HomeMy WebLinkAboutC.C. #8 4-20-87 Frwy Dev. 2000 ~= s'~ ~ n~ · NO. 8
DATE: APRIL 15, 1987 ~ ........ I
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
WILLIAI~ HUSTON, CITY IqANAGER ·
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION
AUTOIqOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSAL -
'FREEWAY DEVELOPftENT TO TIlE YEAR 2000"
RECOMMENDATION:
For the City Council meeting of April 20, 1987.
Pass and adopt the attached Resolution endorsing the Automobile Club of Southern
Cal i'fornia' s proposal, "Freeway Development to the Year 2000".
BACKGROUND:
The District Manager, Mr. Bob Kerr, of the Automobile Club of Southern California
has requested the City-of Tustin pass and adopt the attached Resolution endorsing
the Club's proposal, "Freeway Development to the Year 2000". A copy of this
proposal is attached for the City Council's reference. Staff has reviewed this
proposal and concurs with the concept,of the plan.
Mr. Kerr will be available at the April 20, 1987 City Council meeting to either
make a short presentation or answer any questions that may arise.
Bob Ledendecker
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
BL:jm
Att ac hment
RESOLUTION NO. 87-48
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ENDORSING THE
AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA'S
PROPOSAL, "FREEWAY DEVELOPMENT TO THE YEAR
2000"
WHEREAS, Southern California's lifestyle and economy are based upon
5 mobility made possible by our freeway network; and
WHEREAS, this present mobility is jeopardized and congestion on our
streets, highways and freeways continues to increase; and
WHEREAS, Southern California's population is anticipated to increase
by at least three million to some 19 million people by the year 2000; and
9 WHEREAS, the number of daily vehicle trips made by Southern
Californians will increase from 50 million to 65 million by the year 2000; and
10
WHEREAS, freeways carry nearly 50 percent of the region's personal,
11 commercial and recreational traffic; and
WHEREAS, maximum efficiency of existing traffic systems must be
achieved by improved highway management; and
WHEREAS, public transit service must be improved; and
WHEREAS, new freeways are needed to close gaps, provide access to
15 areas not currently served, and connect the region's various activity centers;
and
~6
WHEREAS, our economy, quality of life and mobility are dependent upon
17 good highway transportation; and
18 WHEREAS, the Automobile Club of Southern California has prepared a
proposal for future mobility, "Freeway Development to the Year 2000";
19
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City of Tustin endorses the
20 Automobile Club of Southern California's proposal, "Freeway Development to the
Year 2000";
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED this resolution be transmitted to Governor
22 George Deukmejian, Senate President pro Tempore David Roberti and Assembly
Speaker Wi 11 i e Brown.
·
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
21 City of Tustin, California, held on the 20th day of April, 1987.
25
2~
27
ATTEST:
RICHARD B. EDGAR
Mayor
City Clerk
Freeway Development
to the Year 2000
A proposal for future mobility
Automobile Club of Southern California
"Daily travel in Southern
California will ittcrease
from the present 50 million
daffy tr~?s to about
65 mill-ion."
2000
million trips
Travel
Three million more people will call Southern California their home
by the turn of the century. Already 16 million people are living and
working E,'-e, with most: ,~ the population concentrated d:',ng the
coastal basins from Santa Barbara to San Diego. Substantial growth is
also taking place in the S::.n Bemardino/Riverside area. For all these
communities, the challenge is one of preserving a quality lifestyle in the
face of ongo:ng urbanizati,,n.
Southern California's typical urban shape is .comprised c,f rnany
dispersed activity centers. Rather than having one "downto'.v-n," we are
multi-centered. From mega-complexes like South Coast P:.:' a in Costa
Mesa to thriving smaller commercial enclaves in many Southland cities,
our region's strength comes from a diffuse economy.
The SoutY, em California preference for low and medium density
garden-style housing and fur home ownership is accomm, ,dated by the
diversity and dispersal of ?usiness and' industry througl',out the region.
Today, the average employee commutes less than 10 miles to work, the
same as 15 ~ears ago.
But this ~:festyle is threatened. We believe ..'.he most ~. ;cical issue
challenging this region today is providing for our future mobility in the
face of projected growth. Consider conditions on the roads today. What
will the in,?act be of three million more people using the roads? We n~.~:~t
begin disc:.::~sions in public forums so that a consensus can be achieved
soon on what should be done to meet the transportation demand.
Are ~X',~ Ready for 65 ~ :;Ilion Daily Trip~?
Projections for the year.2000 indicate d~ily travel in So,them
California will increase from the present 50 million daily trips to over
65 million.
On a m,.,l,'C personal.level, the average. ] I ' .~,erist makes 3.5 trips daily.
Three million more people will be maki:,~, this many daily trips! Also,
consider that 97 percent of all travel occ~rs on the roads, with freeways
accounting for nearly 50 ?. cent of this r? ::,el.
Comn'.'. aniry Life
Already we see the impact of heavy commercial and r ' I ' :,*ntial
developmc::t in urban ar,.,:s. "In-filling" is generating ~,. increasing
traffic on local streets and roads. Heavy th:ough travel is invading local
communities because commuters and trucks do not have access to the
needed freeways that would! free up local streets.
Urban 1:! .... ;-,ers have d:.',cloped guide!ii;cs for appropriate road
systems for various levels .of land use. We need streets and collector
roads to navigate our local neighborhoods. High-capacity arterials and
freeways arc needed for k.::ger, through travel. But if pot:~lation
or economic activity occurs where freeways aren't available, the traffic
this activity generates will use lower capacity community road networks.
As a result, accidents, noise: travel time and pollution incrc:~e and
community 'ifc deteriorates.
fl ! I
J~ Church
,
Major Commercial Center ..... iF~eway
Shoppln$ Center ~, Maio~ Arterial
School m 'C~l~o~ Str~.-t
. ~al Street
Levels of Road Systems
15
14
I 11
10
8
1
0
Freeway SpacLng for Large
Urban Az'em
0 1 2468 10 12 14 16 182022 24
Po~ ,b, fion Density of Enclosed Area
Thou,and~ Per Square Mile
"Lack of freeway access also
restricts our economic
opportunities, raises the cost of
doing business and, ultirixately,
makes us less competitive."
Regional Vitality
Inadeq.. :e freeway ac~":ss hurts the region as well as ~ ~,zal
communities. While most people will choose to live near where the~'
work, access to the enormous opportunities the region offers
contriN~,..:s to Southern California's de,i..'ability. But if there are
insufflci,.:~ freeways to se~'e the p0puUtio~, then fu'. ~' economic,
social and lifestyle opportun.:.ties will be decreased beca,,se people will
no longer have easy access to other parts of the region. Lack of freeway
access al~o restricts our ecortomic opp~.~ ' ,nities, raises the cost of doing
business, and, ultimate'..), makes us less competitive.
Urban planners describe this scenario of insufficient highway service
in terms of freeway spacing. There is ar, optimum level of freeway
service ne-.'~2ed to serve diffzrent popula,:ion densitie~ Applying the
spacing concept to South. cch California, many urban : currently are
or will soon be inadequat,:ly served by freeways for thc population they
represent.
400-Mile Solution
Southern California's freeway netwoc', currently comprises abou:
22oo mile. Based on our analysis of cu.rrc,t and futt~' .~,eeds, abou:
403 additional freeway miles must be built by the year 2000.
Certait,.ly, these new freeways alone will not solve our mobility
problem, x~i'~: must improve our public transportation system. Accor
to transit planners, with all current and planned trans:: projects in
place, transit will be capable of ha~adling about six percent of all regional
travel. Still, the vast majority of all trav4--including bus transit--will
take place on the road networks, with [ =:'~'ays carwi.n.g the
share of nearly 50 percent.
We must also obtain maximum efficiency from our existing freeway
network. This can be accomplished thc~ , ,gh better freeway
management, such as ir%,roved ramp metering and incident
management. Also, needed operational improvements, such as spot
widenings, can increase freeway capacity and safety. Local road
improvent:.-,ts, including better arteria: ,7stem management, are al~,.:
needed to improve travel.
However,' even with optimizing use of transit, carpooling and current
road networks, we still will have areas ~mserved or inadequately sera'ed
by freewa~ ~.
Critical Links
Needed new freeways were identified using California's master
freeway plan and regional agency plans. These freeway~ address most of
the deficiencies in service in the region's urbanized and peripheral areas
that were identified through applying the spacing concept. Propose~
projects are listed on p%= $.
4
--Dallas
San Die~o--
_~Minneapolis
'"Seatt~
.. ........ ~Cleveland
.,
_Baltimore
San Francisco --St. Louis
__Pittsbursh
--Denver
Houston
--Washinston, D.C.
__Miami
-- Detroit
LOS ANGELES-
_New York
-- Philadelphia
-- Chica $o
Freeway Mi!es and Population
Why Freeways Are the Mode of Choice
Freeways are the backbe..¢ of our transportation syst,: be'cause they
best meet regional travel needs both for people and the delivery of
goods and services. Over 95 percent of all materials, food, etc., are
delivered at least part way over our road networks.
Freeways .'-re the mode of choice bec~u.~e they are designed for travel
safety and co:';venience. With their high s:~fety design standards and the
absence of cross traffic, freeways boast a fatality rate one-third that of all
other state ro~ds combined
Contemporary freeways are also designed to be environmentally
sound and sensitive to community aesthetics. Indeed, the most attractive
greenery in some urban ateas is the landscaping along freeways. Well-
designed freeway sound v,.,.s reduce noise intrusion in h
communiti,, Modem freeway routes also are chosen to ~.:nimize
adverse impacts on the community while providirig welcome access to
the regional network.
Freeways also stimulate zl~e economy b~*h directly and ii,directly. In
the construction phase, fre'eways create new jobs and spending in the
surrounding communities. Development and redevelopment of both
commercial and residential ,,--~operty occurs along the freex:'"y route as
communitie- become more desirable places to live and do
During cons:ruction, the ripple effect of each dollar spent on freeway
development is estimated at 3.2 dollars in community ec,momic growth.
And, long aqer the freeways are in place, the economic ~' :,asr they
provide continues to pay off.
Myth of the Freeway City
A new e, ' of freeway development will not "bury" t!:, ,, gion in
concrete as _,,~me would have us believe. Cor, trary to pop~lar belief, Los
Angeles is not the freeway capital of the United States. T!~e chart at left
shows Los Angeles ranks o~ly 17th among 20 major U..", 'vies in
freeway milt ~ge.
Even if we build the additional miles of freeway, the L,._- Angeles area
will still have far fewer fre( :ays per capita than many ot}':r major cities.
Brief History of Freeway D velopment
Southern California has h~d a master freeway plan si:~.,, the 1950s,
but only a portion of it ha~ %:-eh completed. Why? Both i" ';rical and
social press~ s virtually killed the highwax, i.,,gram in tb, e ',~te 1960s
through the ;970s. The optimistic plans for an integrated freeway/
highway network were da.-hed by a decade of lowered exp,.:tations.
Instead of enhanced mobi!'T, we exper~,.~,ced increased cc,:gestion.
Even though ~lanned high~ ays were not built, the population and
economy they were designed to serve continued to grow. Today, to
remedy the gaps of the past and to prepare for the future, we need to
build again.
5
Freeway Development Is'Essential
A paramount regional goal must be to pr&vid- a future environment
tb .. is conducive '~o continued ~conomic and social vitality. Tb~,
freeway development plan will maximize our region's potential and
opportunities for the future by assuring all of Southern Califortfia's
19 million citizen';, access to the backbone freew?.y network.
$20.5 Billion for Mobility
The cost of this freeway development plan i~ .:~?_imated at $7.0.5
billion over a 15-year period. W"v:'¢ this price t o may seem formidable,
it must be viewed in perspective. California's current spending for
highways is actually disproportionately low. In p=t c:~pita spending for
all ~rreet and high'~vay purposes, California ran'< :, 50th of the 50 states.
Wictt the proposed additional fut. 2ing, Califorr~;a's ranking w.: ..'~d rise
only to about 32nd place. Even this is low for a state that is--an&
wishes to remain--preeminent in economic growth and oppocturtity.
Who Will Pay the 'fab?
The $20.5 billion, 15-year freeway developme. '~ plan will require
annual funding of about $1.5 billion for South-_,',, California. Existing
state and federal revenue sources would provide only $250
annually. Clearly, new revenue sources are needed
Financing of the magnitude necessary to furt.~! these improvements
wilt require a concerted effort ac. '. support by government, bu-' ' ".-,s and
public groups to develop a conse<~sus on needs and sources of revenue.
Some of these sources will be traditional, such as highway user fees,
existing taxes, etc.; and some non-traditional,'s~:ch as locally-generated
f,. -~, state bonds, state, local ar~.A private parmerships, etc.
The objective must be to demonstrate to the general public the need
for these improvements and to obtain their support for a fair and
equi:able method of financing.
Forging a New Partnership
Since the fevered state-led highway building years of the 1950's and
60'., a more sensitive approach to urban develoi~ment and
redevelopment including transportation development has evolo, ed.
Communities, recognizing the essential role of freeways in facilitating
urban revitalization, must become advocates fo~ projects. Caltrans would
play a supporting role in co&pc," 5rig with community desires
Under this new relationship, freeway development would
undertaken on a project-by-project basis. While new freeways would be
built to state stan'_:.:rds as part of the State Free'a-ay system, each project
v, ould be guided by a joint det'elopmenc authority representir~g the
corridor cities, the county and Caltrans.
Present roles of the State Legislature, regiort.d agencies, county
tr.tusportation commissions and the California T.-.nsportatio~
6
"To assure £utfire mobility
fur Southern California's
19 million people, a new
commitment must be made to
freeway development."
Commission would remain the same. Caltrans' responsibilities for
project planning ~.nd programming also would be the same. The critical
difference is imr. lcmentation of, ach freeway t:,~oject would depend on
local initiative and support. Communities which take the lead in
promoting construction of priority freeways will be the ones to receive
Caltrans' support in fulfilling their community aspirations.
Choosing Our Future
The continued growth of population and emplo~a, nent in S,',~thern
C'~:~.tornia is inevitable. Growth has followed rr,-nds predicted , ,;flier
at.3 these patterns are continuing. Freeway development sin,t :~ has not
kept pace. To assure future mobility for Southern California's
19 million' people, a new commitment must be made to freeway
d,.,'olopment. '?;:,at we do toda~ will detexmine whether we: ~ the
mobility we will need for tomorrow or whether we will just t', -:pinning
our wheels on yesterday's transportation system.
i'his special report was develot~ed by the Automobile Club of
Southern California to encourage public discussion and action on one
of ;he most press;.~g regional issues of our time- -preserving our
n,,,bility. We believe an informed public is crib. d to setting a
tr~,nsporta~:ion agenda that will keep Southern California strong and
vibrant. If you would like more information ab,~ot this important
s~.'-ject, please cc :tact us. We welcome your ct,~ments.
Automobile Club of Southern California
P.O. Box 2890, Terminal' Annex
Los Angeles, California 90051
"Implementation of each
freeway project would depend
on local initiative and
support."
Freeway D::: :lopment Project List
$ Millions
Route 2 (Glend.de Freeway)--between Glendale Freeway and
Interstate 10 :~mta Monica Fr-,~-',t'ay). Complete free~'ay gap--
8 lanes {4 mi'-. ,t ............................................. 460
Route 7 (Long Beach Freeway)--berween Interstates 10 and 210
Complete free-x.~y gap--8 lanes (6'miles) ........................... 480
R. oute 15--bectv-:en lnterstate~ 8 and 805. Complete freeway gap-
8 lanes (2 m;' ' ................... ' ........................ 140
Route 19 (Rotc :,cad Freeway)-between Inter,c..:: 605 (San
Gabriel River Freeway) and Interstate 210 (Foothill Freeway).
Construct S-lane freeway 19 n',:'-~) ............................. 1,000
P,~ute ZT--bet~,,-zen Route 10t ;, ttura Freeway} and Route 118
{San Fernando Valley Freeway). Construct 8-la~ · freeway (8 milc~i ...... 500
Route 30 {Foothill Freeway)--between San Dim:,, and San Bernarclino.
Construct 6-1ane freeway {29 miles) ............................. 1,390
Route 39 (Beach Boulevard FreewaY)--between Route 1 {Pacific
'-',,.~st Highw ~:..,: :~:xd Interstate 2 i.? (Foothill Free'.". 7). Construct ~' ' ~e
fr=e'xay (34 r: ! ..,) .......................................... 3,160
Route 52--bet'a'een Santo Road and Route 67 in Santee. Construct
6-1ane freeway (8 miles) ........................................ 230
P ,'ate 54 (South Bay Freeway)- between Inters,.'-,*c.; 8 and 805
Construct $-l'..:e free~'ay !14 miles) ............................. 1,260
Route 55 (Costa Me~a/Newport Beach Freeway)--extend 8-1ane
freeway to Route 1 (Pacific Coast Highway) (2 miles) .................. 50
Route 56~ber,'ee~.Interstate 5 ae;fl Route 125. Construct 4-1ane
freeway (11 r" ,) ............................................ 580
Route 57 (Orange Freeway)~between Interstate 5 (Santa Aha
Freeway) and Interstate 405 {San Diego Freeway). Construct 8-1ane
freeway (8 miles) ............................................ 790
P..,~.~ $8~ber.~.'een Kern Cour'.~, Line and Barstow. Construct 4-!, .e
freeway (33 t, "..i) ............................................ 70
Route ~ber,~'c,:n Cameron Creek and Edwards Air Force Base.
Construct 4-1ane freeway (22 miles) .............................. I00
Route 64 {WlaicnMl Freeway)- t',-t~, een Route 27 and Interstate 5
(Golden State "...eway). Con,.:. _, ,. B-lane freeway (12 miles) .......... 1,120
Route 71~l:~r,;cen Route 91 (Riverside Freeway~ and Mission Boulevard.
Construct 6-1ane freeway (14 miles) ............................... 240
Route 73 {San Joaquin Hills Fr'~eway}--extend 6-lane freeway to
Interstate 5 (San Diego Fret's,' ~15 miles) ........................ 480
Route 90 (Slauson Freeway}--bctween lnterstat=: D3 {San Diego
Freeway) and Route 91 (Riverside Freeway). Con:truct 8-lane
freeway {37 miles) .......................................... 3,170
Route ll7~between Interstate 805 and Route 125. Cor~struct 6-1ane
freeway {4 milt,'; ........................................... 250
Route 118~bet'ween Route 126 and Route 23. Construct 6-lane
freeway {25 miles) .......................................... 1,130
Route 125~bet~'een the Mexican border and Interstate 15.
Construct 4- &. 6-lane freeway' (33 miles) ....................... 1,340
Route 126~be~veen Interstate 5 (Golden State Fc=cw.~y) and Route 14
(Antelope Valley Freeway). Construct 6-lane freeway (12 miles) ........ 640
Route 170~between Los Ange!e~ AirpOrt and Route I01 (Ventur~
Freeway). Construct 8-1ane f' .... ,~y (15 miles) ...... ' ................ 1,520
Route lSl--be-,- .,_m Intersta.~,~ ) and 805. Coo-:'-, :.:t 8-lane freeway
{1 mile) ..................................................... 50
Eastern Freeway--between Interstate 5 (Santa Ana Freeway) and Route
91 IRiverside Freeway). Consr-.,zr O-lane freeway (17 miles) ............ 130
Foothill Free~'a'/--be~'een Int=~,:ate 5 (San Diego Freeway) and tR..rote 55
{Newport Free;ray). Construct 6-lane free'*'ay (35 miles) .............. 190
TOTAL $20,470
8