Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPacific Coast Highway Corridor Study - Supplemental Communic' 4�1 Pacific Coast Highway Corridor Study SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: , 0/ 6 Agenda Item No. 011f • Identify a broad range of multi -modal transportation strategies • Enhance regional mobility • Recognize the unique nature and specific needs of corridor cities PCH Purpose and Need Initial Screening Initial Alternatives 00 �Cb Recommended Alternatives Future Project Development TSM/TDM—Transportation System Management/Transportation Development Management Corridor -Wide Improvements Need: Alternative (Recommendations): • TSM/TDM Traffic congestion and heavy (Traffic management program) pedestrian volumes add to delay for corridor users. • Low Capital (Signal synchronization) • High Capital (Transit hubs and signal priority) 'IfI1111111 =I ... 1"511111111141 Subarea -Huntington Beach Alternative (Recommendations): Need: • TSM/TDM Bicycles in close proximity to (Two -stage left turn boxes) higher -speed moving vehicles (Beach Boulevard to Santa Ana 0Low Capital River). (Convert existing shoulders to Class II bike lanes) High Capital (Add sidewalks on both sides of PCH where missing) 5;;; • City council briefings Soae BeacA "Admfmetom $eacA • Finalize PCH Corridor Study • Lead agencies start project development Newport $eaeA V Dama PoW LagwNa $eacA Sam cee"feNte Pl&vC,vH Coa51a1 Across -�` • Y L`• Y P.aik" I a.� 14 t X1 Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) is one of Orange County's most iconic highways. Directly adjacent to the Pacific Ocean, it traverses beautiful downtowns. open space, as well as, urban centers. PCH is also the corridor that links Orange County's six coastal cities —Seal Beach, Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, Laguna Beach, Dana Point, and San Clemente. Corridor residents and visitors frequently use multiple modes (vehicles, transit, walking, and bicycling) to travel to and from their activities in and around the corridor. Non -motorized modes such as walking and bicycling serve greater numbers of travelers in this corridor than in most other areas of Orange County. However, all of these diverse travel interactions occurring in an extremely tight right-of-way (ROW), put daily strain on this aging 37-mile long corridor. As a result, the six Orange County coastal cities, requested that the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) conduct a PCH Corridor Study extending from the Los Angeles County line (in Seal Beach) to Avenida Pico 0 SEAL BEACH ;IML SUBAREAI 0 1. 5k HUNTINGTON BEACH SUBAREA y ® NEWPORT COAST NEWPORT BEACH -- ;- SUBAREAS NEWPORT COAST SUBAREA LAGUNA BEACH SUBAREA 5 "y , N m DANA POINT vv SUBAREA 6� vv� SAN CLEMENTE SUBAREA 7 P7 H Corridor -wide Needs The PCH Corridor Study identified corridor -wide and subarea issues, opportunities, and constraints based on existing and future conditions analysis and input from agency representatives. This formulated the specific Needs and Objectives for the corridor, as well as, for each subarea to be used as the basis for identifying and recommending potential improvements. 1 Safety conflicts between ■ vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians 4 High volumes of visitors and ■ recreational users leading to unique travel patterns and peaking characteristics 2 High travel time and delay ■ due to traffic congestion and heavy volumes of pedestrians crossing the highway 5 Inconsistent aesthetic ■ treatment of improvements compared to the scenic character of the corridor 3 Constrained ROW resulting ■ in limited improvement opportunities 6 Frequent interruption and ■ closures due to events and incidents resulting in limited parallel options 3 CORRIDOR -WIDE Corridor -wide Purpose (Objectives) • Improve safety by reducing potential for conflicts between modes; • Improve mobility by reducing traffic congestion and traveler delay, improving the continuity of traffic flow, and making it more convenient for people to travel without needing an automobile; • Creating a more pleasant corridor experience by encouraging aesthetic enhancements as part of corridor improvement projects; • Better accommodating the unique travel characteristics associated with the corridor's coastal location; • Develop cost-effective and feasible improvement options. GM CORRIDOR STUDY ?Feep the Coast f v&q Transportation System Management/ Transportation Demand Management Alternative • Develop a consistent signage program to demarcate Class III bike routes and to guide recreational bikes to parallel bike facilities. Locations of bike facilities would be included in educational Traffic Management Programs. • Develop a PCH Educational Bicycle and Pedestrian program • Adopt Context Sensitive Design improvements in the corridor. Appropriate techniques or components to provide comfortable and safe accommodations of vehicles. pedestrians. tram • Recommend improvements that avoid significant ROW acquisition. • Traffic Management Program - Beach Travel APP to provide updates on events. alternate routes, parking/ transit options, and schedules. Tailored to have information for all modes (vehicles, bicycle pedestrian, transit). • Pursue joint agency projects and submit multi -agency grant applications. Low Capital Alternative • Bus turnouts for layover areas at heavy boarding/alighting stops to remove buses from travel lanes at locations with longer dwell times. • Modernize traffic signal systems - Synchronization and optimization - Upgrade equipment and provide fiber interconnect - Install CCTV Connect to Caltrans and City Traffic Management Centers - Develop corridor emergency response and re-route strategies • Develop Context Sensitive Solutions to buidling out the MPAH. • Build on Basic Transportation Management Program, including sharing communication systems, incorporate parking management, and signs. • Incorporate aesthetic enhancements in future corridor projects and programs. CW High Capital Alternative • Work with Coastal Commission on parking replacement to accommodate a corridor - wide Class II bike program or sidewalks. • Develop transit hubs and signal priority potential. • Using a Shared Fiber Optic system, incorporate Connected Vehicles and other technical features to help overall safety of the corridor. SEAL BEACH SUBAREAI Subarea Needs Needs were determined based on the existing and future conditions analysis of the Seal Beach subarea. • Recurring peak hour traffic congestion delays — limited mobility • Conflicts between bicyclists/pedestrians and high- speed moving vehicles in areas with no designated bicycle facilities/sidewalks • Conflicts between bicyclists and parked cars/bus stops and moving vehicles • Conflicts for bicyclists between fast-moving cars and right -turn movements q;', (D CORRIDOR STUDY Subarea Objectives Objectives for the subarea were then defined to be used as the basis for identifying and recommending potential future improvements. • Reduce recurring congestion and delays • Reduce potential for conflict between bicycles and moving vehicles • Reduce potential for conflict between bicycles and parked vehicles • Improve continuity of traffic flow 6 Subarea Alternatives High Capital Alternative Low Capital Alternative Transportation System Management/ Transportation Demand Management Alternative $$$ Cost of Improvement greater than $5,000,000 $$ Cost of Improvement $250,000 - $5,000,000 $ Cost of Improvement up to $250,000 MAIN ST TO SEAL BEACH BLVD v I � e i Z Oi> z Z D Z � f m O m m O r m C z O z < O a z PCH / MAIN ST 5 Map Illustration not to scale 555 $5$ PCH / SEAL BEACH BLVD i access points wnere teasive. especially In A Minont Circle. as part of redevelopment. $ SEAL BEACH BLVD TO ANDERSON ST ➢ D 2 !' O W O D z C, SEAL BEACH BLVD TO ANDERSON ST 55 5 Intersection improvements at PCH/Seal Beach Boulevard (Add SB dual left turn from PCH (away from the coast). 11 55 i5 HUNTINGTON BEACH SUBAREA 2 Subarea Needs Needs were determined based on the existing and future conditions analysis of the Huntington Beach subarea. Vehicle conflict points for moving traffic due to non- standard design of local streets and parking Recurring peak hour traffic congestion delays - limited mobility Conflicts between bicyclists and high-speed moving vehicles in areas with no designated bicycle facilities Traffic back-up due to full city parking lots - conflict hazard for moving traffic Conflicts between bicyclists and parked cars and moving vehicles Pedestrian crossings of PCH at 6th St. reduce traffic capacity and limit mobility Heavy pedestrian crossing volumes reduce capacity and limit mobility Midblock pedestrian crossing volumes pose conflict with traffic Subarea Objectives Objectives for the subarea were then defined to be used as the basis for identifying and recommending potential future improvements. • Reduce potential for conflict between bicycles and moving vehicles • Reduce potential for conflict between bicycles and parked vehicles • Reduce potential for conflict between vehicles and pedestrians crossing PCH • Reduce recurring congestion and delays • Improve continuity of traffic flow • Reduce likelihood of traffic backups onto PCH from city parking lots • Signal timing is not optimized for continuous traffic flow CORRIDOR pOO RJR I D O R STUDY ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// 8 the Weep Coaat M"utq Intersection capacity improvement at PCH/Warner Avenue with design to avoid impact on adjacent sensitive area. Install through bike lanes on PCH at Warner by narrowing median. Provide treatments to reduce bike/vehicular conflicts at intersection (e.g. two stage left turn boxes, turn box protected by physical buffer or parking lane etc.) for bicyclists on PCH at Warner Avenue. Provide enhanced signage highlighting for bicyclists the availability of low stress route along Pacific Avenue born Anderson Street to Warner Avenue. Stripe Class III sharrows on Anderson Street between PCH and Pacific Avenue. Redesign minor road accesses, road geometries. rernove on -street parking to improve visibility and sight angles as redevelopment occurs. Develop parallel Class III hike route along Walnut Remove/relocate parking a Avenue or Olive Avenue between Guldenwest move Class II bike lanes. Street and 1st Street. install Install sharrows on PCH in traffic lane next to on -street parking where no on -street bike lane is provided. Landscape existing median or construct a raised center modian to visually narrow and provide aesthetic enhancements. Stripe through bike lanes at right -turn pockets and install green conflict striping in merge areas prior to and at beach access driveways (if bike lanes are developed on this segment of PCH). Add median barrier or fence (Huntington Street to Beach Boulevard). Restripe Pacific View Avenue to prnvlde one travel lane and one Class II bike lane each way between 1st Street and Beach Boulevard. Develop Class III hike route on Pacific View Ave and Class II on Atlanta Ave. Paint shared lane markings (sharrows) in lane adjacent to parking and incorporate speed reduction mechanism. Stripe Class II bicycle lanes on PCH horn 1 st Street to Beach Boulevard between parking and adjacent travel lane, where Class ll bike lanes are missing and where roadway and lane width permit. Install Class II bike lanes (on both sides of TO BEACH r PCH) and add a 2-foot buffer on PCH through Bolsa Chica — adjust vehicular lane widths/ Intersection improvement at median as needed. PCH/Brookhurst Street in order r r to carry bike lanes through the intersection. Provide treatments to reduce bike vehicular conflicts Modify access Eliminate one at intersection (e.g..two stage left turn boxes. turn box to driveways and pedestrian crosswalk p protected by physical buffer or parking lane etc.) for circulation within at PCH/6th Street and bicyclists at PCH/Beach Boulevard. parking lots to prohibit pedestrian , r , provide multiple crossing across that entry (access leg of intersecbon Provide treatments to reduce bike/vehicular conflicts at redesign). in order to eliminate Intersections (e.g., two stage lefl turn boxes, turn box IN auto/pedestrian protected by physical buffer or parking lane etc.) for Install intelligent conflicts on one leg of bicyclists at Beach Boulevard. Newland Street. Magnolia parking the intersection and Street. and Brookhurst Street, management system increase available to direct visitors green time for turning Convert existing shoulder to Class II bike limes won a away from full lots vehicles (improvement 2 foot buffer (between Beach Boulevard and the Santa to available parking. will include traffic signal Ana River). This improvement may also include reduction modification signing/ of lane -width to accommodate Class II bike lanes within striping removal of existing pavement. crosswalk etc.). Widen exit driveway from beach side parking Add sidewalks on both sides of PCH (Beach to Newland), lot to allow for separate turn movements (may entail relocation of parking). NEWPORT BEACH SUBAREA 3 Subarea Needs Needs were determined based on the existing and future conditions analysis of the Newport Beach subarea. • Conflicts for bicyclists traveling in shared traffic lane adjacent to parked cars • Signal timing is not optimized from Santa Ana River to Jamboree Rd. • Conflicts between bicyclists using northbound PCH and parked cars and moving vehicles Subarea Objectives • Heavy volumes of pedestrians, bicycles, and traffic aggravate conflict potential in west Newport • Recurring peak hour traffic congestion delays — limited mobility • Heavy traffic volumes and high pedestrian crossing activity delays through Mariners Mile area • Conflicts between bicyclists and parked cars and moving vehicles • Heavy volumes of pedestrian crossings in Mariners Mile conflicts with traffic • Limited mobility through Corona del Mar area due to significant traffic volumes, constrained capacity, substantial pedestrian activity, substantial bicycle activity, and on -street parking friction • Heavy pedestrian crossing volumes pose conflict with traffic I CORRIDOR STUDY Keep the Coast Allowing Objectives for the subarea were then defined to be used as the basis for identifying and recommending potential future improvements. • Reduce potential for conflict between bicycles and moving vehicles • Reduce potential for conflict between bicycles and parked vehicles • Reduce potential for conflict between vehicles and pedestrians crossing PCH • Reduce recurring congestion and delays • Improve continuity of traffic flow • Improve aesthetics • Reduce or eliminate conflicts between bicycles and right -turning vehicles 10 Extend east bank Class I bikeway on Santa Ana River Trail under Coast Highway and link to Seashore Drive. Provide new Class I trail near Sunset Ridge Park linking to future Banning Ranch development [or parallel routing between Superior and Santa Ana River Trail. Remove/relocate on street parking and install Class II bike lanes. Relocation/reduction of on -street parkiny on PCH between Santa Ana River and Superior Avenue to benefit operations and reduce disruption of traffic flow. Reduce conflict points through access management strategies including consolidating access points and radius driveways, as redevelopment occurs. Stripe class II bike lane along northbound PCH between Highland Street and 61st Street, wherever road and lane width permit. in M M M Provide bicycle/pedestrian trail linking to Santa Ana River Trail east bank to provide access to conmunity of homes and businesses north of Coast Highway. Develop mobility hub with Park and Ride parking spaces. transit center, hike and pedestrian amenities near PCH/Superior (at the northeast corner of Coast Highway at Superior) integrated with ITS and parking management signs. Grade separated pedestrian and bicycle crossing bridge and remove at -grade pedestrian crosswalks and re -time signal accordingly. Develop pedestrian overcrossing in core area of Mariners Mile (near Riverside Ave or Tustin Ave). nstall median refuge island to shorten crossing distance and pedestrian signal timing. Enhance signing/striping/lighting to hotter alert motorists to pedestrian crossing at intersections (SR-55 to Dover). PCH between Santa Ana River and Newport Boulevard.signal at Tustin Eliminate/relocate traffic maintain existing southbound Class II bike lanes an restripe sections with shoulder to provide Class II bike lanes with a 2 fool buffer. where ROW permits. Add second southbound left turn lane on PCH at Riverside. Widen/restripe to provide three travel lanes in each direction with a center two way left turn median and Class II bike lanes with removal of on -street parking between Newport Boelevard and Dover Drive. Construct new Class I bike trail at end of Avon Street linking to Old Newport Boulevard and directing bicyclists to the loop leading to southbound Newport Boulevard to access Balboa Peninsula. Improve hicycle/peclestrian access to beach from Riverside Avenue using sidewalk on ocean side of Coast Highway to access Balboa Peninsula (SR-55 to Dover). Stripe Class II bike lanes across the Back Bay Bridge between Dover and Bayside. Widen or add to bridge over Back Bay to provide Class I bikeway uetween Bayside Dnve and Dover Drive. Widen intersection of PCH/ Superior Avenue to reduce peak period congestion and delay. possibly by adding a second turn lane on the westbound (Coast Highway) approach. Wiclen/restripe and acid Class II bike lanes by removing on -street parking. Implement access management strategies including consolidating access points and radius driveways. Improve NB PCH through interchange with SR-55 by including additional through lane. turning pocket, and Glass II bike lane. Park and ride lot between SR-55 and Old Newport Boulevard (vacant paved lot on the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Old Newport Boulevard and PCH). Extend shaurov.s on PCH south of Poppy Ave. Install curb extension (only on parking lanes) to shorten pedestrian crossing times (MacArthur Boulevard to Seaward Road). Implement strategies to encourage drivers to use Newport Coast Drive, to remove traffic from PCH in Corona del Mar. Provide intersection treatments to reduce bike/vehicular conflicts at intersections. Implement two bike boulevards in Corona Del Mar Northern and Southern area. Remove/relocate street parking and stripe Class II bike lanes. Implement two bike boulevards in C rona Del Mar; northerly (fifth to Orchid), and southerly (Avocado to Second to Goldenrod to Seaview to Poppy or Bayside to Marguerite to Poppy). NEWPORT COAST SUBAREA 4 Subarea Needs Needs were determined based on the existing and future conditions analysis of the Newport Coast subarea. • Conflict between bicycles and traffic using right turn lanes on Newport Coast Drive CORRIDOR STUDY ?feep the Coast Afoving Subarea Objectives Objectives for the subarea were then defined to be used as the basis for identifying and recommending potential future improvements. • Reduce potential for conflict between bicycles and moving vehicles 12 Subarea Alternatives - High Capital Alternative Low Capital Alternative Transportation System Management/ Transportation Demand Management Alternativ $$$ Cost of Improvement greater than $5,000,000 $ $ Cost of Improvement $250,000 - $5,000,000 $ Cost of Improvement up to $250,000 PCH/CRYSTAL HEIGHT OR AREA PCH/NEWPORT COAST OR PELICAN POINT DRIVE TO NORTH LAGUNA BEACH CITY LIMIT Map illustration not to scale r� 13 LAGUNA BEACH SUBAREA 5 Subarea Needs Needs were determined based on the existing and future conditions analysis of the Laguna Beach subarea. • Limited mobility due to significant traffic volumes, constrained capacity, pedestrian activity, and on - street parking friction • Heavy pedestrian crossing volumes pose conflict with traffic • Bicyclists traveling in close proximity to moving and parked cars due to constrained width of PCH and presence of on -street parking • Narrow or missing sidewalks On CORRIDOR STUDY 9feV the Co" Awing Subarea Objectives Objectives for the subarea were then defined to be used as the basis for identifying and recommending potential future improvements. • Reduce recurring congestion and delays • Reduce potential for conflict between bicycles and moving vehicles • Reduce potential for conflict between bicycles and parked vehicles • Reduce potential for conflict between vehicles and pedestrians crossing PCH • Reduce potential for conflict between vehicles and pedestrians walking along PCH 14 m Subarea Alternatives High Capital Alternative Low Capital Alternative Insiill paintecl sl�ared lane markings (shairovs) along with corresponning - Transportation System Management/ Transportation Demand Management Alternative Bicycles May Use Full i signs. $$$ Cost of Improvement greater than $5,000,000 $$ Cost of Improvement $250,000 - $5,000,000 Stripe thiough hilke lanes at light turn pockets and install green conflict$ $ Cost of Improvement up to $250,000 st[iping in merge areas pi ior to and at access (Iriveways 9z, LEDROIT ST TO BOAT CANYON OR I I I� I� r 0 p O O a Z 0 0 D N z D Z O m a Z o 9 BROADWAY ST TO MOUNTAIN RD Map Illustration not to scale NORTH LAGUNA BEACH CITY LIMIT TO DANA POINT CITY LIMIT Ej SS R MOUNTAIN RD TO DANA POINT CITY LIMIT �3 Z N N � y � SOUTH LAGUNA BEACH $ S $$ 15 ' DANA POINT SUBAREA 6 Subarea Needs Needs were determined based on the existing and future conditions analysis of the Dana Point subarea. • Recurring delays and limited mobility due to anticipated increases in pedestrian activity and concentration of higher traffic volumes • Conflicts for bicyclists traveling adjacent to moving vehicles • Conflicts for bicyclists traveling in a shared lane with moving and parked vehicles • Recurring peak hour traffic congestion delays • Lack of pedestrian facilities • No northbound bicycle route on Coast Highway from Doheny Park Rd. to Del Obispo St. • Height of Coast Highway/Park Lantern bridge inadequate to withstand flood waters • Limited travel modes to connect to destinations within the community core areas • Inconsistent aesthetic treatments • Conflicts between bicyclists and moving vehicles I CORRIDOR STUDY Weep the Coaat Movmq Subarea Objectives Objectives for the subarea were then defined to be used as the basis for identifying and recommending potential future improvements. • Reduce recurring congestion and delays • Reduce potential for conflict between bicycles and moving/parked vehicles • Reduce potential for conflict between vehicles and pedestrians walking along/crossing PCH • Maintain operation during interruptions and closures • Increase opportunities for other modes of transport • Improve nighttime lighting • Accommodate and encourage transportation enhancements Subarea Alternatives 111�111 High Capital Alternative Low Capital Alternative Install cycle tracktoencouragebicycling$$$ ® Transportation System Management/ Transportation Demand Management Alternative $$$ Cost of Improvement greater than $5,000,000 ConstrUCt Classbike and pedestrian trailbetween Doheny Park Road andDel $$ Cost of Improvement $250,000 - $5,000,000 ObispothroughDoherly State Park, using Park Lantern.$$ $ Cost of Improvement up to $250,000 LAGUNA BEACH BORDER TO BLUE LANTERN ST AND COPPER LANTERN ST TO DEL OBISPO ST CROWN VALLEY PKWY TO BLUE LANTERN ST Map illustration not to scale ruvlue vlkelvenlcle convict mne trealment leading to Is iotersections tCoast Highway at Park Lanteml. DOHENY PARK AREA ss Addition of bus turnouts from Blue Lantern to Copper Lantern. as redevelopment occurs. Widon sidewalks for pedestrians. Copper Lantern to Del Obispo PCH (Niguel Rd. to Dana Point northern city —Landscape beautification anti limit. 61ue Lantern to Copper Lantern) landscapeAestheticssafety enhancement (as part ofAesthetics pat beautification and safety improvements tas part of art ofmajor capital improvement. as major capital improvements). project costredevelopment BLUE LANTERN ST TO COPPER LANTERN ST occurs). COPPER DEL OBISPO ST � I z c PCH / GOLDEN LANTERN ST Z Z O D / Z 2 z ' $ $ CRYSTAL LANTERN TO DEL OBISPO ST PCH / COPPER LANTERN ST / DEL PRADO AVE W-1 D T F PCH / DEL OBISPO ST SS 17 SAN CLEMENTE (INCLUDES SOUTH DANA POINT) SUBAREA 7 Subarea Needs Needs were determined based on the existing and future conditions analysis of the San Clemente subarea. • Conflicts between bicyclists and parked cars and moving vehicles. • Missing pedestrian facilities • Conflicts between bicyclists and pedestrians due to constrained width of the separated path • Conflicts between northbound bicyclists and vehicles when crossing form the bike lane south of Camino Capistrano • Conflicts between pedestrians and bicyclists at several intersections am CORRIDOR STUDY ?f V the coast Nl W&tq Subarea Objectives Objectives for the subarea were then defined to be used as the basis for identifying and recommending potential future improvements. • Reduce potential for conflict between bicycles and moving vehicles • Reduce potential for conflict between bicycles and parked vehicles • Reduce potential for conflict between bicycles and pedestrians using the separated path • Reduce the potential for conflicts between bicycles, pedestrians, and vehicles at intersections 18 Subarea Alternatives High Capital Alternative Low Capital Alternative Transportation System Management/ Transportation Demand Management Alternati $$$ Cost of Improvement greaterthan $5,000,000 $ $ Cost of Improvement $250,000 - $5,000.000 $ Cost of Improvement up to $250,000 as Complete sidewalk on inland side of street J Remove/relocate on -street parking and install Class II bike lanes DOHENY PARK TO PALESADES DR I L � � = r D v D D x � v N M D Z O 1 I Rebuild pedestrian bridge across railroad tracks Map Illustration not to scale PCH / CAMINO CAPISTRANO PALESADES OR TO CAMINO CAPISTRANO CAMINO CAPISTRANO TO AVENIDA ESTACION 19 IMPLEMENTATION & NEXT STEPS Roles and Responsibilities Key Issues Affecting The three recommended alternatives include Implementation plausible improvement strategies to help address corridor needs, whether corridor- ' Context Sensitive Design: The PCH corridor wide, or in particular subareas: Transportation ROW is highly constrained along many parts System ManagementiTransportatfon Demand of the corridor and acquisition of additional Management Alternative, Low Capital ROW for major improvements affect adjacent Alternative, High Capital Alternative. The array businesses, homes, or coastal recreation of recommended improvements intend to provide areas. Many of the study's recommended choices for implementing agencies for actions improvements could be implemented with they can take to address specific needs, as little or no ROW acquisition, with exceptions they see fit, and as funding becomes available. to Caltrans' full -standard design criteria. Responsibility for making physical improvements, Local agencies can work with Caltrans during operating and maintaining PCH belongs to the project development processes to review jurisdiction in possession of the ROW. and approve design exception proposals. Community goals and user needs as stated • Corridor -wide programs, as well as, cross in Caltrans' policy document "Main Street, jurisdictional improvements would require California" should also be considered during multi -agency cooperation efforts. this process. • State owned segments would require a local • agency to enter into a Co-op Agreement with Caltrans, and require the local agency to adhere to Caltrans' specified design standards and project development processes. • For city -owned segments of PCH, the local agency would be responsible for the entire project development process and providing ongoing operations and maintenance once the improvements are in place and complete. aw CORRIDOR STUDY Weep the Co" fNoving Coastal Access and On -Street Parking: The California Coastal Commission (CCC) has determined the removal of on - street public parking in the coastal zone constitutes a reduction of public access to the coast. Because the study recommends developing bike lanes in place of existing on - street parking, the CCC would require the replacement of public parking nearby. Since adjacent areas are either fully developed or public beaches, collaboration between the coastal cities, Caltrans, OCTA, and the CCC is needed to develop innovative approaches for on -street parking relocation that result in improved overall coastal access for users of all modes. 20 Funding The following matrix presents potential sources of funding for the various project improvements identified through the corridor study. Given the noted eligibility conditions, project sponsors are encouraged to take an integrated, holistic approach to defining the projects, to incorporate multiple improvements and qualify for the broadest possible range of funding programs. N N ~ cc a)r _T _ LL y N 0 lL C, fC N a� N E m cc v a — ¢ � ai _ o 'H w m m r a a 0-w i- Recreational Trails Program (RTP) N, R • • • m TIGER Discretionary Grant N. R m U. Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) N, R • • Active Transportation Program N Cap and liAffordable Housing & Sustainable Communities Program N • • • • m Cap and Trade: Low Carbon Transit Operations Program N Regional ImOrovement Program (STIP) IN • • • State Highway Operations Protection Program (SHOPP) R Bicycle Improvement Program Call for Projects (Source CMAQ) N • • Measure M2 - Local Fair Share Program N, R Measure M2 - Regional Capacity Program (Project 0) N • • • • • W Measure M2 - Community Based Transit/Circulators (Project V) N • 0 J ,d Measure M2 - Signal Synchronization (Project P) N, R • • • • • • • • m o Parking Revenue District N • • 0) ¢ Development Impact Fees N, R • • • • • Local Gas Tax Subvention N • • Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District City General or Other Discretionary Funds N, R Please note that this list is not exhaustive and each funding source has its own unique set of requirements and/ N = new facilities or approvals in order for projects to qualify and potentially compete for funding. Furthermore, final FAST Act R = reconstruction of existing facilities distributions have yet to be determined. 21 QIMPLEMENTATION &NEXT STEPS am CORRIDOR STUDY 'Keep the co" ftving 22 23 CORRIDOR STUDY Me l.UU4! IMOVUW March 9, 2016 Art direction and illustration by IBI Group Photos of PCH and technical work by HDR, Engineering Inc.