HomeMy WebLinkAboutOB 2 BUS STOP LAYOVR 10-20-80DATE:
OCTOBER 15, 1980
OLD BUSINESS
10-20~-80
Inter-Corn
TO: DAN BLANKENSHIP, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: BOB LEDENDECKER, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/ CITY ENGINEER
SUBJECT: ORANGE COUNTYTRANSIT DISTRICT -(BUS STOP/LAYOVER ZONE9
Attached is a copy of a letter received from the Vollaerts Company,
Public Relations Counsel for the Larwin Square Merchants Association.
It is requested that this letter be forwarded to the City Council
and be made a part of the Council material that was packaged and pre-
sented at the October 6, 1980 meeting.
BOB LEDENDECKER
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/
CITY ENGINEER
BL:dph
14632 CANTERBURY AVENUE
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92880
Advertising · Public Relations · Publicity · Marketing
(714) 838-0826
October lq, 19B0
Tusti~ City Council
300 Centennial ?lay
' ~ 92589
Tust~n,
?essrs:
Donald J. Saltarelli
Ja~es P. Shat?
oichard b. Edgar
~cr:ald 2. ?oesterey
As the public rc!ations counmel for the Larwin Scuare '.'erchsnts
.ollo._ as the Associatfcn's ~'
~s~ociation, i sub~Jt the ~ "~n? ]tJon
re~ardinz the present OCTE schedules~ routin~, an~ ~ervice tc and
from Lar'.,in Scuare.
The Dssoeietion stronzl,~ ~n~sts on the retention of the present
s[tuatJon. Bu~e~ are essential to the economic well-beJng of Larwin
C~ua~= Further, the Dmsociation will ask for additions to the
present bus schedules in the near future to compensate for constantly
decreasing privete automobile usage and constantlv increasinz fuel
prices.
Sincerely yours,
TRISH VOLLAERTS
RIK VOLLAERTS
DATE:
September 25, 1980
OLD BUSINESS
No. 1
10-6-80
Inter-Corn
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Dan Blankenship, City Administrator
Bob Ledendecker, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT (BUS STOP/LAYOVER ZONES)
This is a continued item from the September 15, 1980 Agenda, as requested by
Mr. Bob Nicholas. At their September 2, 1980 meeting, Council directed staff to
meet with Mr. Nicholas and the OCTD staff to discuss and hopefully resolve the
complaints of Mr. Nicholas regarding the noise generated from 0CTD buses while
they are traveling and idling on Centennial Way.
On the morning of September 8, 1980, a meeting was held with Mr. Nicholas and
the OCTD staff (Bob Zimmerman, Manager of Operations; Sharon Neely, Senior Planner;
and Steve Bjornson, Sup~rvisor of Stops and Zones). This meeting provided a plan
agree,~)]c to everyoDe that would provide the following:
1. Red~]ction of nine (9) trips per hour between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
[~ur[ng the peak peri. ods, 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
there would be three (3) trips per hour added for Routes #71 and #158.
This pla~] would ~emove six (6) routes from Centennial Way.
2. There would be f~ur (4) routes remaining on Centennial Way which would
p~ovide five (5) trips per hour all day and two (2) additional trips per
hour d~.lril~<~ the peak periods of 6:00 a.m.' to 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to
6:00 p.m. This would leave 84 buses on Centennial Way between 4:50 a.m.
and 7:05 p.m.
3. Routes #65, #67 and #68 would utilize a 170 foot long red zone on the
southerly side of Bryan Avenue adjacent to the old "Tamale Wagon" restaurant
for a bus stop and layover zone. These routes would also use the Bryan-
Main-Newport triangle for a turn-around area.
4. Route #1SS would utilize an 80 foot long red zone on the easterly side of
Newport Avenue in front of the old "Tamale Wagon" restaurant for a bus stop
and layover zone. In addition, Route ~71 would use this zone as a transfer
point. Route #158 would also use the Bryan-Main~Newport triangle for a
turn-around area.
5. Routes #62, #66, #143 and #144 would still utilize Centennial Way a~.a
turn-around area. These routes would require a bus stop on Centennial Way.
It is proposed to relocate this bus stop from Second Street and Centennial
Way northerly to a point 175 feet to 255 feet southerly of the centerline
of First Street. The most southerly end of this bus stop would be approxi-
mately 200 feet from the apartment complex at 190 Centennial Way.
6. Routes ~68, #71 and #158 would utilize a bus stop (100 foot red zone) for
pass through on the northerly side of First Street adjacent to the Santiago
Bank between Centennial Way and Fashion Lane.
~AN BLANKENSHIP
September 25f 1980
Page two
This plan reduces the number of OCTD routes on Centennial Way to an amount less
than what existed when Mr. Nicholas became a tenant in the apartments at 190
Centennial Way~~'~ In September; 1976; there were six (6) routes consisting of'
eight (8) trips per hour and Mr. Nicholas moved to 190 Centennial Way in July,
1977. The proposed plan provides for four (4)-routes consisting of five (5)
trips per hour and two (2) additional tz-ips per hour during the peak periods
(6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.). At the morning meeting of
September 8th, Mr. Nicholas indicated that he would be willing to try this plan
on a trial basis for ten days and he would then report back to the OCTD if the
plan resolved the noise problems. The next day Mr. Nicholas notified the City
that he thought the plan would be unacceptable and requested another meeting with
the City. and the OCTD staff to discuss other solutions. City staff has been
unable to set up a new meeting with OCTD. The OCTD staff feels a plan was agreed
upon by all parties on September 8th and they are ready to initiate this plan.
On September 18th, City staff met with Mr. Nicholas and discussed his new proposals
to eliminate the bus traffic and noise problem on Centennial Way. Hr. Nicholas
submitted ~hree (3) proposals which were ranked in the following priorities:
1. Remove all the bus routes from Centennial Way on week days prior to
9:00 a.m. and after 5:00 p.m. and all day on weekends a:~d holidays:
Route ~62 to utilize Centennial Way between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Rot]res ~66 and #143 to utilize E1 C=amino Real. between 9:00 a.m. and
5:00
R(ult~ ~14-i to ~:tilize Prospect Avenue between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 t~.m.
E].im~nate all ~ed zones for bus sto?s or layovers on Centennial Way.
ReLocat~ the bus stop/layover zones f~r Routes #62, ~66, #143 and #144
(o the northerly side of First Street with the turn-around areas for
the,~e routes being either:
a. Prospect Avenue-Irvine Boulevard-Holt Avenue-Newport; or
b. Fashion Lane-Irvine Boulevard-Holt Avenue-Newport.
Utilize Holt Avenue-Irvine Boulevard-Newport Avenue loop for the bus
turn-around with the bus stops/layover zones being located on either
of the three streets.
As of the time of the writing of this report, I have not been able to discuss
these proposals with OCTD. However, they will be requested to respond either
before or at the October 6th Council meeting.
In response to Mr. Nicholas' second proposal, the utilization of the Prospect-
Irvine-Holt-Newport turn-around loop would add a travel distance of 0.5 of a mile
to the system as compared to the Centennial Way loop. Fashion Lane-Irvine-Hdlt-
Newport turn-around loop would decrease the travel distance 0.1 miles as compared
to the Centennial Way loop. Both of these loops would require pedestrian crossings
at First Street to make transfers to the other bus routes which would remain on the
southerly side of First Street. A crosswalk could be painted on First Street at
Fashion Lane, or, if the pedestrian volumes became large enough, a traffic signal
would probably be required. A traffic signal on First Street at Fashion Lane would
most likely impede the vehicular flow due to the closeness of the two adjacent
signalized intersections at Centennial way and Newport Avenue. It is most probably
that pedestrians would ignore either the crosswalk or traffic signal (if installed)
and cross in mid-block. This could cause many vehicle/pedestrian conflicts.
.DAN BLANKENSHIP
September 25~ 1980
Page three
Staff could not recommend the Holt-Irvine-Newport loop because of the lack of
stopping zones on any of these streets due to the future anticipated traffic
volumes. In addition~ th~s plan would create a long walking distance for
transfers to and from the other buses adjacent to Larwin Square.
In addition to the concerns of Mr. Nicholas, staff has received telephone ca~ls
from three other residents of the apartment complex at 190 Centennial way in
regard to the excessive noise and diesel fumes from the buses along Centennial
Way.
Neither of the plans mentioned above have been discussed with the business that
possibly could be impacted by the relocation of the bus stop/layover zones adjacent
to their business establishments. However, by relocating a maximum of four routes
as indicated in either plan, staff feels that there would not be a substantial
impact.
Mr. Nicholas has stated that his desires are to share the burden of the buses with
other areas of the community by distributing these routes to E1Camino Real and
Prospect Avenue. The OCTD staff has also indicated that, if the present plan is
not acceptable by the City, they would attempt to work out a new solution.
RECO ~'.~-~, EN DAT ION:
Pleasure of the City Council.
BOB LEDr:N~')ECKER
'Director of Put)lic Works/
City Engineer
cc: Mary Wynn
Bob Nicholas
OCTD
PRESENTATION
TO
TH~ TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL
MEETING OF OCTOBER 6, 1980
THE OP~NGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT
ROBf. RT HSNRY NICHOLAS
September 25, 1980
Tustin City Council
Tustin, California 92580
Dear Council Members:
The following writeup, analysis and co~nents are pertaining to the Proposed
Centennial Way Turn-Around concept by the Orange County Transit District and it
does not cover other bus operation within our City. The wishes of the writer
and the various other citizens are evidenced by the petitions herewith attached.
The following sets forth the exactness of a writeup made by Mr. Ledendecker
dated September 25, 1980 (a copy of which is herewith attached) and the
exactness of a report as submitted by the Orange County Transit District to the
Tustin City Council on September 2, 19'80 (Parts of which are herewith attached).
Regarding Exhibit "A":
Regarding
Referenced
Paragraph:
"Reduction of nine (9) trips per hour between 6:~0 A.M. and 6:0~ P.M.".
According to my chart of Hourly Analysis of buses, the least number of trips
that. can be reduced per hour are four (~) trips and maximum number of trips
that can be reduced are seven (7) trips per hour, or an average of 5.g7
trips per hour. Please see Exhibit D.
"During the peak period, 6:00 A.M. to 9:00 A.M. and 3:~0 P.M. to 6:00 P.M.,
there would be three (3) trips per hour added for Routes ~71 and ~158."
Routes ~71 and ~158 are already operating on peak periods.
"This plan would remove six (6) routes from Centennial Way." That is
incorrect, IT w~uld remove five (5) routes inasmuch as Route ~6 is shown as
Removal Routings and as Remaining Routings. Please see Exhibit B. Needless
to say, it would leave four (~) routes (~g2, ~66, ~143 and ~144) for a total
of 91TURN-AROUNDbuses per day on Centennial Way.
Mr. Ledendecker states that the above information was obtained from the
Orange County Transit District.
"These routes would require a bus stop on Centennial Way.# If the proposed
routes of 91 Vacant-Daily-Turn-Around buses are truly Turn-Arounds, THEN a
stop is not required UNLESS it is ALSO planned for a LAYOVER ZONE and for
future anticipated traffic vol~e.
This [~aragraph is repetitious; however, unless the bus company or the City
f~gineer can actually support the six (~) routes or the eight (8) trips per
each hour with actual bus s. chedu]es as existed back four years ago, then
this data should not be presented. I am told however, by residents at my
camplex who were here long before 1976 that the above information is "untrue
and incorrect". Need]ess to say, we seem to be confused with data versus
the problem at hand. It matters not how many buses we had then but, rather,
how many buses are we having now. The petition as signed by all residents
in my residential complex states that they are complaining for the here and
now bus problems as well as for the future bus noises and not for any of the
PAST. Again, it matters not how much the bus company is currently giving to
resolve this current problem, rather as to how much the bus company has
taken for so many years and yet it has NOT as yet given enough to
balance-out it's taking. Again, it matters not how many buses there were or
how many buses shall remain, but rather the issue is the mental health,
physical health, and the right to peace enjoyed by humans which should be
more of a concern to our City Engineer rather than opposing traffic to
Prospect Avenue and f,1 Camino Real.
With respect to "Mr. Nicholas indicated that he would be willing to try this
plan on a trial basis...". "The next day Mr. Nicholas notified the City
that he thought the plan would be unacceptable and requested another
meeting...". Both statements are'correct; however, the writer felt that he
and Mr. Zin~nerman were the only parties agreeing to a "Trial Plan" while
everyone else figured it to be a permanent plan. ALSO, in talking to Mr.
Bjornson the following day about using First Street "North Side" as a
possible overall solution, Mr. Bjornson said, and I quote "That would solve
all of our problems, it would eliminate ALL Turn-Arounds and we would like
to have all buses all together." The matter was discussed immediately by
the writer with our City f~gineer; however, my call to Mr. Bjornson of the
following day resulted in, and I quote" 'First Street - North Side' would
not solve the problem and it would create four (4) additional Turn-Around
buses." ALSO, in talking to Mr. Bjornson the next morning, it was learned
then, and after the meeting, that the new plan would ~,OT provide for any
Traffic on Prospect Avenue and would provide for ONLY ONE Bus on E1 Camino
Real. The writer rescinded his hand-shake agreement because he felt that
any agreement which was reached was not substantiated due to circomstances
far beyond his control.
#Ga September 18th, City Staff met with Mr. Nicholas and discussed his new
proposals." Wy so-called new proposals were proposals which were made since
day one, over two years ago when I instituted my first complaint to the bus
c~mpany as well as to our City f~gineer.
De
"Prospect-Irvine-Holt-Newport turn-around loop would add a' travel distance
of 0.5 of a mile." This appears to be an inaccurate statement; however, it
will be measured by October 6, 1980.
rathe Fashion Lane-Irvine-Holt-Newport turn-around loop would decrease the
travel distance 0.1 miles." Fy speedometer reflects a reduction in travel
of over 1/2 of one mile.
Fe
"Both of these loops would require pedestrian crossing at First Street...".
That maybe correct, however there are passengers who are NOW crossing First
Street without a pedestrian crosswalk; therefore, at best that
implementation can only correct a potential problem.
"...due to the future anticipated traffic vol~e." Vol~es of what - Buses
or general business growth? Again, like Centennial, stopp-~ng zones are not
required as these buses are "pass-through".
"...Excessive noise and diesel fu~es from the buses along Centennial Way".
It would be more accurate to further state that the other concerns and/or
complaints received from other residents within our complex included
complaints such as: The noises from the buses do start as early as ~:3~
A.M.
"Neither of the plans mentioned above have been discussed with the business
that possibly could be impacted by the relocation of the bus stop/layover
zones adjacent to their business establishment." I get the distinct feeling
that we are some sort of a minority group here at the Centennial Residential
Complex, because one does not recall any City Staff or any Bus Company Staff
ever getting any permission or approvals to move TONS OF BUS~k~ on CE~IAL
WAY. Just for the record, some Residential places occupied by residents are
more of a contributing asset to our city.than s~me of the so-called Business
establishments.
Reg?rding Exhibit "B':
"Centennial Way Impact - Existing Routings - Removal Routings":
1. "Route 66...". This route is also shown under the heading of "Remaining
Routings - No Layover".
2. "Route 68...". This route is Proposed and not yet approved; if approved, it
does not go into effect until February, 1981.
"Removal Routings - Totals: 9 TRIPS/HR PLUS 3 TRIPS/HR PEAK PERIOD".
According to my hourly analysis of buses, ~xhibit D, the least number of
buses that can be removed at any one hour is one (1) bus per hour and the
mg~t number of buses that can be removed at any one hour are seven (7) buses
per hour, for An Average of 4.59 buses per hour. ~y study continues to
reflect that the proposed NSW plan w~uld leave a minimum of 91 Buses passing
Via Centennial Way daily from 4:50 A.M. to 8:00 P.M.
"Centennial Way Impact - Remaining Routings - ~o LayoverS:
"Route 66 - 1 TRIP/HR all day". It should also continue to state: Add 1
TRIP/~Rpeak period.
The above additions and/or deletions do affect the stated reduction in routes
from Centennial way.
"Net Change - Benefits to Complainant":
4. "1 No Layover Zone on Centennial ~y#. Therefore a bus stop is not needed.
Reduction in Regular Service along Centennial Way (1~ to 5 ROUTES/HR)".
According to my chart, Exhibit D, the Maximum Reduction in Regular
service are 13 to 7 buses per hour.
6. '3
Reduction in Peak Period service along Centennial way (19 to 7/}g)". we
never had 19 buses in any given hour on Centennial way according to my
chart, Exhibit D, and the Maximum Reduction according to my chart in
Peak Period Buses are 15 to 8 buses per hour.
The abovedata, figures and computations are based on: From the first hour of
the First Bus (5:00 A.M.) to the last hour of the Last Bus (1~:38 P.M.).
"Net Change - Disadvantages to General Public & OCTD":
7. "1 Lack of Passenger Understanding" - "2 Loss of Transferability" -
"3 Lack of Convenient Destination".
The buses transfer at points other than Centennial Way except for one bus which
continues to the depot at First and Newport, so what is the problem.
CURRENT R~.COMMENDATION TO THE CURREA~T CENTENNIAL ~Y PROPOSED PLJtN
2.
3.
4.
Remove the Red Zone from Centennial Way at ~ain Street.
Remove the Red Zone from Centennial Way at Second Street.
Remove the Bus Stop from Centennial Way at Second Street.
Red Zone and Bus Stop are not needed on Centennial Way at First Street
inasmuch as all of the proposed traffic by OCTD for Centennial way are
"Empty-Turn-Around-Buses". Therefore, there is no need to stop. Please see
Exhibit C, prepared and submitted to City Council on September 2, 1980 by
Mr. Bjornson of OCTD.
Bus ~2 via Centennial Way (2 lanes) from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. except
Saturday, Sundays and Holidays.
Bus ~144 via Prospect Avenue (2 lanes) from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. except
Saturday, Sundays and ~olidays.
Bus {66 and {143 via E1 Camino Real (4 lanes) daily, plus the BEFORE 9:00
A.M. traffic and the A~J%.N 5:00 P.~. traffic of bus ~62 and bus ~144.
Please see Exhibit g.
GENERAL COMMENTS:
It is my sincere desire to share, the bus traffic problem on Centennial Way with
Prospect Avenue and with E1 Camino Real.
Prospect Avenue, like Centennial Way, borders residences along the two (2) lane
street. Therefore, one bus each would be a fair and equitable share of the
problem. Please see ~.xhibit F.
E1 Camino Real, unlike Centennial Way and Prospect Avenue, borders only two
houses along the four (4) lane street. Therefore, two buses would be a fair and
equitable share of the problem. Please see Exhibit G, and Recap of F & G.
The Centennial Way Bus, along with the Prospect Avenue Bus, should use E1Camino
Real for the before and for the after business hours traffic and all day
Saturday, Sunday and Holidays BECAUSE E1 Camino Real: (1) Is more commercially
oriented, (2) Has an extra NO MORE LANES, (3) The street is mostly shut
down during the non-business hours, and (4) The two houses in question are set
back further by an additional 27 feet from the bus traffic, and are located at
ground level as opposed to our two-story building. (Two-story buildings are
more impacted with moving traffic.)
The proposed 91 buses as "Turn-Arounds" via Centennial Way start from the
sleeping hour of 4:50 A.M. or before, to the relaxing evening hour of 8:~0 P.M.
49% or 45 of the 91 proposed buses will use the Centennial Way Turn-Around
Before and After Business Hours. Please see Exhibit E.
The extra 1/2 of one mile to E1 Camino Real or the extra 1/4 of one mile to
Prospect Avenue, which only certain buses would have to travel in order to share
our bus problem at Centennial Way would, of course, add some nominal expenditure
to OUR OCTD per year. However, that expenditure will be recovered tenfold if,
and when, the drivers of CCTD learn to "shut off" their engines while their bus
is parked in the Layover Zones. The magnitude of Taxpayers expense could be
enormous'if other buses in other parts of Orange County are also doing the same
"idle engines while parked", or "idle engines long before or long after the bus
c(~mes to shut-off while in the Red Zone area".
The Buses on Centennial Way ~re crossing the dividing line while passing the
parked layover buses in the layover zone. (Centennial Way is a Two'Way street
and it is most dangerous to the on-c~ming traffic while the bus has crossed over
the dividing line by as much as over 50% of the width of the bus.) This was
brought to the attention of our Chief THAYER and our City Engineer just the day
before yesterday.
Ninety-one (91) Buses on any ONE street, in any one town, whether perking or
moving, continuously for any period of time and without regard to residential
sleeping hours, or residential leisure hours, cannot help but affect, in due
course, the physical health of people due to excessive continuous diesel f~es,
their mental health and mental stability as affected by excessive continuous
noise, the impairment of good hearing ability and/or other possible contributing
side effects.
I am enclosing herewith a petition bearing P5 signatures of Residents at 190
Centennial Way. Their concerns and desires are so expressed on the peliti0n.
The signers compose and/or represent 1~% of Residents at 19~ Centennial ','ay
excepting for those few who are currently enjoying life while vacationing (in a
quiet place ! hope). Please see Exhibit H.
The writer has personally discussed the current bus problem at Centennial with a
few businesses/offices along Centennial '~ay as well as residential ~partment
Complexes along Second Street (west of Centennial). Their feedback was negative
towards the quantitative Centennial buses - a petition was not taken; however
this can be done if need be or if the City Council so desires.
It is my understanding that Mr. Zi~erman, Manager of Operations at GCTD had
said to me over the telephone, and I quote "We will do whatever the City of
Tustin wants us to do." A similar expression was also once made to me by Mr.
Bjornson.
It should be mentioned that my ear condition has not improved. An examination
on September 16, 19~0 by a specialist resulted in medications along with future
studies and the needed further examinations.
It would be advisable for the Tustin City Council to require from the Orange
County Transit District a report consisting of the anticipated routes Via Tustin
as well as for the existing and proposed routes for the next eighteen (18)
months.
Respectfully suksitted,
.316bert tg. Nicholas /
-- /Post office Box 41;5
Tustin, California 92680
cc: Ralph B. Clark
Chainuan of the Board
Jim Reichert
General Manager
0Ul'13
Robert J. Zin~aeman
Manager of Operations OCTD
Donald J. Saltarelli
Mayor/Tustin City Council
DATE:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
September 25, 1980
_
Inter-Com
Dali 81ankenship, City Administrator
Bob Ledendecker, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT (BUS STOP/LAYOVER ZONES)
This is a continued item from the September 15, 1980 Agenda, as requested by
Mr. Bob Nicholas. At their September 2, 1980 meeting, Council directed staff to
meet with Mr. Nicholas and the OCTD staff to discuss and hopefully resolve the
complaints of Mr. Nicholas regarding the noise generated from OCTD buses while
they are traveling and idling on Centennial Way.
On the morning of September 8, 1980, a meeting was held with Mr. Nicholas and
the OCTD staff (Bob Zimmerman, Manager of Operations; Sharon Neely, Senior Planner;
and Steve Bjornson, Supervisor of Stops and Zones). This meeting provided a plan
agreeable to everyone that would provide the following:
'1.
Reduction of nine (9) trips per hour between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
During the peak periods, 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
there would be three (3) trips per hour added for Routes #71 and #158.
This plan would remove six (6) routes from Centennial Way.
2. There would be four (4) routes remaining on Centennial Way which would
provide five (5) trips per hour all day and two (2) additional trips per
hour during the peak periods of 6;00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to
6:00 p.m. This would leave 84 buses on Centennial Way between 4:50 a.m.
and 7:05 p.m.
3. Routes #65, #67 and #68 would utilize a 170 foot long red zone on the
southerly side of Bryan Avenue adjacent to the old "Tamale Wagon" restaurant
for a bus stop and layover zone. These routes would also use the Bryan-
Main-Newport triangle for a turn-around area.
4. Route #158 would utilize an 80 foot long red zone on the easterly side of
Newport Avenue in front of the old "Tamale Wagon" restaurant for a bus stop
and layover zone. In addition, Route #71 would use this zone as a transfer
point. Route #158 would also use the Bryan-Main-Newport triangle for a
turn-around area.
5. Routes #62, #66, #143 and #144 would still utilize Centennial Way as a
turn-around area. These routes would require a bus stop on Centennial Way. .
It is proposed to relocate this bus stop from Second Street and Centennial
Way northerly to a point 175 feet to 255 feet southerly of the centerline
of First Street. The most southerly end of this bus stop would be approxi-
· mately 200 feet from the apartment complex at 190 Centennial Way.
6. Routes #68, #71 and #158 would utilize a bus stop (100 foot red zone) for
pass through on the northerly side of First Street adjacent to the Santiago
Bank between Centennial Way and Fashion ~ane.
DAN BLANKENSH I P
September 25~ 1980
Page two
This plan reduces the number of OCTD routes on Centennial Way to an amount less
than what existed when Mr. Nicholas became a tenant in the apartments at 190
Centennial Way. In Septengoer, ]976, there were six (6) routes consistinq of
eight (8) trips per hour and Mr. Nicholas moved to 190 Centennial Way in July,
1977. The proposed plan provides for four (4) routes consisting of five (5)
trips per hour and two (2) additional trips per hour during the ~eak }~eriods
(6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.). At the morning meeting of
September 8th, Mr. Nicholas indicated that he would be willinq to try this plan
on a trial basis for ten days and he would then report back to the OCTD if the
plan resolved the noise problems. The next day Mr. Nicholas notified the ~ity
that he thouqht the plan would be unacceptable and requested another meetinq with
the City and the OCTD staff to discuss other solutions. City staff has been
unable to set up a new meeting with OCTD. The OCTD staff feels a plan was agreed
upon by all parties on September 8th and they are ready to initiate this plan.
On September 18th, City staff met with Mr. Nicholas and discussed his new proposals
to eliminate the bus traffic and noise problem on Centennial Way. Mr. Nicholas
submitted three (3) proposals which were ranked in the following priorities:
1. Remove all the bus routes from Centennial Way on week days prior to
9:00 a.m. and after 5:00 p.m. and all day on weekends and holidays:
Route #62 to utilize Centennial Way between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Routes #66 and #143 to utilize E1Camino Real between 9:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m.
Route #144 to utilize Prospect Avenue between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Eliminate all red zones for bus stops or layovers on Centennial Way.
2o
Relocate the bus stop/layover zones for Routes #62, #66, #143 and #144
to the northerly side of First Street with the turn-around areas for
these routes being either:
a. Prospect Avenue-Irvine Boulevard-Holt Avenue-Newport; or
b. Fashion Lane-Irvine Boulevard-Holt Avenue-Newport.
Utilize Holt Avenue-Irvine Boulevard-Newport Avenue loop for the bus
turn-around with the bus stops/layover zones being located on either
of the three streets.
As of the time of the writing of this report, I have not been able to discuss
these proposals with OCTD. However, they will be requested to respond either
before or at the October 6th Council meeting.
In response to Mr. Nicholas' second proposal, the utilization of the Prospect-
Irvine-Holt-Ne~zport turn-around loop would add a travel distance of 0.5 of a mile
to the system as compared to the Centennial Way loop. Fashion Lane-Irvine-Holt-
Newport turn-around loop would decrease the travel distance 0.1 miles as compared
to the Centennial Way loop. Both of these loops would require pedestrian crossinqs
at First Street to make transfers to the other bus routes which would remain on the
]) ~southerly side of First Street. A crosswalk could be painted on First Street at
Fashion Lane, or, if the pedestrian volumes became large enough, a traffic signal
would probably be required. A traffic signal on First Street at Fashion Lane would
most likely impede the vehicular flow due to the closeness of the two adjacent
signalized intersections at Centennial Way and Newport Avenue. It is most probably
that pedestrians would ignore either the crosswalk or traffic signal (if installed)
and cross in mid-block. This could cause many vehicle/pedestrian conflicts.
DAN BLANKENSItIP
September 25! 1980
Page three
Staff could not recommend the Holt-Irvine-Newport loop because of the lack of
stopping zones on any of these streets due to the.future anticipated traffic
~olum~s. In addition, this plan would create a long walkinq distance for
transfers to and from the other buses adjacent to Larwin Square.
In addition to the concerns of Mr. Nicholas, staff has received tele~hone calls
from three other residents of the apartment complex at 190 Centennial Way in
regard to the excessive noise and diesel fumes from the buses alonq Centennial
Way.
Neither of the plans mentioned above have been discussed with the business that
possibly could be impacted by the relocation of the bus sto~/la¥over zones adjacent
,to their business establishments. However, by relocating a maximum of four routes
as indicated in either plan, staff feels that there would not be a substantial
impact.
Mr. Nicholas has stated that his desires are to share the burden of the buses with
other areas of the community by distributing these routes to E1Camino Real and
Prospect Avenue. The OCTD staff has also indicated that, if the present plan is
not acceptable by the City, they would attempt to work out a new solution.
RECOMMENDATION:
Pleasure of the City Council.
BOB LEDENDECKER
Director of Public Works/
City Engineer
BL/kb
CC: Mary Wynn
Bob Nicholas
OCTD
O,t'
I00'
LARWIkl
EXl5T/~IE 1~5 5TOP,5
P~,O~OSE. D /~U£ STOPS
NFl
The undersigned concerned citizen rightfully objects to the Proposed Bus Traffic on
Centennial of daily Routes #62, #66, ~143 and #144 consisting of 84 daily Buses
(plus peak hour buses) on Centennial from 4:50 AM to 7:05 PM daily Monday through
Friday and similar hours on Saturday, Sunday, and the Holidays..
These buses are generally empty and their purpose on Centennial is specifically to
turn the bus around.
The undersigned concerned citizen recommends the following to the Tustin City Council:
Route bus ~62 daily to Centennial (2 lanes) from 9 AM to 5 PM, and; before 9 AM and
after 5 PM and all day Saturday, Sunday and Holidays to E1 Camino Real (4 lanes).
Route bus #66 daily to Prospect Avenue (2 lanes) from 9 AM to 5 PM, and; before 9 AM
and after 5 PM and all day Saturday, Sunday and Holidays to E1 Camino Real (4 lanes).
Route bus #143 and #144 daily to E1Camino Real (4 lanes).
-- ' Date Signature
Address
The undersigned concerned citizen rightfully objects to the Proposed Bus Traffic on
Centennial of daily Routes #62, #66, #]43 and #144 consisting of 84 daily Buses
{plus peak hour buses) on Centennial from 4:50 AM to 7:05 PM daily Monday through
7riday and similar hours on Saturday, Sunday, and the Holidays.
These buses are generally empty and their purpose on Centennial is specifically to
turn the ~us around.
The undersigned concerned citizen recommends the following to the Tustin City Council:
Route bus ~62 daily to Centennial (2 lanes) from 9 AM to 5 PM, and; before 9 AM and
after 5 PM and all day Saturday, Sunday and Holidays to E1Camino Real (4 lanes).
Route bus ~66 daily to Prospect Avenue (2 lanes) from 9 AM to 5 PM, and; before 9 AM
and after 5 PM and all day Saturday, Sunday and Holidays to E1 Camino Real (4 lanes).
Route bus ~143 and ~144 daily to E1Camino Real (4 lanes).
Da te Si gnature Address
ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT OISTRI~-T
October 20, 1980
The Honorable City Council
City of Tustin
We wish to inform the City Council that the Transit District is
strongly opposed to any relocation and/or the splitting of existing
layover zones at Larwin Square in Tustin. Many hours of planning
and development have gone into the existing as well as the proposed
plans for development of Larwin Square as a major focal point of
OCTD service. These routes serve approximately 700 daily passengers
who frequent Larwin Square and the merchants therein.
Listed below are the major disadvantages that would be experienced
by OCTD and the public in modifying the current terminal configura-
tion and accompanying bus flow patterns:
1. Additional operating costs;
2. Lack of passenger understanding;
3. Loss of transferability between routes;
4. Lack of convenient destination; and
5. Impacting additional properties.
The Transit District is very responsive to complaints. However, it
is the District staff's opinion that to benefit Mr. Nicholas would
create great hardships for the hundreds of other citizens of Tustin
who use and depend on public transit for their livelihood as well as
the merchants who are patronized by our passengers.
Background and History
In July, 1980, Orange County Transit District staff contacted
the City notifying them of the District's proposal to expand
bus service to Larwin Square in February, 1981, and that Larwin
Square was being considered for future service development.
o As a result of this initial contact, City staff requested OCTD
to evaluate the Impact of the additional routings in the Larwin
Square area prior to the City consenting to additional layover
zones. In response to this request, a plan was submitted to
the Larwin Square Management Company to relocate all layover
zones to the westerly side of Newport Avenue between First
11222 ACACIA PARKWAY, P.O. BOX 3005- GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA 92642 · PHONE (714) 971~200
The Honorable City Council
October 20, 1980
Page Two
Street and Main Street. This plan was rejected because it was
felt parking buses along Newport Avenue would block the view
and limit exposure to the Square. Management also felt
on-street customer parking was better utilized on Newport
Avenue than on First Street and Centennial Way. However,
Larwin Square Management agreed to the expansion of the
existing layover zone locations to accommodate more routings.
In August, 1980, OCTD notified City staff that the District's
proposed relocation to Newport Avenue had been rejected. At
this time, City staff informed the Transit District that a
Mr. Nicholas had expressed complaints to the City Council about
excessive noise caused by OCTD buses and delivery trucks using
Centennial Way and that possible legal action was pending.
Thereafter, a meeting was held with City staff to discuss
alternate bus stop/layover zones in the immediate vicinity that
would be practical from the District's viewpoint in the event
the City Council voted to limit the District's usage of
Centennial Way. At this meeting it was emphasized that the
District wished to remain at the present locations and that
relocating would only take place per Council directive.
Per City Council directive, on September 8, 1980, a meeting was
held with Mr. Nicholas and City staff to resolve the com-
plaints. The District presented a plan for reduced use of
Centennial Way. This plan was rejected by Mr. Nicholas. It
was again emphasized to City staff and Mr. Nicholas that
disadvantages existed with this plan in that numerous pas-
sengers would be affected; and that other residences and
property owners as well as the business community would be
impacted.
Recommendations
Maintain the present terminal configuration which affords a
circulation pattern that maximizes transit service to the
Larwin Square area. The present terminal allows for a
functionally economical system which serves the citizens and
merchants of Tustin who use and depend on public transit for
their livelihood.
Future service development or expansion of bus stop/layover
zones be restricted to arterial and secondary roadways and not
impacting the residential community.
The Honorable City Council
October 20, 1980
Page Three
The Transit District is very appreciative of the opportunity to work
with City staff in improving and developing transit servcies within
Tustin and looks forward to continuing this good working
relationship.
Sincerely,
Patrick H. Butters
Assistant General Manager
PB:SBAL