi Mold pexgq .
(101sla9 /M021 )fuiloajaW) wa;sA5 IIDII •
Naaa) /uinw /aogaoH) wools Ilea .
LDMlloj Ls-as /sauna loodm) .
wajsAs sn8 anRonoUUl •
wa}sAs ;uasaad azlwl ;d0 •
suDld tussah! a;aldwop •
:pommels" uaaq aanq saws;
nuao }IV Iapow -!;InW L
SIJOU3 Ie,iuy,al
Apn$s ;uew;senuI aotew
•IEDJ uogan Jo; puDwap o annum! suo! ;aaload dEysaapEa •
•;uewawoadwi Amionb JED awns ap!AOad suo! ;do !iv •
•lanai louogou o uo AlgoJOAD; so4odwoa soAE;DUlo ;Io IEDJ ay; ;o ssauaA939»8-450a Gyl •
•DEJa ;EJ) vii uo pasoq uoE ;do eAE ;Gana -pop now ay; sE sn8 paauoyu3 •
lanai uo!;sa6uoa "10PO4.10" ;o IGAGI 4s946E4 ay; 0N/toad
SGAI;DUJe ;IV MOl j -peXIW AOMpooa/ADMaaal puo suo! ;do !pm gioq 'sing paauogu3 •
•UOI;Sa6UOa „AoMeeJ ;„ JOpIJJO)
;o UOl ;anpe. ;SG;DaJ6 ay; sep!AOJd eA!IouJo ;IV/ MOl j -pe)q ADMpood/ADMaaJ j •
;seMoi all{ ap1AOJd SoA!Iouie ;ID ADMpooa /ADMaaJ j •puoaas GJD soAI{DUJe;Io
lion •s6u!AOS GLUE; IGADJ; IonuuD 4s046Eq ay; sep!AOJd OAE;ouaa ;IV sn8 paauoqu3 •
•0!IDUOas au fasog 094 aaAO s;uaulaAOadug sap!Aoad not ;do gaaa
'aawaa►oH •sa6uapaga Ai gouty s,aoppao3 emu SOAIOS OA!;auaa;lIn 016u!s ON
sensed !eowel
Mayor Investment Study
- Complete Present Plans
Q
•
a)
I'm
•
to IC
C U
a
a •C L
• L
c a a
•— m
• -0 C -a
Q 0
Apn ;s ;uew ;senui aorew
° uo!11!`u coves uo
sob spa) undo us 1N a moo*, puo
asn o� �usw'P, tit puo d1.70 sastnbas
o�oJddo �q� � A, �ogyB!au •
1 _ , _ osUausua u lounu!tn
°
pua 1 atop?, va
olio;• ►y •
a �soa ,�saW
Japun ssauan!�aa /. sad sin °W
Joa
uolllus u iQ Jo %
to9do s15u°J
Buono s6u!wo $aws I
•
u ° nSaB Q °d .
aJ %t sap. •
lo!Ja�o u! uOtP *
uo usaBuOd
aodu►► °u saps/m.1
�oMaaJ} uo �
5 •�` saws
ost SOW 1,1011101 w l
d IJsu do 1t5uoJ
1 � ►
Vans ie s
Z'oio
qz o3 zb goissisok
V 0 ft
rsaWnlop, snit lauald
OZo1L
0£u0z toszoscs
anoge pue Ob
sawnlo. , sn8 faNaaid
E
a
H
4,
a
0
C
C
I
•
o.t a o O
ot■ 73
CN arc CO
N O c:-
%a
E ,— cN a►et
C C O er s vi
E h+n Zit)
43E • •
• serves 26.5 million more transit trips
•
c ° 0
° a in °�.
3 '� la as C.0 0
a O eV ° c CO"' v
«_
.w 0 a >. > c V VC►4-
c c c a� m ° O E 'ii
C •C .' a. a %a .r. ..c N V °C iU ' cT M C w N
-'° -°° Es° $° cE a°
i ` c N +". 2-a 4 '-
0 a) •L i O Pm L C
I C c! c °- °)v V C O s IS O
72 v 72 ai 04 c41 Es E�c
a$ a$ s0` SS •CC Frig
Apn$s ;uew;sanuf Jofew
Mayor Investment Study
Alt. 4 - Add Carpool Lanes, SR -57
BREA
Direct HOV /Bus
•• . Connector
Proposed Freeway
Improvements
Proposed Roadway
Improvements
El Toro
USMC
Air Station
NEWPORT
BEACH/
Freeway and arterial improvements for
High Occupancy Vehicles (HOV)
• third highest capital cost -
$1.59 billion
• lowest annual operating cost -
$1.2 million
• serves highest increase in carpool
trips - 400,000
• provides 2%
congestion
• provides 1%
congestion
reduction in freeway
reduction in arterial
• lowest travel time savings - .2%
or 1.2 million hours per year
• lowest cost - effectiveness under
FTA criteria
•
•
• moderate to high environmental and
neighborhood impacts
• limited eligibility for $340 million.
HOV connectors could be funded
with OCTA and 2/3 COC approval,
and Measure M amendment
•
•
uo!II!w Obl$ ;o esn pauloa;suoaun
'a;opuow w aansoaw swim; •
l : s ;aodwi pooyaog46!eu
pith Io;uauiuoa!wuia;oaapow •
ope ;laa vii
aapun awl ;aa;ja - 4503 ;sow pa!y; •
savoy tromps, it L ao %9'Z
s6u!wos aw!; Iawoa; ;sag6ly pumas •
uol;sa6uoa
IDPa;a0 u! uo!janpaa % sep!woad •
uo!;sa6uoa
Aoa►aaa; u! uo!;anpaa %L sap!woad •
sdu; usuoa; aaow uo!II!w 61fl sawaas •
uo!II!w VOL$
- ;soa Su!;oaado Ionuuo ;sag6lq pa!y; •
"HIM 69'L$
- ;so) Io;!doa 45096!q puoaas •
aa!waas snq u! asoaaau! %ZS
puo paonainog aogaoH 6uolo wa ;sAs Dom
uopels AV %a,
wan/
010111
ft •
3NIAN1
asee iry
�ullsny
NIiSfll
H)V313
1l1OdM3N
CZ
eetam
SS
VS3W_
ViSO)
NV
NVS
ssuawanwdwi
WS1 pue sauq snq iapae; se yms
ssuawala aim mays sou saop tlesN :a3oN
(•sjuaw6as
3uawu6lle ulew
uaann3aq suo!do
6u13noy aleplpue3)
suol3do 3uawu6!IV
sluaw6aS
3uawu611V
SS
liargen
3DNV31O
rLSI
U 'Uli
'VILN3OV1d
ref _
-3
NIV.
HVA-
NflOd
CL
1ZZ
3Aba9'
N30)I V O
ella3eA —�
WI3H NG
NOJ.8311f14
vaHa _��
I I
)aasmuiewpogaeH - wassAs IHet - S '1IV
Rpm ;uaLu ;sanui aoiew
•
•
a;DJO ;gala 10aaua6 }o IDAOaddO
pun 'IDAOaddD DO) % pun WO
saalnbaa uomnu.Of$ }o asn -spun;
;!sucfa; w aansne q ao} alq!6ya ;ou •
s ;andwg poogaogq6lau
pun lD;uaw uagnua g6lq o; a ;Daapow •
nlaa;laa djj aapun algnansoaw ;ou •
sanoq uo!Iyw 9'8 JO %C L
- S6u!ADS aWl; I0ADa; ;SamOI puoaaS •
uogsa6uoa
lope ;an u! uo! ;anpaa okz sepiAoad •
uogsa6uoa
Annnaaa} w uoNanpaa %S sap!AOad •
(sd!a; ;!suDJ ; /Ioodao) saanpaa) sdp4
Anal} pax!w u! asnanu! ;sag6!q sanaas
uo!II!w Z' L $
- 4503 6u! ;Daado Innuuo panto! •
uo!II!g W L $
- ;soa ROD, 4sag6lg wino; •
sap!gaA IID
ao} s ;uaWaAOadw! ID!aa ;an pup ADMaaJJ
H)V38
laOdM3N
aseg,!V
E�
•
•R M
• Wst
• •If ttr
�.t ---_
fi
ss' CVNV
WAYS
##### - -.-"^^.i
• •
3 •
n •
° •
t_VS31AL
t VISOO
(salalyan luednoo0 a16u!S) Mold PDXM
Alamo] we aivawanmdwl Alloede0,
■ A3 1VA-
NIV.INfIOJ
•
•
• 3AOa9`
• : • N308IV9
:44 It
igheA
'C :INI3HVNV
•
Y
tien •�
• s t
notmibtro
„sluawanoJdwI
AeMpeoy
pasodoid
sluawanadwl
AeMaam
pasodoid
■
' VLiN9OVld__,
Ti
1 Oil
rffitrI
Na401831 :17
i
\.
•
LS-?JS `seue, Mold pexiW PPV - L1111
Aprils Newsom! .iorew
L66L
DO
L66L
aunt
•
L66L
8Z LoW
L66L
Aow - adv
• L661
adbr
L�
add - uor
uoi;oziaoy;noaa V31SI
A60;oa ;S paaaafaad A11o3o1 uo u01;V9 paoo8
1
6upoaH )!Ignd
A6a;oa ;S paaaa ;aad Allonol uo s ;uawwoD mgnd
uo!;opuawwo)aa A6a4oa ;S pa uGiaad L11o)o1 SIW
s;uawwop puo Mna!naa )ilgnd }o asoyd NMI
sda ;s $xaN
Awns $uaw$sanul JO