Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOB 3 TOLL RD FEASIBLTY 06-16-86 OLD BUSINESS NO. 3 DATE: JUNE 11, 1986 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: WILLIAN HUSTON, CITY MANAGER PUBLIC gORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION FOOlllILL/EASTERN/I-5 BOI-FLENECK ANN_YSIS AND TOLL ROAD FEASIBILITY STUDY RECOMMENDATION: For the City Council meeting of June 16, 1986. Authorize staff to respond to the Orange County Transportation Commission per comments/concerns outlined in the attached letter dated June 17, 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 Wednesday evening, June 4, 1986, the findings of the Foothill/Eastern/I-5 Bottleneck Analysis and the Toll Road Feasibility Study for the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridors were disseminated and discussed with the public. A copy of these findings as well as the Draft Executive Summary for the Foothill/Eastern/I-5 Bottleneck Analysis 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 on the east and the Santa Ana (I-5) Freeway on the south. Seven agencies are located within o~ are immediately adjacent td the study area as follows: Anaheim Santa Ana County of Orange Tustin Irvine Villa Park Orange DISCUSSION: Most of the emphasis on this study, to date, has been focused towards the Bottleneck portion of the study. Consequently, this staff report will deal primarily with the Bottleneck Analysis portion of the study. JUNE 11, 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 subalternitive variations which are discussed in the Draft Executive Summary document. The "No Project" Alternative will adversely impact Tustin with increased traffic/congestion on the existing arterial system as well as the I-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, 2D and 2E, appear to provide the greatest degree of relief to congestion within the Bottleneck area. Alternative 2C and 2D 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 2E 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, 3D, 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 subalternatives 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 Ana that are immediately adjacent to the freeways. In areas along I-5 such as Tustin Ranch 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. · JUNE 11, 1986 PAGE 3 One of the major factors to be considered prior to finalization of this analysis is the final disposition of both the Eastern Transportation Corridor (ETC) Study and the Foothill Transportation Corridor (FTC) Study. Major new location options have been added to the ETC Study which could include a shift to the east so as to connect the ETC to SR 133 (Laguna Freeway). Additionally, modifications to the westerly portion of the FTC are also under consideration. The Orange County Transportation Commission Study has identified two scenarios pertaining to ultimate recommendations as follows: Scenario I That the current County Master Plan of Arterial Highways remains the same and without major change in ETC or FTC locations, capacity and connection, and that demographic assumptions remain consistent with current general plans. Scenario II - That the current County Master Plan of Arterial Highways is modified to relocate the ETC or FTC from their presently proposed locations. Under Scenario I, the study recommends the following alternatives be retained for further consideration: I - MPAH baseline (no project) 2C - Foothill, depressed 2D - Foothill, partial tunnel 2E - La Colina 3C - Seventeenth St./La Colina Dr. 3D - Irvine Blvd. 3F - Moulton Parkway 4A - I-5/SR 55 improvements 4B - SR 57 extension to 1-405 and SR 73 Staff does not concur with this recommendation as follows: e Alternatives 2A and 2B should not be eliminated from the study. Impacts associated with Alternatives 3C and 3D do not appear to have been adequately addressed. Community impacts associated with Alternative 4A do not appear to have been adequately addressed. Under Scenario II, the study indicates that it would be premature to either adopt or eliminate Bottleneck alternatives until such time the final alignments for both the ETC and FTC can be determined. Additionally, at this time, updated land use assumptions in the northeastern portion of the study area (18,000 acres in Orange) can be integrated into the study. It is anticipated that the ETC Study will be completed on or about February, 1988. JUNE 11, 1986 PAGE 4 Staff concurs with the study recommendation under Scenario II. Staff has drafted a letter summarizing Tustin's concerns and recommendations for each scenario and requests authorization by the City Council to forward this letter to the OCTC staff. All comments regarding this study have been requested no later than Wednesday, June 18, 1986. On Monday, July 28, 1986, the Orange County Transportation Commission will receive the final reports which will include all agency and public concerns as well as consultant responses to each concern. OCTC staff has scheduled a presentation to the City Council at the July 7, 1986 Council meeting. This presentation will provide a general overview of the study which should last approximately twenty minutes plus any question/answer period. Director of Public Works/City Engineer BL:jm Attachment Department of Public Works/Engineering dune 17, 1986 Ms. Sharon Greene, Project Manager Orange County Transportation Commission 1055 No. Main Street Suite 516 Santa Ana, CA 92701 RE: FOOll(ILL/EASTERN/I-5 BOI'I1.ENECK ~YSIS AJ~I) TOLL ROAI) FEASIBILITY STUDY Dear Ms. Greene: The City of Tustin has completed its review of the draft final report for the Foothill/Eastern/I-5 Bottleneck Analysis and Toll Road Feasibility Study and will generally outline below some of our continuing concerns as Well as concurrences with the studies. Foothill/Eastern/I-5 Bottleneck Analysis Reference is made to my letter of April 8, 1986 outlining the City's concerns of the preliminary alternatives evaluation. {Copy attached). Many of these concerns are still existent with the completion of the final draft document. Under Assumption I (Scenario I), the study recommgnds that Alternatives 2A and 2B be eliminated from further study. We do not agree with the elimination of these alternatives until such time they can be evaluated as a package solution with the other Alternatives 3 and 4, as well as, ultimate land use plans in the northeasterly portion of the study area (18,000 acres in Orange). The City does not concur with the impacts associated with Alternatives 3C and 3D as outlined in the study. If any requirements above a modified primary (six lanes) are required along either Irvine Blvd. between Newport Ave. and SR 55 and along Seventeenth St. between Prospect Ave. and SR 55, then the right of way cost/acquisitions do not appear to be adequately addressed as well as other community impacts. The City is opposed to Alternative 4A, as presented, due to the air quality, noise and aesthetic impacts as outlined in the study. Under Assumption II {Scenario II), the City is in concurrence with the study findings that fihalization of the Bottleneck Analysis cannot be made until such time the alignments for both the Eastern and Foothill Transportation Corridors have been finalized. 300 Centennial Way · Tustin, California 92680 · (714) 544-8890 June 17, 1986 Page Two Toll Road Feasibility Study The City has no specific comments on this portion of the study, except that depending on whether Assumption I or II in the Bottleneck Study is implemented expanded studies for the Eastern Transportation Corridor Toll Road portion may be required. The City thanks the O.C.T.C. again for the continued opportunity to provide our input/comments to these studies. Very truly yours, Bob Ledendecker Director of Public Works/City Engineer BL:jm Attachment Department of Public Works/Engineering April 8, 1986 Ms, Sharon Greene, Project Manager Orange County Transportation Commission 1055 No. Main Street Suite 516 Santa Ana, CA 92701 RE: FOOTHILL/EASTERN/I-5 BOlq'LENECK ANALYSIS AND TOLL ROAO FEASIBILITY STUDY Dear Ms. Greene: The City of Tustin has completed its initial review of the 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 ! The "No Project" Alternative is unacceptable to the City in that the existing and masterblanned 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, gE) would most likely require eight lanes of roadway (four lanes each direction). The consultants should 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 outlined in 2C, 2D and 2E, then this should be so documented in the evaluation process. Alternative 3 A quantitative amount of relief to traffic congestion should be indicated with the implementation of this alternative on an arterial by arterial basis. Additionally, the study team should address any additional impacts to other roads adjacent to the indicated arterials. 300 Centennial Way ,. Tusti~ California 92680 · (714) 544-8890 April 8, lg86 Page Twa On Alternative 3C does the cost estimate include the u~grade 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 Irvine Blvd. between Newport Ave. and Route 55 is 100 feet with a building setback of 10 feet for most parcels. Any physical widening would 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 I-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 be made available with this alternative. In Alternatives 2A and 2B it was indicated that these alternatives do not relieve the I-5 Bottleneck ~ue to the indirect route to the Rte. 55/Rte. 22 interchange area. Alternative 4A requires approximately the same length of indirect route from the interchange area of 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, Director of Public Works/City Engineer BL:jr Prepared for Orange Count. Transportation Commission Executive Summary I! FOOTH ILL/EASTE RN / 1-5 BOTTLENECK ANALYSIS GRUEN ASSOCIATES Prcparcd for Orange County Transportation Commission Draft Executive Summary FOOTHILL/EASTERN/I-5 BOTTLENECK ANALYSIS Prepared by 'GRUEN ASSOCIATES In Association With LSA, Endo Engineering, Leighton and Associates, Inc. and Shirley A. Montoya May, 1986 FOOTHILL/EASTERN/I-5 BOTTLENECK ANALYSIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I INTRODUCTION Rapid growth in Orange County has created urgent transportation needs, including the need for major improvements in the existing Santa Ana Freeway Corridor and the need for development of the proposed new Foothill and Eastern Transportation Corridors (FTC and ETC, respectively). In response to these needs, local and State agencies have focused attention over the past decade on upgrading existing facilities and on possible new highway routes. But concerns exist that a Bottleneck may be developing in the I-5 Corridor in the area of confluence with the new corridors.' To address these concerns, the Orange County Transportation Co~[]~ission has coordinated efforts with affected local agencies, including the Orange County Environmental Management Agency and the Cities of Orange, Tustin, Irvine, Villa Park, Anaheim, Yorba Linda and Santa Ana to undertake a study of the potential Bottleneck problem. The Bottleneck problem is reflected in existing congestion patterns on the Santa Ana Freeway (I-5) between Culver Drive, and SR 55 and beyond. The Bottleneck problem exists today due to the convergence of the Garden Grove (SR 22), Costa Mesa (SR 55) and Orange (SR 57) Freeways in this area, funneling very heavy traffic volumes through the I-5 corridor. The problem will intensify in the future due to the construction of the ETC and FTC and a lack of existing and planned high-capacity transportation I-1 facilities parallel to I-5 that can accommodate projected traffic demand. THE STUDY AREA The Bottleneck study area is bounded by the Riverside Freeway (SR 91) on the north, the proposed ETC on the east, Moulton Parkway on the south, and SR 55 to the west (see Figure 1). Figure 1 - Bottleneck Study Area Los Angeles Befnafdino Co. Riverside Co. a.. co,,~o. ' ' ' ~ = ~oo~w Lk o , , 3 · , . ,.,,.~ ' ' ' ';':" ' ' '''<~':'' The study area includes portions of the cities of Tustin, Irvine, Orange, Santa Ana, Villa Park, and Anaheim and the I-2 North Tustin area of the County of Orange. The area is diverse, containing a variety of development and landforms which contribute to its setting and character. The westerly portions in the City of Orange and in North Tustin are generally developed. In this area, flat topography facilitated extensive development of medium- priced single-family residences, as well as apartments and commercial facilities. The Hispanic community of E1 Modena is located within this area along Chapman Avenue west of the foothills. To the east, the area transitions through rolling foothills to the steep-sided Santa Ana Mountains. This area is occupied by hillside residential communities, including Orange Park Acres, Cowan Heights, Lemon Heights, Panorama Heights, and Barrett Hill. Homes in these larger-lot hillside areas are more expensive. There are several scattered undeveloped areas, but generally this portion of the study area is also developed. The northeastern' portion of the Study area has diverse terrain, supporting lush vegetation and woodlands in a network of canyons and ridgelines and along Santiago Creek, which is a major tributary to the Santa Aha River. Much of this area is presently open space or parkland. Irvine Park, Santiago Oaks Regional Park, and the proposed Peters Canyon Regional Park are located in this area, as are Holy Sepulchre Cemetery and a new campus of Santiago 'Community College. To the southeast, the study area is presently rural in character, with extensive agricultural fields and orange groves. Within this area, the Irvine Ranch maintains its agricultural headquarters at Irvine Boulevard and Myford Road. I-3 In addition to the existing land uses, major portions of the Bottleneck area are planned for 'future development. Among the areas which are proposed for development are the East Tustin Specific Plan area, Upper Peters Canyon Specific Plan area, and portions of the 18,000-acre area in the City of Orange sphere of influence. This growth will occur in the context of extensive development anticipated in portions of the county adjacent to the Bottleneck area. NEED FOR ACTION Projected growth will result in a continued worsening, of traffic congestion in the Bottleneck area and elsewhere. in Orange County unless major improvements are made. With no Bottleneck connector and no new major transportation improvements beyond those shown in Figure 2 for the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH), the transportation system would be severely overloaded. Traffic 'forecasts prepared by the Orange County Environmental Management Agency (OCEMA) indicate that traffic on I-5 will exceed 250,000 trips per day at General Plan build-out. This represents a potential 23 percent traffic overload even after the planned widening of the Santa Ana Freeway, construction of the ETC and FTC, and upgrading of other existing freeways. Arterial streets paralleling I-5 will also be severely congested. Improvements to the circulation network will be essential if mobility and accessibility to and within the urbanized core of Orange County is to be maintained. EXISTING AND PROPOSED ARTERIAL SYSTEM The arterial street system in the Bottleneck study area I-4 Foothiil/Eastem/i-5 Bottleneck Analysis FIGURE 2 MASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS Existing Freeways Proposed Transportation Corridors GRUEN ASSOCIATES contains discontinuities which contribute to congestion on I-5. The discontinuity is particuiarly evident in the developing areas of Irvine, East Tustin, East Orange, Anaheim Hills and east of Lemon Heights, where many planned major streets are not yet constructed or are not built to full MPAH standards. In addition, the number of major MPAH east-west streets is limited; only Santiago Canyon Road, Portola Parkway (proposed), Irvine Boulevard and Bryan Avenue are planned as continuous major routes, but none of these are fully improved today. As a result of existing and projected system discontinuities, the few continuous east-west routes through the Bottleneck area including I-5 are projected to carry very heavy traffic volumes. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY The Foothi!l/Eastern/I-5 Bottleneck Analysis is a feasibility study rather than a specific route location or design study. As such, the study is intended to address broad feasibility issues rather than specific alignment or design issues. If Bottleneck solution concepts are adopted as a result of this study, detailed alignment or design studies of the selected alternatives may be initiated by the appropriate agencies. The Bottleneck analysis objectives: had the following study Identify the magnitude and timing of the Bottleneck problem. Define and evaluate a range of alternatives to address the Bottleneck problem, balancing transportation objectives with community and environmental concerns. I-5 Determine whether a connector from the regional freeway system and SR 22 to the proposed FTC and ETC would be feasible. II. DEFINITION OF BOTTLENECK ALTERNATIVES Based on the analysis of existing and projected transportation needs, three basic categories of Bottleneck improvement alternatives were defined in addition to the Baseline Alternative: Freeway Connectors, Arterial Improvements-, and Regional Freeway System Alternatives. Within these four categories, the following alternatives were identified for analysis (see Figure 3 on following page). I-6 KRD 2C, TUSTIN 3D Foothill/Eastern /I-5 Bottleneck Analysis FIGURE 3 1 MPAH BASELINE (NO PROJECT) 2 FREEWAY CONNECTOR ARTERIAL IMPROVEMENT 4 REGIONAL FREEWAY SYSTEM IIIlll ALTERNATIVES c.uE. ^ssoc,ATEs (2) MPAH Baseline Alternative (No Project) Freeway Connector Alternatives 2A - Santiago Creek 2B - Chapman Avenue 2C - Foothill Depressed 2D - Foothill Partial Tunnel 2E - La Colina Drive (3) Arterial Improvement Alternatives 3A - Santiago Canyon Road 3B - Chapman Avenue 3C - 17th Street/La Colina Drive 3D - Irvine Boulevard 3E - Walnut Avenue 3F - Moulton Parkway (4) Regional Freeway System Alternatives 4A - I-5 Elevated Guideway Extension & SR 55 widening 4B - SR 57 Extension to 1-405 and SR 73 MPAH BASELINE ALTERNATIVE {CATEGORY This alternative provides the baseline condition against which the other alternatives are measured. This alternative assumes that the MPAH will be in place at the time of General Plan build-out and that no additional arterial or freeway improvements will be provided beyond the MPAH level, except for the planned widening of I-5 and other existing freeways in the county. Impacts associated with bringing existing major streets up to MPAH standards and constructing new MPAH facilities including the ETC~ and FTC will be addressed during the development of these facilities. As they are not part of the Bottleneck analysis, potential impacts from those MPAH projects are not addressed in this report. - I-7 FREEWAY CONNECTOR ALTERNATIVES (CATEGORY 2) These alternatives have been' developed as freeway connectors linking SR 55 and SR 22 to the west with the ETC and FTC to the east. Alternatives 2A and 2B represent indirect connections from SR 55 and SR 22 to the FTC via the ETC, while Alternatives 2C, 2D and 2E represent direct freeway links between SR 55/SR 22 and the ETC and FTC. Each of these alternatives has been sized to meet projected future traffic demand and includes interchange connections to major arterials. Alternative 2A - Santiago Creek Freeway Connector This alternative would extend from the Garden Grove Freeway (SR 22) northeast along the Santiago Creek Channel, east and south along Santiago Canyon Road (generally north and east of the road), across the proposed Peters Canyon/Weir Canyon Road to the proposed ETC. The Santiago Creek Connector would require four travel lanes to accommodate projected travel demand. A 300-foot right-of-way (ROW) would be provided for a combination of at-grade and depressed (20 feet below grade) freeway through thi~ area. ~The ROW would be widened to 370 feet for approximately 1,500 feet beginning 1/4 mile west of Newport Avenue to accommodate side slopes through this cut area. Alternative 2B - Chapman Avenue Freeway Connector The Chapman Avenue Alternative (2B) also begins at the Garden Grove Freeway and extends east along the south side of Chapman Avenue, then over the hill east of Crawford I-8 Canyon Drive. The Peters Canyon/Weir the ETC. The Chapman Avenue travel lanes to acco~,~odate lanes would be accommodated depressed (20 feet below alignment would cross the proposed Canyon Road and c6ntinue southeast to connector would require six projected demand. These six within a 300-foot ROW for a grade) freeway, widening to a 420-foot ROW through the hilly terrain east of Crawford Canyon Road to accommodate the required side slopes. Alternative 2C/2D - Foothill Depressed/Partial Tunnel Connector The route.of these two freeway connector alternatives is the same; they differ in that Alternative 2C remains depressed in open cut throughout its length, while Alternative 2D assumes deep bored tunnel construction for a 1.04-mile sep~ent of the route through the hills east of Newport Avenue in an attempt to minimize residential impacts. Both alternatives would begin at the Garden Grove Freeway and extend east along the approximate alignment of Larkstone Drive. East of Hewes Avenue, the route would curve southeast toward Newport Avenue, then parallel Foothill Boulevard along the approximate location of La Limonar Road. These two alternatives then extend east through Lemon Heights and interchange with the ETC and the FTC. Both alternatives would be eight lane facilities. A 300- foot ROW is assumed for the at-grade, depressed and embankment sections through the flatter areas. Through the hills the ROW would vary, with widths ranging from 300 feet to 640 feet.. Roadway cuts up to approximately 120 feet deep and over 600 feet wide would be required to cross the hills. The proposed ROW for Alternative 2D, the I-9 partial tunnel, would the tunnel section. widen to 420 feet'to incorporate Alternative 2E - La Colina Drive Freeway Connector The La Colina connector would also begin at the Garden Grove Freeway but immediately turns southeast toward Newport Avenue. The route would cross 17th Street and continue southeast along the approximate alignment of La Colina Drive until near Browning Avenue where the route would curve northeast to the ETC and FTC. Projected travel demand requires an eight-lane freeway facility. These eight lanes would be accommodated within a 300-foot ROW for the lengthof the primarily depressed (20 feet below grade) freeway. ARTERIAL IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES (CATEGORY 3) These alternatives were developed for analysis of possible improvements to important east/west MPAH arterials which have potential to provide additional traffic capacity and Bottleneck relief. Six alternatives were chosen based on their M. PAR classification of secondary arterial or higher and good connections to the regional transportation system. Alternative 3A - Santiago Canyon Road This arterial would have the capacity to accommodate projected build-out traffic demand; therefore no widening beyond the MPAH level is required, and no arterial improvement has been defined for this alternative. 1-10 Alterna%ive 3B - Chapman Avenue Chapman Avenue would also accommodate projected future traffic demand except for one segment west of Yorba Street, and no further widening beyond the MPAH level is necessary for most of the length of this route. Therefore, no arterial improvement has been defined for this alternative. Alternative 3C - 17th Street/La Colina Drive As shown in the MPAH, 17th Street is designated as a Major Arterial from the SR 55 Freeway to Newport Avenue, with a capacity of 50,006 to 54,000 ADT at LOS D and E, respectively. La Colina Drive extends from Newport Avenue to Browning Avenue as a MPAH Secondary Arterial with a capacity of 22,000 to 24,000 ADT at LOS D and E, respectively. To accommodate additional arterial traffic through this area, the following possible MPAH modifications were 'evaluated for Alternative 3C: 1) La Colina Drive extended west to 17th Street and east to the ETC; and 2) the entire length of La Colina Drive (existing and proposed extensions) widened to Major Arterial width (120 foot row) to match the MPAH classification of 17th Street. Alternative 3D - Irvine Boulevard Irvine Boulevard is classified on the MPAH as a 120-foot Major Arterial from SR 55 to Newport Avenue and from Browning Avenue eastward. Between Newport and Browning, the route is classified as a 100-foot Primary Arterial. Since projected future traffic demand exceeds the MPAH capacity, further improvements were evaluated for this arterial: 1-11 SR 55 - Newport Avenue : No Change from MPAH Newport Avenue - Red Hill Avenue : Develop special 6-lane cross-section within 100-foot MPAH Primary ROW Red Hill Avenue - Browning Avenue: Upgrade Browning Avenue --~=~ 100-foot MPAH Primary to 120-foot Major classification. : Consider use of special 8-lane cross section within 120-foot MPA/{ Major ROW Alternative 3E - Walnut Avenu~ Projected future traffic demand can be accommodated within the MPAH designations for Walnut Avenue. Therefore, no widening beyond MPAH levels would be needed, .and no arterial improvement has been defined for this alternative. Alternative 3F - Moulton Parkway Moulton Parkway is designated on the MPAH as a Major Arterial with a capacity of 50,000 to 54,000 ADT at LOS D and E, respectively. As a Major Arterial, this roadway could accommodate the projected traffic demand west of the proposed Myford extension. At the intersection of Moulton and Myford, however, an at-grade intersection would be overloaded given the very high projected demand at this location. Therefore, a future grade-separated interchange is proposed at this location. 1-12 REGIONAL FREEWAY SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES (CATEGORY 4) Two regional system alternatives-have been identified for evaluation: Alternative 4A represents a possible upgrade of I-5 and SR 55 through the Bottleneck area to provide additional capacity; and Alternative 4B reflects the possible future extension of SR 57 south to 1-405 and SR 73 as an important regional freeway system component which might help to relieve I-5 congestion and enhance regional transportation system performance. However, because Alternative 4B is located outside of the Bottleneck area and is not defined as a Bottleneck alternative within the scope of this analysis, it is addressed only in preliminary te~ms in this study. If appropriate, subsequent regional studies of the extension of SR 57 may be initiated by the responsible agencies. Alternative. 4A - I-5 Elevated Guideway Extension and SR 55 Widening The planned improvement of I-5 will provide a widened e~ght lane facility plus auxiliary lanes and high o~cupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. However, even these improvements will not accommodate projected future General Plan build-out traffic demand for this portion of I-5. In response to the projected demand, if the elevated guideway proposed by OCTD for the Santa Aha Corridor were extended through this segment of I-5 and if the available median HOV space were then converted to mixed-flow traffic lanes, I-5 would have the potential to accommodate build-out traffic demand in this corridor. In addition, SR 55 would be widened from 6 mixed-flow lanes to 8 mixed-flow lanes between I-5 and SR 22 under this alternative to accommodate projected demand. 1-13 Alternative 4B - SR 57 Extension to 1-405 The SR 57 (Orange) Freeway presently terminates at I-5 near SR 22. The southern extension of the SR 57 Freeway is shown on the M~AH as a proposed state freeway. Although beyond the scope of the Bottleneck study, the possible extension of SR 57 to 1-405 has been given initial consideration as a Potential solution to congestion along I-5. The SR 57 extension would be an eight-lane facility from I-5 south to 1-405 with a capacity of 145,000 to 161,000 ADT at LOS D and E, respectively. Additional capacity would also be required to the east along 1-405 to provide for the connection to SR 73. III EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES A summary evaluation of the Bottleneck alternatives is presented in Table 1 and in the following pages. The following evaluation factors are included: · · · · · Transportation System Performance Socioeconomic Effects Land Use Compatibility Key Environmental Effects Cost and Financial Feasibility As shown in Table 1, evaluation for Alternatives 1, 3A, 3B, and 3E were not included; no additional improvements beyond MPAH levels were found to be needed for these alternatives. These alternatives and all Bottleneck alternatives will have various impacts associated with implementing MPAH improvements. However, these MPA/{ improvements are assumed to be in place in this study and 1-14 therefore potential impacts from these MPAH projects are not analyzed in this report. TRANSPORTATION EVALUATION Projected Traffic Volumes and Capacities - Future traffic volumes and capacities on the planned regional freeway system were evaluated, assuming General Plan build-out (post 2010), full development of the County MPAH, widening of existing freeways (I-5, 1-405, SR 22, SR 55, SR 57, and SR 91), and implementation of the Foothill, Eastern and San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridors. Volumes on substantial portions of I-5, 1-405, SR 22, SR 55, SR 57, and SR 91 are projected to exceed capacity. In the Bottleneck area, future traffic is expected to exceed capacity by up to 23 percent along I-5 and up to 18 percent along SR 55. Alternative 2A would carry an estimated 44,000 vehicles per day. It would increase volumes on SR 22, SR 57, the FTC and part of the ETC. It would divert approximately 27;000 vehicles per day from I-5, and leave projected traffic overloads in the I-5 corridor. Alternative 2B would carry up to 86,000 vehicles per day and would divert approximately 37,000 vehicles per day from I-5 through the Bottleneck area; congestion would remain in the I-5 corridor. Alternative 2B would increase SR 22 volumes by 48,000 vehicles daily, contributing to potential traffic overloads of up to 28. percent on this route, even if SR 22 is widened to 8 lanes as assumed. Alternatives 2C, 2D, and 2E are expected to carry approximately 147,000 vehicles per day each. These direct 1-18 freeway connectors would be effective in reducing I-5 traffic by 64,000 vehicles and eliminating the I-5 congestion bottleneck. However,. these alternatives would increase traffic volumes on the FTC and SR 22 by 44,000 to 57,000 vehicles per day, thus contributing to additional overload and capacity problems, especially along SR 22 (up to 34% over the capacity of an 8-lane SR 22 facility). Alternative 3C has the potential to carry substantially more traffic east of Holt Avenue if 17th Street were extended to La Colina and La Colina Drive upgraded and extended east. However, west of Holt Avenue, 17th Street now carries 28,000 to 38,000 ADT and has limited capacity to accommodate more traffic. It is estimated that 17th Street volumes might be increased by 10,000 to 20,000 vehicles, while a La Colina extension and expansion would carry approximately 25,000 additional vehicles. However, this alternative would not by itself be able to significantly relieve the I-5 bottleneck overload, due to the limited potential for expansion of 17th Street. Irvine Boulevard has excellent arterial system continuity and therefore attracts high future volumes. The widening and improvement of Irvine Boulevard as contemplated under Alternative 3D would provide the capacity to accommodate approximately 65,000 to 72,000 vehicles per day in a corridor which will experience very high levels of future demand (especially between Red Hill and Peters Canyon). Moulton Parkwa~ is projected to carry up to 46,000 vehicles/day at build-cut and would be severely overloaded at its intersection with Myford Road/Jamboree Road, thus contributing to the Bottleneck problem. Under Alternative 3F, a grade-separated flyover interchange would be 1-19 provided at this location to accommodate the projected demand on both of these key arterial routes. Alternative 4A would widen SR 55 and utilize the I-5 median area to obtain additional general purpose traffic lanes. Based on the MPAH build-out traffic projections, demand on I-5 will exceed 250,000 ' vehicles daily. Even with the planned I-5 widening to 8 lanes plus auxiliary lanes plus HOV lanes, I-5 would not be able to accommodate the projected demand. However, based on the proposed conversion of HOV median space to mixed-flow traffic lanes once an elevated transitway is provided, and the widening of SR 55, Alternative 4A has the potential to accommodate build-odt traffic demand in'this corridor. Alternative 4B would carry up to 148,000 vehicles/day on an extension of SR 57 south to 1-405. This alternative is projected to reduce I-5 traffic by 22,000 to 41,000 vehicles/day between ETC and SR 57. It could substantially reduce SR 55 traffic between 1-405 and SR 22 and increase freeway traffic in certain areas, while reducing volume in other areas. The SR 57 extension would have major regional traffic effects far beyond the defined Bottleneck area, and should be evaluated in that broad regional context, as well as for its local community implications. Traffic Origin-Destination Patterns This study analyzed the projected future origins and destinations of Bottleneck connector traffic, as well as traffic on SR 22 and the Foothill Transportation Corridor adjacent to the Bottleneck study area. Approximately 14% 1-20 of the traffic on the Bottleneck connector consists of local trips with origins or destinations in the Bottleneck area. The corresponding proportion of local traffic using SR 22 and FTC in the vicinity of the Bottleneck area is 16% and 8%, respectively. Most of the traffic on or approaching a direct Bottleneck connector would be through traffic. SOCIOECONOMIC EVALUATION The introduction of a freeway into the Bottleneck study area would affect both residential and commercial land uses. Neighborhood character would be altered. Established and planned communities would be divided by the highway and school attendance boundaries and other neighborhood patterns would be disrupted. In addition, commercial facilities may develop around freeway interchange locations and intrude upon the secluded residential character presently found in many parts of the area. The character of the existing and planned neighborhoods would also be altered by increased noise, reduction in air quality, and changes in the aesthetic character of the area. In addition to changes in neighborhood character, construction of the freeway alternatives and some of the arterial improvements would require extensive displacement. Of the freeway alternatives,- Alternative 2B would displace the most residences (659) and businesses (201). Alternative 2E would displace 561 existing homes and eight businesses, while Alternative 2C and 2D would require removal of 490 and 436 residences, respectively and 12 businesses each. Alternative 2A would displace 1-21 a total of 217 homes and ten commercial structures. Of the arterial improvement alternatives, only two would require displacements beyond that required to implement the MPAH: Alternative 3C would displace 56 homes and three businesses; Alternative 3D would take ten residences. No displacements would be required for Alternative 4A unless additional right-of-way is required along I-5. Major displacements may be needed to construct Alternative 4B, depending upon the specific location and design adopted for this major regional route. Land Use Compatibility Evaluation The alternatives traverse existing and proposed urbanized areas, with the following generalized land use impacts for the freeway alternatives: Incompatibility with existing and planned residential land uses - All of the alternatives introduce a high- volume transportation facility into residential areas with local neighborhood streets and low traffic volumes, thus creating pressures for commercial development, with potential effects on noise levels, air quality, and aesthetics. Relationship to open space and recreation areas- Introduction of a freeway adjacent to open space and recreation areas, such as Yorba Park, E1 Modena Park, Saddleback Park, and the proposed Peters Canyon Regional Park, may change the character of these land uses. Although some existing recreation areas are presently adjacent to a freeway (e.g., Yorba Park), the majority of parks in the Bottleneck study area do not adjoin major arterials and highways. Alternatives 2A, 2B, and 2C/2D propose introduction of a highway next to Yorba Park at the corner of Chapman Avenue and Yorba Street, the proposed Peters Canyon Regional Park at Santiago Canyon Road and Chapman, and E1 Modena Park at Fowler _Avenue at Hewes Street, thus potentially altering or diminishing recreational opportunities and aesthetic experiences. 1-22 Relationship to co~u.ercial facilities - Construction of a freeway adjacent to commercial activities may be compatible with these facilities, such as along Chapman Avenue (Alternative 2B). In these cases, access to retail shops and offices may be improved by the freeway and consequently, patronage may increase. However, construction of such a freeway may also displace residences and thus potentially reduce market areas for businesses. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Topography - Each of the freeway connector alternatives would require road cuts and fills at various points along the alignment. Larger cuts would be required in the area east of Crawford Canyon Road due to the hilly terrain. Construction of the freeway alternatives would thus modify the existing terrain: Alternatives 2A and 2E would require relatively minimal cuts; Alternatives 2B, 2C, and 2D would need larger, more extensive cuts and wider side slopes areas. Cuts for Alternative 2C would be the most extensive (up to approximately 120 feet). Limited grading would be necessary for arterial improvements, but no major change in topography is anticipated. Hydrology - Each of the alternatives would cross a floodplain, and Alternative 2A would potentially conflict with the Santiago Creek channel. These hydrologic issues do not represent significant constraints in terms of freeway construction; appropriate flood control measures and designs would need to be considered with additional costs involved. Geotechnical - Each of the alternatives has the potential for being constrained by geotechnical factors, in particular Alternatives 2A and 2D. 1-23 Geotechnical constraints can be-mitigated with special design or ground modification procedures, at additional cost, and are not anticipated.to eliminate any potential alternative from implementation. Biology - The biological constraints for both freeway and arterial improvement alternatives include possible impacts to sensitive plants and wildlife and significant habitat. Of the five freeway connector alternatives, 2A and 4Bhave a high potential for biological constraint due to the routing of these alignments along creek channels. The remaining freeway alternatives would have moderate degrees of disruption to riparian habitats and sensitive species. Archaeological/Cultural Resources - Of the freeway alternatives, 2A has six archaeological sites within the proposed right-of-way; 2B has six paleontological sites. Five fossil and two archaeological sites exist within the proposed alignment of 2C and 2D; and two paleontological and several potential historical sites are present within the right-of-way for Alternative 2E. Alternative 3C also. has two paleontological sites and several potential historical sites within the proposed alignment, while Alternative 3D would pass adjacent to the agricultural headquarters of the Irvine Ranch and other historic structures. One historic landmark, the Swamp of the Frogs, was identified for Alternative 3F. Air Quality - Transportation system improvements generally create significant regional air quality benefits by allowing a given number of vehicle trips to be served more efficiently. However, each of the alternatives would have the potential for reducing local air quality by introducing high-volume transportation 1-24 facilities into residential areas 'where none presently exist. The potential for reducing local air quality should not create unhealthful, levels of air pollutants unless background concentrations approach the state and federal ambient air quality standard levels. Noise - Noise levels would potentially increase with each of the alternatives. Federal, state, and county agencies have standards which govern the levels of noise permitted on arterials, freeways, and outside and inside residences. None of these standards would be exceeded by the proposed alternatives. However, potential noise impacts on sensitive receptors, such as schools, churches, residences and hospi%als, may pose a constraint to alternative alignments. Aesthetics - Each .of the alternatives would traverse existing residential communities. The alternatives would be highly visible from adjacent residential areas, particularly to hill area residents which have panoramic views of the study area. The presence of a new freeway would represent an intrusion upon the existing visual character of the community. In addition, Alternatives 2A, 2B, and 2C/2D would be ' adjacent to recreational areas (Yorba Park, proposed Peters Canyon Regional Park, and E1 Modena Park). Introduction of a high-volume transportation facility into or adjacent to these parks would detract from the visual quality of the surrounding area. COSTS AND FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY EVALUATION Table 2 summarizes the estimated construction of-way cost estimates for the alternatives. and right- 1-25 347 3O0 463 As the longest route, Alternative 2A would have the greatest freeway corhgector construction cost (with the exception of the partial tunnel Alternative 2D), but relatively less right-of-way cost compared to the other alternatives. Alternative 2B (Chapman Avenue connector) has relatively high right-of-way and construction costs, while Alternatives 2C and 2E are similarly priced at approximately $300 million each. Alternative 2D, partial tunnel through the hills, saves $27 million for right-of- way but costs $190 million more for construction. The 17th Street/La Colina Drive extension (Alternative 3C) would cost an estimated $45 million with comparatively high right-of-way costs. By comparison, Alternatives 3D and 3F would cost $4 to $5 million each, and could achieve equivalent capacity increases with significantly lower right-of-way costs. 1-26 The 4A existing freeway rights-of-way construction cost of $143 million. cost approximately $850 million additional costs required for the alternative along 1-405 to SR 73. Alternative would be constructed generally within at an estimated Alternative 4B would with significant connection of this Availability of Funds The direct freeway connector alternatives would require funding in the range of $300 to $463 million. Given the substantial current shortfall in monies for transportation improvements, the prospects are highly uncertain for identifying new sources which could provide $300 to $463 million. In addition, an estimated $2 billion cost would be required to implement the major freeway improvements assumed in the baseline to this study1. Alternatives 3D and 3F would each require new funding in the' $4 to $5 million range, an amount that may be feasible through combinations of public and private sector sources. Alternative 4A may potentially be funded with conventional federal and state sources if appropriate priorities are established for such a project, including support from OCTD for the concept of an elevated quideway extension. Alternative 4B would be classified as a regional transportation system element, thereby qualifying for traditional state-federal freeway monies. In addition, joint funding opportunities and potential net savings may be possible if major flood control improvements along the Santa Ana River are coordinated with highway improvements. 1-27 1Escalated cost of improvements to existing freeways and highways as reflected in Table 1 of the Orange County Transportation Commission Fifteen-Year Transportation Investment Plan, December 1983. IV. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM An extensive program of public involvement was developed to commtmicate Bottleneck Study findings to the citizens. It included ~he Policy Committee, the Technical Information Exchange Group, consultation with key groups, the use of communication resources, and the conduct of p,,blic info~,ation meetings. Policy Committee The Bottleneck Study Policy Committee consisted of city council representatives from Anaheim, Irvine, Newport Beach, Orange, Santa Ana, Tustin, Villa Park, and representatives of the Orange County Board of Supervisors, Caltrans, and SCAG. The Policy Committee's role was to provide policy guidance to the study and to review study team recommendations and proposals. The Policy Committee held four meetings with the study team during the project, and provided valuable input and policy direction to the study. Major issues raised by the Policy Committee included: · o o o o · R~gional growth interests and needs ETC alignment selection Individual community policy issues Criteria for evaluating alternatives Cost and environmental analysis Landowner and developer involvement Alternative methods of financing, feasibility and cost effectiveness financial 1-28 Technical Information Exchange Group The Bottleneck Study Technical Info~,,ation Exchange (TIE) group consisted of representatives of the cities, the county, state, -the development community, homeowner groups, and other community organizations. The TIE group reviewed study progress and exchanged information as needed to insure that the study team had adequate technical information. The TIE group held six meetings with the study team during the course of the project through the development and review of the draft reports, and provided an effective means for communicating comprehensive technical data during the project. Major issues addressed by the TIE group included: · Need to maintain the "No Build" alternative. · Coordination with ETC route location analysis · Technical information regarding traffic forecasts · Review of Bottleneck alternatives, analysis and evaluation Involvement of Key Groups Key organizations and groups were identified and their input sought to help reflect major issues and concerns during development of alternatives and evaluation of impacts. Meetings were held with the following organizations: ORANGE COUNTY - EMA CITY OF IRVINE CITY OF SANTA ANA CITY OF VILLA PARK ORANGE PARK ACRES NORTH TUSTIN MAC ORANGE COUNTY SUPERVISORAL DISTRICT OFFICES CITY OF TUSTIN CITY OF ORANGE CITY OF YORBA LINDA IRVINE COMPANY CITY OF TUSTIN FOOTHILL COMMUNITIES ASSOCIATION 1-29 Bottleneck Study Communication Resources The media provided an important means of communication to keep the community informed during the Bottleneck study. Notices in community calendar columns, press releases, public service announcements and contacts with media personnel were used to disseminate information. · Letters, mail-outs, posters and fliers were used to inform the community of Bottleneck meeting dates and times, issues and general information. Notices were distributed by the Orange County Transportation Commission by bulk mail and hand-carried to community activity centers. Initial mailing lists for the Bottleneck study were developed from available resources and expanded throughout the study with addresses of citizens who participated in the study. Information handouts were prepared to summarize the highlights of individual meetings and to provide discussion~ material for comment and review. Meeting comment sheets were utilized for citizens to express concerns and opinions on Bottleneck issues. The comment sheets supplemented verbal comments received during the public information meetings and open house workshops. PUBLIC MEETINGS Direct citizen participation in the Bottleneck Study was achieved through a series of public meetings at project milestones. Residents, property owners and business- persons provided community viewpoints to supplement technical aspects of the study. The following meetings were held: 1-30 August 1, 1985 - INITIAL PUBLIC INFORMATION M~.~TING - The initial meeting was conducted in two Parts: the first included an infozmal workshop/open house with dialogue between citizens and study team members; and the second included fo£mal presentation of project elements with public participation, questions and comments. Approximately 125 persons attended the open house and the formal meeting. October 3, 1985 - SECOND PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING - This meeting was organized as an informal walk-in session with dialogue between citizens and study team members, providing review of preliminary alternatives illustrated on wall maps. Comment sheets and handouts were provided for the approximately 50 persons in attendance. January 30, 1986 - THIRD PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING - An informal open. session between 5:00 and 7:00 p.m. provided a one-on-one review of the preliminary evaluation of the alternatives. At 7:00 p.m., the study team slide presentation-highlighted the findings of the evaluation. The meeting was then open to public discussion. Approximately 250 persons attended the Open House. A handout was distributed which summarized the findings of the analysis and co~unent sheets were also provided. At the request of the meeting participants, a straw vote was taken to assess the general level of support for the alternatives. The baseline alternative (no Bottleneck improvement) was favored by the largest number of attendees, followed by Alternatives 4B and 4A. Among the arterial improvements, only Alternatives 3F and 3C had a limited number of supporters. 1-31 The public identified a variety of community concerns and thus helped to focus the Bottleneck technical analysis and evaluation of alternatives. The'se included: Identification of established residential communities within the study area, whose residents moved .here with no expectation of having a major regional transportation facility through the community. Belief that residents of the area do not want or need new freeways or major arterials, and can continue to use existing access routes. Concern about equity issues; study area residents would experience the adverse impacts while new developments outside the study area would benefit from a new freeway through the Bottleneck area. Concern that Bottleneck alternatives cannot be evaluated until the Eastern and Foothill Corridors are defined and located. Concern for cost per mile. Need to .take into account impacts on major development plans such as the proposed East Tustin Plan. Consider effects on property values and loss of property and sales tax revenues. Evaluate transportation needs from an overall basis looking outside the Bottleneck study area. Upgrade existing facilities rather than constructing a new freeway through this developed residential area. Alternative 4A would be better than a new freeway connector. v. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF STUDY Orange County is in a period of dynamic growth and change, and as a result, future transportation plans and policies are still in the formative stages. Because the Bottleneck 1-32 analysis is being conducted in this overall environment of growth and change, the findings of ~the study must be considered from multiple perspectives. Political Issues - New approaches to interagency cooperation including the Joint Powers Agency (JPA) are being implemented to plan, design and build major transportation facilities. The processes and procedures for evaluation and decision-making by such agencies which are currently being developed will influence the consideration of Bottleneck altneratives. Funding Issues - There is a large gap between identified countywide funding needs and available monies. Various measures are under consideration to help address the shortfall and meet existing and future transportation needs, but no comprehensive solutions are available at this time. Private sector funding support and user fees are approaches currently being explored. 'Technical and Transportation - The existing transportation system and its major elements are under review. Major new location options for the ETC are being investigated, including a shift to the east to connect the ETC with SR 133. Modifications to the western portions of the FTC are also under consideration. Various I-5 widening options are under detailed study by Caltrans. The Orange County Transit District transitway planning process is underway. New high-occupancy vehicle lan9 concepts are being tested and evaluated by Caltrans and the Orange County Transportation Commission. At the same time, major land use planning and development proposals are being considered within the County which could significantly affect the magnitude and location of future transportation demand patterns. RECOMMENDATIONS Given the currently uncertain nature of transportation planning and development in Orange County, no single 1-33 / optimum course of action for the Bottleneck problem can be identified. The most prudent approach would be to keep major options open, maintain flexibility, and monitor the rapidly evolving political, financial and technical issues related to the Bottleneck problem. Specific recommendations for OCTC actions include the following: Coordinate with the JPA to develop procedures for analysis, evaluation and decision-making for the FTC and ETC in light of the findings documented in this study. Coordinate with OCEMA, local communities, and the public regarding Phase. 2'route location studies for the ETC as these studies and analyses may affect the feasibility of various Bottleneck alternatives. Continue investigation of the feasibility of alternative funding sources and potential revenues for a) countywide transportation needs, b) major new transportation corridor development and c) possible Bottleneck solutions. Financial feasibility is critically important for Bottleneck alternatives, where there exists no long-established system plan or funding commitment for new transportation improvements. Initiate comprehensive planning to expand the Bottleneck study area. A broadened definition of the Bottleneck problem and possible solutions would permit consideration of transportation system alternatives from a regional standpoint and avoid piecemeal modification of the MPAH. Adopt coordinated land use and transportation planning policies which can help to guide -the development of major transportation facilities. Questions of whether future growth should be focused on current urban centers and urban core areas, or dispersed to less developed areas of the county and adjacent areas could be addressed in the context of regional transportation needs. Quite different transportation system plans might be needed to serve alternative development scenarios under these policies. 1-34 Alternatives Recommended for Further Consideration In the immediate future, some transportation decisions must be made as development proceeds. The following discussion is intended to provide a basis for near-term decision-making on Bottleneck alternatives under two different assumptions: ASSUMPTION 1 - If the current MPAH is re4:ained without major change in FTC or 'ETC locations, capacity and connections, and if demographic assumptions remain consistent with the current General Plan. ASSUMPTION 2 - If the current MPAH is modified to relocate the FTC or ETC from their presently proposed locations. Assumption 1 - If Current MPAH is Retained This section recommends alternatives proposed for further consideration by the Transportation Commission, the county and the cities. The reco~mL,endations are based on the technical analysis and evaluation documented in the Bottleneck study, and assume that the current MPA/{ locations for the FTC and ETC will be retained. The study proposes that the following Bottleneck alternatives be given additional consideration: 1-MPAH Baseline 2C-Foothill, depressed 2D-Foothill, partial tunnel 2E-La Colina 3C-17th Street/La Colina 3D-Irvine Boulevard 3F-Moulton Parkway - 4A-I-5/SR 55 Improvements 4B-SR 57 Extension to 1-405 and SR 73 1-35 Alternatives 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B and 3E would not eliminate Bottleneck congestion, but would ~reate potentially significant community impacts.- Therefore, these five alternatives are recommended for elimination from further consideration un~er the Assumption 1 scenario. The alternatives recommended for further evaluation each have advantages and disadvantages associated with them. Alternative 1, the MPAH Baseline, would fail to relieve I-5 Bottleneck overloads projected at build-out, but would avoid the major community impacts which would accompany most of the other Bottleneck alternatives. Alternatives 2C, 2D, and 2E would carry approximately 147,000 vehicles/day, but with significant displacement and community disruption. Of these alternatives, 2E would displace the greatest number of residences: 561; 2C and 2D would displace approximately 490 and 436 residences, respectively. From a transportation standpoint, Alternatives 2C, 2D and 2E would provide localized congestion relief in the Bottleneck area. From a regional perspective, however, these alternatives would shift the congestion to the Garden Grove Freeway area. The regional freeway upgrade alternatives, 4A and 4B, would also provide substantial Bottleneck relief and additional traffic capacity. Alternative 4A would not require residential displacement if accomplished within existing freeway rights-of-way; however, Alternative 4B could result in major displacement even if located along the Santa Ana River channel. The arterial improvement alternatives proposed for additional consideration would carry much less traffic than the freeway connector alternatives, but the community impacts would also be much less severe. For example, 3C, 3D, and 3F would 1-36 carry an additional 15,000 to 40,000 vehicles/day while these alternatives would displace 56, 10 and 0 homes, respectively. Assumption 2 - If MPAH is Modified to Relocate ETC or FTC Under this assumption, a modified regional transportation system pattern might be developed which could shift Foothill and Eastern Corridor traffic to the north, away from the more intensely urbanized central Orange County areas. If these modifications occur,, it may have important implications for the Bottleneck alternatives studied in this report: Traffic networks and travel demand patterns would change and traffic assignments would have to be modified to reflect the changes. The severity of the Bottleneck problem in the southern part of the study area might be reduced if the system modifications tend to shift traffic toward the northern part of the Bottleneck study area. Bottleneck problems in the northern part of the study area (Santiago Canyon Road, Loma Extension) might be increased if the system modifications tend to shift traffic to the north. In addition, development projections used in this study for the northeastern portion of the Bottleneck area assumed buildout of the current General Plan Land Use Elements of the cities and the County, all of which are subject to change. Thus, no Bottleneck traffic conclusions can be drawn until the possible modifications to the ETC and FTC are defined and .system testing is completed and planning for the northeastern portion of the study area undertaken. This 1-37 will be accomplished as part of the OCEMA Phase 2 studies of the ETC and on-going planning effort~ by the cities and County. In the interim, it would be premature to either adopt or eliminate Bottleneck alternatives since their effectiveness depends upon related system elements i~cluding the ETC and FTC and adopted land use. 1-38 Prepared fi~r (.)range Coun~ Transport~tcion Conamission Executive Sun'tm~rv I T()I~[, R(),.\I) l?l.:..\.~ll~,l[',rl [:oothill/l':a.stcrn (:orridor.s GRUEN ASSOCIATES l~mpar~zd Orange (:ountv Transportation (]ommission l~rcparcd by GRUEN A$$OCIATI=$ .Nlay, 1986 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report documents the results of~ an initial toll road financial feasibility study for the Foothill and Eastern Transportation Corridors. ~iven the preliminary nature of the investigations performed to date, it should be recognized that if a decision is made to further pursue development of toll facilities in these Corridors, detailed traffic, revenue, cost and financing studies would be required to establish financial feasibility. Within this context, the following key findings and conclusions have emerged from this study effort: Ne The most crucial aspect of toll road financial feasibility is the opening year revenue projection, wherein at least 125 percent debt coverage ratio would be required if toll revenues were the sole source of financing. Partial financing of the Foothill and Eastern Corridors will be accomplished through proceeds from the Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program, estimated to total $341 million from 1985 through General Plan BUildout. Thus, initial bond size could be reduced by use of fees collected prior to start of construction, which would reduce annual debt service. In addition, fees collected after construction could be applied to any revenue shortfall. The Orange County EMA traffic projections utilized for this study are for General Plan Buildout (post year 2010). Opening year (1995) traffic and toll revenue estimates were made based on a comparison of buildout versus 1995 population estimates for the study area. Given the importance of opening year traffic and revenue projections, it is recommended that 1995 traffic projections be made if toll financing is to be pursued further. e Based on available buildout traffic projections and approximate opening year figures, toll revenue estimates have been made using appropriate traffic diversion curves. Such toll revenues have been combined with fee program estimates to assess the overall financial feasibility picture for the Foothill and Eastern Corridors. Key findings are as follows: A combined Foothill and Eastern toll facility would cover an estimated 21 percent of debt service in the opening year (1995) and would reach an estimated 34 percent at buildout (assumed to be 2015). In the same timeframe, additional annual revenues required from sources other than tolls and development fees would be in the $26 million to $37 million per year range. Bo The preceding findings are for a case without a freeway connector from the Foothill Corridor to the Garden Grove Freeway. If such a connector is built, it is estimated that Foothill Corridor toll revenues would increase by 39 percent, while Eastern Corridor revenues would decrease by roughly 10 percent. On an overall basis, toll revenues would increase by 17 percent. It is assumed that opening year for the Foothill/Eastern toll facility would be 1995. Given the planned major improvements of I-5 in this same timeframe, traffic and toll revenues on the parallel Foothill toll facility could be significantly reduced. No estimates of Such effects have been made due to absence of a 1995 model run and definition of I-5 improvements. o Based on the preceding findings,' an assessment of an Eastern-only toll facility was conducted since such a facility would face no direct competition and should be able to capture a substantial share, of potential trips in this Corridor. Conclusions of this analysis are as follows: An Eastern-only toll facility would cover an estimated '39 and 62 percent of debt service in the opening year and buildout, respectively. In the same timeframe, additional annual revenues required from sources other than tolls and developer fees would range from zero to $7 million. These conclusions assume that one-half of the estimated developer fe~s could be pledged to an Eastern-only toll facility. Table I presents a summary of the debt coverage ratios for Foothill/Eastern and Eastern-only toll facilities, with and without a freeway connector. e Based on information currently available and the results of these preliminary financial feasibility results, it appears that further in-depth consideration should be given to an Eastern Transportation Corridor toll facility as opposed to a combined Foothill/Eastern toll project. TABLE 1 ESTIMATED TOLL FACILITY DEBT COVERAGE (PERCENT) FOR OPENING YEAR AND GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT OPENING YEAR (1995) GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2015) FOOTHILL/EASTERN WITHOUT WITH CONNECTION CONNECTION 21% 25% 34% 40% EASTERN WITHOUT WITH CONNECTION CONNECTION 39%' 35% 62% 56%