HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANS/STUDIES/REPORTS RE: TRANSPORTATION - 1989 - 1990 - F /Ol� ) elf 1&-,7-0
5E (-,LE '7-
-OU- TTY DIVISION OF OR AIN N
CALIFORNIN title WEST SANTA AN AM)ITI-'VXR D. 0.SANTA \NA.CALIF0 Wm\9-2701
Cl UES
TF.I.F.PIU)NE:(7 1.11 972-0077. I-'\\:f7l it 972-lHlt, 9-Y-0 .
ANAHEIM Date: September 28, 1990
BREA
BUENA PARK
COSTA MESA TO: Mayors&Council Members
CYPRESS
DANA POINT FROM: Pat McGuigan,President Po�
FOUNTAIN VALLEY op��
FULLERTON Dana Reed, Chairman, OCTC
GARDEN GROVE
HUNTINGTON BEACH SUBJECT: Revised Measure "M" Information Brochure
IRVINE
LAGUNA BEACH
LAGUNA NIGUEL
LA HABRA The enclosed brochure is being provided to you as information about the
LA PALMA Revised Measure "M"expenditure plan that will be on the ballot in
LOS ALAMITOS November. The brochure outlines the Revised Measure "M" components
MISSION VIEJO and includes the expenditure plan for transportation projects in Orange
NEWPORT REACH County.
ORANGE
PLACENTIA The project lists were compiled through information generated by the
SAN CLEMENTE League's Super Committee on Transportation. These are the projects that
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO would be funded if the Revised Measure "M"receives voter approval. The
SANTA ANA Orange County Transportation Commission prepared this brochure.
SEAL BEACH
STANTON Please take time to read through this information. We believe the
TUSTIN information will be helpful in responding to any questions you receive from
VILLA,PARK your constituents. The project lists also underscore the impact the Revised
WESTMINSTER Measure "M" could have upon our cities and the transportation future of
YORBA LINDA Orange County.
If you have any questions,please feel free to call upon either of us.
Attachment
PRESIDENT:Patricia McGuigan.Council Member,Santa Ana;FIRST VICE PRESIDENT;Ronald Rates.Council Member,Los Alamitos
SECOND VICE PRESIDENT:Salk Anne Sheridan,Council Member,Irvine:PAST PRESIDENT:Phillip R.Schwartze.Council Member.San Juan Capistrano;
STATE LEAGUE DIRECTOR:Evelyn Hari.Council Member.Newport Beach;RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN:Scott Diehl.Mayor Pro Tem,San Clemente
EXECUTIVE-DIRECTOR:William E.H Ig,
RE WISE D.- TRAFFIC -
IMPR0VEM -EW.. T -
N .D, G -R /0 W T" H -
-
.M-A.NAGEME-NT PLAN
ORANGE-COUNTY' -
J -TRANSPORTATIO_ N COMMISSION "
1055 North Main,'Suite 516 • Santa Ana, Califomia 92701 • (714) 541-7850_-
Printed On Recycled.Paper -
\ ` _
Growth Management Plan A Problem and a Solution
Description: The countywide Revised Traffic Improvement and Orange County has a problem. A Efforts to encourage ridesharing, residents,more than 60 percent
The Revised Traffic Improvement and Growth Man- Growth Management Plan emphasizes good planning, bad one. You're stuck in it every vanpooling and flexible work hours agreed that a one-half cent local
agement Plan requires each city and the county to adopt improved cooperation between neighboring cities,and day,it is called traffic. And without are being developed and put in sales tax for transportation purposes
a Growth Management Element of its general plan to be requires that development pays its fair share toward the right solution we might be stuck place. Engineering techniques, would be a fair and logical way to
eligible to receive new transportation revenue,if new dealing with traffic generated by that new development. in it for good. Right now Orange including lane restriping,which is solve Orange County's traffic
revenue is approved by Orange County voters. County is paying for more than two designed to get more use out of the problems.
With this approach,new transportation revenue,in the decades of inadequate investments in existing transportation network,are
Under this plan each local agency is required to: form of a one-half cent sales tax measure,would be our highways,streets and roads. being implemented. This report explains the reasons
focused on curing existing transportation and traffic This is no longer acceptable. behind the one-half cent sales tax
• outline each agency's plans and efforts to deficiencies while a new traffic mitigation fee will help However,these efforts are not increase,the benefits and improve-
develop multijurisdictional traffic solutions pay a fair share of the cost of infrastructure required by Yes,it's true that the County of enough.Orange County's lack of ments one-half cent will buy and the
through a well-defined,cooperative planning new residential,commercial and industrial growth. Orange,local city governments and investment in transportation facili- planning and growth management
process; transportation agencies have actively ties requires that we look for new techniques necessary to keep
and successfully won more than a transportation dollars.And, like 15 Orange County moving in the
• specify traffic level of services; fair share of state and federal high- other California counties,the future.
way dollars and have turned increas- Orange County Local Transporta-
• promote alternative forms of transportation and ingly to the private sector for addi- tion Authority is proposing a one- A one-half cent increase in the sales
overall system efficiency by maximizing use of tional support. But now we have to half cent local sales tax to finance tax would be a small price to pay to
the existing transportation network through go public. And here's why. needed improvements. solve the big problem of traffic
Transportation Systems Management(TSM) congestion in Orange County.
and Transportation Demand Management Almost 90 percent of all Califor- Now. And in the future.
(TDM); nians live in counties that pay for
transportation improvements with a
• require a traffic mitigation fee to guarantee that local one-half cent sales tax.And in
new development pays its fair share toward a recent survey of Orange County
dealing with traffic generated by the new
development;
• foster a better balance of jobs and housing and
reduce commuter trips through careful plan-
ning-,
encourage local jurisdictions,where applicable,
• to establish performance standards for fire, .
police,library,parks,open space,flood control.
and other infrastructure based on local criteria; l
• require phasing of new development to ensure -
that service level goals are achieved:
• pursue additional revenue to upgrade recre- G; = k; � i
ational areas and to acquire additional open-
space. Awl
{ R., (( / €
l a
A Problem in Search of a Solution Orange County Transit Project Descriptions
In the past 20 years,Orange County county's population increased by has been enhanced with the comple- Senior Citizens/Disabled Persons Transitway Development Program
has been transformed from a semi- 78 percent to 2.2 million people. tion of carpool lanes on the I-405 Reduced Fares
rural,suburban bedroom community Employment increased by 185 and State Route 55. Additionally, Description:
for Los Angeles into a major, percent. Today there are 1.2 the first segment of the I-5 recon- The transitwa development program is a 19.4-mile
national economic center. One of million jobs in Orange County, with struction project has begun. Description: Y P
This project would stabilize fares for senior citizens and program for the I-5,SR55 and SR57 corridors from the
the side effects of this rapid urbani- 90 percent of those jobs held by SR91 to the I-405 corridor. The program is made u of
zation is traffic congestion which county residents. And still the demand for transporta- • persons with disabilities on all forms of public transit P P
including OCTD bus and dial-a-ride programs,City of freeway-to-freeway connectors and other projects which
threatens Orange County's future tion investments continues. Every can be implemented separately. In addition to these
economic growth and overall quality But while this urbanization has year Orange County's population Laguna Beach system,the Consolidated Transportation P P Y
- Service Agency(CTSA)and any rail service that is projects,Park-and-Ride lots are needed to complete the
of life. occurred,public investment in growth is equivalent to adding a new stem. For the transitwa ro am to function as
transportation in general—and city almost the size of Tustin. The implemented. system. Y P i
Orange County's rise to national freeways in particular—has historical lack of transportation approved,all of the components should
should be in place to
The OCTD fare for seniors on the local fixed routes is receive maximum benefits,but substantial benefits are
prominence as an economic center dropped significantly. system expansion means that Orange attainable with each project.
offering an outstanding quality of County's tremendous growth was 40 cents in the peak period(weekdays only)and ]0 P J
life is well documented. Orange Since 1966,only two new freeways built on a regional transportation cents the off-peak;the Handicapped fare is 85 cents
County ranks loth among all United have been added to Orange system constructed between 1955 in the peak period and 40 cents in the off-peak: and on Location:
the demand responsive system the fare is 80 cents at all Central county on the SR57,I-5,SR55,and I-405
States metropolitan areas in Gross County's network of 137 freeway and 1965. And as the system of
National Product(GNP). Orange miles: State Route 57 (the Orange freeways and major streets over- times. OCTD service accommodates approximately 80 freeways.
County's economic product exceeds Freeway)was extended and con- loaded because of rapid urbaniza- percent of the current users.
Technology and Ridership Estimates:
24 of the 50 states.And Orange nected to Interstate 5 (the Santa Ana tion,traffic congestion spilled off The transitwa lanes would be used b buses and other
County's GNP is greater than Freeway)near Anaheim Stadium. of freeways and onto parallel local Location: Y Y
This would apply to all of Orange County. high occupancy vehicles such as carpools and vanpools.
metropolitan Dallas,Atlanta,or St. And two miles of State Route 73 streets and roads. The total expected usage of the transitway segment
Louis.Orange County's changing (the Corona Del Mar Freeway)were would be 22,000 daily transit trips and 50,000 carpool-
character can be shown in statistics: added near John Wayne Airport. To deal with growing traffic prob- Technology and Ridership Estimates: YazP
Based on today's usage of the public transit system, user/daily-person trips.
Between 1966 and 1986,the More recently,capacity on freeways lems,public and private interests
turned to a variety of innovative there are about 10,000 daily transit rides.
Costs:
solutions. In 1972,the Orange Costs: A portion of this program($154 million)is funded using
Orange • ' 1966-1986 County Transit District was formed.
It is estimated that a fare stabilization program would existing resources and is incorporated into the 1-5 (Santa
Today the transit district operates P Y Ana Freeway)improvements. Forty-six million dollars
cost about$1 million per year,or$20 million over 20 Y) P Y-
- one of the largest bus fleets in the of federal funds is also assumed for the remainder of the
Employment -" United States and carries more than years.
150,000 passengers a day. program. An additional$125 million in sales tax
Implementation: revenues is targeted for direct freeway-to-freeway
Housing This could be implemented immediately if an additional connectors between Routes 57 and 91 and Routes 405
-_ In 1977,the Orange County Trans- funding source is available. and 55,and Park-and-Ride facilities.
portation Commission was created
Population as a short-range planning and Implementation:
programming agency to secure state References: P
8% and federal highway and transit _ Short Range Transit Plans and Transportation Improve- Projects will be implemented over the 20-year program
Freeway_Miles dollars and to champion innovative ment Programs for fiscal years 1989-1993 and fiscal in conjunction with freeway improvement projects.
financing methods. years 1990-1994 for OCTD,City of Laguna Beach,and
Gas Tax Value ami - CTSA. References:
-100% 0% 100% 200% 1. A Transitway Development Program for Orange
County,October, 1986,Orange County Transit District.
2. A Transitway Development Program for Orange
County,Concept Design Final Report,February, 1989,
Orange County Transit District.
3. A Transitway Development Program for Orange
County,Concept Design Final Report,Plans and
Profiles,May, 1988,Orange County Transit District.
31
Orange County Transit Project Descriptions ✓
High-Technology Advanced Rail Transit Technology and Ridership Estimates: Distribution These special purpose transporta- During the next 20 years,population
Selection of technology,ridership estimates and system tion agencies were created to more and employment will continue to
Description: costs need further analysis and studies. Countywideth effectively capture state and federal increase. The number of people in
This project would further develop the existing rail - Population t,M1 transportation dollars and to focus Orange County will increase by 23
fight-of-way and initiate a high capacity urban rail Costs: on Orange Count s unique trans- percent. Employment is projected
g Y g P Y Y' q P
The total capital cost of the urban rail improvements system in Orange County. This 20-Year Plan element P P � portation problems. But even with to increase by 45 percent.
will also provide matching funds to encourage local could exceed$800 million. Rail extension costs will be h the success these agencies have
p g g Gour]
development of extensions to major activity centers. determined pending selection of technology. It is enjoyed,Orange County transporta-
recommended that$340 million be allocated toward this - tion infrastructure continues to lag
system. System connectivity,ridership/performance erformance South
The primary improvements will be along the LOSSAN Y Y Y PAPCounty behind growth in jobs,housing and
rail corridor and designed to provide frequent train and availability of matching funds will be used ast population.
g q criteria to determine the relative priority of investment in - .x Employment r
service between south and north Orange County with P Y =
system.
nine stops at San Juan Capistrano,San Clemente, the s� ProjectionsEmployment
Mission Viejo,Irvine,North Irvine,Santa Ana,Ana- 0h
heim,Fullerton,and Buena Park. Implementation: rGounty-
Planning work on this project will begin immediately. Downtow helm
The goal is to implement theproject(s)durin the South
The extension will provide access between the primary P g �- � . � `Anahelm_Rec
p p second 10 ears of the plan. County _$ 5 LIN
® ®�®® New
rail system and employment centers. Two of the Y P Anahelm�Stadwm
potential candidate projects are the Anaheim People ' s °
Mover Project and the Irvine Spectrum to John Wayne Reference: T v ` : North ain Street • ■
Airport Fixed Guideway transit line that could ulti- Transit Strategy Report,April 1989,Orange County z '` The CI
mately extend further west to the South Coast Metro P prepared Y W 1 Existing
Transportation Commission, re ared b Parsons
Brinckerhoff Q uade&Douglas,Inc. In 1986.the Commission assisted in Q San a Ana CIVIC Ctr
area and beyond.
forming twos special joint powers E
P J P South C mom
oast Metro
Location: agencies to build three new Orange c
This project would use the Santa Fe/Amtrak line from y IBC North ®®.
Count toll roads--the Foothill
San Clemente to Buena Park. Eastern,and San Joaquin Hills IBC South
transportation corridors.These
�� Irvine=Spectrum _
projects will be funded with a 0 20 OOO:r 40,000__ 60,000 80 000 100;000f
combination of developer fees,tolls, Number of Employees
and some state and federal funds. '. y
In 1988,new state laws allowed the
Orange County Board of Supervi-
sors to designate a local transporta-
tion authority to craft a 20-year
transportation plan for Orange _
�v
County. Based on its track record of `
success and proven expertise,the
Supervisors named the Orange k
County Transportation Commission
as the Orange County Local Trans-
portation Authority—and empow-
ered the Commission to explore
options and to develop this plan. a { [ {
i I 1 I ;
30 3 I 1 1 E
A Problem in Search of a Solution Orange County Transit Project Descriptions
In the next 20 years,population Proposition 11 I also will bring have implemented a local transporta- Riverside Commuter Rail Service Costs:
growth will be the greatest in the some unanticipated transportation tion sales tax to ease growing traffic The Feasibility Assessment study estimated Orange
area south and east of the Santa Ana revenue into all Orange County congestion problems. Description: County's share of the capital costs at$65 million and the
River,while job growth will be the jurisdictions and,as part of a This proposed project operating on Santa Fe trackage operating costs at$25 million(through the end of the
greatest in the area north and west statewide Congestion Management Today,virtually all Californians would be a cooperative and jointly funded program with 20-Year Plan period). The Riverside County share will
of the Santa Ana River. Program,requires that cities and the living in urban counties have at least the Riverside County Transportation Commission be funded through their one-half cent sales tax that
County of Orange participate in a a one-half cent sales tax specifically (RCTC). The proposed commuter rail service would passed in November 1988.
Unless new transportation invest- countywide effort to link transporta- for transportation purposes--except in begin in downtown Riverside and terminate at the Irvine
ments are made in Orange County,a tion and land use planning. Orange County. In Southern Califor- _ station(Spectrum). Four trains per day in each direction Implementation:
by-product of this inevitable growth nia,Orange County is surrounded by are proposed. Of the four daily trains,two would be This service will be initiated during the second 10 years
will be increased traffic congestion Unfortunately,Orange County is at four counties whose residents have routed directly to Irvine,while the other two serve of the plan.
and a deterioration of Orange risk of losing some of its return on passed a one-half cent sales tax for destinations in Placentia,Fullerton,and Anaheim before
County's quality of life. each of the three new transportation transportation improvements. rejoining the other route at the Chapman station in Issues/Comments:
funding measures--up to$100 Orange. Seven new stations/stops are proposed in The key issues to be addressed by the two agencies
The key phrase is new transporta- million a year. The ability of a The lack of committed transportation Orange County. (OCTC and RCTC)are the financial arrangements,
tion investments. In the past 20 county to provide local matching investment in Orange County over priority of expenditures,and the funding splits.
years,Californians in general and funds has become a priority for the the past 20 years,coupled with The initial directional service is proposed to begin
Orange Countians in particular have state when determining the merits dynamic increases in jobs,housing during the morning peak period and operate four south- References:
not invested in transportation of competing projects from all over and employment,has created the bound trains on 20-minute headways. A similar return 1. Riverside-Orange County Commuter Rail Service,
improvements. California. major traffic and transportation set of trips would be operated during the evening peak Feasibility Assessment,Interim Report,OCTC and
problems facing Orange County period. The route going directly to Irvine would be RCTC,July 1988,prepared by Schiermeyer Consulting
In June 1990 California voters Orange County is at a serious today. It's time to find a local approximately 50 miles and the route through Fullerton Service and Sharon Greene&Associates.
approved three transportation competitive disadvantage because solution. and Anaheim would be 56 miles long.
funding measures--Propositions when the money is passed out in 2.Riverside-Orange County Commuter Rail Service,
108. 111 and 116. Fulfilling state- Sacramento,we will be standing in Location: Feasibility Assessment,Final Report,OCTC and
made promises,the revenues from line behind 15 other counties that The project would use Santa Fe ROW between River- -RCTC,December 6, 1988,prepared by Schiermeyer
these measures could bring as much side and Irvine. Consulting Service and Sharon Greene&Associates.
as$1.5 billion into Orange County
over the next 10 years. Sales Taxes for •• - • Technology and Ridership Estimates:
in Urban • The technology to be used for this service would be the
In fact,the guaranteed freeway same type as the current Amtrak service on the
dollars coming in to Orange County LOSSAN corridor. It is estimated that the proposed
from Proposition I I I already were service would attract 6,400 riders per day in the peak
anticipated in the development of �� Orange periods.
the Revised Traffic Improvements /� County
and Growth Management Plan
expenditure plan on page 18 of this l�j� ��
book. ILI
89%of population in
urban counties pay a
sales tax for
G `Do
transportation.
4 29
Orange County Transit Project Descriptions
LOSSAN Corridor Commuter Costs:
Rail Service A capital development program has been proposed that What Are TheOtherCounties • •
would include the purchase of the Santa Fe ROW,Des Region
provision of equipment to provide the service,and the Southern • - - • • Sales
te
The - -
The
proposed commuter rail service in the LOSSAN development of three new stations at Mission Viejo,
T prop North Irvine,and Buena Park. The service would
Corridor specifically will be directed at the needs of require operating assistance as the farebox is estimated
persons commuting on a daily basis. Train schedules, to fund 40-50 percent of the annual costs. The capital = .SAN BERNARDINO
station locations,and fare policy will be set to accom- cost estimate for Orange Count 's share is$108 million LOS-ANGELES
modate the needs of these commuters. The initial y - COUNTY .
service calls for two peak period trains inbound from and for operating subsidy is$22 million for the balance CQU.NTY
of the 20-Year Plan period.
San Clemente to Los Angeles on weekday mornings P 6:3/4%*'
and two peak period trains outbound from Los Angeles Implementation:
to San Clemente on weekday evenings. The service The service could begin as early as 1993.if funding is in
calls for nvie stations in Orange County and four in Los place.
Angeles County. The additional stations in Orange
County include Mission Viejo,North Irvine,and Buena - RIA ER -0.
Issues/Comments:
Park. The Irvine station(Spectrum area)is included in The implementation of this project and this ROW as the COUNTY
the nine stations. The commuter trains would su le- 4
ment the intercity trains that are proposed and currently backbone rail transit corridor is dependent on the ORANGE Mb 314 !w
successful negotiation and purchase of the Santa Fe y;
operated by Amtrak. COUNTY
ROW south of Fullerton. This project,as well,needs O
It is also proposed that the project acquire the Santa Fe
the full cooperation of all three counties(L.A.,Orange, 61/4�o t
and San Diego).
right-of-way(ROW)from Fullerton to the San Diego # y
Count line in cooperation with San Diego agencies.
Y P g References: �4-
Based on the activities proposed for this project,these : 04
1.Los Angeles-San Diego(LOSSAN)State Rail
actions would constitute the first step in developing a
major backbone rail transit system for Orange County. Corridor Study, 1986-1987,LOSSAN State Rail $�
Corridor study Group. = rzSAN -DIEGO L p
2. Santa Ana Transportation Corridor Multimodal
Location: ,
The project uses the Santa Fe/Amtrak line from the San Alternatives Analysis,Commuter Rail Element, 1984, COUNTY
Orange County Transportation Commission. * x O *
Clemente/Oceanside area to the Los Angeles central 7 1•�4�O
business district. 3.LOSSAN Corridor Status Report and Proposed = Y
Commuter Rail Implementation Program,report to Includes the 1/4 cent State Earthquake Relief Tax to sunset December 31, 1990.
Technology and Ridership Estimates: OCTC,June 16, 1988.
The technology to be used for this service would be 4.L Corridor Rail Status Report,OCTC,
similar to the current Amtrak service. It is estimated Septeembermber 29, 1988.
that the initial service would attract 2.000 riders per day f
in the peak periods. Ridership will increase over time as
additional commuter service is scheduled.
,K
u
28 5 , k
A Problem in Search of a Solution Orange County Transit Project Descriptions
Finding an Orange County "t will expected A key element will be the strong LOSSAN Corridor Intercity Rail Service Implementation:
Traffic Solution •uy • - years?r the next 20 role played by the private sector in If the funding program can be put in place,service could
financing transportation improve- Description: begin as early as 1993.
ts.
In the next 20 years,plans call for men The LOSSAN corridor extends for 128 miles between
transportation improvements to be • 80%of the Santa Ana Freeway the downtown areas of Los Angeles and San Diego,and Issues/Comments:
financed through a variety of (1-5)widening project Recently,a national engineering is second only to the Northeast Corridor in ridership on This program requires the cooperation of the three
firm reported that no urban region in the Amtrak rail passenger system. This rail line counties,Caltrans,Amtrak,Santa Fe,and the local
sources. P g Y
60%of local streets capital and the United States comes anywhere (Santa Fe)links communities in the counties of Los communities to be implemented successfully.
State and federal funds,tolls, maintenance projects close to Orange County's achieve- _ Angeles,Orange,and San Diego. At this time,over six
developer fees,gas taxes,bus and ments in securing private sector million people reside within five miles of this rail line. References:
rail fares,public and private contri- • Maintain the existing transit participation in innovative financing There are currently nine stations with five of them in 1.Los Angeles-San Diego(LOSSAN) State Rail
butions,assessment districts and level of service techniques. In the next decade,al- Orange County. Amtrak's present service in the Corridor Study, 1986-1987,LOSSAN State Rail
redevelopment funds will be fit most half of Orange County trans- LOSSAN corridor includes eight daily trains in each Corridor Study Group,Consultants-Wilbur Smith&
together to shape Orange County's Three transportation toll portation revenues will come from direction. The future proposal calls for two additional Associates,Morrison-Knudsen Engineers,and Arthur
transportation financing picture.
corridors private sources—up from about 10 trains to be added. Bauer&Associates.
percent in the last decade.
Location: 2.Los Angeles to San Diego(LOSSAN)Corridor
The project uses the Santa Fe/Amtrak line from the San Status Report and Proposed Commuter Rail Implemen-
Diego downtown to the Los Angeles Central Business tation Program,Report to Orange County Transporta-
District(CBD),a distance of 128 miles with 47 miles in tion Commission,June 16, 1988,staff consultant-
Orange County is a leaderOrange County. Sharon Greene&Associates.
developing innovative transportation funding programs
Technology and Ridership Estimates: 3.LOSSAN Corridor Rail Status Report,OCTC,
The technology currently used for this service is diesel- September 29, 1988.
electric locomotives pulling up to six passenger cars.
The cars are approximately 85 feet long and can operate
at high or low platforms. Based on current usage and
the implementation of two new roundtrips,the ridership
10% 50% is forecasted to be 8,000 riders per day.
Costs:
A capital development program that includes funding by
all three counties,Amtrak,the State of California,and
Early 1980s Throughout 1990s; Santa Fe Railroad has been developed that will allow for
expansion of service to 10 trains per day in each direc-
■ Traditional Funding Programs ® Innovative Programs tion. Orange County's share of this program is approxi-
mately$20 million. Any required operating assistance
would be paid by the State and Amtrak. These services
are very close to having full farebox recovery on
operating and maintenance costs and are therefore
priced for intercity type service and not priced to
1 encourage daily commuter use.
6 27
Orange County Transit Project Descriptions
Rail Transit Right-Of-Way Protection During this same time period, Thanks to the success of Proposition To meet Orange County's transpor-
Issues/Comments: Orange County will continue to 111,the state can now make good tation crisis,a method of financing
Description: 1.The Southern Pacific(SP)right-of-way(ROW)from work to receive more than a fair on that promise. But it also makes it that has proven successful in 15
Right-of-way(ROW)protection on the Pacific Electric/ Beach Blvd.to Downtown Los Angeles is being con- share of state and federal transporta- tougher to compete for state funds other counties,the local option sales
Southern Pacific West Santa Ana Branch from Santa sidered for abandonment by SP. This ROW along with tion dollars. For the past five years, in the future by enforcing matching tar,was selected as the premier
Ana to Los Angeles County line. the existing ROW owned by OCTD could provide a Orange County has reversed an old funds requirements--matching funding alternative.
future rail transit connection to the Century Freeway rail ' trend,and received more in state and funds that Orange County doesn't
Location: transit line and Los Angeles County's rail transit system. federal gas tax dollars than it has have.
Central and west part of the county. Goes through the The distance is approximately five miles. paid at the gas pump.
cities of Santa Ana,Garden Grove,Stanton,Anaheim, So with unprecedented private
Buena Park,Cypress,and La Palma. 2.The OCTD now owns the Pacific Electric(PE)ROW In fact,Orange County has been commitments to transportation
from Santa Ana to Beach Blvd. (7 miles). The City of promised double or triple its fair improvements,and more than a fair
Technology and Ridership Estimates: Garden Grove proposes to develop parcels through their share of gas tax dollars in some share of state and federal funds on
The future technology to be considered in this corridor redevelopment agency at future station locations at years,with the Santa Ana Freeway line,other transportation funding
and on this alignment would be some type of rail transit. Euclid and Brookhurst. The city proposes to purchase widening being Orange County's opportunities have been inventoried
Due to the long-term nature related to implementation of approximately 6,100 feet of the ROW and provide an sole recipient of funds well into the and explored to overcome the
service,revised ridership estimates are not available. acceptable financial package to OCTC and OCTD that 21 st Century. expenditure deficit.
There are previous studies conducted by OCTC and would not preclude the development of rail transit in the
OCTD which do provide ridership estimates. Depend- future. The city also proposes to minimize the repur-
ing on the rail system the segment is connected to,the chase price of the ROW when needed for rail transit Key features State Fundsfor Orange • •
hways
daily ridership for the year 2000 is forecast at 10,000- development. The development of rail transit in this of local
15,000. corridor could be started within the next 20 years. transportation sales tax
1985-86
Costs: References: Provides greatest revenue
$50 million would be reserved for this project and used 1.Santa Ana Transportation Corridor,Transit Element, yield over 20 years 86 87
by the OCTC to preserve the right-of-way opportunities Alternatives Analysis and Draft Environmental Impact
on this alignment. OCTD,February 1984. Self-adjusts for growth
and inflation 87-88
2. Santa Ana Transportation Corridor,Multimodal
Implementation: p Is easy to collect 88-89
It is assumed that the ROW would be purchased during Alternatives Analysis,Preliminary Findings Report,
the first five years of the program. OCTC,December 1984. Meets the tests of fairness _
and equity 89-90
0 50 100 150 200
• Is permissible under existing (In millions)
law
• Requires a countywide, simple
• majority vote
• Is available to assist in
financing all transportation
areas (streets, roads, free-
ways, and rail transit)
• Increases local control
7
26
What One-Half Cent Will Buy Orange County Transit Projects
In the next 20 years,existing trans- BREA
portation revenues will be used to Where will the moneybe •' millions)
build,operate and maintain streets,
roads,freeways,a bus system,a Program Existing 1/2 Cent Total 5 s, •• •
network of freeway callboxes,and Component Dollars Sales Tax Dollars s FULLERTON .•' 9t • •• '••
an intercity rail program. Using an • ••.•• ••••.••••••••
innovative mix of funding sources Freeways 3,509(38%) 1,325(43%) 4,834(39%) ANA1 IM .
including developer fees and tolls, 97
the Foothill,Eastern and San Joaquin Streets and Roads 3,142(34%) 1,000(32%) 4,142(33%) -
Hills Corridors also will be built. 405
GARDEN ••
GROVE • ORANGE CLEVELAND
After inventorying the existing Transit 2,662(29%) 775(25%) 3,437(28%) '•
transportation expenditures antici- 1
22 55 NATIONAL
pated over the next two decades and Total 9,313 3,100 12,413 FOREST
conducting a technical analysis of SANTA ANA 1 •
Orange County's transportation ORANGE
�.s;, HUNTINGTON •
needs,extensive public outreach REACH 405 ••
programs were developed to deter- By balancing the technical studies •' COUNTY
mine the public's acceptance of and the public attitudes,a mix of key Public• . ••
transportation projects and concepts. projects has been developed. •
• 15-member League of Cities _= .:. IRVINE
Super Committee
• 30-member special 20-year PACIFlC.- ,
Master Plan Citizen Committee N.
_-� MISSION
VIEJO
• 7 public workshops involving k=, 5
350 Community Leaders
• Speakers bureau contacts of
more than 2,500 people
SANJUAN
N
• A survey of 600 Orange County CAPISTRANO
residents
• Transportation Network- '• ' •
a group of business trade
associations +++ Existing Rail Right-of-Way Lossan Intercity Rail Program and
• Transportation Coalition- — — — — High-Technology Advanced Rail Transit Lossan Commuter Rail
major employers Transitway Development Program • • • • • • Riverside Commuter Rail
• Orange County Industrial
League Please note: Included under Orange County Transit Projects but not shown on map is the Senior Citizens/Disabled Reduced
• Orange County Board of Fares Program.
Supervisors'special task force
8 25
Orange County Streets and Roads Project Descriptions
Local Transportation Systems Manage- Streets Maintenance and In the next 20 years,$9.3 billion expanding the successful Los requiring every city and the
will be spent on needed transporta- Angeles to San Diego rail service County of Orange to adopt a
ment and Transportation Demand Man- Local Roads Projects tion improvements. That's good,but and enhancing new commuter rail seven-year Capital Improvement
agement Plans (TSM/TDM) it simply isn't good enough. service in Orange County; Program that includes all trans-
Description: portation projects programmed
This program element offers cities funds for street If the existing transportation preserving existing railroad right- for receipt of sales tax funds.
Description: g P P g g P
maintenance and local traffic improvements. The • revenues are augmented b a locally- of-way for the future development
Transportation system and demand management focus g Y Y- Y P
program is designed to supplement city and county approved one-half cent sales tax that of a clean,modern rail transit The new transportation revenue
on increasing the present capacity of the transportation PP P
expenditures on road projects and will require continua- raises$3.1 billion over the next 20 system; measure,if approved b Orange
system for the movement of people rather than of Y PP Y
tion of local investment in the street and road system. ears,these important projects would Count voters,would create a
vehicles at a relatively low capital cost. Thus,these Y P P J Y
strategies center on increasing the occupancy of vehicles Specifically.to receive these funds cities must: be added: • coordinating traffic signals balanced transportation plan which
and spreading the demand for travel to times when throughout Orange County; provides short-term relief on
• adopt a Growth Management Plan as called for in rebuilding the Santa Ana freeways,streets and roads,and
facilities have excess capacity. These measures include g Y >
carpooling and vanpooling programs,park-and-ride the 20-Year Master Plan, Freeway from the Los Angeles • stabilizing bus and rail fares for long-term development of a state-
service development,removal of on-street parking, • adopt a local Pavement Management System that County line to the San Diego senior citizens and persons with of-the-art rail transit program. If
will eliminate the need for costly road reconstruc- Freeway 10 Years sooner than disabilities; coupled with a thoughtful growth
parking management,and controlling delivery and Y P
tion and adequately fund such a system, now anticipated; management plan and a sound
operations of commercial vehicles. Also included are P
• adopt a local Transportation Systems Management requiring eve city and the transportation lannin program,a
bicycling,alternative work hours,development of site q g every Y P P g
plan to make better use of the road network; rebuilding the confluence of the County of Orange to adopt a new transportation revenue measure
amenities to encourage high occupancy use,such as } g p P
• agree to complete improvements within three years Santa Ana Freeway and the San comprehensive growth manage- could help catch u to existing
transit shelters and preferential parking,and reversible Y P g - P P g
or return the funds:and Diego Freeway at the El Toro Y; ment plan to link traffic relief and problems and keep u with future
traffic lanes to add capacity to the peak direction.This Y P P P P
• adopt a local traffic circulation plan that is consis- well-planned future growth- rowth.
element of the 20-Year Plan for Transportation Invtent with the countywide Master Plan o Arterial p g
provements calls for each city to develop and implement f adding additional lanes to the San
TSM/TDM strategies. Implementation of these im- Highways. Diego Freeway in southern maintaining Orange County's
provements will occur throughout the life of the 20-year Orange County,the Riverside existing investment in 5,300 miles
program C Freeway throughout This is a countywide program to maintain and improve g Orange of streets and roads and develop-
over 5,000 miles of local streets and roads and will County,the Orange Freeway from ing a countywide program to keep
Costs: extend over the entire 20-year program. the Los Angeles County line to roads free of potholes;
$10 million is required for this program. the Santa Ana Freeway,and add-
Costs: ing a lane in each direction to the
Previous studies have indicated that an initial investment Costa Mesa Freeway between the
Growth Management Area Improvements of$200 million is needed to bring all deficient streets Riverside Freeway and the Santa
into good repair.and an annual allocation of$36 million Ana Freeway;
Description: for routine maintenance. It is proposed to allocate$450
An important component of the plan is the formation of million towards such needs that,when combined with building a 220-mile network of
Growth Management Areas that will blend local and local resources,will provide substantial new funding for Super Streets on Orange County's
regional planning perspectives and traffic control tech- Orange County streets and roads. 22 busiest streets; =
niques. These areas will be established by grouping
local jurisdictions with similar land use and transporta-
tion characteristics. This program element will focus on = - -
addressing cumulative regional traffic impacts of devel- `
Xn
opment. Specifically,funds will be used to complete =4
traffic improvements crossing city/county boundaries.
Under no circumstances may local government use
funds from the program to subsidize costs which should -
be borne by developers. _
Costs: g a
$100 million over a 20-year period is targeted for this ,
program.
24 _ 9
What One-Half Cent Will Buy Orange County Streets and Roads Project Descriptions
Super Streets Throughout Orange County Intersection Improvement Program
Safeguards to protect the A special transportation Cities,the county,Caltrans and Throughout Orange County
new revenue for transporta- trust fund must be established by other agencies must use the new Description:
tion use. Orange County's elected Audi- transportation sales tax revenue The Super Street Program for Orange County is a 220- Description:
tor-Controller and all new sales for transportation purposes alone. mile network of arterial streets targeted for improve- The 20-Year Master Plan of Transportation Improve-
When the new transportation tax revenue must be deposited in Regular audits will safeguard ments designed to increase their ability to carry traffic. meats recommends that 100 of the county's most
revenue is approved by Orange this account. The independent against cheaters,and a severe These improvements consist of traffic signal synchroni- congested street intersections such as the intersections
County voters,the money must be Auditor-Controller,on an annual punishment-the so-called"death zation,restriping/widening roadways to increase the of Bristol/MacArthur Boulevard,El Toro Road/
used for transportation purposes basis,must certify that all penalty"-will disqualify any number of travel lanes,intersection grade separations, Rockfield and State College Boulevard/Imperial
and transportation purposes alone! revenue in the account has been agency which cheats from bus turnouts,removal of on-street parking,and intersec- Highway be identified and scheduled for improvement.
To strengthen this requirement and used for transportation purposes receiving funds for a five year tion improvements. The Super Street Network includes This program will help alleviate traffic bottlenecks
to guarantee strict adherence to it, and transportation purposes period. 21 major arterial streets throughout Orange County such present in Orange County. The schedule shows these
safeguards have been built into the alone. as Beach Boulevard, Katella Avenue and El Toro Road. improvements to span the full period of the plan.
Revised Traffic Improvement and A Citizens Oversight Committee
Growth Management Plan: Specific timelines must be shall be convened to act as a Costs: Costs:
established on each major watchdog on all transportation- $120 million of sales tax revenue is targeted for Super $100 million over a 20-year period is recommended for
project detailed in the Traffic related expenditures. No major Street improvements. this program.
Improvement and Growth changes in the expenditure plan
Management Plan and quarterly can be made unless they are first Implementation:
updates on those schedules must approved by the Orange County Improvements would be phased over the 20-year Signal Coordination Throughout
be brought before the Orange Local Transportation Authority program,and coordinated with other local improve- Orange County
County Local Transportation and ratified by a two-thirds vote ments.
Authority in public session. of the Citizens Oversight Com- Description:
mittee. With 29 cities in Orange County,the number of
jurisdictions can complicate the coordination of traffic
• Any proposed changes in ex- Regional Interchanges signals between city boundaries. This element of the
penditures among the four major 20-Yem Master Plan of Transportation Improvements
Y funding categories of Freeways, Description: calls for financial assistance to cities and the County of
r = Regional Streets and Roads, The goal of the program is to further enhance the local
g g p Orange in timing traffic signals where streets cross city
s _ Local Streets and Roads,and street interchanges at key freeway junctions such as the boundaries.
Transit projects of the plan,must interchanges of 1-405 and Warner Avenue,and Route 22
be ratified b the voters before and Beach Boulevard. The program also would direct
Y P €T Costs:
going into effect. connections between the transitway system and local $50 million over a 20-year period is targeted for these
streets,for example at Route 57 and Cerritos Avenue. improvements.
These safeguards are in place to
- guarantee that new transportation Local agencies would be required to provide dollar- Master Plan of Arterial Highways for
revenues are devoted to solving for-dollar matching funds. All freeway and major street
Orange Count
transportation problems and no punctures throughout Orange County are eligible. g y
- transportation dollars are diverted to Improvements will be coordinated with other freeway
other kinds of projects. projects and phased in over 20 years. Description:
The County of Orange currently provides$4 million
Costs: annually to complete the construction of major streets
—t = $70 million of sales tax revenue is targeted for this countywide. Over 80 percent of the county's road
\ program. system has been constructed. Additional funding is
proposed that,when combined with county and other
local funds,will help complete the system. Construction
will occur throughout the 20-year program.
Costs:
$100 million is allocated to construct and improve local
streets and roads.
10 23
Orange County Streets and Roads Projects A New Direction for Our Freeways
BREA - The centerpiece of the Revised But,because of funding constraints, If the new revenue from a local
IMPERIAL N WV STATE - Traffic Improvement and Growth it will take more than 20 vears to transportation sales tax is success-
COI BLVD. Management Plan is the rebuilding widen the Santa Ana Freeway ful,reconstruction and widening of
57 o �� and reconstruction of the Santa Ana between Irvine and Buena Park--if the Santa Ana Freeway from San
• 91 FULLERTON o 91 Freeway(Interstate 5). The Santa all state and federal dollars coming Clemente to the Los Angeles
4 ORANGETHORPE AVE. A Ana Freeway is Orange County's into Orange County are focused on County line will be completed in
os n ANAHEIM 91 main street: 50 percent of all just this one freeway project for less than 10 years.
Orange County residents live within more than two decades.
j � G
m three miles of the Santa Ana And some of the busiest inter-
KATELLA AVE. Freeway and two-thirds of all jobs The price tag on rebuilding and changes in the United States—
GARDEN
m GROVE ORANGE CLEVELAND are in that same transportation improving the Santa Ana Freeway including the seventh busiest
corridor. tops$1.5 billion. And,based on interchange in America—where
N BOILS 22 AVE. 55 �R NATIONAL current state and federal funding the Santa Ana Freeway,the Garden
o A Vi F
FOREST However,the Santa Ana Freeway patterns,the Irvine to Buena Park Grove Freeway,and the Orange
was designed in the early 1950s to section will not be completed until Freeway come together near
n WARNER AVE. �<T
SA ANA handle rural traffic. Orange 2015. Projects on Interstate 5 in Anaheim Stadium—will be rebuilt HUNTINGTON q� �`� A
ORANGE
BEACH 0°Q County's population today is 2.4 southern Orange County—includ- to modern engineering standards.
ADAMS AVE. P� COUNTY million,but 35 years ago,planners ing reconstruction of the interchange
- and engineers anticipated that only at Interstate 5 and Interstate 405—
`- Fo about 1 million people would live in will take place after the northern
°9Sr n IRVINE e° Orange County. So they designed segments are addressed.
. NEwa Hwv c ���° a six-lane freeway from the
Z Los Angeles County line to the
o
San Diego County line to meet the 20-Year Master Plan Transportatio
PACIFIC OCEAN
. z agCc/C expected traffic demands. Tax Component •• of • -
PKuN Freeways $1.325 Billion
5 MISSION
Today,plans are under way to
double the size of the Santa Ana
Freeway—from six lanes to as •Santa Ana Freeway (Interstate 5)
- many as 12 lanes in most parts of •Riverside Freeway (Route 91)
Orange County.
�. SANJUAN •San Diego Freeway (Interstate 5)
W CAPISTRANO
ktFh'N.iO SCALE -' - -
•Orange Freeway (Route 57)
•Costa Mesa Freeway (Route 55)
•Santa Ana/San Diego Freeway Interchange
(Interstate 5/Interstate 405)
Super Streets Freeways
Please note: The following projects are included under Orange County Street and Road Projects but not shown on map:
1. Regional Interchanges 5. Master Plan of Arterial Highways for Orange County
2. Intersection Improvement Program 6. Streets Maintenance and Local Roads Projects
throughout Orange County 7. Growth Management Area Improvements
3. Signal Coordination throughout Orange County
4. Local Transportation Systems Management and
Transportation Demand Management Plans(TSM/TDM)
22 11
A New Direction for Our Freeways Orange County Freeway Project Descriptions
Additionally,other high usage A key strategy in the Revised Traffic Finally,through a combination of Costa Mesa Freeway (SR 55) from the Riverside Freeway (SR 91)from the
freeways will be improved: Carpool Improvement and Growth Manage- innovative financing techniques, Riverside Freeway to Interstate 5 Los Angeles County Line to the
lanes will be added to State Route ment Plan is to use locally generated three new freeway-like facilities--
91 (the Riverside Freeway)from the revenue to attract or match state and the Foothill,Eastern,and San Description: Riverside County Line
Riverside County line to the Los federal dollars which otherwise Joaquin Hills Transportation The 20-Year Master Plan of Transportation Improiye-
Angeles County line. Two new would not come to Orange County. Corridors--are being designed for ments calls for the addition of two new general purpose Description:
carpool lanes will be added to State No state or federal funds would be southern and eastern Orange } lanes to the Costa Mesa Freeway for a distance of Long-range plans call for the addition of one carpool
Route 57(the Orange Freeway). lost if a local revenue source is County. These new corridors will approximately six miles. In 1988 Route 55 carried lane in each direction on the Route 91 from Riverside
And new general purpose lanes will approved. In most cases,state and not be financed with any new about 180,000 vehicles per day and forecasts show County line to Los Angeles County line. The first phase
be added to the heavily congested federal matching programs would transportation sales tax revenue,but demand to exceed 190,000 in the future. Auxiliary lanes of this project on Route 91 extends from the Riverside
Costa Mesa Freeway(State allow local officials to stretch locally will be funded by the largest multi- are also planned,in addition to providing soundwalls County line and terminates at the Orange Freeway. The
Route 55). generated dollars far beyond their jurisdictional fee program in the and other environmental mitigation measures. second phase extends from Route 57 to the Los Angeles
normal purchasing power and open United States. And,for the first County line. In addition to the carpool lanes,plans for
the door for additional freeway time since California's Gold Rush Costs: the freeway include rebuilding the freeway-to-freeway
improvements. era,toll financing will be used to The current estimated capital cost(1988) is approxi- interchanges and providing soundwalls and other
help pay for these needed transpor- mately$200 million. environmental mitigation features. About 210,000
In future years,by aggressively tation corridors. No new sales tax vehicles used this freeway in 1988 and forecasts show
pursuing state and federal dollars, revenue is targeted for these three Implementation: demand to exceed 240,000 in the future. Both Los
any locally generated revenue will projects. Construction is scheduled for the second 10-year period Angeles and Riverside counties have plans to improve
create a"multiplier effect." That is, of the plan. SR 91 within their jurisdictions.
the funds generated locally can be
doubled or even tripled by using Costs:
them to match state and federal Orange Freeway (SR 57) from the The capital cost for these improvements is$400 million.
transportation dollars that might Los Angeles County Line to Interstate 5
otherwise go to other counties or Implementation:
states. Construction of Phase I improvements is scheduled for
Description:The 20-Year Master Plan for Transportation Improve- the first 10 years of the plan and Phase II improvements ments calls for the addition of one carpool lane in each will occur during the second 10 years.
direction to the Orange Freeway for its entire length
within Orange County. This covers a distance of about
12 miles. In addition,soundwalls and other environ-
mental amenities will be added. In 1988,this freeway
carried over 210,000 vehicles per day and forecasts
estimate this demand to grow to over 280,000 daily.
Los Angeles County plans for additional lanes that
could extend the improvements north to Route 60 in
Diamond Bar.
Costs:
The 1988 capital cost estimate for this improvement is
$40 million.
Implementation:
The current schedule slates the Orange Freeway im-
provements for the first five-year period of the plan.
12 71
Orange County Freeway Project Descriptions Putting Rail Service on the Fast Track
Santa Ana Freeway Improvement for the San Diego Freeway (I-5) from the Building streets,roads and freeways Additionally,two freeway-to- established to stabilize bus and rail
San Diego Freeway (I-405) to the Los I-51I-405 Confluence to San Clemente focuses on today's problems. freeway transitway interchange fares for senior citizens and persons
Building a rail system for Orange projects are proposed to encourage with disabilities for the entire 20-
Angeles County Line Description: County looks to our future. ridesharing by allowing carpools, year life of the one-half cent sales
Description: Current plans for I-5 south of the confluence call for vanpools and commuter buses faster tax program.
Rebuilding of the Santa Ana Freeway is critical to the adding one carpool lane in each direction,building In the next 20 years,a backbone rail transition through interchanges.
county's continued mobility. This project forms the soundwalls and other environmental amenities. This 'r system,connecting the Los Angeles And,finally,a program will be
centerpiece of the 20-Year Master Plan of Transpor-ta- project includes the segment of 1-5 from the I-405 Metro Rail to our north and the San
tion Improvements. Fifty percent of all Orange County confluence to San Clemente near the San Diego County Diego trolley system to the south,
residents live within three miles of this facility and two- line,a distance of approximately 12 miles. In 1988,the r can be constructed along the 20-Year Master Plan Transportation
thirds of all jobs lie in this transportation corridor. The freeway carried approximately 170,000 vehicles per day existing railroad tracks in the Santa Tax Component •• of • -
staged improvements call for the addition of up to three and forecasts show demand to increase to over 230,000 Ana Freeway corridor. An energetic Transit $775 Million
lanes in each direction,rebuilding the freeway-to- daily. rail right-of-way protection pro-
freeway interchanges,and providing soundwalls and gram, including the protection and
environmental mitigation. The project begins where I-5 Costs: preservation of the Pacific Electric •Pacific Electric Right-of-Way Acquisition
separates from the 1-405 and continues north to the Los The estimated capital cost for this section of the I-5 line between Santa Ana and •LOSSAN Intercity Rail Program
Angeles County line. Two of the new travel lanes will improvement is about$80 million. Cerritos,can be undertaken.
be dedicated to carpools. •LOSSAN Commuter Rail
Implementation: Commuter trains to Riverside can
Within this length of freeway is the 1-5/SR 57/SR 22 Project construction is scheduled to begin during the become a reality. And proposed • Riverside Commuter Rail
interchange. This is the nation's seventh busiest first 10-year period of the plan. local rail systems, like the Five-City •High-Technology Advanced Rail Transit
interchange. This interchange and all other intermediate Monorail Project(Irvine,Santa Ana,
interchanges will be improved as part of this project. I-5/I-405 Interchange Costa Mesa,Orange and Anaheim), •Elderly and Handicapped Fare Stabilization
Traffic on 1-5 north of 1-405 was 160,000 vehicles per the McDonnell Douglas Monorail
day in 1988 and in the future the vehicular demand is Description: project in Irvine or the Anaheim •Transitways
expected to increase to over 260.000 daily. The need for improving one of the county's busiest people mover program,will be
interchanges has been identified in numerous studies. In developed to provide a full-fledged
Costs: 1988 over 260,000 vehicles a day traveled through this transit system for the county.
The overall cost of the 1-5 project is estimated to be$1.6 interchange and forecasts show this demand will grow
billion. Existing state and federal resources are expected to over 350,000 vehicles daily. This project calls for the
to fund$1.1 billion with the sales tax revenue providing construction of bypass and feeder lanes along I-5 for the
the additional S550 million to complete the project. "El Toro Y"interchange. This will greatly improve
traffic movement between the Santa Ana Freeway and
Implementation: the San Diego Freeway,as these facilities are widened
Construction will start immediately. Sales tax revenue to add three new lanes in each direction(including
would be used to augment funding,alleviate cash flow carpool lanes)on the 1-5,and carpool lanes to the San
constraints,and accelerate project delivery by 10 years. Diego Freeway.
e
Costs:
The capital cost in 1988 dollars is estimated at$55
million.
Implementation:
Construction will begin within the first five years of the
20-year program. This project plays a critical role in the
improvement of the 1-5.
20 13
What's Down the Road for Our Streets Orange County Freeway Projects
Local streets and roads provide both separated intersections,can be used be put in place to better time traffic BREA
an alternative to freeways and a to provide needed regional traffic lights on a countywide,coordinated , y
strong support system to the re- congestion relief. basis. Improved maintenance for 'S" ■
gional transportation network. city streets and roads,aiming at the 57
The cost of converting these 22 elimination of potholes and rough 91 o FULLERTON 0 st
In Orange Count more than 5,300 streets from toda 's roads to street surfaces will be required and • °° ; • • • • • '
miles of roadways are owned and tomorrow's Super Streets will be Orange County's 100 most deficient i 0s °o ANAHEIM ■ o
operated by cities,the County of $100 million,or about$400,000 a intersections will be targeted for °o o
Orange,and the California Depart- mile. immediate improvements. °o ❑
ment of Transportation(Caltrans). 405 GARDEN ° ■ ❑ CLEVELAND
Additionally,a countywide traffic GROVE 000 ❑ ORANGE
To increase the effectiveness of the signal synchronization program will ° NATIONAL
street and road system,a network of 2z ° El
21 Super Streets has been identified °o o FOREST
er
and includes Orange County's • NetworkStreet SAWA ANA °o
busiest and most important road- 1 Beach Boulevard between Pacific Coast High- 11 Bolsa Chica Road between Warner Avenue and �° ORANGE
ways. B attention On way(State Route 1)and Imperial Highway the San Diego/Garden Grove Freeways. a05 55 °
}s. Y focusing HUNTINGTON ° COUNTY
these 220 miles of major arterials,a (State Route 90). EACH °O
12 Adams Avenue between Beach Boulevard and
coordinated application of traffic 2 Imperial Highway between Beach Boulevard Harbor Boulevard. °
flow improvements,ranging from and Yorba Linda Boulevard. This super street �o
traffic signal coordination to grade would be along the freeway corridor designated 13 Newport Boulevard between Pacific Coast IRVINE ` 15&I-405 Interchange
in the Orange County MPAH. Highway and Industrial Way(the proposed
southern terminus of the Costa Mesa Freeway).
3 Harbor Boulevard between Imperial Highway
20-Year Master Plan
and the Route 55 Freeway(extended)in Costa 14 MacArthur Boulevard between Pacific Coast
Mesa. Highway and the San Joaquin Hills Transporta- PAaacosEAN
•• • tion Corridor. 1
MISSION
Tax Component i 4 Jamboree Road/Myford Road between the 1 VIEJO
Program of • Santa Ana(1-5)and Corona del Mar(Route 73) 15 El Toro Road between Laguna Canyon Road and 1
Freeways. This corridor would constitute an the Foothill Transportation Corridor. O
extension of the Eastern Transportation 1
Streets and Roads $1.0 Billion Corridor. 16 Crown Valley Parkway between Pacific Coast 1
Highway and the Foothill Transportation Corridor.
• Super Streets 5 Laguna Canyon Road between the southern
terminus of the Laguna Freeway(State Route 17 Orangethorpe Avenue between Beach Boulevard
•Traffic Signal Coordination 133)and Pacific Coast Highway. and Imperial Highway. N JUAN
• Road Maintenance 6 Tustin Avenue/Rose Drive between the 18 State College Boulevard between the Riverside
• Critical Intersection Riverside Freeway and Imperial Highway. Freeway and Imperial Highway.
7 Katella Avenue between 1-605 to the Costa 19 Irvine Boulevard(Fourth Street in Tustin) -• • •
Improvements Mesa Freeway. between the Costa Mesa Freeway and El Toro
Road.
• Improving Major Streets 8 Pacific Coast Highway between Warner t ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ S.R.55(Costa Mesa Freeway) o o o o o o 1-5(Santa Ana Freeway)
Avenue(near Huntington Harbour)and the 20 Moulton Parkway/Irvine Center Drive/Moulton
and Roads Route 1 Freeway terminus at Dana Point. Parkway/Street of the Golden Lantern between m ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ S.R.57(Orange Freeway) miiiiii iiise immi immi 1-5(San Diego Freeway)
the Costa Mesa Freeway and Pacific Coast
-Traffic System and Demand 9 Valley View Street between the Garden Grove Highway. f • • • • • • S.R.91 (Riverside Freeway) - 1-5 & 1-405 Interchange
Freeway(Route 22)and the Riverside Freeway
Management (Route 91). 21 Bolsa Avenue/First Street between Bolsa Chica
Road and the Santa Ana Freeway.
• Local Street Interchanges 10 Warner Avenue between Pacific Coast
Highway(near Huntington Harbour)and Harbor
at Freeways Boulevard.
• Growth Management Areas
14 19
Revised Traffic Improvement and Growth
Management Plan Expenditure Plan (1988 $ x million) Growing Through Better Management
Projects As a condition of receiving any promote alternative forms of adopt a seven-year capital
Freeway revenue from the proposed one-half transportation and overall system improvement program that
Project Cost cent transportation sales tax,each efficiency by maximizing use of includes all projects programmed
1-5(Santa Ana Freeway)between 1-405(San Diego Freeway)and 1-605(San Gabriel Freeway) $550 jurisdiction in Orange County must the existing transportation for sales tax monies;
1-5(San Diego Freeway)between 1-5/1-405 Interchange and San Clemente 80 agree to improve its local planning network through Transportation
1-5/1-405 Interchange 55 s and overall coordination with its Demand Management(TDM) require phasing of new develop-
neighbors by adopting a Growth and Transportation Systems ment to ensure that current
S.R.55(Costa Mesa Freeway)between 1-5 and S.R.91 (Riverside Freeway) 200 Management Program. Management(TSM)techniques; service levels are maintained or
S.R.57(Orange Freeway)between 1-5 and Lambert Road 40 improved.
S.R.91 (Riverside Freeway)between Riverside County line and Los Angeles County line 400 The Growth Management Program require a traffic mitigation fee to
Freeway Sub-total 1,325 emphasizes good planning,im- guarantee that new development With this approach,new transporta-
proved cooperation between neigh- pays its fair share toward dealing tion revenue would be focused on
Regional -nd - Projects boring cities and the County of with traffic generated by new curing existing traffic problems
Orange,and requires that new de- development-, while the Growth Management
Project Cost velopment pay its fair share toward Program would help avoid future
Super Streets $120 dealing with traffic generated by foster a better balance of jobs and transportation problems.
Regionally Significant Interchanges 70 new development. housing and reduce commuter
Intersection Improvement Program 100 The key portions of the Growth trips through careful planning;
Traffic Signal Coordination 50 Management Program require that encourage local jurisdictions,
Transportation Systems Management and Transportation Demand Management 10 each government agency: where applicable,to establish
Streets and Roads Sub-total 350 performance standards for fire,
• outline its plans and efforts to police,library,flood control,and
Local • Road • - 1 develop multijurisdictional traffic other infrastructure based on local
Project Cost solutions through a well-defined, criteria;
J cooperative planning process;
Master Plan of Arterial Highway Improvements $100
Streets and Roads Maintenance and Road Improvements 450 specify traffic level of service
Growth Management Area Improvements 100 standards keyed to types of land
Local Street and Road Sub-total 650 use;
Transit Projects $775
Project Cost
Pacific Electric Right-of-Way $50
Lossan Intercity Rail Program 20
Lossan Commuter Rail 130 +
Riverside Commuter Rail 90
High-Technology Advanced Rail Transit 340
Elderly and Handicapped Fare Stabilization 20
Transitways 125
Transit Sub-total 775
TOTAL0i
18 15
One-Half Cent Is the Whole Solution Revised Traffic Improvement
to Our Traffic Problem and Growth Management Plan
Traffic and transportation improve- transportation funds must be used Traffic can get better. But only if
ments,including the widening and for transportation purposes and we make an effort to make it better.
expansion of the Santa Ana,San transportation purposes alone.
Diego,Riverside and Orange
Freeways,development of a county- Traffic congestion in Orange
wide Super Street network,im- County can be relieved. It is a
proved street maintenance,and problem that is solvable. But it will
development of a clean,state-of-the- take hard work. It will take addi-
art rail system,can be accomplished tional investment. And it will take
if Orange County follows the lead of individual commitment and effort.
15 other California Counties and
adopts a one-half cent sales tax for Flexible work hours,improved
transportation purposes. streets,roads and freeways,develop-
ment of a rail transit system to
As a requirement of receiving the compliment the existing bus system,
revenues from a one-half cent sales carpooling,better planning,and
tax,cities and the County of Orange other techniques must be used to
must improve their cooperative improve Orange County's trouble-
transportation planning programs, some traffic problems.
develop Growth Management
Programs,and guarantee that dbAM
ORANGE COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION
µ COMMISSION
ka=
4�__ ` _
i
1
-
. h.
J
i
l�
J�
' av
1
i
i
I
45
®RANGE COUNTY
TRANSPORTA77ON
COMMISSION
1055 North Main,Suite 516• Santa Ana,California 92701 (714)541-7850
FISCAL YEAR 1988-b9
i ANNUAL REPORT ON TRANSPORTATION
ORANGE COUNTY ANNUAL REPORT PROJECT ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TEAM MEMBERS i =
FY 1989-1990
Thomas F.Riley,Chairman Stan Oftelie The Fiscal Year 1988-89 Annual
Orange County Board of Supervisors Executive Director Report on Transportation was
Fifth District authorized by the Orange 1 -
Deborah Christner J
Richard B.Edgar,Vice-Chairman Project Manager
County Transportation Commis- -
Mayor,City of Tustin k Sion and prepared by its staff.
} Representatives of agencies Debra Aisoff,Jeff Clark,Tom P g � -"
Fortune,Julianne Kadlec,Robin responsible for all of the free-
Clarice A.Blamer -- j
Leftwich,Lisa Mills was roadways,and trans orta-
Counciltaontan,City of Brea ways, Y � p
Team Members tion facilities in Orange County 4
Iry Pickler The Hawkins Advertising contributed to this year's sum- TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION from all walks of life are shown
G
Councilrftan,City of Anaheim Agency,Inc. mary of information. Their T engaged in activities that require
g Y, Orange County Transportation The child on the cover is proud
Concept,Graphic Design cooperation was invaluable in E forms of transportation. With
Commission. . . . . . . . . 4 to have mastered her first form of
Dana W.Reed &Production preparing this sixth Annual
Public Member mechanical transportation,a gridlock looming,new solutions_
Report on Orange County will be needed to keep these
Porche' West Photographyi Transit . 6 tricycle. As she grows older,she
Transportation. Our thanks is
Roger R:Stanton p people moving and able to enjoy
g Photography .f: will move on to more e Count Board of sophisti-
Oran Supervisors extended to each of the county's the many opportunities the
g Pervsors Freeways and State cated ways of traveling. Poised
First District participating cities,the transit county offers.
Highways. . . . . . . . . 10 for a new decade,Orange County
operators,the county of Orange, l is facia a similar transition- This report relates what the
Harriett M.Wieder and the Commission's Technical g
� Orange County Transportation
Streets and Roads. 12 outgrowing sole reliance on the
Orange County Board of Supervisors g g
Advisory Committee. �' Commission accomplished in
Second District automobile,county leaders are
t exploring more sophisticated and
addressing this challenge be-
Keith E.McKean,Ex-Officio tween July 1,1988 and June 30,
efficient ways to move people,
Director,District 12,Caltrans ' such as carpool lanes,railroad 1989. One impressive finding
commuter trains,and new transit that echoed throughout the year
technologies. was how much needs to be done
The challenge of the 1990s is and how substantial is the
to move people and preserve the funding shortfall. New resource
lifestyles illustrated in this sixth investment and leadership will be
Annual Report on Transportation necessary to carry the county into
for Fiscal Year 1988-89. Through- the next century.
t
g,. out the report Orange Countians
i
E
16 1
YEAR AT A GLANCE
• The Orange County Transpor- • The regional air quality agency • An ad hoc committee of county
tation Commission continues its sets far-reaching policies by leaders forms to discuss the
fast-paced project delivery adopting an aggressive plan to possibility of putting all county
schedule by starting engineering bring the Southern California transportation decision-making
design studies for improving the area clean air by 2010;the first under one board of directors.
Riverside and Orange Freeways step requires major employers to
and Beach Boulevard. increase ridesharing. • Rail takes center stage in the _ -
Orange County transportation - _ _-
• The county's street network • The last of the callboxes are picture with a new California-
gets a shot in the arm with anti- installed and the entire 1100- Nevada high speed rail commis-
gridlock signs,selection of cellular phone network is dedi- sion,continued track rehab on the _ -
candidates and funding strategy cated by the Service Authority Los Angeles to San Diego corridor,
for the SuperStreet program,and for Freeway Emergencies as the a new LOSSAN rail agency,a look
a slateful of signal coordination first of its kind in the nation. into a rail line to Riverside,and a
projects. plan that features added rail
• After in-depth study and service while the Santa Ana
• Asked for new transportation public input,the Commission Freeway is being rebuilt.
solutions,Orange Countians develops the Traffic Improve- _--- -
submit over 3,000 suggestions ment and Growth Management • Orange County Transit District -
resulting in 100 ideas for improv- Plan,a ballot measure asking for has a record year for bus rider-
ing the county's transportation a one-half cent sales tax for ship,up by 14 percent to 40 million - -
picture. Orange County transportation passengers,and a highest-ever
projects. farebox return of 28 percent of
costs.
From Saddleback Mountain to Anaheim
Bay Landing,Orange County has many
natural attractions that draw residents and
visitors by way of an overburdened trans-
portation network.
2
ORANGE COUNTY
TRANSPDRTATIDN COMMISSION
Dear Friend of Transportation:
The Orange County Transportation Commission is pleased to present our sixth Annual
Report on Transportation. This report contains a summary of the most important surface
transportation activities from July 1, 1988 through June 30, 1989. It was designed to give you a
snapshot picture of the county's transportation issues and to help you shape the county's
transportation future.
The caliber of our future depends on how well we meet the challenge of moving people in the
1990s. To show how this challenge affects the lives of the people who visit, live, and work in
Orange County, the FY 1988-89 Annual Report focuses on people engaged in activities that
require some form of transportation. With increasing traffic congestion approaching gridlock,
new solutions must be found to enable people to enjoy the many opportunities the county
offers.
A major factor influencing our ability to meet the challenge is increasing demand on
ever-shrinking resources. In FY 1988-89, this was evident in the Commission's 20-Year
Master Plan of Transportation Improvements, a long-range planning document that
inventoried needed projects and expected revenues. The cities also felt the crunch in FY
1988-89, spending less on maintaining local streets and roads than in the last three years.
Still, we continued to explore new ways to meet the transportation needs of the county in FY
1988-89 and in doing so rediscovered rail travel as a potential commute alternative. Bus
ridership again outpaced expectations as more people than ever turned to the countywide
system for trips. And the callbox network system was dedicated, with 1,100 cellular boxes
providing much-needed safety on Orange County freeways.
This annual report continues to improve by incorporating suggestions and comments made by
our readers. We hope you will find it a clear and useful reference. As we are always looking
for ways to better our report, we welcome your thoughts on its content and format. Don't
hesitate to contact us for more information.
Sincerely,
Stan Oftelie
Executive Director
Orange County Transportation Commission
Commissioners:
Clarice A. Blamer •Richard B. Edgar•Iry Pickier•Dana W. Reed •Thomas F. Riley • Roger R. Stanton -Harriett M. Wieder•Keith E. McKean
1055 North Main, Suite 516, Santa Ana, California 92701 (714)541-7850 Telecopier(714)541-7843
STREETS AND ROADS
,i
I
The federal share COORDINATING TRAFFIC FLOW
dropped by nearly$5 During FY 1988-89,an OCTC-
Streets And Roads Expenditures ' million- This was sponsored study of signal t
In Millions picked up by an coordination opportunities
$300 increase in city general countywide was completed.
funds,at$77 million Using this study as a spring- #
$250 total,once again the board,the Commission decided
single largest category to approve a slate of Orange t
$200
of total revenues. County Unified Transportation
Another major genera- Trust(OCUTT)projects for next
~ j _ ter° for of streets and roads year that would help the cities
$150 1 ,
t funds was private and county to implement the
contribution and street study's recommended improve-
$100 assessments,with$60 ments. A total of$3.9 million -
8.f million pulled in from was awarded for 39 signal
$50 ' E this source. coordination projects. j
$ 0 NEW SUPERSTREETS -
1986 1987 1988 1989 DESIGNATIONS
With OCUTT money available
for SuperStreets projects,the
Annual Expenditures B Source(in thousands Commission moved ahead in FY (.a -
p Y )
1988-89 to name three high- - �� '� `� � �•.
Maintenance Construction Other Total Per Capita t ` �•
Non Maintenance capacity Orange County arterial - _ - A -_• '::: �
Pavement Pavement Expenditure
roads for further SuperStreet
Anaheim 424 6,310 13,601 2.846 23,181 $27.60 i- -
Brea 0 1,197 4,778 1.158 7,133 $35.73 study. Imperial Highway,
Buena Park 711 2,787 788 418 5,960 $60.90 Katella Avenue,and Edinger/ � L
Costa Mesa 2,870 2,787 12,885 1,418 19,960 $60.90
Cypress 365 1,185 481 797 2,828 $35.78 Irvine Center Drive/Moulton
Fountain Valley 457 1,774 556 169 2,956 $39.72 Parkway/Street of the Golden
Fullerton 350 4,791 3,492 479 9,112 $46.03
Garden Grove 1.306 4,050 6,056 272 11,684 $39.73 Lantern(one street with four
Huntington Beach 1,518 3,570 3,275 2,071 10,434 $26.96 different names)are now being
Irvine 1,879 4,185 31,994 2,306 40,364 $60.36 g
Laguna Beach 295 643 1,028 155. 2,121 $38.18 evaluated to see if it's feasible for i
La Habra 170 1,343 1,615 320 3,448 $30.87 �• 7
La Palma 192 408 222 506 1,328 $35.93 them to join Beach Boulevard as
Los Alamitos 329 56 7 39 431 $30.80
SuperStreets. Designation of ,t _ _ �Mission Viejo 0 1,271 71 172 1,514 $89.15 `.
Newport Beach 1,208 5,128 2,914 1,717 10.967 $89.15 these arterials ended a three-
Orange 851 3,114 4,409 1.085 %459 $37.28 phase process that involved
Placentia 0 750 424 443 1,617 $19.17
San Clemente 81 1,511 347 788 2,727 $40.00 obtaining and evaluating the
San Juan Capistrano 270 392 1,155 660 2,477 $26.48 recommendations of city and
Santa Ana 1,555 6,582 5,813 2,504 16,454 $35.11
Seal Beach 603 465 116 80 1,264 $39.56 citizen representatives.
Stanton 87 501 550 231 17369 $20.50
Tustin 320 177 31.388 840 32,725 $10.82
Villa Park 146 259 417 514 1,336 $58.68
Westminster 457 1,405 2,182 105 4,149 $25.24
Yorba Linda 0 1,060 1,665 1,049 3,774 $22.12 Whether by foot,bicycle,carpool,
County of Orange 3,447 5,413 3,280 19,554 31,694 $24.97 or school bus,the beginning
TOTAL $19,891$63:235 $135,509 $42,953 $261,588 and end of each school day involves
transportation.
14 3
j
ORANGE COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
�- Mobility is the 60,000 calls were placed to the
key to measuring California Highway Patrol(CHP)
how successfully for motorist assistance. Streets And Roans Revenues
Orange County As the callbox technology In Millions
+ - meets the diverse matured,the system was made $350
needs of its resi- more durable and resistant to
dents,job holders, knockdowns and vandalism. $300
` and visitors.
$250
ier�or.9 �
TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT AND
-_ E REVENUES AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN $200 -
__ EXPENDITURES The Commission's main thrust in -
During FY 1988-89, FY 1988-89 was developing the $150 -
The Orange County Transporta- the Commission received more 20 Year Master Plan of Transpor- revenues still did not match the While the amount of -' -
tion Commission was created in than$5.6 million,an 88 percent tation Improvements. The first all-time high of$343 million in expenditures changed, $100
1976 to work with state and increase of funding over the pre- step was compiling a list of major FY 1986-87,fueled by a one-time the FY 1988-89 revenue
local officials,community groups, vious year. The two largest road,highway,and transit proj- infusion of state funds. The data picture remained more $50 - -
business and industry,and other sources of income were$2.8 ects(potential cost$21 billion) collection process was expanded like the previous year.
transportation agencies to coop- million from the Orange County possible in the county over the in FY 1988-89 to include Mission Gas taxes returned to $ 0
eratively identify,design,fund, Unified Transportation Trust next 20 years. With comments Viejo,but adequate numbers the cities and the county 1986 1987 1988 1989
and implement traffic solutions. (OCUTT)and$2.2 million in from the public and local busi- were still not available for the increased only slightly.
The Commission is headed by state sales tax. ness and government leaders, newest cities of Dana Point and
Laguna Niguel Annual Revenues By Source(in thousands)
three city-elected representatives, -Expenses and commitments this list was reduced to a priority . State Funds Federal Local Funds
three county supervisors,and a made by the Commission totaled needs list of$11.5 billion. The The most alarming news to Funds Private
come from FY 1988-89 data is Gas omen General con-
member-at-large selected from nearly$7 million,most of which subsequent 20 Year Plan recom- Y spent Tax State Fund tributions other TOTAL
the public. The district director of ($4.9 million)went to fund multi-' mended a one-half cent sales tax that the amount of money ent
Anaheim 3,352 11 439 11,813 164 7,729 23,508
the state Department of Transpor- year consultant agreements for to make up the$3.1 billion differ- to fix potholes declined for the Brea 464 0 0 1,183 0 4,980 6,627Buena Park 921 0 1 4,293 0 761 5,976
tation,Caltrans,also sits on the freeway studies to help keep ence between revenues from second year in a row,this time b
Y Y Costa Mesa 1,275 13 2,199 4,527 11460 9,468 18,942
40 percent to less than$20 Cypress 607 1,505 0 342 490 122 3,066
Commission as a non-voting state construction work on track. other sources and project costs. Fountain Valley 777 0 0 1,686 8 55 2,526
member. County and cities'ratification
million total. The amount spent Fullerton 1,534 1,037 0 6,490 0 527 9,588 for signal maintenance,street Garden Grove 11859 28 976 2.948 0 6,351 12,162
The Commission's state-man- SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR of the plan led to the decision to Huntington Beach 2,593 0 1,481 4755 0 4.888 13.717
dated authority is to set transpor- FREEWAYEMERGENCIES craft an ordinance for a sales tax sweeping,weed control,and sign Irvine 1,358 265 1,493 5.498 15,605 9,887 342106
and lane striping,was about the Laguna Beach 343 0 0 1,628 2 88 2,061
tation priorities and make county- Fiscal Year 1988-89 was a banner election,titled the Traffic Im- La Habra 681 369 436 1,022 0 528 3,036
wide spending decisions based on year for the Commission's provement and Growth Manage- same as last year. La Palma 230 0 0 260 0 483 973
Road construction took a bigLos Alamitos 174 1 206 48 0 115 544
those priorities. The Commission callbox construction and operat- ment Plan. With new provisions Mission Viejo 1.396 0 0 1,305 0 82 2.783
is called upon to balance the jump in FY 1988-89,going up to Newport Beach 968 70 659 9,353 335 194 11,579
p ing arm,the Service Authority to tie development to traffic per- Orange 1,457 0 0 2,530 416 4,442 8,845
Orange County transportation for Freeway Emergencies(SAFE). formance and an independent $136 million. Sixteen cities and Placentia 575 0 38 391 0 671 1.675
the county spent more than$1 San Clemente 527 0 81 1,426 0 796 2,830
funding picture so that the More than 800 cellular phones oversight committee,this ballot San Juan Capistrano 345 958 64 257 818 149 2,591
greatest impact is achieved with were installed on Orange County measure sought to meet the million constructing roads Santa Ana 3.198 0 2,351 6,765 63 3,821 16,198
(including reconstruction,new Seal Beach 391 0 117 486 0 389 1,383
the available money. Realization freeways to complete the 1100- county's growing mobility needs. Stanton 399 0 20 206 0 527 1,152
of this g g goal translates into movie box network. construction,and major street Tustin 640 0 0 4,222 0 27,133 31,995
. Dedication cere-
p im rovements)and four of these Villa Park 112 249 0 397 0 920 1,678
more people effectively and monies were held in September. Westminster 1,025 20 232 1,469 0 647 3,393
efficiently throughout the county During the year,more than spent over$10 million. Fast- Yorba Linda 645 0 0 1 2A88 0 922 3,755
and the region. growing Irvine and Tustin each County of Orange 24,107 58 202 0 0 15,629 39,996
accounted for more than$31
TOTAL $51,953 $4,584 $10,995 $77,488 $19,361 $102,304 $266,685
million.
4 13
s
ti
I
STREETS AND ROADS
z
i
n
- _ >.
k
1
!
When our national and state roads mainly belongs to city and REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
leaders speak about our aging county government. Since Fiscal Streets and roads expenditures
infrastructure,the most recogniz- Year 1983-84,the Orange County and revenues increased in FY 1
able and immediate example of Transportation Commission has 1988-89 over the previous year, 1
this is the pothole. Although been collecting information to with income topping$266 '
some federal and state funds are chart the collective effort at million and costs just behind at
available to repair local streets keeping pavement repaired and $261 million. Although the
and roads,the responsibility for conditioned. deficit spending of the previous -
identifying and fixing overused year was reversed in FY 1988-89,
t.
Summary of Local Attributes by Jurisdiction
Traffic Lane Miles Pavement Pavement
Area in Volume of New Arterial Total Maintenance Maintenance Pt
Jurisdiction Population Employment Sq.Miles (in millions) Pavement Lane Miles Lane Miles Slurry Seals Overlays
Anaheim 244,000 147,000 45 1,040 2 660 1,478 7 25
Brea 33,500 18,000 11 166 13 92 240 2 10
Buena Park 66,207 32.457 10 267 0 137 369 7 15
Costa Mesa 92,893 75,000 17 377 0 258 527 8 13
Cypress 43,318 15,971 7 195 0 120 272 3 6
Fountain Valley 56,165 17.000 10 260 2 136 339 8 20 !
Fullerton 111,700 67,500 22 535 0 344 740 8 0
Garden Grove 134,801 42,000 18 508 0 196 977 10 18 l
Huntington Beach 188,701 47,264 28 595 12 393 651 6 12
Irvine 100,461 148,555 43 521 6 520 855 6 20
Laguna Beach 24,566 7,253 8 0 0 0 83 0 20
La Habra 49,005 16,410 6 532 0 57 243 7 14
La Palma 16,700 3,800 2 0 0 56 . 80 10 20 '!
Los Alamitos 12.500 9.815 4 105 0 33 79 16 20
Mission Viejo 75,000 13,500 16 78 25 130 190 0 0
Newport Beach 71,074 0 36 108 0 143 524 7 20
Orange 106,358 88,133 24 1,009 4 269 674 13 56
Placentia 39,128 0 7 120 1 24 110 12 12 3
San Clemente 39,800 8,000 17 0 0 24 100 4 8
San Juan Capistrano 25,000 0 13 81 0 62 120 8 0
Santa Ana 231,460 134,574 28 1,020 0 506 1,170 7 20
Seal Beach 27,000 0 11 130 0 11 116 8 25
Stanton 28,680 12.000 3 110 0 43 141 10 12
Tustin 46,800 27,759 11 0= 1 128 249 8 12-
Villa Park 6,902 1,235 2 0 0 4 65 5 20 Even the most simple of daily tasks
Westminster 73,767 21,000 11 310 0 170 445 7 15 1 like shopping can be complicated by
Yorba Linda 47,914 4,329 18 0- 2 27 136 5 10
County of Orange 354,807 37,117 376 1.642 81 600 1,484 7 21 clogged roads and lack of transportation
li alternatives.
!
12
TRANSIT
4254
Public transit in Orange County Persons of restricted mobility produced passenger revenues, Orange County Unified Trans- Transportation's progress to increase revenues and im-
is provided by regular-route rely on it as a life line. For up more than 20 percent from the
portation Trust(OCUTT),of toward constructing the county s prove the transportation funding
buses,trains,and specialized on- everyone's sake,transit provides year before. Still, nearly half of interest generated from transit projects. A state funding short- process. The six-bill package was
demand vans. The buses are run congestion relief and air quality the OCTD's$102 million operat- dollars held for future projects. fall,however,threw even the passed and signed by the Gover-
by the Orange County Transit improvement by efficiently ing revenues came from the The largest Commission-spon- Commission's attempts to keep nor in June 1989,with the voters
District(OCTD)as a countywide carrying greater numbers of Local Transportation Fund,one- sored effort was the design of the the projects on track in jeopardy. voicing their opinion in June
service and by the Laguna Beach people than the auto. quarter cent of the state sales tax,
Orange Freeway(Route 57) 1990.
Municipal Transit Lines(LBMTL) made available for local transit. widening. Nearly$1.5 million of LEGISLATIVE COMPROMISE TO The centerpiece of this com-
for Laguna Beach trips. The BUS ALTERNATIVES IN Income for the$23.7 million contracted-out work completed FUND THE FUTURE promise sought authorization to
trains are run through the ORANGE COUNTY capital budget came mostly from a four-year effort from an initial Recognizing the lack of money, revise the Gann spending limit
Los Angeles to San Diego Fiscal Year 1988-89 was quite a federal and local sources. feasibility study. the California Legislature and increase the state's gasoline
(LOSSAN)rail corridor by year for the county's transit The Laguna Beach Municipal The Commission continued to reached a historic compromise, tax from 9 cents to 18 cents a
Amtrak,the national passenger systems. The Orange County Transit Lines continued to serve monitor the state Department of passing a series of bills designed gallon over a 5-year period. The
rail provider. The specialized Transit District carried more than the resident,tourist and business bill package also included a
rides are available from the 40 million passengers,up over 14 needs of Laguna Beach in FY number of rail investments
Transit District's Dial-A-Ride percent from the year before. 1988-89. The 246,000 passengers State Highway Expenditures throughout the state,including in
and the Consolidated Transpor- This ridership increase in turn who used the Laguna Beach In Orange County Orange County. Also part of the
tation Service Agency's(CTSA) In Millions reform was a requirement that
paratransit service. $250 each coup develop a con es-
Public transit serves many Comparison ®f®CT® Revenues/Expenditures 231 county p g
needs in a county where the In Millions _ tion management plan as a
$120 $200 guideline for coping with the
automobile is dominant. For
those people who do not have $100 1 traffic of future development.
use of an automobile,public $80 $150
transit provides the necessary
trips. Others use it as a backup $60W. j ;
on their days without a car. =?` $100
$40 -� 71 72
$20 $50 —
�; 30
$ 0
1986 1987 1988 1989 $ 0
87-88 88-89 89-90 90-91
fl Revenues Expenditures EST. EST.
Fiscal Year
6 !1
t
FREEWAYS AND STATE HIGHWAYS
1
e
T The major freewa`and high- Widening Pacific Coast High-
1 he receipt of$231 million from j y" g the state made Fiscal Year 1988- way improvements funded in FY -way to sbc lanes between New-
89 an exceptional year for 1988-89 include port Boulevard and-Brookhurst
Orange County's freeway and Street for$20 million. _
state highway-improvement _ • Doubling to 12 lanes the Santa
program. With an extensive-list Ana"Freeway(I-5)between the In addition,the Ortega High- ,
of ready-to-construct projects, San Diego Freeway,(I-405) and way,Santa Ana Freeway at, Y
Orange County has been able to the Costa Mesa Freeway(Route Beach Boulevard,and the I-405
garner a large share of.available 55), at a cost of $107 million for received about$7 million for im- • = 'c
state funds. But there was bad the eight miles. provements
news at the same time. Because
of a-state funding shortfall, •The next stage in the makeover LOCAL COMMITMENT TO
programming.for future years of" of the Costa Mesa/Santa Ana CONSTRUCTION
additional state highway funds Freeway interchange by_widen- -= The Orange County Transporta- -
was suspended statewide. ing the 55 from the I-5 to 17th tion Commission stepped up its _
Street,for$47-million. -commitment to improving the 4
STATE FUNDING PROGRAM county s freeways by pumping
The FY 1988-89 state funding Right-of-way preparations for .Zanother$5.25 million of local
the widening of the Santa Ana move into ro ect and environ-
program, administered by the Y P j x ' _
mental reports and design "-�
California Transportation Freeway between the 55 and the p
studies This is a strategy to
Commission and the Department- Garden Grove Freeway(Route gY _
of Transportation(Caltrans)
22)with$13.7 million. advance more projects to a state
-included 21 Orange County of readiness while Caltrans is
o Extending the Costa Mesa bus with those ahead b
projects totaling$231 million. Y_ Ye gun.
For many of these,work would Freeway,south in the"big ditch" These funds came from the
to 19t1i Street in Costa Mesa for
continue more than one year.
$35 million
4M
- - - Rolling back the years at a
community dance takes a young
attitude and a way to get there.
e
10 7
i
TRANSIT
I
1.7 million passen- main Southern California termi-
_ gers; the five nal in Anaheim. A monorail
Orange County serving Orange County's airport
stops accounted for area was much discussed and
aQd 40 percent of that. interest in a central county rail
F s
With this continued line resurfaced. '
growth,the$11.4 01 /
million in revenues EMPHASIS ON PERFORMANCE -
again more than In FY 1988-89,the Commission \"
covered the$10.5 hired consultants to conduct f
million in operating state-required performance
expenses. audits on the county's transit
I �
service contributed $119,000 in A LOSSAN joint powers operators, structured to test the
fares to offset the$631,000 cost agency was formed, bringing efficiency and effectiveness of the
(minus depreciation)of running together Los Angeles,San Diego, taxpayer-funded service. The
buses. and Orange County government key concern identified was
Orange County's frail elderly entities to coordinate improve- rising transit costs and stagnant
and persons with disabilities ments. An extensive rehabilita- revenues,a prescription for 1
were given 354,000 rides by the tion of rail track continued in FY future trouble should these
Consolidated Transportation 1988-89,making the ride more trends continue. _
Service Agency in FY 1988-89. comfortable. A part of the audit process , i
With a fleet of wheelchair lift- A Bi-State California-Nevada was a tie-in to the potential of
equipped vehicles,the CTSA Super Speed Train Commission consolidating transportation }
transported seniors to nutrition was formed to finance and agencies under a unified Board
and day care sites,physically construct a high speed rail line of Directors. An ad hoc commit-
and developmentally disabled from Las Vegas to Southern tee of county and city leaders
residents to school and job California and by year's end delved into the subject for much
centers,and a host of mobility leaned toward establishing the of the year.
impaired people to a variety of _
county destinations. This type of —3
transportation service cost$4.2 LOSSAN Rail Ridership
million to deliver. In thousands
2,000
PASSENGER RAIL FEVER
Carrying forward the momen-
1,500
turn of several years,Orange
County moved closer to full-scale _
commuter rail service. Amtrak 1,000
ridership on the Los Angeles to
San Diego(LOSSAN)rail corri-
500 —
dor climbed to an all-time high of fi
0 = Orange County's business environment
1986 1987 1988 1989 is fast-paced and some smart commuters
have chosen rail to get a jump on their
competitors.
8 9
REQUES f FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
ea-ed t&cam Date June 19, 1989 Ls
�z z
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council c_c�
Submitted by: Paul E. Cook, City Administrator w
o m
Prepared by: Louis F. Sandoval, Director of Public Works o
Subject: 20-YEAR MASTER PLAN OF TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS - a;
1
7//7/0f9 Gar"`cG—
03�
Consistent with Council Policy? [ ;]'Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception
St�atle�n I�t1S�cLrmendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions, Attachments:
On May 8, 1989, the Orange County Transportation Commission adopted the Traffic
Improvement and Growth Management portion of the 20-Year Master Plan of
Transportation Improvements and took formal action to request the City Councils of
Orange County to ratify this document.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the attached Resolution # 6033(- approving the traffic improvement and growth
management plan for. the purpose of placing the plan before the voters of Orange County.
�\ ANALYSIS:
To deal with the Orange County's serious traffic congestion, in 1988, the Orange County
Transportation Commission was designated as a local transportation authority to craft a
20-year transportation plan and to explore financing methods to meet the goals of the
plan.
This plan has been completed and distributed to local agencies. The premier funding
alternative suggested in this document is a one-half cent increase in the sales tax.
As a requirement of receiving the revenues from a one-half cent sales tax, cities must
improve their cooperative transportation planning programs, develop growth management
plans and guarantee that transportation funds must be used for transportation purposes.
The general requirements of this plan will have important implications for the city both in
terms of transportation improvements and financial/staff commitment.
To meet Orange County's transportation challenge, the local sales tax may be a
reasonable alternative consideration to the voters to choose in order to pay for the relief
of congestion in this area.
FUNDING SOURCE:
The funding may vary from existing gas tax funds to the proposed local sales tax.
1
P10 5/85 — —
Request for Council Action
20-Year Master Plan of
Transportation Improvements
June 19, 1989
Page 2
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
Deny the recommendation.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. 20-Year Master Plan of Transportation Improvements.
2. Resolution # 6 D3
LFS:JR:lw
2093g
y �
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING THE TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT
AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE PURPOSE OF
PLACING THE PLAN BEFORE THE VOTERS OF ORANGE COUNTY
WHEREAS, Orange County' s serious traffic and
transportation problems threaten the quality of life throughout
our county; and
Maintaining and improving our aging transportation
system is essential to preserving our standard of living and to
developing an environment where business, industry, and
commerce can prosper and homeowners ' individual investments can
be protected; and
The State of California and the federal government have
said emphatically that they cannot solve Orange County' s
transportation problems alone and that all California cities
and counties must take steps to help solve their transportation
problems at the local level; and
The Orange County Transportation Commission, acting as
Orange County' s Local Transportation Authority, is requesting
the City of Huntington Beach to join with the County of Orange
and other Orange County cities to support the placement of a
Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Plan before the
voters of Orange County; and
The City of Huntington Beach recognizes it ultimately
will be the decisions of Orange County voters to determine if
they wish to approve a one half cent sales tax increase to
finance the transportation projects contained in the Traffic
Improvement and Growth Management Plan;
- 1 -
f T
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Huntington Beach has approved the Traffic
Improvement and Growth Management Plan for the purpose of
placing this matter before the voters of Orange County.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof, held on
the day of 1989 .
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
w �
City Administrator City Attorney
APPROVED, INITIATING DEPARTMENT:
Director of Administrative
Services
2 -
v?
t � .# r �1iix :U� £'�'r •r �' .f,'.�..rc� p[. � S Y ,iq[ t i� sy >.'" '
.� r';, .•x 5 �•�,�.Y r �t •�'. .1'. 'l� ,� }. '�'+�`� .,F�r.t F JCS,. .�..*.
•a1 -•�' �h,l. Zi:'��i4, �;4rT. S �J�r`ntay;i,3,}ti1, c �%�. g t n+�/�.�.Yr, , G-1. c.r ` 7�4 .��r•�1:`�,+��s�a,s;p ':."�'"t ,•j.�•,
�L'. ,� -4;{" .➢:.:J. r, id �/ 5. s-vy,,,. � .i. �}• tl! r.`L':5'� •���--�1"':'o.,t•�:,�-� :•.t :r�
Ty rs '�' 0`• :�: l�IP e u. .?. G"i:'.;.�a��"7 5 r•'`+i• .Li[y � ��', ,.eG+4.. ,¢4 �R •;F_ f, .S.Y. r ;S��.�;,,��7::�?
1.t •.� �:•` ',v, t%h =�1'� � �s��`?Z. :a. .;^'}� [}'- s'�??..r � +'� r�.k .� -?.::5. .�%�;:• �f.,-.,�/:Y- �.ti�; `.�,';
-� P4,.� �.� i_+y'.. ,�y�r:s .�€€���• :jr;1,�i.,.,,.�. ..5,, 1 .rf..-. .•�_s�_• c...��9r,�,• �«�'r• d •: i'4arr'c ..�• .�%7I. _„� •..fit• '+.L;' �.., �•
,¢i'' 'C.� 5}.s_�1-{y„' '.0 yy •.L. ( �v.,1 -�'�:'�': -sr ��vU'<``r:7 r.:c_w�.'� .,,v. :.,? , w,.cit'r u.%'[- 's r r. ^,"2s-. r'. .: ��i',
ar..5.,'r�. n� .v o .d ..sL% ..��•F, '•�' r ri, +'Y rjV s .:�5'r Si'" "k' _�4:1 � '�,""'fir �ij'*s .iA"% [�r'•�' r��^•..�.��, i�
t,..l; ;'�� Cr, r'. f-fit... :� ,�; .< - "i ;�• �,r.' n..<: •'vn�',�r.� -,',� �'�y.r.. _.�.-r_�•s �}�-,:' '�• a ; .D ','�. -i.. F;.{ :�- ;?h•
�X��;.,� _ r-, � N �.'�;"�'4$'t�� } h•`;, .¢a'�T•y, +�. snx+l 1` .:�.: ;�;T:. �`(� ,.r..Z✓Y.i.,�.•r`«ls�X ��'y sc. ,fit.. �ti!. '�.. y w ,.�,�. _ i..�`c� . ..,i.<4' r fin ,..�� .C=� .f< •.�.�ir.�yz�.....Jr s x'•c.:.,' ,�;•',..�" ' a'r''�'ci���," T ,��-k;. r.: a 't r.. 'p�r��Y�.. ��^�'o�• ..�: f f.� .Yi:''-'r'n''%.'K
�55 M Ll..t ;? :)8 x. l rfr '¢kM 7 Y K��:+��� 5 `l�'n ,✓J �f� y ?R'_t.t �1�L.. f.Rt�:}. � /:� S�'. 'r" � C�...) .fit ,�� t4�.S.yLY.Y.
���:�.+, yyttr ti �Ly �dt^�'f�. ,' •fi��".p M.. '� 1 a. �.•'+��"��R..y' � -'t� �r2 ?.,.,."i •:r4we. ?�i� A ,: �+L!a h�:� :i`..
r, �N.�f y7:a' � •� ..}} r-'- _t'r/ ,r�'' tsr: � ti" t[i•'�'�'ii�,Sxt' ?4.S'r4�� z `.��r -''�r> ..,�(�=.r�(e;,� .�}� "�})1-.N�'.4,i^:'sL'.1"%r•!;'.�,�
..�•.�r ,.' TYi '' •YS" a ...{ 5::;h,n:, aR `;r rt, y� cr�' .:yL �7U � r.•y'C �, 1_ts'r 1.jC .;.' L1: 'r
•�
t.i'FI r.r. l: '.5,.t 1' v � •�: „ 3s `]! Y.'t�t. : �;"'" ..� 1.,., a
S`, ,i': 1. ,Y`L 'y. `ti.• tr'' .';^. y' .�J.�..�•� .Y +� t :!�'.:(('{: ,,Y•s. .� .h�M t .J .��13�.�.tr. �t l. '�r .',�.1/!.i:w(�•�^r�•1'J .♦
MR
y:•,['3 •�: Lt r f.:,t:�ys'. ,t:7ri 'rR.�YF" `��' cs ;{�°�����7�� .t=; i":, .�.tr, .:r.� {a iv ' t^i �;? .'�4.. 4� � •5,.. '1i� ,,r `o+ •�:t,�C`'t:�:t;
�'��`` � 415�' �.;. ,J � ::,N ,�S > •t�. ��lL.c.:,}✓..1;{;�;..S�S�:t�'G'�' n•�.� .�.i.{.vy V� ��{� � �Iy'w,tr:.*+�,� .�. � .�.��' u���j ;7., y:�.. tA�•��, r�r��>_:
•sst� •R+ 1 y��:`s�` �i''7,t 'Y > 5• f��i„lyl" �; r �ti G�. ,� ,,h4t''� x�„`�+ � 'tif' "i 1.sr�v-1l':a'?'i�rt S ��°.,�1��✓�1.�
A Pi-uolem and a Solution
Orange County has a problem. A Efforts to encourage ridesharing, than 65 percent agreed that a one-
bad one. You're stuck in it every vanpooling and flexible work half cent local sales tax for
day. it is called traffic. And hours are being developed and put transportation purposes would be
without the right solution we in place. Engineering techniques, a fair and logical way to solve
might be stuck in it for good. including lane restriping, which is Orange County's traffic
Right now Orange County is designed to get more use out of problems.
paying for more than two decades the existing transportation net-
of inadequate investments in our work, are being implemented. This report explains the reasons
highways, streets and roads. This behind the one-half cent sales tat
is no longer acceptable. However, these efforts are not increase, the benefits and im-
enough. Orange County's lack of provements one-half cent will ;
Yes, it's true that the County of investment in transportation buy and the planning and growth
Orange, local city governments facilities requires that we look for management techniques neces-
and transportation agencies have new transportation dollars. And, sary to keep Orange County
successfully won more than a fair like 11 other counties, the Orange moving in the future.
share of state and federal highway County Transportation Authority
dollars and have turned increas- is proposing a one-half cent local A one-half cent increase in the
ingly to the private sector for sales tax to finance needed sales tax would be a small price
additional support. But now we improvements. to pay to solve the big problem of
have to go public. And here's traffic congestion in Orange
why. More than 60 percent of all County. Now. And in the future.
Californians live in counties that
pay for transportation improve-
ments with a local one-half cent
sales tax. And in a recent survey
of Orange County residents, more
l
A Problem in Search of a Solution
In the past 20 years, Orange character can be shown in statis- Mar Freeway) were added near
County has been transformed tics: Between 1966 and 1986, the John Wayne Airport.
from a semi-rural, suburban county's population increased by
bedroom community for Los 78 percent to 2.2 million people. This lack of transportation system
Angeles into a major, national Employment increased by 185 expansion means that Orange
economic center. One of the side percent. Today there are 1.2 County's tremendous growth was
effects of this rapid urbanization million jobs in Orange County, built on a regional transportation
is traffic congestion which threat- with 90 percent of those jobs held system constructed between 1955
ens Orange County's future by county residents. and 1965. And as the system of
.economic growth and overall freeways and major streets over-
quality of life. But while this urbanization has loaded because of rapid urbaniza-
occurred, public investment in tion, traffic congestion spilled off
Orange County's rise to national transportation in general— and of freeways and onto parallel local
prominence as an economic center freeways in particular—has streets and roads.
offering an outstanding quality of dropped significantly.
life is well documented. Orange To deal with growing traffic
County ranks loth among all Since 1966, only two new freeway problems, public and private
United States metropolitan areas projects have been added to interests turned to a variety of
in Gross National Product (GNP). Orange County's network of 137 innovative solutions. In 1972, the
Orange County's economic freeway miles: State Route 57 (the Orange County Transit District
product exceeds 24 of the 50 Orange Freeway) was extended was formed. Today the transit
states. And Orange County's GNP and connected to Interstate 5 (the district operates one of the largest
is greater than metropolitan Santa Ana Freeway) near bus fleets in the United States and
Dallas, Atlanta, or St. Louis. Anaheim Stadium. And two miles carries more than 100,000 passen-
Orange County's changing of State Route 73 (the Corona Del gers a day.
In 1977, the Orange County
Transportation Commission was
created as a short-range planning
Orange
and programming agency to
secure state and federal highway
Employment and transit dollars and to cham-
pion innovative financing
methods.
Housing
N.
Population
8%
Freeway Miles
Gas Tax Value
-100% 0% 100% 200%
2
rt • • • the Orange County Transporta- agencies have enjoyed, Orange
tion Commission as the Orange County transportation infi-asti-LIC-
Countywide GrowthCounty Transportation Authority tore continues to lag behind
Population —and empowered the Commis- growth in jobs, housing and
sion to explore options and to population.
North develop this plan.
County During the next 20 years, popula-
These special purpose transporta- Lion and employment will con-
South tion agencies were created to tinue to increase. The number pf
County more effectively capture state and people in Orange County.will
Employment federal transportation dollars and increase by 23 percent. Employ-
to focus on Orange County's ment is projected to increase by
unique transportation problems. 45 percent.
North But even with the success these
County
South , . ---------- -- --- ---
County
Employment Projectionsfor 111
Downtown Anaheim
In 1986. the Commission assisted Cn Anaheim Rec Area
in forming two special joint
powers agencies to build three c Anaheim Stadium New
new Orange County freeways. the v North Main Street
Foothill. Eastern, and San Joaquin a
Hills transportation corridors. E The City Existing
These projects will be funded with Q Santa Ana Civic Ctr
a combination of developer fees,
tolls, and some state and federal w South Coast Metro
funds. IBC North
CU
IBC South
In 1988. new state laws allowed
the Orange County Board of Irvine Spectrum
Supervisors to designate a local 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000
transportation authority to craft a Number of Employees
20-year transportation plan for
Orange County. Based on its track
record of success and proven
expertise. the Supervisors named
3
A Problem in Search of a Solution
1985 Highway and 1985 Highway and In the next 20 years, population
Street Expenditures Street Expenditures Qrowth will be the -reatest in the
ComparisonNationwide i StatewideComparison areas south and east of the Santa
Rank State Per Capita Rank County Per Capita Ana Rivet-, while Job growth %vill
Expenditure($) ry Per
be the greatest in the area north
1 ALASKWYOMI 702 1 MERGED 1,101.6 and west of the Santa Ana River.
2 WYOMING 702 2 MONO 1,101.E
3 MONTANA 416 3 SIERRA 702.6
4 SOUTH DAKOTA 3 4 TRINITY 553.E Unless new transportation invest-
s NORTH DAKOTA 354 54 5 ALPINE 534.0 n P
6 IOWA 316 6 TUOLUMNE 442.3 ments are made,in Orange
7 KANSAS 315 7 PLUMAS 425.1 County, a b 16duct of this
8 MINNESOTA 311 8 SISKIYOU 396.9 y+ y-p
9 NEBRASKA 304 9 INYO 306.2 inevitable growth will be in-
10 NERM EXI 290 10 MODONEVAD 256.2 creased traffic congestion and a
11 NEW MEXICO 290 11 NEVADA 256.0 g
12 NEVADA 289 12 LASSEN 222.2 steady deterioration of Orange
14 WESTTVRGINIA 264 14 PLACER 09.9 County's quality of life.
15 DELAWARE 258 15 RIVERSIDE 207.9
16 UAHO 249 17 IMPERIAL 201.E The key phrase is new trans orta-
17 UTAH 249 17 HUMBOLDT 187.4 Y P /�
18 COLORADO 246 18 AMADOR 179.5 lion investments. In the past 20
19 MAINELOUIS 241 19 SHASTAMARIPOSA
167.E ears, Californians in general and
20 LOUISIANA 241 20 MARIPOSA 163.9 y
21 MARYLAND 240 21 LAKE 149.9 Orange Countians in particular
22 WISCONSIN 238 22 SAN JOAQUIN 138.1 have not invested in transportation
23 VIRGINIA 234 23 CONTRA COSTA 136.2 P
24 NEW JERSEY 234 24 TEHAMA 134.7 improvements.
25 NEW HAMPSHIRE 233 25 ELDORADO 134.1
26 TEXAS 230 26 GLENN 132.3
27 MISSISSIPPI 226 27 MENDOCINO 127.7 In terms of per capita transporta-
28 C NN CTI 218 28 CALAVALAME RAS 119.1 tion expenditures, California ranks
29 CONNECTICUT 218 29 ALAMEDA i19.1 P
30 WASHINGTON 217 30 KINGS 116.1 50th in the United States and In
31 ARKOKLANSAS 212 31 DELNORTSAN MATE 108.1 California, Orange Count ranks
32 OKLAHOMA 212 32 SAN MATED 108.t y
33 ILLINOIS 208 33 MARIN 108.0 43rd out of 58 counties. In terms
34 OREGON 204 34 SAN LUIS OBISPO 108.0 of transportation taxes, 44 states
35 ALABAMA 204 35 NAPA 106.0 P
36 NEW YORK 202 36 VENTURA 104.0 have higher gasoline taxes than
37 MISSOURI 202 37 KERN 102.5 California.
38 PENNSYLVANIA 198 38 MADERA 102.2
39 GEORGIA 193 39 SAN DIEGO 98.0
40 TENNESSEE 193 40 LOS ANGELES 96.4
41 OHIO 177 41 YUBA 96.4
42 RHODE ISLAND 176 42 SANTA CLARA 96.3
43 MICHIGAN 173 43 ORANGE 94.0
44 FLORIDA 163 44 SONOMA 93.4
45 INDIANA 162 45 SUTTER 8B.3
46 NORTH CAROLINA 155 46 YOLO 86.0
47 MASSACHUSETTS 142 47 FRESNO 85.8
48 HAWAII 139 48 BUTTE 85.2
49 SOUTH CAROLINA 130 49 SAN BENITO 83.8
50 CALIFORNIA 50 SANTA CRUZ 81.9
51 SAN BERNARDINO 81.0
52 SOLANO 80.0
53 MONTEREY 79.2
54 SANTA BARBARA 76.5
55 STANISLAUS 75.8
56 TULARE 60.5
57 SAN FRANCISCO 59.4
58 SACRAMENTO 57.7
4
What are the,oth'6' 'rcounties doing? Gasoline Tax Rates
� �
LOS ANGELES
SAN BERNARDINO Rank State Per Gallon COUNTY COUNTY
G 1 MONTANA 20.00
6 1/2% /� 3 CO NOCTICUT 19.00
4 UTAH 19.00
5 MARYLAND 18.50
6 NEBRASKA 18.30
7 COLORADO 18.00
RIVERSIDE 8 WASHINGTON 18.00
COUNTY 10 VIRGINIAAROLINA 17.50
ORANGE 6 1/2% 11 MINNESOTA t7.00
COUNTY t2 MISSISSIPPI 117.00
13 NORTH DAKOTA 17.00
6% 14 TENNESSEE 17.00
15 ARIZONA 16.00
16 DELAWARE 16.00
17 IOWA 16.00
18 LOUISIANA 16.00
19 NEVADA 16.00
20 OKLAHOMA 16.00
SAN DIEGO 21 WEST VIRGINIA 15.35
22 KENTUCKY 15.00
COUNTY 23 MICHIGAN 15.00
7% 24 RHODE ISLAND 15.00
25 SOUTH CAROLINA 15.00
26 TEXAS 15.00
27 OHIO 14.70
28 IDAHO 14.50
And, in California. 11 counties The lack of committed trans orta- 29 INDIANA 14.00
P 30 MAINE 14.00
have local transportation sales tax tion investment in Orange County 31 NEW HAMPSHIRE 14.00
measures to ease growing traffic over the past 20 ears, coupled
32 NEW MEXICO ,4.00
P Y P 33 OREGON 14.00
congestion problems. Today, 62 with dynamic increases in jobs, 34 ARKANSAS 13.50
percent of the people in all of housing and employment, has cre- 35 I LINOIS 13.00
P P P g36 ILLINOIS 13.00
California live in counties with at ated the major traffic and trans- 37 SOUTH DAKOTA 13.00
least a one-half cent sales tax s e- ortation problems facing Orange 38 E 13.00
P P P gran g 39 PENNSYLNSYLVANIA 12.00
cifically for transportation pur- County today. 40 HAWAII 11.00
poses. Orange County is not 42 MASSACHUSETTS KANSAS 11.00
included in that percentage. In 43 MISSOURI 11.00
44 FLORIDA 9.70
Southern California, Orange
County is surrounded by three 46 ALASKA a.00
counties whose residents have 47 NEW JERSEY 8.00
48 NEW YORK 8.00
passed a one-half cent sales tax 49 WYOMING 8.00
for transportation improvements. 50 GEORGIA 7.50
5
A Problem in Search of a Solution
Finding an Orange County A key element.will be the strong
Traffic Solution •uy' •ver ill expected role played by the private sector in the next 20 years? financing transportation improve-
In the next 20 years, plans call for nients.
transportation improvements to be 80%of the Santa Ana Freeway
financed through a variety of (I-5) widening project Earlier this year, a national
sources. engineering firm reported that no
• 60%of local streets capital and urban region in the United States
State and federal funds, tolls, de- maintenance projects comes anywhere close to Orange
veloper fees, gas taxes, bus and County's achievements in secur-
rail fares, public and private Maintain the existing transit ing private sector participation in
contributions. assessment districts level of service innovative financing techniques.
and redevelopment funds will be In the next decade, almost half of
fit together to shape Orange Three transportation corridors Orange County transportation
County's transportation financing revenues will come from private
picture. sources—up from about 10
percent in the last decade.
Orange County- leader
developing innovative transportation funding programs
r -
10% 50%
,t 5 years ago Over the next 10 years
STraditional Funding Programs Innovative Programs
r
6
, f r
And, during this same time So with unprecedented private
period, Orange County will commitments to transportation
receive more than a fair share of improvements, and more than a
state and federal transportation fair share of state and federal
dollars. By reversing an old trend, funds on line, other transportation
Orange County will now be funding opportunities Nvere inven-
receiving more in state and federal toried and explored to overcome
Gas tax dollars than it now pays at the expenditure deficit.
the gas pump.
To meet Orange County's trans-
In fact, Orange County has been portation crisis, a method of
promised double or triple its fair financing that has proven success-
share of gas tax dollars in some ful in 11 other counties, the local
years, with the Santa Ana Free- option sales tar, was selected as
way widening being Orange the premier funding alternative.
County's sole recipient of
funds well into the 21 st Century.
FundsKey features State • Orange CountyHighways
of local
transportation
1985-86
• Provides greatest revenue
yield over 20 years 86-87
• Self-adjusts for growth
and inflation 87-88
• Is easy to collect 88-89
• Meets the tests of fairness
and equity ; 89-90
0 50 100 150 200
• Is permissible under existing (in millions)
law
• Requires a countywide, simple
majority vote -
• Is available to assist in
financing all transportation
areas (streets, roads,free-
ways, and rail transit)
• Increases local control
7
What One-Half Cent Will Buy
In the next 20 years, existing trans- Where will the money bespent?(in millions)
portation revenues will be used to
build, operate and maintain streets, Program Existing 1-2 Cent Total
roads. freeways, a bus system, a Component Dollars Sales Tax Dollars
network of freeway callboxes, and
an inter-city rail program. Using Freeways $ 3,469 (41%) $ 1,325 (43%) $ 4,794 (42%)
an innovative mix of funding
sources including developer fees
and tolls, the Foothill, Eastern and Streets and Roads $ 2,622 (31%) $ 1,000 (32%) $ 3,622 (31%)
San Joaquin Hills Corridors also (Local and Regional)
will be built. Transit $ 2,337 (28%) $ 775 (25%) $ 3,112 (27%)
After inventorying the existing
transportation expenditures antici- and conducting a technical analy-
pated over the next two decades sis of Orange County's transporta 20-Year Master Plan
-
tion needs, extensive public out PublicinpUt
-
reach programs were developed to
determine the public's acceptance • 15-member League of Cities
of transportation projects and con- Super Committee
cepts.
• 30-member special 20-Year
By balancing the technical studies Master Plan Citizens Committee
and the public attitudes, a mix of . 7 public workshops involving 350
key projects has been developed. people
• Speakers bureau contacts of
more than 2,500 people
4 • A survey of 600 Orange County
' residents
• Transportation Network -
a group of business trade
associations
• Transportation Coalition -
major employers
• Orange County Industrial
League
• Orange County Board of
Supervisors' special task force
:v
K
In the next 20 years, S8.4 billion building a 220-mile network of maintaining Orange County's
will be spent on needed transports- Super Streets on Orange existing investment in 5,300
tion improvements-That's good. County's 21 busiest streets: miles of streets and roads and
but it simply isn't good enough. developing a countywide
• expanding the successful Los program to keep roads free of
If the existing transportation Angeles to San Diego rail potholes.
revenues are augmented by a service and making new com-
locally-approved one-half cent muter rail service in Orange The new transportation revenue
sales tax that raises $3.1 billion County a reality: measure, if approved by Orange
over the next 20 years, these County voters, would create a
important projects would be preserving existing railroad balanced transportation plan
added: right-of-way for the future
which provides short-term relief
development of a clean, modern on freeways, streets and roads, and
• rebuilding the Santa Ana rail transit system; long-term development of a state-
Freeway from the Los Angeles of-the-art rail transit program. If
County line to the San Diego coordinating traffic signals coupled with a thoughtful growth
Freeway 10 years sooner than throughout Orange County; management plan and a sound
now anticipated: transportation planning program, a
• stabilizing bus and rail fares for new transportation revenue mews-
• rebuilding the confluence of the senior citizens and persons with ure could help catch up to existing
Santa Ana Freeway and the San disabilities; problems and keep up with future
Diego Freeway at the growth and provide solutions
El Toro Y; requiring ever}' city and the which will make the traffic-weary
County of Orange to adopt a happy.
• adding additional lanes to the comprehensive growth manage-
San Diego Freeway in southern ment plan to link traffic relief
Orange County, the Riverside and well-planned future growth,
Freeway throughout Orange
County, the Orange Freeway
from the Los Angeles County
line to the Santa Ana Freeway,
and adding a lane in each direc-
tion to the Costa Mesa Freeway
between the Riverside Freeway
and the Santa Ana Freeway:
q
What One-Half Cent Will Buy
Safeguards to protect the neiv A special transportation Cities. the county, Caltrans and
revenue for transportation use trust fiend must be established other agencies must use the
by Orange County's elected new transportation sales tax
When the new transportation reve- Auditor-Controller and all new revenue for transportation
nue is approved by Orange sales tax revenue must be de- purposes and transportation
County voters, the money must he posited in this account. The purposes alone. Regular audits
used for transportation purposes independent Auditor-Control- will safeguard against cheaters,
and transportation purposes ler, on an annual basis, must and a severe punishment —the
alone! To strengthen this require- certify that all revenue in the so-called "death penalty" —will
ment and to guarantee strict ad- account has been used for disqualify any agency which
herence to it, safeguards have transportation purposes and cheats from'receiving funds for
been built into the Traffic Im- transportation purposes alone. a five-year period.
provement and Growth Manage-
ment Plan: Specific timelines must be The Orange County Grand Jury
established on each major shall act as a watchdog on all
project detailed in the Traffic transportation related expendi-
Improvement and Growth Man- tures. No major changes in the
agement Plan and quarterly Traffic Improvement and
updates on those schedules Growth Management Plan can
must be brought before the be made unless they are ap-
Orange County Transportation proved by the Orange County
Authority in public session. Transportation Authority and
ratified by a two-thirds vote of
the Orange County Grand Jury.
These safeguards are in place to
,guarantee that new transportation
revenues are devoted to solving
=r. transportation problems and no
transportation dollars are diverted
ryp. to other kinds of projects.
]0
1 ,
A New Direction for Our Freeways
The centerpiece of the 20-Year But, because of funding con- after the northern segments are
Master Plan of Transportation Im- straints, it will take more than 20 addressed.
provements is the rebuilding and Years to widen the Santa Ana
reconstruction of the Santa Ana Freeway between Irvine and If the new revenue from a local
Freeway (Interstate 5). The Santa Buena Park— if all state and transportation sales tax is success-
Ana Freeway is Orange County's federal dollars coming into ful, reconstruction and wideninl
main street: 50 percent of all Orange County are focused on of the Santa Ana Freeway from
Orange County residents live just this one freeway project for San Clemente to the Los Angeles
within three miles of the Santa more than two decades. County line will be completed in
Ana Freeway and two-thirds of all less than 10 years.
jobs are in that same transporta- The price tag on rebuilding and
tion corridor. improving the Santa Ana Freeway And some of the busiest inter-
tops $1.5 billion. And, based on changes in the United States—
However, the Santa Ana Freeway current state and federal funding including the seventh busiest
was designed in the early 1950s to patterns, the Irvine to Buena Park interchange in America— where
handle rural traffic. Orange section will not be completed until the Santa Ana Freeway, the
County's population today is 2.2 2015. Projects on Interstate 5 in Garden Grove Freeway, and the
million, but, 35 years ago, plan- southern Orange County— Orange Freeway come together
ners and engineers anticipated that including reconstruction of the near Anaheim Stadium— will be
only about 1 million people would interchange at Interstate 5 and rebuilt to modern engineering
live in Orange County. So they Interstate 405 —will take place standards.
designed a six-lane freeway from
the Los Angeles County line to
the San Diego County line to meet
the expected traffic demands.
1Transportation
Today, plans are underway toTax Component—Program of Projects
double the size of the Santa Ana
Freeway—from six lanes to as Freeways $1.325 Billion .
many as 12 lanes in most parts of
Orange County. •Santa Ana Freeway (Interstate 5)
Riverside Freeway (Route 91)
•San Diego Freeway (Interstate 5)
Orange Freeway (Route 57)
•Costa Mesa Freeway (Route 55)
Santa Ana/San Diego Freeway Interchange
(Interstate 5/Interstate 405)
II
A New Direction for Our Freeways
Additionally, other high usage A key strategy in the Traffic Finally. through a combination of
freeways will be improved: Improvement and Growth Man- innovative financing techniques,
carpool lanes will be added to agement Plan is to use locally three new freeway-like facilities,
State Route 91 (the Riverside generated revenue to attract or the Foothill. Eastern. and San-
Freeway) from the Riverside match state and federal dollars Joaquin Hills Transportation Cor-
County line to the Los Angeles which otherwise would not come ridors. are being designed for
County line. Two new carpool to Orange County. No state or southern and eastern Orange
.lanes will be added to State Route federal funds would be lost if a County. These new corridors will
57 (the Orange Freeway). And local revenue source is approved. not be financed with any new.
new general purpose lanes will be In most cases, state and federal transportation sales tax revenue,
added to the heavily congested matching programs would allow but will be funded by the largest
Costa Mesa Freeway (State local officials to stretch locally multi-jurisdictional fee program in
Route 55). generated dollars far beyond their the United States. And, for the
normal purchasing power and first time since California's Gold
open the door for additional Rush era, toll financing will be
freeway projects to be built. In used to help pay for these needed
future years, by aggressively transportation corridors. No new
pursuing state and federal dollars, sales tax revenue is targeted for
any locally generated revenue these three projects.
may create a "multiplier effect."
That is, the funds generated
i locally may be doubled or even
tripled by using them to match
state and federal transportation
dollars that otherwise would go to
other counties or other states.
12
Putting Rail Service on the Fast Track
---------- --- -------------------._....------ _— -- -------- ---------
Building streets. roads and Additionally, two freeway-to- program will be established to
freeways focus on today's prob- freeway transitway interchange stabilize bus and rail fares for
lems. Building a rail system for projects are proposed to encour- senior citizens and persons with
Orange Count%- looks to our age-ridesharing by allowing disabilities for the entire 20-year
future. carpools, vanpools and commuter life of the one-half cent sales tax
buses faster transition through program.
In the next 20 years, a backbone interchanges. And, finally, a
rail system, connecting the Los
Angeles Metro Rail to our north
and the San Diego trolley system 20-Year Master Plan Transportation Sales'
to the south can be constructed
Tax Component—Program of Projects
along the existing railroad tracks
in the Santa Ana Freeway corri- Transit $775 Million
dor. New commuter trains can be
added to the existing, successful • Pacific Electric Right-of-Way Acquisition
rail program. An energetic rail
right-of-way protection program, •Lossan Intercity Rail Program
including the protection and pres-
ervation of the Pacific Electric •Lossan Commuter Rail
line between Santa Ana and • Riverside Commuter Rail
Cerritos, can be undertaken.
• High-Technology Advanced Rail Transit
Commuter trains to Riverside can
become a reality. And local rail • Elderly and Handicapped Fare Stabilization
systems. like the proposed •Transitways
McDonnell Douglas Monorail
project in Irvine or the Anaheim
people mover program, will be de-
veloped to provide a full-fledged
transit system for the county.
13
What's Down the Road for Our Streets
Local streets and roads provide application of traffic flow Additionally, a countywide traffic
both an alternative to freeways improvements, ranging from signal synchronization program
and a strong Support system to the traffic signal coordination to grade will be pttt in place to better time
regional transportation network. separated intersections, can be traffic lights on a countywide, co-
used to provide needed regional ordinated basis. Improved mainte-
In Orange County, more than traffic congestion relief. nance for city streets and roads,
5,300 miles of roadways are aiming at the elimination of
owned and operated by cities, the The cost of converting these 21 pothole and rough street surfaces
County of Orange, and the Cali- streets from today's roads to will be requited and Orange
fornia Department of Transporta- tomorrow's Super Streets will be County's 100 most deficient inter-
tion (Caltrans). $120 million, or about $500,000 sections will be targeted for
a mile. immediate improvements.
To increase the effectiveness of
the street and road system, a Super Street Network
network of 21 Super Streets has
been identified as Orange 1 Beach Boulevard between Pacific Coast High- 11 Bolsa Chica Road between Warner Avenue and
County's busiest and most impor- way(State Route 1)and Imperial Highway the San Diego/Garden Grove Freeways.
tant roadways. By focusing (State Route 90).
0 12 Adams Avenue between Beach Boulevard and
attention on these 220 miles of 2 Imperial Highway between Beach Boulevard Harbor Boulevard.
major arterials, a coordinated and Yorba Linda Boulevard. This super street
would be along the freeway corridor designated 13 Newport Boulevard between Pacific Coast
in the Orange County MPAH. Highway and Industrial Way(the proposed
20-Year Master Plan southern terminus of the Costa Mesa Freeway).
Transportation Sales 3 Harbor Boulevard between Imperial Highway
and the Route 55 Freeway(extended)in Costa 14 MacArthur Boulevard between Pacific Coast
Tax Component Mesa. Highway and the San Joaquin Hills Transporta-
Program of Projects
tion Corridor.
• 4 Jamboree Road/Myford Road between the
Santa Ana(1-5)and Corona del Mar(Route 73) 15 El Toro Road between Laguna Canyon Road and
Streets and Roads $1.0 Billion Freeways. This corridor would constitute an the Foothill Transportation Corridor.
• Super Streets extension of the Eastern Transportation
p Corridor. 16 Crown Valley Parkway between Pacific Coast
• Traffic 5 Laguna Canyon Road between the southern
Signal Coordination Highway and the Foothill Transportation Corridor.
• Road Maintenance terminus of the Laguna Freeway(State Route 17 Crangethorpe Avenue between Beach Boulevard
133)and Pacific Coast Highway. and Imperial Highway.
• Critical Intersection 6 Tustin Avenue/Rose Drive between the 18 State College Boulevard between the Riverside
Improvements Riverside Freeway and Imperial Highway. Freeway and Imperial Highway.
• Improving Major Streets 7 Katella Avenue between 1.605 to the Costa 191rvine Boulevard(Fourth Street in Tustin)
p 9 Mesa Freeway. between the Costa Mesa Freeway and El Toro
Road.
and Roads
8.Pacific Coast Highway between Warner
-Traffic System and Demand Avenue(near Huntington Harbour)and the 20 Moulton Parkway/Irvine Center Drive/Moulton
y Route 1 Freeway terminus at Dana Point. Parkway.'Street of the Golden Lantern between
Management the Costa Mesa Freeway and Pacific Coast
g 9 Valley View Street between the Garden Grove Highway.
• Local Street Interchanges Freeway(Route 22)and the Riverside Freeway
g (Route 91). 21 Bolsa Avenue/First Street between Bolsa Chica
at Freeways Road and the Santa Ana Freeway.
y 10 Warner Avenue between Pacific Coast
• Growth Management Areas Highway(near Huntington Harbour)and Harbor
g Boulevard.
14
Growing Bigger Through rietter Management
As a condition of receiving • specify traffic level of service require phasing of new devel-
revenue from the proposed one- standards. opment to ensure that service
half cent transportation sales tax, level goals are achieved;
each jurisdiction in Orange • promote alternative forms of
County must agree to improve its transportation and overall pursue additional revenue to
local planning and overall coordi- system efficiency by maxiMiz- upgrade recreational areas and
nation with its neighbors by ing use of the existing transpor- to acquire additional open
adopting a Growth Management tation network through Trans- space.
Program. portation Demand Management
(TDM) and Transportation With this approach, new transpor-
The Growth Management Pro- Systems Management (TSM) tation revenue would be focused
gram developed by the Orange techniques; on curing existing traffic problems
County League of Cities Super while the Growth Management
Committee on Transportation require a traffic mitigation fee Program would help avoid future
emphasizes good planning, im- to guarantee that new develop- transportation problems.
proved cooperation between meat pays its fair share toward
neighboring cities and the County dealing with traffic generated
Of Orange, and requires that new by new development;
development pay its fair share
toward dealing with traffic foster a better balance of jobs
generated by new development. and housing and reduce com-
Under the Streets and Roads muter trips through careful
Component, $100 million will be planning;
set aside to provide multi-jurisdic-
tional traffic improvements. encourage local jurisdictions,
where applicable, to establish
The key portions of the Growth performance standards for fire,
Management Program requires police, library, parks, open
that each government agency: space, flood control, and other
infrastructure based on local
• outline its plans and efforts to criteria;
develop multi-jurisdictional
traffic solutions through a well-
defined, cooperative planning
process:
15
One-Half Cent. . . A Small Price to Solve a Big Problem
Traffic and transportation im- Traffic congestion in Orange
provements, including the widen- County can be relieved. But it will
ing and expansion of the Santa take hard work. It will take
Ana. San Diego, Riverside and additional investment. And it will
Orange Freeways. development of take individual commitment and
a countywide Super Street effort. Flexible work hours.
network, improved street mainte- improved streets, roads, and
nance, and development of a freeways, development of a rail
clean, state-of-the-art rail system, transit system to complement the
can be accomplished if Orange existing bus system, carpooling,
County follows the lead of 11 better planning, and other tech-
other California counties and niques must be used to improve
adopts a one-half cent sales tax for Orange County's troublesome
transportation purposes. traffic problems.
As a requirement of receiving the Traffic can get better. But only if
revenues from a one-half cent we make an effort to make it
sales tax, cities and the County of better.
Orange must improve their
cooperative transportation plan-
ning programs, develop Growth
Management Programs, and
guarantee that transportation
funds must be used for transporta-
tion purposes and transportation
purposes alone.
' Traffic Improvement and owth Management Plan
Expenditure Plan
t
ORANGE COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION
t:
f>
F
E
r
Traffic Improvement and growth Management Plan '3
Expenditure Plan (1988 $ x million)
Freeway Projects $ 1,325
Project Cost
1-5(Santa Ana Freeway)between 1-405(San Diego Freeway) and 1-605(San Gabriel Freeway) $550
1-5(San Diego Freeway)between 1-5/1-405 Interchange and San Clemente 80
1-5/1-405 Interchange 55
S.R.55(Costa Mesa Freeway)between 1-5 and S.R.91 (Riverside Freeway) 200
S.R.57(Orange Freeway)between 1-5 and Lambert Road 40
S.R.91 (Riverside Freeway)between Riverside County line and Los Angeles County line 400
Freeway Sub-total 1,325
Regiorlail Street and Road 1
Project Cost
Super Streets $120
Regionally Significant Interchanges 70
Intersection Improvement Program 100
Traffic Signal Coordination 50
Transportation Systems Management and Transportation Demand Management 10
Streets and Roads Sub-total 350
Local Street and 'o . 1
Project Cost
Master Plan of Arterial Highway Improvements $100
Streets and Roads Maintenance and Road Improvements 450
Growth Management Area Improvements 100
Local Street and Road Sub-total 650
Transit Projects $775
Project Cost
Pacific Electric Right-of-Way $50
Lossan Intercity Rail Program 20
Lossan Commuter Rail 130
Riverside Commuter Rail 90
High-Technology Advanced Rail Transit 340
Elderly and Handicapped Fare Stabilization 20
Transitways 125
Transit Sub-total 775
TOTAL $ 11
18
Santa Ana Fre%,.,ray Improvements from the Sa.- Diego Freeway (I-405)
to the Los Angeles County Line
,
�QC
> I
�a
\ 6° Santiago Canyon I
s,9ss ° I
c I
> I-5 `) I
I Irvine Blvd.
A\ I N \
a gP2 0 �Oi,��c o Nv+y• \
' �a�e\a 0o\ya lac 1 Ap5 <7
rQ /
1405
y°° c \
Pacific Coast HighKayV
1
$550 Million
Description:
Rebuilding the Santa Ana Freeway is critical to the county's continued mobility. This project forms the
centerpiece of the 20-Year Master Plan of Transportation Improvements. Fifty percent of all Orange
County residents live within three miles of this facility and two-thirds of all jobs lie in this transportation
corridor. The staged improvements call for the addition of up to three lanes in each direction,rebuilding
the freeway-to-freeway interchanges, and providing soundwalls and environmental mitigation. The
project begins where the I-5 separates from the I-405 and continues north to the Los Angeles County line.
Two of the new travel lanes will be dedicated to carpools.
Within this length of freeway is the I-5/SR 57/SR 22 interchange. This is the nation's seventh busiest
interchange. This interchange and all other intermediate interchanges will be improved as part of this
project. Traffic on I-5 north of I-405 was 160,000 vehicles per day in 1988 and in the future the vehicular
f demand is expected to increase to over 260,000 daily.
Costs:
i The overall cost of the I-5 project is estimated to be$1.6 billion. Existing state and federal resources are
expected to fund$1.1 billion with the sales tax revenue providing the additional$550 million to complete
the project.
Implementation:
Construction will start immediately. Sales tax revenue would be used to augment funding,alleviate cash
flow constraints, and accelerate project delivery by 10 years.
' 19
San Diego Freeway (I-5) From I-5/I-405
Confluence to San Clemente
ol
i
1P i
> i
yd. Santiago Canyon
,r
s9ss 0 i
1-5 CO I
I Irvine Blvd.
�1 I-5 M
5 �
ro
Gr �d 4p5 w O /
\ 1 O
LO CU
CCy°') C
Pacific Coast HighK,ayU`
$80 Million
Deseription:
Current plans for I-5 south of the confluence call for adding one carpool lane in each direction,building
soundwalls and other environmental amenities. This project includes the segment of 1-5 from the I-405
confluence to San Clemente near the San Diego County line, a distance of approximately 12 miles. In
1988, fhe freeway carried approximately 170,000 vehicles per day and forecasts show demand to
increase to over 230,000 daily.
Costs:
The estimated capital cost for this section of the I-5 improvement is about $80 million.
Implementation:
Project construction is scheduled to begin during the first 10-year period of the plan.
20
il.
I-5/I-405 Interchange
W
� s9s I
� 1
yd� Santiago Canyon
s
Sass o I
>. I
c
> 15 f° I
I Irvine Blvd.
91 1-5 c
0 �
m
a 5 o a
r J
405
Ln
Pacific Coast Hig/h7 a 0
i� Y
\
W
It�
$ 55 Million
F-
�f: Description:
The need for improving one of the county's busiest interchanges has been identified in numerous studies.
S$
In 1988 over 260,000 vehicles a day traveled through this interchange and forecasts show this demand
will grow to over 350,000 vehicles daily. This project calls for the construction of bypass and feeder lanes
along I-5 for the"El Toro Y"interchange. This will greatly improve traffic movement between the Santa
Ana Freeway and the San Diego Freeway, as these facilities are widened to add three new lanes in each
direction (including carpool lanes) on the I-5, and carpool Ianes to the San Diego Freeway.
Costs:
f The capital cost in 1988 dollars is estimated at $55 million.
Implementation:
Construction will begin within the first five years of the 20-year program. This project plays a critical
role in the improvement of the I-5.
y
21
Costa Mesa Freeway (Sx. 55) From the
Riverside Freeway to Interstate 5 '
Y.
w
� s I
> I
Santiago Canyon I
s,9s f
s f
f Irvine Blvd.
1-5
g �
m
o
' Gra F�^ mac �
s 145 �d� w
del ` N d4y° >
aS`a��e Bcod 9 � - c
o I-5 \
Pacific Coast Highwa 0
SH 1
SR 55
0 $200 Million
Description:
The 20-Year Master Plan of Transportation Improvements calls for the addition of two new general
purpose lanes to the Costa Mesa Freeway for a distance of approximately six miles. In 1988 Route 55
carried about 180,000 vehicles per day and forecasts show demand to exceed 190,000 in the future.
Auxiliary lanes are also planned,in addition to providing soundwalls and other environmental mitigation
measures.
Costs:
The current estimated capital cost (1988) is approximately $200 million.
Implementation:
Construction is scheduled for the second 10-year period of the plan.
22
Orange ~eeway (SR 57) From the
Los Angeles County Line to Interstate 5
i
5�C
i �9S I
I
Santiago Canyon
s9s I
s
I
> II I-5 Irvine Blvd.
�.� 1-5
m
.q0
a`e`a a° 5Q,22 ��o �or�c � o a Nv�y• �
<d�G
1405 O
e� n dy m i
o> c \
�a d°4 Paa I-5 \
Pacific Coast o
Nighiyayv
SH 1 \
SR 57
$ 40 Million
Description:
The 20-Year Master Plan for Transportation Improvements calls for the addition of one carpool lane in
each direction to the Orange Freeway for its entire length within Orange County. This covers a distance
of about 12 miles. In addition, soundwalls and other environmental amenities will be added. In 1988,
this freeway carried over 210,000 vehicles per day and forecasts estimate this demand to grow to over
280,000 daily. Los Angeles County plans for additional lanes that could extend the improvements north
to Route 60 in Diamond Bar.
Costs:
The 1988 capital cost estimate for this improvement is $40 million.
Implementation:
The current schedule slates the Orange Freeway improvements for the first five-year period of the.plan.
23
Riverside Freeway (SR From
Los Angeles County Line to
Riverside County Line
s9s I
� I
yd^ Santiago Canyon I
\ 60^ l
s9
ss I
I
> II 5 Irvine Blvd.
g1 1-5
l
Q \.Q05
�a�e\ac�`a� 5�22 �^° �°�rJ� � ! Nay• \
Gra �� Sao �
\ 1405 d LO L w /
LO
� o° c
Pacific Coast HighKayv
SH 1
SR 91
$400 Million
Description:
Long-range plans call for the addition of one carpool lane in each direction on the Route 91 from
Riverside County line to Los Angeles County line. The first phase of this project on Route 91 extends
from the Riverside County line and terminates at the Orange Freeway. The second phase extends from
Route 57 to the Los Angeles County line. In addition to the carpool lanes,plans for the freeway include
rebuilding the freeway-to-freeway interchanges and providing soundwalls and other environmental.
mitigation features. About 210,000 vehicles used this freeway in 1988 and forecasts show demand to
exceed 240,000 in the future. Both Los Angeles and Riverside counties have plans to improve SR 91
within their jurisdictions.
Costs:
The capital cost for these improvements is $400 million.
Implementation:
Construction of Phase I improvements is scheduled for the first 10 years of the plan and Phase II
improvements will occur during the second 10 years.
24
Super Streets Thr ahout Orange County
i
i
$120 Million B Super Street Network
Beach Blvd. Improvements
Description:
The Super Street Program for Orange County is a 220-mile network of arterial streets targeted for
improvements designed to increase their ability to carry traffic. These improvements consist of traffic
signal synchronization,restriping/widening roadways to increase the number of travel lanes,intersection
grade separations,bus turnouts,removal of on-street parking,and intersection improvements. The Super
Street Network includes 21 major arterial streets throughout Orange County such as Beach Boulevard,
Katella Avenue and El Toro Road.
Costs:
$120 million of sales tax revenue is targeted for Super Street improvements.
Implementation:
Improvements would be phased over the 20-year program and coordinated with other local
improvements.
25
Regional Interchanges
i tp
> I
d Santiago Canyon
I
�9`rs o I
> I
c
' 15 Irvine Blvd. 0 I
9P 1 5 U) l
Q
\ t 405 � w
e LO
� °o C \
p a Pacific Coast y;9hway0 I-5
Regional Interchanges
$70 Million
Description:
The goal of the program is to further enhance the local street interchanges at key freeway junctions such
as the interchanges of I-405 and Warner Avenue,and Route 22 and Beach Boulevard.The program also
would direct connections between the transitway system and local streets, for example at Route 57 and
Cerritos Avenue.
Local agencies would be required to provide dollar-for-dollar matching funds. All freeway and major
street junctures throughout Orange County are eligible. Improvements will be coordinated with other
freeway projects and phased in over 20 years.
Costs:
$70 million of sales tax revenues are targeted for this program.
26
Intersection Improvemf Program Throughout
Orange. County
d� Santiago Canyon
I
0
ss T I
I 1-5 Irvine Blvd.
'` I5 m
I aye a ao B
� \4p5 W
LO
d7 CU
y0 c \
a o \spa Pacific Coast H/ghKa c� I-5
Y
Arterial Intersection Program
$100 Million
Descriptioh:
The 20-Year Master Plan of Transportation Improvements recommends that 100 of the county's most
congested street intersections such as the intersections of Bristol/MacArthur Boulevard,El Toro Road/
Rockfield and State College Boulevard/Imperial Highway be identified and scheduled for improvement.
This program will help alleviate traffic bottlenecks present in Orange County.The schedule shows these
improvements to span the full period of the plan.
Costs:
$100 million over a 20-year period is recommended for this program.
27
Signal Coordination Thr shout
Orange County
1 \/
I
yd^ Santiago Canyon
\ 60„
s9ss o I
I
I , Irvine Blvd. ,
�� 15 U l
�ra �o �oir�c �\Ny• \
5Q`Z °\5a h �ac t.A05 ld�G F°-
1 o O /
\ 1 Ap5 d0 LO w
0 LO dy m
0> c \
° I-5
p Pacific Coast Mi9hwayc�
\
Signal Coordination
$50 Million
Description:
With 28 cities in Orange County, the number of jurisdictions can complicate the coordination of traffic
signals between city boundaries. This element of the 20-Year Master Plan of Transportation Improve-
ments calls for financial assistance to cities and the County of Orange in timing traffic signals where
streets cross city boundaries.
Costs:
$50 million over a 20-year period is targeted for these improvements.
28
• Local Transportation Sys__.ns Management and
Transportation Demand Management Plans (TSM/TDM)
� I
Santiago Canyon
-
cs''p�s o I ,
C 1
> COI I-5 Irvine Blvd.
I aye a ao B^
f GgQ Z go�5a o�s lac
\ 1405LO
O.
e Ln dy m
0
� 7 \ i
p a Pacific Coast 9hway o 0 15 j
i
TSM/TDM
$10 Million
Description:
Transportation system and demand management focus on increasing the present capacity of the
transportation system for the movement of people rather than of vehicles at a relatively low capital
cost. Thus, these strategies center on increasing the occupancy of vehicles and spreading the de-
mand for travel to times when facilities have excess capacity. These measures include carpooling
and vanpooling programs, park-and-ride service development, removal of on-street parking and
parking management, and controlling delivery and operations of commercial vehicles.
The TSM/TDM measures also consist of bicycling, alternative work hours, development of site
amenities to encourage high occupancy use, such as transit shelters and preferential parking, and.
reversible traffic lanes to add capacity to the peak direction. This element of the 20-Year Plan for
Transportation Improvements calls for each city to develop and implement elements of TSM/TDM.
Implementation of these improvements will occur throughout the life of the 20-year program.
Costs:
$10 million is recommended for this program.
29
Master Plan of A- ,rial Highways for
Orange County
� I
yd� Santiago Canyon
sass o
c I
> m II 15 Irvine Blvd. 0
1-5 m
5P cn
V Q
�Gra �^oo �oirvc Nv+`1 \
��2 o\ya � 2G t.405 ld9 o ec /
\ t 405
e LOcr d�yo > ,
p 2 Pacific Coast Hi9hway0 1-5
Arterial Highways Program
$100 Million
Description:
The County of Orange currently provides $4 million annually to complete the construction of major
streets countywide. Over 80 percent of the county's road system has been constructed. Additional
Rinding is proposed that, when combined with county and other local funds, will help complete the
system. Construction will occur throughout the 20-year program.
Costs:
ti 100 million is allocated to construct and improve local streets and roads.
30
Streets Maintenance --id Local Roads Projects
� t
Santiago Canyon
s9ss a I
c I
I-5 Irvine Blvd. v I
5P U)
\� m
a B \
z� a
e o
G��2 o\ya° ac r \.405 ld9 o eom
\ 1405 0. w
e LO d yo
; \
a� ado \
t �paa� Pacific Coast Highkayc�
1-5
i
Streets Maintenance and Local Roads Projects
$450 Million
Description:
This program element offers cities funds for street maintenance and local traffic improvements. The
program is designed to supplement city and county expenditures on road projects and will require
continuation of local investment in the street and road system. Specifically,to receive these funds cities
must:
• adopt a Growth Management Plan as called for in the 20-Year Master Plan;
• adopt a local Pavement Management System that will eliminate the need for costly road reconstruc-
tion and adequately fund such a system:
• adopt a local Transportation Systems Management plan to make better use of the road network;
• agree to complete improvements -vvithin three years or return the funds; and
• adopt a local traffic circulation plan that is consistent with the countywide Master Plan of Arterial
Highways.
This is a countywide program to maintain and improve over 5,000 miles of local streets and roads and
will extend over the entire 20-year program.
Costs:
Previous studies have indicated that an initial investment of$200 million is needed to bring all deficient
streets into good repair,and an annual allocation of$36 million for routine maintenance. It is proposed
to allocate $450 million toward such needs that. when combined with local resources, will provide
substantial new funding for Orange County streets and roads.
31
Growth Management Area Improvements
�QC \�� I
s9 t
s�
yd, t
Santiago Canyon I
� 60
�9`rS o t
c t
I-5 Irvine Blvd. I
1-5 m
� ra o '°i �t NN`1• �
1405 dC' w
e � ��i @ ,
a` Pdo °
I-5
p Pacific Coast Highwayv
Growth Management Area
Improvements
$100 Million
Description:
An important component of the plan is the formation of Growth Management Areas that will blend
local and regional planning perspectives and traffic control techniques. These areas will be
established by grouping local jurisdictions with similar land use and transportation characteristics.
This program element will focus on addressing cumulative regional traffic impacts of development.
Specifically, funds will be used to complete traffic improvements crossing city/county boundaries.
Under no circumstances may local government use funds from the program to subsidize costs which
should be borne by developers.
Costs:
$100 million over a 20-year period is targeted for this program.
32
Rail Transit Right-of-Way
Protection
Description:
Right-of-way protection on the Pacific Electric/Southern Pacific West Santa
Ana Branch from Santa Ana to Los Angeles County line.
Location: a�
Central and west part of the county. Goes through the cities of Santa Ana,
Garden Grove,Stanton,Anaheim,Buena Park,Cypress,and La Palma.
i iNi
I_s
Technology and Ridership Estimates:
The future technology to be considered in this corridor and on this alignment o,
would be some type of rail transit. Due to the long-term nature related to
implementation of service,revised ridership estimates are not available. There
are previous studies conducted by OCTC and OCTD which do provide ro
405 N
ridership estimates. Depending on the rail system the segment was connected e a,� cc
e
to,the daily ridership for the year 2000 was forecast at 10-15,000. �`s1a`P as y
Costs:
S50 million would be reserved for this project and used by the OCTC to preserve the right-of-way opportunities on this
alignment.
Implementation:
It is assumed that the ROW would be purchased during the first five years of the program.
Issues/Comments:
1.The Southern Pacific (SP) right-of-way (ROW) from Beach Blvd. to Downtown Los Angeles is being considered for
abandonment by SP. This right-of-way along with the existing ROW owned by OCTD could provide a future rail transit
connection to the Century Freeway rail transit line and Los Angeles County's rail transit system. The distance is
approximately five miles.
2.The OCTD now owns the Pacific Electric(PE)ROW from Santa Ana to Beach Blvd.(7 miles). The City of Garden Grove
proposes to develop parcels through their redevelopment agency at future station locations at Euclid and Brookhurst. The
City proposes to purchase approximately 6100 feet of the ROW and provide an acceptable financial package to OCTC and
OCTD that would not preclude the development of rail transit in the future.The City also proposes to minimize the repurchase
price of the�OW when needed for rail transit development. The development of rail transit in this corridor could be started
within the next 20 years.
References:
1. Santa Ana Transportation Corridor, Transit Element, Alternatives Analysis and Draft Environmental Impact Report,
OCTD,February 1984.
2.Santa Ana Transportation Corridor,Multimodal Alternatives Analysis,Preliminary Findings Report,OCTC,December
1 1984.
33
LOSSAN Corridor Intf- ity
Fail Service
Description: _
The LOSSAN corridor extends for 128 miles between the
downtown areas of Los Angeles and San Diego, and is s9
second only to the Northeast Corridor in ridership on the Sam.- amaa
Amtrak rail passenger system. This rail line (Santa Fe)
links communities in the counties of Los Angeles,Orange,
and San Diego. At this time,over six million people reside S
within five miles of this rail line. There are currently nine
stations with five of them in Orange County. Amtrak's ° 5
present service in the LOSSAN corridor includes eight .y w %Q, —
daily trains in each direction. The future proposal calls for
two additional trains to be added.
fAas:H' ay
Location:
The project uses the Santa Fe/Amtrak line from the San Diego downtown to the Los Angeles Central Business District
(CDB)—a distance of 128 miles with 47 miles in Orange County.
Technology and Ridership Estimates:
The technology currently used for this service is diesel-electric locomotives pulling up to six passenger cars. The cars are
approximately 85 feet long and can operate at high or low platforms. Based on current usage and the implementation of two
new roundtrips, the ridership is forecasted to be 8,000 riders per day.
Costs:
A capital development program that includes funding by all three counties, Amtrak,the State of California,and Santa Fe
Railroad has been developed that will allow for expansion of service to 10 trains per day in each direction. Orange County's
share of this program is approximately$20 million. Any required operating assistance would be paid by the State and Amtrak.
These services are very close to having full farebox recovery on operating and maintenance costs and are therefore priced
for intercity type service and not priced to encourage daily commuter use.
Implementation:
If the funding program can be put in place,service could begin as early as 1993.
Issues/Comments:
This program requires the cooperation of the three counties, Caltrans, Amtrak, Santa Fe,and the local communities to be
implemented successfully.
References:
1. Los Angeles-San Diego(LOSSAN) State Rail Corridor Study, 1986-1987,LOSSAN State Rail Corridor Study Group,
Consultants-Wilbur Smith&Associates,Morrison-Knudsen Engineers,and Arthur Bauer&Associates.
2. Los Angeles to San Diego (LOSSAN) Corridor Status Report and Proposed Commuter Rail Implementation Program,
Report to Orange County Transportation Commission,June 16, 1988,staff consultant-Sharon Greene & Associates.
3. LOSSAN Corridor Rail Status Report,OCTC,September 29, 1988.
34
LOSSAN Corridor Commuter
Rail Service
Description:
The proposed commuter rail service in the LOSSAN Corri-
dor specifically will be directed at the needs of persons ^^
commuting on a daily basis. Train schedules, station loca-
tions,and fare policy will be set to accommodate the needs £
of these commuters. The initial service calls for two peak ��� w
period trains inbound from San Clemente to Los Angeles on , a
weekday mornings and two peak period trains outbound '� \
from Los Angeles to San Clemente on weekday evenings.
The service calls for nine stations in Orange County and four
in Los Angeles County. The additional stations in Orange County include Mission Viejo,North Irvine,and Buena Park. The
Irvine station (Spectrum area) is under development and is included in the nine stations. The commuter trains would
supplement the intercity trains that are proposed and currently operated by Amtrak.
It is also proposed that the project acquire the Santa Fe ROW from Fullerton to the San Diego County line in cooperation with
San Diego agencies. Based on the activities proposed for this project,these actions would constitute the first step in devel-
oping a major backbone rail transit system for Orange County.
Location:
The project uses the Santa Fe/Amtrak line from the San Clemente/Oceanside area to the Los Angeles CBD.
Technology and Ridership Estimates:
The technology to be used for this service would be the same as the current Amtrak service. It is estimated that the initial
service would attract 2,000 riders per day in the peak periods. Ridership will increase over time as additional commuter
service is scheduled.
Costs:
A capital development program has been proposed that would include the purchase of the Santa Fe ROW, provision of
equipment to provide the service,and the development of three new stations at Mission Viejo,North Irvine,and Buena Park.
The service would require operating assistance as the farebox.is estimated to fund 40-50 percent of the annual costs. The
capital cost estimate for Orange County's share is$108 million and for operating subsidy is$22 million for the balance of
the 20-Year Plan period.
Implementation:
The service dould begin as early as 1993,if funding is in place.
Issues/Comments:
The implementation of this project and this right-of-way as the backbone rail transit corridor is dependent on the successful
negotiation and purchase of the Santa Fe ROW south of Fullerton. This project as well,needs the full cooperation of all three
counties(L.A.,Orange,and San Diego).
References:
1. Los Angeles-San Diego (LOSSAN) State Rail Corridor Study, 1986-1987,LOSSAN State Rail Corridor Study, 1986-
1987,LOSSAN State Rail Corridor Study Group.
2. Santa Ana Transportation Corridor Multimodal Alternatives Analysis, Commuter Rail Element, 1984, Orange County
Transportation Commission.
3.LOSSAN Corridor Status Report and Proposed Commuter Rail Implementation Program,report to OCTC,June 16, 1988.
4.LOSSAN Corridor Rail Status Report,OCTC,September 29, 1988.
35
Riverside Commuter R, `Service
Description:
This proposed project operating on Santa Fe trackage would be
a cooperative and jointly funded program with the Riverside Fct'
County Transportation Commission. The proposed commuter
rail service would begin in downtown Riverside and terminate e
at the Irvine station (Spectrum). Four trains per day in each
direction are proposed. Of the four daily trains, two would be
routed directly to Irvine,while the other two would serve desti-
nations in Placentia, Fullerton, and Anaheim before rejoining
ea
the other route at the Chapman station in Orange. Seven new � 5
stations/stops are proposed in Orange County. GoS�a �g S'9
4L 9�
The initial directional service is proposed to begin during the New ort
morning peak period and operate four south-bound trains on 20- a
minute headways. A similar return set of trips would be operated c
during the evening peak period. The route going directly to Culverco
Irvine would be approximately 50 miles and the route through
Fullerton and Anaheim would be 56 miles long. 3
Sand Canyon 1
Location:
The project would use Santa Fe ROW between Riverside and h
Irvine.
Technology and Ridership Estimates:
The technology to be used for this service would be the same type as the current Amtrak service on the LOSSAN corridor.
It is estimated that the proposed service would attract 6,400 riders per day in the peak periods.
Costs:
The Feasibility Assessment Study estimated Orange County's share of the capital costs at S65 million and the operating costs
at$25 million(through the end of the 20-Year Plan period). The Riverside County.share will be funded through their one-
half cent sales tax that passed in November 1988.
Implementation:
This service will be initiated during the second 10 years of the plan.
IssueslComments:
The key issues to be addressed by the two agencies (OCTC and RCTC) are the financial arrangements, priority of
expenditures,and the funding splits.
References:
1.Riverside-Orange County Commuter Rail Service,Feasibility Assessment,Interim Report,OCTC and RCTC,July 1988,
prepared by Schiermeyer Consulting Service and Sharon Greene & Associates.
2. Riverside-Orange County Commuter Rail Service, Feasibility Assessment,Final Report, OCTC and RCTC, December
6, 1988,prepared by Schiermeyer Consulting Service and Sharon Greene &Associates.
36
High-Technology Advanced Rail Transit
Description: s.
This project would further develop the existing
rail rights-of-way and initiate a high capacity
urban rail system in Orange County. This 20-
LS
Year Plan element will also provide matching a =
funds to encourage local development of exten-
sions to major activity centers.
The primary improvements will be along the
LOSSAN rail corridor and designed to provide .
frequent train service between south and north
Orange County with nine stops at San Juan Capistrano, San Clemente, Mission Viejo, Irvine, North
Irvine, Santa Ana, Anaheim, Fullerton, and Buena Park.
The extension will provide access between the primary rail system and employment centers. Two of
the potential candidate projects are the Anaheim People Mover Project and the Irvine Spectrum to
John Wayne Airport Fixed Guideway transit line that could ultimately extend further west to South
Coast Metro area.
Location:
This project would use the Santa Fe/Amtrak line between San Clemente and Buena Park.
Technology,Ridership Estimates:
Selection of technology, ridership estimates and system costs need further analysis and studies.
Costs:
The total capital cost of the urban rail improvements could exceed.$800 million. Rail extension
costs will be determined pending selection of technology. It is recommended that $340 million be
allocated toward this system. System connectivity,ridership/performance and availability of match-
ing funds will be used as criteria to determine the relative priority of investment in the system.
Implementation:
Planning work on this project will begin immediately. The goal is to implement the project(s)
during the second 10 years of the plan.
Reference:
Transit Strategy Report, April 1989, Orange County Transportation Commission, prepared by
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.
37
Senior Citizens/DisableL- _'ersons
Reduced Fares
Description:
This project would stabilize fares for senior citizens and persons with disabilities on all forms of public
transit including OCTD bus and dial-a-ride programs, City of Laguna Beach transit system, the
Consolidated Transportation Service Agency (CTSA) and any rail service that is implemented.
The OCTD fare for seniors on the local fixed routes is 40 cents in the peak period(weekdays only) and
10 cents in the off-peak;the handicapped fare is 85 cents in the peak period and 40 cents in the off-peak;
and on the demand responsive system the fare is 80 cents at all times. OCTD service accommodates
approximately 80 percent of the current users.
Location:
This would apply to all of Orange County.
Technology and Ridership Estimates:
Based on today's usage of the public transit system, there are about 10,000 daily transit rides.
Costs:
It is estimated that a fare stabilization program would cost about$1 million per year,or$20 million over
20 years.
Implementation:
This could be implemented immediately if an additional funding source is available.
References:
Short Range Transit Plans and Transportation Improvement Programs for FY1989-1993 and FY1990-
1994 for OCTD, City of Laguna Beach, and CTSA.
38
Transitway Development Program
Description:
The transitway development program is a 19.4-mile program for the I-5, Riversides
SR55 and SR57 freeway corridors from the SR91. freeway to the I-405 sR 91 Lincoln
freeway. The program is made up of freeway-to-freeway connectors and ,
other projects which can be implemented separately. In addition to these d `° KateiiaU
projects, Park-and-Ride lots are needed to complete the system. For,the 0
transitway program to function as approved, all of the components should be d Chapman
in place to receive maximum benefits, but substantial benefits are attainable o rove Frwy
with each project. sV 2 s N
Location:
� N
Central county on the SR57, I-5, SR55, and I-405 freeways. m m o
Edinger V
Technology and Ridership Estimates: o �°
The transitway lanes would be used by buses and other high occupancy = m
"c rthur,��Ph
vehicles. The total expected usage of the transitway segment would be 22,000 i-aos
daily transit trips and 50,000 carpool-user/daily-person trips. sa °'e90
F�
Costs:
A portion of this program ($154 million) is funded using existing resources
and is incorporated into the I-5 freeway improvements. $46 million of federal
funds is also assumed for the remainder of the program. An additional$125
million in sales tax revenues is targeted for direct freeway-to-freeway
connectors between Routes 57 and 91 and Routes 405 and 55, and Park-and-Ride facilities.
Implementation:
Projects will be implemented over the 20-year program in conjunction with freeway improvement
projects.
References:
1. A Transitway Development Program for Orange County, October, 1986, Orange County Transit
District.
2. A Transitway Development Program for Orange County, Concept Design Final Report, February,
1989, Orange County Transit District.
3. A Transitway Development Program for Orange County, Concept Design Final Report, Plans and
Profiles, May, 1988, Orange County Transit District.
39
Growth Managemer. Ilan
Description:
The Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Program requires each city and the county to
adopt a Growth Management Element of its general plan to be eligible to receive new transportation
revenue, if new revenue is approved by Orange County voters.
Under this plan each local agency is required to:
• outline each agency's plans and efforts to develop multi-jurisdictional traffic solutions
through a well-defined, cooperative planning process;
• specify traffic level of service standards;
• promote alternative forms of transportation and overall system efficiency by maximizing use
of the existing transportation network through Transportation Systems Management (TSM)
and Transportation Demand Management (TDM);
• require a traffic mitigation fee to guarantee that new development pays its fair share toward
dealing with traffic generated by the new development;
• foster a better balance of jobs and housing and reduce commuter trips through
careful planning;
• encourage local jurisdictions, where applicable, to establish performance standards for fire,
police, library, parks, open space, flood control, and other infrastructure based on local
criteria;
• require phasing of new development to ensure that service level goals are achieved;
• pursue additional revenue to upgrade recreational areas and to acquire additional open space.
The countywide Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Plan emphasizes good planning,
improved cooperation between neighboring cities, and requires that new development pays its fair
share toward dealing with traffic generated by that new development.
With this approach, new transportation revenue, in the form of a one-half cent sales tax measure,
would be focused on curing existing transportation and traffic deficiencies while a new traffic
mitigation fee will help pay a fair share of the cost of infrastructure required by new residential,
commercial and industrial growth.
40
`7-
ROISRTSON AND ASSOCIAES
ENGINEERING PLANNING SURVEYING n�h w 20422 BEACH BLVD., STE. 330, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 9264EE� 0 1/
(7141 536-2227 (1,Y �CLERK l �
CITY OF
HUNTING
19 June 1989 JUH {9 138 N
Huntington Beach City Council
2000 Main Street/
Huntington Beach, California 92648C��'d
t
Subject: Orange County Transportation
Commission 20 Year Master Plan
Council:
During the Huntington Beach City Transportation Commission
Meeting on 13 June 1989 , the OCTC proposed 20 Year Master Plan
was presented and discussed. Present at the meeting,
representing OCTC, was Mr. Stan Oftelie who reviewed the proposed
Master Plan. Following some discussion of the plan, a motion was
made by the Commission to adopt the Master Plan as written. The
motion carried on a 4 to 1 vote. Since I was the only
commissioner voting against the motion, I felt it appropriate to
provide Council with an explanation for my negative vote.
I would first like to go on record as an avid supporter of
the belief that transportation planning is undoubtedly the single
most paramount issue that Orange County must resolve in the next
20 years. We must collectively, as a County, devote our entire
efforts to implementing solutions that will carry us into the
second decade of the 21st century. This effort must consider all
alternate approaches to transportation. Many people with whom
I 've discussed transportation issues tend to equate the terms
traffic and transportation, when in reality traffic is the
problem, while transportation systems offer a solution.
The efforts of OCTC, community leaders and representatives
of community action groups in developing the proposed Master Plan
should be applauded. Their desire and initiative in an attempt
to address transportation issues confronting our County is
commendable. I will be the first to agree that it ' s easier to
criticize the proposed Master Plan than to have diligently worked
in developing it. However , in the interest of providing a forum
for the purpose of evaluating the approach that our County will
take to meet its transportation needs in the year 2010 , I offer
the following comments regarding the proposed Master Plan which
collectively dictated that I cast a dissenting vote for the
motion presented at the City Transportation Commission.
For a moment I would like to set aside the proposed County
sales tax issue and 5 cent per gallon increase in the State
gasoline tax which forms the foundation of the plan and address
only the merits of the proposed Plan and the philosophical
approach to transportation planning for the County in the next
century.
The proposed plan is based upon an assumption that in the
year 2010 the primary means of transportation in and through the
County will be the automobile and that the freeway and arterial
highway systems will form the backbone of our transportation
system. This assumption is apparent upon considering statements
made by OCTC Representatives at public meetings to discuss the
Plan and upon examination of the proposed project expenditures
presented in the Plan. 75% of the total proposed expenditures
are directly related to freeway and street improvements designed
to increase the automobile traffic capacity of the County ' s
current freeway and road system. And not all of this expenditure
is slated for traffic efficiency measures, but an undetermined
portion is earmarked for soundwalls and other environmental
amenities. Of the remaining 25% identified for transit projects,
a closer inspection of the Plan reveals that relatively little is
being dedicated to developing alternate modes of transportation.
Listed in the proposed transit projects is the transitway project
which in reality is HOV lanes based upon motorized vehicle mode
of transportation with a cost representing 4% of the total
proposed Plan expenditures. Therefore, 79% of the total Plan
expenditures is earmarked for addition, modification or
improvements of freeways and roads. Only 20% of the total Plan
expenditures is earmarked for developing systems not based upon
automobile modes of transportation, with 1% ($2 million) set
aside for OCTD fare stabilization for the elderly and
handicapped.
The prevailing logic behind such a plan must be based upon
the conclusion that in the year 2010 , an overwhelming majority of
the users of our County' s transportation system will be the motor
vehicle, therefore the only solution is to construct wider
freeways and more arterial highways. This philosophy reminds me
of the 1960 ' s. As an engineering student in college I was taught
that the solution to water quality problems was dilution of the
mixture. We now accept such a philosophy as archaic. The
philosophy of the eighties is that of an absolute reduction of
the undesirable constituent. I view the philosophy of
transportation solutions in the same manner, dilution of the
number of vehicles in a given travel lane, by increasing the
number of travel lanes is not the answer. Our experience with
the construction of the I-5 , I-405 , SR-55 , SR-91 , and SR-57 has
shown that for every traffic lane we build, we invite the
competition of two lanes worth of vehicles for its use.
I am not a politician or bureaucrat. I 'm merely a Civil
Engineer who over the past 20 years gained a professional
knowledge of which transportation systems work and which do not.
A master plan based upon the automobile mode of transportation
does not offer a vision of the future. It only offers a never
ending number of vehicles encouraged to use our freeways and
roads because of our reluctance to acknowledge the fact accepted
worldwide by engineers and planners that the most efficient means
of moving people is mass transit. I have heard the arguments
that Orange County is not primed for mass transit, that mass
transit is cost prohibitive, and that due to geographical
constraints mass transit will not be successful in Orange County.
As a Civil Engineer involved in the design support for the BART
System in San Francisco, I heard this same argument. I have
associates in the Washington D.C. area who relate similar
arguments presented in opposition to the construction of the
Metrorail System. What apparently was different in these cases
was the presence of community leaders and planners , who
acknowledged the fact that the longer they waited in developing
mass transit the stronger the support became for opposition to
mass transit. If we cannot afford to develop such innovative
mass transit systems such as rail conveyance as the backbone of
our transportation system today, we will never afford it in the
year 2010 . Cost for such programs grow exponentially, not
linearly with time.
The two new rail systems identified in the Master Plan
(Riverside Commuter and High-Technology Rail Transit) are only
conceptually addressed and then caveated with the provision that
any expenditures and potential development of these projects is
conditional on the requirement that each project meet certain
financial and technical feasibility criteria not yet defined by
OCTC. The only other rail project proposed in the Plan is the
LOSSAN Corridor which amounts to a mere 25% increase in a
transportation system capable of servicing less than to of total
commuters in the County.
We are at a turning point in the County and being challenged
to decide the direction we will take in satisfying our
transportation requirements for the next 20 years. On page 4 of
the OCTC Master Plan it states that the key phrase in meeting
this challenge is "new transportation investments" . I suggest
the key phrase should be "new transportation systems" . If we
have learned nothing during the past 30 years, we have learned
that by the time construction is complete on a new freeway or
highway, it is obsolete. How many times must we relearn this
lesson. Let' s be honest, the proposed Plaster Plan is basically a
Highway Improvement Plan, not a Transportation Plan. Can we
honestly say that after spending $11. 5 billion, of which $3 . 1
billion will be derived from a county sales tax, to construct the
projects identified in the Plan, the traffic situation on our
freeways and highways will be any better. The solution to our
problems is not wider roads , more freeway lanes , car pool lanes
and soundwalls. The solution is an alternative to the automobile
forming the backbone of our transportation system.
I guess I have been guilty of complacency over the last 20
years. I supported the philosophy of mass/rail transit within
the community of professional engineers , never once venturing out
to the public sector. Upon reviewing the proposed OCTC Master
Plan, I suddenly realized that restricting my views to the
engineering community was not enough, especially since I serve on
the Huntington Beach City Transportation Commission. I therefore
found a need to take that first step, being a dissenting vote on
the motion to adopt the OCTC 20 Year Master Plan.
The action that council takes on the Master Plan will help
to establish the mode forming the backbone of our transportation
system for the first half of the 21st Century. This decision
should not be taken lightly. I urge Council to consider that
endorsement of the plan is a decision to sentence us to the
automobile as the primary mode of transportation for the next 40
years. We as a community and a county must have greater a vision
of the 21st Century.
In closing, I would again like to express my sincere
appreciation for the effort put forth by OCTC , community leaders
and local action groups who worked in developing the Master Plan.
My differences and criticisms are philosophical in nature and
driven by a keen desire to see us advance beyond the archaic mode
of primary transportation known as the automobile.
I request that Council carefully examine the Proposed Master
Plan and consider that approval of the Plan will result in wider
freeways and arterial highways, thereby inviting more competition
for their use by automobile traffic. I urge Council to
disapprove the Plan and request that OCTC revise the Plan by
realigning the proposed expenditures with a much greater emphasis
on construction of rail transit systems now, not 40 to 50 years
from now, long after our freeways and highways have collapsed
from their own weight.
I would welcome the opportunity of discussing this with
Council in greater detail if possible.
Sincerely,
A. A. Robertson, P.E.
cc : City Engineer
Traffic Engineer
Transportation Commission
ROBIERTSON AND ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERING PLANNING SURVEYING RECEIVED
20422 BEACH BLVD., STE. 330, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 CITY CCERt(
(714) 536-2227 )IUNTli,GTC1TY pE
f3E�f,H;CALI1
19 June 1989 JUN 38 P '
Huntington Beach City Council
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 92648
Subject: Orange County Transportation
Commission 20 Year Master Plan
Council:
During the Huntington Beach City Transportation Commission
Meeting on 13 June 1989 , the OCTC proposed 20 Year Master Plan
was presented and discussed. Present at the meeting,
representing OCTC , was Mr. Stan Oftelie who reviewed the proposed
Master Plan. Following some discussion of the plan, a motion was
made by the Commission to adopt the Master Plan as written. The
motion carried on a 4 to I vote. Since I was the only
commissioner voting against the motion, I felt it appropriate to
provide Council with an explanation for my negative vote.
I would first like to go on record as an avid supporter of
the belief that transportation planning is undoubtedly the single
most paramount issue that Orange County must resolve in the next
20 years. We must collectively, as a County, devote our entire
efforts to implementing solutions that will carry us into the
second decade of the 21st century. This effort must consider all
alternate approaches to transportation. Many people with whom
I 've discussed transportation issues tend to equate the terms
traffic and transportation, when in reality traffic is the
problem, while transportation systems offer a solution.
The efforts of OCTC, community leaders and representatives
of community action groups in developing the proposed Master Plan
should be applauded. Their desire and initiative in an attempt
to address transportation issues confronting our County is
commendable. I will be the first to agree that it' s easier to
criticize the proposed Master Plan than to have diligently worked
in developing it. However , in the interest of providing a forum
for the purpose of evaluating the approach that our County will
take to meet its transportation needs in the year 2010, I offer
the following comments regarding . the proposed Master Plan which
collectively dictated that I cast a dissenting vote for the
motion presented at the City Transportation Commission.
For a moment I would like to set aside the proposed County
sales tax issue and 5 cent per gallon increase in the State
gasoline tax which forms the foundation of the plan and address
only the merits of the proposed Plan and the philosophical
approach to transportation planning for the County in the next
century. /
The proposed plan is based upon an assumption that in the
year 2010 the primary means of transportation in and ,through the
County will be the automobile and that the freeway and arterial
highway systems will form the backbone of our transportation
system. This assumption is apparent upon considering statements
made by OCTC Representatives at public meetings to discuss the
Plan and upon examination of the proposed project expenditures
presented in the Plan. 75% of the total proposed expenditures
are directly related to freeway and street improvements designed
to increase the automobile traffic capacity of the County ' s
current freeway and road system. : And not all of this expenditure
is slated for traffic efficiency measures, but an undetermined
portion is earmarked for soundwalls and other environmental
amenities . Of the remaining 25% identified for transit projects,
a closer inspection of the Plan reveals that relatively little is
being dedicated to developing alternate modes of transportation. ,
Listed in ' the proposed transit projects is the transitway project
which in reality is HOV lanes based upon motorized vehicle mode
of transportation with a cost representing 4% of the total
proposed Plan expenditures. Therefore, 79% of the total Plan
expenditures is earmarked for addition, modification or
improvements of freeways and roads. Only 20% of the total Plan
expenditures is earmarked for developing systems not based upon
automobile modes of transportation, with 1% ($2 million) set
aside for OCTD fare stabilization for the elderly and
handicapped.
The prevailing logic- behind such a plan must be based upon
the conclusion that in the year 2010 , an overwhelming majority of
the users of our County ' s transportation system will be the motor
vehicle, therefore the only solution is to construct wider
freeways and more arterial highways . This philosophy reminds me
of the 1960 ' s. As an engineering student in college I was taught
that the solution to water quality problems was dilution of the
mixture. We now accept such a philosophy as archaic. The
philosophy of the eighties is that of an absolute reduction of
the undesirable constituent. I view the philosophy of
transportation solutions in the same manner, dilution of the
number of vehicles in a given travel lane, by increasing the
number of travel lanes is not the answer. Our experience with
the construction of the I-5 , I-405 , ' SR-55 , SR-91 , and SR-57 has
shown that for every traffic .lane we build, we invite the
competition of two lanes worth of vehicles for its use.
I am not a politician or bureaucrat. I 'm merely a Civil
Engineer who over the past 20 years gained a professional
knowledge of which transportation systems work and which do not.
A master plan based upon the automobile mode of transportation
does not offer a vision of the future. It only offers a never '
ending number of vehicles encouraged to use our freeways and
roads because of our reluctance' to acknowledge the fact accepted
worldwide by engineers and planners that the most efficient means
of moving people is mass transit. I have heard the arguments
that Orange County is not primed for mass transit, that mass
transit is cost prohibitive, and that due to geographical
constraints mass transit will not be successful in Orange County.
As a Civil Engineer involved in the design support for the BART
System in San Francisco, I heard this same argument. I have
associates in the Washington D.C. area who relate similar
arguments presented in opposition to the construction of .the
Metrorail System. What apparently was different in these cases
was the presence of community leaders and planners, who
acknowledged the fact that the longer they waited in developing
mass transit the stronger the support became for opposition to
mass transit. If we cannot afford to develop such innovative
mass transit systems such as rail conveyance as the backbone of
our transportation system today, we will never afford it in the
year 2010 . Cost for such programs grow exponentially, not
linearly with time.
The two new rail systems identified in the Master Plan
(Riverside Commuter and High-Technology Rail Transit) are only
conceptually addressed and then caveated with the provision that
any expenditures and potential development of these projects is
conditional on the requirement that each project meet certain
financial and technical feasibility criteria not yet defined by
OCTC . The only other rail project proposed in the Plan is the
LOSSAN Corridor which amounts to a mere 25% increase in a
transportation system capable of servicing less than 1% of total
commuters in the County.
We are at a turning point in the County and being challenged
to decide the direction we will take in satisfying our
transportation requirements for the next 20 .years. On page 4 of
the OCTC Master Plan it states that the key phrase in meeting
this challenge is "new transportation investments" . I suggest
the key phrase should be "new transportation systems" . If we
have learned nothing during the past 30 years , we have learned
that by the time construction is complete on a new freeway or
highway, it is obsolete. How many times must we relearn this
lesson. Let ' s be honest, the proposed Master Plan is basically a
Highway Improvement Plan, not a Transportation Plan. Can we
honestly say that after spending $11 . 5 billion, of which $3 . 1
billion will be derived from a county sales tax, to construct the
projects identified in the Plan, the traffic situation on our
freeways and highways will be any better. The solution to our
problems is not wider roads , more freeway lanes , car pool lanes
and soundwalls. The solution is an alternative to the automobile
forming the backbone of our transportation system.
I guess I have been guilty of complacency over the last 20
years. I supported the philosophy of mass/rail transit within
the community of professional engineers , never once venturing out
to the public sector. Upon reviewing the proposed OCTC Master
Plan, I suddenly realized that restricting my views to the
engineering community was not enough , especially since I serve on
the Huntington Beach City Transportation Commission. I therefore
found a need to take that first step, being a dissenting vote on
the motion to adopt the OCTC 20 Year Master Plan.
The action that council takes on the Master Plan will help
to establish the mode forming the backbone of our transportation
system for the first half of the 21st Century. This decision
should not be taken lightly. I urge Council to consider that
endorsement of the plan is a decision to sentence us to the
automobile as the primary mode of transportation for the next 40
years. We as a community and a county must have greater a vision
of the 21st Century.
In closing, I would again like to express my sincere
appreciation for the effort put forth by OCTC , community leaders
and local action groups who worked in developing the Master Plan.
My differences and criticisms are philosophical in nature and
driven by a keen desire to see us advance beyond the archaic mode
of primary transportation known as the automobile.
I request that Council carefully examine the Proposed Master
Plan and consider that approval of the Plan will result in wider
freeways and arterial highways , thereby inviting more competition
for their use by automobile traffic. I urge Council to
disapprove the Plan and request that OCTC revise the Plan by
realigning the proposed expenditures with a much greater emphasis
on construction of rail transit systems now, not 40 to 50 years
from now, long after our freeways and highways have collapsed
from their own weight.
I would welcome the opportunity of discussing this with
Council in greater detail if possible.
Sincerely,
A. A. Robertson, P.E.
cc : City Engineer
Traffic Engineer
Transportation Commission
% ( 940.50
REQL- -ST FOR CITY COU 1 - ;'
s REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY A —710N ED 89-11
Date January 8, 1989
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor/Chairman & City Council/Redevelopment Members
Submitted by: Paul E. Cook, City Administrator/Chief Executive Office 1>BY CITY COUNCr._
Prepared by: Pat Spencer, Director Housing and Redevelopment r
a
Subject: REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO OBTAIN N �A1V
PREPARE A REPORT ON THE FIVE CITY MONORAIL PL- CITY c% Rx
Consistent with Council Policy? (4 Yes ( J New Policy or Exception
Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: I
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:'
Five cities in Orange County have joined together to plan an eighteen mile monorail
system. Costa Mesa, our neighbor to the south, is a member of this group. Since
Huntington Beach would be able to benefit from a monorail system it is recommended
that staff be authorized to obtain information about the five city plan and report back
to the City Council/Redevelopment Agency.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that staff be authorized to obtain information about the five city
monorail plan and report back to the City Council/Redevelopment Agency.
ANALYSIS:
Improved traffic circulation is a priority for the City of Huntington. Beach. By
continued participation in regional traffic circulation improvement programs we can
have a positive impact in insuring continual efficient and safe mobility in our
community.
The five cities of Anaheim, Santa Ana, Irvine, Orange and Costa Mesa are formulating a
monorail plan that could benefit The City of Huntington Beach. Centers of activity
such as The Main-Pier Project Area, Huntington Center Project Area and McDonnell
Douglas area could be potential stations that provide mass transit access to the Orange
County airport, Disneyland, and other activity centers.
By obtaining information on the five city monorail plan we could evaluate the potential
for our participation.
FUNDING SOURCE:
City staff would do the research. No additional funds are needed.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
An alternative would be to not proceed with the research on the.five city monorail plan.
ATTACHMENT:
Article from L.A. Times dated 12/1/89 on the five city monorail plan.
PEC/PS:jar
6298r
PIO 4/84
how it would build and operate
• system,the request would inquire abou
what public assistance is deemed neces
sary to push the project forward,Young '
said
As now envisioned,a regional mono-
rail network could link amenities such
as Disneyland and Anaheim Stadium in
the north with the MainPlace shopping
mall and the civic center in Santa Ana,
several large office developments,John
Wayne Airport and the sprawling Ir-
vine Spectrum office and industrial
complex An alternate line in Costa
5 Cities Join Forces Plaza sa ou d mall.
the South Coast
shopping
On 1►�fOnOr,,.1 Djan The backbone of the system would be
1V1 O Plan a single line featuring monorails capable
of about 60 mph running along a raised
A proposal to build an 18-mile-long rail stretching from Irvine in the south,
regional monorail line through the heart through Costa Mesa,Santa Ana,Orange
of Orange County gained momentum and terminating in Anaheim. Lower-
Thursday, as leaders of five central speed monorail lines would branch off
cities agreed to join together to push the the main system to ferry passengers to
futuristic commuter system. locations to the east and west.
Officials of the cities promised to Young said he expects monorail firms
work toward issuing a joint request will be eager to build a system, which `
early next year. for proposals from would be the first commercially operat-
private firms that might be willing to ing public monorail in the country, to
build and operate the system. "get a leg up on the other companies"in
In exchange,the cities would provide the worldwide competition to build such
the right of way for an.elevated com- transportation lines.
muter line down their streets and help Local developers, meanwhile, would
coordinate with local developers willing reap benefits from building station stops
to build stations, which typically entail in their new office buildings, including
one-third the cost of such projects. extra "density credits" to build more
"I'm extremely excited and very space in their projects and less stringent
hopeful that we'll be able to pull requirements to provide parking,Young
together a consensus plan from these predicted.
five cities to get this.project off the Some of the cities have already
ground," said Santa Ana Mayor Dan launched investigations into monorail
Young."I think it's going to happen.It's systems, most notably Irvine, which
just plain going to happen." hopes to reap. $125 million in state
Aside from Young and other officials rail-bond money that will be up for a
from Santa Ana, the meeting was at- vote in June. '
tended by leaders from Irvine, Orange, Most of those efforts, however, have
Costa Mesa,Anaheim and several coun- centered on developing lower-speed.
ty transportation agencies, monorail systems to feed passengers to
The officials promised.to assemble a a central high-speed line that would run
team of staff members from the various down the spine of the county. .
cities as well as the county Transit —ERIC BAILEY I
District and Transportation Commission
to draw up the request for proposals,
which would go before the various city
councils during the first quarter of 1990,
Young said. In addition, a map of the
route would be completed.
If each of the councils goes along with
it, the request would then be issued to
private monorail firms, a process that
Young predicts will attract "interna-
tional attention."
Aside from asking each firm to detail