HomeMy WebLinkAboutNB 2a S.A. TRANS CORR. 06-07-82TO:
FROH:
SUBJ£CT:
WILLIAM HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
BOB LEDENDECKER, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER
'SANTA ANA TR/%NSPORTATION CORRIDOR STUDY
STAGE II ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS/DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STAT~24ENT
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize staff to forward the City's concerns regarding the Santa Ana
Transportation Corridor Study as outlined in Items No. 1, 2, and 3 below to the
Orange County Transportation Commission and the Orange County Transit District.
BACKGROUND:
The Santa Ana Transportation Corridor (SATC) Study originated from the Multi-modal
Transportation Study as the highest priority study area within the county. The
Stage I Alternatives Analysis of the SATC Study was completed in early 1981 and
concluded that the ultimate solution to travel problems in the Santa Ana Corridor
could be handled by a multi-modal package of transportation improvements
including:
1. Freeway widening
2. Arterial street improvements
3. Commuter rail improvements
4. Transit improvements
The Stage II Alternatives Analysis will be a combined effort between both the
Orange County Transportation Commission (O.C.T.C.) and the Orange County Transit
District (O.C.T.D.). Each of the four alternatives is discussed in detail on the
attached reports' prepared by O.C.T.C. and O.C.T.D.
In addition to the original freeway widening element alternative which consists of
widening the Santa Aha (I-5) Freeway to eight lanes, it is u~lderstood that this
element may include the widening of the I-5 Freeway to 10 lanes between the San
Diego (I-405) Freeway and the San Gabriel River (I-605) Preeway. This alternative
could certainly impact Tustin's residential, commercial, and industrial
developments adjacent to the freeway.
The transit element of the Alternatives Analysis would include an elevated busway
as well as at-grade facilities along the entire corridor length. The overhead
facilities would have a definite visual/noise impact to the community.
This study is currently in the scoping process that provides the public the
opportunity to identify issues and concerns and to help design transportation
alternatives prior to the environmental document process. The scoping process
will extend through June 15, 1982 for written comments from citizens and/or
agencies.
SANTA ANA TRNASPORTATION CORRIDOR STUDY
JUNE 1, 1982
PAGE TWO
Staff has received comments from Mrs. Mary Hernandez of Tustin regarding her
concerns about the impacts of increased noise levels and air pollution to the
areas immediately adjacent to the Santa Ana Freeway. In addition to Mrs.
Hernandez's comments, staff has some additional concerns with elements of the
study as follows:
A clarification should be made as to whether the Foothill and Eastern
Corridor studies have been considered concurrently with the SATC Study
and, if they have not been, perhaps the projected needs within the SATC
can be down-s¢oped.
Widening of the I-5 Freeway to eight (8) or ten (10) lanes at medium or
full standards will greatly impact Tustin with respect to right of way
requirements. A substantial amount of housing units will be removed from
the community along with many commercial and industrial buildings which
will have an adverse economic impact to the City.
As previously indicated, any widening will also increase the noise and
air pollution levels to the community.
3e
Any elevated rail and busway alternatives within the transit element
would affect the ~ommunity with respect to noise and visual/quality
aesthetics.
As the study proceeds through the environmental document process, it is requested
that both O.C.T.C. and O.C.T.D. address each of these concerns specifically as
they relate to Tustin rather than as they relate to the entire corridor study
area. This would be most critical in the areas of the loss of residential,
commercial, and industrial structures and the related economic impacts to the
City.
BOB LEDENDECKER
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORK~/
CITY ENGINEER
db
Attachments
cc: Mrs. Mary Hernandez
ORANGE COtfNTY TRA NSPORTATION CO 2V SSION
NOTICE OF
PREPARATION
PROJECT TITLE:
STAGE II OF THE SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS/DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT/STATeMENT AA/DEIR/EIS
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(Reference: Division 13, Public Resources Code,
Section 21080.4)
NOTICE OF INTENT TO PREPARE A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL-
IMPACT STATEMENT
(Reference: 40 CFR Parts 1501.7 and 1502.2)
This is to inform you that the Orange County Transportation Com-
mission, in cooperation with the California Department of Trans-
portation, the Federal Highway Administration, and the Urban Mass
Transportation Administration, will be the Lead Agency in pre-
paring an EIR/EIS for the project identified above. Your partici-
pation is requested in the preparation and review of this
~_~ .... iblil~i=~ ~ co~A~%~l~,. ~.i~M '~ ?~C~"~ ~r~j~.~. Your
agency will need to use the EIR/EIS prepared by our agency when
considerinE your permit or other approval for the project.
Due to the time l~mits mandated by state law~, your response must
be sent au the earliest possible date but not later than 45 days
after receipt of this notice.
1010 NORTH BROADWAY, slJrr~ 300 · ~ANTA ANA, CA 9~?01 . (714)
Notice of Preparation
Page 2
Please send your response to Sharon Greene at the address shown
below. We will need the name for a contact person in your agency.
Orange County Transportation Corm~ission
1020 North Broadway, Suite 300
Santa Ama, California 92701
(714) 834-7581
PROPOSED PROJECT:
The Stage II santa Aha Transportation Corridor AA/DEIR/EIS will
determine the key impacts of, trade-offs among, and complementarity
between highway, busway, rapid rail, co~uter rail, and arterial
alternatives which are under consideration for implementation in
this corridor. This study will also provide sufficient technical
data so that a locally preferred multi-modal program of improvements
can be selected.
The project description, location and the proposed work program are
contained in the attached "Background Report for Project Scoping."
Date:
SubmiTted-By:
S~ar on
Project Manager
ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT
NOTICE OF
PREPARATION
TO:
RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES AND
INTERESTED CITIZENS
FROM:
ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT
11222 ACACIA PARKWAY
P.O. BOX 3005
GARDEN GROVE, CA 92642
PROJECT TITLE:
PROJECT NO.: EA-02-82
Transit Element: Santa Aaa Corridor Alternatives Analysis
aud Draft Emviroamental Impact Report
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONIIENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ORANGE COUN~ TRANSIT DISTRICT WILL BE TME LEAD AG~C~ AND WILL PREPARE AN
[NVIRONMENTAL I~PACT REPORT FOR T~ PROJECT IDENTIFIED ABOVE. WE N~.D TO ~NOW
T~ VIEWS OF YOUR AGENC~ AS TO T~ SCOPE AND CON/~ OF T~ ENVIRON~AL
INFORMATION WEICE IS GE~ TO YOUR AGENCY'S STATUTORY R~SPONSIBILITIES IN
CONNECTION WITE T~ PROPOSED PROJECT. YOUR AGENCY WILL NEED TO USE TEE EIR
PREPARED BY OUR AGENCY W~ CONSIDERING YOUR PERMIT OR OT~ER APPROVAL FOR
PROJECT.
TME PROJECT DESCRIPTION, LOCATION, A~D TEE PROBABI~ ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AR~
CONTAINED IN TEE ATTAC.~.n MATMRIALM. A COPY 0F TEE INITIAL STUDY ~ IS []IS NOT
ATTACR~-D.
DUE TO TIME LIMITS MANDATED BY STATE LAW, YOUR RESPONSE MUST BE SENT AT TEE
EARLIEST POSSIBLE DATE BUT NOT LATER TMAN 45 DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF THIS NOTICE.
PLEASE SEND YOUR RESPONSE TO Mr. Dick Msu AT TME ADDRESS SHOWN ABOVE.
WE WILL NEF~ TEE NAME FOR A CONTACT PERSON IN YOUR AGENCY.
SUBMITTED BY:
TELEPHONE: 714-971-6419
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
FOR
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
FOR 'raZ TRANSIT ELEHENT
SANTA ARA CORRIDOR ALTERNATIFES ANALYSIS AND
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The Orange County Transit District is proposing to conduct an
Alternatives Analysis and Draft Environmental Impact Report
(AA/DF. IR) for the transit element for the Santa Aha Transportation
Corridor Study. The results of this study will be used for
selecting a locally preferred rapid transit alternative for
development in Orange County. The results will also be used as
in,ut to the Orange County Transportation Co--.~ssion's Consolidated
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Stage II Santa Ana
Transportation Corridor Alternatives Analysis, which focuses on
other potential improvements in the Santa Ana Corridor as well,
including freeway widening and co~.-,~er rail.
OCTD has determined that these alternatives may have a significant
impact on the environment and that an EIR should be prepared. This
Notice of Preparation is intended to serve as announcement of the
beginning of this process. We are soliciting co--.~nts on the
potential environmental impacts of the transit alternatives from
public agencies, private companies and interested citizens. In
order to assist interested agencies and persons in reviewing this
project, the following paragraphs ~,r~,~rize past planning efforts
and the scope of work relating to the Transit Element AA/DEIR:
Previous Planning Studies:
The Orange County Transportation Cor~tssion completed a Multi-tiodal
Transportation Study in 1980. This study considered long-term
highway and transit needs for Orange County and established priority
areas for transportation improvements. The data from the.
Multi-Modal Study confirmed that:
The Santa Ana Freeway in Orange County is subject to
severe congestion during peak travel hours and
recurring congestion for more than ten hours per day.
The Santa Ana Freeway is unsafe. Heavy congestion
combined with inadequate capacity and design of the
freeway contributes to one of the highest accident rates
in the region.
The Santa Ana Freeway has uo parallel facility, yet it
must serve a region of tremendous growth; fully half of
the County's population and two-thirds of its Jobs are
within three miles of the freeway.
To meet federal and state requirements, the Commission decided to
conduct a formal Alternatives Analysis, including preparation of a
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (AA/DEIS).
The term "Alternatives Analysis" refers to a structured filtering
planning process designed to insure that all transportation options
are considered and evaluated in an objective way. This process
is done in two stages, each with increasing detail.
Stage I of the Alternatives Analysis, which was completed last
Spring, e~nmtned a broad range of transportation improvements for
the Santa Aha Corridor. Nineteen alternatives ranging from "doing
nothing" to combinations of rapid transit, busways, com,-,ter rail
and widening of the Santa Aha Freeway and arterials were exam/ned
and reviewed in a wide variety of public workshops and meetings.
Based on that review process, the Commission selected four
elements for further study in Stage II:
2.
3.
4.
Transit
Freeway Widening
Arterial Improvements
Com~uter Rail Improvements
While the Commission will continue to be responsible for the total
Stage II Study program and the preparation of a Consolidated DEIS,
each agency will be responsible for its component element. The
Orange County Transit District will be the lead agency responsible
for conducting the Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Impact Report
for the transit element.
SCOPE OF STUDY FOR THE TRANSIT ELEMENT AA/DEIR
The Transit Element AA/DEIR includes technical study of the
following alternatives at the corridor level:
The "Null": The "null" alternative represents what would
happen if the Transit District decides to make no further
investment for solving the transportation problems in the Santa
Aha Corridor.
The "Low Level Transportation Systems Management (TSM)": This
alternative represents attempts to more efficiently manage the
use of existing facilities and resources without additional
funding or investments. The 'Low Level TSM" alternative
represents what might be done to improve transit access for
co,~-ters to major employment areas, but with the Transit
District's present resources for buses and funding.
e
The "High/Level TSM--Surface Bus": This alternative explores
ways to provide increased levels of transit service, especially
in the form of express and commuter bus services directly to
major employment areas. This approach would require expansion
of the bus fleet and park-and-ride facilities but it would not
-2-
e
require any ex~ensive construction of ~uideway facilities.
The "Transit High Occupancy Vehicle/(HOV)' Lane: This
alternative builds on ~he buses and schedules developed in
Alternative 3, the Surface Bus Approach. In addition,
two lanes of the widened Santa Aha Freeway being studied by
Caltrans as part of the Highway Element would be reserved for
transit use, use by carpools, and other high-occupancy vehicles
(HOV's), at least during peak-hours.
The "Busway" Alternative: This alternative also builds on the
concepts for co--tar buses developed in Alternative 3. In
addition, however, this alternative proposes the construction
of buaway facilities to be used exclusively by transit buses
and HOVe (see ~ap 1). ~aere possible, the busway would be
at-$rade in the median or else elevated above the median of the
Santa Aha and Costa Hess Freeways, and ~uld be at-grade in the
Orange Freeway median. The busways would be wider and safer
than the "transit/HOV# lane studied in Alternative 4, and would
be equipped with stations, park-and-ride lots, and special
controlled-access ramps for buses and HOVs. This alternative
would cost significantly more than previous alternatives.
Rail Alternative 1: This proposal Calls for the development of
a medium-capacity rapid transit rail line in the Santa Aha
Transportation Corridor (see Map 2). The alignment is composed
of five basic segments: (1) at-grade on Beach Boulevard, (2)
at-grade on the Pacific Electric right-of-way between Stanton
and Santa Aha and at grade within existing streets through
Santa Aha to the Santa Aha Freeway, (3) elevated from downtown
Anaheim through Disneyland, the Anaheim Stadium and downtown
Santa Ana co South Coast Plaza via Harbor, State College and
Main Street, (4) partially elevated along the Santa Aha Freeway
to Irvine Center and (5) elevated along MacArthur Co the Irvine
Industrial and Office Complex. These rail lines will provide
direct access into major employment centers, and will have
stations located about every mile or so. 'Light rail" cars
like the San Diego Trolley or new technology "automated
~uideway transit' cars will be considered for operation on
these rail lines. This alternative will also be fully
complemented by a system of feeder bus routes and express buses
for areas not served by rail. A potential connection with Los
Angeles County will be provided for in Ch, vicinity of Beach
Boulevard and the Santa Aha Freeway.
Rail Alternative 2: This proposal is very similar to the first ·
rail alternative, except that it substitutes one alignment
variation as follows:
Connection to Irvine Center via the San Diego Creek
Channel from South coast Plaza, instead of via the Santa
Ana Freeway from Santa Ans.
-3-
%
M_AP1
BUSWAY AL TEi~NATIVE
I
I
RAIL ALTERNATIVE
STUDY SCOPE
The study will also include the following ~asks:
cost effectiveness analysis for each alternative
cost effectiveness analysis for potential starter line
alternatives (yet to be defined)
identification of potential environmental impacts and
possible mitigation measures
evaluation of alternatives based on cost effectiveness
and environmental impacts
definition of a preferred alternative
PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Because of the magnitude of the project and potential level of
financial investment, the OCTD has determined that an Environmental
Impact Report must be prepared for this project. Areas subject to
potential environmental impacts as a minimum include:
Land Use and Growth Impacts: The study will include analysis of
compatibility of transit ~uideways with adjacent existing and
proposed land uses. Joint development opportunities at station
locations will also be analy~ed. Impacts on historic or
archeological properties, parks and wetlands will be addressed.
Growth-inducing impacts will also be identified and analyzed.
Land Acquisition and Displacement: The study will address types of
uses displaced; housing, commercial and industrial space vacancy and
absorption rates; and estimation of relocation costs.
Socioeconomic Impacts: The study will assess how well the transit
alternatives will serve transit-dependent and special populations,
including the elderly and handicapped and Iow income households.
Crime, safety and neighbor disruption will also be analyzed.
Aesthetics: Renderings overlaid on photos will be used to identify
impacts of scale and mass of the project on the appearance of
neighborhoods where the project will be located.
Air Quality and Energy: The study will focus on the relative
effectiveness of the various alternatives in reducing energy
consumption and in meeting the Air Quality Management District goals
of reducing emissions in the South Coast Air Basin.
Transportation and Traffic Effects: The study will analyze
mobility, circulation system performance, hazards, safety, parking
and capability to accommodate growth for the various alternatives.
Noise and Vibration: The study will identify the noise and
vibration impacts on surrounding sensitive land uses.
Water Quality and Hydrology: The study will identify the relative
siltation impacts of construction and water quality impacts of the
alternatives.
-4-
Construction Impacts: Impacts resulting from grading, erection of
structures, tra£fic diversion and maintenance during construction
will be addressed.
Geology and Seismicity: Potential geologic impacts of the
alternatives will be addressed.
Public Services and Utilities: Effects on emergency services and
major utilities will he identified and analyzed.
Those agencies or individuals with expertise in these areas are
requested to provide input and comments to OCTD for use in preparing
the DEI~ for this project. The District has retained the consulting
firm, PRC Toups, in Joint venture with DeLeuw Cather and Company, to
assist staff in the conduct of the study and preparation of the
DEIR.
PROJECT SCm~ULE AND PUBLIC PARTIC1TATION
The preparation of the AA/DEIR should be complete in approximately
14 months. Seven co~nity workshops will be held by the Transit
District in June 1982 to promote review and discussion of the
critical issues of the study. Scoping meetings, workshops and
co~v,~ttee meetings sponsored by OCTC for all the study elements will
also be used to obtain additional input and comments.
In order to begin consideration of comments, responses to this
Notice of Preparation should be subm/tted to the OCTD Environmental
Coordinator no later than 4~ days after the receipt of this notice.
The cycle of community meetings and public hearings over the next
14 months will also provide additional opportunities for comments.
However, OCTD would appreciate receipt of comments as early as
possible in order to ~/ve them full review and consideration in the
early analysis for this project.
If you have comments regarding this project or if you are interested
in receiving further information and hearing notices for this
project, please submit your name, organization, address and phone
number to the person and address shown on the cover form of the
Notice of Preparation.
~2041382CHSVL
-5-
%020 Nor~ Broad~ay, Suite 300
San~a Ama, Cafuiform~a 92701
(714) 834-7581
Pa~e
5
6
7
15
19
20
A joint project of the:
Orange CounTy Transportation Cou~iss/mn
Orange County Transit District
Southern CalLfor~ Associa=ion of
DECISION MAKING PROCESS
STAGE II AA/DEIS
Scoping Meetings
Possible Alternatives
Suggested by Technicians
and Public
Advisory Committees a~d
SATC Citizen Task Force
Review and Comment
Technical
Analysis
Community Meetings
· Public Review and Comment
Approval by Federal
Sponsoring Agency
to
Circulate Document
Review by Federal
State and Local
Agencies
and the Public
Advisory Committees and
SATC Citizen Task Force
Review and Comment
Public
Hearing
· Public Review and Comment
Orange County
Transportation
Commission
Locally Preferred
Alternative
THE PURPOSE OF TI~II~ DOCUMENT: INFORMATIONAL REPORT FOR SCOPING MEETING
This document is designed to provide information for participants in the May, 1982
environmental impact scoping meetings for the Santa Ana Transportation Corridor
Study, Stage II.
Scoping meetings will be held on the following dates:
DATE TIME
May 25, 1982 7:30 - 9:30 pm
Tuesday
LOCATION
Garden Grove Community
Center
11300 Stanford Avenue
Garden Grove
May 26, 1982
Wednesday
7:30 - 9:30 pm
City of Irvine -
Council Chambers
17200 Jamboree Road
Irvine
May 28, 1982
Friday
9:00 am - Noon
SCOPING MEETINGS: TIME TO IDENTIFY CONCERNS
Orange County Hall of
Administration
Planning Commission
Chambers
10 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana
(Corner Civic Center
Dr. and Broadway)
"Scoping" is a relatively new element of the environmental assessment and review
process. Required by federal law the Seoping process is an opportunity for the public
to identify issues and concerns and to help design transportation alternatives before
considerable time and effort has been spent drafting an environmental document.
The objective of the Scoping process is to insure that issues raised by interested
~ullarties will be given adequate consideration. It obligates the study team to solicit and
y consider the range of concerns expressed by citizens, reviewing agencies, and
decision-makers; and in return, it obligates those publics to fully disclose and describe
their concerns in a timely fashion. Scoping meetings provide an opportunity for the
study team to document these concerns early on in the study process. Additionally,
written comments are encouraged from all interested parties and wKl be accepted by
the project staff throughout the seoping period.
Anyone affected by a specific impact should use this opportunity to document their
concerns. If it is not possible to attend a meeting, written comments will be accepted
until June 15, 1982.
Please address your comments to:
SATC AA/DEIS PROJECT
Orange County Transportation Commission
1020 North Broadway, Suite 300
Santa Ana, California 92701
SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION CORI11DOR (SATC) STUDY
THE PROBLEM: GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT IN ORANGE COUNTY
In 1950, the population of Orange County was 216,000. During the next two decades,
Orange County felt the full brunt of rapid urbanization of the post-war era in Southern
California, and was one of the fastest growing counties in the United States. Today,
Orange County has over two million residents and provides over 940,000 jobs making it
the sixth largest county in the nation. With population densities in the central part of
the county running between 5,000 and 7,000 persons per square mile, Orange County
ranks as one of the more densely populated urban areas in the United States. In the
absence of any major additions to transportation facilities, population and employment
growth has far outrun the abilities of the county's transportation system to provide
high levels of access and mobility for its residents and workers.
Economic and demographic forecasts prepared by public and private agencies confirm
that Orange County will continue to be under great development pressure for the next
twenty years. As one of the nation's most desirable locations, the county will
continue to attract new residents and major industries. County planners anticipate
that another 700,000 people will be moving into the county over the next twenty years,
this is equivalent to adding 3,000 new Orange County residents each month. In just
twenty years, the county will be responsible for providing public services for an
additional population larger in size than the total of most major cities.
It is ~l.~o clear that the' rate of increase in new jobs will exceed that of population.
Projections of corporate and industrial growth indicate that jobs will grow by over
400,000 over the next 20 years thus, more and more commuting will be done to and
within Orange County than ever before.
How wKl a transportation system which is already over capacity and even today is
characterized by rampant congestion going to provide for these commuters?
TH~ TOP PRIORITY ARF, A FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS: THE SANTA
ANA CORRIDOR
To address this problem, the Orange County Transportation Commission conducted a
Multi-Modal Transportation Study to evaluate future transportation needs that could
be met by all modes of travel - auto, bus, train, and rapid transit. Additionally, the
Multi-Modal Transportation Study established priorities for future transportation
actions. The highest priority was given to the Santa Ana Corridor, which is the Santa
Aha Freeway and the land approximately three miles on each side of it. As shown in
Figure 1, the corridor covers approximately 312 square miles and extends 52 miles
from the Los Angeles County line on the north to the San Diego County line on the
south. The Santa Ana Corridor encompasses more than 50% of the county population
and 66% of the jobs.
-3-
STUDY AREA
i
-4-
THE NEED FOI~ AN ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS/DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT
The Multi-Modal Transportation Study evaluated county transportation needs overall;
it did not, however, suggest specific corridor level solutions. Therefore, fundamental
decisions were necessary to determine the needs of the Santa Aha Corridor. Because
these decisions involve major capital investments for projects, the Orange County
Transportation Commission (OCTC), the Orange County Transit District (OCTD), the
California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS), and the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG), are conducting a joint study of the Santa Ana
Transportation Corridor which includes a formal Alternatives Analysis, and
preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
Alternatives Analysis is a comprehensive study process required by the U.S. Depart-
ment of Transportation to assist federal agencies in evaluating applications for funding
of local public transportation projects. This process requires that transportation
options be evaluated in an objective way, answering questions such as, what projects
should be developed, how much funding should be committed, and what should be
accomplished.
Alternatives Analysis is more than a feasibility study of various projects which might
be built - it looks at a wide range of transportation actions (including not doing
anything at all) and provides the decision makers with the information needed to
choose a project which is not only "feasible", but is demonstrably better than all other
reasonable possibilities to achieve improved transportation in the corridor. ~Vhen this
process is completed in a satisfactory manner, a transportation project can qualify for
federal funding if that money is available.
In addition, both federal (National Environmental Policy Act) and state (California
Environmental Quality Act) laws require that mil of the potential environmental
consequences associated with b~ilding projects be fully understood before public
agencies commit to their construction. Federal law provides for the study and public
reporting of potential environmental impacts in a document known as an Environmen-
tal Impact Statement (EIS). California law provides for a similar public accounting of
environmental consequences in a document known as an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR). While these two regulations are slightly different in their scope and content,
they are so similar in other respects that a single document can be prepared in
response to both requirements.
The Orange County Transportation Commission, with OCTD, Caltrans, SCAG, and the
federal Department of Transportation agencies participating in the project, will all
want to know about the potential performance impacts, and cost effectiveness of each
of the transportation alternatives. This information would be available to influence
decisions about the feasibility of and preference for alternatives under study. For this
reason, the Alternatives Analysis and the Environmental Impact Statement/Report are
prepared together in one effort.
THE STAGE I STUDY: WHERE HAVE WE BEEN?
In August of 1979, OCTC, OCTD, CALTRANS, and SCAG initiated a screening study
of potential improvements in the Santa Ana Transportation Corridor, known as the
Stage I Alternatives Analysis. Recognizing the need for improvements in the corridor,
a wide range of possible improvements were suggested by planners and citizens. All
together, some 10 different concepts, incorporating 55 specific project proposals, were
analyzed. The goal was to screen these proposals to the few most promising, so that
engineering and cost studies could more fully examine the best of these ideas in Stage
r~.
Completed {n early 1981, the Stage I study demonstrated that the ultimate solution to
travel problems in the Santa Ana Corridor would best be achieved by a multi-modal
(more than one form of transportation) package of transportation improvements,
including:
Freeway Widening (Freeway Element) Rehabilitate and widen the Santa
Ana Freeway, within the existing right-of-way, to eight lanes between 1-
605 and 1-405.
Arterial Street Improvements (Arterial Element) Develop projects for the
arterial street system in Orange County to supplement capacity which can
no longer be supplied by the freeway system, to relieve congestion and to
improve local cire,,]~tion.
Commuter Rail Improvements (Commuter Rail Element) Construct the
improvements necessary to begin operation of commuter rail trains be-
tween San Clemente, Central Orange County, and downtown Los Angeles.
o
Transit Improvements (Transit Element) Develop a rapid transit guideway
system for Orange County commuters to serve concentrated employment
destinations in the county.
These conclusions were reached after a comprehensive evaluation of cost and
performance. Invaluable in this process was the tireless assistance of many citizens
who participated on committees and worked with the study team. In addition
comments were received from community groups at over 100 meetings held all around
the county.
Two steps remain before decisions on project selection can be made. First, the
remaining project alternatives must be conceptually designed to make sure that they
can feasibly be built and to make certain that their costs are accurately known. In
addition, an environmental impact analysis must be completed to assure that ail of the
environmental effects associated with building any of these projects are identified.
This is the objective of the Stage II Alternatives Analysis/Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for the Santa Ana Transportation Corridor.
THE STAGE il SATC AA/D~.~ AGENCY RESPONSIBILITY
The full Stage II Alternatives Analysis Program includes an analysis of each modal
element in the corridor recommendations adopted by OCTC in February, 1981. OCTC
-6-
has lead responsibility for coordinating the work being conducted by participating
agencies, with actual responsibility for technical work being assigned as follows:
Overall Program Responsibility:
Orange County Transportation
Commission (OCTC)
Freeway Widening Element:
California Departmeat of
Transportation (CALTRANS)
Transit Element:*
Orange County Transit District
(OCTD)
Commuter Rail Element:
California Department of
Transportation (CALTRANS)/
Southern California Association
of Governments (SCAG)
Arterial Highway Element
Orange County Transportatiqn
Commission
Citizen Participation Program
Orange County Transportation
· Commission and Orange
County Transit District
Consolidated (Multi-Modal) AA/DEIS Orange County Transportation
Document Commission
*OCTD will prepare an AA/DEIR document for the Transit Element. This document
will both stand alone, and data from it will be incorporated into the Consolidated
AA/DEIS prepared by the Commission.
THE ALT~RNA~IV~
The major objective of the Stage II Program is to identify the best package of
transportation projects for the Santa Ana Corridor. This package will be multi-modal
and will incorporate mode-specific alternatives under study in the Freeway Widening,
Transit, Commuter Rail, and Arterial Highway Elements.
The following four elements and associated alternatives are being evaluated in Stage
II:
1. Freeway Widening Element (Figure 2)
Widening of I-5 to eight lanes with the two additional lanes devoted to
either high occupancy vehicles (buses and carpools) or to general purpose
traffic. To the maximum extent possible, the widening would be within the
existing Santa Ana Freeway right-of-way, from 1-605 in Los Angeles
County to 1-405 Two widening alternatives are being considered:
-7-
FREEWAY WIDENING
Fi gure 2
I
!
-8-
"Low Standard" Widening - utilizing minimum median and shoulder
widths and narrowed travel lane widths, where required, to minimize
the need for property takings or replacement of structures.
"Medium Standard" Widening - utilizing standard-width travel lanes,
shoulders, and the existing median width. Additional right-of-way
taking and replacement of roadway interchange and overpass
structures will be required.
In addition to the widening alternatives, a Null (or, no-build) alterna-
tive and a Transportation Systems Management alternative (metering
and creation of HOV by-pass lanes on existing freeway ramps) will
also be considered.
2. Transit Element (Figures 3 and 4)
The transit alternatives under consideration represent a range of costs,
levels of service, and types of technology, from reliance on current levels
of bus service (the "null" alternative) to an expanded bus fleet operating on
exclusive busways, to medium capacity rail rapid transit. The seven
alternatives under consideration are:
Null - maintaining OCTD's current bus fleet size, routing practices,
and levels of service.
"Low Level" Transportation Systems Management (TSM) - based on
the fleet size programmed in OCTD's FY 19.83-87 Short Range
Transit Plan, bus services would emphasize express service for
commuters as oppose~ to 10eal service, and restructuring of the
existing routes to focus on major employment areas.
"High Level" TSM/Surfaee Bus - representing a significant increase in
bus fleet size, provision of park-and-ride facilities, and expansion of
express commuter bus services operating in mixed flow traffic.
Transit/High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane (Figure 3) - building on
the Surface Bus Approach developed in the previous alternative, this
alternative would reserve two new travel lanes on a widened, 8-lane
Santa Ana (I-5) Freeway and two new lanes on portions of the Costa
Mesa (SR 55) Freeway, and Orange (SR 57) Freeway, for buses,
carpools, and other forms of high occupancy vehicles.
O
Busway (Figure 3) - again building on the Surface Bus approach
developed in the High Level TSM Alternative, this alternative
includes construction of a busway for exclusive use by buses and high
occupancy vehicles. Where possible, the busway would be located at
grade in the median, or else elevated above the median of the Santa
Ana, Costa Mesa, and Orange Freeways, and equipped with stations,
controlled access ramps, and park-and-ride facilities. A similar
exclusive busway alternative is currently under study by Caltrans for
the Los Angeles County portion of the Santa Ana Freeway.
-9-
81JSWAYS
Figure 3
i
-10-
MEDIUM-CAPACITY
-11-
Rail Alternative 1 - This alternative calls for development of
medium-capacity rail rapid transit in the Santa Ana Transportation
Corridor.
The alignment is shown in Figure 4, and is composed of five basic
segments: (1) at-grade on Beach Boulevard, (2) at-gr~ adc on the
Pacific Electric right-of-way, and along Fourth Street and Santa Ana
Boulevard through Santa Ana, (3) elevated from downtown Anaheim
through Disneyland, the Anaheim Stadium and downtown Santa Ana
to South Coast Plaza via Harbor, State College and Main Street, (4)
partially elevated along the Santa Ana Freeway to Irvine Center and
(5) elevated along MaeArthur to the Irvine industrial and Office Com-
plex. These rapid transit lines would provide direct access into major
employment eenters, with stations located about every mile.
This alternative would also be fully complemented by a system of
feeder bus routes and express buses for areas not served by rail.
Rail Alternative 2: This proposal is very similar to the first rail
alternative, except that it substitutes the following, alignment varia-
tion:
Service to Irvine Center via the San Diego Creek Channel from South
Coast Plaza, instead of via the Santa Ana Freeway from Santa Aha.
Orange/Los Angeles County Connection - Both rail and busway
alternatives would be analyzed to reflect the potential for a possible
connection between transit services proposed in Orange and Los
Angeles Counties.
Starter Line Options - Because guideway proposals are very expen-
sive, shorter versions of the alignments described above will also be
studied. These "starter-line" segments wKl be proposed as alterna-
tives in the winter of 1982 as the basis for the preliminary
examination of performance and cost of the full-length corridor
proposals.
3. Commuter Rail Element (Figure 5)
In addition to the Null (maintaining current, levels of service) alternative,
consideration will be given to upgradiflg existing AMTRAK service between
San Clemente and Los Angeles with additional trains. New stations (at
Mission Viejo, Irvine Center, Anaheim, Buena Park, Norwalk, La Mirada,
and Pieo Rivera) are also under consideration, with a possible addition at
North Irvine. Three alternative levels of service are being considered:
Low Level of Service - consisting of two additional commuter trains
to Los Angeles during the AM peak period, and back to San Clemente
during the PM peak. These trains would supplement present
AMTRAK service and current local speed restrictions would apply.
-12-
Buena Park
COA4~IUTER ~AI L
Ful
STATIONS:
O Existing
~l~Proposed
O Potential
San Juan Capi
;San C1 emente
-13-
Mid Level of Service - representing a balance between potential
ridership, level of service, and capital improvements required. This
alternative wKl be defined over the course of the technical
evaluation.
High Level of Service - consisting of trains approximately every 15
minutes during peak periods, and hourly during midday in both travel
directions between San Clemente and Los Angeles. This alternative
would require additional tracking to avoid conflict with freight
operations, and grade separations at selected streets.
4. Arterial Element
The Arterial alternatives wKl be developed over the course of the study to
address both current and future deficiencies in the arterial street system
within the Santa Ana Corridor. These alternatives will range from a Null
(doing-nothing) alternative to Transportation Systems Management - type
techniques designed to make maximum dsc of existing roadway capacity, as
well as more extensive proposals involving grade separation of
intersections, street widening, or new street construction. Alternatives
may include such options as:
- increasing coordination of traffic signals to improve traffic flow
- increasing parking control and turn prohibitions to increase capacity
changes in street lane usage, such as reversible lanes or
one way streets
- spot widening at critical intersections or at traffic bottlenecks
- construction of grade separatidns at certain intersections
- building streets to master planned widths
building new arterial highway facilities parallel to the Santa Ana
Freeway in south Orange County
- making limited access expressways out of certain arterial streets
- high-flow arterial concepts
- other options as appropriate.
THE KEY EVALUATION ISSUES:
Alternatives wKl be compared on the basis of numerous key issues which exist within
each of the general categories listed below. Issues which have tentatively been
identified within each of these categories are:
Transportation Performance and Productivity - Key issues include the
amount of traffic congestion relief attained, travel time improvements,
the number of new transit riders, change in the d~mand for parking near
-14-
activity centers, and the issue of "level of service" provided. A detailed
demand analysis, utilizing a year 2000 forecast year will provide the basis
for these analyses.
Environmental Quality - Key environmental issues which have been identi-
fied to date include the number of persons adversely affected by noise
from each of the proposed alternatives and the impacts the alternatives
would have on air quality within the study area.
Energy Impacts - The amount and type of energy required to construct and
operate each of the proposed alternatives are key energy related issues.
The savings in petroleum derived energy after the alternatives are comple-
ted is an additional key concern in this area.
Socioeconomic Impacts - Several key issues which have been identified in
this impact area include impacts such as displacements of homes and
businesses for construction; improved accessibility for minority, low
income, and elderly groups; and impacts on the local economy and on land
use development patterns in the study area.
Cultural Resource, OI~en Space and Historic Sites - Key issues will include
the nature and degree of impacts on cultural resources, open space and
historic sites and the appropriate measures to minimize any negative
impacts.
Financial Feasibility - Key financial issues include the construction and
operating costs associated with each alternative and the availability of
funds to meet these costs.
Cost-Effectiveness - The.~e issues include the cost-effectiveness of multi-
modal packages of transportation improvements relative to construction,
maintenance, and operating costs per vehicle trip and person served.
Consideration will also be given to social, economic and environmental
impacts as well as the degree to which the proposed improvements respond
to established goals and objectives.
Community and Institutional Acceptance - Key issues of this goal area
which have been identified include the conformance of the alternative to
local land use policies, and the extent of public support for the potential
projects.
The study will analyze and document each alternative's impacts on these
key issues. A preliminary set of measures which has been developed to
address each key concern or issue will be available at the scoping meetings.
THESTAGEH WORK PROGRAM
The major tasks to be conducted during Stage II are outlined below. A more detailed
description of these tasks and of the mode specific studies will be provided at the
Scoping meeting.
-15-
1. Need For Action
Based on observed travel patterns, past and future growth trends, and
existing transportation facilities, the study will further evaluate the
"transportation problem" which now exists in Orange County. Of critical
importance is the extent to which the existing transportation system in the
Santa Ana Corridor can support the anticipated growth and development in
Orange County.
2. Preliminary Definition And Evaluation Of Multi-Modal Alternatives
e
o
This task will define alternative multi-modal packages of transportation
improvements for the Santa Ana Corridor. These multi-modal alternatives
will be comprised of selected combinations of the mode-specific alterna-
tives evaluated in the individual modal elements for transit, commuter rail,
freeway widening, and arterial streets. Multi-modal null (no-build) and
TSM alternatives will also be defined.
Analysis Of Regional, Community and Neighborhood Transportation
Impacts
This task will evaluate the impacts of the various multi-modal alternatives
in terms of the quality of service being provided as measured by potential
usage. Travel forecasts will be used to identify the impacts of alternatives
on congested freeway and arterial sections. In this manner, the levels of
highway service (volume to eapacity ratios, speeds) associated with the
different alternatives will be quantitatively revealed.
Analysis Of Regional, Community and Neighborhood Environmental
Impaets
This task will evaluate the short-term and long-term, direct and indirect
environmental impacts associated with the proposed alternatives. Specific
subject headings to be addressed will include:
o Air Quality
o Noise
o Sensitive Wetlands
o Water Quality
o Erosion and Seismic Risks
o Energ~
o Visual Quality/Aesthetics
5. Analysis Of Potential Section 106 And Section 4(f) Impacts
Section 106 of the National Historie Preservation Act requires the identifi-
cation of and the assessment of effects of proposed projects on historic,
archaeological, or cultural sites or structures. Further, Section 4(f) of the
-16-
U. S. Department of Transportation Act mandates that parklands, wet-
lands, and historical sites can be used as rights-of-way for transportation
facilities only if it can be shown that there are no feasible and prudent
alternatives and then only if measures are taken to minimize adverse
impacts.
6. Analysis Of Regional, Community and Neighborhood Socioeconomic
Impacts
This task will involve an analysis of potential socioeconomic impacts
associated with the alternatives. Included are consideration of short-term
and long-term effects associated with project construction and operation.
Subject areas to be addressed include the following:
o Residential and business displacement
o Right-of-way acquisition
o Land use and zoning
o Compatibility with local, state, national goals
o Local and regional economic effects
o Joint development potentials
o Accessibility to employment
o Accessibility to community facilities and services
o Accessibility of elderly, handicapped, and other
population groups of interest
o Traffic eirc,,l~tion and parking
o Public services and utilities
o Other key topical areas identified during project seoping.
7. Analysis Of Costs And Financial Feasibility
This task involves the documentation of costs associated with the various
alternatives. Specific costs to be addressed include:
o Capital Costs (eg. new construction, purchase of equipment)
o Operating and Maintenance Costs
o User Costs
The second part of this task focuses upon identification of potential
funding sources and conducting a preliminary financial feasibility analysis
of the alternatives. Emphasis will be placed on the extent to which
-17-
components of the multi-modal alternatives would be implemented under
different funding scenarios.
8. Analysis Of Cost Effectiveness
As stated in federal regulations, "The Urban Mass Transportation Admin-
istrator will grant project approvals for major urban investments only if
he/she determines that the projects meet local, state, and national goals
and objectives in a cost-effective manner". Consequently, it is essential
that an analysis of cost-effectiveness be performed on projects involving
major capital investment.
In addressing this requirement, this task will evaluate the. cost-effective-
ness of multi-modal packages of transportation improvements relative to
construction, maintenance, and operating costs per vehicle trip and per
person served. Consideration will also be given to social, economic, and
environmental impacts as well as the degree to which the proposed
improvements respond to established project goals and objectives.
Public Review Of Preliminary Performance, Impact, And Cost Effective-
ness Analysis
The objective of this review wKl be to obtain opinions from a broad range
of representative groups. Groups contacted during the Seoping Process will
be given opportunities to continue their involvement in the program and
the general public will be provided opportunities to respond through direct
mailings and response questionnaires/forms.
10. Refinement Of Alternatives
The purpose of this task is to refine and modify the preliminary multi'-
modal alternatives in response to agency and public review and comment.
The refined multi-modal alternatives will be submitted to the Commission
for approval, and will then serve as the final alternatives for consideration
in the AA/DEIS.
11. Preparation Of The AA/DEIS
The purpose of this task is to determine the most significant differences
among the refined alternatives and to identify key trade-offs so that a
locally preferred alternative may be selected by OCTC after public review
and comment.
12. Public Review And Revision Of The DEIS
Various materials will be prepared for presentation and distribution to
attendees at public hearings, meetings and workshops. Questions and
specific concerns raised at meetings will be recorded and incorporated into
the AA/DEIS revisions.
13. Selection Of A Locally Preferred Alternative
The Commission will incorporate the results of the previous tasks
-18-
concerning alternatives evaluation and public review and comment into
selection of a locally preferred alternative. The criteria used in selecting
the preferred alternative will be ele~arly documented by the consultant. A
brief comparison of the preferred multi-modal alternative with other
options considered will also be included, and the rationale for project
selection summarized.
14. Develop Financial Plan
The purpose of this task is to develop potential financing scenarios for the
recommended multi-modal package of improvements. Given the new
transportation legislation and funding policies presently under consider-
ation at both the State and Federal levels, a financial plan addressing
future funding sources and mechanisms is needed to both assess project
feasibility as well as provide input into policy decisions.
15. Preparation Of The Final AA/DEIS Report
Subsequent to public review of staff recommendations and FHWA and
UMTA's review and circulation of the AA/DEIS, Consultant will prepare a
final AA/DEIS documenting ~ll major study findings and responding to
comments.
THE CITIZHN PARTICIPATION PROGRAM
The key objective of the Citizen Participation program is to clearly and concisely
convey information to the public about the Santa Ana Transportation Corridor Study
and to obtain maximum citizen input.
A variety of methods have been developed to facilitate this exchange of information
including:
o SCOPING MEETINGS
There will be three formal seoping meetings to provide an opportunity for
planners, engineers, and environmental specialists working on the study
team to meet directly with the public in a mutual forum.
During the seoping period (May i through June 15, 1982), all aspects of the
study will be open to citizen review and comment. These comments will be
considered and evaluated by the project staff.
o ADVISORY GROUPS
The Orange County Transportation Commission is assisted by a Citizen
Advisory Committee as well as Technical and Policy Committees. These
committees review and comment on all studies undertaken by the Commis-
sion as well as acting as advisors to the project staff.
The santa Ana Transportation Corridor Study will also be assisted by a
Citizen Task Force which will meet on a regular basis and provide staff
with a constant flow of community input. Any citizen interested in
participating on this task force should call: Beverly Kenefiek, Orange
-19-
County Transportation Commission, Citizen Participation Coordinator (714)
834-7581 or Madeleine Biekert, Community Relations Officer, Orange
County Transit District (714) 971-6579.
DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION
The OCTC and SATC project staff will endeavor to keep the public
informed through the mailing of newsletters and fact sheets. Additionally,
an informational campaign win be directed to the local news media
concerning the study and the opportunity for citizen involvement.
COMMUNITY MEETINGS AND WORKSHOPS
During the preparation of the AA/DEIS, the OCTC and SATC project staff
will hold community meetings and workshops to provide on-going opportun-
ities for citizen and agency to review and comment on the study.
COMMUNITY SURVEY
Fifty-one individuals were selected from a list of community organizations
to participate in a community survey. Interviewees represent a variety of
organizations from Orange County including service, civic, ethnic, handi-
capped, environmental, labor and other interest groups. Included were
representatives from the SATC, Stage I Citizen Task Force.
These individuals were asked to evaluate the public participation program
proposed for Stage II of the SATC study, to give their views on needed
transportation improvements for the Santa Aha Corridor and to discuss the
public's awareness of transportation issues.
A summary of their findings is available.
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION SUMMARY REPORT
Project staff will prepare a report summarizing the community participa-
tion program. This report will be an appendix to the draft Environmental
Impact Statement and shall include reports from all community meetings,
task force meetings, and scoping meetings. Additionally, a summary of
written comments will be included in the appendix.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A set of formal public meetings will be held to receive public comments on
the AA/DEIS in accordance with NEPA and CEQA requirements.
THE CONSOLIDATED AA/D~.I.~ SCHEDULE
The Santa Ana Transportation Corridor Study is currently in a scoping phase. Formal
scoping will extend through June 15, 1982. The individual modal elements are
presently underway and preliminary results will be completed in December, 1982.* The
Consolidated (multi-modal) AA/DEIS work will occur concurrent with the mode-
-20-
specific studies, with a preliminary AA/DEIS document for internal review to be
completed in March 1983. This document will be reviewed and revised prior to formal
submission to the Federal Highway Administration and the Urban Mass Transportation
Administration for review and approval.
The federal review process may necessitate that additional revisions be made to the
document prior to formal release of the AA/DEIS to the public. In order to reduce the
need for extensive revisions and to secure public input throughout the study, the
technical memoranda prepared over the course of the study period will be submitted
for review and comment internally, to the federal agencies, and through the citizen
participation mechanisms.
* Additional information on the schedule of the individual modal elements will be
available at the scoping meetings.
-21-
§u I doo$