The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNB 5 TOLL RD STUDY 04-07-86'AGENDA DAT~: MARCH 26, 1986 NEW BUSINESS NO, 5 4-2-86 Inter- Corn TO: FROM: SUBJECT: WILLIAM HUSTON, CITY MANAGER BOB LEDENDECKER, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER FOOTHILL/EASTERN/I-5 BOTTLENECK ANALYSIS AND TOLL ROAO FEASIBILITY STUOY RECOMMENDATION: That the Tustin City Council, at their April 7, 1986 meeting, authorize staff to respond to the Orange County Transportation Commission per the comments/concerns outlined in the attached letter dated March 26, 1986. BACKGROUND: The Orange County Transportation Commission (OCTC) is acting as the lead agency on the subject Feasibility Study and has conducted on-going public participation meetings, Policy Advisory Committee meetings and Technical Advisory Committee meetings. -. At the most 'recent public participation meeting held on January 30, 1986, the preliminary alternatives evaluation was disseminated to and discussed with the public. A copy of this preliminary evaleation is attached for information. As noted in the attachment, the Bottleneck Study area is bounded by Route 55 on the west, Route 91 on the north, Eastern Transportation Corridor Alignment on the east and the Santa Ana {1-5) Freeway on the south. Seven agencies are located within or are immediately adjacent to the study area as follows: Anaheim County of Orange Irvine Orange Santa Ana Tustin Vflla Park DISCUSSION: To date, most of the work has focused on the Bottleneck Analysis portion of the study with only the gathering of data for the Toll Road portion of the study. Consequently, this staff report will deal primarily with the Bottleneck Analysis portion of the study. MARCH 26~ 1986 PAGE 2 There are four major categories of alternatives being studied: 1. MPAH baseline alternative (no project). 2. Freeway connector alternatives. 3. Arterial improvement alternatives. 4. Regional.freeway system alternatives. Each of the alternatives other than the no project alternative has subalternative variations which are discussed in the attachment. The "No Project' Alternative will adversely impact Tusttn with increased traffic/congestion on the existing arterial system as well as the 1-5 and Route 55 freeways that traverse through Tustin corporate limits. This alternative could also have adverse effects on the adjoining communities of Irvine, Santa Aha and unincorporated County areas. There are five variations of the Freeway Connector Alternatives, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D and 2E. Three of these Alternatives, 2C, go and 2E, appear to provide the greatest degreeof relief to congestion within the Bottleneck area. Alternative 2C and 20 provide the most direct connection between the Foothill Corridor and Route 22 {Garden Grove Freeway) terminus. Alternative 2C/2D impacts the East Tustin Specific Plan area just northerly of the Foothill Blvd. extension area, and Alternative gE impacts a larger area as it traverses westerly {diagonally) across the East Tustin Specific Plan area just northerly of the proposed golf course. Both of these alternatives would impact the East Tustin Specific Plan. The arterial alternative consists of six east-west arterial highways. Alternatives 3C, 30, 3E and 3F all directly affect the City of Tustin. It is staffs viewpoint that the advantages/disadvantages have not been adequately addressed in certain areas of the preliminary evaluation. It does not appear that Irvine Blvd. has been adequately evaluated with respect to right of way and construction requirements between Newport Avenue and the Route 55 Freeway. Additionally, this alternative does not appear to include any Route 55 Freeway widening costs to accommodate the increased traffic flows from the arterial system. .'~..~ , ~. ,..~ . . ' Alternative 4 consists of two subalternatlves which involve the I-5 and Route 55 Freeways between the Eastern Corridor Interchange on I-5 and the Route 22 Interchange on Route 55, and an extension of the Route 57 Freeway to the San Diego {I-405) Freeway. The expansion of the I-5 and Route 55 Freeways would provide additional traffic lanes by constructing an elevated transitway for carpools, buses and other high-occupancy vehicles (H.O.V.). This particular alternative would clearly impact the existing community of Tustin and Santa Aha that are immediately adjacent to the freeways. In areas along I-5 such as Jamboree Road, Red Hill Avenue and Newport Avenue, the elevated transitway would be a three level structure above existing ground. Along Route 55, the elevated transitway would be one level above existing ground at First Street, Irvine Boulevard and Seventeenth Street-. At Santa Clara and Fairhaven Avenue the elevated transitway would be two levels above existing ground. These elevated structures would definitely have an adverse impact to adjoining residences and businesses. HARCH 26, 1986 PAGE 3 Staff has prepared a letter of concern/comment on the preliminary evaluation (copy attached}. These concerns primarily discuss the various alternatives that directly affect the City of Tustin. It is requested that staff be authorized to forward this letter of concern/comment to the Orange County Transportation Commission for inclusion into the evaluation process of the study. Bob Ledendecker Director of Public Works/City Engineer BL:Jr Attachment Department of Public Works/Engineering Narch 26, 1986 Hs. Sharon Greene, Project Manager Orange County Transportation Commission Z055 No. Math Street Suite 516 Santa Aha, CA 92701 RE: FOOTHILL/EASTERN/I-5 BOTll. ENECK Alt~.¥SlS ~!) TOLL ROAD FEASIBILITY STUDY' Dear Ms. Greene: The City of Tustin has completed its initial review of th~ findings of the preliminary alternatives evaluation for the Bottleneck Analysis portion of the subject Feasibility Study. Following is a general recap of the City's concerns and comments of the various alternatives: Alternative 1 The "No Project" Alternative is unacceptable to the City in that the existing and masterplanned arterials and freeways will not be adequate to accommodate the projected traffic flows. In the event the "No Project" Alternative is to be considered for implementation, it should be conditioned with land use growth controls through the south County and airport areas. Alternative 2 During the discussions at the public meeting in Orange on January 30, 1986, it was stated that the direct freeway connections (2C, 2D, 2E) would most likely require eight lanes of roadway {four lanes each direction). Could the consultants address these potential lane requirements as they relate to the other Alternatives 3 and 4? If these Alternatives, 3 and 4, do not accommodate the traffic capacity needs as outli~ed in 2C, 2D and ZE, then this should be so documented in the evaluation process. Alternative 3 Could a quantitative amount of reliefto traffic congestion be indicated with the implementation of this alternative on an arterial by arterial basis? Additionally, does the study team foresee any additional impacts to other roads adjacent to the indicated arterials? 300 Centennial Way · Tust/n, California 92680 · (714) 544-8890 March 26, 1986 Page 2 On'Alternative 3C does the cost estimate include the upgrade to major standards of the existing segments of Seventeenth St. which are currently improved to primary standards? On Alternative 3D it appears that the cost estimate of $3-5 million does not include right of way acquisition and roadway construction between Newport Avenue and the Route 55 Freeway. The current right of way width for the majority of Irvtne Blvd. between Newport Ave. and Route55 is 100 feet with a building setback of 10 feet for most parcels. Widening could adversely impact the business community along this roadway with displacements. The Arterial Alternative does not appear to include any upgrading of the Route 55 Freeway between the various arterial connections and the Route 22 Freeway. Additionally, this alternative could increase traffic concentration along the Route 55 Corridor and within the 1-5/Rte. 55 interchange area. A clarification would be helpful as to what the intent of this alternative is with respect to utilizing all six arterials or any portion of the total. Alternative 4 It is requested that the traffic capacity needs be clearly defined in this alternative. In Alternative 2 the direct connectors 2C, 2D and 2E required eight ~lanes. It appears that only four lanes on I-5 and two lanes on Route 55 could ~e made available with this alternative, In Alternatives 2A and 2B it was indicated that these alternatives do not relieve the 1-5 Bottleneck due to the indirect r~ute to the Rte. 55/Rte. 22 interchange area. Alternative 4A requires approximately the same length of indirect route from the interchange area oN the Eastern/Foothill Transportation Corridors to Rte. 55/Rte. 22 interchange area. As a result of this alternative, motorists would tend to utilize the I-5 Freeway in lieu of the Foothill Transportation Corridor which may impact larger areas of the I-5 Freeway. The City thanks the O.C.T.C. for the opportunity to participate and comment on this preliminary alternatives evaluation. Hopefully, the finalization of this Feasibility Study will serve as a tool for all involved agencies to resolve one of the most critical transportation needs within the County. Very truly yours, Bob Ledendecker Director of Public Works/City Engineer BL:jr OPEN HOUSE 5:00 - 9:00 SANTIAGO JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL 515 RANCHO SANTIAGO BLVD. ORANGE, CA. JANUARy, 30, 1!86 PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION GRUEN ASSOCIATES LSA ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION CO M M I S S I0 N 1714) 834-7581 Orange County Transportation Commission FOOTHILL/EASTERN/I-5 BOTTLENECK ANALYSIS THE BOTTLENECK ANALYSIS The Bottleneck Analysis is a feasibility study. There are no adopted new major arterial routes or freeway connections planned through the Bottleneck area at this time. This analysis will provide the basic Initial Information on whether major new connections are feasible. If the answer is yes, the results of this study can be used if subsequent detailed route studies are Initiated by the agencies Involved. Based on current traffic counts end congestion, the Bottleneck -Problem exists today along the Santa Ana Freeway. The Route 22, 55 and 57 Freeways all c .ortverge upon the Santa Aha Freeway Corridor. The Planned widening of the Santa Ana Freeway will temporarily relieve the over'load. However, without additional east-west arterial capacity, the Santa Aha Freeway will again become congested, based on County traffic projections. A new east-west freeway or arterial connector through the Bottleneck area may help to reduce this problem. PURPOSE OF THE BOTTLENECK ANALYSIS The purpose of the Bottleneck Analysis is to identify, the advantages and the dlsadv, antages elr alternative solutions to the Bottleneck Problem, as well as a "No Project" Alternative. The objectives of the study are several: · Identify the magnitude and timing et' the Bottleneck Problem. · Define and evaluate a range of alternatives to address the Bottleneck .. Problem, balancing transportation objectives with community and environmental concerns. · ..Determine whether a direct connection of the Foothill and Eastern Transportation Corridors to the regional highway system is feasible.' · If a connection is feasible, Identify possible modifications to the County Master Plan et' Arterial Highways (MPAH). Los Angeles Co. Bernardino Co. / / Riverside Co. EASTERN PORTATION USMC ~, Forest El i FOOTHILL CORRIDOR SAN JOAQUIN J~ "TRANSPORTATION · CORRIDOR 0 I 2 3 .4 5 6 ?mlle. Orange County San Diego Co. ~ Foothill/Eastem/I-5 Bottleneck Analysis FIGURE 1 REGIONAL LOCATION 2 GRUEN ASSOCIATES GOALS FOR THE BOTTLENECK ALTERNATIVES The alternatives were evaluated with respect to the following goals: · Provide transportation system performance to meet future needs In the Bottleneck Area. · Develop transportation connections compatible with existing and planned land use. · Minimize adverse Impacts on existing. development in the Bottleneck affected area. · Mitigate adverse environmental effects. · Provide financially feasible alternatives in terms of overall cost and a~ailabHlty of funding.... ' · Provide cost-effective transportation service. CATEGORIES ' ALTERNATIVE .......... · Alternatives to address the Bottleneck Connection were considered in four .alternative categories (see Figure 2). MPAH BASELINE ALTERNATIVE (NO PROJECT) FREEWAY CONNECTOR' ALTERNATIVES ARTERIAL IMPROVEMEi~T ALTERNATIVES REGIONAL FREEWAY SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES · ASSUMPTIONS This preliminary analysis was based on Orange County Environmental Management Agency (OCEMA} traffic forecasts which assumed an approximate lecatlon, for the proposed Eastern 'Transportation Corridor as shown, on the Orange'County Master Plan of'Arterial Highways. If a significantly different location for the Eastern Transportation Corridor is selected as a result of current OCEMA studies, the conclusions presented in this Bottleneck analysis will require reeXamination. In addition, the OCEMA traffic forecasts are presently being reviewed, and revisions and refinements may be made based on this review. 3 BOTTLENECK. ALTERNATIVE CATEGORIES '1. MPAH BASEl]NE ALTERNATIVE (NO PROJECT) This alternative provides the baseline condition against which the other alternatives are measured. This alternative assumes that the Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) will be fully implemented at General Plan buildout and that no further arterial street or highway modifications will be made. 2. FREEWAY CONNECTOR ALTERNATIVES ~ This category Includes alternative freeway connectors from the Eastern Transportation Corridor (ETC) and the Foothill Transportation Corridor (FTC) to the Garden Grove and Newport-Costa Mesa Freeways (Routes 22 and SS). The freeway connector would be constructed below-grade where feasible in a depressed section to minimize the visual, noise and neighborhood disruption Impacts of an operating freeway. It would be sized to meet the future traffic needs resulting from the buiidout of City and County General Plans. 2A SANTIAGO CREEK ALTERNATIVE 2B CHAPMAN AVENUE ALTERNATIVE- 2(: FOOTHILL ALTERNATIVE - DEPRESSED 2D FOOTHILL ALTERNATIVE - PARTIAL TUNNEL · 2E LA COLINA ALTERNATIVE ARTERIAL. EI,II:)ROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES This category Includes six alternati~e arterial Improvements which could serve as major arterial connections between .the Eastern Transportation Corridor (ETC) and Route 55. The selected arterials would be upgraded above their planned Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) level. A combination of upgraded arterials would be required to significantly relieve Bottleneck congestion. 3B 3D 3E 31: SANTIAGO CANYON ROAD ALTERNATIVE CHAPMAN AVENUE ALTERNATIVE 1TTH STREET/LA COLINA AVENUE ALTERNATIVE IRVINE BOULEVARD ALTERNATIVE WALNUT AVENUE ALT. ERNATIVE MOULTON PARKWAY ALTERNATIVE __.:_4. REGIONAL FREEWAY SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES ...... This category Includes two alternati~/es to relieve' Bottleneck congestion by additions and extensions to the existing .and planned freeway system. 4A I-S/SR 55 ELEVATED TRANSITWAY EXTENSION qB SR 57 EXTENSION TO I-q0S AND SR 73 4 2C 3D Foothiil/Eastem/I-5 Bottleneck Analysis I MPAH BASELINE (NO PROJECT) 2 FREEWAY ' CONNECTOR' 3 ARTERIAL IMPROVEMENT REGIONAL FREEWAY SYSTEM FIGURE 2 ALTERNATIVES GRUEN ASSOCIATES 5 PRELIMINARY EVALUATION 'OF- ALTERNATIVES 1 - MPAH BASELINE ALTERNATIVE (NO PROJECT} ADVANTAGES · NO PHYSICAL DISPLACEMENT. · NO DIRECT NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACTS. NO DIRECT FACILITY COSTS. DISADVANTAGES '· FALLS TO ACCOMMODATE GENERAL ' PLAN TRAFFIC, · OVERLOADS ON ARTERIAL STREETS. · OVERLOADS ON I-5 FREEWAY. · SPILLOVER TRAFFIC IMPACTS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS. '2A - SANTIAGO CREEK FREEWAY CONNECTOR ADVANTAGES ' DISADVANTAGES - ' LESS RESIDENTIAL DISPLACEMENT THAN 6THER FREI~YAY CONNECTORS. DOES NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE TRAFFIC SERVICE DOES NOT RELIEVE I-S BOTTLENECK NOT COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING AND PLANNED LAND USES · DISPLACES 300 HOMES AND 20 BUSINESSES · ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS · COST: $550 MILLION ,=ADVANTAGE' CHAPMAN AVENUE FREEWAY CONNECTOR DISADVANTAGES · WOULD CARRY 80,000 ADT · · · · 6 DOES NOT RELIEVE BOTTLENECK CONGESTION NOT COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING AND PLANNED LAND USE DISPLACES 700 HOMES AND 200 BUSINESSES ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .COST: $615 MILLION 2C/2D FREEWAY CONNECTOR ALTERNATIVES Foothiil/Eastem/I.5 FIGURE 8 . FREEWAY CONNECTOR ""~'"~" ' ~ Bottleneck Analysis ALTERNATIVES GRUEN ASSOCIATES 7 2C - FOOTHILL BOULEVARD FREEWAY CONNECTOR (DEPRESSED) DISADVANTAGES · NOT COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING AND PLANNED LAND USE · DISPLACES $00 HOMES, 2 SCHOOLS, AND :2 CHURCHES ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS · COST: $380 MILLION ADVANTAGES · RELIEVES BOTTLENECK CONGEST ION 3D - FOOTHILl. BOULEVARD FREEWAY CONNECTOR (PARTIAL TUNNEL) ADVANTAGES · RELIEVES BOTTLENECK ,. CONGESTION DISADVANTAGES · NOT COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING AND PLANNED LAND USE DISPLACES 2S0 HOMES AND CHURCH · ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS · COST: $$q0 MILLION Z - LA COLINA FREEWAY CONNECTOR ADVANTAGES · RELIEVES BOTTLENECK · CONGESTION % · DISADVANTAGES · NOT COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING AND PLANNED LAND USE · DISPLACES 700 HOMES · ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS · COST: $390 MILLION 8 3A - SANTIAGO CANY(~N ROAD ARTERIAL IMPROVEMENTS 3B -.CHAPMAN AVENUE ARTERIAl. IMPROVEMENTS ADVANTAGES ® EXISTING ARTERIAL STREETS WITH GOOD GONNECTIONS. DISADVANTAGES · PROJECTED TRAFFIC IS WITHIN MPAH CAPACITY. · FURTHER UPGRADES NOT REQUIRED. · LIMITED POTENTIAL FOR 1-5 RELIEF. " ~C - 17TH STREET/LA COLINA ARTERIAL IMPROVEMENT ADVANTAGES, · .PROVIDES IMPROVED ARTERIAL TRAFFIC SERVICE. " II DISADVANTAGES · -CONNECTION AND EXTENSION NOT COMPATIBLE WiTH EXISTING AND PLANNED lAND L~$E. · DISPLACES 100 HOMES, I CHURCH AND I~U$1NESSES. · IMPACTS EXISTING RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. · COST: SEO MILLION. 3D - IRVINE ELVD ARTERIAL IMPROVEMENTS ADVANTAGES · PROVIDES IMPROVED ARTERIAL CAPACITY. GOO;., ARTERIAL STREET CONNECTIONS. · COST: $3-S 'MIM. ION DISADVANTAGES · WIDENING IMPACTS. · INCREMENTAL AIR/NOISE IMPACTS. · DISPLACES HOMES. 9 Foothill/Eastern/I-5FIGURE 4 , ,,~ , ~ Bottleneck Analysis ARTERIAL IMPROVEMENT ..~ ALTERNATIVES GRUEN ASSOCIATES 10 3E - WALNUT AVENUE ARTERIAL IMPROVEMENTS ADVANTAGES · EXISTING PRIMARY/ SECONDARY ARTERIAL STREET,, DISADVANTAGES · PROJECTED TRAFFIC I$ WITHIN MPAH CAPACITY. · FURTHER UPGRADE NOT REQUIRED*. LIMITED POTENTIAL FOR I-$ RELIEF. SF - MOULTON. PARKWAY ARTERIAL IMPROVEMENTS ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES · PROVIDES IMPROVED ARTERIAL · CAPACITY., · GOOD ARTERIAL STREET CONNECTIONS. · GENERALLY COMPATIBLE t~ITH LAND USE. · MINIMAL PHYSICAL DISPLACEMENTS. WIDENING IMPACTS. INCREMENTAL AiR/NOISE IMPACTS. · COST: $$ MILLION 11 I-S/SR55 UPGRADE 4A I-S/SRS5 "-- '-- nu nn UPGRADE "' w w .-, Foothill/Eastem/l-.SFIGURE 5 o ,,~ BottleneckAnalysis REGIONAL FREEWAY SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES GRUEN ASSOCIATES 12 4A - I-$1SR 55 ELEVATED TRANSITWA~ EXTENSION THIS ALTERNATIVE WOULD PROVIDE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC LANES IN THE FREEWAY *MEDIAN ALONG I-S AND SR $5 BY CONSTRUCTING AN ELEVATED TRANSITWAY FOR CARPOOLS, BUSES AND OTHER HIGH-OCCUPANCY VEHICLES. THE ELEVATED TRANSITWAY WOULD EXTEND THE PROPOSED OCTDICALTRANS TRANSITWAY EAST ALONG I-5 TO THE EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AND NORTH ALONG SR ~r$ TO SR 22. CONSTRUCTION OF THE ELEVATED TRANSI~TWAY EXTENSION WOULD PERMIT. CONVERSION OF AVAILABLE FREEWAY MEDIAN AREA TO ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC LANES. ADVANTAGES · EXPANDS ORANGE COUNTY TRANSITWAY SYSTEM. · INCREASES FREEWAY TRAFFIC CAPACITY SUBSTANTIALLY ~ USES FREEWAY MEDIAN. COSTS LESS THAN NEW FREEWAY. DISADVANTAGES · DIFFICULT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION. · HEAVY CONCENTRATION' IN I-5 GORRIDOR. · ELEVATED STRUCTURE IMPACTS. · COST $270 MILLION.. (PRELIMINARY) lib - SR 57 EXTENSION TO !-405 AND SR 73 ADVANTAGES · ESTABLISHED SYSTEM ELEMENT. MAJOR REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION BENEFITS. ®'.. POTENTIAL RELIEF FOR .~ BOTTLENECK TRAFFIC CONGESTION. · 'COORDINATION WITH SANTA ANA RIVER PROJECT. DISADVANTAGES · NOT GENERALLY COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING LAND USES. · SUBSTANTIAL COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. · CONSIDERABLE DISPLACEMENT POTENTIAL. · COST: $850 MILLION. (PRELIMINARY} 13