Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNB 3 TRANSIT ELEMENT 03-19-84 NEW BUSINESS MARCH 12, 1984 FRO#: SU~J ECT: WILLIAM HUSTON, CITY MANAGER BOB LEDENDECKER, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR TRANSIT ELEMENT - DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT RECOMMENDATION: That the Tustin City Council, at their meeting of March 19, 1984, direct staff to respond with the comments and concerns of the City as outlined in this report. BACKGROUND: On February 24, 1984, copies of the executive summary of the subject document were forwarded to your office for distribution to the City Council for their information. Since that time the Community Development and Engineering staffs have reviewed the document with respect ~o the various alternative impacts to the City of Tustin. As previously indicated, public workshops were held on March 5, 6, and 7 by ~he Orange County Transportation District (O.C.T.D.). In addition to these workshops, a public hearing is scheduled for 9:00 a.m. at the O.C.T.D. Board Room on Monday, March t9, 1984. The review period for comments will remain open until March 26, 1984. It is suggested that any City comments be reduced to writing and be responded by that date. DISCUSSION: Under this section of the report, staff will generally describe each of the alternatives and provide any particular areas of concern. This E.I.R. examined nine alternatives which include the Null, Baseline, Transportation Systems Management (TSM), High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane, Bus Guideway, Full Rail-l, Full Rail-2', Core Rail-l, and Core Rail-2. The "Null" or "No Project Alternative" This alternative represents how the existing transportation system, both highway and transit, would perform without adding any new facilities to respond to 700,000 more people living in the County in the year 2000.* It assumes no change in the roadway network, existing Amtrak service remains unchanged, and provisions for high occupancy vehicles would also remain unchanged. SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR TRANSIT ELEMENT - DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT MARCH 12, 1984 PAGE 2 Basel i ne A1 ternati ve This alternative provides for a moderately expanded surface bus system to serve Orange County's major activity centers. The bus fleet is expanded from 546 to 612 large buses which are currently programmed in O.C.T.D.'s 1983-87 Short Range Transit Plan. These additional buses would be routed in a radial pattern instead of the current grid configuration so as to better serve the major activity centers. Amtrak service is assumed to be slightly expanded as compared to today's level of service. Transportation Management Systems (T.S.M.) This alternative provides a significant increase in express bus service over the previous two alternatives. This service would be operated in mixed flow traffic on freeways and arterials. The bus fleet would increase to about 846 buses as compared to the existing fleet size of 546. The mixed flow bus operation for 180 of the new buses would result in an average operating speed of 20 m.p.h, on the Santa Ana, Costa Mesa, and Orange Freeways. The remaining new buses would operate local service in a typical grid pattern which would be reinforced with radial and feeder routes to activity centers. Service frequency would be generally increased. High Occupancy Vehicle (H.O.V) Lane Alternative The H.O.V. lane alternative will require widening of the Santa Ana Freeway to provide two additional at grade lanes for exclusive use by buses and high occupancy vehicles (3 or more occupants). This alternative also provides for enlarging the bus fleet from an existing 546 buses, to 792 buses. Twenty-two additional park and ride lots will be required, the San~a Ana Freeway would require widening between the Route 605 Freeway and the Route 405 Freeway. This freeway widening would directly affect Tustin. It is not clear as to whether this widening would be inclusive of the proposed widening of the Santa Aha Freeway under the Santa Ana Transportation Cormidor Study or in addition to that widening. Local bus service for this alternative would be routed in a typical grid pattern and reinforced with radial routes to major activity centers and feeder service to express routes. Bus Gutdeway Alternative This alternative provides direct commuter service to activity centers by bus, H.O.V. (3 or more persons) and van pools onto separate exclusive guideway facilities constructed within freeway rights-of-way. The bus guideway would be a separate two-lane roadway with controlled access ramps and on-line stations. It is proposed to be a two-way elevated facility between the north county line in Buena Park and Myford Road, and as a one-way reversible lane between Myford Road and Lake Forest Drive. On-line stations would be located on I-5 at Euclid/Anaheim Plaza and Culver Drive. SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR TRANSIT ELEMENT - DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT MARCH 12, 1984 PAGE 3 Some additional right-of-way would be required for twenty-five new park and ride facilities and thirty-nine controlled access ramps. The total number of buses for this alternative would be 816 with 15% of the total fleet being articulated buses. The average operating speed for buses on the guideway would be 55 m.p.h, with average express bus speeds of about 23 m.p.h. Rail Transit A1 ternatives The following four rail transit alternatives call for development of medium capacity.rail rapid transit in the Santa Aha Transportation Corridor. These light rail vehicles can be combined into trains of up to four cars and would be capable of operating in regular street rights-of-way. These alternatives would provide direct commuter access to major activity centers, principally by rail and not by bus. The two full rail alternatives each interconnect to nine activity centers in the central and northern portions of the County, including Irvine Center. The two core fail alternatives serve eight or nine of the Central and North County Centers, but do not extend to either 1trine Center or Fullerton. Full Rail-1 ~he portion of this alternative directly affecting Tustin would be that segment running elevated along the Santa Ana Freeway between Sixth Street in Santa Aha and Irvine Center. Right-of-way for this alternative is minimal because most of the alignments lie within existing street, freeway, or Pacific Electric rights-of-way. Rail transit stations would be located approximately every mile. Stations are projected for Red Hill Avenue and Myford Road within the Tustin area. In addition, there are twenty-five new park and ride lots projected for the rail stations. Full Rail-2 This alternative eliminates that segment of the proposed service which runs along the Santa Ana Freeway between Santa Aha and 1trine Center. The eliminated segment is replaced by an alignment along San Diego Creek Channel between South Coast Metro and Irvtne Center Drive. This particular alternate deletes any alignment through Tustin on I-5 and eliminates all physical impacts to the community caused by Full Rail-1. Core Rail-1 Alternative This alternative is identical to the Full Ratl-1 Alternate except it does not include: a. The north-south line between Lincoln Avenue and the Fullerton Amtrak Station, and SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR TRANSIT ELEMENT - DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT MARCH 12, 1984 PAGE 4 b. The segment between downtown Santa Ana and Irvine Center, which excludes rail-service to Irvlne Center. This alternative does not directly affect Tustin with physical impacts. Core Rail-2 Alternative This.alternative is identical to the Core Rail-1 Alternate except that it does not i'nclude the segment on MacArthur Blvd. between'Hutton Center and University Drive, which excludes service to Irvine Office Center and Irvine Center. This alternative does not directly affect Tustin with physical impacts. The following recap is a comparison of capital cost, annual operation and maintenance cost in 1982 dollars,' and projected ridership for the year 2000: Annual Operating/ Capital Cost Maintenance Cost Daily Ridership Alternative (Millions) (Millions) Year-2000 Null -0- 67.18 118,000 Baseline 18.42 89.95 142,000 TSM 103.77 123.65 180,000 HOV Lane 402.77 116.47 181,000 Bus Guideway 1,090.00 115.07 181,000 Full Rail-1 1,250.00 109.76 202,000 Full Rail-2 1,230.00 104.51 198,000 Core Rail-1 937.15 110.15 193,000 Core Rail-2 815.01 110.42 188,000 Findings Staff feels the following areas either need clarification or additional input into the document and request that staff be authorized to forward these concerns to the Orange County Transit District as the City's comments/concerns. o Reference is made to the H.O.V. Lane Alternative where it states that widening of the Santa Ana Freeway is required. It is requested that a clarification be made as whether this widening is the same as indicated in the proposed widening of I-5 to four lanes (full standard) or are these two lanes in addition to that proposed widening? If it is included, will the widening impacts be covered under another environmental document? o On Figure 54 H.O.V. Lane Alternative it indicates a potential displacement of 31 multi-family units and 15 mobile homes. Could a clarification be made as to what limits of the freeway widening these displacements fall under? Do they include that portion of the freeway within the interchange modification limits? If that area is included, the displacement counts may be low. SANTA ANA TPJkNSPORTATION CORRIDOR TRANSIT ELEMENT - DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT MARCH 12, 1984 PAGE 5 Reference Page III-7 - Could a Clarification be made as to why the two-way elevated bus guideway was not continued southerly to Irvine Center in lieu of Myford Road? It appears that Irvine Center will be a major activity center that would warrant two-way access during peak periods. Reference pages 239 and 240 - The reference to SR-55 on the last line of page 239 and the second line of page 240 should read I-5. Also, on page 240, line 4, the land use north of the freeway between Browning Avenue and Myford Road is not industrial. It is currently agricultural and is proposed residential and commercial. Reference Page 249 to Page 271 - This section on land use under the Rail Alternatives appears to have omitted any narration on the Full Rail-1 segment through Tustin. Figure 65 - Full Rail-1 Alternative - The proposed station #56 shown at Red Hill Avenue does not appear to have been addressed with local traffic and land use impacts. Will these impacts be addressed in an additional document if this alternative is ~elected? Is this document the final E.I.R that will be prepared, or will a more detailed document that addresses local impacts be prepared on the selected alternative? A short time after the City Council approval of the Orange County Transportation Commission's (O.C.T.C.) 15-Year Investment Plan, which requested that the one-cent sales tax increase be put on the June 5th ballot for voter approval/disapproval, the City Council requested O.C.T.C. to amend said Investment Plan to require voter approval prior to the start of a construction of any rapid/mass transit alternative. The alternatives addressed in this environmental document would certainly fall under the .Council's previous request to O.C.T~C. Director of Public Works/City Council 'BL:jr cc: Community Development Dept.